What is the highest HP from all the hybrid turbos?

[langsbr]

Correct, gen 1s. Not sure if they still sell them. Owner has had them on the car for some time prior to this. Was tuned by someone else and made no where near with more boost than now according to the owner.

Can you shed more light on this setup? It seems very simple - MMP S3s, PI, and full E85. I know @veer90 pushed his MMPs pretty hard and hit 690whp. Another 10% is pretty darn good. I saw he was in PA so it wasn't a dyno correction from elevation, which is good to know.

Is his setup running a more risky tune, be it additional timing, or leaner to make more power? Does he have something different - perhaps a single 3.5" exhaust that might be showing gains on twins? (I know Payam had a single and said there was no difference with or without the stock exhaust at 700whp, but perhaps the backpressure difference in twins could benefit?)

Just trying to see where the difference is coming from - a number of people have pushed MMPs on full E85 and most are sub 700, usually sub 680.

Do you know if he dyno'd on his race tires? I would think they would have sapped up some power as well vs a street tire.

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

If anyone cares, I contacted Rob about my power goals and he told me to go single turbo vs. hybrid turbos. He literally would not take my money as I would not achieve what I was looking for with his products, which I had a feeling might be the case based on my power goals. This is specifically because of the fuel I have available. I only have access to pump 93 + meth as I have basically no E85 access here in MA. If I had E85 access I would have gone with PI & RB twins and hit my goal whp as I don't want to ever build my motor.

Not everyone wants to make north of 650whp and the hybrid twins certainly have their place in the market. Given the install cost, do yourself a favor and buy the ones that have the lowest failures you hear about. At the end of the day you can only cram so much wheel into the housings etc. So quality is what I would look for from a hybrid twin vendor vs. glory run dyno pulls. Just my 2 cents. Do with that what you will.

Making good power is cool but it is just a snapshot in time. Push these things to the max levels and sooner or later (usually sooner) you'll end up with a busted motor and/or turbos like everyone else, there's a new victim of this so often and the platform seems to have no clue. It is just not really worth it when said and done and usually costs everyone in the end.

Best bet is to make sure you have some turbine housings that are very high flow in order to keep the back pressure down, this will pay large dividends to the survival of your hardware. Running more and more boost on OE size frame twins (which includes most cast options) is not helping anything, and is a large risk for the consumer. This is why we've been suggesting ST to those with loftier goals for the past several years, it is just the right recommendation to make based on what has been available.

Rob

 

[Torgus]

Just trying to see where the difference is coming from - a number of people have pushed MMPs on full E85 and most are sub 700, usually sub 680.

I can only guess it is because it is the Gen 1s with the larger wheels? I agree most you see are sub 700whp if not sub 650. So much for 500-1000HP turbos eh The marketing is wonderful mind you. Very convincing.

 

[Panzerfaust]

I can only guess it is because it is the Gen 1s with the larger wheels? I agree most you see are sub 700whp if not sub 650. So much for 500-1000HP turbos eh The marketing is wonderful mind you. Very convincing.

I dont think the stage 3s were ever marketed to make 1000hp, let alone whp actually. And I'm sure it is due to the larger wheels of the gen 1, but as a fan of twins I am interested to see what kind of TQ the gen 2s will be putting down with the faster spooling wheels but larger housings. I know most people care mostly about peak HP, but I'd love to see a nice fat TQ peak that hardly drops off towards the top end if that's how it could be tuned.

 

[veer90]

Can you shed more light on this setup? It seems very simple - MMP S3s, PI, and full E85. I know @veer90 pushed his MMPs pretty hard and hit 690whp. Another 10% is pretty darn good. I saw he was in PA so it wasn't a dyno correction from elevation, which is good to know.

Is his setup running a more risky tune, be it additional timing, or leaner to make more power? Does he have something different - perhaps a single 3.5" exhaust that might be showing gains on twins? (I know Payam had a single and said there was no difference with or without the stock exhaust at 700whp, but perhaps the backpressure difference in twins could benefit?)

Just trying to see where the difference is coming from - a number of people have pushed MMPs on full E85 and most are sub 700, usually sub 680.

Do you know if he dyno'd on his race tires? I would think they would have sapped up some power as well vs a street tire.

I wouldn't make the call how hard they were pushed and neither should you. V8bait Justin tuned that setup on my car with some safety margin in mind that only he knows. Despite said safety margin the turbos blew up 2 weeks later anyways due to MMP being MMP. The tune was A1 though, my car ran awesome and the service I received was great.

Now my 6266, I know that sucker is being beaten to within an inch of its life, but that's because I'm tuning it myself.

That being said, there's non-negligible difference between different dynos, test conditions, etc even if they're both Dynojet.

 

[rev210]

Interesting thread. Original question was highest horsepower(dyno sheet). I always am left thinking why is that question important? The debates that proceed seem to indicate other things matter more to people. Because really , is there an arms race to win " highest powered twin turbo"?
If there was it would see people do someting crazy like top mounted Pair of Promod precisions or something , spooled by a bit hit of nitrous. Stupid.
What is more evident is that producing 600+rwhp on any turbo setup capable in real world conditions, reliably and consistantly is an investment beyond a very simple pick of a variety of turbo options.
As mentioned , its also worth noting that beating on turbos to maximise power always introduces much grester risk of failure and no question exponentially reduces service life. Talk to big turbo suppliers/service agents around the world, some of the heated arguments going on about this brand or that are a very long way from scientific.
Rant over

 

[langsbr]

I wouldn't make the call how hard they were pushed and neither should you.

Sorry, I wasn't insinuating anything other than what you did yourself. Your original ST post was titled "I pushed a 6266" and you were running 33 psi, so I figured you attribute that to being pretty much maxed out. If I recall, you were running right at 30psi on the MMPs weren't you? I would call 30 psi on any hybrids being "pushed" regardless of a/f ratio or timing. It's just a lot of boost for a TD04.

Your tune may have been a good bit more conservative than the_LS_Slayers, as he made 745whp on only 27psi, so I figured there has to be some reason it made nearly 10% more power on 10% less boost. That's a bit of a differential. He wasn't at elevation, so correction factor should play less into it than if it were in say, Colorado.

My experiences over the years with Dynojets has been markedly different than yours. I've been to numerous dynojets with the same vehicle and all dyno'd within 5 hp of each other. Granted, they were all NA cars, sub 450whp, and arguably not as 'finicky' as the N54 DME is - it was basically make a pull - repeat - it does the same thing every time. I just found it interesting how consistent different dynojets (across models as well) were.

I think it would just be interesting to note how much timing it took to hit nearly 750whp on MMPs. I know some people have said that MBT is 18* or more, and it seems as though most stay in the 13* range, I presume based on preventing timing corrections. What I've not seen is if anyone has used high octane/full e85 with detcans to see if there are timing corrections even without any true detonation. If so, then it could be 'safe' to run in the high teens for timing (assuming it makes more power). In the Subaru world, E85 will let you run far past MBT and not detonate - you just end up beating on the bearings.

 

[Twisted Tuning]

Can you shed more light on this setup? It seems very simple - MMP S3s, PI, and full E85. I know @veer90 pushed his MMPs pretty hard and hit 690whp. Another 10% is pretty darn good. I saw he was in PA so it wasn't a dyno correction from elevation, which is good to know.

Is his setup running a more risky tune, be it additional timing, or leaner to make more power? Does he have something different - perhaps a single 3.5" exhaust that might be showing gains on twins? (I know Payam had a single and said there was no difference with or without the stock exhaust at 700whp, but perhaps the backpressure difference in twins could benefit?)

Just trying to see where the difference is coming from - a number of people have pushed MMPs on full E85 and most are sub 700, usually sub 680.

Do you know if he dyno'd on his race tires? I would think they would have sapped up some power as well vs a street tire.

Honestly, this car in reference to engine mods is pretty simple. MMP turbos, PI, E85, and the usual bolt ons. Car also had BL coils, which i don't equate coils on this platform into making power, just more reliable power short of high misfire rates if they even help with that. Ive made high 600s at the wheels on multiple car using MMP turbos. Most were 1st gen and there were a couple sprinkles of the gen 2s in there. That power was made around 26-28psi or so. From my experience, thats the sweet spot for the MMP offerings despite boasting more.

You can see in the video he dyno'd on drag tires and i believe thats how he drives it. This car was completely tuned on the street. And he just decided to toss it on the dyno after beating a 700+whp Stang. because he was curious.

My tunes alway err on the safer side, because i want peoples cars to last despite some people not really caring or realizing what they are asking for sometimes. And bit of info if you want. this is stock knock tables. no knock sensitivity manipulation. Because i refuse to do so without having the car inhouse to do so properly.

Exhaust mods wont always show in power gains immediately. Single gear pulls dont always tell the full story.

I can only guess it is because it is the Gen 1s with the larger wheels? I agree most you see are sub 700whp if not sub 650. So much for 500-1000HP turbos eh The marketing is wonderful mind you. Very convincing.

IIRC, all the higher MMP power levels documented were on the Gen1 Stage 3. Also, despite the 1Ks being rated for a lot more power, we actually surpassed the highest 1K dyno as well. Just food for thought.

I dont think the stage 3s were ever marketed to make 1000hp, let alone whp actually. And I'm sure it is due to the larger wheels of the gen 1, but as a fan of twins I am interested to see what kind of TQ the gen 2s will be putting down with the faster spooling wheels but larger housings. I know most people care mostly about peak HP, but I'd love to see a nice fat TQ peak that hardly drops off towards the top end if that's how it could be tuned.

the regular stage 3s weren't but the 1Ks were, and i still haven't found set hit 850whp thats advertised. but i think thats mainly due to the current people that have them are on stock engines and don't want to blow.

Flat torque curve is possible and fairly easily doable to an extent. You need a turbo setup that will support a flat torque curve, then the rest is all in the tuning.

 

[fmorelli]

Not everyone wants to make north of 650whp and the hybrid twins certainly have their place in the market. Given the install cost, do yourself a favor and buy the ones that have the lowest failures you hear about. At the end of the day you can only cram so much wheel into the housings etc. So quality is what I would look for from a hybrid twin vendor vs. glory run dyno pulls. Just my 2 cents. Do with that what you will.

We should really start a thread, "Practical power and longevity with hybrid twins" ... remember this discussion 15 months ago?

lol ... and so it goes ... 100k mile reliability and 600whp ... we're about to put together the last piece of that bet. HP650s, ported/polished/tuliped valve head, flexfuel E85, a derivative 740 intake system, custom stainless outlet (bye bye blown silicone), S55 Delphi coils, and the hopefully soon-to-see light S55 dual HPFP to maintain solely DI fueling. Reliability theory - steal as much hardware from BMW leveraging their development muscle, and what Omar (@Hydra Performance) opined, "...the HP650s are what the N54 should have left the factory with" (and I like the MHI center and double wall Boysen manifold, ok ok and the casting design), and liberate the head flow from its NA-bound design in the name of keeping things cooler ( longevity drives a priority aspect).

That's a lot of work to make 600whp I suppose. But it makes me wonder what it means to "reliably" make 750whp? Seems to me anyone can hit a number. It's like 24-hour endurance racing ... the longer one's stuff has to work, the more one drives luck out of the equation.

Sorry for the digression -back to WOT x MAX for hybrids

Filippo

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

...the HP650s are what the N54 should have left the factory with" (and I like the MHI center and double wall Boysen manifold, ok ok and the casting design), and liberate the head flow from its NA-bound design in the name of keeping things cooler ( longevity drives a priority aspect)

Filippo

This is literally what we've been saying about the RB Classics/RB Next Gens for the past decade... get you right to the sweet spot before you run into all kinds of issues (fuel system, AT limitations, etc etc).

Regarding the Boysen manifold it is indeed very high quality and well designed, we sold ~90 of them to Hydra for his project and have also been pushing them for 10 years (and still do on all of our current products, only exception to be the new forthcoming cast setup). And while they are beautifully engineered and sized perfectly for the OE sized turbine housings, we are not sure we'd utilize them for a fully flow enhanced and enlarged turbine housing. If you saw them together to see the outlet of the Boysen manifold collector vs. the inlet of the turbine housing size mismatch it would make more sense, it is just an overall avoidable hot side restriction in the quest for low back pressure.

Rob

 

[Rob09msport]

What do you think the boysen manifolds can support before becoming impractical?

 

[langsbr]

What do you think the boysen manifolds can support before becoming impractical?

Based on the fact that he recommends 600whp as the limit for twins right now, and will be releasing his own cast manifolds, I'd bet 600whp.

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

It is more about the extreme port mismatch alongside the desire to remove all restriction points (rather than leave them intact), than applying some general flat "good for x" power rule. These sorts of things are not a light switch such that it is on or off (ie. good for 599whp and not good for 600whp); but rather as exhaust flow increases so does back pressure... which is something that we are really trying to mitigate to the fullest here. In short it makes no sense to use a manifold collector that is radically undersized vs. the turbine housing inlet connecting point. Much like it would make no sense to use a T25 flanged manifold to a T3 flanged turbine housing, at least not if you are wanting to optimize the turbochargers hot side flow potential.

 

[Rob09msport]

I ask because you said you felt hydra turbos were decent design but they use the boysen manifold unless running n53 head. I have the 650s but I am curious your take on the 800s

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

I ask because you said you felt hydra turbos were decent design but they use the boysen manifold unless running n53 head. I have the 650s but I am curious your take on the 800s

It has been the favorite mostly thanks to its turbine housing, as it is truly the first cast option that I've seen that is an actual A/R increase done correctly. It is literally night and day compared to the others, this will pay in dividends in itself.

Regarding the collector mismatch as stated above the premise is the same regardless of the option (650 vs. 800). Unless you are just looking to "just make something work" you would not wish to design-in a mismatched flange to flange port at all... let alone that drastically. Can it be done? Sure. Has it been done in other applications over the years? Lots. Will it work? Sure. Will it be optimized? Hardly.

IMO a purpose built manifold for the N54 head (much like the N53 head option) would be the way to go in this scenario. Don't get me wrong the Boysen manifold has a place and is a great piece, but that place is on the OE turbine housing of which it is port matched.

Rob

 

[Rob09msport]

When you used on your now discontinued line did you alter in any way. I was under the impression that the manifolds were actually pretty healthy as far as flow. Does anyone know how they compare to s55 manifolds ?

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

When you used on your now discontinued line did you alter in any way. I was under the impression that the manifolds were actually pretty healthy as far as flow. Does anyone know how they compare to s55 manifolds ?

All of our discontinued highest power TD04 offerings were rated to, at most, 600whp. At this point, and probably even a bit before, you are entering the point of exponentializing Back Pressure which is bad news bears. That is mostly due to the turbine housing, however that turbine housing just so happens to perfectly match the Boysen manifold where they meet as by design they were matched to one another.

As for the Boysen manifold in particular it surely has zero restriction in the manifold runners, so that portion is not the concern at all. The problem is the Boysen manifold collector at the point where the runners all merge into one, and then go into the new larger turbine housing. Flow and port matching is nothing new and it typically is quite the norm to design items around one another so that the system works in unison and harmony. In this design case in particular it is revolving around one of the most important aspects of turbocharging (the hot side).

With all of the efforts made by some to ensure all is perfect, down to silicone having extreme temp ratings and most ideal outlet designs, then to just ignore this significantly more critical portion of turbocharging is a bit bewildering. Said it first off that we loved the concept but there were numerous things we'd change. We were quickly removed from that thread, however the re-use of the Boysen would be #1. The N53 setup does however look very nice, as it is a purpose built manifold that likely actually matches the new turbine housing as it should.

Rob

 

[Rob@RBTurbo]

Does anyone know how they compare to s55 manifolds ?

The S55 manifold is much improved, as in totally different ballpark, over the N54 stuff. The runners are ~3mm larger, probably due to enlarged cylinder head ports on the S55 vs. the N54. The merger/collector is a complex shape, but it is obviously very free flowing. The S55 turbine housing A/R is 6.0cm2, the OE N54 A/R 4.9cm2, the GC stuff a bit more ~5.1cm2. In short the S55 turbofold is pretty damn sweet with significant potential to make some nice power and retain low BP. As far as the GC housings go is that the diffusers are all machined overly large due to improper housing castings for the wheel size, meaning that they will flow quite a bit more than expected but reliability and efficiency will also suffer (see pics).

Turbine housing diffusers are supposed to be machined like the last picture named "NativeMHITD04HL"; you never really want the turbine inducer literally poking well into the turbine housing volute, overly exposing the contour, or in these cases even going as far as to expose some exducer (not to mention large gaps from the exducer backside tips to the housing wall). As we machine all of our housings and as it had became quite clear several years back, this is a big no-no and a clear case of shoehorning too large of a wheel into a given housing.

The ultimate resolve is to scrap the housing and start over either with a housing that has the potential for the donor wheel or design a wheel that has the potential to properly fill out the housing. Doing these things properly at times can cost sales due to lower power on the dyno, i.e. marketing, but there comes a point where putting your John Hancock on something (ie. pride in your work) trumps making a sale.

Rob