Honda D Series Forum banner

1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The car: EG hatch
Engine: D16Z6
Goal: EG version of the 400hp Epic Tuning AWD EK
Inspiration: 400hp Epic Tuning AWD EK (real hp figures or not)

Basics of the engine build plan

E-85 with 1000cc/min injectors
Garrett GT2871R (1) on a custom manifold (going the whole forward facing route on this one)
Tial 38mm Wastegate (open to suggestions here the 40mm is no longer available and has been replaced with a 41mm version)
Tial Q BOV
20"x9"x2.5"ish Intercooler Core (plan to fab up the ends to fit my manifold / intake layout)
Pauter 4340 rods (Ti would be nice but I have no luck with the lottery)
Forged 11.5:1 pistons (open to suggestions on brand or specific design, not sure roller waves are going to be an option)
Bisimoto 2.4 cam
ENDYN preped cylinder head and intake manifold (because I don't know crap about porting)
Aeromotive A700 fuel pump with all aeromotive dodads for the fuel system.
Dry sump oiling (I'm not keen on the baffeled pan idea, even if that works I presume I will need the dry sump to prevent the turbo from getting backed up with oil)
I'm looking into doing the whole COP conversion (I'm very much in need of some good reasoning to do this though)
ARP fasteners
Some kind of 3" open exhaust, with provisions to mount a fart can in the back.
Neptune or whatever our local tuner has experience with.

JGTC-EG
 

·
()*#$(*$
Joined
·
11,404 Posts
E-85 with 1000cc/min injectors GOOD
Garrett GT2871R (1) on a custom manifold (going the whole forward facing route on this one) TWIN SCROLL, PLEASE!
Tial 38mm Wastegate (open to suggestions here the 40mm is no longer available and has been replaced with a 41mm version) USE TWO WITH A TWIN SCROLL MANIFOLD!
Tial Q BOV NICE!
20"x9"x2.5"ish Intercooler Core (plan to fab up the ends to fit my manifold / intake layout) I HIGHLY DISLIKE AIR/AIR INTERCOOLERS
Pauter 4340 rods (Ti would be nice but I have no luck with the lottery) RIDICULOUS OVERKILL FOR BUILD GOALS
Forged 11.5:1 pistons (open to suggestions on brand or specific design, not sure roller waves are going to be an option) WISECO OR ARIAS CUSTOMS, I PREFER WISECO
Bisimoto 2.4 cam THIS IS A BAD CHOICE FOR THE POWER GOAL
ENDYN preped cylinder head and intake manifold (because I don't know crap about porting) LARRY DOESN'T DO D'S ANYMORE!
Aeromotive A700 fuel pump with all aeromotive dodads for the fuel system. THIS IS KINDA CRAZY, JUST MAKE SURE IT WILL HOLD UP WITH E85
Dry sump oiling (I'm not keen on the baffeled pan idea, even if that works I presume I will need the dry sump to prevent the turbo from getting backed up with oil) PLEASE POST PRICES WHEN YOU FIGURE THIS OUT
I'm looking into doing the whole COP conversion (I'm very much in need of some good reasoning to do this though) VEMS, MSIII, AEM IF YOU LIKE TO GET BUTTRAPED
ARP fasteners GOOD!
Some kind of 3" open exhaust, with provisions to mount a fart can in the back. FARTCAN IS GHEY
Neptune or whatever our local tuner has experience with. DON'T BOTHER WITH THIS AND STEP UP TO A REAL EMS WITH ACCURATE TIMING ON THE CRANK AND CAM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
Definitely agree with the Beav on the cam choice, I would suggest colt cans. Talk with Geoff and get a custom cam built to you power needs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Garrett GT2871R(1) is not a twin scroll to the best of my understanding, or are you suggesting a twin scroll?

While Air to Air intercoolers are not always the best choice there are few other options available that fit my entire build plan and space requirements are very much a factor here. I am not interested in major ducting on the exterior or lexan window cutouts to draw air into a secondary water to air intercooler system, plus the additional weight and complexity of such a system is a bit beyond my desire to keep it somewhat clean.

Pauter rods are overkill, I know this and would like to think that I might come across the cash to spring for the Ti rods which are in fact lighter than the stock rods. The lighter rods would be my first choice given the funds, my choice here is based on a few factors (a) I will not harm the Pauter rods (b) I would have the block clearanced and ready to swap in the Ti version by going with the 4340 rods (c) I somehow doubt it would be hard to pass along a set of Pauters to someone when the time comes to do so.

ENDYN still had D series prices for headwork last I checked, in any case who out there is doing solid work on D series heads? I'm interested in producing 400hp at the lowest practical boost level in an EG that might tip the scales at 2500+lbs with me in the drivers seat considering the car, the cage, the D2B CRV 5sp (a/4)wd and all related crap, the turbo and related crap, the dry sump, etc. etc. if the head flows properly and does its job at eliminating detonation I'm just going to be peachy.

Fart cans are sort of gey aren't they, my view on the exhaust is a small short race muffler in the back with as long of a resonator as possible mid car, I am unsure of being able to source a cat capable of fitting a 3" exhaust while being positioned close enough to the turbo to heat up to a functional temperature to be effective (I will certainly look into EGT post turbo to get a solid answer on this). This should result in a nice exhaust note under power and be fairly mild on cruse. Otherwise it is simply a function of what will fit along with the driveline, anything else is just icing on the cake.

OK, fire off some suggestions for a real EMS, I'm not going to spring for a MoTec M400 that is not going to happen unless I win the lottery (which I have no luck with in the first place). I've been out of the building cars thing for about 5 years now, my last build was a 96 mazda mx-6 twin turbo (very problematic trans issues caused that car to be a serious run of failed tuning events even on the very expensive M600 MoTec that I do not wish to see ever again).

My budget is no more than $30,000 for the entire car. That has to include the car, wheels, tires, brakes, cage, body work, CRV (a/4)wd transmission and driveline, body/ suspension work to clear/ hold the (a/4)wd crap and 3" exhaust, turbo, coilovers, engine components and work (sleeved block for example, and other tid-bits like headwork, valves, springs, retainers, gaskets, water pump, an entire dry sump system). I'm sure you all are very aware of what goes into building a car and I'm just knocking around a well beaten horse.

As for the dry sump cost, I'm allowing around $1k for the pump, tank, lines, and custom pan, I'm looking at a 2 or 3 gallon tank at the moment.

I will look more into the cam issue, for the moment why do you all not like the above choice? My impression was that with professional porting, a properly sized turbo, nearly open exhaust, the cam I selected would do the job without much problem. I would like to know why this is not the case.

JGTC-EG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,854 Posts
Have fun spending $5,000+ on this. that aeromotive alone is gonna be 1200 or more


Have tou ever heard of RT4WD? check civic wagovan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Have fun spending $5,000+ on this. that aeromotive alone is gonna be 1200 or more


Have tou ever heard of RT4WD? check civic wagovan
The aeromotive stuff is very nice, maybe I have sort of a brand loyalty thing going.

If the wagovan was not so freaking ugly ... we have a few rolling around here none are the RT4WD though. I'm of the opinion that the only good part of that whole deal is the rear end (supposedly stronger than the CRV unit). I certainly do not think the gearing, while 6 speeds, is practical seeing as the granny gear is utterly useless in a FI set-up of any sort.

JGTC-EG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
E-85 is magic, plus the available quench area should prevent any issues even with a maximum of 24-25 psi (hoping for just under that with good headwork though).

JGTC-EG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I'm thinking it should do ok, I think 400hp at the crank is respectable for an EG.

JGTC-EG
 

·
()*#$(*$
Joined
·
11,404 Posts
Heh. I wasn't expecting an intelligent reply. FUN!

I can actually take you seriously now.

ATP sells a TS housing for most of the GT28 series:
GT28RS/2871R 0.82 A/R T3 DIVIDED Turbine Housing : atpturbo.com

If I were still going to use a GT2871R, I would use that housing.

I don't understand your saying that a liquid/air intercooler system wouldn't be clean. You would have to run a heat exchanger near your radiator. True, it would weigh some more, but, honestly, a liquid/air system is much more compact and orders of magnitude more efficient both at cooling and at reducing felt lag. It is also way more "clean" an install from the outside, since none of the piping from the turbo to the engine would have to be visible at all. So: more compact, less visible, better cooling and better driving . . .

Rods are rods. Almost every rod made for the D is over-built and well overweight. If you are willing to spend money, the Crower maxi-lites are a pretty darn good compromise and, I think more reasonably priced for your performance levels.

I also disagree with saying you can't harm "brand X" rods. Rods are easy to break, if the install is boogered up or you run into oiling issues.

Look at the last time the Endyn website was updated. They have since stopped stocking or selling D-series parts, and have only done one D-series head in the past 2-3 years, to my knowledge.

I send all my heads to Dave (Soul Engineering on this forum). Having tuned engines that he has built, I can say that the move significantly more air, more efficiently, than just about anything else I've dealt with. His workmanship and methodology are second to none. He also has very good working relationships with KMS and a few other vendors who can and do custom work on valves, cams, etc.

Any good aftermarket cat will be fine close to the turbo, especially if you are using at least a 3" down pipe. The exhaust looses significant heat due to the energy used to turn the turbo and also due to the expansion. Carsound or Magnaflow offer good products, but I would steer you towards a spun metallic core unit for maximum flow. I don't have any brand preference. Maybe someone else will.

AEM is generally the most widely used EMS systems for these sort of builds. Their products are finally moving in the right direction. If you want a mostly turn-key solution, AEM would be something to seriously consider.

If you are more adventurous, then I would recommend VEMS. It is more DIY, but, still a highly sophisticated, robust, versatile EMS. It is not very popular in the US, and documentation is . . . interesting, but it works very well once things get set correctly.

The last option is the cheapest in terms of money: MSIII (Megastquirt 3). It is proving to be very interesting but is still mostly a work in progress. It works, though.

Honestly, if you are only pursuing 400HP, Neptune, ECTune or even Hondata would be much more appropriate for that power level. I won't hold you back from deciding to go with a standalone system, though. I'm just saying that that power level is easily attainable with a modified OEM ECU.

I think your estimate is much too low for the dry sump system. A custom pan, if you aren't making it yourself for materials + consumables is going to be at least half that for something reliable from a competent fabricator.

Bisimoto is a terrible company and has lately been putting out products that are sub-par and mis-sold or plain, outright not what a customer purchases. If you want to have a cam that is made to the same standards that Bisi claims, deal directly with Web, the company that Grinds Bisi's cams. They have been around for a ridiculously long time, and their quality is very, very excellent. I have been dissatisfied with Bisimoto cam performance in several cars I've tuned. I am also disgusted with the lack of customer support and refusal to deal with product issues that are clearly caused by improper manufacturing processes.

My own preference for cam companies is Colt Cams. Geoff is simply great at customer service, product development and experience. I have had great success with his cams in engines I spec'd and tuned for customers, and are the only cams I will use in my personal engines.

There are other companies are really pretty decent, but I cannot recommend due to either turn-around time issues, or QA/QC issues.

Again, the above are my opinions, and I know that some will dispute some of what I say, but, this is just from my own experience and what I have determined I will be doing for my own builds in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Thanks for this suggestion;

ATP sells a TS housing for most of the GT28 series:
GT28RS/2871R 0.82 A/R T3 DIVIDED Turbine Housing : atpturbo.com

Lets get down to some nitty gritty on this housing and how it will play well with other parts.

From my very limited research the twin scroll housing should allow the turbo to spool up faster and have better top end performance than a single scroll housing. I can buy into that as a good thing.

Obvious differences I see in overall design would be the cam, I seem to understand that a greater overlap is allowed with the twin scroll housing than with a normal single scroll housing allowing for better scavenging. Good to know when cam selection comes into play.

Poking around on the good old interwebs I see a number of wastegate methods being used for twin scroll housings, some are suggesting that a single wastegate Y'd from each side would do the trick (seems rigged to me) and further state that this method will not effect performance in any real noticeable way at the 400hp level, thoughts?

I am leaning toward the dual wastegate method simply because it seems the proper way to do things, which leads me to wastegate sizing and tuning. I'm making a huge assumption here; the twin scroll housing is diverting exhaust onto very different portions of the turbine, which I guess will result in different levels of back pressure between the pairs of cylinders which in turn is not very tuner friendly or at least in my opinion something I would want to build into an engine design. Call me fickle or whatever but my thoughts are that all things being equal (cc'd chambers, flow rates, fuel delivery, exhaust primary lengths, spring pressures, etc.) makes life a crap ton simpler on the tuning end and performance output side of things. All that being said it is just a wild guess on my part and I want to know if I should expect to plan for individual wastegate control, different spring rates, and potentially even different sizes.

Now, with those questions and comments out of the way here is another, wastegated off of the manifold or hack into the compressor housing for a more optimal flow path? I've gone the turbine housing route in the past on single scroll housings where space is not a real issue, I'm just not sure on a twin scroll housing, seems a bit cramped to me for this method. Though I can see in my minds eye how dual wastegates off the housing could make for a mess of pipes that would look pretty sweet (kind of makes me think of an article I saw a million years ago on the building of this 1933 Ford truck called the Tubester).

Obvious header design changes are going to be in order, which bring to mind another question. Seeing as the twin scroll takes advantage of cylinder pairing (much like a tri-Y header) would there be an obvious advantage to merging cylinders close to the engine or close to the turbine or rather maybe someplace between those two points? I am all for melding looks with performance here and realize there will be a tradeoff in manifold reliability with a welded equal length manifold, knowing that I still would like to get opinions on where to best merge the cylinders. Opinions on primary tube diameter would be welcome as well as this sort of housing is new ground for me and my short bit of research simply leads me to believe that smaller diameter tubing is considered ok verses what would be used on a single scroll turbine. I need some more educating on this for sure.

I'm sure Acid will like this one; I looked at the maxi-light rods, they should obviously do the trick and allow for money to be spent elsewhere which is always nice. Looking at the rod specs I noticed the D15 rods and thought of doing a little offset grind on the D16 crank to gain a little displacement at the cost of R:S ratio and a little deck height reduction (my numbers work out to a 1.66 final displacement with the requirement of decking the block 1.524mm to preserve the ability to use an off the shelf piston). Where I'm not sure is if offset grinding from the D16 to D15 rod journal size will cut through the hardened surface of the crank, if so this is not an option and we can kill the idea here and now. I think the extra displacement and crappy R:S ratio would make for a killer low end torque curve along with the twin scroll housing, I don't know it could be a bit more effort for very little gain and very likely less longevity. Thoughts are welcome.

I could go for the AEM equipment in general, they seem to at least support a wide variety of potential mods within their product range without the need to junkyard a bunch of manufacturers stuff together which is nice from a get it all in one place outlook, I don't want to go that route if their quality is sketchy though, I do not like BS. If the stuff works and is built well enough to live for a reasonable length of time I will give them a shot. How is their customer support?

JGTC-EG
 

·
()*#$(*$
Joined
·
11,404 Posts
You're basic research is sound. I will add a few caveats:

A larger A/R divided (twin scroll) housing will perform like a smaller undivided at lower RPMs, but not necessarily better a larger undivided housing at higher RPMs. Many people thing that a turbo with a 1.03 A/R divided housing will spool like a .48 and then flow like a 1.03 up top. It's not exactly that clear cut, but, IMO, it is a better compromise than either. A larger A/R undivided housing will spool closer to a smaller A/R undivided housing but greatly out-flow that same smaller housing at high RPMs.

The T3 TS manifold that ATP sells is a very good compromise between spool and top end. This means that the torque curve will start earlier and will be sustained higher, with less falloff.

The cam is something most people don't think about, but yes, the cam can use more overlap than most "turbo" cams employ, due to the fact that the pulses are separated and scavenging will come in to play. This also allows the engine to achieve better efficiency due to the reduction in pressure ratio on the intake and exhaust side. (Or vice versa, depending on how you look at it.)

Having two separate wastegates allows for maximal separation of the exhaust pulses. One wastgate is possible, but slightly reduces the pulse separation, which is supposed have a noticeable, but small, effect on spool times. Performance at high flow rates is not diminished if the wastgate is sized correctly and the wastagate system is integrated into the manfolding correctly.

Twin scroll setups are no harder to tune than any other turbo setup. As long as you use quality wastegates that are build well and precisely, there shouldn't be any tuning issues at all. In fact, it will likely be easier since the engine won't have to work as hard to make power due to the increased efficiency of the system. This should also mean better detonation resistance and more power per PSI.

I am not a subscriber to the equal length is best mindset, even with turbos. I would, in fact, rather have several resonance peaks, smaller in magnitude, but, more than one large one. The trick is to figure out how to tune those to be useful. I apply this to my NA header designs, too, but that has yet to be proven.

I personally would not want to weld to the turbine cover. Keeping the welds consistent on the same material is also easier to make stronger than welding to a cast housing. Yes, it is absolutely possible, but I always avoid welding on anything that has precision machined surfaces, unless the part is going to be re-machined.

I don't give a fig about what the manifold looks to a person, I am more concerned with how it "looks" the gases flowing through it. It's the inside that counts, and how the design effects that most important fact. Of course, packaging and materials introduce limitations and compromises, but, aside from that, optimizing gas flow is and should be the primary concern, to achieve the intentions of the design.

I haven't actually considered merging the runners close to the engine then running them to the turbo flange. Since the pressure pulses are 180* apart, the trick would be to merge the primaries to the secondary as smoothly as possible (meaning a very low angle merge), with as little increase in CSA as possible into the secondary tube. That is something to think about, and contrary to every other TS manifold I've seen. It's more in line with what I had planned for my own manifold, but, that is a completely different case . . .

I do know that the good and proven TS manifolds are of generally one design (merged at the flange), and they seem to work very well. I am not sure I've seen any really out of the box solution or iterations of this kind of header.

Primary tube diameter is almost always one of four sizes: 1.25" schedule 40 (about 1.38" nominal ID) 1.25" schedule 10 (about 1.44" nominal ID), 1.5" schedule 40 (about 1.61" nominal ID) or 1.5" schedule 10 (about 1.68" nominal ID). Most header builders use the 1.25" schedule 40, from what I've seen, for D-series manifolds. I think the 1.5" stuff is normally overkill, and if you aren't interested in going over 400WHP, then I think the 1.25" stuff is likely to be more appropriate for your goals.

Offset grinding the crank that much will cut through the hardened layer, but, it can be re-hardened and ground by a competent shop. There are a few shops that I don't recall the names of right now (most are in California) that can do the work.

Honestly, the 1.6L bottom end is pretty decent, but, if you want more displacement, sleeve the block and go with a 78mm piston. That will net you about 1720cc displacement and will make a very noticeable difference in spool, especially with the proper headwork to accompany the larger pistons.

VEMS and MS both have "community" support, and no formal warranties or guarantees. AEM is a pretty legit company and their products are becoming much more reliable. If you aren't wanting to DIY your own EMS, then VEMS and MS are likely not something you will want to use, as AEM is proven, has a wide variety of products that will pretty much directly plug in to your engine and get you going with as minimal fuss as possible. AEM is also widely accepted by GOOD tuners, which is very important for any sort of build, especially one that is out of the box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
... as AEM is proven, has a wide variety of products that will pretty much directly plug in to your engine and get you going with as minimal fuss as possible. AEM is also widely accepted by GOOD tuners, which is very important for any sort of build, especially one that is out of the box.
Lets get one thing out of the way, you have bashed AEM products more than a few times in the past, yet here you are singing them enough praise to make one consider their products as a viable option.

Care to elaborate why?

As for manifold looks, Rosy O'donnell might be as tight as a 1/4" hole drilled into a block of steel, and by all rights that might be the best thing in the world, I'm still not going to hit that with your equipment let alone my own.

JGTC-EG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
this is out of left feild but instead of a tial wastegate go for a turbosmart ultra 38mm gate they are austrailian made but are of those upmost quality really really brilliant gate and the t2871rs are from gtr skylines if im not misstaken but other then that you are gonna get very crisp smooth power from it
 

·
()*#$(*$
Joined
·
11,404 Posts
Lets get one thing out of the way, you have bashed AEM products more than a few times in the past, yet here you are singing them enough praise to make one consider their products as a viable option.

Care to elaborate why?

As for manifold looks, Rosy O'donnell might be as tight as a 1/4" hole drilled into a block of steel, and by all rights that might be the best thing in the world, I'm still not going to hit that with your equipment let alone my own.

JGTC-EG
AEM wideband controllers suck. They go wonky, die, or are just off, sometimes enough to be dangerous to an engine if they are being relied upon to tune an engine.

Their EMS, especially the recent ones, are better than they used to be. AEM is generally a decent name brand, but certain products of theirs are to be avoided, IMO. Anyone who is seriously serious about engines tends to go with more expensive and much more proven options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
For the turbo manifold I want to test my fabrication skills a bit and attempt to create nice tri-Y manifold with what amounts to curved cone bends (think about it like a saxophone or even the whale penis intake if you will).

The idea being that each and every bend is some form of restriction and by decreasing the inside radius of the bend you can reduce the restriction.

This also increases the volume inside each bend (my bets are on increased flow vs. the obvious increased surface area and resulting increase in heat loss).

My current plan is to mock up the cones in paper, pie cut and assemble, then coil cut the entire assembly to fabricate a template for flat stainless stock which will be then coiled back into the final shape and tig welded and finished inside as the final tube takes shape.

The result should look fairly interesting and have superior flow characteristics, I fully expect this to be a real fitment bitch as welding and coiling stainless is going to result in some warping of the final product. This is pie sliced stainless; http://www.nengun.com/5zigen/exm-sp-exhaust-manifold-special I'm looking to be a little different in going the coil route with non-uniform tube diameter (cone) methodology in the curves.

JGTC-EG
 

·
()*#$(*$
Joined
·
11,404 Posts
I'm familiar with the pain in the balls that making a curved cone is:



Making one out of sheet . . . The only way I would do that is if I hydroformed it. In fact, you may want to look into DIY hydroforming for that kind of complex shape.

Example:
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
Top