Start Of My 1.8l Turbo System
- Thread starter SonicSteve
- Start date
civickiller
New member
i am now going to follow my imagination and look up if you can run nos at a slow rate, that is just the equivalent of like a 10 shot for a given amount of time for an entire race.
civickiller
New member
yeh im sure a lot of thing irritate you. like when people say nitrogen oxide when its clearly dinitrogen oxide. i said nos because its easy to type. no need to be an butt if you wanted to help and correct me, which wasn't even needed.
SouthFLSonic
Active member
Wellllllll if you want to get technical it isn't called either and you're both wrong.
Nitrous oxide
IUPAC name[hide]
Dinitrogen monoxide
Other names[hide]
Laughing gas, Sweet air, Protoxide of nitrogen, Hyponitrous oxide
Straight from Wikipedia so it cant be wrong!!
mitdr774
also a dinner prick
If you really want to get technical it is dinitrogen monoxide, also know as nitrous oxide. I never mentioned Nitrogen Oxide.
Edit only to add the below comment:
Haha, slow internet means that I was beat by the post above me, while typing and waiting for mine to post.
Edit only to add the below comment:
Haha, slow internet means that I was beat by the post above me, while typing and waiting for mine to post.
SonicBoy24
New member
so many tight buttholes....
Can we return this to a Turbo 1.8 pleaseeeeee
Can we return this to a Turbo 1.8 pleaseeeeee
Preloader
The M32 Martyr
Wellllllll if you want to get technical it isn't called either and you're both wrong.
Nitrous oxide
IUPAC name[hide]
Dinitrogen monoxide
Other names[hide]
Laughing gas, Sweet air, Protoxide of nitrogen, Hyponitrous oxide
Straight from Wikipedia so it cant be wrong!!
If you really want to get technical it is dinitrogen monoxide, also know as nitrous oxide. I never mentioned Nitrogen Oxide.
Edit only to add the below comment:
Haha, slow internet means that I was beat by the post above me, while typing and waiting for mine to post.
vento
New member
mitdr774
also a dinner prick
Make sure your car has a 7 speed in it as well.
Back on topic....
Preloader, since you seem to have looked into this a bit for the 1.4, do you feel that a log style or header style manifold would be better for the 1.8?
I suspect a standard weld-els manifold would be just fine for what the vast majority of the 1.8 community will do.
SonicSteve
New member
Dude. Im scrapin the turbo idea.... i need nos. thats the funniest sh!t ive seen in a while lol.
So on topic now. Bnr is tryin to source me a flange currently which is awesome. So thats the main thing i need, also, the log style header which i know will be easy for most is definitely not the most efficient. also in looking at the 1.8 manifold and exhaust route stock. the custom header and downpipe shouldnt really be a difficult piece. the tube header will allow me to try and get the primarys to be about equal length, this means the exhaust pulses will hit the turbine about on time as it rotates rather than out of time, which can give you resistance and possibly hurt some components.
lastly, if my design idea works out as i see it in my head, the header will be super simple and functional as all hell. im sure after pics get up on here that there will be many people who can do what i plan to do.
Preloader
The M32 Martyr
I think either will be fine. It's been a while since I was at that part of the research, but firing order was of interest, when considering manifold runner lengths.
I think on both the 1.4 and 1.8, that having a large and straight run of downpipe will help promote spool up more than equal length exhaust pulses.
However, with a head flange blank, welding up your own elbow tube header can be just as easy and cost effective as modifying a cast header.
I personally like the pros of a cast mani over a tubular when an external WG is not part of the equation.
sx sonic
New member
The stock mani leaves exhaust pulses hitting the turbo out of phase (as do virtually all O.E.M. turbo/manifold setups. Not an issue for component longevity.
Turbos also aren't as wholly receptive to 'tuned" header length (equal length or not) as NA and SC engines since the turbo impedes the strength and timing of the exhaust gas reversions. Resonance tuning still works with turbo engines but not typically as effectively.
Moreover there are design tradeoffs with a log vs tuned length exhaust that NA engines don't experience, and that's disregarding cost. The comprises of either design are headache inducing.
Log manifolds typically have a short distance between the head and the turbo. That's great for spool time and available energy as Exhaust Gas temps are quickly transferred to the turbine. Less heat is also lost because there's less distance for the manifold to radiate heat. The shorter length also means exhaust velocity at the turbine will pick up quickly when the gas is depressed, further aiding spool time, although keeping heat in the turbo is more important.
However log manifolds lose out on pressure wave tuning which would improve parts of the powerband vs. a log setup and also improve spooling.
Tuned length headers on the otherhand can gain more power in partss of the powerband and improve spool time by controlling exhaust pulses. A tuned header coupled to a twin scroll turbo really shines. The out of time pulses can be isolated all the way up to the turbine wheel for faster spool time and maximum energy at the turbine.
But they typically lose some or all of the gains in spool time over a log because the longer tube lengths leak more heat out of the exhaust and the greater volume takes longer to get up to velocity and reach the turbine. To give a clue as to how important keeping heat in the exhaust and thus the turbine I'll leave an example of what some all out, max power teams do to keep heat in.
One team made a tuned header out of thinwall SS (counterintuitively thin metals leaks less heat), they then welded large SS tube around each runner to act as an insulator, and then wrapped it all in heat wrap. Intense haha.
So to answer your question of which is better. Well it depends. A well made and calculated out and well executed "tuned header" can outperform a well designed log manifold in almost every regard...... At a price. If It's just a header slapped together with arbitrary lengths then It's going to be compromising some aspect of power or spool time...
Longevity and cost also favor manifolds.
In the end the turbo, other flow mods and tuning will make a vastly greater impact in power than an adequate log manifold and a good tubular header.
Turbos also aren't as wholly receptive to 'tuned" header length (equal length or not) as NA and SC engines since the turbo impedes the strength and timing of the exhaust gas reversions. Resonance tuning still works with turbo engines but not typically as effectively.
Moreover there are design tradeoffs with a log vs tuned length exhaust that NA engines don't experience, and that's disregarding cost. The comprises of either design are headache inducing.
Log manifolds typically have a short distance between the head and the turbo. That's great for spool time and available energy as Exhaust Gas temps are quickly transferred to the turbine. Less heat is also lost because there's less distance for the manifold to radiate heat. The shorter length also means exhaust velocity at the turbine will pick up quickly when the gas is depressed, further aiding spool time, although keeping heat in the turbo is more important.
However log manifolds lose out on pressure wave tuning which would improve parts of the powerband vs. a log setup and also improve spooling.
Tuned length headers on the otherhand can gain more power in partss of the powerband and improve spool time by controlling exhaust pulses. A tuned header coupled to a twin scroll turbo really shines. The out of time pulses can be isolated all the way up to the turbine wheel for faster spool time and maximum energy at the turbine.
But they typically lose some or all of the gains in spool time over a log because the longer tube lengths leak more heat out of the exhaust and the greater volume takes longer to get up to velocity and reach the turbine. To give a clue as to how important keeping heat in the exhaust and thus the turbine I'll leave an example of what some all out, max power teams do to keep heat in.
One team made a tuned header out of thinwall SS (counterintuitively thin metals leaks less heat), they then welded large SS tube around each runner to act as an insulator, and then wrapped it all in heat wrap. Intense haha.
So to answer your question of which is better. Well it depends. A well made and calculated out and well executed "tuned header" can outperform a well designed log manifold in almost every regard...... At a price. If It's just a header slapped together with arbitrary lengths then It's going to be compromising some aspect of power or spool time...
Longevity and cost also favor manifolds.
In the end the turbo, other flow mods and tuning will make a vastly greater impact in power than an adequate log manifold and a good tubular header.
Preloader
The M32 Martyr
Excellent info sx. It doesn't include my main favoritism for the log mani though. Damn near invincible and trouble-free. Tube headers heat and contract more rapidly and extremely than the heat sinking cast log mani's. Often causing exhaust leaks, constant re-torquing of the header bolts, and in some cases actual head distortion.
Also with proper facilities, extensive dynos and a flow bench, a tuned header will beat out a stock log in max power, but all that for what? Maybe 5-7hp. I'd rather spend my valuable time enjoying my mediocre turbo system.
I got nothing against tubular headers. Just not for me and my goals.
Also with proper facilities, extensive dynos and a flow bench, a tuned header will beat out a stock log in max power, but all that for what? Maybe 5-7hp. I'd rather spend my valuable time enjoying my mediocre turbo system.
I got nothing against tubular headers. Just not for me and my goals.
SonicSteve
New member
Do note. im not in any way attempting to gain hp numbers off of my header build. its a matter of necessity for me and moding the stock mani wont work. well it might but as far as my build is concerned the most headache free route is build a tube header that sweeps right.
SonicSteve
New member
mitdr774
also a dinner prick
In Europe they have a 1.6T engine based on the same platform as the 1.8. There are actually 3 I think. I want to say they are the A16LER, A16LET, and A16LES. As far as I can tell all three use the same manifold, just different turbos and tuning. The A16LES is the hot rod if I recall correctly. For some reason I want to say the current version of this engine is something like 210hp. From what I can tell the manifold should be a direct bolt up to the 1.8 head. This engine is not in the NAO market though, so a manifold would have to be found and shipped here. Cheapest I have found so far was something like 300 Euros plus shipping and VAT.