which turbo for 450 on a classic?
04 November 2006, 09:12 PM
#6
I very much doubt that an MD321 T will be capable of 450 bhp on a 2 litre. It might do that on a 2.5 litre but it is unlikely on only 2 litres.
You might want to look into the GT30 turbos sold by many including Roger Clark Motorsport. Also have a word with Kevin at Owen Developments.
You might want to look into the GT30 turbos sold by many including Roger Clark Motorsport. Also have a word with Kevin at Owen Developments.
Last edited by harvey; 04 November 2006 at 09:15 PM.
05 November 2006, 11:23 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Nottingham with 620BHP & 530lb/ft @1.5bar boost on road fuel.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WRXshaneWRX
hi all, which turbo would be best for 450hp but minimal lag
They spool up better than you might think as well, we have customers using them on VW 1.8 litre engines making some pretty impressive power as well.
The FP Green is a well tried and tested unit, it's pretty much "Ronseal".
Trending Topics
05 November 2006, 08:52 PM
#8
Drag it!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Flame grilled Wagon anyone?
Posts: 9,866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, you may wish to address a link on your home page 
Scoobynet goes down hill
I dont know of an MD321T that has been run on a 2l yet, but on the basis of how they operate on a 2.5, i dont see why the turbo couldnt achieve 450 on a 2l, just somewhat later in the rev range.
Harvey, are you suggesting a full on GT30, or a GT30 cored turbo in OEM position.
Scoobynet goes down hill
I very much doubt that an MD321 T will be capable of 450 bhp on a 2 litre. It might do that on a 2.5 litre but it is unlikely on only 2 litres.
You might want to look into the GT30 turbos sold by many including Roger Clark Motorsport. Also have a word with Kevin at Owen Developments.
You might want to look into the GT30 turbos sold by many including Roger Clark Motorsport. Also have a word with Kevin at Owen Developments.
Harvey, are you suggesting a full on GT30, or a GT30 cored turbo in OEM position.
06 November 2006, 09:19 AM
#13
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wellingborough, Northamptonshire
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Einstein RA
What's your opinion about the aforementioned MD321T yay or nay?
07 November 2006, 01:11 AM
#14
Mike, you may wish to address a link on your home page
Scoobynet goes down hill
Quote:
I very much doubt that an MD321 T will be capable of 450 bhp on a 2 litre. It might do that on a 2.5 litre but it is unlikely on only 2 litres.
You might want to look into the GT30 turbos sold by many including Roger Clark Motorsport. Also have a word with Kevin at Owen Developments.
I dont know of an MD321T that has been run on a 2l yet, but on the basis of how they operate on a 2.5, i dont see why the turbo couldnt achieve 450 on a 2l, just somewhat later in the rev range.
Harvey, are you suggesting a full on GT30, or a GT30 cored turbo in OEM position.
Scoobynet goes down hill
Quote:
I very much doubt that an MD321 T will be capable of 450 bhp on a 2 litre. It might do that on a 2.5 litre but it is unlikely on only 2 litres.
You might want to look into the GT30 turbos sold by many including Roger Clark Motorsport. Also have a word with Kevin at Owen Developments.
I dont know of an MD321T that has been run on a 2l yet, but on the basis of how they operate on a 2.5, i dont see why the turbo couldnt achieve 450 on a 2l, just somewhat later in the rev range.
Harvey, are you suggesting a full on GT30, or a GT30 cored turbo in OEM position.
My last experience with an MD321 was last week.
I am told by the purchaser that he wanted 450 plus bhp turbo and he was sold an MD321L that would do "over 450 bhp". He further informed me the difference between an MD321L and MD321T was that the latter spooled quicker but power output was the same.
The MD321L was fitted to a 97 STi3 with JUN 2.1 litre kit and Apexi ECU.
In February on the same rollers (Dyno Dynamics) this car made 349 bhp. It was felt the engine compression ratio was too high, further work was done and it was mapped by others.
Last week, before any adjustments were made the car achieved a best run of 368.2 bhp 356 ft.lbs over 5100 rpm. Numerous runs were done experimenting with fuelling, ignition, boost, duty cycle etc.. The final power figure was 391.3 bhp and 366 ft.lbs below 5000 rpm.
There were some issues related to the breathing / inlet tract and it was decided these should be addressed before a repeat run on the rollers to fairly determine the ability of the turbo but the initial conclusion is that even at 2.1 litres this particular turbo will struggle to do much more than 400 bhp and it is certainly not a 450 bhp turbo on a 2 litre car.
Whether this is a representative MD321L I cannot say.
Last edited by harvey; 07 November 2006 at 01:14 AM.
07 November 2006, 09:31 AM
#15
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wellingborough, Northamptonshire
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested to see what a 'T' does in that situation compared to the 'L'
Seems you had a very similar experience to me, and not the breakthrough that was hoped for.
Seems you had a very similar experience to me, and not the breakthrough that was hoped for.
07 November 2006, 10:56 AM
#16
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 8.95 @ 168mph. Zero to 1KM 194.1mph
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harvey,
Please can you tell me what boost you would expect to run to achieve circa 450bhp on a 2.0lt, or a 2.1lt ?
Please can you tell me what boost the car you describe was running to achieve the 368.2bhp ?
Please can you explain your reasoning as to how a turbo can achieve 450bhp on a 2.5lt engine, but is unlikely to achieve it on a 2.0lt, taking into account that a 2.0lt would either need to run more boost, or need to achieve it's power at higher RPM to get a similar result ?
Mark.
Please can you tell me what boost you would expect to run to achieve circa 450bhp on a 2.0lt, or a 2.1lt ?
Please can you tell me what boost the car you describe was running to achieve the 368.2bhp ?
I very much doubt that an MD321 T will be capable of 450 bhp on a 2 litre. It might do that on a 2.5 litre but it is unlikely on only 2 litres.
Mark.
08 November 2006, 11:51 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by harvey
For 450 bhp there is absolutely no need to consider a turbo mounted in anything other than the OE position.
There are plenty of turbos out there that can deliver that sort of power without needing to rotate. I would suggest the practical upper limit of a stock location turbo would be in the order of 500BHP.....
Originally Posted by harvey
this particular turbo will struggle to do much more than 400 bhp and it is certainly not a 450 bhp turbo on a 2 litre car.
FWIW, the MD321L is quite rare, not many were ever made because most people aiming for >450BHP were going for full Garretts with a rotated setup. Because of this there are only few to compare against. The one unit that was supplied, fitted and mapped at ScoobyClinic made 450BHP on a 2.5 litre engine, running plain road fuel. This would suggest that the turbo itself is capable and your problem lies elsewhere.... although this particular MD321L hadn't run out of air, a decision was made not to continue pushing it because of concerns over other components in the drivetrain.
Thus far, I have never seen an MD321T fail to make 450BHP on a 2.5 litre. A "2 litre version", the MD321H, also exists which sacrifices some top end power for spool; on an 2 litre AVCS car it achieved full boost at 3050 RPM and went on to make around 400BHP (limited by injector flow, airflow was still rising). On a non-AVCS car it achieved full boost at 3300 RPM on the road and recorded 407BHP on the dyno, this time "limited" by unknown engine internals.... Again this is on road fuel without any additives. All quoted figures measured on Dyno Dynamics rollers.
For the benefit of others who have not experienced them, I'll try to relate the way they drive to things people are more likely to have encountered... The MD321H "feels" like a VF34, just with more power and torque but the same throttle response. Similarly, the MD321T on a 2.5 litre with AVCS "feels" like a TD04L on a 2 litre (full boost at 2700 RPM), it's virtually lagless. Without AVCS it "feels" closer to a TD05H on a 2 litre, taking a little longer to wind up (full boost around 3200RPM). No data is presently available for MD321T on 2 litre, but one would expect it to achieve full boost around 3700RPM without AVCS.
Cheers,
Pat.
09 November 2006, 12:18 AM
#18
I had a td05/06 on my classic with lots of surporting mods and I did not ever get 400 bhp, Then on my V7 sti This had one fitted when I got it , This did not get near 400bhp with it . Then I got a TD06 fitted , Over 400 bhp >> No probs , But now a MD321T >>>> NICE .
09 November 2006, 01:46 AM
#19
Increasing the target boost actually reduced power.
The actual WG solenoid duty was reduced from the original setting as we found it and with the other mapping changes this then resulted in an increase in BHP of 20 odd bhp and a little more torque.
You are in this commercially Mark so do your own R+D.
Pat.
Clearly you have missed something. See my post above. This bit here:
When it was obvious the turbo was well short of previously reported and anticipated output, I phoned the purchaser to clarify the situation and jotted down the information on my contemporaneous notes.
The purchaser was very clear.
He wanted a 450+ bhp turbo.
He was sold a MD321. Initially he had referred to it as a MD321T but later in the day clarified this as being an MD 321L
He was told the difference between an "L" and "T" was earlier spool on the "T" but both had similar power output.
The anticipated power output above was exactly in line with that stated by the car's owner when I met him for the first time before the car was taken to the rolling road.
The above information regards MD321L/MD321T and spool differences were reaffirmed by the purchaser again that evening.
As I think you already know, the original intention was to fit a Sigma ECU and achieve the anticipated output of 450 bhp. The turbo on the vehicle was never going to be capable of that and it would have been, at best, sharp practice or even dishonest and certainly greedy to proceed further.
Interesting that you state that these are two completely different turbos.
The actual WG solenoid duty was reduced from the original setting as we found it and with the other mapping changes this then resulted in an increase in BHP of 20 odd bhp and a little more torque.
You are in this commercially Mark so do your own R+D.
Pat.
I must've missed something here, because banny sti had suggested an MD321T not an MD321L. Are you saying that because you couldn't get the MD321L to make the power, the MD321T (a completely different turbo) won't make the power either? That'de be like me saying that because the TD05/20G won't make 400 on road fuel, therefore the TD06/49 won't either! The two turbos (-T and -L) are based on different cores, with different turbine wheels and different exhaust housings, with different compressor wheels, but perhaps similar compressor covers.
I am told by the purchaser that he wanted 450 plus bhp turbo and he was sold an MD321L that would do "over 450 bhp". He further informed me the difference between an MD321L and MD321T was that the latter spooled quicker but power output was the same.
When it was obvious the turbo was well short of previously reported and anticipated output, I phoned the purchaser to clarify the situation and jotted down the information on my contemporaneous notes.
The purchaser was very clear.
He wanted a 450+ bhp turbo.
He was sold a MD321. Initially he had referred to it as a MD321T but later in the day clarified this as being an MD 321L
He was told the difference between an "L" and "T" was earlier spool on the "T" but both had similar power output.
The anticipated power output above was exactly in line with that stated by the car's owner when I met him for the first time before the car was taken to the rolling road.
The above information regards MD321L/MD321T and spool differences were reaffirmed by the purchaser again that evening.
As I think you already know, the original intention was to fit a Sigma ECU and achieve the anticipated output of 450 bhp. The turbo on the vehicle was never going to be capable of that and it would have been, at best, sharp practice or even dishonest and certainly greedy to proceed further.
Interesting that you state that these are two completely different turbos.
09 November 2006, 12:38 PM
#20
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 8.95 @ 168mph. Zero to 1KM 194.1mph
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harvey,
This is not about R & D, you posted some information, which apart from having no relationship to this thread, I needed qualifying.
That being, why you didn't get similar results to others, using the MD321L.
The MD321L is an older design turbo, compared to the MD321T, and uses the Garrett GT series -12 core, which has been more than proven in this application, by numerous well known tuners, and turbo specialists.
The -12 core is bigger than that used in the MD321T, so whilst I expect it to be more laggy, it is capable of flowing more.
With regard to the car concerned, I believe you also found the intake to be somewhat restrictive, questioning I believe both the filter, and intercooler pipework ?
You also said,
And I'm still interested to have you explain this comment, because apart from having no foundation, in reality, a turbo will make the power more easily on a 2.0lt, than on a 2.5lt.
I will be testing the MD321T on a 2.0lt, as soon as one capable of running 450bhp becomes available.
Mark.
This is not about R & D, you posted some information, which apart from having no relationship to this thread, I needed qualifying.
That being, why you didn't get similar results to others, using the MD321L.
The MD321L is an older design turbo, compared to the MD321T, and uses the Garrett GT series -12 core, which has been more than proven in this application, by numerous well known tuners, and turbo specialists.
The -12 core is bigger than that used in the MD321T, so whilst I expect it to be more laggy, it is capable of flowing more.
With regard to the car concerned, I believe you also found the intake to be somewhat restrictive, questioning I believe both the filter, and intercooler pipework ?
You also said,
I very much doubt that an MD321 T will be capable of 450 bhp on a 2 litre. It might do that on a 2.5 litre but it is unlikely on only 2 litres
And I'm still interested to have you explain this comment, because apart from having no foundation, in reality, a turbo will make the power more easily on a 2.0lt, than on a 2.5lt.
I will be testing the MD321T on a 2.0lt, as soon as one capable of running 450bhp becomes available.
Mark.
09 November 2006, 02:59 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Behind the wheel of a Time Attack R33 GTR
Posts: 5,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lateral Performance
And I'm still interested to have you explain this comment, because apart from having no foundation, in reality, a turbo will make the power more easily on a 2.0lt, than on a 2.5lt.
ta.
09 November 2006, 03:13 PM
#22
Drag it!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Flame grilled Wagon anyone?
Posts: 9,866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neil, its probably to do with the amount of timing 2l's will take compared to 2.5l's, different boost levels, different rev limits. As you know yourself, a 2l can match the power of a bigger engine, its just how it does it that can be significantly different.
09 November 2006, 03:21 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Everyone has their own opinion on turbos. It seems odd that an installation on one car can behave disappointingly compared to another. It isn't just lemons of cars/poor installation/mapping/other issues because I can give personal examples of turbos that performed below and above expectations on the same cars - if it was a duff engine then you'd expect poor results across the board, not excellent ones from some turbos. I've had some turbos from recommendations of a few people on this thread that have done considerably worse or better than expected.
There is a theory that a 2.5 litre will make less power than the 2.0 on the same turbo because of the thermal efficiency of the 2.5 being lower. However, individual examples seem to vary again.
There is a theory that a 2.5 litre will make less power than the 2.0 on the same turbo because of the thermal efficiency of the 2.5 being lower. However, individual examples seem to vary again.
09 November 2006, 03:40 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Behind the wheel of a Time Attack R33 GTR
Posts: 5,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by P20SPD
Neil, its probably to do with the amount of timing 2l's will take compared to 2.5l's, different boost levels, different rev limits.
It was also yourself that has inspired me to get a proper set of heads built to mate to this block in an effort to get more from it (and also in prep for bigger and better turbos later on) did it really make as much difference as you describe? can you describe how the drivability changed?
09 November 2006, 04:03 PM
#26
Drag it!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Flame grilled Wagon anyone?
Posts: 9,866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think its down to plugs, it's just inherent in the way the 2.5's work.
Changing mine to STi5 valvetrain DID transform the engine. It was so much smoother, able to breath so much better, its difficult to put into words really, but it was simply better.
Changing mine to STi5 valvetrain DID transform the engine. It was so much smoother, able to breath so much better, its difficult to put into words really, but it was simply better.
09 November 2006, 04:07 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Behind the wheel of a Time Attack R33 GTR
Posts: 5,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thats all i really needed to know, when i said the plugs i meant the heads werent the best and the plugs were hindering it further was all..
the smoothness is something that i am keep to introduce, its fine when your up to an appreciable speed but occasionally it can feel a little "choked"
Cheers
the smoothness is something that i am keep to introduce, its fine when your up to an appreciable speed but occasionally it can feel a little "choked"
Cheers
09 November 2006, 04:24 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by P20SPD
....Changing mine to STi5 valvetrain DID transform the engine. It was so much smoother, able to breath so much better, its difficult to put into words really, but it was simply better.
What heads/valvetrain did you have before that then?