http://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194618

woot woot... at least he'll be going fast enough that no one will have time to see at his ugly tail lights. :)

Dale rocks... that's bout all i can say.

Just confirmed it...

VF23/MRT FMIC/Injectors... wow.

-Jonathan

Lets just say that phil worked his magic...

Oh, this tune was on pump gas!

Plots soon.



-Nathan
www.turboxs.com

PS the HKS headers are very nice!

You know what the best part is?

The Subaru Dyno Whore has Altezza's!!!

Take that Alex.

Curt

Originally posted by nmyeti
Lets just say that phil worked his magic...

Oh, this tune was on pump gas!

Plots soon.
-Nathan
www.turboxs.com


I wonder how they could get those pump gas numbers which are MUCH higher than the VF30 pump numbers (mods do differ some). Perhaps they are taking advantage of the bigger exhaust housing somehow. I knew the VF23 would come through.

Care to comment Phil?

-C

Holy crap! On pump gas!

Cant wait to see what a FMIC does for a VF30

Originally posted by TypeC


I wonder how they could get those pump gas numbers which are MUCH higher than the VF30 pump numbers (mods do differ some). Perhaps they are taking advantage of the bigger exhaust housing somehow. I knew the VF23 would come through.

Care to comment Phil?

-C

I would tend to think it has to do with the FMIC.


Actually, it is because of TXS' new secret weapon--nmyeti
Just his presence makes things faster. ;)

Bill

Originally posted by gossamer_monster


I would tend to think it has to do with the FMIC.


Actually, it is because of TXS' new secret weapon--nmyeti
Just his presence makes things faster. ;)

Bill

bill, here is a napkin. You have something on your nose :rolleyes: :p

Seriously, if you look at the other post, the VF23 'feels' faster and makes good number as well (not to mention has a bigger turbine section).

Hey guys, this is being posted for one of our customers, Jay, who can't post the dyno plot himself.

I'll let the chart speak for itself!

http://www.turboxs.com/images/jay%20335%20hp%20on%20pump.jpg

I can't say this was an easy tune as Jay had quite the assortment of parts. Here’s the list: VF23, STI inj, MRT FRT MT Intercooler, HKS Headers, Blitz BCtrl, Stromung catless TB, some radiator, and of course a custom tuned TurboXS Unichip.

We could have kept going but we were hitting the fuel cut in our harness and felt this was the right amount of power. This was by no means tuned to the edge and was actually richer than most available kits.

Jay picked a great combination of parts that just worked well together. I would have to say the MVPs are the radiator and the front mt intercooler.

Who needs a unichip anyway?;)

Can you say 11 sec timeslips on pump gas.

Phil
TurboXS

Originally posted by TypeC


bill, here is a napkin. You have something on your nose :rolleyes: :p

Seriously, if you look at the other post, the VF23 'feels' faster and makes good number as well (not to mention has a bigger turbine section).

Just trying to make the new guy feel welcome :D

Hey Nathan, do you have walls yet? :p

Bill

Originally posted by gossamer_monster




Hey Nathan, do you have walls yet? :p

Bill

I do, just someone else is living in them for now. My house is not ready for me till July 1st.

My wife gets into town on the 8th. At that point, i'll move out of Mark's spare room and take up some temp housing for a few weeks with my wife.

In any case its good to be here. Phil was awesome on the dyno today! He worked like a madman and the results speak for themselves.

-Nathan

those are really nice numbers...i wish i had the option of taking the motor out of my car for a few days to install all the goodies on it!

VF23 Making that much power?! Hmmm....

You should travel the country with that thing and give free rides to anyone with a Subaru...... :)

Can't wait to see a timeslip!

Who needs a unichip anyway? ;)


YOW....NOW THATS A ZINGER!!! :D

Who needs a unichip anyway? ;)

:lol:


Bill

i'm afraid to ask.. but what was the boost on that run?

Congrats great numbers....

what boost and what intake?


Nick

The radiator in the car is the C&R racing radiator. The boost was set a little over 20 psi. You can view some of the pictures from the install on our NEWS page at www.teaguesauto.com

The results are all from a combination of things starting with the best parts and a install done right. We did not cut corners and it took a little longer than we wanted but most of the wait was for the parts.

We have more customer cars like this on the way so keep checking back to the web site.

I will be posting a list of the mods done to the car as well. All of the parts can be found on our web site.

Can't wait to see the time slip from the track :)

Dale Teague (Teague's Auto)

www.teaguesauto.com and www.boxer4racing.com For all your Subaru needs.

WOW - a whole 4.5 hp more that my last run on the super AFC with stock plugs and misfire !!

Somehow I doubt that's a North American record. Maybe a North Carolina record. I just spoke to the owner of the WRX that will be gracing the cover of Turbo magazine for their August issue who makes 375hp to the wheels (his name is Earl; the owner, not the car). I recall the old adage "There's always someone faster".

Sick #'s and props to TEAGUES and TXS.... As always TXS comes through.

I knew it was only a mtter of time before Al Spit on this post.

Originally posted by alfriedesq
WOW - a whole 4.5 hp more that my last run on the super AFC with stock plugs and misfire !!

And what is the price difference? :D

Maybe you should let Nathan tune your car.


Bill

Originally posted by alfriedesq
WOW - a whole 4.5 hp more that my last run on the super AFC with stock plugs and misfire !!

Grow up dude.

Originally posted by alfriedesq
WOW - a whole 4.5 hp more that my last run on the super AFC with stock plugs and misfire !!

...and a STI engine swap....and an STI 6 speed...and like a jaggillion dollars spent...and...and...and

You got beat deal with it...take it like a man, or just make up more of your usual "I don't care anyways, this is just a hobby...my crap don't stink" posts.

Way to go guys!

Good numbers guys...keep it up

As for earl's car...he is in a different league...sweet car though indeed, and you cannot find a nier guy than Earl! (his 375 was done jsut the other day too out in Cali).

Al - you're in a totally different league now....forged (lighter) internals, vastly different cams...you really cannot compare yourself anymore to these guys

adam
Z-1

The boost was set to about 20.5 psi and our fuel cut is at 21 psi. I know this will be the combo of the week and it obviously deserves to be.

I honestly think this car is going to take a really good driver to get it into the 11s even though it's making crazy power. It takes awhile for this combo to come on line and also takes a bit to fill that big intercooler between shifts. So all you hp hunters take note.

I honestly think the midrange could have been optimized with more time and tuning. The VF23 really came to life with the front mt intercooler as some have speculated it would.

As a warning, I also had a very candid discussion with the owner who was willing to take the risk of a blown head gasket and a broken tranny. He was ok with it and if you have intentions of making this kind of power you should too.;)

Al, grow up and congratulate the man as he has pioneered a new combination that works just like you have.

Russ, Pete, Mark, where's my intercooler?:lol:



Phil
TurboXS

Fantastic work guys! I guess I have to get off my lazy butt, install my Maxim Works Manifold and get down there again to see what I can pull. I really was only looking for 325 but I guess I'll have to raise my goal for the ever increasing upper limit.

I'm just playin around to get a rise out of you guys !

BTW - Phil's comments about the shift lag between gears with the fmic ring a bell in my ears . . . I used to have the same problem - - - it was fixed with the gearing change of the sti box - just need higher ratios to get the shift points up higher in the power band !

PS - was that a stock vf23?? I notice a bigg differnce in the trq curve from the other vf23 dyno charts I saw

Phil,
great job today! I cant wait to start playing with our own cars a bit more
on the dyno. What do you think... will this HP record last for much more
than 2 weeks?

Everyone else...
Thanks for the kind words. I really feel like a kid in a candy store working
with these guys. I love what we are doing, and days like today, where we
send home a very happy customer, really bring that into focus.

This combo has a whole lot more left in the car. I would have not been
surprised if we could have seen another 15hp or so on pump gas. The car just
kept responding to the tuning, and there was no hint of detonation.
Everything looked great. I really wanted to play with this car and some C16
race gas.

This car has the power to be into the 11s. It pulls very hard on the street,
and the only thing that will hold it back would be the somewhat heavy wheel,
tire, and brake setup he is running on the car. I would love to see him swap
in some wheels and tires that are a bit lighter, as the set he has now are
about 10lbs a corner heavier than stock.

-Nathan
www.turboxs.com

The stock Vette only gets 300 HP to the wheels but the Z06 gets 350 - You are right there!! Can't wait to see some track times! My 2 cents - don't drop the clutch or your transmission may have problems. I suspect that if you had a VF30 or 34 you'd do slightly better.

Good Luck!

Awesome, Awesome Stuff.......Congrats to TurboXs...I would think High ll's...with the right driver...for sure...hope his tranny stays together.....

Bill

Very impressive numbers especially given on straight pump gas.

It will be very interesting to see how it runs both on the strip and as a daily driver.

Larry

Ditto the comments on the benefits of (a) lighter wheel/tire combinations, and (b) the tremendous impact that proper insightful tuning has in bringing it all together.

Looking forward to seeing WRX timeslips in the 11s!

As for me and my WRX, as it is my daily driver and weekend warrior, I'm happy with dependable 12s just fine.

But it sure is neat to hear information on where people are taking the WRX these days in performance.

Cheers, GoodFinder :)

Wonder if Earl is the same white WRX from the Jan. 2002 issue.....Subaru Invasion

Originally posted by motoxphil
Hey guys, this is being posted for one of our customers, Jay, who can't post the dyno plot himself.

I'll let the chart speak for itself!

http://www.turboxs.com/images/jay%20335%20hp%20on%20pump.jpg

I can't say this was an easy tune as Jay had quite the assortment of parts. Here*s the list: VF23, STI inj, MRT FRT MT Intercooler, HKS Headers, Blitz BCtrl, Stromung catless TB, some radiator, and of course a custom tuned TurboXS Unichip.

We could have kept going but we were hitting the fuel cut in our harness and felt this was the right amount of power. This was by no means tuned to the edge and was actually richer than most available kits.

Jay picked a great combination of parts that just worked well together. I would have to say the MVPs are the radiator and the front mt intercooler.

Who needs a unichip anyway?;)

Can you say 11 sec timeslips on pump gas.

Phil
TurboXS


Those look real impressive. Could you post a picture of these with HP and Torque on the same graph. Don't worry about stock just the modified.

Thanks.

Hmmm, (good natured poke)

Do I smell a little challenge?

:p

http://mastrowrx.com
Home of the MONSTER!

Seriously, guys, sweet car you built...

Best regards
Bill at Mastro MRT/Subaru

From looking at the charts I see that the peak tq and hp numbers are almost at the same rpms. If the car has stock cams and heads I assume from the mods description it seems a little off from other dynos I've seen. Can somebody coment on this?
The numbers do look good though. Congrats on those!

Alex...

What wheels are on that car?

Originally posted by amelnikov
From looking at the charts I see that the peak tq and hp numbers are almost at the same rpms. If the car has stock cams and heads I assume from the mods description it seems a little off from other dynos I've seen. Can somebody coment on this?
The numbers do look good though. Congrats on those!

Alex... I'm glad someone else sees what's going one here . . . .

WHY did they have to take the engine OUT if there were NOT going to make mods to it ????

I say either the turbo or the engine has mods

Originally posted by alfriedesq
I'm glad someone else sees what's going one here . . . .

WHY did they have to take the engine OUT if there were NOT going to make mods to it ????

I say either the turbo or the engine has mods

Ever the conspiracy theorist....

At least you bring amusement to my otherwise duller days ;)

Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com

From What I know...Teagues took the engine out to get the headers on....The bottom end is stock....with stock cams...The engine was NOT opened up at all..the turbo is a STOCK Vf23 from MRT...using STi injectors....Samco Hoses were used thruout....including Radiator...the Radiator is a exceptional ...C&R makes very HIGH quality stuff....used in all forms of racing...
and of course the genius's at Turbo XS....I think it has a flywheel in it as well....not sure of the brand...JUN maybe???? not sure...or MRT....Thats about all I know about...I know the car is going to be a "show car"....and someone asked about the rims...Volks with Kuhmo's...Dale did an awesome job on the install to get it to quality it is....so some mad props to him....

Bill
Prestige Subaru
Asheville NC

Originally posted by Prestige Subaru
..and someone asked about the rims...Volks with Kuhmo's

well someone said they weighed 10lbs more than stock. I don't knnow of any Volks/Rays that weight 26.5 lbs (they'd have to be some kind of chrome 20" dub :lol: ).

Originally posted by TypeC


well someone said they weighed 10lbs more than stock. I don't knnow of any Volks/Rays that weight 26.5 lbs (they'd have to be some kind of chrome 20" dub :lol: ).

These were some of the monster 18in wheels with heavy tires... the combo was 10lbs a corner heavier than stock.

-Nathan
www.turboxs.com

Originally posted by nmyeti


These were some of the monster 18in wheels with heavy tires... the combo was 10lbs a corner heavier than stock.

-Nathan
www.turboxs.com

10 a corner?!! Man, I wonder if he'll even run 12's?!!

When I gained 5lbs a corner I could feel a HUGE difference in performance (other car).

Um, I'd go with some gram lights or LE37's (or SE-37's)

Great job guys.

I may have to visit TurboXS myself soon!!

Why on earth did they pull the engine to put headers on?
Was the head gasket replaced? thanks later

Originally posted by Prestige Subaru
From What I know...Teagues took the engine out to get the headers on....Bill
Prestige Subaru
Asheville NC

Well - in order to change the headers on a WRX all you do is unbolt them from the bottom and they come stright down

I seriously doubt anyone would pull an engine to remove the headers

If you look at the trg and hp curve of this fv23 compared to all other vf23 dyno charts I have seen, you will see that there is something very drastically different on this dyno map from all the others

The vf23 maps dont spike up like that in one peak hp area

I can only speak about what I see - and seeing the engine on the ground and the dyno map that results . . . . .

Well if you see a cat in the kitchen and the milk container is knocked over and empty - - - who drank the milk??

I still would like to know how come the torque peak got moved from 3x K prm to almost 6 K? The horsepower peak stayed almost in the same rpm range. This almost looks like either the cams or head were modified or it look too much like a supercharged engine torgue graph( supercharged engines make hierst boost at highest rpms). Which means the turbo was spooling up very, very slowly and only come to full boost at high rpms.
Coments?

Alex...:confused:

Al,

We have never seen any of your recent dyno charts, so can you please post them so we can nit pick them to death. For all we know your lying about your hp numbers.

Would you feel better if his car had a built engine? I don't think it would make less hp if it did. It doesn't by the way.

You'll know soon enough what a built engine is capable of.

Al, why don't you come down to TurboXS and we'll let you run your car on our dyno. If you beat it without nitrous, the dyno time is free.

This way we can compare apples to apples. The only thing we'll have to do is reset the dyno to match your different gear ratios.

Let's settle this once and for all.

Phil
TurboXS

Originally posted by amelnikov
I still would like to know how come the torque peak got moved from 3x K prm to almost 6 K? The horsepower peak stayed almost in the same rpm range. This almost looks like either the cams or head were modified or it look too much like a supercharged engine torgue graph( supercharged engines make hierst boost at highest rpms). Which means the turbo was spooling up very, very slowly and only come to full boost at high rpms.
Coments?

Alex...:confused:

I suspect the very poor matching of the hks headers to the up-pipe (much smaller inlet than the outlet on the HKS headers) had something to do with this. This car was laggy, but pulled like a rocket up top.

Besides, how many of you have ever seen a dyno plot from a car with HKS headers?

-Nathan
www.turboxs.com

The last thing I want to do is to take sides on this or to slam anyone but I smell a rat on these dyno plots.

One thing is clear. You cant make 400+ hp out of a stock VF23 on a stock EJ20. To even suggest that is ubsurd. look at the plot of that turbo. I dont care what tuning was done.

To give TXS the benifit of the doubt they may have not known about the mods done to the turbo or engine. I hope that is the case with this recent tune job. I like the TXS guys and I think they have done alot of work towards making HP but this is just incredible.

Nathan, I am suprised that you are not making a Nice guy post saying what I said above... Do you honestly believe that this is ligit?

Something is not right. That turbo was modded, That engine was modded, the dyno is out of calibration or, worse yet. Someone is lying.

I hate to be the one that calls BS on this as I dont want to start a war against anyone but this is just out of line and it needs to be questioned.

Someone own up or I for one will have a low opion of TXS and the crew for supporting such nonesense. Sorry guys but its to the point that I can no longer believe the numbers you guys are posting. 365hp from a VF30 with its little exhaust housing was hard for me to swallow. But this takes the cake.

One more suggestion.. You guys have the tools and the talent. Why not make products and services with reliability in mind? Look around. The real big names in the tuning industry always build reliable products. Thats the key. If you are going to sell a turbo kit with X turbo why not sell that kit running the turbo in its design limits? Even if that means giving up 30hp? Using the excuse "this is what the customer wanted" is not a valid excuse.

Why not use the old formula. Build an insane WRX and use that to show what you can do. Race the car, Win with the car, Break records with the car. Then sell reliable strong and safe kits to the consumer.

Someone start talking.

CT

Originally posted by AZScoobie
The last thing I want to do is to take sides on this or to slam anyone but I smell a rat on these dyno plots.

One thing is clear. You cant make 400+ hp out of a stock VF23 on a stock EJ20. To even suggest that is ubsurd. look at the plot of that turbo. I dont care what tuning was done.

To give TXS the benifit of the doubt they may have not known about the mods done to the turbo or engine. I hope that is the case with this recent tune job. I like the TXS guys and I think they have done alot of work towards making HP but this is just incredible.

Nathan, I am suprised that you are not making a Nice guy post saying what I said above... Do you honestly believe that this is ligit?

Something is not right. That turbo was modded, That engine was modded, the dyno is out of calibration or, worse yet. Someone is lying.

I hate to be the one that calls BS on this as I dont want to start a war against anyone but this is just out of line and it needs to be questioned.

Someone own up or I for one will have a low opion of TXS and the crew for supporting such nonesense. Sorry guys but its to the point that I can no longer believe the numbers you guys are posting. 365hp from a VF30 with its little exhaust housing was hard for me to swallow. But this takes the cake.

One more suggestion.. You guys have the tools and the talent. Why not make products and services with reliability in mind? Look around. The real big names in the tuning industry always build reliable products. Thats the key. If you are going to sell a turbo kit with X turbo why not sell that kit running the turbo in its design limits? Even if that means giving up 30hp? Using the excuse "this is what the customer wanted" is not a valid excuse.

Why not use the old formula. Build an insane WRX and use that to show what you can do. Race the car, Win with the car, Break records with the car. Then sell reliable strong and safe kits to the consumer.

Someone start talking.

CT

Grrrr

Bill

I think the altezza taillights add the extra ummph in the dyno:lol:
j/k great numbers and the guys at TXS don't have to lie about **** to get business or sales...the numbers DO speak for themselves....now help my get into the USCC so I can get some more stuff on my car and match these numbers....thanks
-Brett

Speaking of current top Subarus and the USCC, it's in the July issue of Sport Compact Car magazine where you'll find the 92 entries for us to choose from (and vote on) in the "Ultimate Street Car Challenge" contest.

The five Subaru entries are:

#80 - Steve Harvey (that's me, GoodFinder)
#81 - Jason Lochhead (gmflex on i-club)
#82 - Brett Gordon (Bighurt1 on i-club)
#83 - Alan Card (Scoobyslack1 on i-club)
#84 - Mike Morita (??? anybody know him on i-club ???)

(You have to clip the actual ballot out of the physical magazine, no photocopies or emails or online voting, mark your 10 votes, and then snail mail it in to Sport Compact Car magazine.)

To ensure Subaru representation and participation in the event, we gotta get the votes mailed in!

GoodFinder :)

Nice numbers. FMIC and headers sound like Stage 5 material.

I am laughing at all the "conspiracy" talk. You guys watch X-Files to much. Phil posted some nice dyno numbers when he ran well at the track, so that must mean TurboXS and the Drag strip are in cahoots. Maybe Phil is an Alien, the wicked 60' times he is cutting are proof, Where's Mullder and Scully.

Troy

/\....Soooooooooo true....Sheeeeeeeeesh...I honestly can't believe some of you are such doubting thoamas's....my god....What does it take....Maybe when that thing pulls up next to you and Blows the Bejesus out your "modded WRX"...you might think twice....

While in Australia...I had to the opportunity to talk to a BUNCH of WRX owners including some VERY high Profile tuners......The STD setup down there is....a VF23, Front Mount, Fuel Defender, 3in or 3.5 Turbo Back Exhaust's, uppipes and an intake...Try 345 HP at the crank..and run 18.5 psi ALL DAY long...on pump gas...For the Lucky individual's that want more...One of Toni Rigoli's cars was cranking out 350 to the wheels on a STOCK bottom end....So unless you have some other things that "Prove this wrong" in this guys car. Enjoy it...Some of you really need to get out more....others just need to realize the truth...

AZScoobie...to you my friend...you raise some good questions however they lack any substance for thought....I mean...there are at least 35 four wheel dyno's all over austrailia...Are you saying those are just as inaccurate??? I have a copy of Hot4's magazine that features nothing but Subaru's...they had a Dyno day...and most of those cars had Stock bottom ends and a few with some forged goodies...But most of them were in the 375-400hp range with just bolt-on's..and ECU modication...Most did not have headers as The WRX in question here had......There is actually one guy...(Mick Jones, President of the Queensland WRX Club, that can ran 345 to the wheels all day long with his VF23 and NO Bottom end work)..So I guess unless you have actually been there and seen it you probably wouldn't believe it...But he had Dyno Sheets to prove it too...You have to remember...The US is very much in its INFANT stage of tuning the WRX...Whereas Australia, UK , Japan and others have a 10 year head start...So if I were you, I would not jump to such 'conclusions'...and take the attitude of sit back and see...:D..



Scooby South

I understand people may be skeptical about the numbers but I just wanted to make it clear that it had nothing to do with the dyno. This was also not intended as a TXS advertisement and the only TXS part he had on his car was our Unichip kit.

I was honestly only shooting for 320whp. That radiator kept his coolant temps remarkably low to around 81-83C on the dyno where we would normally see 86-90C. Let's not forget that intercooler. As soon as we turned the dyno fan on, his ecu started to add large amounts of fuel to just idle. That is some serious cooling!

I can't say with absolute certainty that this car didn't contain any secrets but in dealing with Jay, I highly doubt he would hide anything. He was very proud of his ride and was only expecting around 320whp.

My car will be similarly equipped in the very near future but with a VF30 or 34, so all you guys hunting for 11sec timeslips better head to the track soon.;) I'll post the results if you want.

Have a great weekend.

Phil
TurboXS

I'm looking at my old dyno graphs and the torque correction factor (tcf) and the ratio are the same as they are in this graph. Doesn't that prove that there have been no adjustments to the dyno?

If it does than you guys are full of crap...

-Jonathan

edit: I went way back to an old thread and found this chart (Nov 2001) again with the same tqf and ratio:

http://www.highrpm.net/images/subaru2.jpg

Originally posted by mynew02
I'm looking at my old dyno graphs and the torque correction factor (tcf) and the ratio are the same as they are in this graph. Doesn't that prove that there have been no adjustments to the dyno?

If it does than you guys are full of crap...

-Jonathan

edit: I went way back to an old thread and found this chart (Nov 2001) again with the same tqf and ratio:

http://www.highrpm.net/images/subaru2.jpg Little different trq curve there eh???

Originally posted by AZScoobie
The last thing I want to do is to take sides on this or to slam anyone but I smell a rat on these dyno plots.

Clark,
Lets get right to this shall we? You state that you don't want to take sides or slam anyone, and yet you don't waste any time at all getting right to doing just that



Originally posted by AZScoobie
One thing is clear. You cant make 400+ hp out of a stock VF23 on a stock EJ20. To even suggest that is ubsurd. look at the plot of that turbo. I don't care what tuning was done.


Somehow I seem to find ground to stand on our claims in several dyno runs, a stack of fast (mph) timeslips, and a whole load of happy customers. There are several things that you need to keep in mind about compressor maps. The most important one is that they don't seem to tell you everything. Take the 1820 for instance; it has a very nice compressor map, and the design of the compressor wheel seem to be very well suited to the WRX, but the turbo is let down on the turbine side.

The VF23, while not the best turbo I personally have seen, in this setup did a very good job. However, while the VF23 provided the air, the real hero here is the Hyperflow intercooler which provided so much cooling that fuel trims changed drastically the moment that the fan in front of the dyno was turned on. How efficient a turbo is at a given boost pressure matters much less if you can pair it with a very nice intercooler to remove a considerable amount of the extra heat the turbo creates from compressing the air.

In this case it is quite clear that a VF23 managed to make the HP that you claim it "can't" make. It's dyno numbers against speculation.

Originally posted by AZScoobie
I like the TXS guys and I think they have done alot of work towards making HP but this is just incredible.

These results are very much credible. I am tired of bowing to the "subaru" gods that say it can't be done, because they have yet to accomplish it. These results are consistent with lots of different tuners in the Australian market. The majority of them just don't post here as they are too busy making HP. The previous fast-4s article that was mentioned really tells the tale. We are not the only tuner to get results such as this. In fact I would go far enough to say that these results are very much consistent with my findings in other turbo charged cars. The WRX is not that much different from a DSM, and people are doing things now with those motors that the "experts" claimed would never be done.

Originally posted by AZScoobie
Nathan, I am suprised that you are not making a Nice guy post saying what I said above... Do you honestly believe that this is ligit?

Something is not right. That turbo was modded, That engine was modded, the dyno is out of calibration or, worse yet. Someone is lying.

Clark, I am shocked, and even a little hacked off by your accusation. I have NO reason to lie about this kid's modifications, state of tune, or dyno results. This car was as advertised. The fact is the only TXS part that it had on it was the unichip. Phil had a good tune on the dyno, and the car really seemed to like the combo of modifications. To imply that I am lying to you, come on man think about that. Why would we risk what is very much considered to be one of the best, and most honest customer service reputations in the business.




Originally posted by AZScoobie

Someone own up or I for one will have a low opion of TXS and the crew for supporting such nonesense. Sorry guys but its to the point that I can no longer believe the numbers you guys are posting. 365hp from a VF30 with its little exhaust housing was hard for me to swallow. But this takes the cake.

Clark,
You can have any opinion of us that you wish, but I would think that after all the time you've spent on the phone with Mark asking technical questions, and after all the PMs that you and I have exchanged trying to work out the problems that your car has had that you'd have a much better idea than most of how we really work.



Originally posted by AZScoobie

Someone start talking.

CT

I don't have to answer to you in that manner, and I don't have much more to say on this topic. We have given the I-club all the information on this car, its setup, and our tuning. There is nothing more to tell.

-Nathan
www.turboxs.com

Originally posted by alfriedesq
Little different trq curve there eh???

Stock manifolds will do that for you...

-Nathan
www.turboxs.com

Thinking more and more about this - and after seeing so many dyno sheets on wrx - I really don't see how this was possible with street gas - in fact after many many dyno pulls under my belt on two different engines with a whole lot of diffrent turbos and mods - - I say that the stock WRX block and heads can NOT do 335 hp on street gas with a stock vf23 turbo

Now if they sent the turbo out to have some work - then and only then could I see that trq curve and the xtra top end kick that no other fv23 we have seen has ever made

Of course - I always stop pressing at the first sign of activity on the knock link and back off - I like to have some numbers to brag about - but don't want a blown engine to deal with

Well - I guess I just don't relaize the POWER of the radiator! (jokes)

Heres what the rest of the world is doing...

http://dyno.scoobynet.co.uk/

And here..

http://forums.sidc.co.uk/searchresults.cfm?requesttimeout=500

Some more here...

http://www.autospeed.com/A_0855/page1.html

http://www.autospeed.com/A_0902/page1.html

here....

http://www.wrxclubqld.org.au/eventphotos/DynoDayOct2001/index.htm


And about 100 more....

Originally posted by alfriedesq
Thinking more and more about this - and after seeing so many dyno sheets on wrx - I really don't see how this was possible with street gas - in fact after many many dyno pulls under my belt on two different engines with a whole lot of diffrent turbos and mods - - I say that the stock WRX block and heads can NOT do 335 hp on street gas with a stock vf23 turbo

Al,
I am going to say this as nice as i can, get your panties out of a wad. Your speculation is really about worthless in this thread. You didn't see the car, and you've never had the chance to see a car with this setup on the dyno. If your upset because you have no title left, well, i guess to each his own, but lets try to be mature. Your reasoning is flawed. Just because you can't make this sort of power, does not mean it can't be done. You've yet to tell us why it can't happen, only that you don't think it can happen.

all here who think Al knows everything about the WRX, say "I"

Didn't think you'd get too many votes.

Originally posted by alfriedesq
Now if they sent the turbo out to have some work - then and only then could I see that trq curve and the xtra top end kick that no other fv23 we have seen has ever made

i suspect there are 3 reasons why the turbo had such a weird torque curve.

1. The up-pipe was not port matched to the collector on the headers which created lag
2. the intercooler core volume was HUGE, and contributed to tons of lag
3. the intercooler has very little pressure drop across it and as such the turbo does not have to work as hard to keep the boost pressure up high on the top end.

If you combined this setup with some sort of anti-lag to get the turbo at full spool by the "normal peak torque" range, i think you'd see much higher peak numbers there, but as it was making very little boost at the normal 4000rpm range, it didn't happen.


Originally posted by alfriedesq
Of course - I always stop pressing at the first sign of activity on the knock link and back off - I like to have some numbers to brag about - but don't want a blown engine to deal with

Well - I guess I just don't relaize the POWER of the radiator! (jokes)

This car was not tuned to the edge, although i suspect that he could use some larger fuel injectors, but it was not anywhere near detonation.

If you don't realize the benefits of a decent cooling system to pull heat from the head and combustion chamber of a car and the further impact that has on detonation then you may well be beyond help.

The radiator didn't make power, but it sure helped remove heat from the head, and as such likely allowed us to make more power on pump gas without detonation. How much more? I don't know.

-Nathan
www.turboxs.com

This is comedy, it's like one side is saying and believing with all their heart that the earth is flat while the other side is saying, "If you only knew...".

It's interesting to see how beliefs become reality for some.

Originally posted by nmyeti


Just because you can't make this sort of power, does not mean it can't be done. -Nathan
www.turboxs.com - Well I came within 4.5 hp with lower boost and misfiring plugs - and not to mention a much more balanced power curve with a flat trq curve over 4100 so I wouldn't say that - - also my old engine was within 10 hp

\/....BUUWAAAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA....Awesome...I love it...Glad I am in the "If you only knew" catagory...:D:D:D


Originally posted by MadWagon
This is comedy, it's like one side is saying and believing with all their heart that the earth is flat while the other side is saying, "If you only knew...".

It's interesting to see how beliefs become reality for some.

I have almost the same mods so after I dyno tune it we can compare results. I actually called TXS a long time ago to see if they have a map for this type of setup but they didn't have anything at the time.

My mod list:
VF23, 550cc injectors, tec3, vishnu uppipe, cusco headers, APS FMIC (it's a smaller bar&plate design vs the MRT), turboback exhaust.

I really don't expect to get anywhere close to those power levels but I guess we'll see.

Originally posted by nmyeti



1. The up-pipe was not port matched to the collector on the headers which created lag
2. the intercooler core volume was HUGE, and contributed to tons of lag
3. the intercooler has very little pressure drop across it and as such the turbo does not have to work as hard to keep the boost pressure up high on the top end.

but as it was making very little boost at the normal 4000rpm range, it didn't happen. -Nathan
www.turboxs.com

Sounds like a blast to enjoy this car on your daily commute !

PS - a dyno pull don't do nothing to my coolant temp - lots of time for rest between runs !

Originally posted by MiXer
I have almost the same mods so after I dyno tune it we can compare results. I actually called TXS a long time ago to see if they have a map for this type of setup but they didn't have anything at the time.

My mod list:
VF23, 550cc injectors, tec3, vishnu uppipe, cusco headers, APS FMIC (it's a smaller bar&plate design vs the MRT), turboback exhaust.

I really don't expect to get anywhere close to those power levels but I guess we'll see. The tec III should get you a few more HP on high boost b/c the spark is much better!

This of couse is assuming all other things are equal - which I am sure they are not

Originally posted by nmyeti

Clark,
You can have any opinion of us that you wish, but I would think that after all the time you've spent on the phone with Mark asking technical questions, and after all the PMs that you and I have exchanged trying to work out the problems that your car has had that you'd have a much better idea than most of how we really work.

-Nathan
www.turboxs.com

I think the public needs to know something. The above statement is a total and complete lie on nathans part. I have never called Turboxs. I have never spoken to Mark on the phone or asked him for technical advice. Not a single time have I called them.. I have never spoken to Nathan on the phone either.. I do not have a single Turboxs part on my car and I have never had anyone from Turboxs help me in anyway and I have not asked for there help.

Not sure why this was made up??? Maybe you are confusing me with someone else??? Please explain this to me as this is false information.

First off. Nathan, you are positioning this as a slam.. Not me. I simply posted what I felt and I even explained that I was not trying to slam anyone. I also stated that I did not and still do not believe the HP numbers you guys are claiming out of these little turbos and stock motors and I was looking for an answer. The only thing you offer is that the car had an FMIC. How about the compressor map for teh VF23. What does it tell you? According to that map can that turbo produce over 400hp?

I just wanted some clarification on these numbers. In the end all I got was an attempt on TurboXs part to slam me. For TurboXs that is a bad business move if you ask me. Then again. Running VF turbo's at 22+ psi and calling that reliable is also. I will not continue to go round with you guys on this. No point. Its clear I am not going to get the answer I was looking for.

CT

Originally posted by AZScoobie


I did not and still do not believe the HP numbers you guys are claiming out of these little turbos and stock motors and I was looking for an answer. The only thing you offer is that the car had an FMIC. How about the compressor map for teh VF23. What does it tell you? According to that map can that turbo produce over 400hp?

CT I'mn looking for answers also

Originally posted by alfriedesq
I'mn looking for answers also

As am I. Its to bad people have to resort to low blows.

A couple of points.

Tubular headers, FMIC's, and after market up pipes will generally bring the power in later. Tubular headers, depending on the design, will, or may change the torque curve.

Most people will know my opinions of some of the quoted power figures seen on this board, so I won't go there again.

However, I'm not certain what the guy quoting that the AUS' guys getting 345bhp at the CRANK, from similar mod's has in helping the cause. Or the fact that the AUS' guys get an average of 94bhp losses through the drive train.

Someone pointed out that AUS', UK, etc', were several years ahead, and the UK dyno site was even posted. It would seem that most people choose to ignore the infomation, gained from hundreds of dyno runs.

I would like to see some fuelling info posted, relating to this car. Like the IDC/IPW %, at peak power/rpm, and maybe the voltage output from the AFM.

So, just what is the IPW at 5900rpm ?

Lastly, for those who consider the VF23 to be so good, why does the graph show power to 6000rpm, and then it just dies ? A turbo that can produce 400bhp, can certainly flow enough air to hold 20psi at 7000rpm.

I don't believe Turbo XS, or any of the other tuners are specifically trying to "con" the owners. I just don't think most of them know any better.

Happy.

Many of you are just unbelievable.

What would you like to see? An 11sec timeslip? Another dyno plot? Would you like to examine my VF30 or VF23 before we go to the drag strip and take it into the 11s?

Will this settle this once and for all?

We have a header, we have a vf30, we'll get an intercooler, and we might even get that radiator.

Would one of you like to perform the installation and inspect the parts?

Would like to pump the gas into the tank?

Would you rather we run 17psi vs. 21 psi and up the timing to 35 degrees instead of 28 degrees?

If we run in the 11s will you concede to the so called impossible?

What will it take to prove that this is possible?

We've given you a dyno plot and all you've given us is a bunch of theory.

Phil
TurboXS

Originally posted by motoxphil
What will it take to prove that this is possible?

We've given you a dyno plot and all you've given us is a bunch of theory.

Phil
TurboXS

This "bunch of theory" is PROVEN. It is based on the laws of physics.

Why don't you just answer the questions, both here, and on the APS turbo thread ?

Happy.

Some of you are really making even following threads like this a waste of time. Grow up. I think the moderators need to give some of the usual players (trolls) a I-club timeout before the next success story gets posted. This recent behavior is making some of the (other clubs) look pretty mature. The flacid saber rattling needs to stop.

And thumbs up to TurboXS for the tuning work and all the others involved.

AZScoobie said:
think the public needs to know something. The above statement is a total and complete lie on nathans part. I have never called Turboxs. I have never spoken to Mark on the phone or asked him for technical advice. Not a single time have I called them.. I have never spoken to Nathan on the phone either.. I do not have a single Turboxs part on my car and I have never had anyone from Turboxs help me in anyway and I have not asked for there help.
I am assuming that the "CT" at the end of your messages stands for Clark Turner. If it does not, than I apologize for the mistaken identity.

If it does, however, I guess you simply do not recall calling me last fall several times to discuss your WRX and to order a Unichip from me. You did not get the Unichip however, because, IIRC, you decided to wait for a Link. I also recall that this is what I was recommending that you do from the beginning since you wanted something that you could tune yourself (which obviously can't be done with the Unichip).

Clark, I own TurboXS. Neither me, nor my employees will lie to our customers. Not only is it bad business, it's simply not the way I want to run my business.

You used to run an aftermarket performance company. Go back and re-read your posts and put yourself in my position. You started this by attacking the integrity of my company. We are not going to sit around and let you do that with impunity.

I stand by everything that we have posted here.

Mark
TurboXS

HOLY SHAZBOT!!! :eek: now that is a man i don't mind giving my money to! i don't post in here a lot because half the stuff that people post just turns into arguments, and this is a good example. you people need to get off your friggin high horse! just because a lot of you people dumped more money in yuor motor than this guy your flipping out. How many other people have the radiator and intercooler, and had it Dynoed?!? the car has only been out a little over a year in this country, these guys are finding more power in this car every day! just because the aussies and the japanese had these cars for a lot longer does not mean crap. our car can not compare to the other side of the world. look what the American tuning has done to Honduhs. so to all the non believers :monkey: :monkey: :monkey: there are other people that stood by the VF23 also and the same people gave the crap, hmm maybe a lot of people just hate that turbo :lol: now stop your damn whining and give credit where credit is due! by the way nice TUNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kirk

I have dealt with Mark for about a year now. I feel this is important to note for because I am a service oriented customer that means I buy from whom I trust and I am not price driven. I do not have the tech expertise that many of you have that have posted negative posts, but I do have a great sense of who does business the correct way and who blows smoke up your ass Rule # 1 under promise and over deliver. In every dealing I have had with Turboxs that has happened. If there has ever been a problem Turboxs has been there, so for those of you that find it nessasary to to defame a very good tuner with theroies and news articles you read while in the ****ter. Do all of us a favour and pm them or call them, but don't clog up this forum with your angry" I know more than you yet I don't own a car shop" bull****. Thanks Michael

Who killed JFK? Where's Hoffa? Is there really a bigfoot? How did Turboxs get that much hp out of that engine???

All this conspiricy theory talk is getting me sick. I don't even know why the Turboxs guys even bother to respond to this stuff. I don't know why anyone would think they would lie. They are always honest with customers with what will work best on our cars even if it means taking the risk of not making a sale.

Note to Turboxs: From your customers who have dealt with you guys first hand, no childish remarks or accusations will tarnish your image with us.

Look, it's all very well people posting their support of a tuning company, and telling us just what a good job they do, but, this doesn't change certain facts.

I have asked certain questions, not because I believe Turbo xs are lying about their dyno figures, but because their dyno figures don't make any "logical" sense.

There are certain things that remain the same, regardless of what "bolt on mod's" you make.

1) Engine capacity.
2) The approximate amount of fuel you need per 1 bhp. Although this will vary a little, but by a small %.

So, using the same equation I posted on the "APS turbo" thread,

121.7ci (1994cc) x 5900rpm x .5 x 85%ve div' 1728 = 176cfm (n/a)

x 2.38PR (20psi) = 419cfm.

419cfm is the maximum amount of air you can force into our engine at 20psi, based on a VE of 85%. 85% +/- 5% is the recognised peak VE of a turbo engine. This will vary over the RPM range, but sinse this equation is normally used for turbo sizing, it's conservative.

So now we have something to go on.

1) is it possible to get 400bhp from 420cfm (11.9 cubic meters pm, 29lbs pm)

2) Can the turbo, a VF23 in this case flow enough air for 400bhp, regarless.

Well we need roughly 1.4cfm per 1 bhp, so 400bhp needs roughly 560cfm (16 cubic meters pm, or 38.6lbs).

So how does this look on the VF23 flow map. Well to be honest, I don't have it, but, I do have the flow map for the bigger VF22.

And on this map ? Well, I can't tell you that either, because it's SO FAR OFF THE MAP, that it isn't even on the same page !!!!!

It would even be fair to allow up to 10% disparity, for VE, and fuelling, it's still way out.

So to all you guys who blindly believe everything you're told, be happy (no pun intended).

To the more intelligent among you, check out what I, and others are saying, and make your own minds up.

To Turbo XS: I don't doubt your honesty, however, if you disagree with any of the information I've posted, I'll be glad to listen to your arguement.

My comments are based on FACT, your comments are based on software, and dyno calibrations, notoriously inaccurate, all over the world.

Happy.

First off I am the one (Teague's Auto) who built the car not Turbo XS so if anyone has any build questions ask me.

Second we pulled the motor because the car was getting a Unorthodox Light weight flywheel and AP racing clutch. Now last I checked you either have to pull the motor or the tranny and since the motor was getting injectors, headers, up-pipe and inlet hose it just makes the install go faster on the motor stand. The motor has no cams no block work never pulled off the timing belt covers to look at the belt.

Third if the VF30 is such a good turbo why are my customers in Japan, Australia and the UK pulling it off for the VF23?

Fourth We used Shiv's up-pipe on the car because that was the only one I could get my hands on at the time and we had been waiting on parts long enough.

In the end it comes down to one thing. If you have the money and want the same numbers bring your car to me and I will do the same install I did on Jason's car and you can watch the whole install to make sure I don't lay my hands on the block, heads or cams. Then take your car to Turbo XS and have them dyno it.

This is just the first car like this we are building more so get ready to have more to talk about and if you have been tuning Subaru's for as long as we have since (1976) then you can give me a call and tell me how to do my job.

Dale Teague (Teague's Auto)

www.teaguesauto.com and www.boxer4racing.com For all your SUBARU needs.

Very nicely stated, and no one got assaulted. It's always nice to read technical stuff.

Honestly, **** like this is why I rarely post here anymore. Mark and his crew at TXS and Dale at Teagues are PILLARS of the Subaru (WRX) performance community. I've dealt with both of them and they both bent over BACKWARDS to help me get a turbo back exhuast shipped to me in a matter of HOURS for a race! I wound up with the TXS piece simply because Dale wasn't able to find the setup I wanted. It wasn't for lack of trying, however.

What we have here are bunch of SLOWER, BITTER people who simply want to challenge REALITY because they have nothing better to do. Sounds like some people need to spend more time under their car or behind the wheel than sitting behind a monitor talking ****.

Dale and Mark, keep up the good work. Although my WRX will soon be sold since I'm going back to DSM-land :) I will continue to highly recommend you both to anyone in the market for your offerings.

Dale,

Thanks, for posting and clearing things up. As for the VF30 vs the VF23, the better choice has to do with your ultimate goals and driving characteristics.

Sincerely,
Phil
TurboXS

Originally posted by Happy
Look, it's all very well people posting their support of a tuning company, and telling us just what a good job they do, but, this doesn't change certain facts.

I have asked certain questions, not because I believe Turbo xs are lying about their dyno figures, but because their dyno figures don't make any "logical" sense.

There are certain things that remain the same, regardless of what "bolt on mod's" you make.

1) Engine capacity.
2) The approximate amount of fuel you need per 1 bhp. Although this will vary a little, but by a small %.

So, using the same equation I posted on the "APS turbo" thread,

121.7ci (1994cc) x 5900rpm x .5 x 85%ve div' 1728 = 176cfm (n/a)

x 2.38PR (20psi) = 419cfm.

419cfm is the maximum amount of air you can force into our engine at 20psi, based on a VE of 85%. 85% +/- 5% is the recognised peak VE of a turbo engine. This will vary over the RPM range, but sinse this equation is normally used for turbo sizing, it's conservative.

So now we have something to go on.

1) is it possible to get 400bhp from 420cfm (11.9 cubic meters pm, 29lbs pm)

2) Can the turbo, a VF23 in this case flow enough air for 400bhp, regarless.

Well we need roughly 1.4cfm per 1 bhp, so 400bhp needs roughly 560cfm (16 cubic meters pm, or 38.6lbs).

So how does this look on the VF23 flow map. Well to be honest, I don't have it, but, I do have the flow map for the bigger VF22.

And on this map ? Well, I can't tell you that either, because it's SO FAR OFF THE MAP, that it isn't even on the same page !!!!!

It would even be fair to allow up to 10% disparity, for VE, and fuelling, it's still way out.

So to all you guys who blindly believe everything you're told, be happy (no pun intended).

To the more intelligent among you, check out what I, and others are saying, and make your own minds up.

To Turbo XS: I don't doubt your honesty, however, if you disagree with any of the information I've posted, I'll be glad to listen to your arguement.

My comments are based on FACT, your comments are based on software, and dyno calibrations, notoriously inaccurate, all over the world.

Happy. I agree with this asssertion 100% !! The laws of physics can't be bent

As far as Mark at turboxs gpes - he is a very very honest and good person who can be trusted in every manner. I dealt with him before and he imprssed me in every regard - the same can be said for Phil - who is also tops

However - now that they have choosen to align themselves with Nathan - who from my every observation is a diffrent kind of person all together - just look at the clowns he used to hang with in NM before - those obnoxious idiots nickV and the other imbasicles - I say b irds of a fetaher flock together

Mark always was smart enough to stay above the fray here in these stupid debates

Nathan wants to jump right in an sling the BS - all the while trying to protray the nice guy facade

- look at nathans tactics - - sneaky - manipultaor - out smart them behind the back actions then he goes to the smile in thier face; try to look like a very nice guy kind of person

Although I respect Mark and Phil greatly - - and would trust them 100% - I feel nathan is capable of anything

This dyno claim they made speaks volumes to anyone who knows anything about subaru engines and the laws of physics

I say it again - it can NOT be done with a vf23 - pump gas and a stock heads and cams

Originally posted by BYBYV8
What we have here are bunch of SLOWER, BITTER people who simply want to challenge REALITY because they have nothing better to do. Sounds like some people need to spend more time under their car or behind the wheel than sitting behind a monitor talking ****.

. Yeah - = I'm a slower - biter- sure - -

I have the same HP output as this guy does - only my powerband is wide and broad and the car has little or no lag


I'll be back at the dyno later tonight or tommorrow to take away thier thunder

In the meantime - I say dont believe this hype - its not real

The powerband tells the whole story - its aint a stock engine & vf23!

Al since you and Happy are so good with physics and say that it is not possible with the stock block and VF23, give us good reasons why they would lie about it.

I really don't see what the big deal is. Teague's has equipped a very nice WRX, TXS tuned it, the thing is making crazy power!

Who care's about the details. They've given all the facts. I personally trust these guys more than anyone else.

I would say that most of the fastest WRXs around have a TXS unichip in them if not many other parts.

Not to mention bybyv8, phil, and nathan drive some of the fastest WRXs on the streets!

Erik
VF34 equipped and with Turbo XS parts!!!

Originally posted by alfriedesq

Mark always was smart enough to stay above the fray here in these stupid debates

Nathan wants to jump right in an sling the BS - all the while trying to protray the nice guy facade

- look at nathans tactics - - sneaky - manipultaor - out smart them behind the back actions then he goes to the smile in thier face; try to look like a very nice guy kind of person



Wow you guys are sick.....truly sick......and that is being nice. Al, why should anybody listen to you?? You are the one that ALWAYS started all of those stupid debates. So when people stand up to you they are the sneaky unreliable ones??? YOU ARE AN ASS AND ALWAYS WILL BE :monkey: You are a cry baby and you need to grow up.

Happy...........again why should we listen to you??? Usually you are a level headed person but now...........what have you done for the subie community?? You have helped but in the way that Turbo xs has?? No way. You guys are IDIOTS. Here is a company trying to make a living off of customer service and proven performance and you guys will come out here and actually say they are liars and try to hurt their business.

I have never, NEVER had respect for Al and now I have lost any I have had for Happy.

:monkey: :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:
I hope that many of you out there are smart enough to not listen to Al. I really can't believe that crap you posted above Al!! Really that was the lowest that you have gone. Just when you think you've seen it all from such a cry baby looser you surprise us again. Nathan has always been the cool headed one of the group.

Why again are you guys doubting Turbo XS??? They just did the dyno and tuning of the unichip. So why are you calling them on this???? Jealousy??? The two of you have made yourselves look much worse then the damage you might have thought you would do to turboxs.

I HOPE THAT ALL OF YOU ON HERE ARE SEEING WHAT IS GOING ON AND REMEMBER THIS ALWAYS!! :monkey:

I honestly don't know why Al hasn't been to i-club timeout yet. It's pretty obvious he can't play nice since about every thread he posts in descends into a flame war.

And since he seems to have all this money to throw away on not getting it right the first time, I'm not sure why he didn't buy and Audi, Mercedes, or BMW to butcher.

We all know the saying any idiot can go fast in a straight line.. well any idiot can throw a superior engine into a car and go faster too.

As for keeping this on topic.. nice results.. almost makes me wish I didn't just drop a small fortune for a set of volks.. almost :D

It's pretty sad that these kinds of milestones spawn such haters in our ranks. Instead of "Wow, that's great.", we offer "Liars! It can't be done".
My science background has naturally made me skeptical about all claims made here but I know that the only way to assure yourself of results is to gather the facts, review the experiment and try it yourself. This is what fuels progress. NOT name calling, flying BS flags right and left and general ill will toward each other.
Al, you've admittedly taken a different path which makes your results nearly impossible for us to compare our results to. I know on paper some of these recipes don't add up but the fact is, until you repeat the experiment, who are you to nay-say? Teague has given us their version of the mod list, they have no reason to lie to us and both TurboXS and Teague have excellent service track records. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I just think the name calling is a bit over the top.

Originally posted by lenyx

And since he seems to have all this money to throw away on not getting it right the first time, I'm not sure why he didn't buy and Audi, Mercedes, or BMW to butcher.


Don't say that!!! Then he will remind us all that he has had all of those cool cars.:rolleyes:

www.benzsport.com really classy people. If he had a benz and went there he would be kicked out in no time.

The fact that he is still here really gives I-club a bad name and gives all MY02 wrx owners a bad name. Please leave. :monkey: Or somebody here please escort him out of here. :mad:

I wish some of you would READ WHAT I'M SAYING.

I do NOT BELIEVE Turbo XS are lying, I believe they are RELYING on UNRELIABLE information.

I have also said that people SHOULD CHECK WHAT I'm saying, and make their own minds up.

Some of you guys are completely ignoring FUNDIMENTAL issues, and blindly choosing to believe a machine that relys on how the software is used, and how well the dyno is calibrated.

I am telling you that you need a certain amount of air, and fuel to produce a given power figure. I am also telling you that an engine can only consume a certain amount of air, based on it's capacity, boost, and rpm.

Forget the VF23 issue, in this case it's not relevant.

Our engine can consume a MAX of 420cfm at 5900rpm, based on 85% VE.

You need roughly 560cfm to produce 400bhp.

Turbo XS either do, or should know this. It is common tuning knowledge.

If the information, or equations I've openly POSTED are incorrect, then surely someone, if not Turbo XS, can correct me.

I have also asked Turbo XS for IPW information. So far they have totally inored my posts, and questions. They have neither agreed, or refuted the cfm equation, or infact anything I've said.

WHY ? I would think that they would be eager to qualify their results, and correct my errors !!!!

The worst thing that can happen to Turbo XS, is that they find their dyno "is" inaccurate, and they get it corrected. If this were to happen, and they post the information, IMO, this would only be good for their credibility, and maybe the other tuners would follow suit !!!!

Happy.

I may not be the brightest guy in the world, but at least I have the capacity to listen to others more knowledgable than myself, and learn.

Originally posted by Happy
I wish some of you would READ WHAT I'M SAYING.

I do NOT BELIEVE Turbo XS are lying, I believe they are RELYING on UNRELIABLE information.

I have also said that people SHOULD CHECK WHAT I'm saying, and make their own minds up.

Some of you guys are completely ignoring FUNDIMENTAL issues, and blindly choosing to believe a machine that relys on how the software is used, and how well the dyno is calibrated.

I am telling you that you need a certain amount of air, and fuel to produce a given power figure. I am also telling you that an engine can only consume a certain amount of air, based on it's capacity, boost, and rpm.

Forget the VF23 issue, in this case it's not relevant.

Our engine can consume a MAX of 420cfm at 5900rpm, based on 85% VE.

You need roughly 560cfm to produce 400bhp.

Turbo XS either do, or should know this. It is common tuning knowledge.

If the information, or equations I've openly POSTED are incorrect, then surely someone, if not Turbo XS, can correct me.

I have also asked Turbo XS for IPW information. So far they have totally inored my posts, and questions. They have neither agreed, or refuted the cfm equation, or infact anything I've said.

WHY ? I would think that they would be eager to qualify their results, and correct my errors !!!!

The worst thing that can happen to Turbo XS, is that they find their dyno "is" inaccurate, and they get it corrected. If this were to happen, and they post the information, IMO, this would only be good for their credibility, and maybe the other tuners would follow suit !!!!

Happy.

I may not be the brightest guy in the world, but at least I have the capacity to listen to others more knowledgable than myself, and learn.

That was a good response Happy. That did set you apart from what others are crying about. You made some good points. Let's wait and see what comes of those questions. :confused:

Very good points. :)

Originally posted by lenyx
I honestly don't know why Al hasn't been to i-club timeout yet. He has been to i-club timeout at least once... for this same type of whining.

Originally posted by Happy
Our engine can consume a MAX of 420cfm at 5900rpm, based on 85% VE.

You need roughly 560cfm to produce 400bhp.

Turbo XS either do, or should know this. It is common tuning knowledge.

If the information, or equations I've openly POSTED are incorrect, then surely someone, if not Turbo XS, can correct me.
I worked the numbers, and I also get 424cfm at 6K rpms @20psi (calculator (http://velocity.websitegalaxy.com/cfm.html) )

Just agreeing with the numbers.

Phil, can you comment on what you said about the VF23 vs VF30. You've always said that the 30 is superior in every way, and it usually makes more power from what I've seen, but most people say it 'feels' faster.

-C

Originally posted by AZScoobie


I think the public needs to know something. The above statement is a total and complete lie on nathans part. I have never called Turboxs. I have never spoken to Mark on the phone or asked him for technical advice. Not a single time have I called them.. I have never spoken to Nathan on the phone either.. I do not have a single Turboxs part on my car and I have never had anyone from Turboxs help me in anyway and I have not asked for there help.

Not sure why this was made up??? Maybe you are confusing me with someone else??? Please explain this to me as this is false information.


Clark,
I never said that you and I talked on the phone. I said that you've talked to mark on the phone.

At present, I have 3 pm's of a series in my inbox which I saved, that I would be happy to post if you like to confirm my story. Mark has 13 emails saved on his computer from you, funny thing is one of the references a conversation you and I had about wideband O2 tuning. Shame I have not saved all my PMs from you, just the most recent.

In any case we would be happy to search the phone records and find out the last few times that Clark Turner called the shop. We have 800 service, and very well could do it.

Further more you’re listed on mark's Unichip old back-order list which you could only get on with a phone call.

We will combine all the above referenced information into a word file and make it available if you continue to insist that you've never received any advice from us.

Bottom line: your saying I am posting a lie to these people, and as the defender of truth, justice and the American way you must intercede. I'll get back to you on the math of this situation, but let’s just say that plenty of 2.0L cars have made 400hp with only 20psi of boost.

-Nathan
www.turboxs.com

Some of you guys are just sheep, wanna buy a bridge :lol: .
I'm not disputing their numbers, but how they claim to have gotten them is just BS. Happy is even pointing out why.

Ken

Originally posted by alfriedesq
However - now that they have choosen to align themselves with Nathan - who from my every observation is a diffrent kind of person all together - just look at the clowns he used to hang with in NM before - those obnoxious idiots nickV and the other imbasicles - I say b irds of a fetaher flock together
Al, you're an idiot.

I've never met anyone with such a poor grasp of spelling and grammar.

Originally posted by nmyeti

I'll get back to you on the math of this situation, but let’s just say that plenty of 2.0L cars have made 400hp with only 20psi of boost.

-Nathan
www.turboxs.com

Nathan,

I'm really not certain how to comment on this statement.

It shows that you should really leave anything technically related to engine tuning to others at Turbo XS.

As an old saying goes,

"Before engaging mouth (or fingers :lol: make sure the brain is in gear".

Happy.

Al,
I'm amazed you are still bitching about everything. Secondly, no sane or intelligent person would call any of the 'Albuquerque' crew imbeciles (look, I can spell). Oh yeah Al, are you even one of the 50 fastest in the US right now? Face it, you'll never be the fastest.

Ive ordered parts from TXS, and purchased parts straight from Nathan. I've received nothing but the best service from TXS, and I still see them to be a model for performance companies to strive to, further, blaming your poor communication skills on anyone that haves fact to prove otherwise is foolish, and reckless. As for Nathan, he has done nothing but help me out with his vast expertise, and the guy gets further respect because I've heard him say that he doesn't know something, rather than BS.

Keep up the good work Nathan,
-Matt

Originally posted by TurboXS
AZScoobie said:

I am assuming that the "CT" at the end of your messages stands for Clark Turner. If it does not, than I apologize for the mistaken identity.

If it does, however, I guess you simply do not recall calling me last fall several times to discuss your WRX and to order a Unichip from me. You did not get the Unichip however, because, IIRC, you decided to wait for a Link. I also recall that this is what I was recommending that you do from the beginning since you wanted something that you could tune yourself (which obviously can't be done with the Unichip).

Clark, I own TurboXS. Neither me, nor my employees will lie to our customers. Not only is it bad business, it's simply not the way I want to run my business.

You used to run an aftermarket performance company. Go back and re-read your posts and put yourself in my position. You started this by attacking the integrity of my company. We are not going to sit around and let you do that with impunity.

I stand by everything that we have posted here.

Mark
TurboXS

You have me confused with someone else. I never ran a TurboXS unichip. I took one on trade from a guy but sold it on i_club right away. I do not run a Link either. I did have a link at one point but sold it off due to the problems it had.

The only contact I have ever had with you Mark is through a local guy that ran a turboxs unichip. His car could not even get into the 13's with stage 1. I suggested he pull the unichip out and bingo 13.6. He talked to you several times about the map and I offered to datalog his car as per your suggestion. I burned the map of the Super Rich AF and the low advance numbers and put it on CD. He was going to send it to you. I think he gave up as he sold the unichip off the next week.

One thing is clear.. I have never called you Mark and I have never spoken with you. You are thinking of someone else or you are just making this up in an attempt to make me look bad. I advise you to stop now as its getting to the point of slander on your part.

I was not attacking your company or you Mark. I was looking for answers as I believe the Hp numbers you are claiming are to high. That my opinion. I gave you guys an oportunity to change that and all I got was slander. I see that others are asking questions as well and those questions are not being answered. That speaks volumes.

Now leave me out of this. Its clear to me exactly what type of business you run and I will never do business with you or your company. I will not continue to go round with you and your aqusations.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree... Leave it at that


CT

Is it me, or do some of these guys need grammar and spelling lessons?

How can a VF23 flow enough air to make 335whp when it could barely flow the air need to make that HP at the Flywheel.

Answer, You mod the turbo and do, or you dont.

Nathan, Your funy bro. You who have talked bad about VF series turbos from the begining. Are now saying these turbos can do things you have conceeded they could not. What happened to your Garrett project? Tell us again why you started down that route. And simply stating that you have seen 2l motors making 400hp at 20psi is meaningless without saying what turbo now isnt it. What turbo was that pray tell? I hope it wasent a larger turbo because if if was then you've just made yourself look stupid now havent you.

Al is an arrogant a-s-s no doubt. But facts is facts guys. Dont let your dislike for him cloud your senses.

Ken

Originally posted by nmyeti


Clark,
I never said that you and I talked on the phone. I said that you've talked to mark on the phone.

At present, I have 3 pm's of a series in my inbox which I saved, that I would be happy to post if you like to confirm my story. Mark has 13 emails saved on his computer from you, funny thing is one of the references a conversation you and I had about wideband O2 tuning. Shame I have not saved all my PMs from you, just the most recent.

In any case we would be happy to search the phone records and find out the last few times that Clark Turner called the shop. We have 800 service, and very well could do it.

Further more you’re listed on mark's Unichip old back-order list which you could only get on with a phone call.

We will combine all the above referenced information into a word file and make it available if you continue to insist that you've never received any advice from us.

Bottom line: your saying I am posting a lie to these people, and as the defender of truth, justice and the American way you must intercede. I'll get back to you on the math of this situation, but let’s just say that plenty of 2.0L cars have made 400hp with only 20psi of boost.

-Nathan
www.turboxs.com


Nathan. This is a waste of my time. I have a call into you and a call into Mark. Both of you now have my cell number. I want to talk to both of you on the phone. I have never spoken with Mark in my life. I have PM'd you back when you did not work for Turboxs looking for some help. I confused you with someone else I guess. I have sent email to Phil and Mark in the past but to be honest neither of them returned my email as far as I can remember. Go ahead and waste time by pulling phone records. The only one you will see is the call I made to both of you this morning.

What I want to know is this: Are you using these emails as bait to avoid the questions I have asked? What about Happy? Why cant you guys answer the technical side of this. Everyone are doubters until proven otherwise. I am a Scientist by nature. Dyno charts may convince some people but they dont convince me as I have owned and ran a dyno for years. Certainly longer than you, Mark, or Phil. As a result of that experience and my understanding of the dyno these charts where produced on, these charts do not prove anything to me.

The numbers dont jive from a technical standpoint. Thats all I pointed out.

Leave the slander out of this and answer the real questions. While you guys think I have it out for you that is total rubish. I dont have anything against you or the company. I just wanted answers. I guess I coud have emailed the question to you guys but it probably would not have been answered. Its obvious that I am going to take alot of flack for my questions. So be it. I want to know the answer and if others fault me for that they can piss off.

CT

Originally posted by AZScoobie
You have me confused with someone else.

CT If you would just answer one question - Is your name Clark Turner?

I know it can be hard to understand what someone is trying to say when their post is riddled with spelling and grammar errors. But why post if all your going to do is talk sh-it about someones intelligence? Are you perfect?

What bearing would it have on the discussion at hand if he is Clark Turner or not?

Ken

I sure hate to post in something that has gotten so personal, but let's point out a few things.

Happy says you can only get 420cfm @ 5900 rpm, but how is it that Al was within only 5hp of this car? Albeit with a VF30, but at a similar psi IIRC. If we did the math on other cars with near this whp, would it add up? Maybe the VE is higher on Teague's car, or maybe there is another factor not being considered.

As far as the calculator in TypeC's post, depending on the parameters, you can get a few different numbers. Without knowing the equations used in that calculator (it may or may not take VE into account the way happy did or what about intercooler efficiency), it is still possible to see ~450cfm @ 6000rpm since Phil or someone earlier mentioned that they were running over 20 psi.

It is clear to me that if we apply to same math to other cars running in the 20 psi range (with similarly capable turbos) that we may see similar mathematical results that run counter to actual results. Maybe using Delta Dash to log a few runs would be an easy way to show what is happening.

TRS

Look, I've already said that even a 10% disparity would be acceptable, but even this would leave you WELL SHORT of 400bhp @ 5900rpm.

As a comparison: On our engine @ 5900rpm, 85%VE, you would have to run 32psi to get 400bhp, allowing some disparities for VE, etc'.

Don't forget the relevance of RPM.

Now run 20psi @ 8000rpm, and the engine consumes 570cfm. Find a turbo, and associated parts that can cope with that, and you have a potential 400bhp, for REAL.......

Happy.

Originally posted by supermarkus
It's pretty sad that these kinds of milestones spawn such haters in our ranks. Instead of "Wow, that's great.", we offer "Liars! It can't be done".
My science background has naturally made me skeptical about all claims made here but I know that the only way to assure yourself of results is to gather the facts, review the experiment and try it yourself. This is what fuels progress. NOT name calling, flying BS flags right and left and general ill will toward each other.
Al, you've admittedly taken a different path which makes your results nearly impossible for us to compare our results to. I know on paper some of these recipes don't add up but the fact is, until you repeat the experiment, who are you to nay-say? Teague has given us their version of the mod list, they have no reason to lie to us and both TurboXS and Teague have excellent service track records. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I just think the name calling is a bit over the top.

I already have tested the vf30 - vf22 - pe1820 and stock tubos extensively with numerous different combinations of mods and compared hundreds of hours of datalogs and dyno runs

I think i am speaking from experience when I say that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to make 335 wheel HP on street gas with a stock vf23 and stock block, stock head and stock cams on a 2002 wrx

It simply can NOT be done

Originally posted by DeliciouSpeed
How can a VF23 flow enough air to make 335whp when it could barely flow the air need to make that HP at the Flywheel.

Answer, You mod the turbo and do, or you dont.

Nathan, Your funy bro. You who have talked bad about VF series turbos from the begining. Are now saying these turbos can do things you have conceeded they could not. What happened to your Garrett project? Tell us again why you started down that route. And simply stating that you have seen 2l motors making 400hp at 20psi is meaningless without saying what turbo now isnt it. What turbo was that pray tell? I hope it wasent a larger turbo because if if was then you've just made yourself look stupid now havent you.

Al is an arrogant a-s-s no doubt. But facts is facts guys. Dont let your dislike for him cloud your senses.

Ken Before he was bashing vf30 and vf23 as well as other IHI based units

Now he is working for a company selling them

Originally posted by blkwrxwgn


Happy...........again why should we listen to you??? Usually you are a level headed person but now...........what have you done for the subie community?? You have helped but in the way that Turbo xs has?? No way. You guys are IDIOTS. Here is a company trying to make a living off of customer service and proven performance and you guys will come out here and actually say they are liars and try to hurt their business. :monkey:

Happy is a expert of Subaru engine performance - who to the best of my info is just an amature hobiest who shares info like I do - for free - with no financial compensation

While guys like Happy have been kindly sharing cutting edge tech info for years . . . what HAVE YOU done ?? All your good for is insults and slow cars - - - I repeat - what have YOU done special with YOUR car >>?

As for turboxs and the rest of the WRX cartel - i'm gald they are all making a healthy profit and a good business on these cars but lets not confuse a for profit vendor who is promoting its business with HP and 1.4 mile number claims with a end user who is digesting the results

As far as I remember - in the USA everyone is entited to his / her own opinion and its protected by the 1st ammendment - - even a primative tool like blkwagon here

If there are lemmings on this board who will believe anything a vendor says then let them keep on buying from those vendors

Maybe if you buy a MRT fmic/ fancy radiator, hks headers and vf23 with unichip you'll also have 335 hp at the wheels on pump gas ??? Somehow I doubt it !

Originally posted by roybfr
Al since you and Happy are so good with physics and say that it is not possible with the stock block and VF23, give us good reasons why they would lie about it. B/c they wanted to show the capabilities of the unichip - promote thier product and knowledge

REclaim the record which I took from them with my 330 hp figure

And - becuase for years the auto industry has promoted products and cars with dyno HP claims

Todd,
Al is within 5hp of this using:
1)A PE1820 which is much larger than a VF23
2)An AVCS engine,variable cam timing. It has a more lummpy cams.
3)Lighter Forged internals and more Compression

Sorry, it just dosent add up. Even if they didnt touch the motor, the turbo just wont support that HP figure. And does their reason for taking the motor out sound like something any reasonable person would do? I doubt they could even make that HP by modding the turbo alone.

Ken

Originally posted by Happy


Nathan,

I'm really not certain how to comment on this statement.

It shows that you should really leave anything technically related to engine tuning to others at Turbo XS.

As an old saying goes,

"Before engaging mouth (or fingers :lol: make sure the brain is in gear".

Happy.

Happy,
It's pretty simple... I am in the middle of dry-walling an office, and don't have time to write out the post that it would take to show you the assumptions you make which are wrong.

Your telling me that a 2.0L motor can not make 400hp if given 20psi of boost.

You don't know the a/f ratio we were running, you don't know the injector duty cycle we were at, and you have no idea of what the real BSFC or VE of the EJ20... Your really just guessing.

Back to hanging dry wall. I'll sit down at the computer later after we finish.


-Nathan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Teague's Auto
[B]First off I am the one (Teague's Auto) who built the car not Turbo XS so if anyone has any build questions ask me.

Second we pulled the motor because the car was getting a Unorthodox Light weight flywheel and AP racing clutch. Now last I checked you either have to pull the motor or the tranny and since the motor was getting injectors, headers, up-pipe and inlet hose it just makes the install go faster on the motor stand. The motor has no cams no block work never pulled off the timing belt covers to look at the belt.

Third if the VF30 is such a good turbo why are my customers in Japan, Australia and the UK pulling it off for the VF23?

Fourth We used Shiv's up-pipe on the car because that was the only one I could get my hands on at the time and we had been waiting on parts long enough.

In the end it comes down to one thing. If you have the money and want the same numbers bring your car to me and I will do the same install I did on Jason's car and you can watch the whole install to make sure I don't lay my hands on the block, heads or cams. Then take your car to Turbo XS and have them dyno it.

This is just the first car like this we are building more so get ready to have more to talk about and if you have been tuning Subaru's for as long as we have since (1976) then you can give me a call and tell me how to do my job.

Dale Teague (Teague's Auto)

^^Thats good enough for me, ( I was waiting to see if Dale would chime in ). At first I too was skeptical with the dyno results simply because other people with similar setups have not obtained similar results. But I will say that I have yet to see another dyno run utilizing these exact same mods, and even still their are variations in tuner techniques that must be considered here. Therefore until we have a comparison using the " exact " parts on another car that was also tuned at Turbo XS we really have no way of knowing if these numbers are or aren't obtainable, so put your calculators to rest for a while. As for now I see no reason why we should not give them the benefit of the doubt, afterall we are talking about Dale ( Teagues Auto ) and Mark ( Turbo XS ) whom happen to both have exceptional reputations. Remember your innocent until proven guilty, these people deserve better treatment.
Tom
P.S. The best thing that has come out of this thread is that the C&R radiator works very well, I'm gettin one.:devil:

:lol: Take em to the water if you want, but you can't make them drink. This is why I rarely make these sorts of posts here. True, they are innocent until proven guilty. From where I'm standing though their trying to make a dollar out of .15 cents :lol:

Nathan, you should take that act on the road man. Could make some serious money making America laugh.

I still havent seen a complete list of mods. What injectors are you using on this miracle motor?

I wonder what the turbo engineer from APS would say about this.
They wont make any money with their new turbos if VF series turbos can perform miracles.

OBTW Tom, Turbo Evolution has a PWR alum radiator shipped for like $470 As opposed to the $700 C&R unit. I belive the additional cooling may be good for a few degrees more safe advance.

Ken

Originally posted by nmyeti


Your telling me that a 2.0L motor can not make 400hp if given 20psi of boost.


-Nathan With the right turbo, fuel and cams it could make 1,500 HP easy at 13k rpms

But it cant make over 400 on pump gas with a stock wrx and fv23

Originally posted by DeliciouSpeed
Todd,
Al is within 5hp of this using:
1)A PE1820 which is much larger than a VF23
2)An AVCS engine,variable cam timing. It has a more lummpy cams.
3)Lighter Forged internals and more Compression

Sorry, it just dosent add up. Even if they didnt touch the motor, the turbo just wont support that HP figure. And does their reason for taking the motor out sound like something any reasonable person would do? I doubt they could even make that HP by modding the turbo alone.

Ken Actualy the same compression - and as far as i know the rods and cran actually weight a tad more

But in any event 8,000 rpm sure helps out that powerband

STI compression is 8.5:1
It would amaze the heck out of me if the rods were heavier. But they are factory pieces so who knows.

Ken

Originally posted by nmyeti


Happy,
It's pretty simple... I am in the middle of dry-walling an office, and don't have time to write out the post that it would take to show you the assumptions you make which are wrong.

Your telling me that a 2.0L motor can not make 400hp if given 20psi of boost.

You don't know the a/f ratio we were running, you don't know the injector duty cycle we were at, and you have no idea of what the real BSFC or VE of the EJ20... Your really just guessing.

Back to hanging dry wall. I'll sit down at the computer later after we finish.


-Nathan

Nathan,

This is what I have asked for, and I await your reply with bated breath :rolleyes:

Please try different VE %'s, but as for BSFC, the only thing I could come up with, is " Bull ***** figures conversion" :lol: sorry, that's a "bad" JOKE..........

Happy.

Originally posted by DeliciouSpeed
OBTW Tom, Turbo Evolution has a PWR alum radiator shipped for like $470 As opposed to the $700 C&R unit. I belive the additional cooling may be good for a few degrees more safe advance.

Ken [/B]
Thanks Ken, I have been researching radiators for a while now and the C&R unit offered by Teagues goes for $640.00 and comes with cooling fans which the PWR does not. The C&R fans are reported to function 40% better than stock and cost somewhere aroung $170.00, so I think the price is acceptable to me anyways. Many people just don't consider the effects of cooling an engine as much as they think about how big of a turbo they can slap on. A cooler engine will always make more power and increase reliability, a good combination to have..
Tom..:)

Well, according to the formula Happy used, the turbo involved is irrelevant. Compression in the STi is 8.5:1 opposed to the 8:1 in the WRX--this is not factored into the equation either (as far as I can tell).
The only factors that I see involved are:

-----from Happy's post -----------
So, using the same equation I posted on the "APS turbo" thread,

121.7ci (1994cc) x 5900rpm x .5 x 85%ve div' 1728 = 176cfm (n/a)

x 2.38PR (20psi) = 419cfm.

419cfm is the maximum amount of air you can force into our engine at 20psi, based on a VE of 85%. 85% +/- 5% is the recognised peak VE of a turbo engine. This will vary over the RPM range, but sinse this equation is normally used for turbo sizing, it's conservative.

----------------------------------

Which are:
displacement (d)
engine speed (ES)
VE (VE)
pressure ratio (PR)

So, if this equation IS the limiting factor, the details about Al's run (or anyone else's) do not matter, and we're back to the same problem, which is:

420 cfm *.714 hp/cfm = 300 hp @ 5900 rpm

So no matter what turbo or injectors or intercooler or whatever you are running, the EJ20 cannot make more than 300 hp at 20psi!

Sounds reasonable, but it doesn't jive with a lot of dyno plots I've seen on here. I'm just trying to learn here...kinda wish I had taken some classes on motor design or performance. All this tells me is that there are some underlying assumptions to this HP/airflow equation don't hold for for these conditions.

TRS

Originally posted by ToddStratton
Well, according to the formula Happy used, the turbo involved is irrelevant. Compression in the STi is 8.5:1 opposed to the 8:1 in the WRX--this is not factored into the equation either (as far as I can tell).
The only factors that I see involved are:

-----from Happy's post -----------
So, using the same equation I posted on the "APS turbo" thread,

121.7ci (1994cc) x 5900rpm x .5 x 85%ve div' 1728 = 176cfm (n/a)

x 2.38PR (20psi) = 419cfm.

419cfm is the maximum amount of air you can force into our engine at 20psi, based on a VE of 85%. 85% +/- 5% is the recognised peak VE of a turbo engine. This will vary over the RPM range, but sinse this equation is normally used for turbo sizing, it's conservative.

----------------------------------

Which are:
displacement (d)
engine speed (ES)
VE (VE)
pressure ratio (PR)

So, if this equation IS the limiting factor, the details about Al's run (or anyone else's) do not matter, and we're back to the same problem, which is:

420 cfm *.714 hp/cfm = 300 hp @ 5900 rpm

So no matter what turbo or injectors or intercooler or whatever you are running, the EJ20 cannot make more than 300 hp at 20psi!

Sounds reasonable, but it doesn't jive with a lot of dyno plots I've seen on here. I'm just trying to learn here...kinda wish I had taken some classes on motor design or performance. All this tells me is that there are some underlying assumptions to this HP/airflow equation don't hold for for these conditions.

TRS

If what you say is true, Happy's calculations are off not because I can disprove them, but rather because they don't jive with common sense. I think he is just doing this as an exercise to get free info from the board. I think his calcs don't jive so he wants someone who understands them to show him why they look like B/S.

It's kind of funny how everyone with book and a little understanding thinks they're the expert. I appreciate the calculations but I'm sure you have overlooked something since your logic does not jive. You will be proven wrong soon I'm sure.

Personally and as I've stated before, I prefer tuning based on reality rather than theory. When I see someone who has the dyno results that I want I consider taking their path and try to figure out what made them sucessful. I don't have alot of money to throw at mods so I'm moving slowly, analyzing others results and contributing where possible. It seems that throwing parts together and thinking they will make you go fast is a good recipe for failure.... Just look at Al.

edit: <Here's the spot where I called Al a Monkey but I'm removing it. View his quote below if it's worth it to you.>

-Jonathan

I very much like the idea of a dyno "pull-off" between the highly modified east coast cars.

Get someone impartial to run T-X's dyno, and away we go! Whee! I think that by the end of the day, Al, Phil and Mark would all be holding hands. :D

Originally posted by ToddStratton
Well, according to the formula Happy used, the turbo involved is irrelevant. Compression in the STi is 8.5:1 opposed to the 8:1 in the WRX--this is not factored into the equation either (as far as I can tell).
The only factors that I see involved are:

-----from Happy's post -----------
So, using the same equation I posted on the "APS turbo" thread,

121.7ci (1994cc) x 5900rpm x .5 x 85%ve div' 1728 = 176cfm (n/a)

x 2.38PR (20psi) = 419cfm.

419cfm is the maximum amount of air you can force into our engine at 20psi, based on a VE of 85%. 85% +/- 5% is the recognised peak VE of a turbo engine. This will vary over the RPM range, but sinse this equation is normally used for turbo sizing, it's conservative.

----------------------------------

Which are:
displacement (d)
engine speed (ES)
VE (VE)
pressure ratio (PR)

So, if this equation IS the limiting factor, the details about Al's run (or anyone else's) do not matter, and we're back to the same problem, which is:

420 cfm *.714 hp/cfm = 300 hp @ 5900 rpm

So no matter what turbo or injectors or intercooler or whatever you are running, the EJ20 cannot make more than 300 hp at 20psi! TRS

no, you can't jump to that conclusion. This is assuming your power peak is at or before 5900rpms. You an make power at 7K (with ~495 cfm) or higher, which would give you more than enough power. BTW, MANY, MANY people are making MORE than 300whp (not bhp) with 20lbs or less.

My calculator uses the same assumptions happy used (85% VE). You can do View->source to see the sourse code and formulas. At any rate, this is ball park, since the VE is not exactly 85%, but is a ballpark.

-C

My equation was based on the information supplied by Turbo XS. This is why I used 5900rpm. I also pointed out that 20psi @ 8000rpm for example, would give a very different cfm result.

If you want to work out an engines cfm at a different rpm, just substitute the 5900 in the equation for whatever rpm you want to check.

There are other considerations, such as temp, etc', but a +/- 10% allowance will be pretty close.

This information would then be compared to various turbo compressor maps, so that the correct turbo can be matched to the engine capacity, target power, and boost.

The equation would be used to find the cfm across the rpm range, and plotted onto the compressor map. If it's within the efficiency of the turbo, fine, if not, then you'd try another turbo compressor map untill a suitable one was found.

This is the reason compressor maps are supplied for turbo's.

People can draw their own conclusions as to my motives, and I'll leave the name calling to others.

Happy.

My last statement should have read:

...the EJ20 cannot make more than 300 hp @ 5900 rpm with 20 psi.

Based on what TypeC and Happy have said, is that correct?

Anyway, based on the plots I remember seeing, most tuned/modded WRXs seem to peak at around 6000 rpm, so the fact that the math suggests they can pass more air at higher RPM makes sense, but in reality most don't seem to convert that into additional HP. Guess I'll go hunting for dyno plots to see where most of them peak.

Even so, with a 10% allowance that would be close to the numbers they actually got. I'm not questioning your (Happy's) motives, I 'm just searching for some understanding. Actually, your posts are historically pretty unbiased as far as I can tell and usually seem to add your input when you have something useful to say.

TRS

(edit) Okay, looking back at what TypeC just said, paraphrased: many people are making more than 300 whp on 20 psi or less.

What is their peak hp at what rpm? (one example will do)

Thanks for focusing on the technical side guys. If we can keep Al out of the discussion I think we have a chance of keeping it there.

I just get so frustrated with Al's brainless posts. I must need counseling... *sniff*. I just bottled it up for so long without flaming him... *sniff* and I guess I just exploded. :devil:

-Jonathan

Originally posted by mynew02


If what you say is true, Happy's calculations are off not because I can disprove them, but rather because they don't jive with common sense. I think he is just doing this as an exercise to get free info from the board. I think his calcs don't jive so he wants someone who understands them to show him why they look like B/S.

It's kind of funny how everyone with book and a little understanding thinks they're the expert. I appreciate the calculations but I'm sure you have overlooked something since your logic does not jive. You will be proven wrong soon I'm sure.

Personally and as I've stated before, I prefer tuning based on reality rather than theory. When I see someone who has the dyno results that I want I consider taking their path and try to figure out what made them sucessful. I don't have alot of money to throw at mods so I'm moving slowly, analyzing others results and contributing where possible. It seems that throwing parts together and thinking they will make you go fast is a good recipe for failure.... Just look at Al.

I have never seen anyone have less success per dollar spent than Al. He is truly a sad individual and the funny thing is the shear amount of time that he spends ripping others positive results apart. You never see him say anything helpful, rather you will find him posting on threads where others have better results than his own OR he will post about his own results and include a bunch of B/S about how great a tuner he is. It's funny how he's burned all of his bridges with almost every respectable tuner (Shiv, Turbo XS, etc...) and now he's stuck with Pruven. Then again I'm sure Pruven will only deal with him for so long as the idiot is attacking the Unichip solution which is a part they sell. Well when all the doors are closed to him and there are no more dyno's for him to mount we shall see what kind of tuner he really is. Although that will be about a week before his motor blows sky high and makes the announcment, "I have decided that WRX's suck as cars. I've just bought a '69 Chevelle." Yea that would carry that lard a little faster down the road wouldn't it?

Personally if I was TurboXS I would not reply to Al and I would not give Happy the satisfaction of figuring out why his equation is wrong. It's funny to watch Al feed off Happy's calcs like he even has a clue. I've never seen posts from a more stupid individual in my life than Al and his homegrown tuning and poor results based on mods is the proof. Delta Dash? Al wouldn't even know how to read it. He can't even type how can he comprehend timing and A/F. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when he took apart his car. Must have be funny watching that dumb monkey with his fat a$$ trying to get his motor out. I bet that interior that you didn't need to remove squeaks like crazy now doesn't it Al? Stupid idiot...

-Jonathan

P.S. And with that I hope to get this thread closed down because it's going nowhere...

Man - thats some funny stuff man!

Your right - I am lost! My car is miserable and ready to fall apart - I spent lots of $$ and now all I have to show for it is a . . . .

Fully functional GDB 2001 JDM spec STI VII drivetrain that I use as a daily driver and that runs to perfection

One day soon maybe they'll bring the new age STI over to the states and maybe you'll get a test drive in one . . . if the dealer lets you - maybe then you can experience the amazing machine that I am enjoying on a daily basis . . . of course even the STI can't match the upgreaded performance - 100 extra HP - the upgraded prodrive breaks - the cusco suspension and assorted other goodies I've added to my car along the way

Anyway - I don't care what you think about me or my car - all that matters to me is that I have 330 dyno jet proven hp at the wheels and you dont

So say what you want - talk is cheap - do something with your car; make it fast and then lets see what you got

edit:

he's not worth it.

Man this is all pretty sad!!!

Why not just agree to disagree, and concentrate on something a little more productive?

Or at the least, stop bashing people.

THis is like the special olympics no matter who wins they are all retarded

Gents,

This farcical thread is solely based upon the premise that the quoted output of the dyno actually means something.

From my post in another thread.......


"They are tuning tools only, not calibrated measuring instruments. They don't have to give an accurate reading, just a consistent one. Every time I see some one post "my car made XXhp" I have to laugh - they just don't get it! Might as well say you made XX bananas - it means as just as much. "

Cheers,
SKC

PS - tifosi77 - that is the most piss funny and appropriate comment I have read on this board. Made this whole sad thread worthwhile!

The Vf23 will NEVER make 400hp, more like 340 crank power. As for the Hot 4's shootout mag, I actually have dynoed with the car that made the most power on that day and just beat it by 2 kw at the wheel's. Ring Tony Rigoli's or V&E and tell them, being the most prominent wrx tuner's in oz.....they'll laugh there arses off. BTW: the fastest VF23 car in Oz ran 11.9 at 111mph on 22psi with a dogbox(which made a couple of tenth's up). that's in a 1260kg 98 model wrx. No.2 car had a stock box and ran 12.1 at 111mph. The most mph I've ever seen is 113mph. This is all in the earlier model's(1260kg)

i can't believe i just spent an hour reading this thread.. my head hurts :(

Originally posted by Aus wrx
The Vf23 will NEVER make 400hp, more like 340 crank power. As for the Hot 4's shootout mag, I actually have dynoed with the car that made the most power on that day and just beat it by 2 kw at the wheel's. Ring Tony Rigoli's or V&E and tell them, being the most prominent wrx tuner's in oz.....they'll laugh there arses off. BTW: the fastest VF23 car in Oz ran 11.9 at 111mph on 22psi with a dogbox(which made a couple of tenth's up). that's in a 1260kg 98 model wrx. No.2 car had a stock box and ran 12.1 at 111mph. The most mph I've ever seen is 113mph. This is all in the earlier model's(1260kg)

Just curious if these machines had front mounts and/or headers?

-Jonathan

THis is like the special olympics no matter who wins they are all retarded


http://www.manifestation.org/~ill/images/funny/arguing%20on%20the%20internet%20retard.jpg

I wonder what that car would do with a good water/air cooler instead of the FMIC? If cooling is so important, why don't we all just build water to air coolers like the really fast MR2 toyotas?

Originally posted by Greenracer6
I wonder what that car would do with a good water/air cooler instead of the FMIC? If cooling is so important, why don't we all just build water to air coolers like the really fast MR2 toyotas?

Water to Air.. Is not what you realy want on the street.. They get heat soaked..

at the strip they are great because you can throw ice in them..
Other down side is they add alot of weight to the front end

How long would you be driving before it got soaked? If the resevour was up where the battery is and move the battery to the trunk to offset the weight.

The resevour couldn't get any hotter than the washer fluid area used for water sprayer kits... And they cool the intercooler ALOT!!

hm

Originally posted by Greenracer6
How long would you be driving before it got soaked? If the resevour was up where the battery is and move the battery to the trunk to offset the weight.

The resevour couldn't get any hotter than the washer fluid area used for water sprayer kits... And they cool the intercooler ALOT!!

Water Spray Kits.. Do what they say.. spay water.. and as it evaps it gets rid of heat...


An Air/water is a closed system that recirculates the water..
When it gets heat socked you lose performance and increase the chances of detonation...

This thread has devoloved from a simple post about a new RWX on teh rollers to a complete waste of time.

Either keep the attitudes and jibes in check, or don't bother posting.

As for these "mysterious" dyno numbers, I for one don't know, nor care, if the "theory" states it cannot be done.....theory and practice are two vastly different things, especially when we are using math formulas with theorized numbers.

Bottom line here guys....get e couple members down (unbiased observers),a dn jsut run the slip...in the modern day "I didn't do it so it cannot be done" internet car tuning world, the only thing that satisfies is a timeslip.

Keep it nice guys, or do your trash talking someplace else

I'd like to apply for the "unofficial" I-club bouncer......taking applications? I will however go down fighting for dale and mark b/c (as the #'s show) they have done a helluva lot more for the new WRX community than 99% of the jerkoffs who bash them or their methods...any issues...take it up with me...I'm a big boy I can handle myself

This is the post from the APS turbo engineer. Worked for Garrett 8 years, and has 30 I belive experience.

Guys,

Sorry it has been a few days since I have been to this thread, However Trey is out here on one of his “this is what is needed for the U.S. market/specification vehicle” trips and I just have not had a free moment. Incidentally, he says to tell you all that we have figured out that 1.0 U.S. horsepower equals 0.6 Aussie H.P.!! Sort of the inverse of the currency!! As you guys obviously have a significantly higher oxygen content in your air than we do, perhaps we had better wait until Trey power runs our turbos on your side of the Pacific!! OK, now seriously guys, let me have a go at sorting out some of the issues here.

1. Rear wheel H.P.
It is almost impossible to accurately extrapolate flywheel H.P. from any type of chassis dynamometer.

2. However there are some fixed parameters: -

2.1) Compressor flow.
A Turbo compressor is simply a pump. Any pump has a finite maximum capacity.

2.2) STI Turbos
The VF series of IHI turbos, as installed on the STI’s, have a maximum capacity ranging from 30lbs/min to 34lbs/min depending on the model. No amount of wishful thinking (or strange chassis dynos) can change that. This equates to 300-340 flywheel horsepower.

2.3) VF22 Turbo
The 34lbs/min figure is for the VF22 only. Apart from the most flow, it is also the most durable over 18psi boost. Of course, as everyone knows, it is also the least responsive. Run over compressor redline it will actually make close to 360 flywheel H.P., just not for very long!!

2.4) Injectors
Likewise fuel injectors have a horsepower limit, for a given air/fuel ratio and differential fuel pressure across the injector orifice. The stock 01 injector at 12:1 A/F ratio (Really too lean for safe street operation on U.S. pump fuel octane) will supply 350 flywheel H.P. At 11:1 A/F ratio, 320 flywheel H.P. The STI injector will supply 450 flywheel H.P. at 12:1 A/F ratio.

3. H.P. needed for the ¼ mile performance.
Someone asked how much power was required for a 3,300lb vehicle to run a 109 mph trap speed. The answer is 330 flywheel H.P.

4. One of the many things you U.S. WRX owners need to come to grips with, it that ultimately the turbo compressor is the final arbiter of power. Have a 600 H.P. engine and run a 300 H.P. turbo compressor and all you will have is 300 H.P. at the flywheel.

In summary, stop bench/keyboard racing. The ¼ mile trap speed is what counts. Always weigh your car on accurate scales, such as at a trucking depot or landfill. The following table will give you some flywheel power numbers, at 3,300 lb; -


95 mph 220 H.P.
100 mph 255 H.P.
105 mph 295 H.P.
110 mph 340 H.P.
115 mph 390 H.P.

If you have any further questions on our Turbos (The original topic of this thread), please do not hesitate to post again.

Have Fun
Dave
A.P.S.

I really hope this helps some of you guys who are having difficuties keeping in touch with reality.

Ken

Just a quick second source confirmation of your HP required to run a give MPH in the 1/4 mile.

You didn't state the source of your numbers but they match with numbers published by Chrysler Corporation in a 1984 Direct Connection hand book on chassis setup for drag racing.

I would vote that the 1/4 mile makes a very reliable and unbiased dyno that everyone has access to for a very nominal fee.

Larry

95 mph 220 H.P.
100 mph 255 H.P.
105 mph 295 H.P.
110 mph 340 H.P.
115 mph 390 H.P.

Damn the Rigoli's woulda needed a s**tload of power to make a 143.5mph trap speed. :eek:

Good thing their car isn't 3300lb, otherwise I would extraoplate the required power to be ~800HP. :D

I wouldnt look for a response from him here. As he states, he would like to answer questions relating to the topic of the thread he posted in...The APS turbo thread. You might try posting there.

So quiet here now.

Ken

http://www.stangnet.com/calcs/index.html

They have a hp from mph calc.. and it seems to follw the above listed table

Originally posted by DeliciouSpeed
This is the post from the APS turbo engineer. Worked for Garrett 8 years, and has 30 I belive experience.



I really hope this helps some of you guys who are having difficuties keeping in touch with reality.

Ken I agree 100% with each and everything that APS guiy had to say - and waht he said further confirms that the claim of 335 wheel HP in this thread is totally impossible

Al,

I'm just curious to know, how do you think all this information effects "your" dyno figures ? How realistic do you think your 330bhp ATW's is ?

Happy.

Originally posted by Happy
Al,

I'm just curious to know, how do you think all this information effects "your" dyno figures ? How realistic do you think your 330bhp ATW's is ?

Happy.

I think if he read and understood that quote he would realize that it had as much to do with disproving his own claims as anything else. :rolleyes:

For some reason I'm still not buying these limitations. Why does this new info seem to go against all American dyno figures? Are this guys quoted crank hp limitations for the turbos listed in Aus or American hp? I see that he lists the conversion at the top.

-Jonathan

I think you'll find that the "Aus/US" hp thing is a JOKE.

I think you'll find that Dave, and Trey Cobb were joking, because they both know that some of the figures being quoted in the US are unrealistic.

It seems that regarless of WHO questions these figures, or how experienced, and knowledgable they are, some choose to ignore them.

Personally, I would never post information, unless I can qualify it.

It is TOTALLY LEGITIMATE to question ANYONE who makes a claim on these forums. Especially those with a commercial interest, who are either directly, or indirectly using those claims to promote their company, or products.

Vendors have the responsibility to make sure their claims are accurate, and that they can qualify them.

So far, whilst Nathan/TXS has stated that my information is flawed, and that I don't have all the details, (which I have asked for on a number of occasions) he has yet to post the qualifying informaton, as he said he would.

If I'm incorrect, I would have thought TXS would have jumped at the chance to correct me, and qualify their claims.

Shiv posted on the APS turbo thread, that he has used two different dyno software packages, with a 30bhp ATW's difference (iirc). I'm sure that at the time the manufacturer supplied the first software, they would have insisted that it was accurate, so how come the later software gives 30bhp more ?.

Happy.

I dont think it invalidates Als numbers at all. He is using a much larger turbo. This is a big part of why we jumped on their claim. No way to make that hp ATW with a VF23, no way. Al is running a PE1820.

Funny how quiet it is in here now don't you all think?

Ken

Originally posted by DeliciouSpeed
I dont think it invalidates Als numbers at all. He is using a much larger turbo. This is a big part of why we jumped on their claim. No way to make that hp ATW with a VF23, no way. Al is running a PE1820.

Funny how quiet it is in here now don't you all think?

Ken

Ok... for some reason I though Al was running a VF-30. My mistake.

Happy.. more to the point what do you speculate is actually changed on the TXS dyno from all of the other runs in the past (that seem resonably rated) when both the tcf (1.00) and the ratio (3.800) are the same on the screenshot? What I'm saying is that my dyno numbers were right inline with others plots from many other dynos of people who had similar mods with their WRX's.

Or are you saying that the VF-23 was modified? How about you qualify your accusations.

-Jonathan

this thread is great! its like a soap opera..

so far theres a car that has some aftermarket parts bolted onto it by a company thats been bolting on parts for awhile. This car seems to make more power than physics would deem possible according to a few folks.

Then theres a vendor who threatens someone with counted emails, private messages and phone logs to prove 'something', not sure what yet!

There theres the wonderful Al who jabs and pokes everyones buttons (cept mine, I guess I read into things differently than most people...might be my college education, or the fact that I know hes just doing it to get a reaction).

and finally theres happy, who is posting equations that appear to make sense to the masses, but his cries for explainations are falling on deaf ears of the vendor who posted the numbers to begin with.

I love the i-club :lol:

From another thread (http://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=191741) that also talks about the same issue :

Originally posted by APS
Guys,

Sorry it has been a few days since I have been to this thread, However Trey is out here on one of his “this is what is needed for the U.S. market/specification vehicle” trips and I just have not had a free moment. Incidentally, he says to tell you all that we have figured out that 1.0 U.S. horsepower equals 0.6 Aussie H.P.!! Sort of the inverse of the currency!! As you guys obviously have a significantly higher oxygen content in your air than we do, perhaps we had better wait until Trey power runs our turbos on your side of the Pacific!! OK, now seriously guys, let me have a go at sorting out some of the issues here.

1. Rear wheel H.P.
It is almost impossible to accurately extrapolate flywheel H.P. from any type of chassis dynamometer.

2. However there are some fixed parameters: -

2.1) Compressor flow.
A Turbo compressor is simply a pump. Any pump has a finite maximum capacity.

2.2) STI Turbos
The VF series of IHI turbos, as installed on the STI’s, have a maximum capacity ranging from 30lbs/min to 34lbs/min depending on the model. No amount of wishful thinking (or strange chassis dynos) can change that. This equates to 300-340 flywheel horsepower.

2.3) VF22 Turbo
The 34lbs/min figure is for the VF22 only. Apart from the most flow, it is also the most durable over 18psi boost. Of course, as everyone knows, it is also the least responsive. Run over compressor redline it will actually make close to 360 flywheel H.P., just not for very long!!

2.4) Injectors
Likewise fuel injectors have a horsepower limit, for a given air/fuel ratio and differential fuel pressure across the injector orifice. The stock 01 injector at 12:1 A/F ratio (Really too lean for safe street operation on U.S. pump fuel octane) will supply 350 flywheel H.P. At 11:1 A/F ratio, 320 flywheel H.P. The STI injector will supply 450 flywheel H.P. at 12:1 A/F ratio.

3. H.P. needed for the ¼ mile performance.
Someone asked how much power was required for a 3,300lb vehicle to run a 109 mph trap speed. The answer is 330 flywheel H.P.

4. One of the many things you U.S. WRX owners need to come to grips with, it that ultimately the turbo compressor is the final arbiter of power. Have a 600 H.P. engine and run a 300 H.P. turbo compressor and all you will have is 300 H.P. at the flywheel.

In summary, stop bench/keyboard racing. The ¼ mile trap speed is what counts. Always weigh your car on accurate scales, such as at a trucking depot or landfill. The following table will give you some flywheel power numbers, at 3,300 lb; -


95 mph 220 H.P.
100 mph 255 H.P.
105 mph 295 H.P.
110 mph 340 H.P.
115 mph 390 H.P.

If you have any further questions on our Turbos (The original topic of this thread), please do not hesitate to post again.

Have Fun
Dave
A.P.S.

Carlos H.

Happy,

I appreciate the fact that you believe we are not lying about the results we achieved with this WRX. Just as I believe you were not lying when you posted this:
Happy posted:13psi on a 2.5lt is still going to give you pretty good power. I know it's going to tail off at the top end, but 16psi @ 7000rpm gave me 507bhp ATF.

However, plug your own numbers into the formula you posted (which I agree is a legitimate estimating formula for flow and turbo sizing) and you will see that, according to the formula, you also can not be making the horsepower that you claim.

Displacement (cc) = 2500
Displacement (ci) = 152.5
VE = 85%
RPM = 7000
Boost = 16
Pressure Ratio = 2.1
CFM = 548.3
Theoretical HP/cfm = 0.7
Theoretical HP @85% VE = 392 hp ATF
Stated HP = 507hp ATF

Even using a 100%VE the theoretical max HP is 461 hp ATW. This is still well shy of the measured 507 hp ATW.

According to the formula, you simply can not make 507 hp ATF at 16psi on a 2.5L engine. However, your engine dyno numbers show that you did. So which number do we believe? Personally, I would be inclined to go with your engine dyno numbers, rather than the calculation. However, you can believe whichever you want.

To answer your original question, this WRX's IDC was 100% at 5900rpm. Let's try some other math based on this new info. As I'm sure you are aware, the generally accepted formula for required injector size for a given horsepower is:
Required Injector Size = (Horsepower x Brake Specific Fuel Consumption)/(# Injectors x Injector Duty Cycle)

Since we know the approximate injector flow rate, # of injectors, IDC and fuel pressure, we can calculate fuel flow rate and derive horsepower from that. Here is the math:

IIRC, STis are rated at ~520cc/min. The two sets I've seen flow tested showed an average of 565 cc/min and 535 cc/min. But let's use 520cc/min as an estimate.
520 cc/min / 10.5 = 49.5 lb/hr
Fuel flow = 49.5 lb/hr x 100% IDC X 4 = 198 lb/hr
This is the flow rate at 43.5psi.
However, the WRX has a rising rate fuel pressure regulator and with the addition of a larger fuel pump, fuel pressure was ~65psi.
To calculate the increased fuel flow due to the increased fuel pressure the formula is:
New Flow Rate = (Square Root (New Pressure/Old Pressure))x Old Flow Rate
New Flow Rate = (SqRt (65/43.5))x198 = 242 lb/hr

Now that you know Fuel Flow Rate, you can estimate the horsepower that that fuel flow would support. We'll use a generally accepted BSFC of 0.6 for a turbocharged engine:

Required Injector Size = (Horsepower x Brake Specific Fuel Consumption)/(# Injectors x Injector Duty Cycle)
Or
Horsepower = (Injector Size x # Inj x IDC)/BSFC
Or
HP = Fuel Flow Rate / BSFC = 242/.6 = 403hp

Granted, BSFC is a "plug figure" estimate of how much fuel you are using per horsepower per hour. However, this is simply the corollary "plug figure" to the estimate of how much hp you make per cfm of airflow in you calculation.

I am under no illusion that my dyno is spot on accurate and everyone else's is way off. However, I have stated and will continue to state that a stock WRX makes, on average, 165whp on our dyno. This WRX made 335whp on the same dyno. That's a 170whp gain over stock. Add that 170hp delta to 227chp and you get 397whp on this WRX. Is that accurate? Probably not, but I'd say it's pretty close. In any case, we have one fast WRX and a very happy customer.

Frankly, we have already spent too much time trying to justify these results. We are done trying to do that. Believe the results or don't, that is your choice and your right. We'll just continue trying to provide good product and good service to our customers.


Mark, Nathan, Phil and the rest of the crew at TurboXS

Jonathan,

Firstly I have been questioning some of the "claimed" dyno results, ever since I first started posting on i-club.

I'm not a dyno expert, but then I don't have to be, to know that you need a certain amount of air, and fuel, at a given boost pressure, to produce a given power output.

I've already mentioned Shiv's findings, using two different software versions. He, and others are far better qualified to answer dyno related questions.

Turbo sizing is another issue. I have consistantly said that some of the claimed power figures are not possible from the turbo's used, but maybe now that someone far more knowledgable, and respected than I has said it, it will be believed.

In respect of the car concerned, and the figures quoted, I don't care if it was a VF23, a hybrid VF23, or a 600bhp Garrett GT turbo. Our engines can't produce 400bhp @ 5900rpm at 20psi.

I have posted the explanation to my statement, if you don't understand it, I will try better to explain it. If you choose to ignore information used by tuners, and engine builders the world over, I can't help you.

Ask yourself why someone, anyone, hasn't posted a VIABLE arguement against what I've said ?

Why hasn't TXS replied to my posts, to qualify their claims.

Nathan posted TWO DAYS ago that when he finished "dry walling" he would post, showing me how, and why I was incorrect.

I'M STILL WAITING.

Happy.

They just did.

"Incidentally, he says to tell you all that we have figured out that 1.0 U.S. horsepower equals 0.6 Aussie H.P.!! Sort of the inverse of the currency!!"


now this makes sense...so on average our cars are getting around 58hp of drivetrain lose if you take the aussie average of 97.

thats alittle closer to what i figured

and if you take happys previously quoted 507bhp * .6 thats 304bhp. Duno if that really makes much of a difference tho!

edit: Ok i did that completely backwards :lol: sorry!

97aussie whp drivetrain loss would be 155bhp us hp loss according to what trey said...thats nowhere close to being accurate! ohwell...its prolly just me thinking about this wrong.

Originally posted by TurboXS
IIRC, STis are rated at ~520cc/min. The two sets I've seen flow tested showed an average of 565 cc/min and 535 cc/min. But let's use 520cc/min as an estimate.
520 cc/min / 10.5 = 49.5 lb/hr
Fuel flow = 49.5 lb/hr x 100% IDC X 4 = 198 lb/hr
This is the flow rate at 43.5psi.
However, the WRX has a rising rate fuel pressure regulator and with the addition of a larger fuel pump, fuel pressure was ~65psi.
To calculate the increased fuel flow due to the increased fuel pressure the formula is:
New Flow Rate = (Square Root (New Pressure/Old Pressure))x Old Flow Rate
New Flow Rate = (SqRt (65/43.5))x198 = 242 lb/hr

Now that you know Fuel Flow Rate, you can estimate the horsepower that that fuel flow would support. We'll use a generally accepted BSFC of 0.6 for a turbocharged engine:

Required Injector Size = (Horsepower x Brake Specific Fuel Consumption)/(# Injectors x Injector Duty Cycle)
Or
Horsepower = (Injector Size x # Inj x IDC)/BSFC
Or
HP = Fuel Flow Rate / BSFC = 242/.6 = 403hp
It's true that fuel line pressure rises with boost. If the max boost was 20.5 PSI as Phil reported earlier, then max fuel line pressure would have been about 43.5+20.5=64 PSI. Obviously a fuel pump would have to work harder to pump gas from the fuel tank into 64 PSI. However, it wouldn't flow any additional fuel. That's because the pressure difference at each injector's nozzle opening is still 43.5 PSI. So if we take the fuel flow that was calculated for 43.5 PSI (198 lb/hr) and plug it into the final formula, we get
HP = Fuel Flow Rate / BSFC = 198/.6 = 330hp

Originally posted by Happy
Jonathan,

Firstly I have been questioning some of the "claimed" dyno results, ever since I first started posting on i-club.

I'm not a dyno expert, but then I don't have to be, to know that you need a certain amount of air, and fuel, at a given boost pressure, to produce a given power output.

I've already mentioned Shiv's findings, using two different software versions. He, and others are far better qualified to answer dyno related questions.

Turbo sizing is another issue. I have consistantly said that some of the claimed power figures are not possible from the turbo's used, but maybe now that someone far more knowledgable, and respected than I has said it, it will be believed.

In respect of the car concerned, and the figures quoted, I don't care if it was a VF23, a hybrid VF23, or a 600bhp Garrett GT turbo. Our engines can't produce 400bhp @ 5900rpm at 20psi.

I have posted the explanation to my statement, if you don't understand it, I will try better to explain it. If you choose to ignore information used by tuners, and engine builders the world over, I can't help you.

Ask yourself why someone, anyone, hasn't posted a VIABLE arguement against what I've said ?

Why hasn't TXS replied to my posts, to qualify their claims.

Nathan posted TWO DAYS ago that when he finished "dry walling" he would post, showing me how, and why I was incorrect.

I'M STILL WAITING.

Happy.

Can I ask you quite simply if they were to put a stock or near stock car on the dyno and get near the same baseline numbers as their original baseline would that prove the dyno to be fairly accurate or do you propose that as the hp increases the numbers are being further skewed?

I understand that you have calculations that say this isn't possible but I can equally question your calculations (in saying that there may be some aspect that you are overlooking or not accounting for) just as you can question their dyno numbers.

Based on my personal experience on their dyno compared with others results from different dyno's I belive it to be correct or close enough to rely on.

-Jonathan

Originally posted by Happy
Al,

I'm just curious to know, how do you think all this information effects "your" dyno figures ? How realistic do you think your 330bhp ATW's is ?

Happy. Very realistic for several reasons:

#1 its on a dyno jet which is NOT subject to manipulation and adjustment - its just two constant rollers which are the same in all dyno jets

#2 - mine was on 117 octane leaded race fuel which is needed to run the pressure levels and lean a.f ratios needed for that kind of HP - - - the best I can do on street gas is 308 hp

#3 - I was using a pe1820 - which is much more potent than the vf23 - - although still not ideal - it has a much bigger punch on top

#4 - I have a 8,000 rpm red line and my peak power was made over 6,000 - - not at the impossible 5,800 which is claimed

Originally posted by Jon [in CT]
It's true that fuel line pressure rises with boost. If the max boost was 20.5 PSI as Phil reported earlier, then max fuel line pressure would have been about 43.5+20.5=64 PSI. Obviously a fuel pump would have to work harder to pump gas from the fuel tank into 64 PSI. However, it wouldn't flow any additional fuel. That's because the pressure difference at each injector's nozzle opening is still 43.5 PSI. So if we take the fuel flow that was calculated for 43.5 PSI (198 lb/hr) and plug it into the final formula, we get
HP = Fuel Flow Rate / BSFC = 198/.6 = 330hp

Are you positive the OE WRX FMU is 1:1 like you suggest? (just wondering)

Roy, You think that answered the question? Did you read the whole post? He talks about fuel flow, but forgets to mention anything turbo or engine related. After all, the reason for this debate is because we dont think they could make that hp with a stock motor and a VF23. Has nothing to do with fueling. We haveing even been told for sure what injectors are being used. I assume STI VIIs since that what Mark mentions.

Al, you ran leaded fuel in there...your sick. Why not just run 110 unleaded. How much more could you have seen with the 117? Plus I think that stuff gunks up the inside of your motor. Especially the valve seats I sure I was told.

Ken

BTW - turboxs raises a very good point about the injectors

My duty cycle calculations indicate that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to run the sti injectors at 335 wheel hp on street gas a/f ratios - they would be over 100% duty cycles

Originally posted by DeliciouSpeed
Roy, You think that answered the question? Did you read the whole post? He talks about fuel flow, but forgets to mention anything turbo or engine related. After all, the reason for this debate is because we dont think they could make that hp with a stock motor and a VF23. Has nothing to do with fueling. We haveing even been told for sure what injectors are being used. I assume STI VIIs since that what Mark mentions.

Al, you ran leaded fuel in there...your sick. Why not just run 110 unleaded. How much more could you have seen with the 117? Plus I think that stuff gunks up the inside of your motor. Especially the valve seats I sure I was told.

Ken The leaded fuel is very good at preventing detonation - I can run very lean mixtures at the limits of crazy high boost - - the reserach with the C16 is what lets me know that the 335 claim on street gas with vf23 is total BS

Originally posted by TypeC
Are you positive the OE WRX FMU is 1:1 like you suggest? (just wondering) Yes. From the Service Manual description of the Fuel Pressure Regulator:Thus, the difference between the fuel injection pressure and the intake manifold vacuum is kept at a constant level of 294 kPa (3.00 kgf/cm², 43.0 psi) to precisely control the amount of fuel.Maintaining a constant pressure difference between the intake manifold and the fuel line means that the injectors always flow at the same rate. If the rate changed depending on boost level, the ECU's injector pulse width calculations would be far more difficult than they already are.

All I can really say on this is IF it was possible to make 335 hp on street gas with the unichip / vf23 and stock block - on street gas - then i sure wouldn't be hunting for a garret upgrade turbo right now and investing another 2 - 3,000 into my car for the new upipe - wastegate and downpipe

Originally posted by alfriedesq
I agree with this asssertion 100% !! The laws of physics can't be bent

As far as Mark at turboxs gpes - he is a very very honest and good person who can be trusted in every manner. I dealt with him before and he imprssed me in every regard - the same can be said for Phil - who is also tops

However - now that they have choosen to align themselves with Nathan - who from my every observation is a diffrent kind of person all together - just look at the clowns he used to hang with in NM before - those obnoxious idiots nickV and the other imbasicles - I say b irds of a fetaher flock together

Mark always was smart enough to stay above the fray here in these stupid debates

Nathan wants to jump right in an sling the BS - all the while trying to protray the nice guy facade

- look at nathans tactics - - sneaky - manipultaor - out smart them behind the back actions then he goes to the smile in thier face; try to look like a very nice guy kind of person

Although I respect Mark and Phil greatly - - and would trust them 100% - I feel nathan is capable of anything

This dyno claim they made speaks volumes to anyone who knows anything about subaru engines and the laws of physics

I say it again - it can NOT be done with a vf23 - pump gas and a stock heads and cams

OMG Al! :rolleyes:

Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com

Originally posted by Jon [in CT]
Yes. From the Service Manual description of the Fuel Pressure Regulator:Maintaining a constant pressure difference between the intake manifold and the fuel line means that the injectors always flow at the same rate. If the rate changed depending on boost level, the ECU's injector pulse width calculations would be far more difficult than they already are.

cool, but since we know that the car gets richer with boost, does the ecu just up the IPW to compensate for boost?

Originally posted by alfriedesq
All I can really say on this is IF it was possible to make 335 hp on street gas with the unichip / vf23 and stock block - on street gas - then i sure wouldn't be hunting for a garret upgrade turbo right now and investing another 2 - 3,000 into my car for the new upipe - wastegate and downpipe

I sure hope that figure includes the price of a ball-bearing GT-series turbo, otherwise you're getting it up the arse. :lol: :lol:

BTW, there ARE GT-series turbos on IHI housings out now...

Originally posted by alfriedesq
Very realistic for several reasons:

#1 its on a dyno jet which is NOT subject to manipulation and adjustment - its just two constant rollers which are the same in all dyno jets
everyone knows the dynojet reads higher than the mustang dyno. I don't know about the dynopack though. So, you can't say one is more right. It's all about using it tell show change.

Originally posted by alfriedesq
#4 - I have a 8,000 rpm red line and my peak power was made over 6,000 - - not at the impossible 5,800 which is claimed

Then -->

Originally posted by motoxphil
Al,

We have never seen any of your recent dyno charts, so can you please post them so we can nit pick them to death. For all we know your lying about your hp numbers.........

Al, why don't you come down to TurboXS and we'll let you run your car on our dyno. If you beat it without nitrous, the dyno time is free.
Let's settle this once and for all.

Phil
TurboXS

can you post your chart Al. No one has seen any of these numbers of yours nor a VII Dyno (on this board). Also, are you accepting his challenge? Not responding is backing down, in which case you have no room to talk after that.

-C

Originally posted by TypeC

everyone knows the dynojet reads higher than the mustang dyno. I don't know about the dynopack though. So, you can't say one is more right. It's all about using it tell show change.



Then -->



can you post your chart Al. No one has seen any of these numbers of yours nor a VII Dyno (on this board). Also, are you accepting his challenge? Not responding is backing down, in which case you have no room to talk after that.

-C

ABSOLUTELY!

;)

Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com

Bit slow to see this.............

Firstly, thanks for finally replying.

1) my engine:

I totally agree, the numbers don't add up at 7000rpm @ 16psi.

Whilst all my other numbers seem to work out, this doesn't, and I DON'T BELIEVE that 507bhp is correct. It CAN'T BE.

I'm not certain what happened, but I've already said that my engine is going back on another dyno, so that I can get figures up to 8000rpm.

I will happily post the results.

2) CT has got there first, but there's something called "differential pressure", and I just can't believe you posted this information.

This is BASIC tuning knowledge.

3) I'm impressed that you tried to use my own figures to discount my arguement, but since I don't actually believe them myself, based on the equation, it doesn't help.

I will believe the laws of physics over a machine anyday.

There are plenty of well repected guys on i-club who for "Political" reasons are staying out of this one. Shame, because maybe then people would believe how flawed the figures are.

Happy.

I cant say I blame them though Hap.
Nevermind...

Ken

Just one thing to note... Take Dynopacks out of the equation, and the road dyno has REPEATABLY been used for YEARS as a home tuning tool that when compared to LOTS of dyno's in the states can be within +- 5 HP of that car on a dyno... Since it's all about physics and math... Look at these....

http://www.potomacbass.com/otherimages/02062001-15psiVS17psi.jpg
http://www.potomacbass.com/otherimages/tqhp.GIF

It IS a compelling arguement...

Read my Road Dyno thread for more details...

EDIT: look at the right road dyno plot, BTW....

Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com

Al,

TypeC is right-I think you should take up Phil's offer for dyno time down at Turbo XS. If you beat their hp its free!

Then it will be apples to apples and you will finally have to keep your mouth shut :)

Greg

So is the fact that it made 170 hp over stock flawed, or just that fact that it made 335 impossible. And if it is since some of you seem to posses the knowledge to say that it is not right, you should be able to give an estimate of what the correct hp numbers are or should be with this set up.

I wonder if we take Happy’s formula and start to apply it on other Dyno plots if we will see that they are all flawed. Are there any other posted plots with mods similar to this, the one earlier in the post is for a Stage 1 set up, far from what this car has. I know that others have posted numbers with a VF23 but I don't recall any have all or close to all (less 1 or 2) of these mods.

Also weren’t there discussion as to the effects of a lightened pulley on dyno numbers, and that for some reason it fools the dyno. This car has both a lightened flywheel and crank pulley both of which should reduce parasitic drive train loss, but will also help the car rev up faster.

My guess is that none of the skeptics will be satisfied with what was posted until a 1/4 mile run is done and the numbers posted. So if the car posts a trap speed of 115 will those skeptics concede their fight as according to APS 390fwp is what is required to get the 3300 pound car going that fast. Or will they nit pick at the accuracy of the track, that there was gear ratio changes, things were taken out of the car to reduce its weight, physics says it isn't possible etc, etc.

In the end I think that through Phil's numbers at the track it has illustrated that TurboXS may know some things about tuning this car that others have not figured out yet, plus his car is short the FMIC, radiator, lighted pulley, headers, and lightened flywheel of this set up.

Troy

I never said he didnt make the HP. I said he didn't make that HP with a stock motor and a VF23. No way. Don't care what Radiator you run :p . Even if he runs a 10sec pass, it will only highlight the fact that mods were done that they have not disclosed. That is the point, how many times do we have to say it?

Ken

Originally posted by 8Complex


I sure hope that figure includes the price of a ball-bearing GT-series turbo, otherwise you're getting it up the arse. :lol: :lol:

BTW, there ARE GT-series turbos on IHI housings out now... By the time you add up the cost of the turbo and flanges / extrenale wategate and labor it adds up

Originally posted by DeliciouSpeed
I never said he didnt make the HP. I said he didn't make that HP with a stock motor and a VF23. No way. Don't care what Radiator you run :p . Even if he runs a 10sec pass, it will only highlight the fact that mods were done that they have not disclosed. That is the point, how many times do we have to say it?

Ken

On one side you have AZScoobie, Happy, DeliciouSpeed (and Al backing 'em up) who for different reasons feel that the numbers that TurboXS have posted for the VF-23 and stock block are impossible. However the arguments and calculations they present dis-prove their own findings with an assortment of dyno's in the US and elsewhere.

On the other side you have TurboXS with a dyno that has been used by more people on this board than any other single dyno. It has been used by more people than any other dyno for WRX's in the country (my speculation.) It has run baselined WRX's that have shown it to be conservative (in comparison to others frequently used.) I have used the TurboXS dyno myself and found it to be in line with others who have similar mods. The point is there is history with this dyno...

Now.. should people believe that TurboXS (who have been very honest with everyone who has dealt with them in the past) should be required to in some way be held to prove that their results are correct by plugging in numbers to someone elses equations?

First off TurboXS is tuning this car for someone else. That person should be the one you are posting to not TurboXS who only tuned the car using their dyno and was not responsible for a single mod nor knows factually what is on the car. I don't think TurboXS owes you people anything and I'm hoping they lay back and allow you guys to continue to prove yourselves and calculations wrong at other dyno's across the country.

REALISM over THEORISM.

-Jonathan

Very well said johnathan. :)

Ok,

This was never intended to be anything other than questioning the accuracy of dyno's.

It was NEVER meant to be questioning the honesty, and tuning abilities of Turbo XS, or to cause any possible harm to their business.

However, I have no control over the contents of the replys they make.

People are going to have to make up their own minds on this one, because if it continues, well let's just say that I don't want go down that route.

Happy.

Jonathan is dead right. so lets put this one to bed. Thanks Michael

Type C: yes, that is exactly how the ecu controls fuel....it uses a 1:1 fpr (-----all you would ever want to run unless you are converting a naturally aspirated car to forced induction).

"All" the ecu does is then lengthen the IPS so the injectors are staying on at a greater rate than they are staying off....in other words tehy spray for longer periods of time per spray event.

Al - it is totally possible to have over 100% duty cycle..I have posted how several times.

the STi injectors (at either 550 or 565 cc) can flow enough fuel to support this claimed HP...it is the turbo that is in question. I find it a bit hard to beleive at first glance too, but I also know better than the rest of the benchtop experts here to state it is impossible.

As I stated above to the owner/TXS and Dakle: just run a slip and put this to bed. Make a pass at 115, and show that it can be done...there is less arguing with a timeslip (some people always will eb troublemakers, and never admit they are wrong)

I have read and fully understand what dave at APS is saying, and I agree that the dyno sheet, etc. is all a load of crap. It is a "mine is bigger" contest that is largely worthless. However, while there is truth to the equations, and they serve as a good basis for a logical starting point, I can say that my VF22 equipped car turned 118 in the quarter mile, on a car that weighed 3050 lbs on the scales. Is it impossible? Nope....the car did it back to back to back (117-118 mph). Is it likely given my combo? Nope - surprised the hell out of me. This was a V4 motor, V3 RA tranny, unported VF22, 3 inch turb back exhaust, 550 injectors, Supra fuel pump, HKS EVCIV, LINK ecu, stock STi exhaust manifold, 17 inch wheels wearin P Zero tires, and reground cams.....mot a big list of mods at all...less can be more.

I have no reason to doubt TXS or Dale....they are standup guys.

At the same time, all it means to me is another dyno plot...to which I say, big deal....show me a slip and then it seals it in my own eyes. However, to call someone's ethics or business practices into question over such dribble is a such of waste of time in the big picture...don't you guys have jobs or families to tend to? :)

as for these formulas justifying others dyno plots, I don't see that it does one way or another.

DynoJet's are far from infallable as well...there are LOTS of ways to cheat on a dyno. I am not suggesting anyone has done it, just stating that it can be done, and is done regularly.


















adam
Z-1

I just wanted to chime in and say that al is a total tool and a blubbering idiot. If you read through this thread and ignore his dumb posts then it is actually interesting. Once you throw his stupid bs in here it becomes a waste of time.

He is like a cancer to i-club. Someone put him in TO so he can't post for a little while....jeeeez!

-Tom

Originally posted by Z1 Performance
I can say that my VF22 equipped car turned 118 in the quarter mile, on a car that weighed 3050 lbs on the scales. Is it impossible? Nope....the car did it back to back to back (117-118 mph). Is it likely given my combo? Nope - surprised the hell out of me. This was a V4 motor, V3 RA tranny, unported VF22, 3 inch turb back exhaust, 550 injectors, Supra fuel pump, HKS EVCIV, LINK ecu, stock STi exhaust manifold, 17 inch wheels wearin P Zero tires, and reground cams.....mot a big list of mods at all...less can be more.

Adam, is that weight with or without driver?

Originally posted by Z1 Performance
\
As I stated above to the owner/TXS and Dakle: just run a slip and put this to bed. Make a pass at 115, and show that it can be done...there is less arguing with a timeslip (some people always will eb troublemakers, and never admit they are wrong)



adam
Z-1 The only was to resolve this would be like at NASCAR - or other organized motorports such as ralleys - - (where we all know the honor system is not very effective in making everyone honest) - - - take the run and then tear down the engine for tech inspection

In this case - as has been pointed out above - a real fast timeslip would only confirm that something else is behind the numbers being claimed

I have believed the dyno number all along

What is being lied about os the mods on the car

Originally posted by alfriedesq
The only was to resolve this would be like at NASCAR - or other organized motorports such as ralleys - - (where we all know the honor system is not very effective in making everyone honest) - - - take the run and then tear down the engine for tech inspection

In this case - as has been pointed out above - a real fast timeslip would only confirm that something else is behind the numbers being claimed

I have believed the dyno number all along

What is being lied about os the mods on the car

still waiting on your dyno sheet.....

Originally posted by TypeC


still waiting on your dyno sheet..... I'll have to look around for it - hopefully I can find it - or maybe the guys at www.pruvenperformance.com can post it - I know they keep a database of all the dyno runs they do

It any event its academic anyway as i just ordered my garret turbo today so I am expecting to be throwing down some much higher numbers in the near future

Originally posted by alfriedesq
I'll have to look around for it - hopefully I can find it :rolleyes:

I'll have to look around for it - hopefully I can find it


I know if I had a dyno run of 330hp I'd have the damn sheet in duplicate...not just "maybe" laying around somewhere

some people always will eb troublemakers, and never admit they are wrong

Hmm, who could Adam be talking about?? :D

Isn`t it funny that the drag strip doesn`t lie, but Al with his ~330whp has never run over 110mph? Interesting.



Bill

Originally posted by Bighurt1



I know if I had a dyno run of 330hp I'd have the damn sheet in duplicate...not just "maybe" laying around somewhere Well - it don't mean nothing to me . . . not very memorable . . . 330 is a joke - its NOTHING especially when you compre it to what DSM 2.0 litre 4 wheel drive cars are doing on turbos that cost a fraction of what these WEAK ihi playtoys are doing

I want a 360 hp slip - thats what I will need to get the non NOS 11.99 115 mph run am looking forward to


So rather than beat my head against the wall wearing out my clutch and breaking my 6 spd tranny I just am taking a break from the drag strip while I plan my next stage of attack

Just today I finally decided on a garret turbo - going to go the distance with a external wastegate and new upipe / down pipe combo - once I get that sucker installed then I will be able to explorte the outerlimits of the sti injectors and 2.0 litre sti motor

Don't worry - there will be more dyno sheets and 1/4 mile timesheets to come in the not too distant future !

Originally posted by TypeC

everyone knows the dynojet reads higher than the mustang dyno. I don't know about the dynopack though. So, you can't say one is more right. It's all about using it tell show change.



Then -->



can you post your chart Al. No one has seen any of these numbers of yours nor a VII Dyno (on this board). Also, are you accepting his challenge? Not responding is backing down, in which case you have no room to talk after that.

-C Its a nice invite - but with a little 8 month old baby at home it don't look like I'll get down to maryland anytime soon

If they want to come up here to www.pruvenperformance.com I will happily pay for their dyno time and I am ready to challange anyone anytime - (why not?)

However, very soon the only subarus I will be comparing will be the stroked 2.2 l garret turbo ones !

Without out adding another useless post to this already too long thread.......

Correct me if I am wrong, but Happys formula has a variable for air, displacement, VE, RPM.

Happy is saying you can't disprove phsyics. No problem.

But you can disprove an inaccurate use of them.

First, to make fire you need oxygen (usually) and fuel.

An engine uses air+fuel under presure plus a spark.

I don't believe that anyone will argue with me that 20psi of air at 72 degrees F will have a considerable amount more oxygen than at 75 degrees F.

Further more, I don't believe anyone would argue with me that different geographic locations are of course going to exist in an environment where the air is composed of a diffferent ratios of oxygen than other locations.

What I am getting at is that the formula that Happy is using fails to include a variable for oxygen content. I haven't done the math, nor found the most appropriate formula. It would include variables for elevation, barometric pressure, temperature and dew point.

I know it might seem hard to believe that this factor would have such a pronounced affect on engine output. But consider the effects of elevation. Everyone likes to include their 1/4 mile times with a note of elevation.

Why? Well yeah the air is thinner, but what that means, is that the ratios of gasses in the air change/decrease, and in this case oxygen.

So what we should be focusing on in this thread (maybe lets make another one, this one is to long) is not who is lying. Thats stupid and pointless.

If they are lying prove it. Don't add evidence to mount a case against them. Compile it then bring it on. Its way more efficient.

We should discuss why their is such a large difference between an engine with an actual measured horsepower taken at the wheels and a formula that is based on the "laws of physics"

:(

Thanks
Aaron

ps Happy you might not want to defend an argument with science unless you understand and are defending the right argument. I don't wana sound like a d1ck but in your threads its kinda annoying cause at first I wanted to take your side and think that TXS and guy I have met with several times and admired greatly were scheming all of us (but then again its my simple mind that wanted to believe you)

Originally posted by SPeeDSiN
Without out adding another useless post to this already too long thread.......

Correct me if I am wrong, but Happys formula has a variable for air, displacement, VE, RPM.

Happy is saying you can't disprove phsyics. No problem.

But you can disprove an inaccurate use of them.

First, to make fire you need oxygen (usually) and fuel.

An engine uses air+fuel under presure plus a spark.

I don't believe that anyone will argue with me that 20psi of air at 72 degrees F will have a considerable amount more oxygen than at 75 degrees F.

Further more, I don't believe anyone would argue with me that different geographic locations are of course going to exist in an environment where the air is composed of a diffferent ratios of oxygen than other locations.

What I am getting at is that the formula that Happy is using fails to include a variable for oxygen content. I haven't done the math, nor found the most appropriate formula. It would include variables for elevation, barometric pressure, temperature and dew point.

I know it might seem hard to believe that this factor would have such a pronounced affect on engine output. But consider the effects of elevation. Everyone likes to include their 1/4 mile times with a note of elevation.

Why? Well yeah the air is thinner, but what that means, is that the ratios of gasses in the air change/decrease, and in this case oxygen.

So what we should be focusing on in this thread (maybe lets make another one, this one is to long) is not who is lying. Thats stupid and pointless.

If they are lying prove it. Don't add evidence to mount a case against them. Compile it then bring it on. Its way more efficient.

We should discuss why their is such a large difference between an engine with an actual measured horsepower taken at the wheels and a formula that is based on the "laws of physics"

:(

Thanks
Aaron

ps Happy you might not want to defend an argument with science unless you understand and are defending the right argument. I don't wana sound like a d1ck but in your threads its kinda annoying cause at first I wanted to take your side and think that TXS and guy I have met with several times and admired greatly were scheming all of us (but then again its my simple mind that wanted to believe you)

All those who believe that car had a stock block and vf23 with unichip and fancy radiator are prob lining up to buy the same parts so they also can have a 335 hp car with a few bolt on mods

Myself - i dont believe the vf23 can do it so I'll pass

Let the educated consumer be the best judge of what they want to use on their car

Originally posted by SPeeDSiN
Without out adding another useless post to this already too long thread.......

Correct me if I am wrong, but Happys formula has a variable for air, displacement, VE, RPM.

Happy is saying you can't disprove phsyics. No problem.

But you can disprove an inaccurate use of them.

First, to make fire you need oxygen (usually) and fuel.

An engine uses air+fuel under presure plus a spark.

I don't believe that anyone will argue with me that 20psi of air at 72 degrees F will have a considerable amount more oxygen than at 75 degrees F.

Further more, I don't believe anyone would argue with me that different geographic locations are of course going to exist in an environment where the air is composed of a diffferent ratios of oxygen than other locations.

What I am getting at is that the formula that Happy is using fails to include a variable for oxygen content. I haven't done the math, nor found the most appropriate formula. It would include variables for elevation, barometric pressure, temperature and dew point.

I know it might seem hard to believe that this factor would have such a pronounced affect on engine output. But consider the effects of elevation. Everyone likes to include their 1/4 mile times with a note of elevation.

Why? Well yeah the air is thinner, but what that means, is that the ratios of gasses in the air change/decrease, and in this case oxygen.

So what we should be focusing on in this thread (maybe lets make another one, this one is to long) is not who is lying. Thats stupid and pointless.

If they are lying prove it. Don't add evidence to mount a case against them. Compile it then bring it on. Its way more efficient.

We should discuss why their is such a large difference between an engine with an actual measured horsepower taken at the wheels and a formula that is based on the "laws of physics"

:(

Thanks
Aaron

ps Happy you might not want to defend an argument with science unless you understand and are defending the right argument. I don't wana sound like a d1ck but in your threads its kinda annoying cause at first I wanted to take your side and think that TXS and guy I have met with several times and admired greatly were scheming all of us (but then again its my simple mind that wanted to believe you)

Interesting... I just though of a cheap mod I may try. I'm planting a bush in my intercooler! hmmm.... not a bad idea. :)

Seriously though... your right, the burden of proof is not on TurboXS.

-Jonathan

All those who believe that car had a stock block and vf23 with unichip and fancy radiator are prob lining up to buy the same parts so they also can have a 335 hp car with a few bolt on mods

for the sake of another endless thread, I have to ask for the relevancy of your statement. Maybe it could go into the Uneducated Assumptions about the car Dale built thread.

Interesting... I just though of a cheap mod I may try. I'm planting a bush in my intercooler! hmmm.... not a bad idea.

doh, i hate to make it even longer, but I saw TNN's (?) interview of the crew chief/engineer (whatever) of the army's drag car when they were racing in TN. He said they had to richen up the mixture because the amount of oxygen in the air at that track was way higher than normal tracks because of the surrounding trees.

I guess that is relevant:confused:

Originally posted by SPeeDSiN


doh, i hate to make it even longer, but I saw TNN's (?) interview of the crew chief/engineer (whatever) of the army's drag car when they were racing in TN. He said they had to richen up the mixture because the amount of oxygen in the air at that track was way higher than normal tracks because of the surrounding trees.

I guess that is relevant:confused:

Sounds good... I'm thinking of Kentucky Blugrass and potting soil in my stock airbox. Screw the K&N :)

Originally posted by alfriedesq


All those who believe that car had a stock block and vf23 with unichip and fancy radiator are prob lining up to buy the same parts so they also can have a 335 hp car with a few bolt on mods

Myself - i dont believe the vf23 can do it so I'll pass

Let the educated consumer be the best judge of what they want to use on their car

Awesome man! You oughta' write a book: "How to Build Credibility and Save People Money" - by Al Fredricka

You're an expert at both.

You seem really good at this whole thing. Ever think of starting your own business? Al's Expert WRX Tuning... LOL!

P.S. I'm thinking that this thread is long enough that no-one will wade this deep into this crap so x-cuse my OT posts :) We ought to post a message here *actually I'll do it*... \/

-Jonathan

If you've read this far you probably watch Infomercials too! :)

Originally posted by mynew02
If you've read this far you probably watch Infomercials too! :) Who needs Jerry Springer when you've got Al!

Originally posted by mynew02
If you've read this far you probably watch Infomercials too! :)

Cool, is Al selling his tuning skills?

Mods any chance we can lock this and move on???
Maybe try a technical discussion as opposed to "ya what he said" crap.


Bill

Originally posted by alfriedesq
However, very soon the only subarus I will be comparing will be the stroked 2.2 l garret turbo ones !

You mean a 2.2L with a Garrett with a dyno like this?

If I gave you guys the specs on this car, youd all be shocked.

Its nearly all stock save for an upgraded turbo, intercooler, fuel pump and larger injectors and its a stock 2.2L 16V. With some larger injectors and possibly a slightly larger compressor, this car will top 500 whp.

With 60 less whp than the dyno above, it pulled 11.4@127 mph with zero traction.

Originally posted by 4sfed 4
If I gave you guys the specs on this car, youd all be shocked.

Its nearly all stock save for an upgraded turbo, intercooler, fuel pump and larger injectors and its a stock 2.2L 16V. With some larger injectors and possibly a slightly larger compressor, this car will top 500 whp.

With 60 less whp than the dyno above, it pulled 11.4@127 mph with zero traction.

I assume it is a US car. A Subaru? What year?

How come this is the first we have heard of it?

Did it do an actual pass or was this a g-tech type of run?

Not doubting you just looking for more info. :)

Bill

Originally posted by gossamer_monster


I assume it is a US car. A Subaru? What year?

How come this is the first we have heard of it?

Did it do an actual pass or was this a g-tech type of run?

Not doubting you just looking for more info. :)

Bill No - its prob a VW

Originally posted by alfriedesq
Its a nice invite - but with a little 8 month old baby at home it don't look like I'll get down to maryland anytime soon



This is great......HE WIGGLES....HE SQUIRMS....but ya just can't pin him down. :D

P.S. I'm thinking that this thread is long enough that no-one will wade this deep into this crap so x-cuse my OT posts We ought to post a message here *actually I'll do it*... \/

That sux. I make my first worthwhile post in the year that I have been here. My luck: Its at the end of a 207+ post thread.

Well since we are off topic...
maybe that is an H22A although I don't see a defined Vtec jump.
Hmm whatever 2.2s are there?
hmm
hmm
hmm

I am completely contradicting my request to keep the posts relevant. Sorry Al. :lol:

Originally posted by SPeeDSiN


That sux. I make my first worthwhile post in the year that I have been here. My luck: Its at the end of a 207+ post thread.

Well since we are off topic...
maybe that is an H22A although I don't see a defined Vtec jump.
Hmm whatever 2.2s are there?
hmm
hmm
hmm

I am completely contradicting my request to keep the posts relevant. Sorry Al. :lol: OK - SABB??

http://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=179306&highlight=dyno+day

http://i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115261

http://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115727&highlight=dyno+day

Adrenalin Motorsports has a Dyno Dynamics 'rolling road' dyno, which uses rollers, but has two generators/motors for load.

They tend to dyno stock cars at 150 to 170 whp, with a 165 whp "healthy" baseline, and BPU cars (exhaust, unichip and/or ebc, and more) with a stock turbo at 190 to 200 whp, and they (as we all know) run mid to low 13's.

http://users.rcn.com/lenyx/HP.gif

http://www.i-club.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=1852529

Hummm......

For comparison, a stock S4 dynos around 180 whp, while a BPU S4 dynos around 240 whp, and runs a 13.3 sec 1/4 mile.

Soooo.......

We see plenty of BPU cars dyno 230 whp at TXS (many WITHOUT unichips), with the same baseline of around 165 whp.........what doesn't add up here??????

"those obnoxious idiots nickV "

Geez al, still bitter. Why am I an idiot?

Just a note, DSMs have made 400whp on a 16g turbo. 420+ whp on a green on pump gas. So whats the big deal?

Nathan is probably the most honest and nicest guy I know. I could never see him lieing about this or anything else.

Originally posted by NickV
"those obnoxious idiots nickV "

Geez al, still bitter. Why am I an idiot?

Just a note, DSMs have made 400whp on a 16g turbo. 420+ whp on a green on pump gas. So whats the big deal?

Nathan is probably the most honest and nicest guy I know. I could never see him lieing about this or anything else. I say Nathan for president ! Nathan is like a saint; a hero; liek a preist ! Lets all chip in and buy him a nice used DSM

My car made 210kw on 1.4bar ATW on Dyno Dynamic's using the 400hp internal wastegate turbo from AVO. Which actually look's the same as the APS turbos. Now are shooting for 240/250 with a 45mm external gate, aftermarket computer,pump,injector's and a garret gt 500hp turbo on 1.5 bar. Car with 210 ATW ran 115mph trap speed and weighed 1270kg.(99 model)

Originally posted by 4sfed 4
If I gave you guys the specs on this car, youd all be shocked.

Its nearly all stock save for an upgraded turbo, intercooler, fuel pump and larger injectors and its a stock 2.2L 16V. With some larger injectors and possibly a slightly larger compressor, this car will top 500 whp.

With 60 less whp than the dyno above, it pulled 11.4@127 mph with zero traction.
Dodge Omni GLH?

Originally posted by gossamer_monster


I assume it is a US car. A Subaru? What year?

1987 Dodge GLHS 2.2L Turbo with a 16V head from a different year Mopar.



How come this is the first we have heard of it?/quote]

Well, its a Dodge....

[quote][b[

Did it do an actual pass or was this a g-tech type of run?

Not doubting you just looking for more info. :)

Bill [/B]

Actual run at Moroso Motorsports Park in West Palm Beach, FL.

It is a 10 second car with some better slicks.

Originally posted by Chris02WRX

Dodge Omni GLH?

So close!

An Omni GLH could be fitted with this same engine combo however.

K car ;)

VV

Originally posted by VetteVert
K car ;)

VV

There's a pretty sick K-car or similar in the New England area. Not sure the specs but it turbocharged and runs 10's.

Bill

There are a few of them. I'm guessing it's either a K-car transplant or a daytona, although the daytona would be way too heavy unless stripped-n-dipped. For some reason I get a kick out of a K car kicking ass and taking names. Maybe I'm just sick ;)

VV

Originally posted by gossamer_monster


There's a pretty sick K-car or similar in the New England area. Not sure the specs but it turbocharged and runs 10's.

Bill

Originally posted by alfriedesq
I'll have to look around for it - hopefully I can find it - or maybe the guys at www.pruvenperformance.com can post it - I know they keep a database of all the dyno runs they do


I will find out for sure. . .

BTW, (true story) When I took my car in for the deceleration noise a few weeks ago the service rep at my local dealer was telling me that they have a customer running 10's in a WRX.

I said: "wow-really, the fastest one in the US that I know of runs low 12's"

and he responded. "yup, the guy lives in Stamford".

I paused for a second...followed with "is his name Al by any chance?"

Dealer: " yeah yeah, you know him"

Me: :rolleyes: :lol:

Moral of the story-you can't believe it until you see it.

Greg

Originally posted by GCSUPRAMAN


I will find out for sure. . .

BTW, (true story) When I took my car in for the deceleration noise a few weeks ago the service rep at my local dealer was telling me that they have a customer running 10's in a WRX.

I said: "wow-really, the fastest one in the US that I know of runs low 12's"

and he responded. "yup, the guy lives in Stamford".

I paused for a second...followed with "is his name Al by any chance?"

Dealer: " yeah yeah, you know him"

Me: :rolleyes: :lol:

Moral of the story-you can't believe it until you see it.

Greg

:lol: :lol: :lol: :rolleyes:


Al What Garrett are you getting and what trim? I'm still looking at a 50 trim T3/T04E. Those make so much power and go for ~$450 (non BB) on GB. Why do we pay $1200 for POS OE turbos? :mad:

Originally posted by alfriedesq
I say Nathan for president ! Nathan is like a saint; a hero; liek a preist ! Lets all chip in and buy him a nice used DSM

Al.... Nathan has been a much more "consistent" contributor here then you've ever aspired to be...

Frankly, you may have deeper pockets, but he's at least never attempted to "get a rise out of us", as you so frequently enjoy doing.

Again... frankly, I think your making excuses. Over several months there has been several conversations where you have criticized others for their accomplishments, yet when given a FREE opprotunity to finally put your proverbial money where your mouth is... you bawk...

Please spare me anything about a newborn as well... cause you and I both KNOW that if you had a non disclosed can of whoopass that you were keeping to yourself for the right time to unload on someone... this is it.

Let's face it Al... your going to avoid this at all costs until your current setup is eliminated (via your Garett) and then you'll be off the hook.

But as far as I'm concerned, what respect you've gained with me, both as an individual, and as a serious enthusiast, over the last year is quickly eb'ing away as you try and find ways out of this... Now that you've been "called out"

Shame....
Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com

Like sands in the hour glass, these are the days of our lives.

This reminds me of an arguement with my wife early in our marriage.
Me: Why did you "Whatever"
Wife:Well you did...

Come on! Is this thread about Al? Jorge, one question. Do you belive it is posible to make 335whp with an internally stock motor and a VF23?

Ken

Originally posted by DeliciouSpeed
Like sands in the hour glass, these are the days of our lives.

This reminds me of an arguement with my wife early in our marriage.
Me: Why did you "Whatever"
Wife:Well you did...

Come on! Is this thread about Al? Jorge, one question. Do you belive it is posible to make 335whp with an internally stock motor and a VF23?

Ken

Perhaps more people should have answered like I'm going to..

Since I am NOT an expert at this... NOR are theories all they're cracked up to be... NOR have I ever seen a REAL WORLD example of this combination running that state of tune at the track... AND the fact that I try hard not to be a "benchtop racer"... AND the fact that I try and be as open minded as possible.. here is all I know.

The closest example to this setup is Adam's STI running a VF22, which he admits, and I agree RAN (as in no more theorizing.. cause it's been there, done that...) numbers that were "theoretically" beyond it's means.

That being said... who are we to judge what is "theoretically" possible.

How convenient that I bring up a compelling comparison to a TXS dyno plot using a crude form (yet independent) of dyno plotting (Road Dyno) and it was DAMN close... Yet no one commented on it..

No Ken... I won't get dragged into that portion of this arguement. The VF23 will run it's 115 MPH traps, people here will look like tools, Al will remain a tool, life will move on, and there will be the next conspiracy theory next week.

Do I think it can do it... with what was listed? Sure... because I'm an open minded person who believes in experiances and historical comparisons... not theory and speculation.

Cheers!
Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com

Originally posted by RiftsWRX


Perhaps more people should have answered like I'm going to..

Since I am NOT an expert at this... Nor are theories all they're cracked up to be... NOR have I ever seen a REAL WORLD example of this combination running that state of tune at the track... AND the fact that I try hard not to be a "benchtop racer"... AND the fact that I try and be as open minded as possible.. here is all I know.

The closest example to this setup is Adam's STI running a VF22, which he admits, and I agree RAN (as in no more theorizing.. cause it's been there, done that...) numbers that were "theoretically" beyond it's means.

That being said... who are we to judge what is "theoretically" possible.

How convenient that I bring up a compelling comparison to a TXS dyno plot using a crude form (yet independent) of dyno plotting (Road Dyno) and it was DAMN close... Yet know one commented on it..

No Ken... I won't get dragged into that portion of this arguement. The VF23 will run it's 115 MPH traps, people here will look like tools, Al will remain a tool, life will move on, and there will be the next conspiracy theory next week.

Do I think it can do it... with what was listed? Sure... because I'm an open minded person who believes in experiances and historical comparisons... not theory and speculation.

Cheers!
Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com


I agree. Theories are all fine and dany but I think everyone should wait and see what the car does in the real world.

Results will speak louder then theories.

Regardless of the outcome, TurboXS and what little expirence I have with them, Teagues, are both great companies to deal with.

Bill

This is the exact same argument when people started to run small 16Gs on eclipses. There was NO WAY anyone would make 400hp with a small 16G on a stock eclipse motor.

Well chris tichy ran 11.8s or so on a stock motor and 16G to disprove everyone. He eventually got into the 11.6s or so on that same turbo.

I ran 11.92 @ 114 mph on a small 16G and the STOCK IC and the STOCK 450cc injectors. That sure was possible.

The VF23 has around the same cfm flow as the small 16G. I don't see why this is impossible, just because none of you have done it before.

-Tom

Thats all I wanted to know. Thank you sir.

Ken

Results will speak louder then theories.

exactly why I don't listen to people who don't actually do anything with their car...at least those people are putting things into practice and trying different things.

and exactly why I would rather have someone who has 1 year of experience over someone with a just a degree ANY day.

Originally posted by JenisonWRX


exactly why I don't listen to people who don't actually do anything with their car...at least those people are putting things into practice and trying different things.

and exactly why I would rather have someone who has 1 year of experience over someone with a just a degree ANY day.

You hiring? :lol: I don't have a years experiance but I do have a delta dash! :lol:

Thanks guys for the opinions. They reflect mine as well.

It's been stated so many times that we are in the early stages of development and understanding of this car. TurboXS knows what is truth and what is not and they certainly will try to reproduce the good results they have gotten. In the end fact will overcome speculations and opinions.

-Jonathan

I have got to stop reading this thread my Head is killing me:eek:

i think this thread is great :D

This thread is a dime a dozen. Al has actually toned it down because of what I would think were threats from the management. The good ole days were the ones where he would pm you and e-mail you with threats on you and your family............those were always entertaining. :monkey:

Originally posted by JenisonWRX
and exactly why I would rather have someone who has 1 year of experience over someone with a just a degree ANY day.

whats the name of your company? Just so I can make sure to never ever contract you out for anything

ive never actually negatively responded to one of al's posts because i think hes the only humor we get between the 'which bov should i get' and the 'what unichip should i buy' threads

i say keep posting al and keep pushing to make your wrx the fastest one on this continent in street trim...it keeps me entertained and sometimes we actually get a few bits of quality information from it.

Originally posted by elgorey


whats the name of your company? Just so I can make sure to never ever contract you out for anything

Funny...

I'm the IT director for a company that pulls in a 1/4 million a year in net profits... I hire exactly on that mandate...

I'd much rather find those with natural talent and groom them, then to have to "unteach" so many bad habits I've personally seen....

Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com

so true jorge, i agree and weve held the same job title

Hey, I'm a lonely programmer looking for a new job...

Need anybody in the Cincinnati area?

- Andy :)

And the Al challange goes un-answered....

:rolleyes:

Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com

You guys sound like the people who think programming is memorizing syntax.
There is absolutely no way to learn solid fundamental programming practice and software engineering without a Computer Science degree. I have worked with plenty of "programmers" whose only real education was reading a few books and maybe a certification but they had plenty of experience. Sure they knew syntax, but couldnt program their way out of a paper bag. And if the dev environment changed, they were lost. You say you value experience more than a degree, but what do you think computer science majors do in classes, sit there and talk about programming?:lol: Hell no the programs that CS students write coulndnt even be understood by the book learners or "certified" guys.

but hey, maybe thats why your company only makes 1/4 mil a year....
My company brings in 1 million a year on a system that I designed over the course of a summer interning while in college. And its still growing.


anyway thats enough off topic, back to dyno records and turbos

This thread rules!!!