Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Wobbly Dave

Betsy - the final chapter.

191 posts in this topic

Most project threads start off with bits that you want to get & the car already been in one piece, Sadly for my Silver C70 T5 (MY99) the sad truth I am back to the drawing board/

 

Well after the failure of my first "race" engine with a GTX3071R garrett strapped to it this project thread is more of a review and initially at least a pause to consider what to do & how to do it better.

 

So to make it easy I'll tell you what I've got so far...

 

Turbo Garrett GTX3071R - Spec...

 

Compressor wheel - 11 blade

Inducer – 54.10mm

Exducer – 71.40mm

Trim – 58

 

Turbine Wheel

Trim – 84

 

Compressor A/R – 0.60.

 

TIAL QR BOV (recirc) - DIY RIP kit (57mm).

 

ASNU 630cc (@ 3 BAR)  Injectors - OEM 3.8 bar FPR

Deatchwerks DW300 (300 lph) in tank fuel pump.

 

K1 Tech forged 139.5 mm con rods.

Wiseco forged 81.5mm pistons

 

Donor engine came from a 2001 S60 overhauled & bored out to match pistons.

 

Nissens 3" core FMIC (57mm O/D connections)

 

Custom 3" DP (Chris Tullett) with 200 cell cat.

 

Miltec 2.75" Cat back.

 

4" turbo maf cold inlet pipe with

 

I have a whole bunch of supporting mods including M56 with Quaiffe ATB LSD, bilstein shocks, Eibach prokit springs, IPD ARBs front & rear, Strut brace, Poly bushed top mount.

 

Photobucket library of the 1st round (prior to the 2nd shell failure) are here

 

I also have a Snabb TCV but at the time of the failure I was running the GTX on actuator pressure only (with a cheap MBC).

 

Mapping was the original ATP 19T map. Fueling was adequate for the boost I was running - 1.3 bar.

 

I have bought but not yet fitted a Blitz SBC I-color which I was going to use to control the boost more elegantly.

Edited by Wobbly Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbo Control & pipework Options

Firstly - I've been told that my ME7 ECU is too slow to cope with the GTX - Is TCV control out of the window once you start with these bigger turbos? I have not seen that many tuned ME7 running more than TD04 turbos.

 

Secondly - Does anyone know where I can get a post ECU speed & rpm signal from - I need to find one if I am to successfully plumb in the Blitz Controller.

 

Third

I've done a bag of research trying to figure out the best IC pipe diameter. Outlet from the compressor is 57mm. ETM inlet is 70mm. Filling the pipe with air induces lag but too narrow and the air becomes turbulent.

 

According to what I've read .4 mach is the speed at which air becomes turbulent & does not flow as well.

 

2" piping
 1.57 x 2 = 3.14 sq in
 300 cfm = 156 mph = 0.20 mach
 400 cfm = 208 mph = 0.27 mach
 500 cfm = 261 mph = 0.34 mach
 585 cfm max = 304 mph = 0.40 mach
 

2.25" piping
 3.9740625 sq in = 1.98703125 x 2
 300 cfm = 123 mph = 0.16 mach
 400 cfm = 164 mph = 0.21 mach
 500 cfm = 205 mph = 0.26 mach
 600 cfm = 247 mph = 0.32 mach
 700 cfm = 288 mph = 0.37 mach
740 cfm max = 304 mph = 0.40 mach
 

2.5" piping
 4.90625 sq in = 2.453125 x 2
 300 cfm = 100 mph = 0.13 mach
 400 cfm = 133 mph = 0.17 mach
 500 cfm = 166 mph = 0.21 mach
 600 cfm = 200 mph = 0.26 mach
 700 cfm = 233 mph = 0.30 mach
 800 cfm = 266 mph = 0.34 mach
 900 cfm = 300 mph = 0.39 mach
913 cfm max = 304 mph = 0.40 mach
 

My GTX's greatest efficiency flows between 360cfm >> 600cfm.

 

garrett-gtx3071r-turbo-content-1.jpg

77% lies within a pressure ratio of 1.6 to 2.6 which assuming certain atmospheric pressure and temp conditions would be a gauge pressure of between 0.8 bar and 1.7 (11.6 psi >> 24.65)

 

1lb/min = 14.472 cfm

 

assuming therefore that according to my graph my CFM could be as high as 650 - I should be OK on 2.25 inch pipe?

55cfm - the max that can occur before the choke line on the GTX is 795 cfm.

 

I've been vilified in the past for trying to suggest that having larger IC pipework is not the way forward?

 

According to Garrett, to make target peak horsepower of 400 Hp will require 36-44 lb/min of airflow to achieve that target.

I know the turbo can do this but what else can I do to help it along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbo Control & pipework Options

Firstly - I've been told that my ME7 ECU is too slow to cope with the GTX - Is TCV control out of the window once you start with these bigger turbos?

This first point is fundamental to your journey and I doubt that advice is correct.  Before you go anywhere with the hardware I would be finding somebody who can map this for you.

Secondly - Does anyone know where I can get a post ECU speed & rpm signal from - I need to find one if I am to successfully plumb in the Blitz Controller.

If the answer to question 1 is that the ECU/TCV are fine then hold off the EBC for now.  Sadly no idea on the speed/rpm signal.

Third

I've done a bag of research trying to figure out the best IC pipe diameter. Outlet from the compressor is 57mm. ETM inlet is 70mm. Filling the pipe with air induces lag but too narrow and the air becomes turbulent.

 

According to what I've read .4 mach is the speed at which air becomes turbulent & does not flow as well.

 

2" piping

 1.57 x 2 = 3.14 sq in

 300 cfm = 156 mph = 0.20 mach

 400 cfm = 208 mph = 0.27 mach

 500 cfm = 261 mph = 0.34 mach

 585 cfm max = 304 mph = 0.40 mach

 

2.25" piping

 3.9740625 sq in = 1.98703125 x 2

 300 cfm = 123 mph = 0.16 mach

 400 cfm = 164 mph = 0.21 mach

 500 cfm = 205 mph = 0.26 mach

 600 cfm = 247 mph = 0.32 mach

 700 cfm = 288 mph = 0.37 mach

740 cfm max = 304 mph = 0.40 mach

 

2.5" piping

 4.90625 sq in = 2.453125 x 2

 300 cfm = 100 mph = 0.13 mach

 400 cfm = 133 mph = 0.17 mach

 500 cfm = 166 mph = 0.21 mach

 600 cfm = 200 mph = 0.26 mach

 700 cfm = 233 mph = 0.30 mach

 800 cfm = 266 mph = 0.34 mach

 900 cfm = 300 mph = 0.39 mach

913 cfm max = 304 mph = 0.40 mach

 

My GTX's greatest efficiency flows between 360cfm >> 600cfm.

 

garrett-gtx3071r-turbo-content-1.jpg

77% lies within a pressure ratio of 1.6 to 2.6 which assuming certain atmospheric pressure and temp conditions would be a gauge pressure of between 0.8 bar and 1.7 (11.6 psi >> 24.65)

 

1lb/min = 14.472 cfm

 

assuming therefore that according to my graph my CFM could be as high as 650 - I should be OK on 2.25 inch pipe?

55cfm - the max that can occur before the choke line on the GTX is 795 cfm.

 

I've been vilified in the past for trying to suggest that having larger IC pipework is not the way forward?

 

According to Garrett, to make target peak horsepower of 400 Hp will require 36-44 lb/min of airflow to achieve that target.

I know the turbo can do this but what else can I do to help it along.

Massively out of my depth on that one, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the data you have posted 2.25 should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be more worried about "turbulence" caused by the intercooler itself than the pipework.

 

You've got air flowing nicely along a pipe in a reasonably laminar flow which is then sent crashing into an aluminium wall (end tank) at 90deg to the flow, then slammed against another wall (end of the core) which has only 50% passage causing huge pressure anomalies for all that air trying to pass, and the same again on the outlet of the I/C.

 

If I were to be worrying about "turbulence" in the induction system that's where I'd start worrying.

 

Worrying about pipework is only 5% of the concern you should have about the I/C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any change in cross-sectional area or shape at any point along any transmission path is a very bad thing indeed. (Lossy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most efficient way to move any liquid or gas is never to change the area or shape of the transmission channel.

 

SO. If you have a 2" outlet and a 2" inlet then don't use a 3" tube.

 

Where this gets difficult is when you have differing diameters at either end. That way the most efficient way is a long taper (not realistic in an engine bay).

 

But here you have a great big dumb lump of a catastrophe of an intercooler in the middle of your pipe.....

 

A bigger cross sectional area will flow better because you will have slower flow, and less friction (shear) at the walls.... BUT... Changing cross sectional area will probably cause more restriction in the resulting impedance change than you loose in the friction at the walls.

 

Then you've got the bends (I don't mean diving) any bend will resist the flow slightly and the more severe the bend the higher the resistance.

V70R4ME likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty screwed then with the size difference between intercooler outlet and ETM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be more worried about "turbulence" caused by the intercooler itself than the pipework - Worrying about pipework is only 5% of the concern you should have about the I/C

 

+1.  You have a decent intercooler and the pipe work will be there or thereabouts as is.  You can't change the size of the ETM either.  These causes of turbulence are unlikely to be remedied without massive R+D - your biggest power gain will be in getting the existing hardware (safely) reassembled and mapped appropriately.  It did well on the 19t map but that turbo has a lot more to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty screwed then with the size difference between intercooler outlet and ETM!

 

This is why I cut & shut the end of the original ETM plastic pipe work into my RIP kit - 1 because it has the sensor saddle & 2 it tapers out to the size ETM inlet.

 

Just that every time I've pointed this out to the likes of JT about the use of massive reducers from big 3 inch pipes going across the top of the engine - I get told to shut up.

 

My main issues lie within the fact I've not had enough time to fully develop the map (befoire it went plink).

 

Given a second bite of this cherry - I am not going to rush it this time - I plan to make it rev to 8K. Currently the red line was about 7300. I might be able to manage with 7600 - but I am just on the cusp in 3rd gear, going through the line.

 

So I am looking to take the best of the 2 cranks I have available & get those balanced & lightened. I've ordered a lightened crank pulley from Snabb already. Buy the TTV DMF replacement.

 

Going to lower the compression as well.

 

I have not yet polished or ported the head - yet - any good/trusted suppliers for that work?

 

Assurance work

I plan to shim the expansion slots. Use my old oil pump. Use 2 o-rings on the oil pickup pipe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I cut & shut the end of the original ETM plastic pipe work into my RIP kit - 1 because it has the sensor saddle & 2 it tapers out to the size ETM inlet.

Sounds fine to me Dave

Just that every time I've pointed this out to the likes of JT about the use of massive reducers from big 3 inch pipes going across the top of the engine - I get told to shut up.

 

My main issues lie within the fact I've not had enough time to fully develop the map (befoire it went plink).

 

Given a second bite of this cherry - I am not going to rush it this time - I plan to make it rev to 8K. Currently the red line was about 7300. I might be able to manage with 7600 - but I am just on the cusp in 3rd gear, going through the line.

If you need 8k for drag racing then it should be fine.  Mine used to rev out to 7500 quite happily in 2nd with a 19t - pointless in 3rd with that turbo but you will have much less back pressure.

So I am looking to take the best of the 2 cranks I have available & get those balanced & lightened. I've ordered a lightened crank pulley from Snabb already. Buy the TTV DMF replacement.

 

Going to lower the compression as well.

 

I have not yet polished or ported the head - yet - any good/trusted suppliers for that work?

Tim.

Assurance work

I plan to shim the expansion slots. Use my old oil pump. Use 2 o-rings on the oil pickup pipe.

Tidy.

j87ajr likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably down to a lack of talent or technique but I lose a lot of time building the pressure backup in between gear changes. Need a twin clutch set up LOL.

 

Changing into 4th has in the past lost time for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have bought but not yet fitted a Blitz SBC I-color which I was going to use to control the boost more elegantly.

 

My honest opinion is to stay away from using electronic controllers as far as possible - ME7, in the hands of someone who understands and can map them well gives very good (and certainly more than adequate) boost control and you get really good driveability too with the standard BCS setup.

 

Probably down to a lack of talent or technique but I lose a lot of time building the pressure backup in between gear changes.

 

This is almost certainly down to the BOV - I had precisely the same when I was running one and switching to a recirc BOV setup made no difference to the lag between gear changes.  I'm currently using a K24 (integrated recirc) and the boost pickup on gear changes is instant and pretty remarkable!

 

Just to clarify - are you using a standard MAF element in a 4" housing or are you just using a 4" MAF-turbo pipe (with suitable reducer(s)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MAF sensor is the standard one - from a 3 inch housing. Sensor was saturating at 5200rpm so to slow things up I got a 4 inch housing with Bosch boss on it...

 

4inchMaftopdown_zpsfbca5d35.jpg

 

I then had a 4 inch pipe for MAF to turbo (surge housing on the GTX compressor is 4 inch anyway) fabricated to include my recirc return...

 

4inchJvs70mm_zps11c2fbb3.jpg

 

Surge housing is shown here...

 

GTX3071Rcompressor_zps6a3c781f.jpg

 

4inchcompressor_zps98af0bff.jpg

 

I extended the heater matrix water pipes to allow it all to fit in...

 

newheaterhoses_zps4b5f168d.jpg

 

So to cut a long story short - it's 4 inch all the way.

 

RAMITGairfeed_zps5e7d92ca.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would strongly advise against reving to 8k with the stock breathing system even for short periods. If you want to avoid changing to 4th different ratios would be better and also make first far easier to control wheel spin. It may not be ideal on the road with such a high 3rd gear though.

 

MAF saturation shouldn't cause a massive problem if it's only at high loads and high RPM's, it's best if possible to avoid it but not always if at the expense of low RPM resolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8K is just an idea ATM. I assume you're talking about the stock PCV system right?

 

What would you advise as the top mods based on what I've said so far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MAF sensor is the standard one - from a 3 inch housing. Sensor was saturating at 5200rpm so to slow things up I got a 4 inch housing with Bosch boss on it...

 

Right, for starters I think the MAF scaling is going to need recalibration then and you may well lose out on the resolution at idle.

 

Have to agree with Tim on this one, if you're only getting MAF saturation above 5000rpm (presumably at WOT) then I don't really think its necessary to increase the MAF housing size; well the potential downsides far outweigh any gains IMO - with closed loop wide band WOT fueling on ME7 I would have thought you should still be able to get fairly decent mixture control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't do it 4 inch for fun or gains - it was to resolve the lack of control of the fueling above 5200 . As for the idling issues, these  only occurred temporarily at start up.

Edited by Wobbly Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't do it 4 inch for fun or gains - it was to resolve the lack of control of the fueling above 5200 .

 

Understood - but that's what I don't get; based on air consumption values your chosen tuning company should be able to control the fueling pretty well.  I've several friends who have fitted GT30s (both 3071 and 3076) on their ME7 Volvo cars and their MAFs undoubtedly saturate the same (if not earlier) than yours, but controlling the fueling has not been a problem whatsoever for them.  All I'm saying is the larger housing (and any problems associated with it) may not be necessary as I know of a fair few cars with similar hardware to yours which have been tuned and running since 2006, and none of them had any software (including boost control) issues when initially mapped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not adversed to reversing the change - I still have my previous 70mm based solution. It was overfueling like mad before the 4".

 

Virtually no work has been done to the custom 19T WOT map. The partial throttle map was tweaked to cope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So from my reading Dave you still have the 70mm piping, so to go down the road of reverting back to 70mm is easy with a new engine build!

The Problems you are currently worrying about is the mapping of ME7! I think you would be wise to Let Shark Performance do it! I really Think you should call them and see what they say about mapping? tell them your spec and they will tell you there and then pretty much what they can do? Don has even said they are worth a look!

I still think you have a very good array of bolt on tuning stuff, but should start again with a known working ME7 Engine, replace the crank shells, OS1 pistons & Rods get a flowed head, Throttle body, reground valves! if your clutch issues are ok then stick with what you have?

I still think using the 2 engines you have to make a good one is bonkers and will cost you in the long run in the mean Time Like I said speak to Dera at shark performance, from the battering he had on here he never failed to answer any questions!  

 

Cheers Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the blocks I have available have been evaluated I don't see the point in bringing yet more risk & uncertainty of a 3rd engine into play.

 

I was prior to the shell issue thinking about talking to Shark anyway.

Edited by Wobbly Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd get an 03 2.3 t5 and re ring it. New big end bearings. Shimmed liners. Flowed head with arp bolts.Job done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone considering modifying the MAF housing...

 

That little "chip cutter" grid is not there to stop you from sticking your fingers in the MAF.

 

The purpose of it is to reduce any unevenness in the airflow past the sensor to avoid reading errors.

 

It would be very sensible to replicate it in a modified housing.

 

It's the same theory they use in wind tunnels to create an even flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just that every time I've pointed this out to the likes of JT about the use of massive reducers from big 3 inch pipes going across the top of the engine - I get told to shut up.

 

People only tell you to "shut up" when they don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

 

Somebody who knows what they are talking about will explain your errors in a way that leaves you wiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0