[zackz]

Originally Posted by Bob@BPC

Some more info about the fuel rail

Thanks!

[DWR]

Originally Posted by tuikku

No, earlier owner had taken the away.

But my earlier 530d had them.

Real good invention, if they only lasts.
Too difficult for me to explain the working pricipals, but I hope, that you can help about this ?
They gives more air flow speed at low engine rpm´s => better swirl => better burn.
Better burn means, that you can put more fuel and get more low end torq, which is a great thing.

I think you did a good job explaining.
Let me just add some details. With fuel injection, air and fuel mix in the cylinder. Ideally, we would like a homogenous mixture. That means the air and fuel are well mixed, having the same air to fuel ratio throughout the chamber. Homogenous mixtures produce the fastest combustion event and allows optimal brake mean effective pressure - horsepower! To accomplish that, the air needs to move vigorously. By making it swirl around the cylinder, and tumble as it enters the cylinder, mixing can be accomplished. At high load and rpm, the air velocity is very fast and vigorous. At lower load and rpm, the mixing is not as vigorous.

In a cylinder head with multiple intake valves and symetrical geometry, swirl is diminished. The air from each valve tends to not go in the same direction. This can be resolved in several ways: 1) stagger the valve sizes so that there is an imbalance that maintains swirl. 2) make the operation of the valves independent to create a flow imbalance 3) create the imbalance of flow up stream of the valves.

BMW, is using swirl flaps to implement method 3). While it does improve power at lower loads, the primary reason is to have complete combustion to keep emissions low.

[DWR]

[QUOTE=tuikku;19212700].
Exhaust manifold.
There are many my own thoughts and ideas in it.
"Generation II"
Welded by the professional - not me.




That is a good looking manifold, from a design perspective. The more the cylinders can be isolated until their flow enters the turbine, the better. I would expect there would actually be a little impulse energy that gets transmitted and not just pressure.

[tuikku]

Originally Posted by DWR

That is a good looking manifold, from a design perspective. The more the cylinders can be isolated until their flow enters the turbine, the better. I would expect there would actually be a little impulse energy that gets transmitted and not just pressure.

Exactly
You must have read my minds.
This is the first time ever, that someone agree my thoughts about this exhaust thing.
Thank you.

It wasn´t easy to solve the problem of cyl 3 and 4 in the middle.
Now they push separately and straight to turbine.
Still the pipes are as short as possible and with slightly exact pipe size, that means low volume and strong pulse.

Pulsepulsepulsepulsepulsepulsemanifold.

[AiM]

Originally Posted by tuikku

Exactly
You must have read my minds.
This is the first time ever, that someone agree my thoughts about this exhaust thing.
Thank you.

It wasn´t easy to solve the problem of cyl 3 and 4 in the middle.
Now they push separately and straight to turbine.
Still the pipes are as short as possible and with slightly exact pipe size, that means low volume and strong pulse.

Pulsepulsepulsepulsepulsepulsemanifold.

I also agree about the design -short and low volume is the solution here.

What is the diameter and wall thickness of pipe in that manifold?

For next season you bought single scroll Holset to MB? There is interesting twin scroll turbo from BorgWarner which has capacity for 500hp+ and price is half of what you paid from EFR. LINK

[tuikku]

.
Hi

I am now fond of BMW´s double turbo solution, I just like the way it works.
Maybe I will built my own in MB.
I have a couple of "revolutionary" ideas of my own, just like to see how will they work. Very simple structure based in two Holsets. Independent working.
Now it is possible have injectors up to => 700hp in MB, so there will be a nice update to racer also.
Very interesting summer coming.

For the pipes, sorry, I don´t tell here.

[HeatherM35d]

Originally Posted by tuikku

.
Hi

I am now fond of BMW´s double turbo solution, I just like the way it works.
Maybe I will built my own in MB.
I have a couple of "revolutionary" ideas of my own, just like to see how will they work. Very simple structure based in two Holsets. Independent working.
Now it is possible have injectors up to => 700hp in MB, so there will be a nice update to racer also.
Very interesting summer coming.

For the pipes, sorry, I don´t tell here.

I like you, you're like a European Redneck.

[CvilleBill]

That is REALLY FUNNY Heather!

[AiM]

There has been intresting discussion from different technical aspects like turbo sizing, HP fuel pump capacity, etc. Special thanks to my fellow-countryman Tuikku who has found this site and have been very active.

Stock turbo dimensions 535D LCI almost same as 335D; small difference in bigger turbo exhaust housing support from block etc. only minor)

Stock turbo dimensions 535DLCI/335D M57;

Smaller turbo KKK KP39-1873
-turbine wheel 38,5/32 (9-blade)
-compressor 33,5/46 (4+4 blade)

Bigger turbo KKK K26-2871
-turbine wheel 64,3/54,5 (12-blade)
-compressor wheel 50,3/71 (base exducer 72,6 and blades ”shorter” so design is opposite to extended tip design) (7+7 blade)
-turbine housing 8bm^2

In my setup smaller turbo has stock size billet compressor wheel and bigger has 54,5/76,8 compressor wheel –both compressor wheels 11-blade gtx-style billets from KTS.

Original plan was to change bigger turbine wheel from KKK K27 to bigger turbo.

KKK K27 turbine wheels:
5327-120-5084 70,0/58,8 12-blade
5327-120-5065 70,0/59,0 12-blade
5327-120-5009 70,0/58,8 12-blade

Downpipe outlet is eccentric compared to turbine wheel exducer in 535DLCI/335D and exhaust housing is very lightweight and thin. There wasn`t enough material for bigger turbine wheel. I already have plan B for bigger turbo but more about that when it is done.

Pre-LCI 535D (which Tuikku has) is very similar but there is some major differencies like exhaust housing and little difference in compressor wheel designs. Biggest difference is exhaust housing where where dp-outlet is more centric to turbine wheel exducer and maybe little thicker casting and there is possible to fit bigger turbine wheel also to stock housing.

Sad but true, my bigger turbo is not in balance when you compare compressor and turbine. Turbine inducer is bit too small compared to compressor exducer. I would say 10% larger compressor exducer diameter compared to turbine inducer diameter should be best compromise.

Bosch CP3R70 pump is good for about 400hp (+-20hp) without additives like methanol or NOS. Dyno hp numbers in local dyno@engine.

Bosch CP3R90 flows 28,6% more so it should be good for something like 500hp (+10hp) without additives like methanol or NOS. Dyno hp numbers in local dyno@engine

Exact numbers depends condition of HP-pump and setup etc. but that has been rough guideline for those pumps at this dyno.

All dynograps are from same dyno;

Here is my friends car E61 535DLCI MY10. IAT-temperatures high because of stock intercooler. HP-pump capacity was the limiting factor. Baseline with stock software and higher with custom software.
- Both turbos are serviced with billet compressors (small turbo with stock size compressor and bigger with little bit larger compressor), ported wastegate from 10mm to 14mm
(excactly same turbo upgrade as I have)
-3” downpipe without cat and dpf
-custom software (same tuner)
-408hp@4629rpm, 810nm@2928rpm

My car E60 535DLCI MY09; engine mods;
-Both turbos are serviced with billet compressors (small turbo with stock size compressor and bigger with little bit larger compressor), ported waste gate from 10mm to 14mm
-3,5" downpipe, after that stock exhaust 3,15"
-102x350x550mm (4"x13,78"x21,65", DxHxW) intercooler
-Egr removed totally (egr cooler, hoses, etc.), egr delete pipe to intake
-Larger HP-pump CP3R90
-some mods to remove restriction and pressure loss between compressor and cylinder head, also to reduce exhaust back pressure
-custom software, limiting factor was egt (turbine flow restriction) and that was the reason why you can not add any more fuel. My car is almost smoke free, visible smoke like one second when you floor it but after that I would call it smoke free.
-454hp@4486rpm, 850nm@3119rpm

Real world performance data from my car.

Some speculation of my car performance by TDIwyse. Later weighted car with myself to 1880kg=4145lbs and 60ft time was 2,50s when tarmac was wet. I think under 12,50s should be possible with better launch/traction...)

[AiM]

Originally Posted by Bob@BPC

So both red lines are stock pulls? seems like its in line power wise from what we picked up from just turbo upgrades & tune alone with out meth, about 120hp & 192tq.

Red lines are with all hardware mods but with stock software.

[AiM]

Originally Posted by Bob@BPC

Yeah, seems right. I have only see 5-9 rwhp with a DPF delete with no tune on our testing and EGR 0 - 4hp at the wheels. The AVG hp we see stock on the 335D on a dynojet is 236 - 239 rwhp on SAE correction.

How much SAE correction affects whp and how high you are above sea level?

[tuikku]

Originally Posted by Bob@BPC

Yeah, seems right. I have only see 5-9 rwhp with a DPF delete with no tune on our testing and EGR 0 - 4hp at the wheels. The AVG hp we see stock on the 335D on a dynojet is 236 - 239 rwhp on SAE correction.

Can you explain why ?
I have believed all the time, that the stock car engine pulls against the torque limiters in softw., as you might also very well know.
Only explanation, that I invent, is that dpf is such a bad shape, that it limits and after removing stock power returns.
But I cannot understand, if removing increases the power, which is already limited to that orig level.

[Charged]

Originally Posted by Bob@BPC

That may have been my fault why it made power. I didnt clear adaptions during those tests.

So if we come from Finland to USA
race its different "airspace" and its not competitive with your engines?

[TDIwyse]

Loving the technical exchange here. Thanks for all who are participating.

I was curious to test some of the comments about the hot side of the stock turbo being a limit, and the stock wastegate being able to control boost creep. I had collected a lot of data previously when moving to the EWG, but never done a back to back test like what is attached.

I reconfigured my system so the EWG was no longer in play, and went back to the IWG. Reset things and did a few days of driving and many drive cycles. Then yesterday I did some testing to compare back to back impact of the IWG vs the EWG config. Well, there was ~1 hr between the tests. But same fuel, same day, exceedingly similiar weather, no wind (but lousy low pressure system on top of us).

Notes about differences from early PerExpert dyno sheet: It's middle of winter and I'm using blended winter fuel (lower BTU's). I reduced my water/methanol blend to 50/50. I lowered the EWG setting to limit drive pressure to ~48 psi range. Using winter/tires with different diameter (had to correct that after noticing the rpm's weren't lining up quite right).

First I did the IWG pull and logged some parameters. Using DWR's Torque PIDs for this (note ... my analog boost gauge reads a bit higher than the reported boost from the PID).

The shape of the IWG power curve showed what I think is evidence of the hot side "choking" at the upper rpm's. Higher drive pressures, higher EGT's and even though the boost was higher, lower peak wheel power.

Drove home, swapped the configuration around so the IWG is out of play and the EWG is doing all the boost control. Drove back to the testing ground and did another pull. Even though the peak boost is slightly reduced, there's much less drive pressure. Result was lower EGT's, and continually climbing wheel power numbers to shift point at ~4600 rpm. This is similar to the air flow measurements I made using pressure drop data (the OEM MAF clips at the mid rpm region for my vehicle as configured).

Also including the configuration for PerfExpert (I think 1750kg is actually lite for what things weight so these should be conservative wheel power/trq #'s) and drag coefficient, and also showing the ambient weather and correction factors.

Interestingly, I don't think my IWG with stock wastegate had issues controlling boost creep at the upper rpm's. This would seem to agree with Bob's experience, but is different than iaknown's experience.

As an aside, this morning and afternoon I did more testing with the EWG setup to allow the drive pressure to go up to 52 psi, which resulted in more peak boost, but not much more peak power (~4-5 whp).

This and some other recent threads have me thinking about turbo upgrades again...

[HeatherM35d]

My x5 has a clip on the turbines of both turbos to reduce drive pressure.. The degrees in angle of the clip determines the amount of relief you get in the turbine housing/assembly. I know there are a lot of options to building turbos and there's not single 'best' way to do it. My turbos were pretty cost effective for the amount of work done to them, including: turbine clip, compressor housing modifications, billet oversized compressor wheel on primary turbo and upgraded bearing/seals in the cores of both.

[Charged]

Yes clipping turbine does make better flow, even turbo manufacturers uses that in some applications.

[zackz]

Originally Posted by TDIwyse

Loving the technical exchange here. Thanks for all who are participating.

I was curious to test some of the comments about the hot side of the stock turbo being a limit, and the stock wastegate being able to control boost creep. I had collected a lot of data previously when moving to the EWG, but never done a back to back test like what is attached.

I reconfigured my system so the EWG was no longer in play, and went back to the IWG. Reset things and did a few days of driving and many drive cycles. Then yesterday I did some testing to compare back to back impact of the IWG vs the EWG config. Well, there was ~1 hr between the tests. But same fuel, same day, exceedingly similiar weather, no wind (but lousy low pressure system on top of us).

Notes about differences from early PerExpert dyno sheet: It's middle of winter and I'm using blended winter fuel (lower BTU's). I reduced my water/methanol blend to 50/50. I lowered the EWG setting to limit drive pressure to ~48 psi range. Using winter/tires with different diameter (had to correct that after noticing the rpm's weren't lining up quite right).

First I did the IWG pull and logged some parameters. Using DWR's Torque PIDs for this (note ... my analog boost gauge reads a bit higher than the reported boost from the PID).

The shape of the IWG power curve showed what I think is evidence of the hot side "choking" at the upper rpm's. Higher drive pressures, higher EGT's and even though the boost was higher, lower peak wheel power.

Drove home, swapped the configuration around so the IWG is out of play and the EWG is doing all the boost control. Drove back to the testing ground and did another pull. Even though the peak boost is slightly reduced, there's much less drive pressure. Result was lower EGT's, and continually climbing wheel power numbers to shift point at ~4600 rpm. This is similar to the air flow measurements I made using pressure drop data (the OEM MAF clips at the mid rpm region for my vehicle as configured).

Also including the configuration for PerfExpert (I think 1750kg is actually lite for what things weight so these should be conservative wheel power/trq #'s) and drag coefficient, and also showing the ambient weather and correction factors.

Interestingly, I don't think my IWG with stock wastegate had issues controlling boost creep at the upper rpm's. This would seem to agree with Bob's experience, but is different than iaknown's experience.

As an aside, this morning and afternoon I did more testing with the EWG setup to allow the drive pressure to go up to 52 psi, which resulted in more peak boost, but not much more peak power (~4-5 whp).

This and some other recent threads have me thinking about turbo upgrades again...

Depending on how the software has been modded, the exhaust turbine bypass flap could be not fully opened for high demand at high rpm.

In that case, some off the exhaust flow could be forced to pass threw the small turbo, and so creating more back pressure.

What do you think about manually blocking the exhaust bypass flap fully opened during doing the IWG test? Could be worth it?

[TDIwyse]

Originally Posted by zackz

Depending on how the software has been modded, the exhaust turbine bypass flap could be not fully opened for high demand at high rpm.

In that case, some off the exhaust flow could be forced to pass threw the small turbo, and so creating more back pressure.

What do you think about manually blocking the exhaust bypass flap fully opened during doing the IWG test? Could be worth it?

I haven't tried this, but I believe iaknown has when he was sorting out some high rpm overboost/limp mode issues he was having. This is an old reference I found with a quick search where he discusses doing this.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=143

It's interesting that some cars when going to open exhaust seem to have more issues with the stock IWG than others.

[TDIwyse]

Originally Posted by HeatherM35d

My x5 has a clip on the turbines of both turbos to reduce drive pressure.. The degrees in angle of the clip determines the amount of relief you get in the turbine housing/assembly. I know there are a lot of options to building turbos and there's not single 'best' way to do it. My turbos were pretty cost effective for the amount of work done to them, including: turbine clip, compressor housing modifications, billet oversized compressor wheel on primary turbo and upgraded bearing/seals in the cores of both.

Interesting. I'm not familiar with the clipping modification, will do some reading on that.

Do you have any logs of boost/drive pressure? Or can you share any more info on who modified your turbos and what was the cost?

[zackz]

Originally Posted by TDIwyse

I haven't tried this, but I believe iaknown has when he was sorting out some high rpm overboost/limp mode issues he was having. This is an old reference I found with a quick search where he discusses doing this.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=143

It's interesting that some cars when going to open exhaust seem to have more issues with the stock IWG than others.

Yes It seems that they were discussing about the wastegate flap, but I don't remember any test with the turbine bypass flap, will kill the low end boost pressure during the test for sure, but should be interesting in order to know the true stock big turbo turbine/wastegate backpressure/flow restriction in the high end bandwidth.

Sorry for my poor frenchie english...

[HeatherM35d]

Originally Posted by TDIwyse

Interesting. I'm not familiar with the clipping modification, will do some reading on that.

Do you have any logs of boost/drive pressure? Or can you share any more info on who modified your turbos and what was the cost?

I'm sure we can run some tests. Bohl Diesel installed the turbos on my x5 for under $3000 with labor. X5 is running a 15 degree clip on both turbines and I believe the 335ds at BDP run more clip than that.

[tuikku]

.
... About the turbine clipping...

Do any have any evidence, that it will also work in this kind of solution, where engine needs ++2bar (30psi) boost pressure.
For this far, I haven´t seen.
Or can anybody explain why should it give any benefit.

As far as I can understand, that kind of solution (clipping) might give some more flow, if the compressor could reach to so good efficiency area, that extra air is even possible to form. But I doubt.
More flow means less efficiency turbine in this case.

What kind of solution is that, where compressor needs more power and turbine can produce it less.