The top N54 cast turbocharger upgrade? MM Perforamnce (MMP) Stage 3 turbochargers

[Sticky]

The N54 turbo upgrade market is seemingly flooded with various 'cast' upgrades. It is somewhat tough to sift through all the options and determine which are worth the money and which are just cheap junk made from 'chineseum' material.

The MMP upgrade sure looks to be worth the money. Mauricio over at @MM Performance has worked on these turbochargers for quite some time. They are coming together very nicely.

BimmerBoost last wrote about this upgrade in July, 2016 where the bang for the buck aspect was touted. Since then the market was flooded with cheap cast options many of which are from overseas.

The MMP option sure looks good at this stage:

Beautiful, right? So how far away are we from them actually being for sale?

The factory wanted me to give it a final check on the production units and everything was perfect so they are machining now the units for the first batch, I will get first batch (smallish) by Dec 25th, very late but such is the manufacturing life sometimes and also when doing all new cast designs and working out the bugs out of the casting process. VERY VERY happy with the result though in the production units. 2nd batch will be available by end of January (very large batch). I wont be selling any until I have them in hand or have a solid ship date as I dont want pressure from emails or texts about them etc. Soon as I am ready to sell them you guys will be the first to know

The question remains, is this the best cast N54 turbo upgrade option on the market? We will know the answer very soon.

[///MPOSTER]

About time slacker @Sticky. Just one note though. I would talk about chinesium maybe way down later in the next few paragraphs. I think MMP deserves a reversal of sentences for this page.

1) "Mauricio over at @MM Performance has worked on these turbochargers for quite some time. They are coming together very nicely. The MMP option sure looks good at this stage:"

2)"The N54 turbo upgrade market is seemingly flooded with various 'cast' upgrades. It is somewhat tough to sift through all the options and determine which are worth the money and which are just cheap junk made from 'chineseum' material." ( MMP are obviously far from the bottom of the barrel).

[Sticky]

About time slacker @Sticky.

It was my birthday the other day. I'm still recovering.

[Sticky]

I think MMP deserves a reversal of sentences for this page.

Nah, read it again.

[///MPOSTER]

@Sticky happy belated birthday ! Mine is coming up next week. I drank a lot for a friends bachelor party so I'm going to go easy for the bday.

[Torgus]

@Sticky happy belated birthday ! Mine is coming up next week. I drank a lot for a friends bachelor party so I'm going to go easy for the bday.

Liar

[subaru335i]

It makes it seem a lot more legit and "custom" when they have their logo cast into the manifold and turbine housing.

Don't think the "other" cast options have that so it looks like they are just using generic china-folds.

[Rob@RBTurbo]

These look pretty nice and the flow path looks much less restricted than other cast options for sure. As the trade off with big flow is more lag it'll be interesting to see how they are with transient response. At any rate this could certainly find itself as the highest power N54 twin setup in short order.

Rob

[Sticky]

These look pretty nice and the flow path looks much less restricted than other cast options for sure. As the trade off with big flow is more lag it'll be interesting to see how they are with transient response. At any rate this could certainly find itself as the highest power N54 twin setup in short order.

Rob

Interesting. I've heard more and more people bring up this lag aspect.

Apparently it is an issue with the GC's? I don't know.

[A7xstupify]

So are these supposed to dethrone the pure stage 2’s?

[Carl Morris]

Interesting. I've heard more and more people bring up this lag aspect.

Apparently it is an issue with the GC's? I don't know.

I just remember Tony's original stage 3 experiment and how laggy they were until he reduced the runner size.

[///MPOSTER]

I just remember Tony's original stage 3 experiment and how laggy they were until he reduced the runner size.

Are you talking about his VTR2863R stage 3? BTW I don't remember him reducing the size but instead moving around items to fit because it was too tight. Even the final was too tight according to some overseas.

[Rob@RBTurbo]

Yeah he made the mistake of using very large primary runners on the initial Stage 3 setup and it was a total slug with spool/transient response. We believe he used 1.5" Weld Els which is about 1.65", and later trimmed back to 1.25" Weld Els at about 1.4".

IMO using any larger than a 1.4" ID individual cylinder runner, and a 1.6" ID throat, is asking for very poor response... especially that this is only 1.5L of displacement per turbo. On this same note the OE manifolds are not any sort of restriction, but the throat and especially the "A" (Area) and "R" (Radius) over the frame would need some expansion help to make larger power levels. There is always a trade off though in response with more power potential.

With the case of the GC's, IMO, they are designed very well as they retain a similar OE runner size and increase the throat to right around 1.55"... BUT the only problem with them is that the ball was dropped and the "A" (Area) was kept the same.

All of the N54 cast options seem to keep the "R" (Radius) right around the OE Radius, meaning the frame size is about the same across them all. The only thing that is going to help flow at that point is to increase the "A" (Area), and it appears these units in particular likely have a cm^2 area greater than the OE/GC 4.9. To what amount is uncertain.

How all of these aspects work together can lead to a turbo that is very lazy in response or well matched such that response is optimum. Regardless of the effectiveness of the design, once the turbine gets moving, big flow will mean big peak power.

Rob

[bigdnno98]

Excellent post Rob. Glad to see you around here.

Yeah he made the mistake of using very large primary runners on the initial Stage 3 setup and it was a total slug with spool/transient response. We believe he used 1.5" Weld Els which is about 1.65", and later trimmed back to 1.25" Weld Els at about 1.4".

IMO using any larger than a 1.4" ID individual cylinder runner, and a 1.6" ID throat, is asking for very poor response... especially that this is only 1.5L of displacement per turbo. On this same note the OE manifolds are not any sort of restriction, but the throat and especially the "A" (Area) and "R" (Radius) over the frame would need some expansion help to make larger power levels. There is always a trade off though in response with more power potential.

With the case of the GC's, IMO, they are designed very well as they retain a similar OE runner size and increase the throat to right around 1.55"... BUT the only problem with them is that the ball was dropped and the "A" (Area) was kept the same.

All of the N54 cast options seem to keep the "R" (Radius) right around the OE Radius, meaning the frame size is about the same across them all. The only thing that is going to help flow at that point is to increase the "A" (Area), and it appears these units in particular likely have a cm^2 area greater than the OE/GC 4.9. To what amount is uncertain.

How all of these aspects work together can lead to a turbo that is very lazy in response or well matched such that response is optimum. Regardless of the effectiveness of the design, once the turbine gets moving, big flow will mean big peak power.

Rob

[Sticky]

All of the N54 cast options seem to keep the "R" (Radius) right around the OE Radius, meaning the frame size is about the same across them all. The only thing that is going to help flow at that point is to increase the "A" (Area), and it appears these units in particular likely have a cm^2 area greater than the OE/GC 4.9. To what amount is uncertain.

I guess my question would be what sets the various cast options apart?

[Rob@RBTurbo]

I guess my question would be what sets the various cast options apart?

All of the turbine housing options are cast including the OEM's. What sets them apart mostly is the manufacturer, metallurgical composition, and flow path alterations in the throat and "A" (area).

The OEM's do have a very nicely constructed double wall insulated air gap manifold and are very high end metallurgically (ie. akin Tial, EFR, upcoming Garrett G-Series, etc), thus have been more than proven to last the long haul. They also have proven to be capable of making some very nice power while retaining quick spool. BUT when making much more than about 600rwhp you begin to see the back pressure elevate substantially due to the restrictive (yet spool friendly) "A" (Area). Flanged for TD03 (or TD04 with fabrication due to superb material composition with excellent weldability).

Then enters some aftermarket cast options such as the Chinaframe (mostly used by FrankenTurbo and VTT), Zage (aka GC via VTT), and now the MMP.

The Chinaframe is certainly not superior to OEM, but rather a failed copy of OEM (it is successful by being cheap). Will be interesting to see how these weather the storm of the next few years on this platform as they become more widely adopted. Flanged for TD03.

The Zage has a bit of a upper hand on the OEM, but the ball was dropped and the "A" (Area) which we actually measured to be a bit smaller than OEM of all things. The throat was nicely sized however as stated above. Flanged for TD04.

The MMP setup here appears to be very much larger runner diameters, throat, and seemingly the "A" (Area) while retaining a similar to OEM "R" (Radius). Flanged for TD04.

The frame size is all the same across them all and there are certainly variations of wheels and flange adaptations involved as well. It is nearly certain that no other is metallurgically superior to the OE MHI units.

Hopefully this helps with your question.

Rob

[Sticky]

The MMP setup here appears to be very much larger runner diameters, throat, and seemingly the "A" (Area) while retaining a similar to OEM "R" (Radius). Flanged for TD04.

Great explanation and I'm simplifying it a bit here.

MMP makes the necessary changes to have a superior flowing casting to the others?

That is what I gather. Also that the other cast options are primarily for cost and not performance.

[Rob@RBTurbo]

Great explanation and I'm simplifying it a bit here.

MMP makes the necessary changes to have a superior flowing casting to the others?

That is what I gather. Also that the other cast options are primarily for cost and not performance.

We can only assume that the true "A" (Area) was increased (not confusing with only the throat), but visually it seems to have been. If so that is correct any larger would mean more flow and a larger effective A/R (per frame size). If the area was increased tastefully it could mean just a minor trade off in spool, for a fair gain in power (via reduction in back pressure and increased V/E through the turbine); but if increased too large it could mean a major trade off in spool, for a larger gain in power (via reduction in back pressure and increased V/E through the turbine). Finding a good balance in the "A" (Area) size would be critical to retaining that Twin-like spool and great average power vs. giving the affect of say a Large ST with lag and big peak power.

Regarding the other castings (Zage/GC and Chinaframe) we'd agree that there's not any benefit in the A/R over the OEM casting. With the Zage being a 2-piece though the "A" (Area) could be "massaged/ported" to help it along, and it already has an ideally sized throat so it has some benefits in that regard. The Chinaframe is really not advantageous in any way aside for being cheap.

Rob