Dodge Dart Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was forwarded an interesting Article put together by a turbo systems engineer with Garett. This was sent to me by a long time family friend who is a long time thermal dynamics and propulsion engineer.

Since my vehicle is going into the shop Monday for a custom exhaust at a tuner who is active on the racing circuit and builds/tunes for all types of cars and exotics I wanted to look at concrete evidence about exhaust choices (2.25, 2.5, 3"+). I'm one to learn as much as I can about something rather than just taking someone's word. I like to know the "why".

Here is the article from an impreza forum where two exhaust designers got into a spat about exhaust size:




“Howdy,

This thread was brought to my attention by a friend of mine in hopes of shedding some light on the issue of exhaust size selection for turbocharged vehicles. Most of the facts have been covered already. FWIW I'm an turbocharger development engineer for Garrett Engine Boosting Systems.

N/A cars: As most of you know, the design of turbo exhaust systems runs counter to exhaust design for n/a vehicles. N/A cars utilize exhaust velocity (not backpressure) in the collector to aid in scavenging other cylinders during the blowdown process. It just so happens that to get the appropriate velocity, you have to squeeze down the diameter of the discharge of the collector (aka the exhaust), which also induces backpressure. The backpressure is an undesirable byproduct of the desire to have a certain degree of exhaust velocity. Go too big, and you lose velocity and its associated beneficial scavenging effect. Too small and the backpressure skyrockets, more than offsetting any gain made by scavenging. There is a happy medium here.

For turbo cars, you throw all that out the window. You want the exhaust velocity to be high upstream of the turbine (i.e. in the header). You'll notice that primaries of turbo headers are smaller diameter than those of an n/a car of two-thirds the horsepower. The idea is to get the exhaust velocity up quickly, to get the turbo spooling as early as possible. Here, getting the boost up early is a much more effective way to torque than playing with tuned primary lengths and scavenging. The scavenging effects are small compared to what you'd get if you just got boost sooner instead. You have a turbo; you want boost. Just don't go so small on the header's primary diameter that you choke off the high end.

Downstream of the turbine (aka the turboback exhaust), you want the least backpressure possible. No ifs, ands, or buts. Stick a Hoover on the tailpipe if you can. The general rule of "larger is better" (to the point of diminishing returns) of turboback exhausts is valid. Here, the idea is to minimize the pressure downstream of the turbine in order to make the most effective use of the pressure that is being generated upstream of the turbine. Remember, a turbine operates via a pressure ratio. For a given turbine inlet pressure, you will get the highest pressure ratio across the turbine when you have the lowest possible discharge pressure. This means the turbine is able to do the most amount of work possible (i.e. drive the compressor and make boost) with the available inlet pressure.

Again, less pressure downstream of the turbine is goodness. This approach minimizes the time-to-boost (maximizes boost response) and will improve engine VE throughout the rev range.

As for 2.5" vs. 3.0", the "best" turboback exhaust depends on the amount of flow, or horsepower. At 250 hp, 2.5" is fine. Going to 3" at this power level won't get you much, if anything, other than a louder exhaust note. 300 hp and you're definitely suboptimal with 2.5". For 400-450 hp, even 3" is on the small side.”




"As for the geometry of the exhaust at the turbine discharge, the most optimal configuration would be a gradual increase in diameter from the turbine's exducer to the desired exhaust diameter-- via a straight conical diffuser of 7-12° included angle (to minimize flow separation and skin friction losses) mounted right at the turbine discharge. Many turbochargers found in diesels have this diffuser section cast right into the turbine housing. A hyperbolic increase in diameter (like a trumpet snorkus) is theoretically ideal but I've never seen one in use (and doubt it would be measurably superior to a straight diffuser). The wastegate flow would be via a completely divorced (separated from the main turbine discharge flow) dumptube. Due the realities of packaging, cost, and emissions compliance this config is rarely possible on street cars. You will, however, see this type of layout on dedicated race vehicles.

A large "bellmouth" config which combines the turbine discharge and wastegate flow (without a divider between the two) is certainly better than the compromised stock routing, but not as effective as the above.

If an integrated exhaust (non-divorced wastegate flow) is required, keep the wastegate flow separate from the main turbine discharge flow for ~12-18" before reintroducing it. This will minimize the impact on turbine efficiency-- the introduction of the wastegate flow disrupts the flow field of the main turbine discharge flow.

Necking the exhaust down to a suboptimal diameter is never a good idea, but if it is necessary, doing it further downstream is better than doing it close to the turbine discharge since it will minimize the exhaust's contribution to backpressure. Better yet: don't neck down the exhaust at all.

Also, the temperature of the exhaust coming out of a cat is higher than the inlet temperature, due to the exothermic oxidation of unburned hydrocarbons in the cat. So the total heat loss (and density increase) of the gases as it travels down the exhaust is not as prominent as it seems.
Another thing to keep in mind is that cylinder scavenging takes place where the flows from separate cylinders merge (i.e. in the collector). There is no such thing as cylinder scavenging downstream of the turbine, and hence, no reason to desire high exhaust velocity here. You will only introduce unwanted backpressure.

Other things you can do (in addition to choosing an appropriate diameter) to minimize exhaust backpressure in a turboback exhaust are: avoid crush-bent tubes (use mandrel bends); avoid tight-radius turns (keep it as straight as possible); avoid step changes in diameter; avoid "cheated" radii (cuts that are non-perpendicular); use a high flow cat; use a straight-thru perforated core muffler... etc.”

"Comparing the two bellmouth designs, I've never seen either one so I can only speculate. But based on your description, and assuming neither of them have a divider wall/tongue between the turbine discharge and wg dump, I'd venture that you'd be hard pressed to measure a difference between the two. The more gradual taper intuitively appears more desirable, but it's likely that it's beyond the point of diminishing returns. Either one sounds like it will improve the wastegate's discharge coefficient over the stock config, which will constitute the single biggest difference. This will allow more control over boost creep. Neither is as optimal as the divorced wastegate flow arrangement, however.

There's more to it, though-- if a larger bellmouth is excessively large right at the turbine discharge (a large step diameter increase), there will be an unrecoverable dump loss that will contribute to backpressure. This is why a gradual increase in diameter, like the conical diffuser mentioned earlier, is desirable at the turbine discharge.

As for primary lengths on turbo headers, it is advantageous to use equal-length primaries to time the arrival of the pulses at the turbine equally and to keep cylinder reversion balanced across all cylinders. This will improve boost response and the engine's VE. Equal-length is often difficult to achieve due to tight packaging, fabrication difficulty, and the desire to have runners of the shortest possible length.”




"Here's a worked example (simplified) of how larger exhausts help turbo cars:

Say you have a turbo operating at a turbine pressure ratio (aka expansion ratio) of 1.8:1. You have a small turboback exhaust that contributes, say, 10 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge at redline. The total backpressure seen by the engine (upstream of the turbine) in this case is:

(14.5 +10)*1.8 = 44.1 psia = 29.6 psig total backpressure

o here, the turbine contributed 19.6 psig of backpressure to the total.

Now you slap on a proper low-backpressure, big turboback exhaust. Same turbo, same boost, etc. You measure 3 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge. In this case the engine sees just 17 psig total backpressure! And the turbine's contribution to the total backpressure is reduced to 14 psig (note: this is 5.6 psig lower than its contribution in the "small turboback" case).

So in the end, the engine saw a reduction in backpressure of 12.6 psig when you swapped turbobacks in this example. This reduction in backpressure is where all the engine's VE gains come from.

This is why larger exhausts make such big gains on nearly all stock turbo cars-- the turbine compounds the downstream backpressure via its expansion ratio. This is also why bigger turbos make more power at a given boost level-- they improve engine VE by operating at lower turbine expansion ratios for a given boost level.

As you can see, the backpressure penalty of running a too-small exhaust (like 2.5" for 350 hp) will vary depending on the match. At a given power level, a smaller turbo will generally be operating at a higher turbine pressure ratio and so will actually make the engine more sensitive to the backpressure downstream of the turbine than a larger turbine/turbo would. "
 

·
Mopar 13 Moderator
Joined
·
5,437 Posts
Nice, learned a lot here, thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,876 Posts
So we want either no cat or a high flow cat with AT LEAST 2.5" (3" even better especially if you want to make power) outlet and keep it that big all the way out. Am I reading that right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
So we want either no cat or a high flow cat with AT LEAST 2.5" (3" even better especially if you want to make power) outlet and keep it that big all the way out. Am I reading that right?
Yes I believe so. The race shop is electing to do a 2.5" on mine. Will do a baseline dyno before and one after. Also I want to put an exhaust gas pressure sensor if possible to test this info. The shop puts their word that unless we are making near 300hp we would see better over all power and daily driving pleasure. When they said that I wanted to research. This is what I've come up with outside of my chat with the thermal dynamics engineer :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,188 Posts
All in all. stay with 2 1/2 for our cars. perhaps in 5 years when technology has our cars at 300+ hp then we could explore going to 3 inch. That is what I took from this article?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,648 Posts
It's exactly why I tell people 2.5" is good enough without a big turbo and why I have a 2.5" turboback on my VW 1.8T. VW's stock cat is automatically high-flow good for approx. 400 hp and I imagine they are not the only ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
wow that was interesting, but way over my head.

"The more you know, the more you know you dont know."

thanks for sharing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
well it still helps to have a large down pipe to help defuse turbulent exhaust. as the exhaust travels down the pipe it cools and volume and velocity reduce. it can help to use a large downpipe then a reducer to a more reasonable exhaust diameter usually after a cat or muffler or resonator. i wouldn't be opposed to a 3-3.5 down pipe only then a 2.5 system behind it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,648 Posts
well it still helps to have a large down pipe to help defuse turbulent exhaust. as the exhaust travels down the pipe it cools and volume and velocity reduce. it can help to use a large downpipe then a reducer to a more reasonable exhaust diameter usually after a cat or muffler or resonator. i wouldn't be opposed to a 3-3.5 down pipe only then a 2.5 system behind it.
The general consensus is use a 3" dp with a small turbo and lose a little low end power but gain a little top end power (dynos only show top end power btw). That is the reason I went with a 2.5" dp and exhaust. I wanted the least amount of lag and the most power on tap early. ymmv

Edit--3" is always beneficial with a big turbo setup so if you are sure you will be running 300+ hp in the future you want 3".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
I came from the 80's turbo dodge world to Darts, and for those engines bigger is better with zero drawbacks. Everyone runs 3'', most people run straight pipe no muffler no cat. Turbo spools faster, no loss in low end power in fact you gain. The turbo itself provides plenty of backpressure, after the turbo it just wants to flow freely.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
About this Discussion
10 Replies
8 Participants
87dtna
Dodge Dart Forum
Dodge-Dart.org is a forum dedicated to the Dodge Dart. Join and participate in discussions about body kits and performance mods. Get the latest tips, news, browse the classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top