Originally Posted by KillerBMotorsport
Oh I know there's nothing average about Suby owners, we are a quirky crowd
In all honesty, that kind of data stays here. Reason being, it opens up a HUGE can of worns. As-is I avoid custom work like it's the plague and providing info like that opens the flood gates to those that want our products "prefect" by "fixing" a miniscule pressure differential across the primaries. I can see the PMs already... "Can you make me a header that doesn't have .00X pressure differential, I need this build to be perfect!" I'd have to lump this in with my ever expanding inbox of "I like the design of your headers, but can you make it with 2" primaries and 2.5" secondaries, I'm shooting for 450whp and those small primaries/secondaries won't flow enough."
For now you'll have to have some faith and trust in that we cross our T's and dot our I's and hopefully the 'outcome data' will be all good.
The TS single WG solution is pretty cool and it might even catch on as a fabrication piece for the DIYers out there. Or at least I think it's cool
Our first cast part too. Basically right before the turbine housing it runs a port from each runner to the WG, so the WG port is split into two and runs into the exhaust runners, secondaries. It's tipped at an angle for good flow characteristics (can't say how much I DESPISE WG's stubbed in at 90°!). The divider goes into the WG all the way to the WG's valve for minimal cross contamination of gasses. It's made correctly
to a T3. I say correctly because I ordered 2 different off-the-shelf T3 flanges and the profiles (specifically the corner radii) did not match the housing
. It will also not require the squeezing, hammering or otherwise mashing of tube to fit a T3 flange, because it IS the flange. It goes from round to the rectangular-ish port shape in a nice smooth transition
I didn't mean to plumb it in the production pieces. I agree that part isn't necessary. I meant to plumb it in just for your testing. If you can show for example increased shaft speed acceleration or lower EGBP across the curve, then it would help to prove there are gains not quantifiable in the torque curve. It would also point out that the twin scrolls require more extensive avcs mapping. I would think that shaft speed increases at low rpm would be a good indicator of response over a dyno pull. I feel the same way for your current low mount kit, even though the dyno is showing improved spool. This would be interesting to see in your open scroll version, but the data would be less meaningful without comparison data on a traditionally mounted setup.
For example, one of the assumptions about the traditional mounted setups (even the rotated which has the same post header volume as stock) is that the high volume requires a lot of egbp to accelerate the turbine, and going to the 63 hotside helps increase velocity but has a more severe effect on flow as rpm rises as compared to other systems that seem to run fine with small turbine/large compressor. The 4g63 seems to run fine with the 63 for example and they make good power with gtx3076. I was sad to see that the 63 fell off so much on your low mount kit, and that contradicts this assumption. That extra data point would just help to get a bigger picture and the effects different concepts have on final outcome. But if no can, no can. I understand that you have bigger fish to fry.