[jippii ensio]

1. Single or twins does not matter much in power or spool. What matters for spool and power is the size.
2. Twin upgrade in stock cores that is compatible with the existing hardware is the cheapest. Single and big twins are more expensive. Two turbos could well be more $ than one...
3. So called stage 1, i.e. compressor wheel upgrade + clipping of the turbine wheel is not much better than stock on average.
4. Compressor + turbine wheel upgrade, such as RBs is a nice upgrade at a reasonable cost. RBs must have the highest market share.
5. For more power single is the only proven alternative.
6. Some expectations for big twins are set too high. Refer to point 1.
7. It would be nice and interesting to have big twins available for comparison, but they will perform similar to a respectively sized single turbo, and can be more expensive. Looking forward to any big twins and the results though.
8. High octane and cooling is a must to max the turbos. Preferably both ethanol and methanol.

[Fully_Bolted]

Originally Posted by jippii ensio

1. Single or twins does not matter much in power or spool. What matters for spool and power is the size.
2. Twin upgrade in stock cores that is compatible with the existing hardware is the cheapest. Single and big twins are more expensive. Two turbos could well be more $ than one...
3. So called stage 1, i.e. compressor wheel upgrade + clipping of the turbine wheel is not much better than stock on average.
4. Compressor + turbine wheel upgrade, such as RBs is a nice upgrade at a reasonable cost. RBs must have the highest market share.
5. For more power single is the only proven alternative.
6. Some expectations for big twins are set too high. Refer to point 1.
7. It would be nice and interesting to have big twins available for comparison, but they will perform similar to a respectively sized single turbo, and can be more expensive. Looking forward to any big twins and the results though.
8. High octane and cooling is a must to max the turbos. Preferably both ethanol and methanol.

Lol alterior motive much? Glad you dispelled all the "myths." Lol.

[tmaung]

Originally Posted by Fully_Bolted

Lol alterior motive much? Glad you dispelled all the "myths." Lol.

The OP is just paraphrasing what's going on right now in the world of turbo upgrades. I don't see any bias or "ulterior" motives there...

Great summary OP and hope you keep the first post updated for potential sticky!

[Rob@RBTurbo]

This is a very good post, from someone who really does know what he is talking about (don't see this too often honestly). Definitely a great layman post.

[shaginwagon13]

Originally Posted by tmaung

The OP is just paraphrasing what's going on right now in the world of turbo upgrades. I don't see any bias or "ulterior" motives there...

Great summary OP and hope you keep the first post updated for potential sticky!

+1

[Fully_Bolted]

There is some vishnu bias hiding amongst those statements, but he treaded lightly. I can appreciate that. I would say 95% is accurate.

[zeel]

I think RB's do well for number 5, but it depends on your goals. They are very well proven too.

[themyst]

You forgot the biggest difference which is the powerband on singles vs twins. Twins hit low and hard while singles are rev happy in comparison. I for one would still prefer a singles power delivery but to each their own.

With that said I am more than satisfied with my RBs. 500+ whp still scares me a little.

[marv85]

Originally Posted by themyst

You forgot the biggest difference which is the powerband on singles vs twins. Twins hit low and hard while singles are rev happy in comparison. I for one would still prefer a singles power delivery but to each their own.

With that said I am more than satisfied with my RBs. 500+ whp still scares me a little.

500+Whp, nice! you running E85 + meth? would you mind sharing some high level info on your boost curve and timing?

[themyst]

Originally Posted by marv85

500+Whp, nice! you running E85 + meth? would you mind sharing some high level info on your boost curve and timing?

A bit OT, but sure.

20 psi to 18.5 at redline, 12 degrees timing to 13.5 at redline, 12.5 AFR to 12.0 past 6000 RPM, E50 blend with 90/10 meth mix on single CM10 nozzle.

VD is constantly spitting out 510-540 whp on the same road with Cobb logs, so I figure it's at least 500 whp through the stock catback.

[jippii ensio]

Originally Posted by Fully_Bolted

There is some vishnu bias hiding amongst those statements, but he treaded lightly. I can appreciate that. I would say 95% is accurate.

Some anti-Vishnu bias?

I did not even mention Vishnu or tuning in general. I was talking hardware. So, do you mean I'm biased towards Precision or FFTEC? I think Precision is not any better than the competition, but their prices are customer friendly. EFRs could be better, but they are not readily available. FFTEC manifold looks great, but its not exceptional.

P.S.
We could start another thread about big ST or BIG twins turbo tuning, but for the time being that would be boring due to the lack of alternatives

[Fully_Bolted]

Originally Posted by jippii ensio

Some anti-Vishnu bias?

I did not even mention Vishnu or tuning in general. I was talking hardware. So, do you mean I'm biased towards Precision or FFTEC? I think Precision is not any better than the competition, but their prices are customer friendly. EFRs could be better, but they are not readily available. FFTEC manifold looks great, but its not exceptional.

P.S.
We could start another thread about big ST or BIG twins turbo tuning, but for the time being that would be boring due to the lack of alternatives

You forgot to give us your opinion of Tial.

[marv85]

Originally Posted by themyst

A bit OT, but sure.

20 psi to 18.5 at redline, 12 degrees timing to 13.5 at redline, 12.5 AFR to 12.0 past 6000 RPM, E50 blend with 90/10 meth mix on single CM10 nozzle.

VD is constantly spitting out 510-540 whp on the same road with Cobb logs, so I figure it's at least 500 whp through the stock catback.

thanks for sharing. Must be a blast to drive!

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by themyst

A bit OT, but sure.

20 psi to 18.5 at redline, 12 degrees timing to 13.5 at redline, 12.5 AFR to 12.0 past 6000 RPM, E50 blend with 90/10 meth mix on single CM10 nozzle.

VD is constantly spitting out 510-540 whp on the same road with Cobb logs, so I figure it's at least 500 whp through the stock catback.

Are you ever going to get you car on an actual dyno? The only reason I ask is that I've seen enough error in Virtual Dyno to not consider the reasons reliable. Too many variable. The user being just one of them. So the next time you want to take this off topic with dyno claims, it may be a good idea to have actual dyno numbers

Back ok topic: good post OP.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Are you ever going to get you car on an actual dyno? The only reason I ask is that I've seen enough error in Virtual Dyno to not consider the reasons reliable. Too many variable. The user being just one of them. So the next time you want to take this off topic with dyno claims, it may be a good idea to have actual dyno numbers

Back ok topic: good post OP.

Why do you care so much? Just saying.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by themyst

Why do you care so much? Just saying.

Because you are making a claim of whp and giving advice on how to make said whp. When your whp numbers aren't necessarily accurate. It's not hard to go on a dynojet. Doing it will even give you the chance to tune for more HP. But for someone who has yet to put down any actual numbers, you are a very vocal contributor in threads where you defend different turbo options claiming your "results" as supporting evidence. Get results first, then make these claims. That applies to others just as much as you so please do not take this personally.

[jippii ensio]

Originally Posted by Fully_Bolted

You forgot to give us your opinion of Tial.

If you mean EPL / Tial that JPSimon runs, they were among the best stage 1 turbos, as they were no worse than stock. Actually, they were even a bit better than stock. Still, they did not make business sense and are not available any more.

[themyst]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Because you are making a claim of whp and giving advice on how to make said whp. When your whp numbers aren't necessarily accurate. It's not hard to go on a dynojet. Doing it will even give you the chance to tune for more HP. But for someone who has yet to put down any actual numbers, you are a very vocal contributor in threads where you defend different turbo options claiming your "results" as supporting evidence. Get results first, then make these claims. That applies to others just as much as you so please do not take this personally.

I did not give advice, I merely answered a question presented to me and provided data from my testing.

Fwiw, VD on this same road stated 415 whp back when I had stock turbos and the car did 412 STD whp on a Dynojet at 17.5 psi @ peak power. 277 whp FBO stock baseline at that.

JB4 logs in VD were artificially high reading, presumably due to the polling rate of the log not being quite as detailed as a Cobb log.

I apologize in advance if my previous reply disturbed you in any way as it was not my intention or directed at you.

[Rob@RBTurbo]

In Shivs defense, can you only imagine the wrath he'd face publishing VD numbers like they were credible? I believe that was likely his point.

Originally Posted by themyst

I did not give advice, I merely answered a question presented to me and provided data from my testing.

Fwiw, VD on this same road stated 415 whp back when I had stock turbos and the car did 412 STD whp on a Dynojet at 17.5 psi @ peak power. 277 whp FBO stock baseline at that.

JB4 logs in VD were artificially high reading, presumably due to the polling rate of the log not being quite as detailed as a Cobb log.

I apologize in advance if my previous reply disturbed you in any way as it was not my intention or directed at you.

[Wedge1967]

+1 Good point Rob. VD is nice for personal use, but shouldn't be used as public fact because like Shiv said too many variables. I can show you consistent pulls on the same road in 3rd gear that show over 500 whp on stock turbos running 50/50 Ethanol and meth using VD on DynoJet settings. At this level of whp you really need to pull in 4th to get more consistent logs due to wheel spin in 3rd. Too many people on this forum who are easily influenced when you start telling people what setup you have to get to a certain power level... Just like big twins making 900 hp. I'm sure it can be done if you want a dyno queen and have deep pockets.

Originally Posted by RobBeck

In Shivs defense, can you only imagine the wrath he'd face publishing VD numbers like they were credible? I believe that was likely his point.

[Tony@vargasturbotech]

Originally Posted by jippii ensio

1. Single or twins does not matter much in power or spool. What matters for spool and power is the size.
2. Twin upgrade in stock cores that is compatible with the existing hardware is the cheapest. Single and big twins are more expensive. Two turbos could well be more $ than one...
3. So called stage 1, i.e. compressor wheel upgrade + clipping of the turbine wheel is not much better than stock on average.
4. Compressor + turbine wheel upgrade, such as RBs is a nice upgrade at a reasonable cost. RBs must have the highest market share.
5. For more power single is the only proven alternative.
6. Some expectations for big twins are set too high. Refer to point 1.
7. It would be nice and interesting to have big twins available for comparison, but they will perform similar to a respectively sized single turbo, and can be more expensive. Looking forward to any big twins and the results though.
8. High octane and cooling is a must to max the turbos. Preferably both ethanol and methanol.

Great post and will help people who really don't understand the nuts and bolts of it all get a general idea. I have no problem with people pushing their products over another, especially one that isn't even built yet. Lets all not forget this is business. Once the twins are done we will actually have something to compare to the single. I for one am most exited about that. Anyone out there bashing the single kit, honestly I don't get it. They are making 600+ whp are in the 10's. That's not something to sneeze at. I think one thing we all agree on is, the more options the better.

Shiv, got so swamped this week. Totally spaced calling. I will touch base next week.

[Ænema]

Originally Posted by Wedge1967

+1 Good point Rob. VD is nice for personal use, but shouldn't be used as public fact because like Shiv said too many variables. I can show you consistent pulls on the same road in 3rd gear that show over 500 whp on stock turbos running 50/50 Ethanol and meth using VD on DynoJet settings. At this level of whp you really need to pull in 4th to get more consistent logs due to wheel spin in 3rd. Too many people on this forum who are easily influenced when you start telling people what setup you have to get to a certain power level... Just like big twins making 900 hp. I'm sure it can be done if you want a dyno queen and have deep pockets.

IMO VD is only useful for comparing mods. Use the same stretch of road in the same conditions in the same gear and make enough pulls to get a consistent, repeatable number. Then repeat the process after a mod and see what the deltas are not the actual numbers. Still not perfect, but a helluva lot cheaper than renting dyno time.