PERON P3xx Twin-Scroll Turbo Thread

[Hijinx]

Yup...Lots of assumptions...I'll ask about install as well..I know of a few folks who already have this kit installed across the pond doing eval work...

From the looks of the flange, you're going to have to install the manifold and turbo in one piece. The only way to do that is by pulling the axle.

 

[frankiefiesta]

From the looks of the flange, you're going to have to install the manifold and turbo in one piece. The only way to do that is by pulling the axle.

Doubt it. The flange looks like it can be reached from the back with some curse words and/or baby fingers. May take an extra set of hands, but I doubt they would develop a turbo kit that requires axle to be pulled.

 

[Sekred]

From the looks of the flange, you're going to have to install the manifold and turbo in one piece. The only way to do that is by pulling the axle.

I removed the long and short axles when I installed the single scroll kit. I had removed the transmission at the same time. I fitted the turbo and manifold in one piece, really easy actually with a ton of room without the axle in the way. The long axle is not difficult to remove only requiring the removal of the two strut bolts and the axle nut. Once you have done this you can pull the stub outwards and manipulate the axle out of the stub using the movement in the CV joint. The stub pivots on the tie rod and ball joint. Take about 30 minutes and a little care.

 

[Hijinx]

I removed the long and short axles when I installed the single scroll kit. I had removed the transmission at the same time. I fitted the turbo and manifold in one piece, really easy actually with a ton of room without the axle in the way. The long axle is not difficult to remove only requiring the removal of the two strut bolts and the axle nut. Once you have done this you can pull the stub outwards and manipulate the axle out of the stub using the movement in the CV joint. The stub pivots on the tie rod and ball joint. Take about 30 minutes and a little care.

I've removed my long axle (aka intermediate shaft) before. Which is why I'm thinking the axle will need to be removed and the turbo installed in one piece.

 

[Sekred]

I've removed my long axle (aka intermediate shaft) before. Which is why I'm thinking the axle will need to be removed and the turbo installed in one piece.

I am sure you would be wright, just not enough room from the top. I did the drain gasket on my turbo the other day and even that was a pain because of the freaking axle in the way.

 

[Hijinx]

Doubt it. The flange looks like it can be reached from the back with some curse words and/or baby fingers. May take an extra set of hands, but I doubt they would develop a turbo kit that requires axle to be pulled.

Looks can be deceiving... So either of us could be right. I've installed my 2867 twice, installed two cyborgs, and installed an ATP 2860... My experience suggests to me it will be so. There's just not a lot of room to work with unless you pull the axle.

 

[Ryephile]

I look forward to seeing a full-RPM dyno pull, especially the boost threshold ramp from 1k to 3k RPM. None of the EFR's are small turbo's, so it'll be interesting to see if it makes any useful power below 4k RPM. This kit will be fantastic for track cars, I'm curious to see how well it'll work for a street-only car.

 

[RAAMaudio]

I will let somebody else be the first with a twin scroll. I had the first Cyborg and first US built EFR system, ordered the first DHM race IC, first to do the 4x100 conversion, first to change the rear camber, first to run 9" wide wheels under stock fenders, first 6 piston BBK under 15" wheels, first 4 piston rear BBK, first to do all the suspension bushings, first transaxle mount, first oil cooler, first raised shifter, first to order no-pistons dead pedal, first(I believe) installed aluminum steering rack bushings, first rear battery, first to run 8/7kg Swift springs, first full length undertray and more. If I was not the very first which I am pretty sure I was, then I was a close second on maybe one or two items, that is enough firsts for me for awhile

Being a twin scroll it will really help but it is still a pretty big turbo, I think I will be more than happy with the torque curve of the DHM quick spool and WMI

 

[Jardamuth]

I will let somebody else be the first with a twin scroll. I had the first Cyborg and first US built EFR system, ordered the first DHM race IC, first to do the 4x100 conversion, first to change the rear camber, first to run 9" wide wheels under stock fenders, first 6 piston BBK under 15" wheels, first 4 piston rear BBK, first to do all the suspension bushings, first transaxle mount, first oil cooler, first raised shifter, first to order no-pistons dead pedal, first(I believe) installed aluminum steering rack bushings, first rear battery, first to run 8/7kg Swift springs, first full length undertray and more. If I was not the very first which I am pretty sure I was, then I was a close second on maybe one or two items, that is enough firsts for me for awhile

Being a twin scroll it will really help but it is still a pretty big turbo, I think I will be more than happy with the torque curve of the DHM quick spool and WMI

You mean nobody ever installed a twin scroll in those cars yet?

 

[RAAMaudio]

I seriously thought about building a manifold having done it before but I did not want to spent that much time on a one off design so went other routes, 3rd change taking place now.

 

[ian.j]

You mean nobody ever installed a twin scroll in those cars yet?

there is on on my car at the moment, testing has taken quite a bit longer as Charlie is working on it in his spare time for me to keep some of the cost down. i have been given some nice graphs last week but cant show till he is happy with the final tune. i can say its not any world beating power as i want to stay stock fuel but the response and curve is impressive.

 

[Jardamuth]

I reckon a broad powerband is a more deciding factor than final numbers. I'm not found of the Perron design but having built and used it for many many years, I can vouch for the twin scroll design being far superior than any single scroll.

 

[ian.j]

what part of the design dont you like?

 

[Sekred]

I am running the Peron single scroll. The 6258 is a little large for a 1.6 rated up to 450 HP. Saying that I do not think this set-up has excessive lag. I don't think I am experiencing the problems Rick has. Driving on a canyon road, my problems are torque steer and wheel spin. Lack of response is not a issue for me.
I think the fact that I am running a "stand alone" EBC to control gate duty cycle and insulation on the Ex manifold plus a turbo blanket helps spool.

I am looking forward to seeing the graph for the twin scroll and how much earlier it comes on. The twin scroll turbine and single scroll turbine housings use the same core, so conversion is a simple process for me. Of course I will a manifold as well

 

[Jardamuth]

what part of the design dont you like?

I don't like the overall design of the runners, especially the #1. This manifold looks amazingly nice but it displays far too many sharp bends and excessive runner length. There is no real equal-lenght benefits to take advantage of, rendering the numerous bends useless. Actually, in this particular case, those bends are more a restrictive factor and heat dissipaters than anything else.

To Peron's defence, part of the problem comes from the turbocharger itself. Building an adequate/hi-performance manifold would require the turbo to be tilted backward so that the turbine inlet would be located farther from the block, angled forward. This would give the exhaust port a more natural path into the turbine. This is the reason to why I selected a twinscroll titanium Ev0 6.5 turbo for my build. The Evos are reverse rotation design and a perfect match for the Fiesta configuration. Although not a ball bearing unit, the MHI titanium-aluminide rotating assembly is far lighter than anything currently available on the market and will outspin similar sized EFRs. I'm in the process of taking the turbo apart to graft a billet wheel and increase balancing accuracy. Ill snap some pictures of both rotating assemblies on the scale for educational purpose at the same time.

 

[Hijinx]

I don't like the overall design of the runners, especially the #1. This manifold looks amazingly nice but it displays far too many sharp bends and excessive runner length. There is no real equal-lenght benefits to take advantage of, rendering the numerous bends useless. Actually, in this particular case, those bends are more a restrictive factor and heat dissipaters than anything else.

To Peron's defence, part of the problem comes from the turbocharger itself. Building an adequate/hi-performance manifold would require the turbo to be tilted backward so that the turbine inlet would be located farther from the block, angled forward. This would give the exhaust port a more natural path into the turbine. This is the reason to why I selected a twinscroll titanium Ev0 6.5 turbo for my build. The Evos are reverse rotation design and a perfect match for the Fiesta configuration. Although not a ball bearing unit, the MHI titanium-aluminide rotating assembly is far lighter than anything currently available on the market and will outspin similar sized EFRs. I'm in the process of taking the turbo apart to graft a billet wheel and increase balancing accuracy. Ill snap some pictures of both rotating assemblies on the scale for educational purpose at the same time.

What you don't know is that the exhaust port runners aren't equal. I think [MENTION=688]Sourskittle[/MENTION] proved this when he chopped up a head. There's a reason for the madness.

 

[RAAMaudio]

What you don't know is that the exhaust port runners aren't equal. I think [MENTION=688]Sourskittle[/MENTION] proved this when he chopped up a head. There's a reason for the madness.

Good point.

Does Perrin know and if they did is it part of the manifold design to make the equal?

 

[Jardamuth]

What you don't know is that the exhaust port runners aren't equal. I think [MENTION=688]Sourskittle[/MENTION] proved this when he chopped up a head. There's a reason for the madness.

I know they aren't equal but that is negligible and it certainly doesn't justify a 6" length difference. I know for sure that Peron didn't design this manifold to be equal length as they had way too many limitations in regard to space, turbo location and flange angle. However, I'm sure they could have routed their runners differently for a better, more efficient result. That or robotic welding has limitations that I'm not aware of.

 

[Sekred]

I know they aren't equal but that is negligible and it certainly doesn't justify a 6" length difference. I know for sure that Peron didn't design this manifold to be equal length as they had way too many limitations in regard to space, turbo location and flange angle. However, I'm sure they could have routed their runners differently for a better, more efficient result. That or robotic welding has limitations that I'm not aware of.

I am really look forward to seeing your equal length manifold and how you package it to fit in the space available. Should be a interesting design.
I am wondering myself why Peron went for such a long runner on number one. Personally I think equal length manifolds are a little overrated in there benefit verse the effort to design and construct, plus the cost. I have never seen any back to back data only comparisons against log manifolds.

 

[Hijinx]

I know they aren't equal but that is negligible and it certainly doesn't justify a 6" length difference. I know for sure that Peron didn't design this manifold to be equal length as they had way too many limitations in regard to space, turbo location and flange angle. However, I'm sure they could have routed their runners differently for a better, more efficient result. That or robotic welding has limitations that I'm not aware of.

I'm sure they did testing and ended up with that design... It can't be a fluke that two builders have decided cyl 1 is the longest.