turbobluestreak Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Ok guys let put away all the money is better spent else where and its not necessary until X amount of hp. I want to discuss just theory because it seems to me that turbo exhaust header theory is very hard to come by. Now I've made a model for what I believe to be ideal for a L6 turbo header. Here are the pics http://www.needmoreboost.com/turbobluestreak/headertest.jpg http://www.needmoreboost.com/turbobluestreak/headertest2.jpg http://www.needmoreboost.com/turbobluestreak/headertest3.jpg http://www.needmoreboost.com/turbobluestreak/headertest4.jpg http://www.needmoreboost.com/turbobluestreak/headertest5.jpg http://www.needmoreboost.com/turbobluestreak/headertest6.jpg http://www.needmoreboost.com/turbobluestreak/headertest7.jpg http://www.needmoreboost.com/turbobluestreak/headertest8.jpg note I've grouped 135 and 246 I'm not really sure what this will do I'm guessing increase scavenging but I really don't know all I know is that OS Giken grouped one header like this and from what I've seen no other manufacture has ever grouped a header like this. Also I've gone with a 3-2-1 grouping to hopefully broaden the rpm rang of the header. And the primary is 1.5 and secondary 2.5 Ok guys tear this apart and give me some feedback. tbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjo046 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Wow! That's all I have to say. If you or someone else were to start making those I would definately want one! It looks awesome! Will that design yeild equal lengths on all of the primaries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuhow Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I like it. the problems I see are: 1) I don't think it will fit 2) If it does fit, I think the turbo will need some support. That moment arm from the cylinder head surface to the turbo surface looks to be way too long- I'm guessing it's about 16" as shown. 3) I'm thinking it's better to group 1-2-3 and 4-5-6. Scavaging isn't going to be such a big factor before the turbo. 4) you're going to lose a lot of heat in those long tubes, so you'll need some insulation 5) that's going to be expensive to make Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritech-z Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 It's my understanding that angling the wastegate mounting tube so that the exiting exhaust gasses have as smooth a path as possible into it is ideal, but it should work just fine how you have it. It seems to me at least to be a very good design, and I only have nit-picky things that don't appeal to me personally and may or may not matter in the long run. One of these would be the angle that your two collector tubes meet at before the turbo flange could be a little smoother so that the exhaust pulses don't interfere with each other as much. The manifold I was designing for myself would keep these tubes seperate all the way to the flange, since I'm using a T-04 with a split housing in an attempt to promote spool-up. Also since the z fires at 1-5-3-6-2-4, I was going to group 123 and 456, that way each pulse would hit a different side of the turbine wheel with each exhaust pulse...I would have a balance tube between the two final tubes for the wastegate. Not to intrude my design over yours, just kind of thinking out loud... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbobluestreak Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 Well the lengths would be the same for all. As it is right now the turbo sets about 11inches out from the head and the exhaust pipes only go out 8-9inches it might fit I'll have to check and make sure it fits my zx. Also yes I do see now that my wastegate and final collector needs to be changed thanks. But I'm still interested in the 135, 246 as to what it might do for me. I might have to email os giken and ask the man himself why he did it like that. My theory is that because the order is 153624 then the first 3 grouped and the second 3 grouped will create banks first to fire and second to fire and maybe when #1 exhaust and reflects that it will have a greater effect in helping 3 and 5 to exhaust. tbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjo046 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I would think that the reason for the 135, 246 design is that it makes it easier to make a compact equal length header, without too many bends etc. That was what struck me the moment I saw this header. I totally agree about altering the angle at which the secondaries connect to the collector. That is easily fixed by just letting the secondaries go more head on eachother in the beginning and then let them bend so that they go nearly parallell to eachother when they merge. This way you could perhaps shorten the length outwards before the turbo flange. This would also put less stress on it all. As for the wastegate tube, simply angling it 45 degrees towards the turbo would fix that problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad-ManQ45 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 If you do not have a divided turbine housing, the use of two 3 into one design is moot. Equally spaced exhaust pulses on both sides of the divided housing promote a quicker spool. For undivided turbine housings, having all six pipes merge together at the same place is more than adequate. Packaging issues may make it simpler to do the two-halves approach, and it makes no difference which three you use where, as they all merge at the same collector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIM73240Z Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 i was getting ready to go to my steel fabricator guy to try to make one. i really like your set up better than the other one that was just bought on ebay. that one was floating around here and looked like a bundled up mess. in theory it should work. i needed to have a knee brace on my header because i am using a gt40 turbo and i weights 31 lbs. equal tubes will greatly lessen lag in a turbo that big. good call. jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73ZCAR Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Hey, Jim where in mesa are you? I'd be interested to see your ride. Mike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIM73240Z Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 i am over at southern and val vista. my car is in the garage right now down to nothing. trying to get it on to a rotisserie so that i can replace floors and a frame rail. add subframe connectors while i am at it. i drive by daves house to and from work every day. it is easy for me to stop by and see what new things are in the works. i have a shed that is getting full of parts to put the thing back together. waiting for dave new suspension so that i have all of the parts for the road race assembly. pm me later jimbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ZFury Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Looks great to me! The only thing I saw to think about was to check your design to make sure your 3 into 1 fitting peice is allowed enough room in there. Your pipes are curved all the way up to their meeting point, I think you will need some more room there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
col Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Awesome drawings,how much time did it take to draw.Ive thought of using cad drawing to think out loud.seeing on paper is better than seeing in your head.could you draw it and the intake together? col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue_leaf Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Great design! What sort of program did you use to draw that up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 280ZForce Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 yeah i agree w/ col, please add in intake manifold and check for clearances around the engine bay. I could be wrong but where the 2 main collectors start to come up and then merge on top looks a little high to clear the underside of the intake manifold. but if you know your exact tolerances and give them some lei way then more power to ya. but the design looks awesome and would love to see something like this made, but it just looks a lil too close to the intake for comfort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonomaz Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Nice Pics, looks like Solid Works. 1) The L engine sits at an angle in the bay (5, 10 or 15 degrees) so I think with the straight design the Turbo will be over the drivers fender. If you angle them both you could put it in the fender well (but I guess the strut is there) 2) The length and weight issue could be solved by gusseting. A triangle plate between the head flange and the secondary tubes would be a huge improvment for strength to the turbo mount and then weld a tall (2 or 3 inches) verticle rib to the bottom of the triangle plate (Think T section) should do it. 3)123 456 seams very reasonable because the firing order is like two, three cylinder engines attached together. So swapping 2 for 5 seams like the same difference. 4)I have no turbo manifold experience but I would think the difference between log style and header style would be spool up time. Header style would be great for quick spool and therefore road race? Log style Would be for max flow and pressure, therefore dragrace. 5)Just a basic thought but for high pressure I would assume that under full throttle and long engine wind up (say 2 to 8 K RPM) the pressure in the intake will about equal the pressure in the exhaust so at 15 to 25 psi you just want a realy big realy short pipe. More later Very cool design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad-ManQ45 Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 A log type manifold will limit power. Check out Hugh MacInnes TURBOCHARGING. They talked about a 2 liter BMW that was making 540 HP w/a log manifold, then went to a tuned header and picked up 60 HP. Changing the cam to take advantage of the tuned header got another 40 HP. THey then went on to using a divided turbine housing with a split collector (still tuned). They didn't pick up any power, but spool was nearly instantaneous. What I got from the example: Tuned (equal length) headers will produce the most power. For drag racing, you don't need to go with a divided turbine housing and associated split collector design, but for autox and road racing, it would be a GOOD thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue_leaf Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 A log type manifold will limit power.Changine the cam to take advantage of the tuned header got another 40 HP. Could you please explain in more detail how can you match cam profile to exhaust manifold style as I dont have the book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbobluestreak Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share Posted July 26, 2006 I'll have to get my model back from my friend and then I can add in my intake manifold. See my intake sets higher up then the factory L6. Also I just ran a CFD on my intake and was dissapointed with the results . unequal flow and a vortex is generated just after the throttle body. That sucks wish I had this software years ago. tbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preith Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Innovator Z's (now defunct) website had a picture of an actual header almost identical to you drawings. The only difference was the turbo flange was closer to the block. I couldn't sworn I saved it but am unable to find it at the moment. From what I heard Dave Dutko (the owner) had change in jobs, moved out of state, and subsequently closed the doors a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 I'm no theoretician. My thinking would be velocity, velocity, velocity. The turbo exhaust header needs to move the exhaust gasses as fast as possible in as short a distance as practical. Tubing size should match port size, as few bends as space allows, equal lengths, shallow merge collector, etc. Everything after the turbo should be as big and open as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.