# TWIN TURBO



## LightningBunny (Apr 5, 2007)

ne one think it can be done. or just a waist of time and money. just a topic to throw around here.


----------



## Silver__DUB (Oct 3, 2006)

can be done but useless.


----------



## travis3265 (Nov 15, 2003)

*Re: (Silver__DUB)*

VAG had enough trouble making single turbo...
what ever happened to that project anyway?


----------



## OrlandoJetta (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: TWIN TURBO (LightningBunny)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LightningBunny* »_ne one think it can be done. or just a waist of time and money. just a topic to throw around here. 

Once a single turbo is developed, there will be no reason to run a twin... it will put out enough power for the 2.5... plus, the stock tranny can only hand 235lbs of torque, a twin would put it upwards of that, so your talking about having to mod the hell out of your car to even get it to work... not even getting into any other components that would come into play. Stick with a single first http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
BTW welcome to the Vortex!


----------



## thumper07 (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: TWIN TURBO (OrlandoJetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *OrlandoJetta* »_
Once a single turbo is developed, there will be no reason to run a twin... it will put out enough power for the 2.5... *plus, the stock tranny can only hand 235lbs *of torque, a twin would put it upwards of that, so your talking about having to mod the hell out of your car to even get it to work... not even getting into any other components that would come into play. Stick with a single first http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
BTW welcome to the Vortex!

where did you get this information?


----------



## OrlandoJetta (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: TWIN TURBO (thumper07)*

this came from whatsyourbeef... hes putting together a turbo for his 2.5 bunny. That dude knows his stuff... and that info wouldnt apply to you b/c i think you have a stick right? the tip-tranny can hold 235... I have no idea what the difference of a manual would be... just PM him, he will talk to you more about it


----------



## LightningBunny (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: TWIN TURBO (OrlandoJetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *OrlandoJetta* »_
Once a single turbo is developed, there will be no reason to run a twin... it will put out enough power for the 2.5... plus, the stock tranny can only hand 235lbs of torque, a twin would put it upwards of that, so your talking about having to mod the hell out of your car to even get it to work... not even getting into any other components that would come into play. Stick with a single first http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
BTW welcome to the Vortex!

see i have a stick though. anyone make a upgrade cluth and fly wheel yet?


----------



## thumper07 (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: TWIN TURBO (LightningBunny)*

i know spec has a clutch out for the 2.0 not sure about the 2.5
-matt


----------



## rocker97x (Aug 23, 2006)

*Re: TWIN TURBO (thumper07)*

when neuspeed turboed there bunny they mentioned the clutch had to be replaced at like 215ft/lbs i believe


----------



## midengineracer (Feb 27, 2005)

What the REAL issue here is logic. Twin turbo setups are only done when there is a number of cylinders so that the first turbo is spooled by the same amount of cylinders as the second. In the case of the 5 cylinder motor, exhaust gasses from the first 3 cylinders would spool the first turbo so that the second turbo would only be spooled by the remaining 2 cylinders. I guess you could have different sizes of turbos to compensate but that adds even more complexity to the setup. Might as well do a five-turbo setup, it makes more sense as far as symmetry is concerned and is just as complex to fabricate. I would only consider a single turbo setup to make sense.


----------



## LightningBunny (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: (midengineracer)*

well lets see one big turbo and one little turbo. so basically gt28r + ko4sport turbo= twin setup.


----------



## lancGTI (Nov 5, 2006)

*Re: (LightningBunny)*

Why? Basically, why?


----------



## LightningBunny (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: (lancGTI)*

off the 2.5l fourms 2.0t man lol


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (LightningBunny)*

by twin turbo, i think you mean sequential turbo, right? because i love the idea
i also love the idea of supercharging http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## thumper07 (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: (lancGTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lancGTI* »_Why? Basically, why?

go play in your own forum and let us talk to him and explain why it is not a good idea without you being a dick.
Now the only reason you would need to go twin is to get fast spool but still have great top end. you get a decent turbo today you will have that with to need for a twin setup. if i am not mistaken on the supra's and rx-7 there stock twin turbo setups were sequential. that means one small turbo blows right into a larger one so you have little lag. that is not neccesary with our car, we dont rev that high so we dont need a turbo that takes forever to spool up, of coarse i mean if its a road car.







plus it's also more complex and cost more money. so lets see what happens when someone comes out with a single kit.
i may be wrong if i am please correct me.
-matt


_Modified by thumper07 at 8:37 AM 4-8-2007_


----------



## OrlandoJetta (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: (thumper07)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thumper07* »_
go play in your own forum and let us talk to him and explain why it is not a good idea without you being a dick.
Now the only reason you would need to go twin is to get fast spool but still have great top end. you get a decent turbo today you will have that with to need for a twin setup. if i am not mistaken on the supra's and rx-7 there stock twin turbo setups were sequential. that means one small turbo blows right into a larger one so you have little lag. that is not neccesary with our car, we dont rev that high so we dont need a turbo that takes forever to spool up, of coarse i mean if its a road car.







plus it's also more complex and cost more money. so lets see what happens when someone comes out with a single kit.
i may be wrong if i am please correct me.
-matt

_Modified by thumper07 at 8:37 AM 4-8-2007_

Nope your right... the reason for a twin is to reduce lag while the 1st (larger) turbine spools up. In a single set-up, the theory is that lag is created while waiting for the turbine to create boost... with our engine, torque will always outway WHP, so... we shouldnt have much lag throwing a turbo runnin 7-8PSI... the torque will make up the gains at lower RPM's, creating much less lag while the turbine spools.
Great points Thump!







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
PS... its okay that the 2.0t dude made a comment, we are gonna stay mature and ask that if you would like to post in the 2.5 forum, keep it kind... we dont flame anyone here for anything. Plus, maybe he wasnt being a dick, he might not really know...







Thanks. 

_Modified by OrlandoJetta at 10:25 AM 4-8-2007_


_Modified by OrlandoJetta at 10:26 AM 4-8-2007_


----------



## thumper07 (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: (OrlandoJetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *OrlandoJetta* »_
*PS... its okay that the 2.0t dude made a comment, we are gonna stay mature and ask that if you would like to post in the 2.5 forum, keep it kind... we dont flame anyone here for anything. Plus, maybe he wasnt being a dick, he might not really know...







Thanks*. 

_Modified by OrlandoJetta at 10:25 AM 4-8-2007_

_Modified by OrlandoJetta at 10:26 AM 4-8-2007_

your right i jumped the gun, i just get defensive sometimes because we get flamed so much for even thinking we can make a rabbit fast. i'm going to go have a easter







cheers!
-matt


----------



## LightningBunny (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: (OrlandoJetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *OrlandoJetta* »_
Nope your right... the reason for a twin is to reduce lag while the 1st (larger) turbine spools up. In a single set-up, the theory is that lag is created while waiting for the turbine to create boost... with our engine, torque will always outway WHP, so... we shouldnt have much lag throwing a turbo runnin 7-8PSI... the torque will make up the gains at lower RPM's, creating much less lag while the turbine spools.
Great points Thump!







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
_Modified by OrlandoJetta at 10:26 AM 4-8-2007_
 

yes seq. is wat i meant. the little turbo ko4 or ko3 blows into to the big turbo gtr28 or bigger to decrease lag. plus you pop open your hood and people see your twin setup you'll get mad ass props


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (thumper07)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thumper07* »_
go play in your own forum and let us talk to him and explain why it is not a good idea without you being a dick.
Now the only reason you would need to go twin is to get fast spool but still have great top end. you get a decent turbo today you will have that with to need for a twin setup. if i am not mistaken on the supra's and rx-7 there stock twin turbo setups were sequential. that means one small turbo blows right into a larger one so you have little lag. that is not neccesary with our car, we dont rev that high so we dont need a turbo that takes forever to spool up, of coarse i mean if its a road car.







plus it's also more complex and cost more money. so lets see what happens when someone comes out with a single kit.
i may be wrong if i am please correct me.
-matt

_Modified by thumper07 at 8:37 AM 4-8-2007_

your correct! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## OrlandoJetta (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: (thumper07)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thumper07* »_
your right i jumped the gun, i just get defensive sometimes because we get flamed so much for even thinking we can make a rabbit fast. i'm going to go have a easter







cheers!
-matt

No prob bro... but its like we were taught when we were 10 years old lol... be the bigger man. If everyone in the 2.5 forum agrees to brush everything off that is said to us and let our actions (sick ass cars) speak louder than our words (typing







) than this will all die down and the FSI's will get sick of saying anything to us... as far as im concerned they can all kiss my ass because at the end of the day my 2.5T would toast any one of them.








Enjoy your







Thump lol
Happy Easter guys, im gonna go chill with my girl for the rest of the day


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (OrlandoJetta)*

thats cool. and i agree as well. 
the 2.5 sounds way better than the 2.0T anyway, stock or not.


----------



## thumper07 (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: (mujjuman)*

i've been saying that since the first time i heard it, it sounds ricey as hell on the top end. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
-matt


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (thumper07)*

lol, i agree! even on the bottom end.... the 1.8T sounds much better http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif ... 
and im not biased towards the 1.8T because i dont own one


----------



## OrlandoJetta (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: (mujjuman)*

The 2,5T is gonna own dude lol... its gonna be awhile... I hope to god 'whatsyourbeef' is successful in turboing his Rabbit because he is trying to do a very mild turbo running lower boost and still gonna catch like 50-70HP out of it. He will probably run in the mid 13's easy!


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (OrlandoJetta)*

yeah i hope he succeeds too http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Yevi (Dec 7, 2005)

*Re: (mujjuman)*

it has been proven, that's why the projects were dropped, welding, and bolting things on are easy (for gear heads).
problems are software, we are not tuning mk2, or 1966 bug motor
Yev


----------



## thumper07 (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: (Yevi)*

exactly, it is not just an ecu it is also the body control module and it is also something brand new to everyone, even experienced tuners. it is trial and error from here on out so it takes alot of time. but it will happen and when it does it will simply amazing.
-matt


----------



## OrlandoJetta (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: (thumper07)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thumper07* »_exactly, it is not just an ecu it is also the body control module and it is also something brand new to everyone, even experienced tuners. it is trial and error from here on out so it takes alot of time. *but it will happen and when it does it will simply amazing*.
-matt

Right on http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (OrlandoJetta)*

didnt VAG make like 150hp at 3000rpm?


----------



## thumper07 (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: (mujjuman)*

yes they did! but too bad we redline at 6200 thats only 3200 more rpm and they are good to go.
-matt


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (thumper07)*

i dunno about the the 2007 2.5's but my 06 redlines at 5800rpm
im guessing they made around 270-310hp... just a guess
torque... i would think average 280lbft
its def doable (hardware)... we just need a good company for the software http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
im not sure how much VAG was boosting though


----------



## thumper07 (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: (mujjuman)*

well something like that i dont know the exact number the rev-limiter kicks in at 
-matt


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (thumper07)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thumper07* »_well something like that i dont know the exact number the rev-limiter kicks in at 
-matt

5832.67324 (i rounded the last number)


----------



## thumper07 (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: (mujjuman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mujjuman* »_
5832.67324 (i rounded the last number)









so then its actually 2832.67324rpm they have left to figure out. atleast they are past halfway.
-matt


----------



## whatsyourbeef (Jan 2, 2007)

*Re: (thumper07)*

*122-170 hp 1.4 TSI*
Announced at the 2005 Frankfurt Auto Show to be used in the Golf GT, The 1.4l Twincharger is a TSI engine with a turbocharger and a supercharger in combination. Its downsizing leads to economy, with 14% more power than the 2.0 FSI but consumming 5% less fuel. The mechanical compressor operates at low engine speeds below 2400 rpm to increase low-end power, the turbocharger engages at middle revs, a clutch disengage the supercharger which will then be bypassed once the turbocharger reaches sufficient speed to provide boost above 3500 rpm.


----------



## OrlandoJetta (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: (whatsyourbeef)*


_Quote, originally posted by *whatsyourbeef* »_*122-170 hp 1.4 TSI*
Announced at the 2005 Frankfurt Auto Show to be used in the Golf GT, The 1.4l Twincharger is a TSI engine with a turbocharger and a supercharger in combination. Its downsizing leads to economy, with 14% more power than the 2.0 FSI but consumming 5% less fuel. The mechanical compressor operates at low engine speeds below 2400 rpm to increase low-end power, the turbocharger engages at middle revs, a clutch disengage the supercharger which will then be bypassed once the turbocharger reaches sufficient speed to provide boost above 3500 rpm.









http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif suprised its only 170HP running a super/turbo charger... 
W00T I own page 2!!!


----------



## thumper07 (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: (OrlandoJetta)*

yeah but with only 1.4l of displacement it doesn't leave a whole lot left on the table. where as a 2.5 putting out 150hp and soon to be 170hp all natural, i would take over it anyday!
-matt


----------



## Mrb00st (Jun 26, 2005)

i'm curious how you'd fit TWO turbos into a rabbit/jetta engine bay
and i think it'd be fairly pointless.


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (Mrb00st)*

i think its possible... im not sure how though


----------



## subwoffers (Oct 20, 2006)

*Re: (mujjuman)*

put it on the roof , thats was roof racks are for


----------



## mujjuman (Jul 29, 2004)

*Re: (subwoffers)*

LOLLL!!


----------

