General waste of my time

I really have to thank SmokinCat and everyone else on here that has helped me out on this little project. Got lucky and the rain held off just enough that we could have the pulls last night. O'l Oliver really impressed me with the way it ran and got the power to the track! I ended up stealing the show with a large margin over second. The truck that had me worried the most decided 27mph wouldn't be fast enough. He tried a higher gear and smoked the clutch which netted him a solid last place finish.

Here is a video: Oliver pulling at calumet county fair 2018 - YouTube

1) 350.68ft at 23.5mph
2) 306 at 18.8
3) 305.88 at 19.9
4) 304.9 at 19.3
5) 298.78 at 18.1
6) 298.57
7) 292.2 at 16.9
8) 291.13
9) 288.46
10) 285.68 at 17.9
11) 285.09 at 14.7
12) 269.89 at 15.2
 
i-r-truckdriver said:
I really have to thank SmokinCat and everyone else on here that has helped me out on this little project. Got lucky and the rain held off just enough that we could have the pulls last night. O'l Oliver really impressed me with the way it ran and got the power to the track! I ended up stealing the show with a large margin over second. The truck that had me worried the most decided 27mph wouldn't be fast enough. He tried a higher gear and smoked the clutch which netted him a solid last place finish.

Here is a video: Oliver pulling at calumet county fair 2018 - YouTube

1) 350.68ft at 23.5mph
2) 306 at 18.8
3) 305.88 at 19.9
4) 304.9 at 19.3
5) 298.78 at 18.1
6) 298.57
7) 292.2 at 16.9
8) 291.13
9) 288.46
10) 285.68 at 17.9
11) 285.09 at 14.7
12) 269.89 at 15.2
Click to expand...

I've always wanted to know how fast we go down the track.
 
RockinRam96 said:
I've always wanted to know how fast we go down the track.
Click to expand...

The sleds around here all have a real time speed/distance digital readouts. Mostly because quite a few classes have speed limits on them. Even the semi class has a 20mph speed limit for all points pulls. This was a non point pull and only rule was 24" hitch height. Guys even had riders trying to gain extra weight.
 
Just thinking about turbos again. Today my 1.18 divided internal gate housing should show up. Is there any advantage to running both of my gt5518 in a compound setup?

With the 1.18 divided on the SDP ball bearing 10 blade for the manifold it should spool well. Then I Could use the BXS 6+6 blade with factory 1.6 turbine housing as the primary.

Worth it or not?
 
i-r-truckdriver said:
Just thinking about turbos again. Today my 1.18 divided internal gate housing should show up. Is there any advantage to running both of my gt5518 in a compound setup?

With the 1.18 divided on the SDP ball bearing 10 blade for the manifold it should spool well. Then I Could use the BXS 6+6 blade with factory 1.6 turbine housing as the primary.

Worth it or not?
Click to expand...

Not worth it.
The whole point of a compound arrangement is to have a small(er) charger to get the party started, and then a larger one to carry the power higher into the rpm range than the small one can. That is why the smaller one is often wastegated. Get it lit, then get the load transferred to the big charger.
Those 2 turbos are too close to the same size to be worth the hassle of plumbing them in a compound arrangement.
If you like how the GT55 spools, run it as the secondary with the wastegated 1.18 housing (on the manifold) and something bigger as your primary.
Just remember that in a compound arrangement your small charger will spool SLOWER, and your big charger will make LESS peak power than they do as a single turbo.
 
I do think it would be a good idea to run the SDP ball bearing GT55 on the manifold ( if you like how it spools) because a ball bearing centersection typically handles high thrust loads better than a journal bearing, and the secondary charger can see some pretty high thrust loads.
 
bracker8040 said:
Not worth it.
The whole point of a compound arrangement is to have a small(er) charger to get the party started, and then a larger one to carry the power higher into the rpm range than the small one can. That is why the smaller one is often wastegated. Get it lit, then get the load transferred to the big charger.
Those 2 turbos are too close to the same size to be worth the hassle of plumbing them in a compound arrangement.
If you like how the GT55 spools, run it as the secondary with the wastegated 1.18 housing (on the manifold) and something bigger as your primary.
Just remember that in a compound arrangement your small charger will spool SLOWER, and your big charger will make LESS peak power than they do as a single turbo.
Click to expand...

I am currently pushing this 55 beyond 50psi as a single. Wouldn't using 2 of them in a compound setup slow both of them down giving me a denser air mass?
 
i-r-truckdriver said:
I am currently pushing this 55 beyond 50psi as a single. Wouldn't using 2 of them in a compound setup slow both of them down giving me a denser air mass?
Click to expand...



No, the only way to slow the turbo down is less fuel, larger housing or a wastegate. Force feeding it air will only increase the total boost.
 
jfaulkner said:
No, the only way to slow the turbo down is less fuel, larger housing or a wastegate. Force feeding it air will only increase the total boost.
Click to expand...

The current housing is an open 1.0. I am changing that out to a 1.18 gated housing. I am guessing that from the replies so far that gate isn't big enough to help slow the turbo down.
 
How big is the wastegate port on the 1.18?
The open throat on the 1.0 housing slows down spoolup, but if you go to the 1.18 you are going to a larger a/r and adding in a wastegate.
Depending how big the wastegate port is, and how large you can modify it to, it could make a significant difference in the ability of the GT55 to survive as a secondary charger.
 
bracker8040 said:
Not worth it.
The whole point of a compound arrangement is to have a small(er) charger to get the party started, and then a larger one to carry the power higher into the rpm range than the small one can. That is why the smaller one is often wastegated. Get it lit, then get the load transferred to the big charger.
Those 2 turbos are too close to the same size to be worth the hassle of plumbing them in a compound arrangement.
If you like how the GT55 spools, run it as the secondary with the wastegated 1.18 housing (on the manifold) and something bigger as your primary.
Just remember that in a compound arrangement your small charger will spool SLOWER, and your big charger will make LESS peak power than they do as a single turbo.
Click to expand...

With that said, would a compound setup be moving more air at a lower boost level (aka before fully spooled) to offset how much the atmosphere turbo drags down the high pressure?
 
sootie said:
With that said, would a compound setup be moving more air at a lower boost level (aka before fully spooled) to offset how much the atmosphere turbo drags down the high pressure?
Click to expand...

Short answer is yes.
More how I try to explain it is, even at the same pressure (let’s use 50psi because that is how much OP is currently seeing) with a compound arrangement you are moving a higher volume (cfm) of air at the same pressure than the secondary charger can move by itself.
Pressure and cfm need to go together to make power, but on a diesel, pressure is a bigger deal than on a gasser.
On a pickup we would expect to see 55-65 psi boost pressure out of a single turbo to make 750-900hp. On a turbo gas at the same power level they probably wouldn’t even see half that much boost pressure.
A bit of rambling there, but I think you’ll get the picture.
 
bracker8040 said:
How big is the wastegate port on the 1.18?
The open throat on the 1.0 housing slows down spoolup, but if you go to the 1.18 you are going to a larger a/r and adding in a wastegate.
Depending how big the wastegate port is, and how large you can modify it to, it could make a significant difference in the ability of the GT55 to survive as a secondary charger.
Click to expand...

Housing showed up. Took this measurement. I know the pic didn't turn out great, but without removing the freeze plug its the best I can do. Looks like the gate measures really close to exactly an inch.

1ldCN2Z.jpg
 
i-r-truckdriver said:
Housing showed up. Took this measurement. I know the pic didn't turn out great, but without removing the freeze plug its the best I can do. Looks like the gate measures really close to exactly an inch.

1ldCN2Z.jpg
Click to expand...

Think of that 1” wastegate port like a 1” hole in your exhaust manifold. How much boost do you think you could get out of the GT55 if you had a 1” hole in the exhaust manifold?
When that wastegate is open it is going to divert drive pressure past (take load off of) the GT55’s turbine and send it to the primary charger.
I think that wastegated 1.18 housing on the SDP GT55 could work pretty well as a secondary charger.
 
Anyone have a guess how the gt55 with 1.18 gated housing compares to C16 0r7924 turbo? I would have to take it off to measure the gate size but it has a 1.41 turbne housing on it.
 
i-r-truckdriver said:
Anyone have a guess how the gt55 with 1.18 gated housing compares to C16 0r7924 turbo? I would have to take it off to measure the gate size but it has a 1.41 turbne housing on it.
Click to expand...
GT55 is larger than the C16 0R7294.
0R7924 is S400 frame. The turbine could be 82/91 but is most like 88/96.
GT55 is a 102/112 turbine.
 
bracker8040 said:
GT55 is larger than the C16 0R7294.
0R7924 is S400 frame. The turbine could be 82/91 but is most like 88/96.
GT55 is a 102/112 turbine.
Click to expand...

I realize this was a loaded question. What I was really wondering is strictly exhaust flow related. Would the 1.18 gated housing on the gt55 flow more or less than the s410 with a 1.41 gated housing? I know the 55 has a bigger turbine but with the 410 having a larger housing I wasn't sure which one was better.

The reason I am asking this is because I am building an acert beyond 800 wheel hp and was curious what charger would survive better as the manifold charger?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top