# Single vs Twins... Motive channel



## thetoffinator (Nov 22, 2008)

Interesting video for the people who still swear by twins, Well put together.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=45ZODU3XWlg


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

I will always swear by twins


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Single all the way......



TT


----------



## JTJUDGE (Nov 21, 2011)

I'd rather have 2 singles. Twins just seems a bit creepy and I'd feel sorry for them afterwards


----------



## MeisterR (Jul 19, 2008)

I think single is a little better... you always hear about twins having a fight and stopping each other from blowing properly.

Jerrick


----------



## UKPAISLEY (Jan 17, 2003)

Its a good review, why no mention of billet twins , as the last upgrade was done 3 years ago ?
That engine is putting up with some stick !


----------



## Saifskyline (May 19, 2013)

as above would be better if they tested with the latest twins such as the borg warner efr range. But single is overall just better.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

From what full-race say about there single efr v twin efr kits is the twin turbo out performs the single. But for me I like the hit from single and simplicity


----------



## Jimbostir (Dec 2, 2008)

TWIN TOP-MOUNTS MMMMMmmmmmmm!!!
That's not what I've got btw but that's got to be the best surely.


----------



## 900ss (Aug 16, 2010)

Prefer a big top mount single for me

Much easier to get your hands around :chuckle:


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Saifskyline said:


> as above would be better if they tested with the latest twins such as the borg warner efr range. But single is overall just better.


The EFR twins are basically like a twin top mount setup, the review on the video clearly stated that it was a test between commonly used aftermarket low mounts and the equivalent sized single.

.....But there it is people, no other changes to the engine other than the turbos and a massive gain in drivability and overall power:bowdown1:

Next up when I ditch the 6 throttles and fit a 90mm E-Throttle debate! Haha!opcorn:


----------



## UKPAISLEY (Jan 17, 2003)

Twin top mounts are out , as even more cost for fitting. Its good to see a direct comparison tho' also the fact of the road test and dyno results compared. I would have loved to see how the smaller single would have compared.


----------



## MB38 (Apr 25, 2014)

If a company put out genuinely modern low-mount twins good for about 700hp, they'd make an absolute killing. Modern small turbos in that performance range should be better all across the board than the HKS 2530s or equivalents.

Now... low-mount EFRs? Yes please...


----------



## leeK9 (Jun 23, 2014)

i dont know how they haven't cracked a piston pushing the stock engine that hard....

they crack ring lands on standard power lol


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

This test is some what skewed in the favour of the single. They compared the single to a -7 iirc, which is smaller turbo than a -9 and of course the -5. How ever the single performed as it should no surprises there.


----------



## Jimbostir (Dec 2, 2008)

There are so many variables and differences between a lot of set-ups, "what's better?", it's really "what's best for your setup"? Against what you prefer. Top mount-low mount... Turbo is a turbo and manifold is a certain length whether it branches up or down. Twin top mounts look the plums. I'd love a pair! The thing is I've got apexi twins on mine which perform superbly.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

FRRACER said:


> This test is some what skewed in the favour of the single. They compared the single to a -7 iirc, which is smaller turbo than a -9 and of course the -5. How ever the single performed as it should no surprises there.


You would have to go back through the previous videos they have of the build of that car, the turbos IIRC are -7's with -5 wheels and the housings have been high flowed.

I don't think it's an unfair comparison as the single make more power everywhere in the range, so it wouldn't have mattered if they were a -7 or a -5.


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

They are a -7 -5 hybrid turbo, which can make more power than a standard -7


----------



## R32 Combat (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm not their 'pros and cons' are very scientific/accurate.


----------



## Jimbostir (Dec 2, 2008)

No, but it's interesting how the GTX35 performed. I really didn't think it would be that responsive.


----------



## LongRat (Apr 9, 2012)

Regardless of the turbo set up, that engine was taking a real caning and at 1.8 bar making that much power on standard internals... I'm certainly not an RB26 expert but from an armchair perspective it sounds like a grenade with the pin already pulled.
Having said that, I would like my car to run just like that!


----------



## infamous_t (Jul 9, 2007)

Sub Boy said:


> You would have to go back through the previous videos they have of the build of that car, the turbos IIRC are -7's with -5 wheels and the housings have been high flowed.
> 
> I don't think it's an unfair comparison as the single make more power everywhere in the range, so it wouldn't have mattered if they were a -7 or a -5.


Except the -5s hybrids were boost limited due to stock head stud/gasket, even Andrew mentions more boost wakes up the new turbo setup, so surely commonsense dictates the same applies to the twins.

Would also like to of seen GTX wheels in the mix, but you can't have everything.


----------



## UKPAISLEY (Jan 17, 2003)

They ran at the same boost as the twins on the low boost setting. Thats where the comparison was made.


----------



## RSVFOUR (May 1, 2006)

different turbo set ups have different boost levels where they perform best . 

A proper comparison would be what the turbos can produce not what they produce at say 1 bar.


----------



## Dan Parker (May 17, 2012)

Does anyone know whether there would be much weight difference between a single and a twin turbo set up?


----------



## UKPAISLEY (Jan 17, 2003)

I would say the single is a good couple of Kg less.


----------



## UKPAISLEY (Jan 17, 2003)

RSVFOUR said:


> different turbo set ups have different boost levels where they perform best .
> 
> A proper comparison would be what the turbos can produce not what they produce at say 1 bar.




I think the test is valid as although they were not pushing the tubs to the max, they definetly were in the efficency range of both turbos. the fact the single at a lower boost pressure still made more power and had = or greater responce and output says it all.


----------



## Saifskyline (May 19, 2013)

Dan Parker said:


> Does anyone know whether there would be much weight difference between a single and a twin turbo set up?


I would say the single setup may be slightly lighter overall than the twins.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

I read it as / latest state of the art single vs 20 year old design twins
I would be surprised if the out come had been different
Latest technology beats old technology


----------



## DirtyTorquer (Sep 3, 2013)

If they were supposed to be -7 and -5 hybrids...of which would just basically only really be a -5 with an a/r42 compressor housing IF they were indeed not just -7s as they mention...then machining was involved. So if machining was involved, they should have put the GTX2860R inside the -7 housings. Actually less machining of the compressor housing involved than putting an a/r 42 compressor housing on a -5. Now if they would have done that, then would have been the smallest GTX twin setup vs a single GTX setup. A much better comparison instead of being single biased. There is no mention in the spec flash up of the turbos being anything other than -7 so with 24psi, they are on the limit or just out of the efficiency range according to their compressor map. One more thing, standard twin inlet piping was used, and that is not really very efficient for the twins. 
Hmmmm...maybe I am just twin biased


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

*I'm learning here so please be nice....*

I know absolutely f'kall about the World of Turbo's, They mean the same to me as all Superbikes do...._In other words, These both seem to be a random configuration of letters and numbers jumbled up together_...

If a big modern single turbocharger is the way forward for us all, Why doesn't Nissan/Nismo offer such a thing as a bolt on upgrade??

Also _(I know R35's have V6's and as such are not the same as our straight sixes)_ but why don't Nissan GT-R Tuners junk this cars twins in favour for a massive single turbo that could poke out of the bonnet sitting between the banks of this "V" shaped engine _"Mad Max" stylie_ if the modern single is so awesomely good in all situations? Who wouldn't want something like that?!


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

K66 SKY said:


> I know absolutely f'kall about the World of Turbo's, They mean the same to me as all Superbikes do...._In other words, These both seem to be a random configuration of letters and numbers jumbled up together_...
> 
> If a big modern single turbocharger is the way forward for us all, Why doesn't Nissan/Nismo offer such a thing as a bolt on upgrade??
> 
> Also _(I know R35's have V6's and as such are not the same as our straight sixes)_ but why don't Nissan GT-R Tuners junk this cars twins in favour for a massive single turbo that could poke out of the bonnet sitting between the banks of this "V" shaped engine _"Mad Max" stylie_ if the modern single is so awesomely good in all situations? Who wouldn't want something like that?!


Because a single isn't necessarily better than twins just better than low-mount twins.

Without getting too technical low mount twins means replacing the OEM turbos with aftermarket items. Everything can stay the same (except perhaps remap and fuelling).

Big single means a new manifold, new pipework from the turbo to the intercooler, new pipework from the turbo to the exhaust and new induction. New lines for the turbos for oil/water. New vacuum hoses. Of course and the turbo itself.

Because you are using a new manifold and changing the pipework you can choose almost whatever turbo you like in the big single case. In the lowmount case you are restricted to turbos which mount up using the OEM turbo's 'pattern' (bolt spacing/number etc). AFAIK the rb26dett has a unique 'pattern' so you are stuck with whatever a manufacturer makes for the rb26dett which isn't too many options are (AFAIK) none use recent technology.

Hopefully that explains what the differences are in the example drawn and could give a hint as to why a single would perform better in this case.

If the comparison had been between a high mount twin versus a 'high mount' single then the result might have been different.

The big advantage to the low-mount twins to my mind is one of cost. You only have to buy two turbos to effect the change. Any mods you've already made to downpipes/induction/whatever can be retained OR if not done can be delayed until a later date.

I note that BMW have moved between singles and twins on their straight six engines in recent years which would suggest that the answer isn't clear-cut and that maybe other factors are more important than a clear cut single/twin is better.


----------



## UKPAISLEY (Jan 17, 2003)

I expect that if the twin conversion was done now the GTX wheels would be used. I think they should take the engine out and replace with new twins LOL


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

ATP offer some interesting solutions using a GTX CHRA from the 2863/2867 2967 and 2971 range using an RB26 2 bolt compression housing and a 5 stud turbine pushing.


----------



## bkvj (Feb 13, 2006)

I don't think this test was entirely fair; you can hardly compare ''old tech'' turbo's with a new GTX. 

Both setups have their own pro's and cons. We can debate till the end off time really.


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

I thought -5's and -7's were still a preferred choice? Whereby with a single, the preferred choice generally is a GTX type turbo.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

The test was flawed. They should have used a GTX -5 hybrid.


----------



## Saifskyline (May 19, 2013)

Not many people are running the GTX -5 hybrids, The test was for the 'common' twins people upgrade to when they remove stock units. If they did fit the GTX twins then yeah results could alter. But again not many RB26 twin setups are using GTX series twins.


----------



## bkvj (Feb 13, 2006)

Saifskyline said:


> Not many people are running the GTX -5 hybrids, The test was for the 'common' twins people upgrade to when they remove stock units. If they did fit the GTX twins then yeah results could alter. But again not many RB26 twin setups are using GTX series twins.


Again...they said this was the ultimate test of what is best, they should have gone like for like. Either have the twins as GTX and the Single as well, or all non-GTX. The GTX turbo's spool much quicker so obviously the results where going to be in it's favor. IMO, if the twins are GTX we would see numbers extremely close to each other again.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

bkvj said:


> Again...they said this was the ultimate test of what is best, they should have gone like for like. Either have the twins as GTX and the Single as well, or all non-GTX. The GTX turbo's spool much quicker so obviously the results where going to be in it's favor. IMO, if the twins are GTX we would see numbers extremely close to each other again.



Not all the time because the gtx wheels are bigger, if you look at this thread its a gt30 v a gtx30 and although the gtx does perform better it's not by enough were if motive used a gt35 it would have still performed better than the twins 

http://blog.perrinperformance.com/garrett-gtx-turbo-comparo-part-2/

The -7 also were hybrids such had flow work so if they would have used a gt35 I think people would have then said that's not fair its modded twins v stock single


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Garrett GTX2863R 425HP Dual Ball Bearing Turbo - less turbine housing : atpturbo.com

This can be supplied with a RB26 compressor and turbine housing.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

No test is going to please everyone.
I think we just need to accept that.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Also this

Garrett GTX2967R Super Core - WITHOUT TURBINE HOUSING : atpturbo.com


----------



## Saifskyline (May 19, 2013)

That test was for those people who swap out their stock turbos for the -5/-7/-9 turbos so it relates to them to be honest and people who are using the newer technology twins such as the GTX range then it's obvious the results will be different. 

It also depends on the tuner I mean CRD are very well known people when it comes to skylines and tuning etc. Nothing against the twin turbo setup, it has it's pros and cons same with the single setup, at the end of the day it's your car and you can go with what you are happy with.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Man, the single Vs twin debate has been raging on here since the dawn of time. It makes me smile when I see all the "they should have tested X, Y or Z" combination of turbo or "compared X with Y instead of comparing it with W"...... The list goes on....

The ONLY way to approach this it to take :-

1 x RB26
1 x Dyno
1 x operator
All possible turbochargers and hybrids


And just test them until you run out of turbo to test..


Even then, I'm sure that someone will be unhappy/dispute results or call SOME part of the test into question.


You either go for a single or you stick with twins. The reasons and variables are vast and there is NO simple answer or table that you can look up which will give you the definitive solution. 

There are so many things in life that present us with different camps/factions i.e. Apple Vs The Rest; Liverpool Vs Everton :chuckle: etc, etc...... Most folks have an entrenched position and will stick with it regardless. 

Personally I chose to change over to single for various reasons, the most compelling of which were simplicity and packaging. OK, the turbo I went with is also good for more power and I accept (and am comfortable with) the fact that there are newer turbo's that may spool quicker/provide more power but again, you make a choice and go with it.


This argument/debate will NEVER be solved but good luck to all those who change the stock twins for aftermarket turbo's/turbo. 


TT


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

agree. 

Would say their review was a good one (the best I have seen) and don't agree that it isn't relevant as whilst it's newer tech vs old, it is relevant as (like they said) it is a test of common twins vs common single.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

FRRACER said:


> This test is some what skewed in the favour of the single. They compared the single to a -7 iirc, which is smaller turbo than a -9 and of course the -5. How ever the single performed as it should no surprises there.


Yet still spooled faster than the smaller twins, and the GTX tend to be a bit laggier than the GT - if they had picked a single equivalent to the -7s it would have only made the -7s look worse in terms of response. If they'd gone -5 GTX equivalent it may have made closer to the GTX3582R in power but WAY laggier. The comparison may not be quite perfect but the gist is still a larger single (take off 10% flow for the GTX wheel and you still end up with much more power than the -7s) and less lag.

People saying they should have used EFRs - that would prove nothing. The comparison is low mount twins for a start, which is what most debate is about... and EFRs are not comparable with GTX. The difference between an EFR and a GTX is bigger than between a GTX and a GT, different league.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

FRRACER said:


> The test was flawed. They should have used a GTX -5 hybrid.



lol it wasn't flawed at all it just disagrees with your constant twins love mission.

the gt35 is consistantly more power than the -7s, all -5s would do is be even slower to boost so even less power down the bottom to try and match the power up top of the single.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

No one is saying it isn't but things might have been different with real -5 instead of a -7 hybrid. Power would have been closer and the difference overall would not have been a big as it was.


----------



## UKPAISLEY (Jan 17, 2003)

FRRACER said:


> No one is saying it isn't but things might have been different with real -5 instead of a -7 hybrid. Power would have been closer and the difference overall would not have been a big as it was.


True but as a comparison the test was -

1.65 Bar
Single 586 hp approx
Twins 518 hp Approx

The response was better all the way up the curve.
You can get an idea of what the twins were capable of , not a massive amount so its quite a high boost and therefore is a flowed -7 turbo as opposed to a bigger -5 tub.

So its a good check on response/lag.

On the power front we are not talking big numbers = good road car

There will be better combinations but the myth of lag on a single that can produce 586 hp at 1.65 Bar and 622 hp on 1.875Bar is closed.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

If you actually look and watch the motive dvd they filmed when the turbos were built for that r32 the were -5 with just -7 compressor housing machine to fit the -5 compression wheel!


----------



## Saifskyline (May 19, 2013)

FRRACER said:


> No one is saying it isn't but things might have been different with real -5 instead of a -7 hybrid. Power would have been closer and the difference overall would not have been a big as it was.


They were -5's, their video series has an episode where they flow the -7 housing to fit the -5 compressor wheel, if they went with the latest twins in the market then yeah there would be different results, but overall nobody is buying the latest twin range for their RB26 they are simply replacing with -5,-7 or -9 turbos, or the older HKS units etc..


----------



## maddison (May 31, 2012)

Something unrelated to the single/twin set up was they said in the video they had suffered head lift at 24psi on twins which broke the oem head gasket  
I was under the impression stock head bolts were good for past 700bhp?! at least that's what I'd been advised by numerous tuners.


----------



## thetoffinator (Nov 22, 2008)

As people have said the test does blatantly says about the type of turbo used, Not all twin kits, And the ease of fitting them compared to the complete change of kit to go single.
However i still believe even if you fitted "Billet wheels" and perfect BB cores the differences would still be huge, There still internally gated as well which does not help.
Again i believe say a set of EFR Twins or a complete bespoke kit with perfect modern technology would be a nice comparision (BUT Thats not what the video was showing...)
Plus if you were going down that route, The twins would be more expensive in everyway if you went for a modern route/custom kit.

Top and bottom if it is on the old style twins, Be it hybrid, Billet,BB, blah blah blah they STILL will not perform like the single.

But thats not saying they arent useful, Or a bad bit of kit. People have used them forever and will continue to do so.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

thetoffinator said:


> However i still believe even if you fitted "Billet wheels" and perfect BB cores the differences would still be huge, There still internally gated as well which does not help.


This is true in terms of the outright power made and maybe the finer boost curve parts, but with the transient response stuff which is the real stand out stuff (remember they did the main comparisons on 24psi where the GT has no advantage.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Lith I was just thinking to myself if the a single garrett is better than twin garretts why would twin efrs be better than a single efr? 

Would love to see some back to back from full-race on a single efr v twin efr


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Lith I was just thinking to myself if the a single garrett is better than twin garretts why would twin efrs be better than a single efr?
> 
> Would love to see some back to back from full-race on a single efr v twin efr


Sorry to point out the obvious but isn't the point of the video that low-mount twins aren't as good as a single. They point out that the result might be different if the low mount position isn't used.

To my mind this makes sense. There must be an advantage to a tubular equal-length manifold, external waste-gate etc otherwise why bother with them? If you were to modify an OEM RB25DET manifold etc would the end result have been closer perhaps?

I still think that if there was a clear advantage to be had with single/twin set-ups then every manufacturer would be using the 'better' option. As it is we have the like of BMW running a conceptually similar engine (straight six about three litres) and they seem to move between singles and twins. This would suggest (to me at least) that neither offers a significant advantage and that other factors (maybe packaging or cost) are more important.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Yes I understand what your saying chris but a simple back to back test of a full-race twin turbo efr kit v there single efr kit on the same engine would prove what's better. 

There's no performance gains to running external wastegates, and full-race manifolds are not equal length either and each bank are diffrent length to each other.


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Yes I understand what your saying chris but a simple back to back test of a full-race twin turbo efr kit v there single efr kit on the same engine would prove what's better.
> 
> There's no performance gains to running external wastegates, and full-race manifolds are not equal length either and each bank are diffrent length to each other.


Agreed a back to back test would be interesting. I'd also be interested to see what the difference would be in lag between the two (as opposed to boost threshold).

I'm no EFR expert but if I've understood the full-race kit the twin kit is 'bigger' (power-wise) than the entry level EFRs. I'm guessing that a (relatively) smaller single EFR would be a better bet for most than the twin kit. All of the cost/hassle disadvantages of the single are present with a twin kit like this (plus another $1k odd).

If I understand the below trace properly it looks like the EFR twins need revs to get the best from them (looks to be building power beyond 8k rpm). I suspect that having an engine built to run to 9k reliably would cost a few pennies.










To my mind a twin kit with smaller turbos (which I assume isn't possible with the EFRs) would be the thing you'd want for the 600-650bhp range. However, would you want to spend the £££ when a single will do the job for less or you can buy bolt on low-mounts which are 'good enough' and are relatively cheap/easy.

For me it's always £££ vs result. Certain things are worth spending the money on, other things aren't. I think that the -5s etc have a place as do the singles.

I'd really like to see how the VGT turbos on the 911 Turbo would work on an RB26...


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Again completely agree with you chris it's all about ££ vs result, I can't see why say the twin efr kit speccd to say 900 would be more responsive than a single speccd to 900 but then wouldn't apply going for less power? Geoff always States the twin efr out performs the single kit in ever possibility. 


From that dyno graph it does look to like revs but this isn't just down to the turbo kit, engine spec, cams and exhaust housing size would play a big part in it also. From that dyno a twin efr would be brilliant for a high hp application, maybee it's also down to the 9180 being the biggest efr available so going past the power out out of that turbo only gives you the option of twin of course if you want to stick to efr.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

My EFR is either on way or soon will be.

So within a month we'll have documented proof how an RB28 on twin -5 turbos compares with the smallest EFR set up (that should give an extra 100bhp) and how spool is effected.
Hopefully not much at all.

It'll be RR'd before and after the EFR kit, so same RR, similar conditions.


----------



## UKPAISLEY (Jan 17, 2003)

CT17 said:


> My EFR is either on way or soon will be.
> 
> So within a month we'll have documented proof how an RB28 on twin -5 turbos compares with the smallest EFR set up (that should give an extra 100bhp) and how spool is effected.
> Hopefully not much at all.
> ...


Pull the fuse and run 2wd drive for a smooth graph


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

UKPAISLEY said:


> Pull the fuse and run 2wd drive for a smooth graph


I was going to find a different RR that produces a smooth graph.


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

Cris said:


> I still think that if there was a clear advantage to be had with single/twin set-ups then every manufacturer would be using the 'better' option. As it is we have the like of BMW running a conceptually similar engine (straight six about three litres) and they seem to move between singles and twins. This would suggest (to me at least) that neither offers a significant advantage and that other factors (maybe packaging or cost) are more important.


I would assume that smaller OEM / mass produced tubs are far cheaper than an equivalent larger single, simply due to being more common on new cars.

A larger single is also likely to make more noise / turbo whistle which for us is acceptable / desired - but for a brand new car, probably not.





CT17 said:


> I was going to find a different RR that produces a smooth graph.


Where were you thinking of going? WIll make for interesting results.


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> From that dyno graph it does look to like revs but this isn't just down to the turbo kit, engine spec, cams and exhaust housing size would play a big part in it also. From that dyno a twin efr would be brilliant for a high hp application, maybee it's also down to the 9180 being the biggest efr available so going past the power out out of that turbo only gives you the option of twin of course if you want to stick to efr.


Fair point, I hadn't considered that. I guess if you want 1000bhp+ on EFR then twins it is 

I'd love to see what could be done with a big pile of cash and say a suitable 2.8 with V-Cam...


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

gtr mart said:


> I would assume that smaller OEM / mass produced tubs are far cheaper than an equivalent larger single, simply due to being more common on new cars.
> 
> A larger single is also likely to make more noise / turbo whistle which for us is acceptable / desired - but for a brand new car, probably not.


I had assumed that for an OEM twins would cost more than a single. To be fair I have no idea what turbos are used on the X35i and M3/4 or how common they are.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

gtr mart said:


> I would assume that smaller OEM / mass produced tubs are far cheaper than an equivalent larger single, simply due to being more common on new cars.
> 
> A larger single is also likely to make more noise / turbo whistle which for us is acceptable / desired - but for a brand new car, probably not.
> 
> ...


My BMW turbo diesel has a turbo but cant hear any noise at all and the thing is tiny about the diameter of a coke can lol.


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

CT17 said:


> My EFR is either on way or soon will be.
> 
> So within a month we'll have documented proof how an RB28 on twin -5 turbos compares with the smallest EFR set up (that should give an extra 100bhp) and how spool is effected.
> Hopefully not much at all.
> ...



What turbo you gone for richard twin or single?


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> What turbo you gone for richard twin or single?


I believe Richard is going for twin 6258s

Will be interested to see the before and after results.....should put it on a Dynapack though, no wheel spin issues


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

Sub Boy said:


> I believe Richard is going for twin 6258s
> 
> Will be interested to see the before and after results.....should put it on a Dynapack though, no wheel spin issues



Yes theres a dynopacka close to richard and rk tuning, will be happy with the read out to if imagine on dynapack. 

Would also be brilliant as I'm sure it be mapped on redlines dyno dynamics then a power run on dynpack, so will also see the diffremce there to


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Dan ep3 turbo said:


> Yes theres a dynopacka close to richard and rk tuning, will be happy with the read out to if imagine on dynapack.
> 
> Would also be brilliant as I'm sure it be mapped on redlines dyno dynamics then a power run on dynpack, so will also see the diffremce there to


I've not looked yet, but it would be nice to find one in South Essex somewhere.

Yes, I've gone for twin top mount 6258 EFR set up.
Someone in the UK had to try it.


----------



## Sub Boy (Jan 28, 2008)

CT17 said:


> I've not looked yet, but it would be nice to find one in South Essex somewhere.
> 
> Yes, I've gone for twin top mount 6258 EFR set up.
> Someone in the UK had to try it.


I like your style Richard, somebody had to try it, that was my thoughts when I put the 8374 on my car, no one had done it at that stage, I love it but will one day put a 9180 or the twins on it as it is just a little too small for the RB30 (over speeding it slightly at 132,000rpm)


----------



## Dan ep3 turbo (Sep 29, 2013)

CT17 said:


> I've not looked yet, but it would be nice to find one in South Essex somewhere.
> 
> Yes, I've gone for twin top mount 6258 EFR set up.
> Someone in the UK had to try it.



Tdi South in thurrock have a hub dyno mate, I think the dyno dynamics will give you a good enough comparison tbh


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

This should be very interesting, look forward to seeing how it goes!


----------

