towing with a 66/71/14
07-05-2008 | 07:28 AM
#16
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Well I won't have access to a computer for about a week but please do voice your opinions. I appreciate all the info I can get. I'll dig this thread up when I can as I am sure that it will get buried by the time I can get back on here. THANKS!
07-05-2008 | 08:02 AM
#17
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,250
Likes: 0
From: Hershey, PA
Tough question as the housing are slightly different in design..... Right now I am running the 13SS housing on my truck and love it, but that being said when I used the 14 housing I liked it as well. The larger exhaust ports do allow for more wastegate flow but really only help when the smaller ones aren't enough. A lot of heat is made when you have slower spoolup caused by a large exhaust housing or compressor. Another benefit of the SS housing is it is much less prone to cracking.
Unfortunately there is no perfect turbo. The best we can hpe for is the best compromise. Too large and performance suffers, too small and lots of heat. In your case either the 62/14 or 62/13ss would be a great choice. Personally I like the 13ss as I think it ends up having slightly better spoolup, larger ports, and works well.
Unfortunately there is no perfect turbo. The best we can hpe for is the best compromise. Too large and performance suffers, too small and lots of heat. In your case either the 62/14 or 62/13ss would be a great choice. Personally I like the 13ss as I think it ends up having slightly better spoolup, larger ports, and works well.
07-05-2008 | 12:03 PM
#18
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
From: NW IL
I'm with Doug. The SS13 or the cast 14. Had a 16 on my PDR HX40 and it was a HUGE lag pig over the stocker.
If I was to go a bit too big on a housing, it would be the compressor housing over the exhaust.
If I was to go a bit too big on a housing, it would be the compressor housing over the exhaust.
07-06-2008 | 10:06 AM
#19
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 6
From: Cummins Technical Center, IN
If I were to go too big on one or the other, it would be the turbine housing over the compressor.
With an oversized compressor, you get nothing in return for the lag and surging. If you have enough compressor, you have enough compressor-- and going bigger won't improve things in any way significant enough to justify the offsetting negatives.
But with a larger turbine housing, you DO get some redeeming qualities in return for the lag: less/no surging, lower EGTs at peak power, lower Turbine inlet pressure, etc.
While the 16 housing is probably a lag pig, a 16 housing on a smaller turbine (65mm) will deliver a given amount of gas flow more efficiently than tighter housing on a larger turbine. The problem is that the 65mm and 71mm turbines are a very different design, so they have very different behaviors that are not attributable to size alone-- thus, leading to false conclusions based only on size.
In other words, while I can generalize on the importance of housing and turbine sizing and comparing them to each other, it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The SS housings are different than the cast. The 71mm is different design than the 65mm.
All that means that the behavior of various turbine/housing combinations is unique to each combo, and inferring certain things about another combo based on a given combo is likely to disappoint.
Doug mentioned an interesting point worth repeating. While a larger housing will generally have lower peak EGTs, if the housing is so large that EGTs get toasty before the turbo enters its operating range, you can't get that EGT buffer back.
A turbo can't go from zero to hero magically at 1100 degrees. If you don't have the turbo in the game by 900 degrees, don't expect it to be effective at holding 1300 degrees.
Lotsa guys want big power-- but the reality is that a smaller turbo that's less capable in the peak HP department is far more in line with daily driving satisfaction for 90% of the public.
Disclaimer:
JMO AS A GUY WHO STILL RUNS THE STOCK CHARGER AND HAS NEVER TOUCHED AN AFTERMARKET TURBO
With an oversized compressor, you get nothing in return for the lag and surging. If you have enough compressor, you have enough compressor-- and going bigger won't improve things in any way significant enough to justify the offsetting negatives.
But with a larger turbine housing, you DO get some redeeming qualities in return for the lag: less/no surging, lower EGTs at peak power, lower Turbine inlet pressure, etc.
While the 16 housing is probably a lag pig, a 16 housing on a smaller turbine (65mm) will deliver a given amount of gas flow more efficiently than tighter housing on a larger turbine. The problem is that the 65mm and 71mm turbines are a very different design, so they have very different behaviors that are not attributable to size alone-- thus, leading to false conclusions based only on size.
In other words, while I can generalize on the importance of housing and turbine sizing and comparing them to each other, it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The SS housings are different than the cast. The 71mm is different design than the 65mm.
All that means that the behavior of various turbine/housing combinations is unique to each combo, and inferring certain things about another combo based on a given combo is likely to disappoint.
Doug mentioned an interesting point worth repeating. While a larger housing will generally have lower peak EGTs, if the housing is so large that EGTs get toasty before the turbo enters its operating range, you can't get that EGT buffer back.
A turbo can't go from zero to hero magically at 1100 degrees. If you don't have the turbo in the game by 900 degrees, don't expect it to be effective at holding 1300 degrees.
Lotsa guys want big power-- but the reality is that a smaller turbo that's less capable in the peak HP department is far more in line with daily driving satisfaction for 90% of the public.
Disclaimer:
JMO AS A GUY WHO STILL RUNS THE STOCK CHARGER AND HAS NEVER TOUCHED AN AFTERMARKET TURBO
07-06-2008 | 04:57 PM
#20
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
From: Lake Charles,Louisiana
If I were to go too big on one or the other, it would be the turbine housing over the compressor.
With an oversized compressor, you get nothing in return for the lag and surging. If you have enough compressor, you have enough compressor-- and going bigger won't improve things in any way significant enough to justify the offsetting negatives.
But with a larger turbine housing, you DO get some redeeming qualities in return for the lag: less/no surging, lower EGTs at peak power, lower Turbine inlet pressure, etc.
While the 16 housing is probably a lag pig, a 16 housing on a smaller turbine (65mm) will deliver a given amount of gas flow more efficiently than tighter housing on a larger turbine. The problem is that the 65mm and 71mm turbines are a very different design, so they have very different behaviors that are not attributable to size alone-- thus, leading to false conclusions based only on size.
In other words, while I can generalize on the importance of housing and turbine sizing and comparing them to each other, it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The SS housings are different than the cast. The 71mm is different design than the 65mm.
All that means that the behavior of various turbine/housing combinations is unique to each combo, and inferring certain things about another combo based on a given combo is likely to disappoint.
Doug mentioned an interesting point worth repeating. While a larger housing will generally have lower peak EGTs, if the housing is so large that EGTs get toasty before the turbo enters its operating range, you can't get that EGT buffer back.
A turbo can't go from zero to hero magically at 1100 degrees. If you don't have the turbo in the game by 900 degrees, don't expect it to be effective at holding 1300 degrees.
Lotsa guys want big power-- but the reality is that a smaller turbo that's less capable in the peak HP department is far more in line with daily driving satisfaction for 90% of the public.
Disclaimer:
JMO AS A GUY WHO STILL RUNS THE STOCK CHARGER AND HAS NEVER TOUCHED AN AFTERMARKET TURBO
With an oversized compressor, you get nothing in return for the lag and surging. If you have enough compressor, you have enough compressor-- and going bigger won't improve things in any way significant enough to justify the offsetting negatives.
But with a larger turbine housing, you DO get some redeeming qualities in return for the lag: less/no surging, lower EGTs at peak power, lower Turbine inlet pressure, etc.
While the 16 housing is probably a lag pig, a 16 housing on a smaller turbine (65mm) will deliver a given amount of gas flow more efficiently than tighter housing on a larger turbine. The problem is that the 65mm and 71mm turbines are a very different design, so they have very different behaviors that are not attributable to size alone-- thus, leading to false conclusions based only on size.
In other words, while I can generalize on the importance of housing and turbine sizing and comparing them to each other, it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The SS housings are different than the cast. The 71mm is different design than the 65mm.
All that means that the behavior of various turbine/housing combinations is unique to each combo, and inferring certain things about another combo based on a given combo is likely to disappoint.
Doug mentioned an interesting point worth repeating. While a larger housing will generally have lower peak EGTs, if the housing is so large that EGTs get toasty before the turbo enters its operating range, you can't get that EGT buffer back.
A turbo can't go from zero to hero magically at 1100 degrees. If you don't have the turbo in the game by 900 degrees, don't expect it to be effective at holding 1300 degrees.
Lotsa guys want big power-- but the reality is that a smaller turbo that's less capable in the peak HP department is far more in line with daily driving satisfaction for 90% of the public.
Disclaimer:
JMO AS A GUY WHO STILL RUNS THE STOCK CHARGER AND HAS NEVER TOUCHED AN AFTERMARKET TURBO
07-06-2008 | 07:37 PM
#21
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 6
From: Cummins Technical Center, IN
What *I* would do would be based on how *I* use my truck and would mostly be irrelevant to anyone else.
I think spoolup matter more in daily usage than anything else. Being able to instantly squirt around traffic or pull out to pass someone is to me FAR more useful than having big, smoky power.
Based on the dyno sheets I've seen (David Dunbar) with a 62/71/13ss, this turbo is too laggy for what I want to do. It makes less power than stock every point below 2300rpm. This means to me that I am giving up power from just off idle all the way to 2300rpm to gain power above 2300rpm.
To me, this is a step backwards. I spend the VAST majority of my time under 2300rpm, even on the hwy. With the stock charger, I could roll into the fuel in high gear to pass someone, but the SS62/13SS would require a downshift or I'd have to live with less passing power in high gear.
With a diesel's limited RPM range, it's crucial to preserve the bottom end power as much as possible. To me, it's all about area under the curve, not the peaks of the curve.
If you look at the curve of the SS62/13ss on Dunbar's truck, the total area is about the same as stock-- maybe a hair less, maybe a hair more.
This strikes me as being like putting a huge race cam in a regular car-- you give up the bottom end you use all the time to gain high end that you much less often use.
For me, the ideal would be a set of twins gives up no spoolup compared to a stock single--certainly a tall order. That means the top charger would have to smaller than stock by a little bit.
Alas, no one's building such a system for sale. The smallest charger used as a top charger is a stocker-- but it's more often a 57mm or 62mm S300 charger.
I think spoolup matter more in daily usage than anything else. Being able to instantly squirt around traffic or pull out to pass someone is to me FAR more useful than having big, smoky power.
Based on the dyno sheets I've seen (David Dunbar) with a 62/71/13ss, this turbo is too laggy for what I want to do. It makes less power than stock every point below 2300rpm. This means to me that I am giving up power from just off idle all the way to 2300rpm to gain power above 2300rpm.
To me, this is a step backwards. I spend the VAST majority of my time under 2300rpm, even on the hwy. With the stock charger, I could roll into the fuel in high gear to pass someone, but the SS62/13SS would require a downshift or I'd have to live with less passing power in high gear.
With a diesel's limited RPM range, it's crucial to preserve the bottom end power as much as possible. To me, it's all about area under the curve, not the peaks of the curve.
If you look at the curve of the SS62/13ss on Dunbar's truck, the total area is about the same as stock-- maybe a hair less, maybe a hair more.
This strikes me as being like putting a huge race cam in a regular car-- you give up the bottom end you use all the time to gain high end that you much less often use.
For me, the ideal would be a set of twins gives up no spoolup compared to a stock single--certainly a tall order. That means the top charger would have to smaller than stock by a little bit.
Alas, no one's building such a system for sale. The smallest charger used as a top charger is a stocker-- but it's more often a 57mm or 62mm S300 charger.
07-06-2008 | 07:58 PM
#22
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
From: Lake Charles,Louisiana
What *I* would do would be based on how *I* use my truck and would mostly be irrelevant to anyone else.
I think spoolup matter more in daily usage than anything else. Being able to instantly squirt around traffic or pull out to pass someone is to me FAR more useful than having big, smoky power.
Based on the dyno sheets I've seen (David Dunbar) with a 62/71/13ss, this turbo is too laggy for what I want to do. It makes less power than stock every point below 2300rpm. This means to me that I am giving up power from just off idle all the way to 2300rpm to gain power above 2300rpm.
To me, this is a step backwards. I spend the VAST majority of my time under 2300rpm, even on the hwy. With the stock charger, I could roll into the fuel in high gear to pass someone, but the SS62/13SS would require a downshift or I'd have to live with less passing power in high gear.
With a diesel's limited RPM range, it's crucial to preserve the bottom end power as much as possible. To me, it's all about area under the curve, not the peaks of the curve.
If you look at the curve of the SS62/13ss on Dunbar's truck, the total area is about the same as stock-- maybe a hair less, maybe a hair more.
This strikes me as being like putting a huge race cam in a regular car-- you give up the bottom end you use all the time to gain high end that you much less often use.
For me, the ideal would be a set of twins gives up no spoolup compared to a stock single--certainly a tall order. That means the top charger would have to smaller than stock by a little bit.
Alas, no one's building such a system for sale. The smallest charger used as a top charger is a stocker-- but it's more often a 57mm or 62mm S300 charger.
I think spoolup matter more in daily usage than anything else. Being able to instantly squirt around traffic or pull out to pass someone is to me FAR more useful than having big, smoky power.
Based on the dyno sheets I've seen (David Dunbar) with a 62/71/13ss, this turbo is too laggy for what I want to do. It makes less power than stock every point below 2300rpm. This means to me that I am giving up power from just off idle all the way to 2300rpm to gain power above 2300rpm.
To me, this is a step backwards. I spend the VAST majority of my time under 2300rpm, even on the hwy. With the stock charger, I could roll into the fuel in high gear to pass someone, but the SS62/13SS would require a downshift or I'd have to live with less passing power in high gear.
With a diesel's limited RPM range, it's crucial to preserve the bottom end power as much as possible. To me, it's all about area under the curve, not the peaks of the curve.
If you look at the curve of the SS62/13ss on Dunbar's truck, the total area is about the same as stock-- maybe a hair less, maybe a hair more.
This strikes me as being like putting a huge race cam in a regular car-- you give up the bottom end you use all the time to gain high end that you much less often use.
For me, the ideal would be a set of twins gives up no spoolup compared to a stock single--certainly a tall order. That means the top charger would have to smaller than stock by a little bit.
Alas, no one's building such a system for sale. The smallest charger used as a top charger is a stocker-- but it's more often a 57mm or 62mm S300 charger.
i feel the same way about boost, im use to a hy35 instant spool up.
i also run around under 2k except when shifting into od at about 2100 or so. so i value spoolup. twins are not an option for me, i dont want to deal with studs and o-rings.
i was just about sold on a 62/71/13 till i read your post.
thanks for your opinion.
07-06-2008 | 08:29 PM
#23
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
From: Brighton CO and Cheyenne WY
I can tow with my 62/71/14 here at 5200' just fine.
Jumping up just one wheel size on the compressor side makes a significant difference in spoolup. Maybe 150-200 rpm later.
If I had a cam or lived below 2000', I would have a 64 by now.
Jumping up just one wheel size on the compressor side makes a significant difference in spoolup. Maybe 150-200 rpm later.
If I had a cam or lived below 2000', I would have a 64 by now.
07-07-2008 | 09:36 PM
#24
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Bowmanville,ont,canada
I've seen 2 modded 12 valve auto powered trucks with super B's (57/65/14) that did not tow well with this turbo.At hwy speeds with the TC locked the turbo was not moving as much air as the stock hx35 this caused high egt's/smoke.Getting up to hwy speeds the super B out perfomed the hx35.I've built up a 35/40 hybrid 58/60/14 wastegated turbo and I'll see how it performs.The goal is to get somting in between the super b and the stock hx35.
07-07-2008 | 11:19 PM
#25
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 6
From: Cummins Technical Center, IN
Slow spoolup and high smoke can also be explained by advanced timing at low RPM-- so this example of Super B behavior on a modded 12V might NOT be representative of the turbo's performance on another truck.
Most 12Vs that are modded have had the timing bumped up..
Most 12Vs that are modded have had the timing bumped up..
07-08-2008 | 05:38 PM
#27
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Bowmanville,ont,canada
HOHN, the timing is bone stock on the truck that I swaped the super B for the hybrid.The truck now works well when the TC locks up in 4th.The turbo surges a bit but much less than stock and the super B didn't surge at all.I know most people on here regard the super b as a relatively small upgrade but It was too much for both of these towing rigs that I've work on.EGT's are now somewhat under control with the hybrid making 10psi more boost over the super B when the TC locks up.
Big Blue24,the hx35/H1C's all have the 60/70 mm turbine wheel.I'm almost 100% sure that the 58mm turbine wheel is used in the 00-02 hy35 though.
Big Blue24,the hx35/H1C's all have the 60/70 mm turbine wheel.I'm almost 100% sure that the 58mm turbine wheel is used in the 00-02 hy35 though.
07-08-2008 | 05:49 PM
#28
Banned
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
with that said, I wouldn't want to tow with more than a 62... 62/71-13 or 14 would be great and will certainly support over 500hp
07-08-2008 | 05:56 PM
#29
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 2
From: Las Vegas, NV
60/70mm could you please clarify that? When I measured my stock HX35 from my 99', it came out to 54mm/78mm inducer, 58mm/56mm turbine, 17mm wastegate passage, 1.25" wastegate puck, and obviously 12cm housing.
Are you saying that as far as you know, all turbine wheels from H1C thru HX35's were 60mm turbine wheel?
Are you saying that as far as you know, all turbine wheels from H1C thru HX35's were 60mm turbine wheel?
07-08-2008 | 08:44 PM
#30
Banned
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
i feel the same way about boost, im use to a hy35 instant spool up.
i also run around under 2k except when shifting into od at about 2100 or so. so i value spoolup. twins are not an option for me, i dont want to deal with studs and o-rings.
i was just about sold on a 62/71/13 till i read your post.
thanks for your opinion.
i also run around under 2k except when shifting into od at about 2100 or so. so i value spoolup. twins are not an option for me, i dont want to deal with studs and o-rings.
i was just about sold on a 62/71/13 till i read your post.
thanks for your opinion.