3 stage vs 2 stage tripples
- Thread starter madman1234509
- Start date
extreme3807
Active member
Hopefully I can have an answer for you guys soon. I am doing something similar to hanging one off of each bank, stay tuned.
08SUPERKING
New member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 416
- Reaction score
- 0
Sound like the FT SYNDROME is all over the place...
Powerstroked162
On Da Juice
Parallel chargers just never seem to work out right on these trucks. I'll be interested to see how it goes
So your gonna use only 2 turbos, one off each manifold?
powerlifter405
Active member
I've been wondering the same thing, as I'm curious to see if charles and some of the others can chime in.
madman1234509
New member
ive searched around, and borg warner s366 turbos brand new at theboostlab.com ( sorry for specifying a non vendor) can be had for like 720 a piece..... thats less than what im going to have invested in my compounds, and I dont even have the pricier ball bearing turbos.
whats FT syndrome?
whats FT syndrome?
Corb@CorbinShipping
New member
LOL Yes it does!
Fast Truck Syndrome! LOLwhats FT syndrome?
http://powerstrokearmy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24875&page=2
We were discussing fuel mileage with bigger tunes, and I tossed in that I SHOULD have real good mileage, but my right foot seems to get heavier when I have a big tune, thus negating any fuel mileage advantage that i might have had... LOL
extreme3807
Active member
more than 2, but they will be ran off of each bank
Last edited:
extreme3807
Active member
so why hasn't anyone run true twins yet? Whats' the reasoning behind the 6.4 not agreeing with them.
Tree Trimmer
New member
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 2,016
- Reaction score
- 0
pardon my un-intelligent question.
why can you not parralell/compound?
one on each bank, being the atmos, both feeding the hp.
there was a guy did that on a 7.3 back on psn. 2 38r's on the manifolds feeding a 38r in the valley.
granted there is more room under the hood of a 7.3, but still.
why can you not parralell/compound?
one on each bank, being the atmos, both feeding the hp.
there was a guy did that on a 7.3 back on psn. 2 38r's on the manifolds feeding a 38r in the valley.
granted there is more room under the hood of a 7.3, but still.
SSpeeDEMONSS
New member
so exhaust first goes to the LPs, one on each bank? then it goes to a single in the valley? wasnt this already discussed in this thread how the pressure built up from the single HP turbo would slow spool of the LPs and overall would hinder performance?
Garrett
Tree Trimmer
New member
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 2,016
- Reaction score
- 0
i thought that applied to turbos in KIND'S configuration. his is a true compound, simply substituting 2 smaller ones for one large one.
his is not a paralell/compound, like my question.
in essence, it would be like this, http://powerstrokearmy.com/forums/showthread.php?p=478893#post478893 only with one in the valley instead of two.
his is not a paralell/compound, like my question.
in essence, it would be like this, http://powerstrokearmy.com/forums/showthread.php?p=478893#post478893 only with one in the valley instead of two.
Last edited:
madman1234509
New member
If you think about how you want the hp turbo in the valley to spool first, it wont with the setup youre talking about. Not only that but think about waste gate routing. You wouldnt be able to bypass excess exhaust energy around the HP turbo and into the LP to make boost, because that exhaust would just be recirculated into the system, go to the LPs and back through the HP again. You could bypass the HP turbo with a gate, but youd just be bypassing it out of the system and losing the energy. You want the HP to spool first because thats the turbo thats going to get you off of the line.
Tree Trimmer
New member
- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 2,016
- Reaction score
- 0
your thinking strictly in terms of traditional compounds, and if that was the case of my question, that would be the answer.
i dont know, im not knowledgable enough to elaborate farther.
maybe someone else will be able to explain it farther.
i dont know, im not knowledgable enough to elaborate farther.
maybe someone else will be able to explain it farther.
madman1234509
New member
Youre saying two turbos, right off the manifolds then the exhaust from each turbo being routed to a single HP turbo in the valley right?
Wayne
Active member
I'm setting a personal longest post ever,:badidea: so here goes:
There are a lot of factors that come in to deciding how much cfm vs. boost at a reasonable temp. you need on these trucks. The greater amount of fuel you can efficiently burn, the more power you can make. To efficiently burn X amount of fuel across the RPM range, you need turbo efficiency the whole way through. Just adding turbos to show how much of a tough guy you can be is stupid IMO. I don't see anyone on this site doing this, but the technology behind the design is much more important than the quantity of turbos, and staging setup.
Turbo and super chargers have a compressor map, quantifying where the chargers efficiently move air, and thus make power at certain pressure ratios. The 6.4 (and all the other power strokes for that matter) have pretty crappy flowing heads, manifolds, etc in comparison to any turbo'd/non-turbo'd gas engine of comparable power, so we force the air in faster by cranking up the pressure. Of course, other things can be done to increase CFM, and without raising boost pressure by doing the proper cam, ported heads, manifolds, etc, but as of now, there's not enough technology to get the head flow to where we can do 1000 HP on low boost.
Parallel twins are more efficient than a single using identical technology, sized equal to the two parallel chargers combined because of efficiency, centrifugal force, and probably a handful of other factors. I'm sure there's a ton of info on the web comparing the two for those of you interested in doing parallels, but it's not my area of expertise. The downfall to parallel twins in the diesel setup is that when space is limited, and you can only have 2 turbos for example, you want the turbos in a compound configuration making more pressure than the parallels can to overcome the comparably crappy head flow.
Compounds allow multiple turbos to cover a greater rpm range efficiently in a higher pressure configuration by allowing smaller chargers to remain in their map range at higher pressures because they're being force fed by larger chargers. The max power compounds we offer can make 1000+ fuel only HP with comparably amazing results, and great streetability for a handful reasons that I can describe here. Godzilla's setup is a similar setup, but force-fed by a 106 mm charger, making things more efficient in the higher rpm/power range.
> The high pressure turbo has a reasonably sized compressor for off-the-line power in street driving situations, with the VGT allowing the charger to light faster than equally sized non-vgt turbos, while still allowing comparably more exhaust CFM past the (larger than stock) turbine wheel, and dumping excess back pressure to the next turbo once it's moving a lot of air because of the huge turbine housing.
> Properly sized atmospheric charger matching the high pressure VGT. Before the VGT is beyond it's map range, the atmospheric turbo is force-feeding it, allowing it to stay within the map range, and increase manifold pressure, thus increasing CFM past the crappy heads, which really matters.
Godzilla's triples work off the same principle, but have yet another turbo force-feeding both of the other chargers, thereby allowing pressure and CFM to further increase efficiently, and therefore make power beyond the high power X (62/82) base setup.
Here's a pressure example:
VGT/total pressure is
105 boost/105 BP
BP falls off as it goes into the 88 mm intermediate turbo, which runs at
70 boost/70 BP
All of this ends with the atmospheric turbo (106 mm) producing
35 boost/ 35 BP
Atmospheric turbo is generating 35 psi of boost at 1:1 ratio, intermediate turbo is making 35 psi boost at 1:1 ratio (70-35=35), and the high pressure turbo is making 35 psi of boost as well (105-70=35), equally splitting the work to efficiently allow 105 psi of boost, and still have low rpm, off idle power.
This is only an example, of course for explanation purposes, and there are a lot of other factors that come into play in making this configuration work properly. That's the idea behind the design we're using on Godzilla, and our other triple compound setups.
There are a lot of factors that come in to deciding how much cfm vs. boost at a reasonable temp. you need on these trucks. The greater amount of fuel you can efficiently burn, the more power you can make. To efficiently burn X amount of fuel across the RPM range, you need turbo efficiency the whole way through. Just adding turbos to show how much of a tough guy you can be is stupid IMO. I don't see anyone on this site doing this, but the technology behind the design is much more important than the quantity of turbos, and staging setup.
Turbo and super chargers have a compressor map, quantifying where the chargers efficiently move air, and thus make power at certain pressure ratios. The 6.4 (and all the other power strokes for that matter) have pretty crappy flowing heads, manifolds, etc in comparison to any turbo'd/non-turbo'd gas engine of comparable power, so we force the air in faster by cranking up the pressure. Of course, other things can be done to increase CFM, and without raising boost pressure by doing the proper cam, ported heads, manifolds, etc, but as of now, there's not enough technology to get the head flow to where we can do 1000 HP on low boost.
Parallel twins are more efficient than a single using identical technology, sized equal to the two parallel chargers combined because of efficiency, centrifugal force, and probably a handful of other factors. I'm sure there's a ton of info on the web comparing the two for those of you interested in doing parallels, but it's not my area of expertise. The downfall to parallel twins in the diesel setup is that when space is limited, and you can only have 2 turbos for example, you want the turbos in a compound configuration making more pressure than the parallels can to overcome the comparably crappy head flow.
Compounds allow multiple turbos to cover a greater rpm range efficiently in a higher pressure configuration by allowing smaller chargers to remain in their map range at higher pressures because they're being force fed by larger chargers. The max power compounds we offer can make 1000+ fuel only HP with comparably amazing results, and great streetability for a handful reasons that I can describe here. Godzilla's setup is a similar setup, but force-fed by a 106 mm charger, making things more efficient in the higher rpm/power range.
> The high pressure turbo has a reasonably sized compressor for off-the-line power in street driving situations, with the VGT allowing the charger to light faster than equally sized non-vgt turbos, while still allowing comparably more exhaust CFM past the (larger than stock) turbine wheel, and dumping excess back pressure to the next turbo once it's moving a lot of air because of the huge turbine housing.
> Properly sized atmospheric charger matching the high pressure VGT. Before the VGT is beyond it's map range, the atmospheric turbo is force-feeding it, allowing it to stay within the map range, and increase manifold pressure, thus increasing CFM past the crappy heads, which really matters.
Godzilla's triples work off the same principle, but have yet another turbo force-feeding both of the other chargers, thereby allowing pressure and CFM to further increase efficiently, and therefore make power beyond the high power X (62/82) base setup.
Here's a pressure example:
VGT/total pressure is
105 boost/105 BP
BP falls off as it goes into the 88 mm intermediate turbo, which runs at
70 boost/70 BP
All of this ends with the atmospheric turbo (106 mm) producing
35 boost/ 35 BP
Atmospheric turbo is generating 35 psi of boost at 1:1 ratio, intermediate turbo is making 35 psi boost at 1:1 ratio (70-35=35), and the high pressure turbo is making 35 psi of boost as well (105-70=35), equally splitting the work to efficiently allow 105 psi of boost, and still have low rpm, off idle power.
This is only an example, of course for explanation purposes, and there are a lot of other factors that come into play in making this configuration work properly. That's the idea behind the design we're using on Godzilla, and our other triple compound setups.
bft blue oval boys
Active member
I have been learned something tonight boys
Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
Members online
No members online now.