MG-Rover.org Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

Been speaking to someone who makes hybrid turbos

Jump to Latest
41 - 60 of 196 Posts
#42 · (Edited)
ste91 said:
Hybrid - previous hybrids maybe weren't great, but when run at a reasonable level of boost they should theoretically provide a slight increase in power, without having too much lag, and are easy to fit.

Personally the hybrid would be my best choice, as I don't want to go too crazy on the power but want a bit more than the standard turbo can provide. I'm only really aiming for 150-160bhp.
Click to expand...
The problem you can't see is that the hybrid way has been already followed/travelled here by many people, so we already know where they bring you. Developeing a new one will sadly not change this reality, there are "technical problems" that can't be solved/improved with further new developments.
The Stage 2 was too laggy, so let's speak only about the Stage 1. Me and many others has/have had one and I can confirm that is more or less what you want: 150/160bhp with very nice torque and no turbo lag! So where is the problem? The stage 1 gives you these results only if used at least at 1,5Bar but we discovered that in this way you still have reliability problems! (read EMP issue, even if less than using a Hybrid 2). So to stay in safe EMP limit you should use it at 1,3Bar max. In this way you have same performance of the stock turbo, so no more sense to use a Hybrid!
Which is your solution so? :)

Sorry if I can seem rude, please consider English is not my first language.
 
Discussion starter · #44 ·
I know that it's already been tried, I was just hoping that despite the failures of previous attempts, someone could maybe get it "right".

I remember some discussion about using ARP head studs to try to stop any headlift issues caused by high EMP but to me that's a poor method of covering up the problem.

I think my best option (to actually achieve what I want from the engine) is to just wait until Dakta finishes his VNT controller, find the right size VNT turbo, and go from there.
 
#45 ·
ste91 said:
I think my best option (to actually achieve what I want from the engine) is to just wait until Dakta finishes his VNT controller, find the right size VNT turbo, and go from there.
Click to expand...
In this option how do you see the GTB1756VK? It seems that these new "GTB" turbos has a new design that allow them to spool much faster (so no turbolag) in front of old "GT series" ones.
 
#46 ·
To add my 2p....

Who says a stage 2 is too laggy? Mine is at full boost by 2250, maybe 2500 until peak torque- I have more lag due to the new pierburg maf being rubbish, and fueling still stock until 2000. Torque at 4000 is over 200left still - I believe this will go up once the emp is sorted, less back pressure should free up some ponies I would have thought. I am waiting for the call to tell me my car is finally done as I type this.

As others have said you need a larger exhaust housing, the stage 2 is flawed because of that, it have some machining to make the compressor fit as well.

Are studs are a consideration for anyone going for big power imo if you plan to take the engine apart only. One of those things you do in a belt/braces fashion if you get me if using a hybrid option and/or you dont keep an eye on emp as you tune it up.
 
#50 ·
just my thoughts on the subject, my stage 2 would be in the same sort of feel and lag as my vw golf which is a hybrided turbo technics stage 2 gt1749vnt. Of course lag can be affected by other things than just the turbo, size of intercooler, piping, mapping, etc.

To be honest a good sized vnt like a gt17 should be ideal for the job. The gtb turbos are meant to be very good, and i believe matt did get over the 200bhp with his.
 
#52 ·
GTB series are superior by design, but like most tech it depends what you're looking for, the price you're prepared to pay and the convenience of the specific item in terms of use.

Any reasonably sized vnt is going to match or exceed any reasonably sized or even stock wastegate system, so it 'might' not be crucial to have the latest tech either, and that the GT series itself offers a considerable benefit.

New tech also has it's issues, some as I understand come with electronic actuators - whilst some are easily interfaced with (I beleive are directly interfacable with my vnt controller for instance) some are entirely electronic and plugged directly into the canbus etc, which means you need to do an actuator/vacuum conversion. Which might not pose a massive challenge, but adds to an already considerable project, which in realistic terms adds weighting to peoples arguments of which turbocharger to use.

If the argument is to be taken solely from a technical point of view, it's very easily resolved - the GTB for a given size will be a better flowing design. But this might not always be the deciding factor as I see budget being one of the biggest restrictions on developing a market for aftermarket turbocharging systems, and prices for the new generation of turbochargers seem to be considerably higher and the availability of older turbochargers being considerably higher too.

Needless to say a new generation turbo doesn't always kill the generation before it, I'm thinking of the T25 here, it just won't die ;)
 
#53 ·
yea good old t25, always comes up haha. Understand what your saying about the electronic actuators, but i was told these can be converted to a normal actuactor, for modified cars.
If the turbo has the right orientation, cold-hot, and oil feed-return then it should be able to fit, with the right adapter flanges or custom manifold. It all comes down to how much you want to spend, how much hassle you want, and really how much you can do yourself. Like i was saying to kris the other night, i wouldnt fancy doing what he has done and do a conversion with engine in place, i know the 400 will have more room to work, but i really wouldnt fancy doing it in a 200/25 setup.
Seen a gtb2260 on the bench one day and it looked the balls. That would my own personal move up if the 2256 doesnt work out.
 
#54 ·
#55 ·
looks ok, the housing will need turned around a good bit so the oil feed/return are in a vertical position. the actuator will then be close to the block as it will be in the inside of the turbo, if you know what i mean. Then the custom oil pipes, etc. does look a good size of turbo. You wont know how easy it is until you start to fit, and what problems you come across.
 
#56 ·
Newer generation's are almost always better performing than their previous generation (otherwise what would be the point in developing it!).

E.g. T25 was revised into GT25 and then GT25RS for example, each performing better than its predecessor.
 
#57 ·
Dakta said:
If the argument is to be taken solely from a technical point of view, it's very easily resolved - the GTB for a given size will be a better flowing design. But this might not always be the deciding factor as I see budget being one of the biggest restrictions on developing a market for aftermarket turbocharging systems, and prices for the new generation of turbochargers seem to be considerably higher and the availability of older turbochargers being considerably higher too.
Click to expand...
Price definitely makes a difference - bang for buck is always a big concern for me, cars aren't my only hobby, and everyones pretty strapped for cash atm.

I figure i can do the entire gt1749v conversion for probably less than just the cost of a gtb turbo alone - distinctly helped by getting hold of a decent 2nd hand gt1749v for well under £100, as models with them fitted are starting to appear in breakers in decent numbers.
 
#58 ·
if you can get a gt1749v for under £100 and it's actually suitable for grafting onto the L series you're onto a winner.

I'm not saying it'll be cheap, a turbo project costs but it's a cracking start. My '22 cost twice as much and a gtb probably twice that.
 
#59 ·
Dakta said:
if you can get a gt1749v for under £100 and it's actually suitable for grafting onto the L series you're onto a winner.

I'm not saying it'll be cheap, a turbo project costs but it's a cracking start. My '22 cost twice as much and a gtb probably twice that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, i think it was just a lucky buy in the end, bit of an impulse, but seems sound, need to have a better look at it, will need clocking, but thats no biggy. Will open it up and have a look at the condition of the wheels and go from there.
 
Discussion starter · #60 ·
Cost is a very big factor for me because at the end of the day I'm not going for massive power - I only want about 150-160bhp, and it's still only a £500 Rover.

It's safe to say any good condition VNT is going to cost £200+ and then you have to add in the cost of all the custom parts to fit it, another £200+ and then some way of controlling it, and whatever else is needed, you're into £500 even if you went for a low budget 2nd hand one off ebay.

I know the same applies to any other non direct fitting turbo, which is one reason a hybrid seems a viable choice.

BUT then I also say I want 150-160bhp "without any extra lag" which is what steers us to VNT turbos.

@ Miky060 - the turbo you suggested would probably be out of my budget since it's new.

Can anyone off the top of their head suggest a VNT that is capable of atleast 170bhp, with boost coming in earlier than a standard GT1549, and wont give me EMP problems? :)
 
41 - 60 of 196 Posts
About this Discussion
195 Replies
18 Participants
Last post:
E_T_V
MG-Rover.org Forums
posts
5.9M
members
140K
Since
2001
A forum community dedicated to MG & Rover owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, troubleshooting, upgrades, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
MGF and MGTF MG ZR / Rover 25, 200 & Streetwise MG ZT / Rover 75 MG / Rover Related Chat - up to 2005 MG ZS (2001-2005) / Rover 45 & 400