19t>>15g

[NitroX5]

The hot sides are identical on all of them (13C, 15G, 19T)...52/45.7mm turbines.

Not exactly, the 13C turbine housing is TD04H which is different from "HL"

Shaft is the same, but the wheel is not: 52/44.2 and different CHRA


this is why I can't upgrade 19T from this. You need at least 13G (or maybe 12T, I'm not sure)

 

[BDKR]

I don't think it would work with an 18G wheel. The 18G wheel is a full 10MM larger than the 19T wheel.

58mm on the 19T vs 68mm on the 18G.

15G is 55.5mm, and the 13C is 53mm.

The hot sides are identical on all of them (13C, 15G, 19T)...52/45.7mm turbines.

The question is then if the TD04 CHRA has 10mm to give up to a machinist?

And you'll see that NitroX5 below is correct.

Not exactly, the 13C turbine housing is TD04H which is different from "HL"

Shaft is the same, but the wheel is not: 52/44.2 and different CHRA


this is why I can't upgrade 19T from this. You need at least 13G (or maybe 12T, I'm not sure)

Are we sure that he didn't mean 13g?

Evenstill, and if you don't mind, you could just put the 13c shaft and hotside wheel though the larger CHRA. Then you'll have the smaller 13c hotside and whatever 1xg coldside you want. That's what I did with my 13c/15g franken turbo. Worked well too.

 

[impulse922]

I don't think it would work with an 18G wheel. The 18G wheel is a full 10MM larger than the 19T wheel.

58mm on the 19T vs 68mm on the 18G.

15G is 55.5mm, and the 13C is 53mm.

The hot sides are identical on all of them (13C, 15G, 19T)...52/45.7mm turbines.

the 16g would be a perfect wheel if there were enough metal to machine.. coming in at 60mm.. a tad larger.. and it is a G wheel

 

[linuxman51]

which 16g? there are about a dozen '16g' wheels.

 

[NitroX5]

Are we sure that he didn't mean 13g?

Evenstill, and if you don't mind, you could just put the 13c shaft and hotside wheel though the larger CHRA. Then you'll have the smaller 13c hotside and whatever 1xg coldside you want. That's what I did with my 13c/15g franken turbo. Worked well too.

13G sure have the bigger hot side and turbine wheel. I just bring that an example because the 13C is a pain... a restriction compared to TD04HL. I think the smaller hotside is not a good starting point if you want a more powerful turbo.--> and yes, you can match it together, but not enough efficient.

 

[linuxman51]

the td04hl is by no means a large hot side.

 

[IceCold4x4]

^ kenny is right. I would say that without nitrous breaking 300 RWHP with a TD04HL hotside is going to be Damn near impossible. the angled housing i have is a bit better but still compared to the TD06 hotside i have it's night and day. And I can still make 6 psi by 3200, and with a 7500 redline that's a big enough powerband for me. btw the 19t is the way to go if you want to stay within the stock turbo frame on a mitsu car. . . . but it is by no means the perfect turbo . . .

P.S. if you are going to try to go with a evo 16g wheel in a td04 housing you will most likely meet an guy named compressor surge.

 

[740Weapon]

^ kenny is right. I would say that without nitrous breaking 300 RWHP with a TD04HL hotside is going to be Damn near impossible.

With an stock 8 valve head it might be 'senseless' to use a TD04HL for 300 whp. but it can prob happen.

i bet a 16 valve motor could do it by mistake.

 

[thelostartof]

I would be afraid of a tdo4hl on a 16v

 

[ZVOLV]

I wouldnt. The low end sucks on the 16v.

 

[VQ]

^ kenny is right. I would say that without nitrous breaking 300 RWHP with a TD04HL hotside is going to be Damn near impossible. the angled housing i have is a bit better but still compared to the TD06 hotside i have it's night and day. And I can still make 6 psi by 3200, and with a 7500 redline that's a big enough powerband for me. btw the 19t is the way to go if you want to stay within the stock turbo frame on a mitsu car. . . . but it is by no means the perfect turbo . . .

P.S. if you are going to try to go with a evo 16g wheel in a td04 housing you will most likely meet an guy named compressor surge.

My 16t makes 11psi at 2500rpm, it's rediculous!

 

[BDKR]

and yes, you can match it together, but not enough efficient.

Well of course you can. I allready did it. Why? See below.

My 16t makes 11psi at 2500rpm, it's rediculous!

I was knocking out 10 psi by 2K. Sylvanna absolutely roared out of corners and from a dig. Did it get close to 300hp? Hell no! Did it have tons of torque and spin the tires like true hooligans car? Hell yes!

If you want big torque right now, those LITTLE(!) Mitsu are the ticket. Want big power? Go somewhere else.

 

[VQ]

Well of course you can. I allready did it. Why? See below.



I was knocking out 10 psi by 2K. Sylvanna absolutely roared out of corners and from a dig. Did it get close to 300hp? Hell no! Did it have tons of torque and spin the tires like true hooligans car? Hell yes!

If you want big torque right now, those LITTLE(!) Mitsu are the ticket. Want big power? Go somewhere else.

This is win.

 

[SteveMD]

Well of course you can. I allready did it. Why? See below.



I was knocking out 10 psi by 2K. Sylvanna absolutely roared out of corners and from a dig. Did it get close to 300hp? Hell no! Did it have tons of torque and spin the tires like true hooligans car? Hell yes!

If you want big torque right now, those LITTLE(!) Mitsu are the ticket. Want big power? Go somewhere else.

What camshaft did you have?

 

[linuxman51]

I wouldnt. The low end sucks on the 16v.

yeah but the top end would blow asshole chunks, and thats where the 16v shines.

That would be a lot of work to just castrate the setup with a teeny tiny turbo.

 

[EricF]

yeah but the top end would blow asshole chunks, and thats where the 16v shines.

That would be a lot of work to just castrate the setup with a teeny tiny turbo.

"Castrated" 850s have been known to trap 107-110+ with full weight and stock longblocks

Just sayin. I think it would be interesting, but I would agree with you on principle.

 

[linuxman51]

"Castrated" 850s have been known to trap 107-110+ with full weight and stock longblocks

Just sayin. I think it would be interesting, but I would agree with you on principle.

Homeboy's dyno graph was posted somewhere with a 19t... it was nothing much more than a slope down from the initial hit.

 

[EricF]

Homeboy's dyno graph was posted somewhere with a 19t... it was nothing much more than a slope down from the initial hit.

Also was an automatic transmission with a TCU... And started around 4k IIRC.

FWIW the chart I have from when I first bought that 19T car of mine and it had the boost issues (controlled by Motronic still, bouncing between 13-15 psi, AFRs all over the place, torque and power curves bouncing accordingly), shows 150 wtq at 2000 RPM, peak power of just 243 wheel at 6300-6400 RPM... Two torque peaks of 280-285 wtq at ~2800 and ~4200, with a big dip in the middle (remember, bouncing boost levels), and power levels over 200 whp from 4000 RPM to 6400 RPM at the limiter. This on modest and very unstable boost levels with AFRs all over the place. With a solid AFR curve and solid boost levels of 20 psi, it's pretty easy to see that you have insta-torque and very consistent power that really doesn't fall off.

Given that peak power was at 6400 or so, you're not going to be dropping below that at higher boost levels, even if the turbine is really choking the power curve at that point. What my guess as to what you'd see on a more ideal dyno setup with ~19-20 psi would be 225+ whp at 4000+ rpm, peaking around 5800 or so at 280-290ish, and dropping to 260-265ish by the limiter. That's a nice power curve, and couple it with a ton of torque below 4000 and you have a heck of a potent and wide powerband.

With curves like that, I think it would be pretty desirable for lots of folks wanting to run a 16 valve +T or less severe build than most people going the 16 valve route want to achieve

 

[linuxman51]

Also was an automatic transmission with a TCU... And started around 4k IIRC.

FWIW the chart I have from when I first bought that 19T car of mine and it had the boost issues (controlled by Motronic still, bouncing between 13-15 psi, AFRs all over the place, torque and power curves bouncing accordingly), shows 150 wtq at 2000 RPM, peak power of just 243 wheel at 6300-6400 RPM... Two torque peaks of 280-285 wtq at ~2800 and ~4200, with a big dip in the middle (remember, bouncing boost levels), and power levels over 200 whp from 4000 RPM to 6400 RPM at the limiter. This on modest and very unstable boost levels with AFRs all over the place. With a solid AFR curve and solid boost levels of 20 psi, it's pretty easy to see that you have insta-torque and very consistent power that really doesn't fall off.

Given that peak power was at 6400 or so, you're not going to be dropping below that at higher boost levels, even if the turbine is really choking the power curve at that point. What my guess as to what you'd see on a more ideal dyno setup with ~19-20 psi would be 225+ whp at 4000+ rpm, peaking around 5800 or so at 280-290ish, and dropping to 260-265ish by the limiter. That's a nice power curve, and couple it with a ton of torque below 4000 and you have a heck of a potent and wide powerband.

With curves like that, I think it would be pretty desirable for lots of folks wanting to run a 16 valve +T or less severe build than most people going the 16 valve route want to achieve

be careful, bready will beat you up for suggesting that the auto robs power. 9 times out of 10 your power peak is going to occur later in the rpm range than the torque peak, saayyy after 5252rpms ( ), whereas with something more appropriately sized for the application you can enjoy fairly rapid response that won't immediately blister the tires the second you breath on the gas, but will provide you with a nice progressive powerband all the way to the top, whilst not shedding torque above 4k.

If all you want to do is pull stumps, why bother with a 16v in the first place?

 

[ZVOLV]

I do more stoplight launches than 100mph+ runs. And stock engine management is maxed out with 15g anyways.