Advertisement
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Home Who's Online Today's Posts HP Calculator CompD Gift Shop Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Competition Diesel.Com - Bringing The BEST Together > The Starting Line > Competition Vehicle Build Tech > Turbo/Super Charger Tech
Register Members List Timeslips EFI Live Library Invite Your Friends FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-08-2017, 04:14 PM   #1
no worries

Name: no worries
Title: Rookie
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2015
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 17
Triple Turbo Set up

So I'm trying to figure out my next turbo set up. The goal is 1700 on fuel. ( deck plate 6.7 running 5.9 electronics.

My question is you see people with triple set ups where you have the;

Smaller charger on the manifold and then 2 larger. 488 and 2 472
Large charger on the manifold and then the 2 smaller. 476 and 2 480's

Is there pro's and con's to either set ups?

Thanks for any info guy's.
 
Old 09-08-2017, 06:45 PM   #2
Big Blue24
 
Big Blue24's Avatar

Name: Big Blue24
Title: Comp Diesel Sponsor
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar City, UT
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 6,310
In General Terms:
If you inter-cool, meaning add a water/charge air cooler between the turbo stages, you can run a smaller manifold charger. If you don't inter-cool, usually it's best to match the atmosphere charger and high pressure sizes or even run a larger manifold charger.

If your goal is maximum reliability, err on the side of larger/and or more robust high pressure charger.

As far as sizing, 7rwhp per LB of mass airflow moved by the turbo system is a great conservative approximation for compound turbo systems. That means with mediocre tuning, you should still be able to reach your fuel-only power goal. 7 hp per lb shows 243 lbs/min are needed for 1700 fuel only, or (2) atmosphere chargers capable of a 122 lbs/min each. So you're on the right track thinking about (2) S480's as the atmosphere stage. 8 HP per LB is achievable with good tuning and an efficient engine/intercooler setup so 1944 RWHP is feasible with two S480's but not common.

Also keep in mind, the greater power density you try to achieve, the more difficult it becomes to maintain efficiency and continue the 7HP or optimized 8HP per LB trend.
__________________
95' 2wd Junker Drag Truck
1502 HP Fuel-Only 12mm P7100 Pump
SXE 472 over GTX55 116mm
OEM 12v Block
 
Old 09-08-2017, 10:06 PM   #3
JQmile
 
JQmile's Avatar

Name: JQmile
Title: Comp Diesel Sponsor
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Nov 2006
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 6,976
Big Blue is good on the basics....we still need the application. Converter? Clutch? High rpm? Pulling? Drag Racing? I would literally sacrifice hundreds of horsepower by running too small of a turbo in drag racing, but running a setup that can spool and cut a light...

As far as sled puller max efficiency is concerned? Manofold charger is larger....say 80mm with a big exhaust side and two 75's.
__________________
89 Dodge 972rwhp on the hose, still a VE!
 
Old 09-08-2017, 11:43 PM   #4
97rada
 
97rada's Avatar

Name: 97rada
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Feb 2008
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 5,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Blue24 View Post
In General Terms:
If you inter-cool, meaning add a water/charge air cooler between the turbo stages, you can run a smaller manifold charger. If you don't inter-cool, usually it's best to match the atmosphere charger and high pressure sizes or even run a larger manifold charger.

If your goal is maximum reliability, err on the side of larger/and or more robust high pressure charger.

As far as sizing, 7rwhp per LB of mass airflow moved by the turbo system is a great conservative approximation for compound turbo systems. That means with mediocre tuning, you should still be able to reach your fuel-only power goal. 7 hp per lb shows 243 lbs/min are needed for 1700 fuel only, or (2) atmosphere chargers capable of a 122 lbs/min each. So you're on the right track thinking about (2) S480's as the atmosphere stage. 8 HP per LB is achievable with good tuning and an efficient engine/intercooler setup so 1944 RWHP is feasible with two S480's but not common.

Also keep in mind, the greater power density you try to achieve, the more difficult it becomes to maintain efficiency and continue the 7HP or optimized 8HP per LB trend.


3-80/96s regularly makes 2200hp engine dyno and the track. Same engine has no form of cooling other then water injection. I honestly wouldn't build an engine any other way right no. Water injection all the way
__________________
Austin
tow truck- 14-3500 with tuning
toy truck -94 rclb auto- 5.2x with a lot left. Shooting for 4s

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex...it takes a touch of genius- and alot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
 
Old 09-08-2017, 11:47 PM   #5
no worries

Name: no worries
Title: Rookie
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2015
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 17
This is mostly going to be used for 1/4 mile. Looking to run rpm around 45/4800rpm. Will be using a 48 for a trans and controlled with PCS.

I had a 472 and 2 468 on my old set up.
 
Old 09-08-2017, 11:50 PM   #6
97rada
 
97rada's Avatar

Name: 97rada
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Feb 2008
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 5,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by no worries View Post
This is mostly going to be used for 1/4 mile. Looking to run rpm around 45/4800rpm. Will be using a 48 for a trans and controlled with PCS.

I had a 472 and 2 468 on my old set up.


Are you set on a pcs?
__________________
Austin
tow truck- 14-3500 with tuning
toy truck -94 rclb auto- 5.2x with a lot left. Shooting for 4s

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex...it takes a touch of genius- and alot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
 
Old 09-09-2017, 09:46 AM   #7
YOUNG GUNS15
 
YOUNG GUNS15's Avatar

Name: YOUNG GUNS15
Title: Im AWESOME!!!!
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Utah
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 7,346
Do yourself a favor and skip the PCS. I know a lot of people make it work, but it is entirely too complicated for our 4 speed transmissions. Ant eater FTW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Spence
-1994 4x4 12 valve 13mm, single 475 748/1292 Fuel 872/1470 N2O
-2005 4x4 12 valve CCSB 3rd gen '12-rail' 280hp
 
Old 09-11-2017, 07:26 AM   #8
no worries

Name: no worries
Title: Rookie
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2015
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 17
97rada Not set on it but they do have it working prity good up here in my neck of the woods ( north of the border).

The truck in question is a 2007 single cab long box that I am putting a 6.7 into. I had a friend have a realy bad experience with the ant eater. Im just looking for something that works with out going to a manual valve body.
 
Old 09-11-2017, 11:29 AM   #9
97rada
 
97rada's Avatar

Name: 97rada
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Feb 2008
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 5,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by no worries View Post
97rada Not set on it but they do have it working prity good up here in my neck of the woods ( north of the border).



The truck in question is a 2007 single cab long box that I am putting a 6.7 into. I had a friend have a realy bad experience with the ant eater. Im just looking for something that works with out going to a manual valve body.


I have had nothing but great luck with mine. It does everything it's told to do. As does everyone we race with. Is it still a problem or has it been resolved?
__________________
Austin
tow truck- 14-3500 with tuning
toy truck -94 rclb auto- 5.2x with a lot left. Shooting for 4s

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex...it takes a touch of genius- and alot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
 
Old 09-11-2017, 01:25 PM   #10
no worries

Name: no worries
Title: Rookie
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2015
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by 97rada View Post
I have had nothing but great luck with mine. It does everything it's told to do. As does everyone we race with. Is it still a problem or has it been resolved?

They tried 2 ant eaters, 2 transmissions, 2 valve bodies and then ended up going manual valve body. He had been talking with Lavon and there crew so ill wait to hear from him on it.
 
Old 09-11-2017, 01:44 PM   #11
97rada
 
97rada's Avatar

Name: 97rada
Title: Too Much Time
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Feb 2008
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 5,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by no worries View Post
They tried 2 ant eaters, 2 transmissions, 2 valve bodies and then ended up going manual valve body. He had been talking with Lavon and there crew so ill wait to hear from him on it.


I will let them speak on that situation as I am not involved in it. I can say that is not a common problem and most have a great experience with them.
__________________
Austin
tow truck- 14-3500 with tuning
toy truck -94 rclb auto- 5.2x with a lot left. Shooting for 4s

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex...it takes a touch of genius- and alot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
 
Old 09-16-2017, 09:00 AM   #12
no worries

Name: no worries
Title: Rookie
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Oct 2015
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Blue24 View Post
In General Terms:
If you inter-cool, meaning add a water/charge air cooler between the turbo stages, you can run a smaller manifold charger. If you don't inter-cool, usually it's best to match the atmosphere charger and high pressure sizes or even run a larger manifold charger.

If your goal is maximum reliability, err on the side of larger/and or more robust high pressure charger.

As far as sizing, 7rwhp per LB of mass airflow moved by the turbo system is a great conservative approximation for compound turbo systems. That means with mediocre tuning, you should still be able to reach your fuel-only power goal. 7 hp per lb shows 243 lbs/min are needed for 1700 fuel only, or (2) atmosphere chargers capable of a 122 lbs/min each. So you're on the right track thinking about (2) S480's as the atmosphere stage. 8 HP per LB is achievable with good tuning and an efficient engine/intercooler setup so 1944 RWHP is feasible with two S480's but not common.

Also keep in mind, the greater power density you try to achieve, the more difficult it becomes to maintain efficiency and continue the 7HP or optimized 8HP per LB trend.

Big Blue24, if I went with 2 480SXE's what would you recommend for a manifold charger?
 
Old 09-20-2017, 10:08 PM   #13
Chevyguy15
 
Chevyguy15's Avatar

Name: Chevyguy15
Title: Diesel Enthusiast
Status: Not Here
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: lakeville, MN
Member`s Gallery
Posts: 226
72/96/1.32 t6 manifold
2 72/87/1.0 t4

have made 17xx hp

76 and 2 74's is for 2018
__________________
07.5 cummins
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20 AM.

 


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2006 - 2024, CompetitionDiesel.com
all information found on this site is property of www.competitiondiesel.com