6.4L ProCharger/SuperCharger/Turbo Charger Compound Setups

389sixpack · May 23, 2011

6.4L ProCharger/SuperCharger/Turbo Charger Compound Setups

Show us what have. Performance info? Track times? Dyno info?

Discuss.

Dzchey21 · May 23, 2011

First set up stock turbos

584 corrected

13.7@98 6000 ft

Single turbo GT4294

580 Corrected, stock fuel system

never ran fuel only but went 12.4@110 @6000 feet 60 nozzles and nitrous
7.86@86 1/8 mile

Single turbo precision

Dyno'd 619 on nitrous

7.79@90 mph 1/8 mile Calculated to about 800 hp @ sea level

F1C/GT4294

Dyno'd 620 corrected @ 6000 feet pretty smooth graph 110 nozzles

pulled belt ran the GT4294

Dyno'd 640 corrected, peaky graph

both dyno'd the best on a low hp tune with only 1.75 sec of PW

a_moore · May 23, 2011

Do you have the map for both with and without the pc during the dyno runs for comparison?

mike@haller's · May 23, 2011

If dustin doesn't have em I can print em off again. As long as he's cool with it.

a_moore · May 23, 2011

I was after (manifold absolute pressure) boost. Just to see what the difference was. Graph would be cool.

Dzchey21 · May 23, 2011

peak absolute pressure never changed between the two...

49 psi absolute in case your wondering

a_moore · May 24, 2011

So the pc took 20hp to drive, basically. Wow, I thought they would have taken more. Since your boost pressure was equal this was a good look at the drive requirements of the pc.

With the smoother curve, is it worth the trouble/cost to run a pc for a dd? Does it operate better on the street with it, enough to justify?

Thanks for the info

Dzchey21 · May 24, 2011

I went to a tighter exhaust housing on the 42... its custom actually, and with the PC, and its pretty fun to drive now on the street, however its not making much more power than a stock turbo'd truck would, that drives even better than mine does.

Tow powers would probably net the same power, better driveability for a cheaper cost to be honest.

I think there is some power to be had with the procharger by spinning it faster but im already slipping the 8 rib belt as is, but at 2500 rpm unloaded the pc is feeding the turbo about 4psi of air, but when you load the turbo down to full boost the pc is only maintaining about .5 psi into the turbo

Charles · May 24, 2011

a_moore said:
So the pc took 20hp to drive, basically. Wow, I thought they would have taken more. Since your boost pressure was equal this was a good look at the drive requirements of the pc.

With the smoother curve, is it worth the trouble/cost to run a pc for a dd? Does it operate better on the street with it, enough to justify?

Thanks for the info

It took a lot more than that to drive. When running compounded the 42 would have had to have been running a way, way lower PR if the manifold pressure was identical between the runs with and without the PC in the circuit.

When the belt was removed the gate would have closed down more and forced the turbo to produce the full desired manifold pressure in a single stage, meaning the power the turbine was forced to extract from the exhaust went up tremendously vs when it had the PC compressor doing work and powering itself through the serpentine that was burning up trying to supply this power.

The 20hp is the additional parasitic loss of the mechanical drive. Or in another sense, it tells you the power the turbine is able to extract by way of latent exhaust heat that is otherwise wasted on a belt-driven setup. What would really be an eye-opener would be to run the engine with a single stage PC alone. Then you would see even lower power output still as it would be making no use of the latent heat in the exhaust at all. In this case the PC had the benefit of splitting the stage between itself and the 42, whereas the 42 had to do it all by itself. If you forced the PC to do it all by itself the power would be even worse. Or conversely, if you allowed the 42 to work in conjunction with another turbine powered compressor in a compound turbo setup, it would have made even more than 640.

But the total power required to drive the PC was far greater than 20. Depending on flow and pressure it would not be uncommon to tack another 100 or more in front of that.

You don't shred 8 rib serpentines at 20.

a_moore · May 24, 2011

Charles said:
It took a lot more than that to drive. When running compounded the 42 would have had to have been running a way, way lower PR if the manifold pressure was identical between the runs with and without the PC in the circuit.

When the belt was removed the gate would have closed down more and forced the turbo to produce the full desired manifold pressure in a single stage, meaning the power the turbine was forced to extract from the exhaust went up tremendously vs when it had the PC compressor doing work and powering itself through the serpentine that was burning up trying to supply this power.

The 20hp is the additional parasitic loss of the mechanical drive. Or in another sense, it tells you the power the turbine is able to extract by way of latent exhaust heat that is otherwise wasted on a belt-driven setup. What would really be an eye-opener would be to run the engine with a single stage PC alone. Then you would see even lower power output still as it would be making no use of the latent heat in the exhaust at all. In this case the PC had the benefit of splitting the stage between itself and the 42, whereas the 42 had to do it all by itself. If you forced the PC to do it all by itself the power would be even worse. Or conversely, if you allowed the 42 to work in conjunction with another turbine powered compressor in a compound turbo setup, it would have made even more than 640.

But the total power required to drive the PC was far greater than 20. Depending on flow and pressure it would not be uncommon to tack another 100 or more in front of that.

You don't shred 8 rib serpentines at 20.

Agreed, I mean that for a given amount of boost, a single turbo will be more efficient (even with a higher drive pressure) than a pc/turbo setup. So......compounds will be even more efficient.

Thanks Dustin for the info.

Dzchey21 · May 24, 2011

No problem

For the record i just ordered piping and flanges for a new twin set up... so im laying the p/c to rest.

a_moore · May 24, 2011

I got my hp figured out, just need to work on the lp more.

Good luck with the new setup.

Matt · May 24, 2011

What's the new set up going to be, Dustin? Or is it secret?

Dzchey21 · May 24, 2011

71/86 for now, thats ill im telling untill it runs LOL, but i will post pics of the build when it starts, i should have all my parts soon, need to find another ride to drive around while i work on it.

Matt · May 24, 2011

Nice. I'm guessing its a garrett 86, don't know the proper term for it.

Dzchey21 · May 24, 2011

actually im running borg warner turbos this go around

Matt · May 24, 2011

Nothing wrong with that. Did you go with an s371 or an s471? If you don't mind me asking. I was talking with Chris at E.D. and he told me, that you can go to an s371, but there just isn't any gains over an s366, cover won't flow enough for it.

Jeff@Spartan · May 24, 2011

Stock turbo's

594/1220 - fuel only on Dunbar's dyno
[email protected] - fuel only at 7600 lbs at Z-Max Dragway

Dzchey21 · May 25, 2011

Matt said:
Nothing wrong with that. Did you go with an s371 or an s471? If you don't mind me asking. I was talking with Chris at E.D. and he told me, that you can go to an s371, but there just isn't any gains over an s366, cover won't flow enough for it.

its not a standard off the shelf 71, but i honestly dont know all the specs, im pretty sure the housing is bigger but like i said, once i get the turbo ill post some pics