# Twin scroll trubo versus Single scroll turbo , please educate me



## ModsTTand (Jul 8, 2009)

Greetings all

After doing all the search needed and compare both TS (twin-scroll) Versus SS(Single-scroll) still I couldn't find TS turbo manifold for our transverse engine but recently i found this TS turbo manifold :

















This TS technology has been on my mind for almost two years due to the huge benefit of such technology and TBH when most people start BT they adjust the project on their power/drive target goal.

Hoping I found an interesting topic for All of you especially the X-Auto/SR Crowd

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and your time.

all the best...

P.S:I'll be updating this thread with the basic knowledge of the mentioned technology aiding the point of discuss + check out http://forums.fourtitude.com/showthread.php?5206385-Twin-scroll-manifold @ 1.8t tech. forum


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

The idea of a twin scroll manifold is that the cylinders that fire together spin the turbo together to spool the turbo up more efficiently. In our cases cylinders 1&4 then 2&3- if you look at that manifold you posted up this is how it's setup. The exhaust pulses working together create less turbulence in the collector. I believe generally they are for larger frame turbos.

sorry I don't know much more than that- I bet the BT pros will chime in soon!


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

I cant help much, but I had to comment on how awesome that looks! Its like a work of art....


----------



## Tempes_TT (Oct 24, 2010)

Hmm, Ill be paying attention to this one, info seems very interesting and I would like to get educated in this as well!

and what Played said... Its beautiful!


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Doug summed it up, its one of those +1 mods that doesn't do a ton by itself but instead improves the overall performance, though that doesn't mean its not a big deal. Mitsubishi and BMW both use TS tech stock, and TS has also been discussed quite a bit within the last year on the 1.8T forum. AFAIK there are no cast TS manifolds for our engines, so the hitch is that they are semi-custom welded tubular manifolds, which means a manifold will cost in the ballpark of $1k. Although they are really useful for big turbos (GT35+), smaller turbos can only benefit as well, and lets be honest, 90% of guys don't go bigger than a 3076 range turbo. Again, TS will help, but there are other things (cams, intake manifold, high-tech turbo) that are more worthwhile if on a smaller budget.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

Basically you are paying $500 more for slightly better response after a shift. The point is to keep the velocity up of the exhaust flow to make it act bigger. Its the same thing as adding a smaller housing, but it wont cause as much back pressure. To some, its worth it, to others, they rather spend that money saved on a better turbo or something else.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

cincyTT said:


> Basically you are paying $500 more for slightly better response after a shift. The point is to keep the velocity up of the exhaust flow to make it act bigger. Its the same thing as adding a smaller housing, but it wont cause as much back pressure. To some, its worth it, to others, they rather spend that money saved on a better turbo or something else.


Not to argue with you Cincy but IMO TS technology offers more than "_*slightly better response*_".

Being essentially a DSM/evo freak, I experienced, blew, ported, modified(hybrid/iconel/clipped wheels) and did anything you can imagine with the technology. Besides the invaluable response (to me or anyone that road race or autocross), the ability to have a turbo that keeps up with the flow and not choked by the pulses fighting each other as the revs go up, is the most important feature. 

If you look at dynos of Evos with OEM turbos, the HP numbers usually match the torque numbers. They don't fall flat on their face as the flow go up, like other single housed turbo do if they are pushed to the right of the flow map. Overall, faster spool mixed with the ability to keep up with flow up top, make TS technology far ahead of a conventional setup. My 2 cents!


----------



## Converted2VW (Apr 8, 2009)

This is a very interesting discussion!

A couple of days ago while washing the car I started thinking of the possibility of adding a second turbo-ish to the car...

I theorized that if you put 2 compressors in parallel your max out put (psi) will probably be the same as the output of the individual components...BUT it may be easier (and faster) to achieve such output when you have 2 compressors working instead of one.

I assume the issue here will be achieving enough gas flow (i.e. exhaust gases) to move the compressors efficiently...I would have to look into the K04 & K03 specs to determine if using 2x turbos is a way to go...

Just rambling...


----------



## ModsTTand (Jul 8, 2009)

Thanks everyone for for sharing ur input :thumbup:

Mainly it's like how we all add DBB to our turbo's to increase the effenciey of the turbo performance"more spool/Less Lag" now consider this basic equation :3076R+TS manifold.

here's some technical informations quoted from modified site :
http://www.modified.com/tech/modp-0906-twin-scroll-turbo-system-design/index.html and i quote:



> Single-scroll systems have been in use for a long time, and for good reason. These systems are generally compact, inexpensive and extremely durable under the high heat they're exposed to. So from a simplicity of design, packaging and reliability standpoint, a single-scroll, constant-pressure turbo system is quite appealing-especially to the OEMs that must consider more than just power production. Although log-style or simple unequal-length turbo manifolds used by the OEMs can be tweaked for improved performance or replaced by a more sophisticated equal-length aftermarket manifold, this doesn't change the fact that there's a single exhaust gas inlet to the turbo's "hot side" turbine (which powers the "cold side" compressor, force feeding a denser and therefore more oxygen-rich air charge into the combustion chamber from the intake side). Because of this design limitation, single-scroll systems are not particularly efficient at low engine speeds or high loads.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Keep in mind, the purpose of this manifold isn't just to channel exhaust gases to the turbocharger's turbine wheel; the manifold must be designed to allow exhaust gases to exit the combustion chamber of each cylinder quickly and efficiently. Also keep in mind that these exhaust gases do not flow in a smooth stream because the gas exits each cylinder based on the engine's firing sequence, resulting in distinct exhaust gas pulses.





> the pulse from one cylinder can interfere with subsequent exhaust gas pulses as they enter the manifold from the other cylinders, inhibiting scavenging (where the high-pressure pulse draws the lower pressure gases behind it out of the combustion chamber with it) and increasing reversion (where exhaust gas flow is disturbed so much that its direction of travel reverses and pollutes the combustion chambers with hot exhaust gases). The trapped and wasted kinetic exhaust gas energy from poor scavenging and too much reversion also means higher combustion and exhaust gas temperatures, necessitating less aggressive ignition timing and reduced valve overlap as well as richer air/fuel mixtures (and higher NOx emissions).


now into the design of TS turbo:


> Twin-scroll turbo system design addresses many of the shortcomings of single-scroll turbo systems by separating those cylinders whose exhaust gas pulses interfere with each other. Similar in concept to pairing cylinders on race headers for normally aspirated engines, twin-scroll design pairs cylinders to one side of the turbine inlet such that the kinetic energy from the exhaust gases is recovered more efficiently by the turbine. For example, if a four-cylinder engine's firing sequence is 1-3-4-2, cylinder 1 is ending its expansion stroke and opening its exhaust valves while cylinder 2 still has its exhaust valves open (while in its overlap period, where both the intake and exhaust valves are partially open at the same time).
> 
> *In a single-scroll or undivided manifold*: the exhaust gas pressure pulse from cylinder 1 is therefore going to interfere with cylinder 2's ability to expel its exhaust gases, rather than delivering it undisturbed to the turbo's turbine the way a twin-scroll system allows.


*Less disturbance=better flow



> The result of the superior scavenging effect from a twin-scroll design is better pressure distribution in the exhaust ports and more efficient delivery of exhaust gas energy to the turbocharger's turbine. This in turn allows greater valve overlap, resulting in an improved quality and quantity of the air charge entering each cylinder.


Better flow=more Quantity+Quality "QQ":laugh:



> In fact, with more valve overlap, the scavenging effect of the exhaust flow can literally draw more air in on the intake side while drawing out the last of the low-pressure exhaust gases, helping pack each cylinder with a denser and purer air charge. And as we all know, a denser and purer air charge means stronger combustion and more power


Better Q+Q = more Combustion POWER



> benefits of twin-scroll design don't end there.
> With its greater volumetric efficiency and stronger scavenging effect, higher ignition delay can be used, which helps keep peak temperature in the cylinders down. Since cooler cylinder temperatures and lower exhaust gas temperatures allows for a leaner air/fuel ratio, twin-scroll turbo design has been shown toincrease turbine efficiency by 7-8 percent and result in fuel efficiency improvements as high as 5 percent


simple math : 300 (average hp)+5%(average increase)= 315 hp 
*please consider the above equation as example of 5% increase related to manifold .




> Combine these benefits with a well-engineered tubular equal-length manifold and the design strengths of a twin-scroll approach can pay even bigger dividends. "Equal length" simply refers to the length of the primary exhaust manifold tubes or runners that the cylinder head exhaust ports breath out into, which should ideally be of equal length before merging at a narrow angle at the collector so that the gases flow smoothly together into the turbine inlet. This helps maintain exhaust gas pulse energy, resulting in better boost response and overall higher turbo efficiency


.

Ofcourse all this information explanatory regarding the stock turbochargered which means IMO if it's applied to our upcoming upgrading of our current setups to BT i'm sure it'll increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the turbo performance.


I'll be adding the last page of this article from Modified.com shortly plus as much information i can dig out from the net .

Still, If anyone would like to add any related material to this thread TOPIC , by all means please do 'cos eventually we all will benefit from it .

*note: remember disco-potato (GTRS) major trend back in the days

:beer:


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

madmax199 said:


> Not to argue with you Cincy but IMO TS technology offers more than "_*slightly better response*_".
> 
> Being essentially a DSM/evo freak, I experienced, blew, ported, modified(hybrid/iconel/clipped wheels) and did anything you can imagine with the technology. Besides the invaluable response (to me or anyone that road race or autocross), the ability to have a turbo that keeps up with the flow and not choked by the pulses fighting each other as the revs go up, is the most important feature.
> 
> If you look at dynos of Evos with OEM turbos, the HP numbers usually match the torque numbers. They don't fall flat on their face as the flow go up, like other single housed turbo do if they are pushed to the right of the flow map. Overall, faster spool mixed with the ability to keep up with flow up top, make TS technology far ahead of a conventional setup. My 2 cents!


You are a bit off base with your assessments. First off, hp and tq matching up is based on peak torque and where it is reached. A gt28rs does the exact same thing. Will make ~300whp and tq, so what you said makes no sense. A TS may have a wider torque curve but will suffer a bit up top due to a smaller housing but thats not your argument. 

So is a TS setup worth it? Depends on who you ask. Spending about another $1k for the setup doesnt always make it that much better. I would only consider it with a BW EFR with internal gate personally. Plus if your such an evo freak, you would notice all the big power guys running 8's and 9's all run T3 and T4 single scroll setups and most of them are street legal and used there. That and the only person pushing TS manifolds is Full Race.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

cincyTT said:


> You are a bit off base with your assessments. First off, hp and tq matching up is based on peak torque and where it is reached. A gt28rs does the exact same thing. Will make ~300whp and tq, so what you said makes no sense. A TS may have a wider torque curve but will suffer a bit up top due to a smaller housing but thats not your argument.
> 
> So is a TS setup worth it? Depends on who you ask. Spending about another $1k for the setup doesnt always make it that much better. I would only consider it with a BW EFR with internal gate personally. Plus if your such an evo freak, you would notice all the big power guys running 8's and 9's all run T3 and T4 single scroll setups and most of them are street legal and used there. That and the only person pushing TS manifolds is Full Race.


Again, I don't want to start a pointless argument but go back and re-read my statement. I only stated TS peak torque numbers matched by their peak HP numbers when pushed near the limit of flow(usually where conventional turbo HP numbers fall considerably).

"_*They don't fall flat on their face as the flow go up, like other single housed turbo do if they are pushed to the right of the flow map*_"

You are right that TS may not be worth it to some (drag racers who tipically do not care about fast spool etc). However, fast spool and the ability to keep flow up is the name of the game in road racing, autocross and arguably any real usable DD. 

I have personally built/owned/driven 1st gen, second gen, 9.8 evo VIII, mivec evo IX and evo X that have all been competitive nationally in SCCA racing. I have also succesfully removed, in my sponsored and nationally campained SCCA X prepared EVO, a conventional GT30 in favor of a TS FP green variant (Frankenturbo of the evo world) just to go faster. I may seem crazy to any drag racers but the green turbo had a power band and delivery that the GT30 could never match(not waiting forever for power and be at your next braking zone by the time it's finally available). 

It's not all about going 9, 8 or 7 in a straight line, some people, using their turbo, actually have to stop, accelarate and turn their steering wheel:beer:.


----------



## lite1979 (Sep 9, 2005)

Great topic. I agree it sounds too expensive for a horsepower upgrade, but I like the fact that in improves drive-ability. If I fall into $1000 for the manifold and god knows how much for the turbo, I'd gladly rock a TS setup on my TT. :beer:

Which leaves me with a few questions: Don't your exhaust gases end up running into and interfering with one another once they reach the hot side of the turbo? Is the turbine different on a TS setup (I would imagine a disk separating the fan blades for each exhaust flow, for example)?


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

lite1979 said:


> Which leaves me with a few questions: Don't your exhaust gases end up running into and interfering with one another once they reach the hot side of the turbo? Is the turbine different on a TS setup (I would imagine a disk separating the fan blades for each exhaust flow, for example)?


The cyl are paired up based on firing order. For a 1.8t it will be 1-4 and 2-3. They go into a flange that looks like this










There is still 2 paths in the housing until it reaches the blades of the turbine wheel like below


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

lite1979 said:


> Which leaves me with a few questions: Don't your exhaust gases end up running into and interfering with one another once they reach the hot side of the turbo? Is the turbine different on a TS setup (I would imagine a disk separating the fan blades for each exhaust flow, for example)?


What you are missing is that the whole point of the *twin* scroll is to be a *two-pulse *exhaust flow system vs the constant flow that you find on conventional turbo with unequal length log style manifolds. 

The TS system is design to have the exhaust gases reach, enter and exit the turbo in two pulses of the sister pair of cylinders.The TS manifold is a tuned pulse coverter that separates the exhaust in conjonction with the firing order. That way, the two pulses keep the blade spinning in strokes that never interfere with each other(conventional creates a lot of turbulence and there's a potential for reversion). Turbines can stay the same, the only thing that get some attention is the exit collecter/elbow. Usually the elbow on a TS is also designed to be an expansion chamber that also maximizes the pulses and their exit :beer:. 

*This is the exit elbow(commonly called O2 housing because it holds the primary sensor) of a TS looks like. Its also designed, just like the manifold to promote seperate pulses.*



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

No. You can see in the pic above that the housings have 2 separate paths to the turbine wheel. If you think you can still have them separated after that, you are just being foolish. The best part is your post of the Evo o2 housing. The 2 separate paths are for the exhaust and the exhaust flow the wastegate bypasses the turbine wheel, not the separate runners exhaust flow. Again, look at the pics I posted above. 

Also, since we are on Evos. Their cast manifolds are not equal, they are just paired (see below)










And as for the unequal cast manifolds causing reversion, The pagparts manifolds have raised edges cast into them to help direct exhaust flow cutting down on turbulence and possible reversion. 










One last comment about TS tech, its basically the same thing as seqential turbos, gone to the way of extinction due to the creation of DBB and even better Dual Ceramic ball bearings which keep the turbo spinning far faster and longer between shifts where TS was once needed. Notice how the 16g is journal bearing like most other stock cars running them.


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

cincyTT said:


> No. _You can see in the pic above that the housings have 2 separate paths to the turbine wheel. If you think you can still have them separated after that, you are just being foolish. The best part is your post of the Evo o2 housing. The 2 separate paths are for the exhaust and the exhaust flow the wastegate bypasses the turbine wheel, not the separate runners exhaust flow. Again, look at the pics I posted above.
> 
> Also, since we are on Evos. Their cast manifolds are not equal, they are just paired (see below)
> _


Here we go again:screwy: 
I just read my post 20 times to see where you're getting that I said the exit elbow was seperating flow in seperate paths. I'm quoting myself below to make things easier for you. 

*"Usually the elbow on a TS is also designed to be an expansion chamber that also maximizes the pulses and their exit"*

The intent of the picture is to show the expansion chamber design that helps evacuate the exhaust with limited turbulence(nothing about separating flow after the blade, so you're the foolish one). The reason exit came into play is because I wanted the OP to uderstand TS as a dual pulse system that works from manifold to exit elbow.

Also please tell me where you read that I said EVO manifold where equal, they are, one more time *"tuned pulse coverter that separates the exhaust in conjonction with the firing order"*

Not to be rude but need to start reading before you post :beer:


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

madmax199 said:


> The TS system is design to have the exhaust gases *reach, enter and exit the turbo in two pulses* of the sister pair of cylinders.


Exit the turbo in 2 pulses... :wave:



madmax199 said:


> The intent of the picture is to show the expansion chamber design that helps evacuate the exhaust with limited turbulence(nothing about separating flow after the blade, so you're the foolish one). The reason exit came into play is because I wanted the OP to uderstand TS as a dual pulse system that works from manifold to exit elbow.


How is showing how an evo breaks up the wastegate flow from the exhaust flow helping him understand TS? Anyone running these will be running a pair of externals (unless they run a EFR turbo which no is as of now) which the turbo will have a normal exit.


----------



## 20psi now (Feb 26, 2009)

:laugh: you know cincy is right.. after the exhaust pulse goes through the trubine there is just going to be ehxust flow out to the tale pipe.. nothing after the turbo is going to matter in a SS or TS. the 02 housing you posted there is two holes that are split, one for the turbine wheel outlet and the other being for the internal wastgate.. its split to reduce turbulent flow when the two are merging..


----------



## madmax199 (Oct 28, 2009)

Where is an engineer when you need one?
20V, come out of hybernation to get this thing settled.

As far as I know, exhaust all the way to the tailpipe is in pulses, TS or not. The rest of the board can verify that, by standing in front of their tailpipe in the morning before it gets too hot. The turbine is not going to stop pulses - if it enters in pulses, it'll come out in pulses(I'm no fluid engineer but that's what makes sense to me).

Maybe I shouldn't have posted the evo exit housing because there's a split for the wastegate but again I am showing expansion in the design not separation.

BTW, Cincy and 20psi I love the fact that we're having a good knowledgeable discussion, this board can use some more of that.:thumbup:


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

You can only control the exhaust to the turbine. Once the exhaust hits the turbine inducer and then works its way out the exducer, you just want no restrictions. There is no way its working its way backwards. This is the reason people run 3" diam exhausts.


----------



## lite1979 (Sep 9, 2005)

I grasped the concept of have separate pulses feeding the hot side of the turbo; what I was confused about was how you keep those pulses separate once they "mix together" in the hot side of the turbo. I see now that they shouldn't interfere at all with each other once they get to the turbo because of the position of each "sister" cylinder not allowing reversion. 

FWIW, the manifold on my 225 QC does divide the flows of 1+4 and 2+3 right up to where it meets the turbo; I'll take a pic tomorrow if you like. I feel like if someone wanted to customize that manifold and screw around with the hot side of a k04, you could easily get a twin-scroll setup working on the current manifold and turbo.

Since I decided to look for compressor wheels to see if there's a difference, a google search turned up a thread where they actually mention a twin-scrolling ko4! link. It might be a Europe-only thing for the S3, but it's got me kind of excited about the possibility of running this on a TT. I doubt the 2.0T manifolds bolt up to the 1.8t, though, and apparently it's a manifold+turbo all cast out of one piece of steel!


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

lite1979 said:


> I grasped the concept of have separate pulses feeding the hot side of the turbo; what I was confused about was how you keep those pulses separate once they "mix together" in the hot side of the turbo. I see now that they shouldn't interfere at all with each other once they get to the turbo because of the position of each "sister" cylinder not allowing reversion.


There is still 2 runners in the turbine housing. The pulses are separated until they actually hit the turbine wheel. Look at the pics i posted again and you can see that. Its basically a cut away of a turbine housing. "Reversion" is basically the exhaust flow taking the path of least resistance. This is more of a problem for NA cars and why you see power gains when they use long tube runners before the collector to prevent the pulse working its way up another cyl's tube. Two Guys Garage explained this well on their show about the new 5.0 ford motor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqjffnO7VLI



> FWIW, the manifold on my 225 QC does divide the flows of 1+4 and 2+3 right up to where it meets the turbo; I'll take a pic tomorrow if you like. I feel like if someone wanted to customize that manifold and screw around with the hot side of a k04, you could easily get a twin-scroll setup working on the current manifold and turbo.


Its not pairing the runners, its keeping them all separated till the flange for the best flow. Its a good design, just the flange and runners are way to small to make any real power with. Also, you cant remake a turbo housing a twin scroll, it has to be cast that way, same with the manifold.



> Since I decided to look for compressor wheels to see if there's a difference, a google search turned up a thread where they actually mention a twin-scrolling ko4! link. It might be a Europe-only thing for the S3, but it's got me kind of excited about the possibility of running this on a TT. I doubt the 2.0T manifolds bolt up to the 1.8t, though, and apparently it's a manifold+turbo all cast out of one piece of steel!


These are what APR sells at the 2.0T upgrade. Nice setup for a stock turbo. Still dont know why you people are getting so excited about TS thats decades old. If you really want to get blown away, just compare a old 50trim style T3T4 to a modern GT turbo from garrett. Then compare that to the PTE billet dual ceramic ball bearing turbos, to the Comp triple ceramic/oil and coolant less turbos, to the BW EFR series turbo that have light ass titanium turbine wheels, high efficiency billet compressor wheels, built in wastegate and dv. As the list goes on, spool gets better and the turbos get more powerful. Turbos now with way smaller wheels are making 50-150hp more than ones less than 5 years ago...


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

madmax199 said:


> BTW, Cincy and 20psi I love the fact that we're having a good knowledgeable discussion, this board can use some more of that.:thumbup:


Honestly this is what its all about. Being able to add useable info to the scene without bitching is how these forums are SUPPOSED to be. Thanks for chiming in Nate:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## ModsTTand (Jul 8, 2009)

Thanks everyone for sharing & my apologies for not chim'ing in earlier .
(caught the flu ...cough*cough)

Okay, i'll quote from http://www.modified.com/tech/modp-0906-twin-scroll-turbo-system-design/full-race.html article :



> Fitting equal-length primaries into the tight confines of a turbocharged car's engine bay while maintaining proper radius bends and strong exhaust gas flow characteristics is a serious design challenge,That's where Full-Race's team of highly educated mechanical engineers and years of constant refinement of their designs comes into play.
> 
> According to Geoff at Full-Race, "Because of the increased turbine efficiency found in twin-scroll systems, twin-scroll manifolds can often use a smaller runner than a single-scroll design".


Geoff also mentioned:


> We have found the twin-scroll systems have higher backpressure at low rpm (which is good for turbo spool-up) and lower backpressure at high rpm (which is good for top-end performance).
> 
> On the other hand, single-scroll systems have lower backpressure at low rpm (bad for spool-up) and higher backpressure at high rpm (which hurts top-end performance).The manifold design and A/R ratio of the turbo must be spot-on, so it's best to get the help of a professional when choosing a turbo for this type of system.


After that Eurotuner article continue's :



> It's certainly possible to generate huge power and great high-rpm performance with a single-scroll turbo system. There are plenty of examples of very high-horsepower, single-scroll turbocharged engines out there, but with single-scroll systems spool-up and response are much slower than with a twin-scroll design, yet twin-scroll systems still provide excellent top end performance.
> 
> Although switching from single-scroll to twin-scroll can be expensive, for hard-core boost junkies who want much faster throttle response without giving up any top end, there is no better solution. With the added benefits of higher turbine efficiency, lower cylinder temps and EGTs which allow more aggressive timing and fuel mapping, and the freedom to run more overlap,twin-scroll turbo system design is really a perfect match for the high specific output engines featured in many of our favorite sport compact machines.


Also, found at Audizine "recent" thread post regarding the same topic:Why no twin-scroll turbo?

*link:http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/431082-Why-no-twin-scroll-turbo

my Question is the following :

If *CompTurbo* came up with :TRIPLEX CERAMIC™Ball Bearing Turbochargers or even: TRIPLEX CERAMIC™Oil-Less Turbochargers not forgeting the NEW yet to be available in the market *BorgWarner-TURBO EFR* with Titanium compressor impellers then whats keeping us from benefit from such technology in improving out our tiny 1.8T or stroked to 2.0T in more constant Torque and Power delivery through out the RPM providing proper Turbo A/R match ?

BTW, Cost eventually will drop in the event of increased demand 

I think in my humble knowledge TS turbo+TS manifold in BT CONCEPT is like adding WMI/Porting/3" DP....els it's all 1+ for the sake of improvisational of our cars, still ur inputs are all what this forum is all about.:thumbup:


----------

