Remote Turbo Manifold
Turbo Mini Forums

Dont Panic....

The GT2056 will not fit down the back of the block without a bulkhead box.

I don't want to fit a bulkhead box in the Miglia as it would involve removing some significant bracing from the front subframe and posibly the roll cage.

So I've decided to fit the turbo above the transfer case. This has significant advantages as it will allow the use of equal length runners, possibly the use of dual widebands and allow fitting an external wastegate if required. It will also will keep the inlet air well away from hot exhaust gases and turbo.

So I've knocked up a quick sketch and will start cutting metal over the weekend.



I still need to work out how to bend the runners around the block to get to the turbo inlet, but it's taking shape.

Any comments at this stage?

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

I guess needs must, but I'm not a fan of the turbo over the flywheel, not good for weight distribution, unless you have a LHD car.

My thoughts were that the easiest and cheepest way to do it is use the Metro manifold and run a pipe from that. But I don't have the skills you have to build a manifold. And considering the spec of the rest of the car it probably deserves something shiney!

Fastest 998 mini in the world? 13.05 1/4 mile 106mph

www.twin-turbo.co.uk

Re. dual widebands - my understanding is that even if you could keep the temperatures low enough, they become inaccurate under pressure which is the main reason why they can't be used before a turbo.

It would be interesting to know for sure though (fit a third one after the turbo and see if it reads the average of the two....)

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???

Any thoughts on how to deal with the expansion?

I thought that I would make the mount of the transfer case with a couple of pivots, so that the turbo would swing out and down when hot.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

The trick with pivoted link arm(s) is to get the pivot angle (in two planes) correct and then the length and starting angle in the third plane exactly right to match movement in three planes.

The angle of the pivot deals with two planes and the length and "lean" of the link deal with the third.

Very hard to put into words but when you've seen it done in practice allowing several hundreds of tonnes of plant to expand outwards and upwards with no stress on the connecting welds it all makes sense.

I must be bored today - too much posting.....

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???

I am building the same Idea for a GT2056 Paul for this years race,

I however don’t like the idea of running the two outside cylinders into a Y and then going to the turbo. I would like to run each branch to the turbo at an equal length but run the centre branch at 1.6 to account for the double pulse. run them in the serpentine fashion to keep the primary’s Equal. I think a primary goal for me would be to try and keep the port exits straight for as long as possible to allow for best exhaust flow.

I hope to get over the expansion issue with these

http://cgi.ebay.ie/50mm-X-100mm-S-S-EXHAUS...%3A1%7C294%3A50

Paul H, interesting, but I'm not sure that I understand or agree with your thinking.

Joining the two outer cylinders into a Y means that the pulses in that runner are the same as the inner cylinder runner, but 180 degrees apart. So, at the turbo you get alternating pulses from each runner equally spread. After all, LCBs work on a similar fashion in terms of pulse tuning.

Not sure where you apply the 1.6 factor. How do you work that out?

I'm not happy using those expansion flexis at such high pressures and temperatures.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

The other thing to bear in mind with the "flexis" is that they are designed for flexing only, not changes in length.

Whilst they will physically "compress", the design assumes the stainless braiding will remain under tension and the interlocking spiral form inside will remain loaded under tension to keep the seal.

Even on more expensive versions with a totally sealed bellows unit inside (rather than Ilock) the length is supposed to be kept constant.

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???

Ok the way I look at your idea Paul is that it creates a Square wave type pattern across the Turbo inlet flange where as the old metro Turbo type idea as in the attached pic gives a much smother snake like pulse pattern, more a kin to the sine wave which is harmonic which should give smooth laminar flow allowing the turbine to spool smoothly.
I was under the impression this is why the metro turbo manifold kept the three branches separate at the turbo inlet manifold.

I haven’t worked out the pressures involved Paul but the GT2056 is a fast flowing turbo if the pressure is very high aft turbo then I would suspect there is a problem.


1.6 is a ratio worked out by Maiflow with there news’s incarnation of the LCB type exhaust. from my mearusements anyway.

Edited by PaulH on 1st May, 2009.

Not sure about that.

Both methods should give the same flow characterstics and pulses at the turbine flange, except if you use a bigger centre port runner, then they may be out of synch.

Probably, I should use a larger centre port runner and outer secondary. I don't know for sure.

Anyway, I've started to make it, so we shall see.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

Look forward to see how it works for you Paul I'm not after out and out power on this one, more a smoth torque and high cornering speeds.

im keeping my eye on this thread... where's the pop corn simile

Yes i moved to the darkside

Instagram @jdm_brett

I have not much to add i'm afraid - but that Peter1071s wrote quite a lot about this kind of stuff I recall. For all the bad things we can say - he did (does?) appear to know a fair bit so if he hasn't deleted the posts, then you might find some useful info?

Good progress so far....

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

Whats to OD and ID of that tube Paul.

Whats to OD and ID of that tube Paul.

Look good,

Is it worth having the center pipe angled towards the passengers side of the car rather than going straight down, thus making it a bit longer and keeping the runners equal length?

Looks good Paul,

are you going to squeeze the pipes square to match the flanges/ports like i did?

Paul, the pipe is 28/33mm ish.

Rob, could do, the difference in length is about 30mm at the moment.

Joe, with this size pipe I just need to blend from square to round in the flange.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

Hi Paul,

You may want to reconsider the design of the Y-piece. The problem, as I understand it and why I decided to re-do my own manifold, is that the exhaust gases will lose a lot of momentum through a collision in the Y-piece. See my, terrible but hopefully clear, drawing.

Sketch 1 is the situation with the collision. The gases want to go in a straight line as there really is not that much of a bend to follow and bump onto the wall, loose speed while trying to find the right way to go.

Sketch 2 is the situation where there is a proper bend before the collector. Gases will follow the bend on the outside curve and will be properly aligned to go into the collector and not lose as much momentum.

What do you think?

Regards,

Thimo

Attachments:

26.39kb

http://projects.ferrenzo.nl/

This is a photo from my manifold. The flow in the center pipe will be okay, but the outside ones will lose pulse/momentum.



Edit: Link to more manifold photo's, remarks in Dutch: http://www.ferrenzo.nl/dagboek/359.php

Edited by thimo on 3rd May, 2009.

http://projects.ferrenzo.nl/

Thimo, you may well have a very valid point and a collector style joint would be better.

However, packaging it all together and leaving space for a 50mm downpipe leaves little space. A collector would push the bend much further down and I'm already battling with the webs on the block as it is. Moving the pipes away from the block intruduces some odd angles and takes up the space for the downpipe.

I think I'll spend some time over next winter working on a better design, but I'm going to finish this one as it is to get the car working.

Did you ever try your manifold? Or are you working on a theory?

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."