legendaryCL98

from the pictures of the ITR with the turbo.. its not placed low enough to scrape a speed bump... and the mattress is soft.. and the turbo and piping are all welded.. ive hit a mattress before.. it dragged on my stock bumper and caught on fire too!

but.. seriously though.. how many mattress' do u see on the road everyday?

anywho.. nobody bought the kit yet for the car.. isnt it still a prototype being tested on domestic vehicles?

i dunno.. i think its a great idea!

ill probably look into it after the CL has a better aftermarket tranny out.. (cheaper then the bulletproof )

scalbert

If the secondary compressor is a roots style blower, then it would work fine. The positive displacement blower simply moves the cubic inches available regardless of density, well somewhat...

car_lost

what do you think of this system?

scalbert

Calling that kit excellent is a big stretch. It might work in producing boost but will be far from ideal in making good all around power.

I'll take up your challenge in providing the technical details in why this is far from optimal. Some assumptions will need to be made to calculate exhaust velocities as the catalytic converter and resonator are in the flow path which will both cool and slow the velocities. I'll get to these this evening when I have the time.

And yes, cooler exhuast will cause slower spooling. As the temperature decreases so does the pressure. It is the pressure differential across the turbine which causes it to spool faster/slower.

The Camaro would not be as much of a slouch due to the larger displacement engine. I also noticed on the plot that the Camaro lost 500 revs on the dyno. I suspect that the torque was dropping off quickly due to being a small compressor.

You may not hear of the big single turbo Suprs guys complaining as they are making good power. But looking at the plots from most they make squat for torque at 2500 RPM; less than even a 2.2CL makes. So their daily drive enjoyment is thrown out the window. That probably does not concern them as they are out to make big power and good trap speeds; not going light to light or fighting interstate traffic.

Actually that would still do very little as the heat transferred to the inside of the pipe is very low unless the surface area were increased dramatically. The only way to increase the internal surface area would be through internal vanes or embossing the surface; both would be expensive and also hamper flow.

scalbert

I think it is a lousy way of producing boost. But it certainly capable of make power with many trade offs though (moreso than what traditional systems would inject). I'll get into the details this evening.

scalbert

I have a few minutes before going into meetings. The first and most obvious issues are some which have been mentioned.

The filter location is an obvious concern for damage and cleanliness. There is also the concern with water ingestion.

The turbo location is prone to damage. Granted, it may not be damaged on a hit but the oil lines which would be run could be damaged which then jeopardizes the engine as well. Then there is the issue with vacuum lines, etc. The kit will definitely require a oil scavenging pump; where is it mounted and is it susceptible?? Also, could a jar to the turbo its self cause bearing failure or wheel(s) touching the housing.

The kit will remove both mufflers, it will be loud in normal conditions.

The kit will either keep the resonator and catalytic converter in place or not. If so it will decrease the gas velocity (as mentioned will be covered later) further decreasing spool rate/increasing the boost threshold. If not the car will not be legal nor will it be bearable.

I suspect it will give a very peaky torque curve.

There is more I am sure and as mentioned, it will work. But how well will need to be seen. And how much risk and inconvenience is willing to be accepted

Bluto

This kit looks like it would work well on trucks.

Lots of room in the back and underneath for the setup.
A lot of ground clearance.
Very easy to relocate the intake filter to a higher location.
V8 exhaust pressure.

SiGGy

never said it would make good all around power, really the CLS 6MT doesn't need more power out of the hole for street driving. It's traction challenged already /w just H/I/P. My "excellent" is based on an assumed cost of < $4000 and somewhat simple install... obviously it's not superior to a traditional turbo design. If the price is 1/2 of what a traditional install would be it makes it give it a small edge... (however i see the avg. price is $4k....)

Cool, I was hoping someone would. I don't have a good understanding of air dynamics and calculating pressure differentials based on temp and flow rates. I'd have to do some major reading I just don't like seeing people make statments based on their "guesses" and making it sound like it's fact/proven.

However without real test benchmarks I wonder how close +/- you'll be.: cat design and flow, pipe bends that you don't know about, turbo specs...

really it'll be a guess...

Right, the manual CLS already has traction problems from a stop, hence utilizing power up top would be a good thing...

Right, that's what I was getting at, cost I didn't take into consideration as I don't know the manufacturing costs. Be interesting to add up the surface area though.

SiGGy

Really no worse than 90% of CAI installs I see. (i.e. without the splash guard)
Agreed, but for you to hit something up that high I'd be worried about other damage. Gas tank, headers, trans pan.

Ya, that could get old real quick on a car like the CLS. But look at all the guys running around with that annoying drone exhaust sound? I'm assuming the majority of folks don't care. Guess I'm in the minority group, I'd hate any drone exhaust sound.


ya, thats a no-no for everyone (removing the cat). However the installs I have seen the cat is still in place.

Ya, I'd expect it to be a wall of power you hit at some point.

I really think the best comparsion would be equal boost comparison between a traditional style turbo setup and STS's (dyno comparison) However I don't know how one would consider the turbo's equally matched.

Dan Martin

I don't buy their reasoning for lack of turbo lag. Pressure is pressure. More tubing = more air to compress. I don't care what turbo they use, it's not going to perform as well as a turbo that is mounted closer to the engine.

That setup easily has 3 to 4 times as much plumbing to pressurize as a standard turbo setup.

av6ent

As far as concern on water getting into filter underneath the car the K&N shield can be used. Its not like your riding on the lake .

scalbert

It isn't only about worry of hydrolock.

The greater exposure to larger amounts of water will decrease the oil content quicker. Although this is not a huge concern as cleaning and oiling the filter is easy, it should known. Also, damage to the filter could occur more easily resulting in whatever else being ingested and damaging the compressor wheel and/or the engine.

That shield would be a welcome addition.

02AV6

Thats what R&D will come into play analyzing pro and cons for each car and delivering
the results (assuming the demand is high).


Steve, here is more detailed article I found on Hot Rodding magazine illustrating the STS installation and the gains based on Camaro SS from 313whp (stock) to 463whp/511wtq (7psi).

http://popularhotrodding.com/tech/0411phr_sts/

Regardless, I'd still prefer the MP90 with my low CR

scalbert

I disagree, most CAI leave the splash guard in place and it serves a purpose. Removing it is just plain stupid. Plus, being at the front of the vehicle minimalizes the problem of splashing or debris bouncing around and hitting the intake.

Look at what some of the most powerful CLs have done, left the stock exhaust intact. But this would be beyond simple droning, it would be down right abnoxious.

That would further decrease the potential.

Spec'd flow rates on the turbo would be a start.

scalbert

Considering I have seen flow tests for our catalytic converters, even helped design the system used, I have a good idea. At least it will be an educated guess.

Yes an no, the low speed acceleration is irrelevant as any major torque increase will cause a loss of traction anywhere in the rev band. But I don't think this kit will increase top end power too much. It will probably decrease the top end potential noticeably.

The turbo will probably be sized to give a nice mid-range punch. With the loss of exhaust velocity and decreased pressure, the turbo would have to be fairly small to delivery power in a useable manner. Even looking at the Camaro's dyno it appears the power drops off as the plot was clipped 500 RPM early. And this is with a larger engine which could certainly give more flow down low. If they size it to give torque at 4k revs, it maye run out of steam by 6k revs on the J-Series.

For instance, look at allmotor's previous turbo system compared to the current one. That shows what what a change in turbo's size can do. If they provide a turbo which keeps going to the 7k rev limit, I suspect the boost threshold will be too high for normal use.

scalbert

You know very well what the demand from the Acura/Honda crowd will be.

A bunch of, "if it were $2000 less I would buy it in a second". Or, "I'm in" until it actually becomes available.

That is the thing, it will still be costly and with some serious trade-offs.

SiGGy

from what potential would it be decreased? I don't think I understand what you mean by this.

(if you have time) I look forward to your flow numbers. I'm curious to see the results.

Make sure you checkout the dyno's from popular hot rodding.

02AV6

scalbert

Potential compared to other turbo kits using a similarly sized turbo.

I'll work on the flow numbers tonight.

I saw the dyno and just as before, they stop the chart well before the fuel cut off.

SiGGy

ya, agreed. And for the money setup the turbo in a better fasion. I would think with the lack of need for custom headers, and the simple piping to the rear the cost would have been significantly cheaper $1500 less than a regular turbo setup. Maybe they are re-cooping R&D money spent?

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Hmm...interesting article...

I'd be interested in seeing what an application for a FWD car would look like...

ThinJim

iTrader: (3)

did you change the blower body from a 62 to a 90? That's a great idea and one that I tantalized about before taking on a whole new direction. Where did you get the M90 blower, from eaton directly?



http://www.automotive.eaton.com/prod...erchargers.asp

http://www.automotive.eaton.com/prod...argers/M62.asp

http://www.automotive.eaton.com/prod...argers/M90.asp

links for those who want to edumacate yourselves. You'll find the m62, which is used by comptech for our supercharger application is the same diminsions as the m90, but the m90 huffs more air down the throat of our motors.

02AV6

No MP90 yet, I need to max out the MP62 first but thats the future plan.

Scalbert is my Hope System

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

They are the same length but the MP90 is slightly wider and taller than the MP62. I wonder how different the mounting points are? Seeing as the length is identical, no modifications would need to be made to the shaft or the throttle body side of the blower. But would it bolt directly up?

02AV6

The dimensions are also different but it can be fixed. Most important inlet/outlet ports have to be modified/replaced
Here is the drawing showing both:

scalbert

If using the same jack shaft, which is should fit fine according to Magnuson's information, it should bolt right up to the main mounting plate. The first problem is the inlet. With the unit being wider a new inlet and TB adapter plate would need to be made. That isn't too hard and could be fabricated for a few hundred $$. This may also necessitate the need for new intake plumbing. But at this point it may want to be done anyway and wouldn't cost more than about $100 to cobble together.

The other item which would need to be fabricated is the blower discharge. This would also be fairly easy for a good fabricator and could be done out of plate and sheet metal in a couple of hours. So maybe another $300 to do it.

The other question is if there is 0.525 inches clearance in the body and the fan shroud. I know it was tight with the TL but what about the AV6?? Regardless, that is something with certainly could be made to work.

However, this does not include the cost of the blower body its self. You could probably get the body, with your jack shaft installed, for about $1000 from Magnuson. In the end it would probably run upwards of $2000 to move to the MP90. About the only one I know of who could fully utilize this is you.

scalbert

Back on topic now. Sorry about not getting onto the number last night SiGGy, I had to get the numbers together for a budgetary MES proposal. I'll try and get back on it tonight. But if you want to know some general ideas on gas flow velocities, they are most likely in the 250 ft/sec range on the exhaust side, and upwards of 350 - 400 ft/sec on the intake side.

How much heat transfer will actually occur between the turbo and the intake manifold in a fraction of a second?? The answer would be little to none. Especially when considering that the thin walled intake tubing with insulating air around it is a terrible transfer element. A cast iron tube would be more beneficial but certainly heavy.

Anyway, I did get to check some reference material and we now have even more conflicting material. According to Corky Bell one of the primary concerns in building the exhaust manifold for a turbo vehicle is heat retention. This conflicts with their claim.

In the end I suspect that what we have is a simple compromise. Yes, it will produce boost and increase power but most likely what an OEM set up would do. Give a nice mid-range punch which gives a great feel. But it runs out of steam as the revs climb making it less ideal for racing. The compromises with price is that there is less flexibility in the power range than a more costly and traditionally styled turbo system such as allmotor's. His will make more power over a wider range but costs more. About the only comparable power adder that is similar in price is the Comptech SC. I suspect this turbo may make more torque in the mid range but not down low or on the top end. Just speculation though.

My view on this is that if someone were to sacrifice their mufflers in the sake of gaining power; first, why not get a different car. But more importantly, why not just spend more and do it correctly making a powerful yet civilized vehicle. But that is me and other people have their own take.

Joe5.0

Would make a great sleeper system though.

Lets say for the sake of argument that a J32 responds as well to this type of turbo as that LS1 in the PHR article. Assuming 220whp the same % gain would put the J32 at 295whp. Thats about what a CT SC/headers puts down. In this graph it looks like it puts down ~420rwhp at 5 psi, so no I'm not comparing it to the higher boost number. And it doesnt appear that the tq curve, nor the hp curve takes any astronomical dives, but they do stop short of redline, so thats debateable.




I think the fact that it doesnt make full boost until 3k may be a benefit to a fwd setup like the CL-S. Even at stock hp levels the drivetrain cant really handle the amount of tq the J32 produces, and I know I dont have any experience with the CT SC, but its gotta make launching 10x harder when you have full boost nearly off idle.

I think a proper turbo setup in the engine probably is more practical, and thats what I would do if I was to ever want to make my CL-S fast.

SiGGy

NP, I just enjoy the conversation. everyone is busy this time of the year. I'm way behind on my stuff to do...

scalbert

Yep, the end of the year budget review; use it or lose it rush.

02AV6

I can certainly look into it soon.
Well, what a hell I'll do it
(sometime next year)

scalbert

Let me know if there is any information I provide or if I can be of any help.

02AV6

bigman

Scalbert, any reason why the LS1 guys are praising this setup. Its a lot cheaper than the usual twin turbo kit, and seems more problem free then a head/cam/boltons job. Let me know. I am currently debating which way to go on my LS1.

scalbert

I am sure it is much less expensive than a twin turbo set up. I am also fairly sure the overall gains are less as there is a trade off. I am also pretty confident that it is louder than the other TT kits. I think this dictates why some like it...

It costs less and makes decent gains but the same may not apply to the J-Series; we'll have to see though.

The LT1/LS1 engine makes good torque down low and doesn't spin that high to begin with. A nice jump in torque from boost over a few thousand RPM would be well received. If the sound level is acceptable as well as the other risks, and with the price being where it is, it is obvious why many are attracted to it.

However, a SB without mufflers sounds fine. A J-Series without mufflers does not.

IMO, the J-Series implementation is different in many ways which is why I don't not think it will be as succesful.

allmotor_2000

Bottom line it is not going to make as much power as a conventional-mounted system - even if it does the low-end range will be awful. You have to have a very quick-spooling turbo to get max boost < 3K RPMs and then forget about the top-end.

Hurleysurf24

yea and that small turbo is going to be a gt25 or ko3sport size which is going to yield maybee 25 horespower increase if its tuned perfectly to the car if its mounted in that position

Hurleysurf24

you guys are forgetting that people do drop there cars, and im sure if someone is buying this they do have the mod bug and will probably allready be dropped so that can pose a problem to placement as well

rezurex

i'd be interested in seeing it on the CL but i would probably rather go with a conventional turbo. now if the price of a custom turbo manifold wasn't $3K for the J32A2....

allmotor_2000

It's ot $3K I can get a mild-steel manifold done for much cheaper... probably $1200 after we make the first one