Which turbo for Turbo8v

[wicked 103 3 Cars]

I would forget about the t16 chargecooler on a racecar. On a street car the time spend on full boost is limited, so the chargecooler circuit has plenty of time to cool down after a run. On trackdays the t16 chargecooler will not keep up if you run continuous on boost and end up with similar iat that you have now. 

On applications of continuous boost, the air2air intercoolers will give you lowest iat if sized properly. 

 

I would probably buy a similar ic that you have now, but the the higher/bigger version. 

 

What kind of boost controller do you have? It seems to spool late? Would expect full boost at 3k.

Edited February 21, 2021 by wicked

[welshpug 1,661]

from your pictures it looks like one of the boost pipes comes from the turbo to the left side and all the way under the intercooler and 180 in, that is terrible for airflow, just take it from turbo straight over engine on the right side.

[lahondal 17]

 

On 2/21/2021 at 7:59 PM, wicked said:

I would forget about the t16 chargecooler on a racecar. On a street car the time spend on full boost is limited, so the chargecooler circuit has plenty of time to cool down after a run. On trackdays the t16 chargecooler will not keep up if you run continuous on boost and end up with similar iat that you have now. 

On applications of continuous boost, the air2air intercoolers will give you lowest iat if sized properly. 

 

I would probably buy a similar ic that you have now, but the the higher/bigger version. 

 

What kind of boost controller do you have? It seems to spool late? Would expect full boost at 3k.

I have thought the chargecooler because a friend of mine ran a chargecooler on a rallye renault 5 turbo and was a great improvement over the fmic he had previously. 

 

A proper sized chargecooler system wouldnt cope with race conditions? Sorry for be a little skeptical but all my past years thoughts about inlet cooling are oposed to this. Can you show me why a AirtoAir ic is better than a liquid to air type for this purpose? 

 

Maybe you are referring specifically to the T16 chargecooler? Or to chargecoolers in general?

 

Maybe the catcams have a part on the late spool. We were touching the cam timing during the mapping and finally decided to leave it a bit retarded just because achieve a slightly smoother torque entry. 

 

What annoys me was althought the vast change in cam duration the powerband is near at the same RPM than before. 

 

As said, the mapper said that more boost is not producing more power on the upper band of rpm, dont know why. I hope its because the crap icpiping/intercooler/inlet. 

On 2/21/2021 at 9:03 PM, welshpug said:

from your pictures it looks like one of the boost pipes comes from the turbo to the left side and all the way under the intercooler and 180 in, that is terrible for airflow, just take it from turbo straight over engine on the right side.

Well, that involve lower the radiator because is literally no space between it and the bonnet.

I have made a draw about the chargecooler plan.  Using a 306xsi/citroen xm manifold. 

 

All your opinions are welcome and taken on account. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by lahondal

[lahondal 17]

On 2/21/2021 at 6:40 PM, SRDT said:

I have been told that they are not exactly the same, and not just because of the "TURBO" plastic thing.

It shouldn't be a problem when you are making a custom engine anyway.

Well, if they are not the same in terms of performance, then yes, it should be a problem. But, who knows if they are internally identical? 

[wicked 103 3 Cars]

9 hours ago, lahondal said:

 

I have thought the chargecooler because a friend of mine ran a chargecooler on a rallye renault 5 turbo and was a great improvement over the fmic he had previously. 

 

A proper sized chargecooler system wouldnt cope with race conditions? Sorry for be a little skeptical but all my past years thoughts about inlet cooling are oposed to this. Can you show me why a AirtoAir ic is better than a liquid to air type for this purpose? 

 

Maybe you are referring specifically to the T16 chargecooler? Or to chargecoolers in general?

 

 

 

A chargecooler is a 2 step cooling and a fmic is a 1 step cooling; on continuous load, every step will have a delta between the cooling medium and stuff to be cooled. This is because heat flow goes with the quadratic of the temperature difference.  This will be in the scenarios on track for instance, where you run 60%? of the time on boost.

 

In the scenario where you only do an occasional run on boost, the story is different; the coolant in the chargecooler has a cool buffer that will have hardly any temperature delta with the outside temperature and the chargecooler will perform better. Until the coolant heats up and above story applies. 

 

Have a read on this site: http://www.mez.co.uk/turbo8-new.html

That guy did some experiments and ended up with a fmic.

 

In practice I've seen people using the T16 chargecoolers on T16 engines and they struggle on continuous load; even 1 example of a trackday car having a fmic inline with the chargecooler.

If you go chargecooler; pick a bigger aftermarket one than the T16 chargecooler; better bang for the buck. 

 

Wrt to your setup; I think you have an issue with your boost control; my 2.0 tct with non-ball bearing td04hl-t15 turbo does have full boost at 2700 rpm and have seen similar numbers on tct's with ball bearing turbos . Check if the actuator has enough preload and don't let the boost control kick in to early.

 

Regarding the length of the ic piping; I think mine had similar length, so that should not be an issue. Mine had 2,25" diameter though... 

The inlet temperature is something to watch on these engine; they get very sensitive to knock if iat is high and dialing out advance at high end sounds like you suffer from this. 

I would just grab a double sized fmic from ebay and check what that does to your iat, before you do big investments.

My intercooler was maybe 1,5 times yours and on the edge at 1.0 bar...  

 

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by wicked

[lahondal 17]

17 hours ago, wicked said:

 

A chargecooler is a 2 step cooling and a fmic is a 1 step cooling; on continuous load, every step will have a delta between the cooling medium and stuff to be cooled. This is because heat flow goes with the quadratic of the temperature difference.  This will be in the scenarios on track for instance, where you run 60%? of the time on boost.

 

In the scenario where you only do an occasional run on boost, the story is different; the coolant in the chargecooler has a cool buffer that will have hardly any temperature delta with the outside temperature and the chargecooler will perform better. Until the coolant heats up and above story applies. 

 

Have a read on this site: http://www.mez.co.uk/turbo8-new.html

That guy did some experiments and ended up with a fmic.

 

In practice I've seen people using the T16 chargecoolers on T16 engines and they struggle on continuous load; even 1 example of a trackday car having a fmic inline with the chargecooler.

If you go chargecooler; pick a bigger aftermarket one than the T16 chargecooler; better bang for the buck. 

 

Wrt to your setup; I think you have an issue with your boost control; my 2.0 tct with non-ball bearing td04hl-t15 turbo does have full boost at 2700 rpm and have seen similar numbers on tct's with ball bearing turbos . Check if the actuator has enough preload and don't let the boost control kick in to early.

 

Regarding the length of the ic piping; I think mine had similar length, so that should not be an issue. Mine had 2,25" diameter though... 

The inlet temperature is something to watch on these engine; they get very sensitive to knock if iat is high and dialing out advance at high end sounds like you suffer from this. 

I would just grab a double sized fmic from ebay and check what that does to your iat, before you do big investments.

My intercooler was maybe 1,5 times yours and on the edge at 1.0 bar...  

 

 

Well, didnt thought it that way. There are 2 ineficcient steps to cool the air. Damn. 

 

A lancer evo 7/8/9 stock intercooler seems a quality unit to stick on nicely. Surely its capable of perform good for us. 

 

Only concern is the way will sit right in front of the water radiator, dont want to solve a problem and create another.

 

The inlet manifold sucks, it seems like its basically crap for flow. Have various gti inlets here but dont want to take the head out for port matching as its been just torqued down with new gasket etc. 

 

I have readed the port mismatch is big and cant be overcome only modifying the manifold, its that correct, isnt it? 

[SRDT 182]

Yes you need to work on both.

[lahondal 17]

After a chat with the tuner today definitely we have a restriction somewhere between turbo and engine. 

 

He says that more boost in the high rpm causes LESS power so need to solve this. 

[DamirGTI 342]

On 2/25/2021 at 1:53 AM, lahondal said:

The inlet manifold sucks, it seems like its basically crap for flow. Have various gti inlets here but dont want to take the head out for port matching as its been just torqued down with new gasket etc. 

 

I have readed the port mismatch is big and cant be overcome only modifying the manifold, its that correct, isnt it? 

 

For sure , just by looking at the stock 2.0 T manifold you can tell it's bad .. not so much the flow me thinks but for the power band/revs for sure , both of them inlet and exhaust manifolds (cam profile as well) on stock 2.0 T are kinda deliberately made to de-tune the engine making it best performing only on low to mid revs .. which pretty much suits the cars which where factory fitted with this engine . 

 

Can only think it being "good" because it's central mounted TB , which makes it filling the each individual cylinder evenly , which tends to be offset on manifolds with TB mounted sideways .

T16 manifold is kinda similar to the 2.0 T , but much bigger , bigger and longer runners .. 2.0 8v NA aluminum manifold might be worth i try , only the TB is a bit dicky with oval mi16 style inlet facing back side , fitted one of those on an race car but never tried driving it .

 

No need to take the head out fort port matching , arrange the valves so hat they're close and for double protection stuff some clay/plasticine inside the port throat .. and reshape the inlet entry for the manifold which you've chosen , can even rig up vacuum cleaner and tape it near while you grinding so that it picks up aluminum dust/specks/bits .

 

 

D

[lahondal 17]

3 hours ago, DamirGTI said:

 

For sure , just by looking at the stock 2.0 T manifold you can tell it's bad .. not so much the flow me thinks but for the power band/revs for sure , both of them inlet and exhaust manifolds (cam profile as well) on stock 2.0 T are kinda deliberately made to de-tune the engine making it best performing only on low to mid revs .. which pretty much suits the cars which where factory fitted with this engine . 

 

Can only think it being "good" because it's central mounted TB , which makes it filling the each individual cylinder evenly , which tends to be offset on manifolds with TB mounted sideways .

T16 manifold is kinda similar to the 2.0 T , but much bigger , bigger and longer runners .. 2.0 8v NA aluminum manifold might be worth i try , only the TB is a bit dicky with oval mi16 style inlet facing back side , fitted one of those on an race car but never tried driving it .

 

No need to take the head out fort port matching , arrange the valves so hat they're close and for double protection stuff some clay/plasticine inside the port throat .. and reshape the inlet entry for the manifold which you've chosen , can even rig up vacuum cleaner and tape it near while you grinding so that it picks up aluminum dust/specks/bits .

 

 

D

Yes maybe the manifold is not crap for all purposes but i mean seems not designed for operating at high flow/rpm. 

 

NA manifolds with their backside TB not seem to be a perfect choice but at least have longer and individual runners that should be better than stock manifold.

 

Im thinking an oversized chargecooler+NA manifold will be the best route, as this will be a hillclimb car which will be raced max 7-8min each heat. 

 

I will not get the @wicked approval but.... 

[DamirGTI 342]

Is welding/fabricating aluminum manifold optional for you ?

 

As it's an race car , and with SA engine management , if it's option i'd certainly try it .. not necessarily making it from scratch , but using one of the OE manifolds and rework/redesign it a bit . 

 

If nothing , personally i'd fit 1.9 GTi manifold instead ... not perfect for flow either , but better than the 2.0 T stock item . 

 

D

Edited February 26, 2021 by DamirGTI

[wicked 103 3 Cars]

6 hours ago, lahondal said:

 

I will not get the @wicked approval but.... 

 

You don't need my approval.. ;-) 

 

The tct inlet manifold is not a high end item indeed. Actually my tct engine sits on a engine stand atm and has now an 1.9 gti inlet as well...  But it is not mandatory for achieving 230bhp. 

 

And chargecoolers can work fine, if sized properly. But don't hunt for the t16 item, 'because it is t16'... 

And 230bhp is not much for nowadays standards; many intercoolers will just work fine, but yours is a bit a diesel sized one... 

 

Did you time the cam according to catcams spec? 

[lahondal 17]

I dont need your approval but i apreciate so much the replies from who have more experience than me in engine tuning, thats all. 

 

T16 chargecooler is discarded, we are searching for another unit. 

 

And yes, i set the cam timing as per catcams advise, however in the rolling road tried different retarded settings to see if we can push the torque up in the range and smooth the curve, at cost of a little lowend torque. 

 

The plot i posted have 2 lines, a "catcams set" curve, and a 3deg retarded curve. 

[SRDT 182]

At this point you could also look for a 2.0 carb manifold, that is if you can find one.

But fabricating/modding a new manifold isn't that more work than using a GTI manifold and reworking the head?

[DamirGTI 342]

Carb/mono XU10 manifolds looks to me even worse than the 2.0 T !

 

Xu10J2 alu. manifold looks promising , i would pick that one for cut and reshape ... in order to fit it in 205 engine bay , it needs to be shortened anyway , thus i'd have a go with it as an donor ... cutting the runner part of it along with the head flange , and making my own plenum with the side or central entry with some round shaped TB and weld that on the J2 runners .. shouldn't be complicated , don't have to look pretty as long as it serves the purpose right .

 

 

 

 

D

[Type-R 3]

Maybe you left a rag somwhere in there?

[lahondal 17]

On 2/27/2021 at 6:22 PM, Type-R said:

Maybe you left a rag somwhere in there?

Hope not. 

 

I have a monoinjection manifold, an alloy stock turbo manifold and the current fitted stock plastic manifold. 

 

Its said that plastic manifolds tends to promote heat soak. Its a problem enough important to look for an alloy manifold over plastic? Alloy ones are rare to find. 

 

Thanks all for the answers. 

[lahondal 17]

Last update. 

 

Today we have taken the car to the mapper again hoping to be the last time at least since the 2021 season its finished. 

 

We finally changed the intercooler to a mishimoto J-line unit, (pretty good unit and well finished), and the TB from the stock one (weird shape 48mm horizontal ID and 44mm vertical), to a more suited 54mm round. We modified the IC-Mani pipe to smooth the bends as there was a pair of tight curves that we dont like at all. 

 

And was kind of a deception as althought we totally cut the high IAT problems (from reach 50C in only one pull to repeated steady 30C pulls), we only picked about 10hp low down and 7hp in high rpm. 

 

228hp/6074rpm and 322nm/4100rpm.

 

Seems to be the same problem thant before, the engine simply dont get better with more boost and makes its max at 1.2bar. Tried to crankup the boost to 1.4bar without luck, only slightly more torque lowdown. 

 

So finally, we will leave the engine as it is for this season and then send the head to make a good porting service (its completely stock head).

 

Anyone knows a good company to send the head? We thought about CNC porting too. 

 

Thanks for all the replies, we appreciate so much the aid to finish this project. 

[petert 588]

Even just a decent 3 angle job makes an 8V head come alive. 

[camgti 56]

Are you valve springs able to cope with the extra boost? Could be your issue of not getting more boost. Or your WG pressure. Head flow wont affect the amount of boost you can run. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by camgti

[petert 588]

11 hours ago, camgti said:

Are you valve springs able to cope with the extra boost? Could be your issue of not getting more boost. Or your WG pressure. Head flow wont affect the amount of boost you can run. 

Cam may have hit the nail on the head. Consider this. A big, heavy 8V inlet valve needs at least 90lbs of seat pressure to keep it under control. Many people don't pay attention to seat pressure when rebuilding heads and this value could be considerably less on a reconditioned head.

 

Then consider the back of the inlet valve has an effective area of approx. 1025mm2 (subtracting stem and seat areas). If you apply 15psi of boost to the inlet manifold, you can use the formula Pressure = Force/Area to calculate how much force is acting on the valve. I won't bore you with my maths, but my solution is approx. 24lbs

 

Thus you have 90lbs of spring pressure trying to keep the valve closed and 24lbs acting against it. The net valve spring seat pressure being 66lbs, not enough for that size valve. It could be far worse.

 

By my maths, you need 114lbs of seat pressure to make the engine work as intended. Maybe I got the numbers wrong and others please check it.

 

Of course that's all very theoretical and you may get away with less.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by petert