Why would he make them though if the ID is the same as stock? Hopefully, it's larger! 
VTT
- Thread starter buster84
- Start date
Rob@RBTurbo
Lieutenant
Why would he make them though if the ID is the same as stock? Hopefully, it's larger!
Per OP's Specs in first post:
Primary tubes: 1.50" OD
Outlet Bung: 2.56" OD
Merger: Primaries into a ~2" (or 2.25") OD tube then taper to ~2.5" OD tube
NOTE: This aftermarket outlet likely has a larger adapter ID at the interface to the compressor housing outlet connection, which may or may not matter pending on the compressor housing in particular to which it is interfacing.
OEM Specs:
Primary tubes: 1.50" OD
Outlet Bung: 2.56" OD
Merger: Primaries into a 2.42" OD tube
Conclusion: Aftermarket design worse than OEM in current form, or at best a "close to". If want a true high-po aluminum outlet look into the PSP unit.
Rob
Last edited:
But PSP's are 2"...oh no - overkill! Got all those orders taken care of so you can return to bashing VTT I see.
I asked Tony directly, and he sent over these two photos for comparison.
Rob@RBTurbo
Lieutenant
Terry,
See the "NOTE" above in the last response...
That measurement means absolutely nothing in regards to the tubular sizing and merger design of the outlet- it DOES however help if one has a larger outlet on a compressor housing to match up with (although OEM's non ported are 1.03" and GC's are only 1.07" so not sure how much even that matters either). Just to further note that if you shine a light into that first pic you'll see that there is an immediate taper upwards to the pipe ID, which is about 1.40"... the same as that 2nd pics adapter size. So that larger adapter does literally nothing unless you have a non-standard ported compressor housing outlet.
Rob
Last edited:
Rob@RBTurbo
Lieutenant
But PSP's are 2"...oh no - overkill! Got all those orders taken care of so you can return to bashing VTT I see.
Bashing? Or providing truthful information.
Regarding PSP didn't realize they use 2" OD Primary tubes (1.88" ID). Still some overkill but guess it'll have to do, if that is what is necessary to get the proper merge directly into a 2.5" OD Tube then so be it. If we were to do aluminum outlets, which measure sizing in OD unlike silicone which measures in ID, we'd probably use 1.75" OD (1.63" ID) tubing but 2" OD (1.88" ID) tubing wouldn't be out of the question if needed- getting a good merge directly into a single 2.5" OD Tube would be the first priority. For reference our standard compressor housing style silicone outlets we use 1.5" ID primary from the turbo to a 1.75" ID pre-merger primary to a post 2.5" ID outlet.
And yes sir had to get 3 URGENT sets of turbos out the door yesterday. Now only 22 sets more to go.
Rob
Last edited:
You know, I'm not a giant fan of armchair engineering. Never have been. So in light of some of the recent claims about our product performance, in lieu of arguing on the internets we decided to just test the damn things.
Tony had to drop some pistons off over with the fine gentlemen at Rebello Racing, and being as they have a flow bench... well, it just seemed like some testing was the right thing to do. We grabbed a stock outlet we had laying around, and one of the new outlets right out of the bin they get pulled from for shipping. We asked Dave if he would mind some back-to-back flow testing. The guys are Rebello Racing are awesome so they didn't hesitate to stop everything they were doing in order to indulge us.
We didn't do anything fancy, as this isn't a fancy test. We ran all tests at 28" of water, which is standard for most flow bench tests. The flow bench they use is an SF-600, which can flow up to 600 CFM. You can read specs about it to your heart's content at this site: http://www.assurich.com.my/engine-dynamometer-system-superflow-sf-600.htm
We began by installing the stock outlet on the bench using a 2.5" silicone adapter and turned the machine on. Dave does A LOT of flow testing, so his guess that "Range 4" was about right was dead on. Range 4 has a maximum flow of 295 CFM at 28" of water. Results showed it flowed right at 73% (of 295 CFM), so the stock outlet flowed 215.4 CFM.
With no setting changes, we pulled the stock outlet off and put on the VTT aluminum outlet. When turning the machine back on, it flowed 100% at 28" of water -out of range (high) on Range 4 and Range 5. Dave laughed and said "you maxed out my flow bench" as he rarely has to use "Range 6". Dave schooled Tony on the topic after testing and explained how if you have ranges left unused, once you hit above 75% you'll always want to go up to the next range and bring the flow percentage down into a more reasonable range for more accurate readings. Range 6 has a maximum flow of 597 CFM at 28" of water. When Dave turned the machine back on, we could see that the VTT outlet flowed 59% (of 597 CFM), so the VTT outlet flowed 352.2 CFM.
The VTT outlet flows 1.63x as much as the stock outlet. This is a significant difference.
Keep in mind this is a flow bench designed to test NA heads for flow. The CFM reading isn't representative of what it would flow under boost, the purpose of this test was to simply state, outlet A stock when put on a flow bench flows X. Outlet B VTT under the same conditions flows 63% more. This should lay to rest the doubts about if this will perform worse than stock.
Results Recap:
Stock Outlet: 215.35 CFM @ 28" water
VTT Outlet: 352.23 CFM @ 28" water
Difference: VTT outflows by ~63%
Vids:
Video #1: Stock testing
https://youtu.be/V5DDjIwFB9A
Video #2: VTT Outlet testing
https://youtu.be/VA5trZCW9l0
Video #3: Wrap up
https://youtu.be/6PwqwrI6Lu4
Rob, Southwest is cheap. Fly out. We will pick you up at the airport. We'll take you over to VTT, and you can hand pick an outlet from our shipping bins (bring your own stock outlet). Then, while listening to "Born to be Wild" and driving no less than 10 mph over the speed limit (with the windows down), we'll head over to Rebello. After you see this with your own eyes, I will buy you a beer, talk some shit, and send you on your way. Let me know if you're game.
Kind Regards,
Chris
Tony had to drop some pistons off over with the fine gentlemen at Rebello Racing, and being as they have a flow bench... well, it just seemed like some testing was the right thing to do. We grabbed a stock outlet we had laying around, and one of the new outlets right out of the bin they get pulled from for shipping. We asked Dave if he would mind some back-to-back flow testing. The guys are Rebello Racing are awesome so they didn't hesitate to stop everything they were doing in order to indulge us.
We didn't do anything fancy, as this isn't a fancy test. We ran all tests at 28" of water, which is standard for most flow bench tests. The flow bench they use is an SF-600, which can flow up to 600 CFM. You can read specs about it to your heart's content at this site: http://www.assurich.com.my/engine-dynamometer-system-superflow-sf-600.htm
We began by installing the stock outlet on the bench using a 2.5" silicone adapter and turned the machine on. Dave does A LOT of flow testing, so his guess that "Range 4" was about right was dead on. Range 4 has a maximum flow of 295 CFM at 28" of water. Results showed it flowed right at 73% (of 295 CFM), so the stock outlet flowed 215.4 CFM.
With no setting changes, we pulled the stock outlet off and put on the VTT aluminum outlet. When turning the machine back on, it flowed 100% at 28" of water -out of range (high) on Range 4 and Range 5. Dave laughed and said "you maxed out my flow bench" as he rarely has to use "Range 6". Dave schooled Tony on the topic after testing and explained how if you have ranges left unused, once you hit above 75% you'll always want to go up to the next range and bring the flow percentage down into a more reasonable range for more accurate readings. Range 6 has a maximum flow of 597 CFM at 28" of water. When Dave turned the machine back on, we could see that the VTT outlet flowed 59% (of 597 CFM), so the VTT outlet flowed 352.2 CFM.
The VTT outlet flows 1.63x as much as the stock outlet. This is a significant difference.
Keep in mind this is a flow bench designed to test NA heads for flow. The CFM reading isn't representative of what it would flow under boost, the purpose of this test was to simply state, outlet A stock when put on a flow bench flows X. Outlet B VTT under the same conditions flows 63% more. This should lay to rest the doubts about if this will perform worse than stock.
Results Recap:
Stock Outlet: 215.35 CFM @ 28" water
VTT Outlet: 352.23 CFM @ 28" water
Difference: VTT outflows by ~63%
Vids:
Video #1: Stock testing
https://youtu.be/V5DDjIwFB9A
Video #2: VTT Outlet testing
https://youtu.be/VA5trZCW9l0
Video #3: Wrap up
https://youtu.be/6PwqwrI6Lu4
Rob, Southwest is cheap. Fly out. We will pick you up at the airport. We'll take you over to VTT, and you can hand pick an outlet from our shipping bins (bring your own stock outlet). Then, while listening to "Born to be Wild" and driving no less than 10 mph over the speed limit (with the windows down), we'll head over to Rebello. After you see this with your own eyes, I will buy you a beer, talk some shit, and send you on your way. Let me know if you're game.
Kind Regards,
Chris
You know, I'm not a giant fan of armchair engineering. Never have been. So in light of some of the recent claims about our product performance, in lieu of arguing on the internets we decided to just test the damn things.
Tony had to drop some pistons off over with the fine gentlemen at Rebello Racing, and being as they have a flow bench... well, it just seemed like some testing was the right thing to do. We grabbed a stock outlet we had laying around, and one of the new outlets right out of the bin they get pulled from for shipping. We asked Dave if he would mind some back-to-back flow testing. The guys are Rebello Racing are awesome so they didn't hesitate to stop everything they were doing in order to indulge us.
We didn't do anything fancy, as this isn't a fancy test. We ran all tests at 28" of water, which is standard for most flow bench tests. The flow bench they use is an SF-600, which can flow up to 600 CFM. You can read specs about it to your heart's content at this site: http://www.assurich.com.my/engine-dynamometer-system-superflow-sf-600.htm
View attachment 11552
We began by installing the stock outlet on the bench using a 2.5" silicone adapter and turned the machine on. Dave does A LOT of flow testing, so his guess that "Range 4" was about right was dead on. Range 4 has a maximum flow of 295 CFM at 28" of water. Results showed it flowed right at 73% (of 295 CFM), so the stock outlet flowed 215.4 CFM.
View attachment 11553
With no setting changes, we pulled the stock outlet off and put on the VTT aluminum outlet. When turning the machine back on, it flowed 100% at 28" of water -out of range (high) on Range 4 and Range 5. Dave laughed and said "you maxed out my flow bench" as he rarely has to use "Range 6". Dave schooled Tony on the topic after testing and explained how if you have ranges left unused, once you hit above 75% you'll always want to go up to the next range and bring the flow percentage down into a more reasonable range for more accurate readings. Range 6 has a maximum flow of 597 CFM at 28" of water. When Dave turned the machine back on, we could see that the VTT outlet flowed 59% (of 597 CFM), so the VTT outlet flowed 352.2 CFM.
The VTT outlet flows 1.63x as much as the stock outlet. This is a significant difference.
Keep in mind this is a flow bench designed to test NA heads for flow. The CFM reading isn't representative of what it would flow under boost, the purpose of this test was to simply state, outlet A stock when put on a flow bench flows X. Outlet B VTT under the same conditions flows 63% more. This should lay to rest the doubts about if this will perform worse than stock.
Results Recap:
Stock Outlet: 215.35 CFM @ 28" water
VTT Outlet: 352.23 CFM @ 28" water
Difference: VTT outflows by ~63%
Vids:
Video #1: Stock testing
https://youtu.be/V5DDjIwFB9A
Video #2: VTT Outlet testing
https://youtu.be/VA5trZCW9l0
Video #3: Wrap up
https://youtu.be/6PwqwrI6Lu4
Rob, Southwest is cheap. Fly out. We will pick you up at the airport. We'll take you over to VTT, and you can hand pick an outlet from our shipping bins (bring your own stock outlet). Then, while listening to "Born to be Wild" and driving no less than 10 mph over the speed limit (with the windows down), we'll head over to Rebello. After you see this with your own eyes, I will buy you a beer, talk some shit, and send you on your way. Let me know if you're game.
Kind Regards,
Chris
Nice! Thanks for the flowtest results!
Is that the same dave from fuel-it?
Edit: (nevermind I just noticed that you said rebello racing)
Rob@RBTurbo
Lieutenant
Congrats Chris... in typical VTT fashion you ("and team") found a way to get positive results out by drastically skewing a test in whichever way needed to get a desired result.
You do realize that the adapters at the compressor housing ends (being much larger) will help static flow on a bench tremendously correct? But you see those adapters are at the ENTRY of airflow (from the compressor housing outlet) which is at the HOUSING a much lesser size. This in itself will skew data as you are not putting the compressor housing outlet sizing into the equation, which is the restrictive point yet it matches the OEM outlet sizing (which hurts component flow). We will post pics to explain this better in the morning, including the Zage housings as well.
At any rate we appreciate the humor in the reply- but you all should realize how this will have a tremendous impact on a bench test. If you want to do an accurate test, on a bench, cut off the adapter ends and try again. You both know that your connection point at the compressor housing is NOT 1.4", yet are you leveraging that area for the additional flow. The only way that outlet adapter would be fully leveraged for its flow potential is if you had ported your compressor housings to 1.4" to match it- which you haven't unless you have made that change with your latest lineup.
Alright- tired, bed time.
Rob
You do realize that the adapters at the compressor housing ends (being much larger) will help static flow on a bench tremendously correct? But you see those adapters are at the ENTRY of airflow (from the compressor housing outlet) which is at the HOUSING a much lesser size. This in itself will skew data as you are not putting the compressor housing outlet sizing into the equation, which is the restrictive point yet it matches the OEM outlet sizing (which hurts component flow). We will post pics to explain this better in the morning, including the Zage housings as well.
At any rate we appreciate the humor in the reply- but you all should realize how this will have a tremendous impact on a bench test. If you want to do an accurate test, on a bench, cut off the adapter ends and try again. You both know that your connection point at the compressor housing is NOT 1.4", yet are you leveraging that area for the additional flow. The only way that outlet adapter would be fully leveraged for its flow potential is if you had ported your compressor housings to 1.4" to match it- which you haven't unless you have made that change with your latest lineup.
Alright- tired, bed time.
Rob
Last edited:
Rob... are you messing with me right now? If you are... you got me. Nice work.
You do realize that a flow bench uses vacuum, not pressure right? This would mean the flow path is the ...same as actual application.
As far as cutting tubes... um...
Rob@RBTurbo
Lieutenant
Yes, realize, hence the edit before you even made this reply. 16 hour day got the best of me there.
So no reply about the point #2 in the unedited version, or the entire edited version?
Rob
I think we're done here Rob. You have some ideas about flow. I believe that your conclusions are technically incorrect. We presented some data that supports why we made the product. If you really are up in arms about the design of our aluminum outlet, then I suggest you do your own flow bench testing however you see fit. With all due respect, as an actual test engineer it doesn't appear to me that you fully grasp the purpose of this test, flow, or even this outlet. Again, if you disagree my advice to you is to perform your own testing -it's not particularly difficult to do. A 72 year old chief engineer that I have worked on several multi million dollar aerospace projects has often said to me (during test prep) "a foolish man can always ask more questions than a smart man can answer". I'm game for a few things Rob, including buying you a beer, but back and forth on forums isn't really my style. I think you've posted enough to clearly show your intent. It was fun, but like I said, I think we're done here.
If any customers, current or thinking about it, have questions I'm more than happy to email you or even speak on the phone about what we did, why, etc. etc. I love testing.
Stay Positive,
Chris
If any customers, current or thinking about it, have questions I'm more than happy to email you or even speak on the phone about what we did, why, etc. etc. I love testing.
Stay Positive,
Chris
No, it stems from one vendor in particular right now, RB. I have no products from either so I'm not defending one over the other for any reason other than plain observation of how negative RB is. I am wondering if it's being done to try and bait Tony into replying. Yes VTT had their issues in the past, but in my experience Tony rarely ever came out swinging for no reason. His problem stemmed from not handling criticism well and jumping to conclusions. Chris doesn't do that, so Rob is stuck spending his days trashing VTT at every opportunity. We are fortunate that he puts his business on hold so long and not get all those "orders" out.remember guys he is sacrificing his business in order to show us all the truth. He's a wonderful martyr.
Rob@RBTurbo
Lieutenant
Along with the last couple posts here are 6 pictures to illustrate for the smarter ones out there to figure why the flow bench results were favorable, although the test was skewed as it was not performed as the part will be installed as a system on your vehicle. The OE outlet flow is limited by the transitional adapter which is restrictive on the loose outlet component but is NOT as an installed system- it is merely a transitional adapter to merge airflow from the much smaller compressor housing outlet sizing to the considerably larger outlet plumbing sizing. The aftermarket outlet omits entirely any transitional adapter and makes a sealed surface connection on the outer face of the compressor housing outlet, which means as a loose component it has no minor ID and is as such a full ID component.
An apples to apples flow test would be to cut off the transitional adapters (which are NOT restrictive in system application) from the OE outlet and test for results. This would effectively challenge the flow of the actual primary plumbing, merger, etc. which are precisely the areas of which have been discussed the past several pages. The issue is we are saying it would not be favorable and likely to be at best inline with the OE pipe.
The others who can not see it, still do not understand, do not care, think this is bashing, etc.; well go ahead and waste your $$ on the pipe that is ok as well.
An apples to apples flow test would be to cut off the transitional adapters (which are NOT restrictive in system application) from the OE outlet and test for results. This would effectively challenge the flow of the actual primary plumbing, merger, etc. which are precisely the areas of which have been discussed the past several pages. The issue is we are saying it would not be favorable and likely to be at best inline with the OE pipe.
The others who can not see it, still do not understand, do not care, think this is bashing, etc.; well go ahead and waste your $$ on the pipe that is ok as well.
Attachments
Last edited:
Is this real life? This person made post after post telling everyone who would listen the VTT outlet HAD to flow worse than the stock one based on vast knowledge of flow dynamics, (we won't dwell on the fact that he does not even understand how a flow bench operates. Outlined in the post he tried to quickly edit telling the VTT crew they purposely skewed the data by flowing the outlet backward. But yes working for 16 hours makes you all of sudden forget the difference between vacuum, and pressure ). Now that the outlet was put on an actual flow bench, and shows a very real flow improvement over the stock outlet as it would be run on the car. He is scrambling, and trying to convince people that in order to get a valid flow test, the outlets must be cut up, and flowed with the ends removed? Which is it, first you made a giant stink because they outlets were not flowed as they would be run on a car. Turns out you literally had no clue what you were talking about and had to retract that. Now that you had to give up on that stance. You went 180 degrees the other way, and are telling everyone it's obvious flowing the outlets as they are run on the car is going to skew the data. The desperation to discredit a product based purely out of spite and incredibly inaccurate armchair engineering views which were then discredited by actual flow data is so real. That this the person still will not give up on the topic, and simply admit he was wrong should give anyone considering buying any RB product pause. I think Chris said it best. If you are not happy, go do your own flow data. We all know you have no access to a flow bench, and will never do any real testing. You did so much better for yourself when you kept your head down, and just sold turbos. Go away Rob
). Now that the outlet was put on an actual flow bench, and shows a very real flow improvement over the stock outlet as it would be run on the car. He is scrambling, and trying to convince people that in order to get a valid flow test, the outlets must be cut up, and flowed with the ends removed? Which is it, first you made a giant stink because they outlets were not flowed as they would be run on a car. Turns out you literally had no clue what you were talking about and had to retract that. Now that you had to give up on that stance. You went 180 degrees the other way, and are telling everyone it's obvious flowing the outlets as they are run on the car is going to skew the data. The desperation to discredit a product based purely out of spite and incredibly inaccurate armchair engineering views which were then discredited by actual flow data is so real. That this the person still will not give up on the topic, and simply admit he was wrong should give anyone considering buying any RB product pause. I think Chris said it best. If you are not happy, go do your own flow data. We all know you have no access to a flow bench, and will never do any real testing. You did so much better for yourself when you kept your head down, and just sold turbos. Go away Rob
Last edited:
Rob@RBTurbo
Lieutenant
Is this real life? This person made post after post telling everyone who would listen the VTT outlet HAD to flow worse than the stock one based on vast knowledge of flow dynamics, (we won't dwell on the fact that he does not even understand how a flow bench operates. Outlined in the post he tried to quickly edit telling the VTT crew they purposely skewed the data by flowing the outlet backward. But yes working for 16 hours makes you all of sudden forget the difference between vacuum, and pressure
We stand by all that was stated (as current) in every post in this thread.
Also welcome back Tony.
Rob
Of course you do, most idiots cannot admit they are wrong even when given facts proving them wrong. Post up that flow data when you get it. Cheers Bob
Rob@RBTurbo
Lieutenant
Of course you do, most idiots cannot admit they are wrong even when given facts proving them wrong. Post up that flow data when you get it. Cheers Bob
Sweet Meme Tony, checkmate without even moving a piece.
Similar threads
