2XS turbo inlet install

[Nexus]

I'm not sure if Troy has these available at present. Just thought I'd share what I've noticed from the install of mine, which troy whipped up some time ago, and I just got to having installed today.

My mechanic took one look at it and said "that won't do anything". Certainly there is no problem with the stock inlet's rigidity and I can't image the turbo generating enough vacuum to collapse the OEM inlet.

Had to have the tiny wastegate hose piece welded on. Again, not sure if Troy has these available or not as a product.

Once all fitted, and service finished, I was curious to see how, if anything, things had changed.

Short awnser is yes, there is a gain. Quicker spool, usable torque more accessible.

Looking at real-time rolling dyno (OBD diagnostic based) data - not a proper dyno run, but a good indicator - I'm seeing no gain in peak power, maybe even a small loss of maybe 5Kw, but a 30Nm gain in usable torque. There's more when you ask for it in the real world.

Inlet was todays only significant alteration to intake.

[steinez]

Good review Nexus and good to see posting results from the OBD diags. Nice increase in torque When's the manifold going on as be keen to see the gains there

[Nexus]

Good review Nexus and good to see posting results from the OBD diags. Nice increase in torque When's the manifold going on as be keen to see the gains there

Yeah, it needs a few days to settle, having only just made the change, but there was a subtle but noticably increased eagerness after install. Seeing driving that would normally show 250Nm jump to 280Nm was a little surprising. I am fairly confident that on my mod-set - OEM intake and airbox, there is a loss seen at the top end. The cross sectional area of the OEM inlet is reasonably large, possibly slightly larger than the 2XS and mazda with all their development $ will have constructed it to flow in a linear fashion throughout the rev range etc, flowing a bit more than this 2XS inlet can at the top end, restricting flow a little elsewhere. That's not a bad thing. The tubular construction of the 2XS inlet minimizes turbulence, so the turbo get's an easier bigger gulp when you get on boost, but it can only hold that for so long, and the larger (??) cross section and develoment detail of the mazda unit shows at the top end. That's my edjumacated assessment, anyway.

Manifold may go on soon. I'm dithering a little. Do I fit both a mani + downpipe at the same time? I want to, but I also wanted to see the manifold's gains as a standalone, with the OEM downpipe. Right now I am inclined not to spend the $1200 or more Troy will ask for a black ceramic coat dual DP and just go the manifold install. It's just really convenient in terms of service to do both.
Perhaps I should ask troy for a complementary DP install if I do some proper OBD diag based dyno runs that show measurable results.

I can do a real dyno run with ScanXL, but have been lazy and absence of accessible of long, flat private road. Need to wind out in 4th to do that properly. It's really the same as putting your car on a dyno. Instead of turning the rollers, you're moving the weight of the vehicle and accounting for aerodynamic drag, tyre rolling resistence, etc.

[2XS]

I'll whip up a new larger version and someone can try that. I can trial a new version before I go into production over the Xmas break.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm yet to hear anybody actually show some (albeit rough) figures for TIPs. It is always "seat of the pants" type figures, no datalogging.

I would like to see "just" the manifold figures alone too. We'll see how that goes........................

We will discuss the DP install via PM. I can't have everyone wanting/getting free stuff.

[Nexus]

Gains might be more than I first thought, and ECU is probably still adjusting.
Observing the real-time rolling dyno during trips -
Pre inlet norms were peaks of 150-165Kw. Torque peaks from 250 to 300, with 250 being the usual peak in known consistent circumstances.
Yesterday it seemed reluctant to pass 150Kw but showing 280Nm where 250 was expected and feeling more urge. Together with a "bum dyno" sensation that the top end was falling flat, this is what made me feel there might be some top end loss.

Today I saw an easy 166 and 175Kw peaks logged while driving.

It is possible to artificially inflate the calculated power and torque figures up to 20Kw or more by planting it downhill off the peak of a crest as the vehicle's weight momentarily lifts. 175-180Kw is something I would previously only have expected to see if I overtook on a significant downward incline or similar circumstances. Today's torque peaks were higher than pre-inlet norms, but not quite as high as yesterday. Power peaks, however, are unexpectedly high and in believable circumstances. Previously I don't think it would have logged the 175Kw it did. It would have logged 160Kw.

I would tentatively suggest that from the inlet alone, power peaks in real world spirited driving raised from 150-165Kw to 165-175Kw, torque above 260Nm much more accessible. I suspect that the power peak has dropped a little in the rpm range, lending to the sensation of top end loss.

It will take a week of driving to assess properly.

---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 PM ----------

Strangely, I seem to have possibly lost ~1 PSI peak boost. I'm seeing 17 where I might have seen 18 previously. Again not enough driving yet to gauge the new norms.

[SarcasticOne]

I'll whip up a new larger version and someone can try that. I can trial a new version before I go into production over the Xmas break.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm yet to hear anybody actually show some (albeit rough) figures for TIPs. It is always "seat of the pants" type figures, no datalogging.

I would like to see "just" the manifold figures alone too. We'll see how that goes........................

We will discuss the DP install via PM. I can't have everyone wanting/getting free stuff.

Install it on mine if you want
Can jump on the Tunehouse dyno when I go back to Sydney

[2XS]

Install it on mine if you want
Can jump on the Tunehouse dyno when I go back to Sydney

Sorry, too slow, I already have a volunteer and I will have pre and post dyno results. (Gen 2 - current mods SRI and DP)

[SarcasticOne]

Sorry, too slow, I already have a volunteer and I will have pre and post dyno results. (Gen 2 - current mods SRI and DP)

Damn it...

[Nexus]

OK - after awhile to continue observing + reconciling realtime calculations and bum dyno.
Peak Kw up from 163Kw @ 5500 to 175Kw @ 5400
Peak Nm unchanged or only marginally higher, however torque is more accessible - beefier curve. Still checking figures.
Spool time seems to vary according to circumstance and in some circumstance slower to get boost on.
Peak boost down by 1 PSI

Throughout there's a nagging feeling something is down - I am inclined to suggest that the more accessible torque curve accentuates the top-end drop-off, and I also feel that in terms of responsiveness it is not quite as quick to respond going from part throttle to WOT. I think the 1PSI peak boost drop is a symptom revealing this.

Offsetting the small losses it's measuring up as a 12Kw 30Nm* gain (* but not at peak), and I'm inclined to suggest that a round of development targeting the small losses will see an unbeatable inlet product.

[Nexus]

AND... a small kink in the aluminium recirc fitting is an amusing resonator for bypass noise. I gotta say, it makes a gentle but effective bypass chuff + flutter at modest throttle i.e. driving in traffic. In these bypass conditions, it's sounds....just like a vent-to-atmosphere blow-off, with the all important key difference of a socially acceptable decibel level. The noise disappears with high boost bypasses, but is effective in "gentle squirt" driving. Leadfoots won't hear it. Nor will you hear it every time you take off; there's a sweet spot and rather excellently it's somewhere you can make it heard without being a mind numbingly repetitive noise every time you change gears.

All that for a beta testing model made some months ago. I'd like to suggest more than just a larger pipe although I expect that will make a difference to the response, top end etc, I've something more exotic in mind that is a more complex manufacturing construction, but I expect would "solve" the response and give more flow beyond what just a bigger pipe would, if practical to manifacture and viable to make fit in the available space. I'll post my uber inlet idea later.

I have various ideas like that and right now I amused at the thought of making a blowoff/bypass resonator from a coke bottle, too.
Some might laugh hard at this, but actually think the inlet I currently have installed could benefit from a well designed hiclone installation. I'm tempted to contact them and see if they'd put it up for dyno test. Give me one for post MAF, that gets the air spinning all the way down to the turbo - in sympathy with the turbo's spin. Part of uber inlet design, which I'll post later. Or maybe keep secret and give only to Troy.

[Scaredycrow]

OK - after awhile to continue observing + reconciling realtime calculations and bum dyno.
Peak Kw up from 163Kw @ 5500 to 175Kw @ 5400
Peak Nm unchanged or only marginally higher, however torque is more accessible - beefier curve. Still checking figures.
Spool time seems to vary according to circumstance and in some circumstance slower to get boost on.
Peak boost down by 1 PSI

Throughout there's a nagging feeling something is down - I am inclined to suggest that the more accessible torque curve accentuates the top-end drop-off, and I also feel that in terms of responsiveness it is not quite as quick to respond going from part throttle to WOT. I think the 1PSI peak boost drop is a symptom revealing this.

Offsetting the small losses it's measuring up as a 12Kw 30Nm* gain (* but not at peak), and I'm inclined to suggest that a round of development targeting the small losses will see an unbeatable inlet product.

Very interesting. Important to remember though that PSI is a measure of resistance, not volume, mass, or flow rate of gas. In fact the Turbo is almost certainly flowing MORE air now than before, resulting in the improved torque curve.

---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

AND... a small kink in the aluminium recirc fitting is an amusing resonator for bypass noise. I gotta say, it makes a gentle but effective bypass chuff + flutter at modest throttle i.e. driving in traffic. In these bypass conditions, it's sounds....just like a vent-to-atmosphere blow-off, with the all important key difference of a socially acceptable decibel level. The noise disappears with high boost bypasses, but is effective in "gentle squirt" driving. Leadfoots won't hear it. Nor will you hear it every time you take off; there's a sweet spot and rather excellently it's somewhere you can make it heard without being a mind numbingly repetitive noise every time you change gears.

All that for a beta testing model made some months ago. I'd like to suggest more than just a larger pipe although I expect that will make a difference to the response, top end etc, I've something more exotic in mind that is a more complex manufacturing construction, but I expect would "solve" the response and give more flow beyond what just a bigger pipe would, if practical to manifacture and viable to make fit in the available space. I'll post my uber inlet idea later.

I have various ideas like that and right now I amused at the thought of making a blowoff/bypass resonator from a coke bottle, too.
Some might laugh hard at this, but actually think the inlet I currently have installed could benefit from a well designed hiclone installation. I'm tempted to contact them and see if they'd put it up for dyno test. Give me one for post MAF, that gets the air spinning all the way down to the turbo - in sympathy with the turbo's spin. Part of uber inlet design, which I'll post later. Or maybe keep secret and give only to Troy.

The hiclone idea isnt ridiculous imo, but it does warrant plenty of thought. I'd be keen to see some actual results but I can imagine what it might achieve:

- Decreased spool times. Hopefully this would be the case, though its hard to beleive it would be a measurable difference.
- You might end up reducing the flow of air at the top end, part of my brain remebers some physics lessons stating that the greatest rate of flow (or was it the least rate of back pressure?) is achieved at a perpendicular direction to the conduit (turbo inlet in tis case)

Just things to think about.

[Nexus]

Very interesting. Important to remember though that PSI is a measure of resistance, not volume, mass, or flow rate of gas. In fact the Turbo is almost certainly flowing MORE air now than before, resulting in the improved torque curve.[COLOR="Silver"]

Absolutely - it's flowing more air in general; where I think it is less capable, is the part throttle response as the rpm climb. Don't get me wrong, not disappointed, just trying to define an engineering challenge; what can be done to take this good, torquey, higher flowing inlet and put some extra throttle response in that it seems to have suffered slight losses.

PSI is a measure of resistance; the resistance measured in this case is all after the turbo; nothing has changed there, so resistance should remain constant. The only change is the inlet and is the only thing that can currently account for the 1PSI peak boost drop, by way of it's ability to supply air. It actually seems to be closer to a 1.5PSI drop. I am maybe misunderstanding something here? Flowing more sooner results in lower boost spikes?

To some extent the ECU may be holding things back and confounding clear observation; I will be interested to see how the torque curves look with the HT tune and ETS TMIC, plus inlet which should expect peaks of 20PSI. Perhaps I should have it all checked for a boost leak.

The hiclone idea isnt ridiculous imo, but it does warrant plenty of thought. I'd be keen to see some actual results but I can imagine what it might achieve:

- Decreased spool times. Hopefully this would be the case, though its hard to beleive it would be a measurable difference.
- You might end up reducing the flow of air at the top end, part of my brain remebers some physics lessons stating that the greatest rate of flow (or was it the least rate of back pressure?) is achieved at a perpendicular direction to the conduit (turbo inlet in tis case)

Just things to think about.

My bro has a couple in his hilux surf - he swears black and blue it spools up 500rpm quicker and has better torqur curve. Flow perpendicular to the conduit is certainly relevant - there's a spinning column of air waiting to enter the turbo. I'm inclined to leverage that, but am uncertain how much space is available for the design to be practical. It would include what at face value would be a right angle turn but in fact is introducing the incoming air to a rotating column - perpendicular to the turbo's compressor inlet.

By allowing a bigger column of rotating air, may help spool and response. In the tubular 2XS inlet, the spinning column is restrained by and travels up the tube. In suggested "uber" inlet, the spinning column or air has a larger defined size, with intake introduced perpendicular to the spinning "inlet column"

I'm big on theory, but sometimes I need impracticalities shot down, so please question if you can't see it. If you do, please advise.

I'll do a a diagram later, I promise.

[Scaredycrow]

Absolutely - it's flowing more air in general; where I think it is less capable, is the part throttle response as the rpm climb. Don't get me wrong, not disappointed, just trying to define an engineering challenge; what can be done to take this good, torquey, higher flowing inlet and put some extra throttle response in that it seems to have suffered slight losses.

PSI is a measure of resistance; the resistance measured in this case is all after the turbo; nothing has changed there, so resistance should remain constant. The only change is the inlet and is the only thing that can currently account for the 1PSI peak boost drop, by way of it's ability to supply air. It actually seems to be closer to a 1.5PSI drop. I am maybe misunderstanding something here? Flowing more sooner results in lower boost spikes?

To some extent the ECU may be holding things back and confounding clear observation; I will be interested to see how the torque curves look with the HT tune and ETS TMIC, plus inlet which should expect peaks of 20PSI. Perhaps I should have it all checked for a boost leak.



My bro has a couple in his hilux surf - he swears black and blue it spools up 500rpm quicker and has better torqur curve. Flow perpendicular to the conduit is certainly relevant - there's a spinning column of air waiting to enter the turbo. I'm inclined to leverage that, but am uncertain how much space is available for the design to be practical. It would include what at face value would be a right angle turn but in fact is introducing the incoming air to a rotating column - perpendicular to the turbo's compressor inlet.

By allowing a bigger column of rotating air, may help spool and response. In the tubular 2XS inlet, the spinning column is restrained by and travels up the tube. In suggested "uber" inlet, the spinning column or air has a larger defined size, with intake introduced perpendicular to the spinning "inlet column"

I'm big on theory, but sometimes I need impracticalities shot down, so please question if you can't see it. If you do, please advise.

I'll do a a diagram later, I promise.

Further Thoughts:
- The apparent PSI drop may well be due to the ECU trimming back its boost map to compensate for the reduced restrictions in the intake. I personally would take this to be a positive effect of the TIP, more power, better torque curve at lower boost. Whats happened there is a clear increase in efficiency.
- There's going to be no telling what the hiclone effect will be without actual testing. That said I'll try to explain further my thoughts. The rotating air column is good for spool times as it impacts a rotating force on the turbo impella thus requiring less energy to come from the engine to achieve spool. Where this becomes a bad thing is at higher RPM where the impella is well outrunning this rotating air column and you start to lose efficiency because that air is not travelling perpendicular to the impella itself. Certainly on a BT system, where the efficiency of the turbo well outruns the engines rpm range, this would seem like a very good idea indeed. On the KO4, given its already getting breathless at 5500 it may not be such a good idea.
- Another thought on the hiclone system is the potential for it to change the load characteristics on the impella bearings. I'd reckon its a very minor change and unlikely to cause harm in the short term, but given the issues we already see with smoking turbo's (with the theory being bearing tolerances leaking oil) it may warrant some further investigation.

Would love to see these ideas put through their paces

[Nexus]

Uber Inlet image attached.
Beehive shape facilitating large area for column of air, inlets appled perpendicular to flow of column and direction of spin; in sympathy with spin of turbo.

Uber Inlet then looks kinda like another snail.

]

[Nexus]

Can that be adjusted in a way that will fit in space available? Is it practical to manufacture?

Regardless I'd be interested to see how a simply larger inlet would stack up in comparison and see if the HT tune returns some of the response zest I think the mod-set lost with the inlet. I do think the ECU has pulled back the boost mapping. Time will tell.

If the configuration is flowing better at part throttle, it stands to reason there's less differential when going to WOT, and that would contribute, however I still feel that responsiveness could be returned with some further gains as well with such an inlet - if there's some real world practicality to it.

12Kw, and a broad smear of 30Nm - I'm liking it.

18Kw and 50Nm possible, with better throttle response from an inlet designed without ease of manufacturing limitations? I think possibly.

[TD]

I'll prob grab one in the next 6 weeks. Thanks for the reviews and testing James, appreciate your scientific approach.

[Grajy]

I love how there's no pics of the TIP.

Any pics fellas??? PLEEEEEEAAAAASSSSSE!!!

[Nexus]

I love how there's no pics of the TIP.

Any pics fellas??? PLEEEEEEAAAAASSSSSE!!!

It's kinda boring to look at. One pic I did take, before wastegate fitting welded on:

[Doug_MPS6]

On Hiclones - I explored this one way back. A Hiclone is of little value in a turbo-ed engine, as the spiral flow initiated by the Hiclone is confounded by the airflow induced by the hi-speed spin of the turbo, regardless of sympathetic or antipathetic spin directions, due largely to the vastly differing rotational velocities. It is intended for naturally aspirated engines as a swirl-inducer to improved A/F mixing.

As an aside, I tried two Hiclones in series in the intake of my naturally aspirated 4500 Landcruiser and concluded it was an expensive con. I track performance and fuel burns pretty keenly and after 50,000km can detect no difference. I was much better off spending my $$ on a fuel/performance chip.

[Nexus]

On Hiclones - I explored this one way back. A Hiclone is of little value in a turbo-ed engine, as the spiral flow initiated by the Hiclone is confounded by the airflow induced by the hi-speed spin of the turbo, regardless of sympathetic or antipathetic spin directions, due largely to the vastly differing rotational velocities . It is intended for naturally aspirated engines as a swirl-inducer to improved A/F mixing.

As an aside, I tried two Hiclones in series in the intake of my naturally aspirated 4500 Landcruiser and concluded it was an expensive con. I track performance and fuel burns pretty keenly and after 50,000km can detect no difference. I was much better off spending my $$ on a fuel/performance chip.

I've seen one "fuel saver" that's a pair of free spinning turbines in a 3" tube....for fuel mixing, sure. I was of the impression hiclone needed to be custom made to be effective - I've seen 'em for sale of ebay and that wouldn't expect a gain unless you were fitting to same vehicle etc (????). In theory, you should see higher flows with controlled swirling columns than whatever randomly appears;

I think you are right, though, that the turbine will induce a far greater tornado in the intake than any hiclone.

People scoff at electric superchargers, generally, but I am confident there will be real world applications of this sort of thing as hybrid technology becomes more commonplace and some aspects of it can be practically retrofit. It's partly why I've fitted 18AH of secondary battery with space for 36; so I can explore some of these things. I didn't have electric supercharger in mind - more so water:air intercooling and leveraging peltier elements to target lower BAT, controlled BAT relative to ambient, or just a flat out "I want my BAT to be x celcius" depending on how efficiently it can be done. An on-demand cold-box.

etc, etc.

I have a simpler to manufacture version of uber inlet in mind.
Looking at Troy's, I think there is room to do it after all - I've now a variation on this existing one in mind, too.