G35 1050 vs G42 1200 on a 13B - Best Choice for 600hp?
#26
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
rx7srbad
As I said, round ports flow more than rectangular ports of the same cross sectional area because they have less runner surface area and thus less drag.
Also as I said, I was too lazy to calculate and subtract out the 4 radii from the corners of the open volute flange area and the 8 radii from the corners of the divided volute flange area.
TeamRX8
If you stick a 2" sch 10 pipe on the v-band flange for turbo inlet you are going to be flow limited by the 2" sch 10 pipe.
If you stick a 2" sch 10 pipe on the T4 divided flange for turbo entry you are going to be a lot worse off.
My point is, neither is a correct way to make a turbo manifold.
TeamRX8
If Garrett tested their new smaller high flow G series exhaust wheels on a rotary and concluded the decrease in inertia and the new high flow aero provided better turbo response without compromising flow I would trust them.
My own personal experience in going up exhaust wheel sizes in the same turbo housing (and same compressor section) with a rotary is that some factor offset the increase in inertia of the larger turbine wheel and improved turbo response.
Others have noted the same phenomenon with rotaries.
In my reading of the Mazda literature I believe it has to do with the "impact" pulse component of the rotary which led Hitachi to develop its own aero for the rotary turbine wheels that features straight finned inducer instead of the curved fins developed for piston engines. The curved fins drive the turbine more with exhaust flow and less with impact. The Garrett GT series further refined the piston engine derived turbine aero and now the G series has done that again.
I believe the current turbine aero is getting further and further from the ideal turbone aero for a rotary.
Mazda also tried mixed flow (axial plus radial flow) like the efr 7063 exhaust wheel and concluded acial flow does not work well at all for the rotary.
So, you think the difference in rotary and piston engine exhaust characteristics labeled by Mazda and Hitachi as "impact" pulses are just my, Hitachi and Mazda's fantasies?
is the smallest area in your list, how can it flow more than the others?
Also as I said, I was too lazy to calculate and subtract out the 4 radii from the corners of the open volute flange area and the 8 radii from the corners of the divided volute flange area.
TeamRX8
Again; it’s a 2” Sch 10 which is 2.375” OD x 2.157” ID (54.8mm). It’s the V-band register/centering protrusion that’s 60mm.
If you stick a 2" sch 10 pipe on the T4 divided flange for turbo entry you are going to be a lot worse off.
My point is, neither is a correct way to make a turbo manifold.
TeamRX8
I seem to recall a particular person in a previous G-series discussion arguing that once we thrown in the unique rotary pulse parameters then Garrett shouldn’t be trusted
My own personal experience in going up exhaust wheel sizes in the same turbo housing (and same compressor section) with a rotary is that some factor offset the increase in inertia of the larger turbine wheel and improved turbo response.
Others have noted the same phenomenon with rotaries.
In my reading of the Mazda literature I believe it has to do with the "impact" pulse component of the rotary which led Hitachi to develop its own aero for the rotary turbine wheels that features straight finned inducer instead of the curved fins developed for piston engines. The curved fins drive the turbine more with exhaust flow and less with impact. The Garrett GT series further refined the piston engine derived turbine aero and now the G series has done that again.
I believe the current turbine aero is getting further and further from the ideal turbone aero for a rotary.
Mazda also tried mixed flow (axial plus radial flow) like the efr 7063 exhaust wheel and concluded acial flow does not work well at all for the rotary.
So, you think the difference in rotary and piston engine exhaust characteristics labeled by Mazda and Hitachi as "impact" pulses are just my, Hitachi and Mazda's fantasies?
The following users liked this post:
Speed of light (03-31-24)
#27
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
rx7srbad,
you say only thing you are changing is turbo from Garrett T04Z 1.0AR T4 divided to G series V-band 1.21AR to try to get 450rwhp.
Seems like trying to fix a bad marriage by swapping out her wedding ring.
T04Z is a well proven turbo on the rotary, look at everything else in your engine set-up to find whats not working.
Example- I once added 30hp to a turbo Honda on the local shops dyno by putting the velocity stack and intake filter from my RX7 on the bare end of the 3" pipe feeding the turbo.
Put pics and description up of everything on the car for us to go over or take it to a experienced race service shop to look over.
I think the HKS cast manifold to t4 divided/v-band adapter to G series turbo back is going to be an abomination and squandering of resources compared to refining a half decent T04Z set-up into a good T04Z set-up in the quest for 450rwp.
you say only thing you are changing is turbo from Garrett T04Z 1.0AR T4 divided to G series V-band 1.21AR to try to get 450rwhp.
Seems like trying to fix a bad marriage by swapping out her wedding ring.
T04Z is a well proven turbo on the rotary, look at everything else in your engine set-up to find whats not working.
Example- I once added 30hp to a turbo Honda on the local shops dyno by putting the velocity stack and intake filter from my RX7 on the bare end of the 3" pipe feeding the turbo.
Put pics and description up of everything on the car for us to go over or take it to a experienced race service shop to look over.
I think the HKS cast manifold to t4 divided/v-band adapter to G series turbo back is going to be an abomination and squandering of resources compared to refining a half decent T04Z set-up into a good T04Z set-up in the quest for 450rwp.
The following users liked this post:
Howard Coleman (10-04-21)
#29
Full Member
I suppose the 1.21 A/R will give max top-end power, but the T4 divided 1.06 A/R should give a much better powerband. With doing about zero math, the G35-1050 flows about the same as the EFR9180. Very impressive for the G35-1050 considering how much smaller diameter the wheels are. Anyway, from the info given for Turblown EFR setup: The 9180 will provide the highest level of IWG power with its 68mm compressor wheel and 80mm turbine wheel. One should choose the 9180 for 550 to 630+rwhp range.
That's a pretty good indicator the G35-1050 will do your 600whp.
That's a pretty good indicator the G35-1050 will do your 600whp.
The following users liked this post:
rx7srbad (09-06-21)
#30
Full Member
My own personal experience in going up exhaust wheel sizes in the same turbo housing (and same compressor section) with a rotary is that some factor offset the increase in inertia of the larger turbine wheel and improved turbo response.
Others have noted the same phenomenon with rotaries.
Others have noted the same phenomenon with rotaries.
#32
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
Just looked up dimensions of "O" trim versus "P" trim
"O-trim" - inducer: 2.922"; exducer: 2.296"; trim: 62
"P-trim" - inducer: 2.922"; exducer: 2.544"; trim: 76
So actually, larger trim; not larger exhaust wheel...
Much less increase in inertia because added mass than if it were larger diameter exhaust wheel.
"O-trim" - inducer: 2.922"; exducer: 2.296"; trim: 62
"P-trim" - inducer: 2.922"; exducer: 2.544"; trim: 76
So actually, larger trim; not larger exhaust wheel...
Much less increase in inertia because added mass than if it were larger diameter exhaust wheel.
#33
Full Member
That's a huge change in trim though. Usually, trim changes are only by a few to tweak to a specific application, like maybe +/- 4. This is a trim change of 14, effectively a different size wheel. As an approximation, flow scales linearly with trim. So the P-trim is about 20% more flow. I don't think I've seen a 62 trim before... must be old school diesel. All the Garrett high flow stuff is 84 trim.
Last edited by spdracerUT; 09-07-21 at 12:05 AM.
#36
Rotary Freak
iTrader: (8)
Not entirely sure the choice of going for the 1.21 v band over t4 twin scroll is a wise choice, time will tell i guess. I saw some data on a G35 900 at 16psi on a stock port and was not impressed and thought....just go for the biggest ar 1050. Do you feel the 1.06 would have been a better choice?
It's a stock port engine. What do you expect. You could put a gt55 on there and it will only make whatever a stockport can flow at 16psi.
#38
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: U.K - Instagram - copyninja_fd
Posts: 312
Received 142 Likes
on
82 Posts
Got the G35 1050 Installed. The only change to my setup is the turbo swap. Everything else, manifold, dp is all the same. Old turbo - Garrett TO4Z T4 Twin Scroll 1.01ar Current Turbo - Garrett G35 - 1050 1.21 ar Vband.
Fuel Crisis...but got 99 v-power pump fuel.
Got round to mapping the car upto 6krpm and upto 12psi. The process took far longer than I initially anticipated...had to make big changes to the map. Guess the G35-1050 seems to be flowing more air than the older TO4Z, the idle and cruise areas needed some big changes. I had to stop there as I started to run low of fuel and finding fuel in the UK currently is like trying to find gold dust!
So far I could not really notice any difference in boost response between the old and new turbos. The G35-1050 feels like it is pulling a lot harder to 6krpm than the older turbo. However, I will get back to the completing the map once I find some fuel!
The following users liked this post:
rx7srbad (10-03-21)
#42
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: U.K - Instagram - copyninja_fd
Posts: 312
Received 142 Likes
on
82 Posts
Got a fair bit left to do, clean up the fueling on the low boost.
Than start tuning for some higher boost and play around with the wg duty cycle to optimize boost response.
Then book a dyno and get some power results. Will verify both high and low boost maps on the dragy gps to confirm real world performance.
The following users liked this post:
Slides (10-05-21)
#43
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: U.K - Instagram - copyninja_fd
Posts: 312
Received 142 Likes
on
82 Posts
Finally got around to some high boost tuning today. Holding 20 PSI ~ 1.4 bar extremely well. The pull after 4krpm is incredibly strong and there is no let off until the next gear change....if the car had a DCT box the pull would be relentless! No idea on power/torque figures just yet. No idea of dragy gps number yet either. Overall, very happy with the new turbo and the preliminary tune.
The rest of the tune will be finalized when I get a chance to tweak it on a dyno. May even increase boost up to 1.7 bar if required. Quite keen to find out what the G35 1050 is doing at 1.4 bar compared to the older TO4Z.
12 Psi
20 PSI
preliminary 20psi tune.
I note I have not yet had the chance to do any boost optimization so anyone else going for a G35-1050 should have an idea of what to expect.
The rest of the tune will be finalized when I get a chance to tweak it on a dyno. May even increase boost up to 1.7 bar if required. Quite keen to find out what the G35 1050 is doing at 1.4 bar compared to the older TO4Z.
12 Psi
20 PSI
preliminary 20psi tune.
I note I have not yet had the chance to do any boost optimization so anyone else going for a G35-1050 should have an idea of what to expect.
The following users liked this post:
estevan62274 (10-10-21)
The following users liked this post:
rx7srbad (10-12-21)
#45
Racing Rotary Since 1983
iTrader: (6)
i have spent a bunch of time noodling on the Garrett line and am probably going to buy a G35-1050. i will be spending some time with Garrett at the PRI this Friday. i currently have an EFR 9180 on my engine.
The following users liked this post:
rx7srbad (07-12-22)
#49
10000 RPM Lane
iTrader: (2)
according to Matchbot the EFR 8474 1.05 A/R is peaking low 30-ish lbs/min turbine flow when it flat lines above 2.5 Pr.
well the G30 1.01 v-band turbine map is approximately matching the established GT35 1.01 turbine map despite the size difference. Credit to Brettus with his RX8 G30 Renesis turbo setup for bringing that to light. My view is the 1.06 divided T4 G30 is going to do even better on a 13B. The same for the G35 then being the next step above that.
It seems to me that some people may still be in the previous mindset that all turbines are more or less created equal and all you have to do is compare the inducer/exducer sizing, but I came to recognize that the technology is changing and so how we view that has to change as well. That’s when it “clicked” for me, but there are still not many rotary results to fully back it up yet.
.
well the G30 1.01 v-band turbine map is approximately matching the established GT35 1.01 turbine map despite the size difference. Credit to Brettus with his RX8 G30 Renesis turbo setup for bringing that to light. My view is the 1.06 divided T4 G30 is going to do even better on a 13B. The same for the G35 then being the next step above that.
It seems to me that some people may still be in the previous mindset that all turbines are more or less created equal and all you have to do is compare the inducer/exducer sizing, but I came to recognize that the technology is changing and so how we view that has to change as well. That’s when it “clicked” for me, but there are still not many rotary results to fully back it up yet.
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 12-06-21 at 10:57 PM.
#50
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,832
Received 2,603 Likes
on
1,847 Posts
It seems to me that some people may still be in the previous mindset that all turbines are more or less created equal and all you have to do is compare the inducer/exducer sizing, but I came to recognize that the technology is changing and so how we view that has to change as well. That’s when it “clicked” for me, but there are still not many rotary results to fully back it up yet.
.
.