Hi Guys,
Just thought I'd update the forum on the very first East Coast Vishnu Performance Tuning weekend. I flew into Boston just the other day (from CA) to engage in a four day tuning marathon with a bunch of east coast TEC-II turbo customers. Three of which actually converted their RSes to two wheel drive in order to dyno on a Dynojet yesterday at Pruven Performance in Milford, CT.

Here are the results:

Matt Cavanugh-- 5 speed MY99 Minnam turbo/TEC-II, 7psi, 3-inch exhaust, 93 octane pump gas:
224 wheel hp @ 5800rpm, 230ft-lbs @ 4600rpm.
Tested with FWD configuration

Edwin Foo-- 5 speed MY99 Custom turbo/TEC-II, 7psi, 2.5-inch exhaust, 93 octane pump gas, 228 wheel hp @ 5800rpm, 245ft-lbs @ 3750rpm
Tested in RWD configuration

There was another 2.5RS dyno'd that made even more power with a built motor and 10 psi of boost. But I'll post the results only when I get okay from the owner.

There was yet another car that I tuned this weekend (built motor, 10psi) that was even more powerful than the rest but the owner didn't want to go through the hassle of converting to two wheel drive. I think he was just satisfied with being gawdawful fast and making the rest of us feel inadequate http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

All in all, a great weekend! I got to drive the snot out of high hp FWD, RWD and AWD 2.5RSes!

Just for reference, a stock 2.5RS (in 2WD mode) dynos around 120-125 wheel hp. Pretty cool to almost double wheel hp with less than 1/2 bar of boost, never hear a ping and never see EGTs above 1500F on the dyno or even during a 200 mile flog fest between CT, NY and NJhttp://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

Cheers,
Shiv, still on the East Coast with the turbo boyz

[This message has been edited by shiv (edited March 25, 2001).]

http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/eek.gif

Wow! Almost double stock HP at ~7psi!?!?!?

WRX? What WRX? http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif

Awesome news Shiv. Keep us posted.

With a built motor, it will have the new STi beat! http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif If I had the money to keep 2 cars, and one of them the new STi, I would mod the hell out of the RS and keep the STi close to stock as my daily driver. Talk 'bout tunning the EJ25 - Good work Shiv!! GC8 + EJ25 + Turbo = 1 great stealth WRX killer http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

Awesome! Congrats MattC (even though I know he was shooting for 250hp to the wheels http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/tongue.gif)

Anyone who doesn't believe in turbo setups before needs to see these numbers.

Kevin
www.forcefed4.com (http://www.forcefed4.com)

Just curious as to how easily these guys were accomplishing the 4-wheel to 2-wheel conversion? Is this something that takes hours with the car on stands or can it be done at the dyno with some simple tools?

scot

Hmmm, a RWD 225whp RS sounds like a lot of fun to me.

If you have access to a lift, the job is much easier. But if you have never done it before, it can be a somewhat trying experience and there's a lot of little tricks that need to be figured out on the fly to get access to the right bolts.

I would estimate 2-3 hours for an experienced mechanic, and double that for a goofball like me. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif That's just to do one conversion - coverting it back to AWD takes the same amount of time.

The car is scary fast now to me. Maybe not to some of you high-hp freaks, but let me tell you, it's scary when you floor it in 3th or 4th gear on the highway and are able to induce massive wheelspin within a second of mashing the pedal. I desparately need a rear limited-slip diff if I'm going to play around with this RWD thing. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif I'm going to be much relieved when my car is back to AWD - the RWD is loads of fun but so much more twitchy IMHO. I don't know how those Porsche drivers do it with even more power and more weight hanging out past the rear wheels.

-Edwin

260-270 hp at 7 psi is very impressive. As Shiv has said himself, double the wheel hp dosen't mean double the flywheel hp:
http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/Forum24/HTML/000400-2.html

Congratulations!

hmmmm....'built' TEC II'd turbo'd engine. hopefully they'll let you disclose a little about their beasts.

Edwin, the Porsches have a rear suspension designed to apply copious power to the ground. The RS simply does not. A LSD would help, absolutely.

Force[FED]- To be fair, MattC's dyno results should have been at least 10hp higher than they were. Since he was converted to FWD, he had the nose of his car pointing towards the back wall of the shop with almost no airflow going through the intercooler. As a result, his manifold air temps during the run were logged between 125 and 160 degrees. Whereas Edwin, in RWD configuration, pointed his engine bay towards the great outdoors with cool fresh 60 degree air blowing over his engine. His intake temps where right around 80-90 during all the runs. The car was so cool, in fact, there there was essentially no need for a cool-down period. What's nice is that both these cars run even cooler on the street with intake temps being just around ambient.

Cheer,
Shiv, still in NJ http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

Shiv,

Fell free to post up my results. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif

Joe

Shiv... I know you feel like flying south to Warm Sunny Fort Lauderdale for a few days... can I tempt you with bikini clad women at Ft. Lauderdale Beach? I really wish I was closer to that part of the east coast right now.

-Nick

2 things:

1. Interesting that the 2.5in exhaust produced marginally more hp and significantly more torque than the 3in exhaust.

2. No significant difference in relative peak hp gain between a piggybacked Minnam and a TecII Minnam.

In http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/Forum24/HTML/000400-2.html

shiv said...
"Case in point: last year's UPRD dyno results showed 95 wheel hp (stock) vs. 183 wheel horsepower (with a stock 7psi Minnam turbo). 93% gain. Following your correction method, the car would have made 320 horsepower (165x1.93), which obviously, isn't possible consider the low boost and sate of tune. More likely is that it gained 183-95=88hp. And 88hp+165hp=253hp which is much more reasonable."

Using shiv's math the gains demonstrated by the 2wd cars above are...

120whp assumed in 2wd.

228 - 120 = +108 or 90% Gain at wheels
224 - 120 = +104 or 87% Gain at wheels

Now I quote whp gains because they are not tainted by the driveline loss debate.

However, the question remains, why is there no significant difference in %whp gains from a Minnam Stage II with piggybacks and a Minnam Stage II with Tec II (both running 7psi? By rights, the Tec II should have greater relative whp gains at 7psi of boost because, theoretically, it is in a better state of tune. One would be right to expect greater than a 93% gain in whp by replacing piggybacks with a TecII on an identical turbo system.

Now it will probably be argued that there are differences in the dynos and that there are differences in running 2wd vs 4wd. They would both be vaild arguments, but we are discussing relative gains here, not raw numbers. Raw numbers are only applicable when you are comparing runs on the same (or if we stretch, an identical) dyno. % relative gain is universal when comparing the same car. The reality is in relative gain. IF my car showed a 20% gain in whp at the dyno and yours showed a 35% gain, who's is faster? (+35% wins right?)

So why are the TecII numbers not more significant?

Kyle

Worry not Nick, I have some good non-CA maps to send you. Turns out that my previous CA-derived maps were too rich for you guys not running the Methenol-mix gas that we West Coasters hate so much. You're higher octane, as expected, also allows for some good ignition advance http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

I'll send you a couple of maps to try when I get back home on Wednesday. They should be just fine for you car. FWIW, both Edwin and Matt were running nearly idential maps. When Matt installed the jammy fuel rails, I had to lean the mixture out a bit. It also allowed for even more advance. The car, with the rails, ended up making the same power it did with the stock rails-- but with much less fuel and much lower EGTs. I suspect the upgrade would really come into its own at higher boost levels.

Cheers,

Shiv

Kyle,

I will let Shiv give his opinions on this subject but here is mine.

The TEC II/turbo combo is all about safe turbo tuning. I am absolutely sure that more horsepower can be gained from this system but everything I have seen Shiv write about tuning the PEMS setup is to leave some horsepower on the table in favor of having a margin of safety. You simply can not get the tuning flexibility from piggybacks that you can get from the TEC.

There may be other issues and as I said, I will let Shiv talk about them. For me it was about safety. I don't want my engine blowing up because some piggy back setup ahd a brain fart.

Kurt

Kyle-- Comparing the UPRD Clayton dyno results to that of a Dynojet isn't the best idea. Esp. considering UPRD shut down its dyno, making it impossible for me to look deeper into the situation.

But assuming that both stock ECU'd Minnam turbo cars made roughtly the same power as the TEC-II/Minnam turbo cars, I can point out a few important differences between the two. First of all, the TEC'd cars running 150 to 200F cooler EGTs. This goes far in perserving the motor. Two, the TEC cars aren't on the ragged edge of the fuel system. This means that they drive much smoother, happier, and do not knock even under the worst conditions. Three, they have much, much wider torque curve with peak torque at just 3800rpm and almost flat from there to 5000rpm. My stock ECU'd Minnam MY99 couldn't compare in the real world and was around 50ft-lbs shy at all engine speeds below 5000rpm. And most importantly, these TEC cars could safely run another 3psi and make another ~30 horsepower if the urge for more power should arise.

And finally, there is a difference between tuning my own car and tuning customer cars. I fully expect to push my own personal car to the limit and am willing to monitor it every day and every step of the way, listening for knock, looking at EGTs, running the best gas, guarding against heat soak, etc. I don't want to put my customers in the same situation. I set up their cars with a good deal of safety margin. I just want them to drive, not worry, and have fun smacking down some WRXes http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

Cheers,
Shiv

"Smacking down WRX's"? That sounds an awful lot like you are saying that the RS's would have quicker acceleration.

Since I am sure you don't condone street racing, that must mean the RS would be faster at the track. I guess we will never know, because acceleration tests don't matter - unless, of course, you are trying to "smack down" other cars.

Thanks, shiv. I see you've answered my question about the exhaust stuff, it was more the direction of the cars.

I know comparing dynos is not the greatest idea, in fact it is futile. This is why relative % gain is the only way to do it.

Kurt- The point about safely turboing something instead of having the piggybacks and dealing with some unreliability in them is most understandable. Having an integrated package for engine management is clearly a better way to go from that standpoint.

I guess the main point was if the engine is in such a better state of tune, why do the hp numbers not change. Lower EGTs, less knock, etc means greater efficiency. I just find it curious that there was no difference in hp where I would expect to see a gain.

Even if there was no peak gain, the smoother hp and broader torque curves and greater area under both of these curves would indicate the better car. i.e. faster, but probably less fuel consumption. I would be interested to see it compared in the "real world" as you say and not dynoland.

K.

rao: I get the impression that he did mean that.

I also find that they're making more wheel HP and torque than the WRXen make at the flywheel.

Oh, then there's that weight thing.

So, yeah, i'd venture to make an educated guess that these cars are faster in a straight line and around the twisties than a WRX.

rao, i'm not sure why you feel the need to make snide comments, but i'll leave that to you. your own words can speak for yourself.

besides, it's fairly easy to see the evidence once you look at the torque curves for my car versus a stock WRX. my car weighs less (almost 300 pounds or more), gets to peak torque sooner, and makes more peak torque period. it stands to reason that acceleration will be better, excluding radical differences in gearing that favor one car versus the other. now, i don't know about 1/4 mile performance, as you are clearly alluding to, so don't take my words as a claim that my car will spank a WRX in the 1/4 mile. but I certainly do think I can out-accelerate a stock WRX. I may get a chance to find out for sure since the New England i-club chapter is having a meet very soon, and some WRX owners will be in attendance. We can find a safe place to do some runs if that satisfies your curiosity, no? Just promise to pay for my ticket if I get one. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

and just to head off any questions, yup, i've got the dyno sheets in front of me for all 3 cars, and will be posting them once i get back to boston. i need to scan them in first, so please have patience.

-Edwin

Does it do anything permanent to the car when you switch it to RWD?? For example, if i wanted i could run my RS in RWD during the summer months and then change it to AWD during the winter months??

RAO -- Full of sarcasm.
Shiv -- Good job.
WRX -- One fat car.
Turbo RS -- One fast car.
Nick -- Stop crying.
Imprezer -- Needs more power.

Just remember this, it ain't over until the fat car sings. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif

-Alex "who truely beleive that he will be able to have his WRX weight 2900lbs"

Not that I actually expect to be ever be doing it myself, but what all is involved in changing a manual RS from AWD to RWD?

Open the rear part of the tranny and insert a new "locked" center diff.

Lower EGTs, less knock, etc means greater efficiency.

That's incorrect Kyle. If you didn't care about engine longevity, you would most certainly see more power with higher EGTs. Peak power is achieved with a/f ratios above stoichometric.

Hi Kyle-- There's a tuning phrase, "Lean is Mean." Good for hp, not-so-good for reliability and engine health. Leaner air/fuel mixtures (to a point) have faster flame fronts than richer a/f mixtures. They also lead to higher combustion pressures and hotter cylinder pressures. This is why the exhaust gas temps are higher. So are the coolant temps. But such high hp lean-running engines make power, right up to the point at which they decide to detonate/melt themselves to death. Running the cars richer allows for a slower and cooler combustion which makes the pistons, rings, cooling system, turbo, etc,. much happier. Since the burn is slowed down, it also allows for additional timing advance which improves power. End result is the same power, which MUCH more margin of safety. It's simply the difference between tuning for short-term dyno/drag style max power or long term streetable power. I suspect there's another 10-20 wheel hp in these cars with more aggressive tuning. But even as it is, these cars greaty outperformed my stock ECU'd Minnam turbo at the same boost level. Just as we expected http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

Shiv

There was absolutely nothing sarcastic in what I said.

Thanks Shiv...

Oh sure Imprezer... u get to ask shiv in person for help... but I'm 2700 miles away and I can't cry a little... hehe... http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif

-Nick

Hey shiv, since you go balls-out with the tuning on your car, what's your latest 1/4 times? I'd be interested to see what they're like with the proper tuning methods at different boost levels. Also, has anyone with an NA setup run at the 1/4 and left you times before and after tuning? I'd really love to see those.

Got the turbo kit coming for the car but am just using piggybacks, so I'm up for a programmable ECU of some type soon. Maybe a TEC-II, maybe a Haltech, maybe a Wolf 3D... still looking at features and ease of tuning ability.

I know your not a big "Drag" guy Shiv...Drag 'racing' anyway...http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif But It would be interesting to see your times, especially with that full dogbox of yours http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Dan_E (edited March 26, 2001).]

Colin/shiv:

Sorry boys. Confusing choice of word. We're talking overall efficiency not fuel efficiency. My point was you are saying TecII "better". I disagree, but only on the point that the end hp results aren't significantly different. (I don't dispute it is a safer, more tunable method)

One can richen the mixture and adjust timing with non TecII electronics and fuel delivery to keep the egts and knock down. My interpretation is the TecII can more precisely vary the diffrent parameters such as fuel and timing throughout the rev/load range. This makes the TecII more "efficient" because you fuel/timing is optimized along the whole curve. A piggyback type system would tend to be optimized at the point of wost case and then "over optimized" along the rest of the curve. Hence, the overall efficiency of a TecII system is better. No one disputes the ability.

The whole point was that the benefits of the optimization described above may not be immediately obvioius from dyno results. (even with full curves for comparison) The only true measures of how much better the performance are subjective comments from the owners on smoothness, fuel economy etc. and objective performance on the street, track or what-have-you.

Kyle


[This message has been edited by kyledooley (edited March 26, 2001).]

Another East Coast Dyno participant was cool guy Joe Hogan, who just gave me the go-ahead to post his numbers. And what nice numbers they were:

243 wheel hp @ 6200 and around 225ft-lbs between 3000rpm and 5000rpm.

I say "around" because the torque converter on his 4EAT made it difficult to get a nice clean 2500rpm-to-redline run. It would downshift uncontrollably and only give results from 4000rpm and on.

His mods were a Minnam turbo, TEC-II, 3" exhaust, Cobb turbo cams/head/9:1CR pistons/rods/valve springs, extrude hone intake, Swain coating and ceramic coated manifold. 10psi of boost. While 243 wheel hp is very impressive, I suspect the numbers would have been significantly higher due to excessive auto tranny loss/slippage. But he's still working on getting the tranny to hold the power. Also, even with 550cc/min injectors, we were approaching the upper limits of the fuel system. I suspect the engine, itself, is making somewhere around 300 to 320 horsepower. With some more fuel, it certainly has some more power left in it http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

Also, being a FWD conversion, Joe's car was dynod like MattC's car, with the nose pointing towards the wall. Hot intake temps and lower than normal power.

Cheers,
Shiv

Sorry for the silly question but does all these two wheel drive converions mean there isn`t a AWD dyno on the eastcoast? Or there wasn`t one available at the time?

Bill

As far as I know the only four wheel dyno is down in Maryland someplace...Altered Atmospheres is the name, I think. Even if it took efoo 10 hours total to do the AWD->RWD->AWD conversion he's still ahead on driving down there and back http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

True I was just hoping to avoid the conversion but I also want to avoid the 10 hr drive. I just drove to Asheville, NC and that s*cked. Thanks.

Bill

Hey efoo, how about some burnout vids or pics? http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

Great job guys.....now that many of you have the TEC, hos bout getting rid of that basic, noothing so special Minnam turbo and getign a better unit in there...since many of you have Shiv's kit with the bigger injectors, you should be able to coax closer to 300 at the wheels out of the car.

...and do some 1/4 mile runs already guys!!!!! It's that season again...and since I won't be draggin my car anymore, I have to do so vicariously through you guys....efoo and Matt and Steve that menas you!

Whoohoo Joe Hogan!! You are my HERO!! 243whp on an 4eat...YEA!! http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

Well, I'm too tired to post anything about the trip myself, but here is a teaser to keep you occupied:

<IMG SRC="http://www.members.home.com/dahart/dynoteaser.gif" border=0>


MattC

Bet you're wishing you kept your car turbo'd right now ain't cha' Keiho?? http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif

Any advantages going with IHI (whatever that is comparable to the T03/04)? I suspect cost is a big factor in using T03/04 over IHI turbo.

Adam,

That is exactly what Shiv is doing. He took the Minnan kit off of his site and is developing a new kit. That is why I am still driving a N/A car. I had the option of taking the Minnan kit or waiting for the new kit. I am waiting for the new kit to come out.

Kurt

I'll see what I can do about the burnouts. It would be kind of cool, I'll admit. Let me find some RE-92s to practice on though, instead of my expensive snow tires. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif

But I really want to get the car back to AWD today too. I'm tired of spinning the inside rear wheel going around corners under power. I ought to be doing a nice big powerslide but I can't. wahh!!

Hm, I could replace my rear diff with a limited-slip one for ~$1500, or switch back to AWD for the cost of a few quarts of transmission fluid. I think the choice is clear. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

-Edwin

I know what you mean about wheelspin.

Even stock, with only 160/181, when i had my FWD fuse in i was spinning the inside tire in a turn all the time.

Torque steer? HELL YEAH!

Adam, it's tough to do the quarter mile stuff http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif I tried hard on Saturday to get respectable times (with the Gtech, Epping isn't open yet up here) and I suffered from massive wheelspin thru first gear (I have a similar setup to Edwin). 13.9 was all I could muster, with a 5.4 0-60 time. This was at about 7.5psi. The snow tires are not conducive to putting the power to the pavement... We'll see how the MXX3s and 8psi will help, this weekend. BTW any one going to the meet I will have my GTech in attendance http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

Its good to see some solid numbers from the turbo EJ25 community. I just need to get my act together and join the turbo EJ25 community http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/lildevil.gif

Its great that we are starting to see real world numbers of some fully built RS's.

-Jon

Gotta say it...

Can't wait for your turbo kit to be available Shiv. Great numbers. I am an EJ25 convert... going to go turbo kit on my 00RS. Used to think the swap was the way to go, but now I know the EJ25 has great potential if I want to keep my HP around 300 max. Thanks for all the R&D you have put into the RS aftermarket and I look forward to doing business with you when the funds become available.

Keep up the great work!

Jeff S

It isn't going to be the hp that limits you. It's the torque. It breaks transmissions. It is already known that the 2.5L block can take even more boost, but I'm not sure about my transmission. The turbo 2.5L engines are putting out torque numbers at low boost pressures that even modified 2.0L engines cannot reach That's why I'm leaving my car at the 260-285hp level for now.

-Edwin

How much torque can a upgraded tranny like BPM take? Would a 6 speed take it better?

Later,
Seth E.

BPM claims their transmissions are unbreakable. I guess that means they can take infinite amounts of torque. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

The STi 6-speed is strong, but is it strong enough? I don't know. Rally racers break Group N gearsets all the time themselves - and those are based on STi transmissions,and they are using stock STi engines, ECUs, etc. Nothing fancy there.

Seriously speaking, I don't know. The only way to find out is buy one (for $4-5K -- ouch) and try it out. I don't plan on being the guinea pig, so someone else please lay out the cash first. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif In the meantime, I'm going to be treating my own tranny nicely. I can still have loads of fun with my car and lay the smackdown on those piddling 227 crank hp WRXs without abusing my transmission. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif Just kidding.

-Edwin


[This message has been edited by efoo (edited March 28, 2001).]

Well since we have the WRX on our shores, do you guys think companies might start to manufacture gearsets here in the US? If so they would be much cheaper wouldn't they?

Turk

I think you guys just convinced me to turbo my RS. I will have the best of both worlds. BTW, I just opened up my WRX for a prelude stomping, and if your RS's are faster.........damn they must be fun. You should have seen the look the prelude(SH) driver gave my car. I wonder what rock he has been hiding under. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

Curt

Shiv... times? I'd really be interested in what your balls-out tuning can do in real-life terms, the entire "bench racing" deal you've got going is a bit misleading.

8Complex - Shiv is kind of on a plane right now. Has been all day. Then there's the jet lag, lack of sleep caused by driving from New Jersey to Massachusetts between 10pm and 3am in the morning, etc.

One cannot mysteriously go "poof" from the East Coast and appear on the West Coast without any side effects, at least, except on Star Trek. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

-Edwin

Well, reading about some of the "magic" Shiv seems to have come up with for our cars...my bet is he's working on just such an idea, edwin!

Neil

Edwin,

Are you saying that Shiv hasn't taken his car to the track because he just got on an airplane??? http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/confused.gif

He has had plenty of time to test it if he wanted to - he just elects not to, which is his decision. Shiv has made it quite clear that he believes that there is absolutely no value in any kind of acceleration testing. I'm sure he would ban road testing from SCC if he could. He thinks it is useless, and he is entitled to his opinion.

[Edit - I can't spell]

[This message has been edited by rao (edited March 28, 2001).]

Shiv,

I have a couple of questions after reading the posts. what are your suggestions for the people who are running the S-AFC, ITC, and EVC4? This is used by alot of us out here too. Have you noticed a big differnce by using a 3inch downpipe with no cat. How much of a difference will a cam have on there hp #'s? Do you have a map for the cams?

Are the fuel rails availabe for us without the kit?

thanks,
Greg

rao - I was under the impression that 8complex was expecting a response right away from Shiv. at least, it sounded that way. if that's not the case, then i apologize.

besides that, Shiv's car has been out of commission with a broken transmission for the past 6 months. he only picked it up last week, and immediately afterwards he flew out to the east coast. it's highly unlikely that he could have gotten 1/4 mile times in the few hours he had the car before having to leave, had he even wanted to.

that aside, since you apparently respect his opinion on 1/4 mile times, why not stop bringing it up all the time? this has been happening so often now as to get somewhat repetitive, to put it mildly. there's plenty of other people on this board besides you two and 8complex who agree to disagree about this subject (and many other subjects besides this one) and don't manage to bring it to the forefront every other post.

it's this insistence on forcing the issue that looks rather awkward. you don't see Shiv (or very few other people for that matter, including me) guffawing when people start talking about 1/4 mile times on this board. so why keep bringing up the topic whenever shiv says anything, when it's apparently obvious that he'll never answer to your satisfaction, because of his opinion on the matter, which you supposedly respect?

-Edwin


[This message has been edited by efoo (edited March 28, 2001).]

I have never brought it up to Shiv, note my first post here was congratulations for some excellent results. If I have not been clear then that is my fault and I apologize. I don't respect his opinion - I respect his right to have whatever opinion he wants, whether I agree with it or not.

My point is pretty simple. A while back others and I expressed interest in 1/4 mile times for Shiv's kit. The response was that 1/4 mile times are meaningless and that people who engage in 1/4 mile racing are idiots (and I do not think I am exagerating here). When the potential value of 1/4 mile testing was borught up, the reason then became that there wasn't enough time, not a decent driver available etc. One of the points I made was that 1/4 mile testing was a de facto standard for evaluating cars and of course I was cast as a dope because I must not appreciate the complexity of the dyno. I also predicted that every magazine article would include 1/4 mile times when the WRX arrived becaus it is useful information.

Ironically, at the same time Shiv was decrying acceleration testing of any kind (even within the same discussion), he was making claims about his cars accleration and how it was faster than other cars - which I find absolutely fascinating. He has described his car at various times as "crazy fast" having "insane acceleration" and being faster than various other Imprezas. I don't know how he knows this.

Of course, Shiv's first post about the new WRX included 1/4 mile time results, which proved my original point. Then every magazine article appeared with 1/4 mile times. Then people started asking about 1/4 mile times for the WRX and other cars. I find this to be fascinating so I like to comment on how useful everyone seems to think this piece of data is. That's all there is to it.

Shiv can feel whatever he wants about this or any other subject, and I also don't care if he ever is able to bring himself to facing the indignity of taking his car down the dragstip. I have never made any kind of pesonal attack on Shiv and I don't plan on it.

However, 1/4 mile times are useful information, plain and simple, whether Shiv believes it or not.



[This message has been edited by rao (edited March 28, 2001).]

here here rob http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

what he said http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/lol.gif

actually they are both valuable and invaluable if you understand where i am coming from http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif drivers post diff. results as well as condition of the car, so always take these variables into account, but they can and do show some "real world" numbers, whereas dynos are more of a what does it put down in this condition with this going on. The dyno is the BEST peice of equipment for tuning a car when playing with heavy mods becuase it is SO much easier to listen for and deteck and tune to prevent Det. on a rolling road than on the road http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

i could go on and on..but everything i fell has pretty much been said by everyone..so *shrug* http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

i understand your position. however, i think you're missing my own point though. my point is that i think you and Shiv can agree to disagree and go on your separate ways, and not continue ribbing each other about it in a way that may well be eventually taken personally. i haven't seen any of that from Shiv since that escapade long ago, but I do keep seeing lots of random remarks from you. That's what I've found puzzling. This has nothing to do with the question of whether 1/4 mile times are useful or not.

-Edwin

Edwin - Sure, I was expecting a response in a somewhat timely manner. I was just under the impression that since he was selling the kits, using this board for press (nothing wrong with good press here, don't get me wrong there), that he'd be checking the thread that he had started at least every other day. Plus, shiv has seemed to liked ignoring my questions in previous posts of his before, so I just "put my foot in front of the closing door" so as not to be too ignored.

I respect the tuning ability and the fact that the cars run real good on the dyno, and I have no doubts they'll be fast in the 1/4, but I just think it's all rather "voodoo" surrounding the TEC-II getting more power then piggybacks out of the car when tuning for peak power on a dyno can be done with piggybacks nearly as well as TEC-II.

Actually, if you really think about it, posting 1/4 times would even moreso prove that the power has been smoothly increased along the power band, rather then just increasing peak power as his results in this thread state.

I'm not trying to be an a-hole about it or anything, but it almost seems like shiv has people who buy the TEC-II sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement when buying the unit not to give out 1/4 times. I searched the Vishnu board and came up with nothing on it even there. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/eek.gif

Voodoo? NDA against drag racing? Sheesh... you guys are bored, aren't you http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

Just got back from the airport (thanks Angus!). Must sleep. I'll try to answer those hanging questions tomorrow when my brain isn't fried.

Snore,
Shiv

8complex, sure, the TEC-II may not be necessary compared to piggybacks if all you're doing is going down the 1/4 mile. But I don't drive a drag car. I drive a street car about 50 miles a day. That's why I have a TEC-II. You've basically made my point for me.

Trust me, there's no NDA I've signed regarding 1/4 mile testing. Shiv could care less what I do with my car. Fact is, most TEC-II owners aren't interested in 1/4 mile times. If you look at the posts on the forum you'll find that most of us are track drivers or just hard street drivers, myself included. What sold us on the TEC-II was (a) the programmability and flexibility and (b) the tuning support from Shiv. You don't get either from piggybacks. And note that neither of those two reasons say "they make the car go faster".

That, and all of us have a healthy respect for our transmissions (hey, if you've just spent $2600 on engine management, the last thing you want is a $1000 bill for a new trans to go on top of it), should satisfy your curiosity as to why we don't talk about 1/4 mile times. We do talk about drivability, streetability, engine health under boost, etc. We've got boost - we're already quite fast, as the dyno results indicate. I feel no need to prove it further with a 1/4 mile time and risk breaking my car to satisfy someone else's curiosity, unless they're offering to replace any broken parts for me.

Anyways, please leave us TEC-II owners out of this. We did buy the product, so obviously we think it works and is worth the money. That's our opinion and we're entitled to it, just as you're entitled to your opinion that it isn't worth the expense. Once your own car is boosted and set up using the piggybacks let me know and I'll be glad to do a comparison. Instead of 1/4 mile, I'm willing to do a rolling start 20mph-100mph test or something so I don't shock 2nd gear. That's all I ask. Would that satisfy you?

-Edwin

Here is my opinion on this ...pure and simple.

Typically, those who can run good 1/4 mile times, will discuss them. Those who cant, dont. If after all this work, these cars ran impressive times you can be sure the drivers of those cars would be touting the numbers.

[This message has been edited by 4sfed 4 (edited March 29, 2001).]

Edwin,

I don't have a problem with that.

I have only commented when Shiv has made some acceleration claim, such as smacking down old school Imprezas, or that his car has insane 0-60 acceleration. How does he know? (by the way, I know the answer already - the dyno umbers for is car are better, therefore it is faster).

Why would it be offensive to anyone that I have expressed interest when people have posted 1/4 mile times - should those discussions be banned from the board because they might offend Shiv?

The bottom line is don't tell me how fast a car unless you can back it up.

That's fine by me. As i said, I have nothing to prove. I suspect Shiv and most of the other TEC-II owners will agree with that.

It still doesn't address my own point, which is that, given that we obviously disagree, we can therefore agree to disagree and leave it at that. I (and Shiv) am not changing my opinion anytime soon, and neither are you, so let's live with that and stop taking potshots at each other.

-Edwin

4sfed4, that's pretty easy to say when you're not the one paying for transmission repairs. Ask MattC how he likes dragracing and if he'll be back on the strip before he has a hardened gearset...

Frankly, I have no idea how Adam Bloom and Shane Bartholomew weren't shredding gearboxes in 1999 when they were running low 13s with their Minnam Stage 2 (and piggybacked, I might added) 2.5RS'.

[This message has been edited by ColinL (edited March 29, 2001).]

Guys, why do you have to take a really good thread and turn it into a pissing contest... cut the crap... please

Anyway.. the reason Adam Bloom wasn't blowing trannies left and right is because he had an STi RA tranny in his car... not sure which version though.

-Nick

4sfed 4, if you want to replace any parts that might break so I could give you some good quarter mile numbers, I'd be more than happy to oblige your request. I won't speak for anyone but myself here, but I'm not afraid to post any results I have on my car. In fact, I already have. I'm not willing, though, to get better numbers (which the car is capable of... a lack of traction made first gear useless) at the expense of my drivetrain. There is no fear on my part for anyone knowing how fast (or slow) my car is; I'm happy with the power. That's all that counts, since I'm paying for it.

Good point how did they get low 13's. I have been pondering the turbo idea for some time. What do you guys think about the aggressive ACT clutches? Some I heard say the clutch grabs to hard and shocks the trans. Could it be possible Adam Bloom and Shane got a clutch like ASR is selling (400 hp capability) with stock pressure plate. ASR says it will give and not shock the tranny. I think this may be the key to a turbo car. What do you guys think?

I really like the simplicity of the TEC-II (So to say). Over the Piggy back system. I would rather just spend one time pluggint the Tec-II in than keep splicing piggy back systems in. I already installed my S-AFC myself and programed it. I am not ever,ever,ever splicing any more crap onto my ecu harness again. I can't imagine splicing 3 or 4 more piggy backs on it. I don't know if I would stay sane and my back would take it 4 more times.

Well I thought I'd jump in since I have been reading it. Oh yeah Shiv's car is hella fast, in the issue of SCC right before he blew the tranny they said, "1st was by in a blink, 2nd was just as fast and 3rd you finally had time to sit back and realize how you got to 80mph so fast!" These guys tested some kick arse cars before. So I think they thought Shiv's Impreza was pretty quick!

Keep up the good work Shiv!

-Matt Weber


[This message has been edited by Wannabeturbo (edited March 29, 2001).]

4sfed 4, if you want to replace any parts that might break so I could give you some good
quarter mile numbers, I'd be more than happy to oblige your request.

I really dont want to get in a pissing contest either. But, what good is all this supposed "power" if it cant be enjoyed by driving the car in the appropriate manner to extract and use that power? The bottom line line, is doesnt matter how fast a car "could be". If you are lined up next to an inferior car, and he wins the race, no one cares the reason why. Its not about proving yourself, its about using what youve got.

If there is so much fear about breaking things, maybe these are the wrong cars to be toying with.

To piss a little more.. Nick Cat you're wrong. Adam had a stock 99 RS tranny in 1999. Shane even had a stock clutch, which truly defies logic.

This is getting off topic... but Adam Bloom was in fact running an RA Tranny, unless he blatantly lied in the following post...
http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/Archives/Archive-000002/HTML/20010209-15-004564.html

-Nick

rao - i have nothing against you expressing an interest in 1/4 mile times, or commenting when other people post theirs. it's continually asking Shiv for his that looks kind of silly to me, given that Shiv will never give you one. heck, if you bug *me* often enough, I might finally give you one, but not Shiv. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif that's really all this is to me - just the repeated questions. It has nothing to do with the validity of the 1/4 mile number itself.

It is quite possible to claim a car is fast and use numbers *besides* the 1/4 mile to back that up, in my (and probably Shiv's) opinion. You may not agree, but that's okay. I'm sure we can find some mutually acceptable performance measurement to agree on to at least give a basis for comparison.

4sfed - do you even own an Impreza? Imprezas aren't good drag cars, plain and simple. The fun of driving an Impreza is on a track with curves in it. It's quite simple for me to enjoy my car without abusing it. I enjoy it every day on the highway, and on the racetrack on weekends. I don't need to speed-shift or slam gears to get good track times, or fly off an on-ramp. I may not win a drag race because I'm a wuss, as it seems you are implying, but frankly, it doesn't matter much to me. Let's please leave that out of this discussion.

ColinL - I highly suspect that the stock clutch is a *good* thing, and may have contributed to Shane's tranny longevity. I bet the clutch slipped a little bit in between his shifts and absorbed some of the torque loads. Adam *did* eventually shred his stock MY99 RS transmission, so I think his 1/4 mile attempts finally caught up to him. He just wasn't on the track when it happened, that's all.

Wannabeturbo - it is always better to have the clutch slip instead of shock-load your transmission. Clutches are less expensive to replace than trannys. Of course, you don't want it to slip too much or you'll hate the way your car drives under boost, just slip enough in between shifts to get past that initial sudden torque load, that's all.

-Edwin

Edwin, I'm sorry that I appear silly to you.

I do not believe that I have ever asked Shiv for a 1/4 mile time, 0-60 times or any other times for his car.

[This message has been edited by rao (edited March 29, 2001).]

actually, Adam eventually blew his stock tranny. thats why he got the STi one.

here's a list of dead RS trannies that I can remember:

Adam
Shiv
MattC
TMR (RIP TMR's Impreza)
Larry Ganz

all were high HP Impreza's. scary stuff.

Back to the engine stuff...are the fuel lines themselves an issue? can they support the bigger fuel pressure needs?

rao - i think there's been a fair number of instances where your comments could have been interpreted that way. for instance:

<a href=http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/Forum24/HTML/000324.html>http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/Forum24/HTML/000324.html</a>
<a href=http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/Forum24/HTML/000637.html>http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/Forum24/HTML/000637.html</a>
<a href=http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/Forum24/HTML/000802-3.html>http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/Forum24/HTML/000802-3.html</a>

Just search for "rao" http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

Anyways, I am not personally calling you a silly person, rao. That just is not my intention here. Please do not take it that way. I just wish that we wouldn't keep talking about this considering that no one will be changing their opinion on this subject anytime soon.

TR - add Geoff (Sabrelion) to that list. And he had a turbo 2.2L wagon. It didn't even make as much hp or torque as the turbo 2.5L cars. Then again, I don't know if the 2.2L transmission is any different from the one used for the 2.5L

-Edwin

Edwin, so now we have something else that we disagree about http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif I read those posts and I don't see it, but that's just me. Fair enough.

That's okay. You can just consider me one of those overly-sensitive PC types, lol, even though I don't think of myself as one. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif It doesn't matter to me - it's just my opinion, that's how it will stay. You are welcome to yours.

Now, let's talk about the dyno numbers, since that was kind of the original point of this thread. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif I apologize that I still have not scanned in the charts and posted them, but the scanner here at work is hooked up to a non-functioning computer and I haven't had luck acquiring the necessary software to operate the scanner from my own machine here.

But offhand, I'd like to pose a question about the 2.5" versus 3" exhaust numbers. Now, Matt's car and my car were facing opposite directions and I definitely got cooler air, but does that entirely explain the difference? Does a 3" exhaust really provide a big improvement at 7psi? What about 9-10psi?

Also, my turbo is definitely sized a little smaller than Matt's. The rpm at which my peak torque appears should make that clear. But then, Matt has a 3" downpipe and that makes for a wicked fast spoolup time. Look at the curves (once I get them up), and you'll see what I mean. I'd love to see more discussion of what the merits of the 3" downpipe versus slightly smaller turbo sizing mean. I feel my car is a little more punchy on the highway than Matt's, but it's likely that Matt's car will make more power than mine at higher boost levels. My turbo feels perfect for 7-8 psi, but I don't know about higher levels.

-Edwin

[This message has been edited by efoo (edited March 29, 2001).]

Edwin - Actually I was talking the other way around... ability to finely adjust for drag racing because you're using more of the rev band, versus peak power where yo're concentrated on a more narrow rev band, which you can easily tune with piggybacks.

BTW, I'm not trying to drag Vishnu customers into this, but it just seems odd that there isn't a single post about someone going to the strip. I mean, not even out of morbid curiousity would they go? *shrug*

Oh and I'd love to not "agree to disagree". More then anything I'd love to get a full engine management setup versus piggybacks, but I'm not willing to throw another ~$1500 to do it (current: RRFPR, zener diode, fuel pump, J&S, ITC). What I'd like to see is that tuned properly, the car is proven to be faster then just tuned roughly.

Oh... and since shiv has the beefed up trans, you would think that a good hard 1/4 run would be a non-issue at this point. *shrug*

8complex - given enough time, you can also tune the piggybacks finely. It's the time and effort required that is vastly different between the two choices, not necessarily the end results.

Think of it this way. Shiv tuned my car for 230 rwhp using 7 runs on a dynojet, and another 4-5 hours of just driving around on the street, highway, and parking lot to adjust for drivability. The rest of the time we were just driving the car with no laptop attached, bombing around New Jersey looking for good places to eat (not kidding). http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

And then there's people who report having to adjust this or that on their RRFPR, ITC, or S-AFC nearly every day or at least once or twice a month. Every time you drive your car you have to keep an eye on the guages. I can pretty much forget about it on my own car, since I'm tuned conservatively, yet I make just as much power as you. Is that peace of mind not worth something?

I don't know about Shiv going to the strip - that's his own perogative. Yeah, he does have a nice transmission now, I'll grant. I wish I had one too. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif He can answer for that one.

-Edwin

Nick-- you bet we're off topic but this topic is a zoo anyway. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

At any rate, Adam bought the RA tranny at it was a basketcase. Any of his runs in front of the public-- at Englishtown, etc.-- were in fact on the stock 99 RS gearbox. He probably was using an unorthodox full-face kevlar clutch too.

Later on he did finally get the RA gearbox rebuilt and it is in the car now.

Are we done yet? http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif

A couple of things to consider about drag results. First of all, both Shane and Adam ran on race gas. 104+ octane makes it virtually impossible to detonate your engine through poor fuel and ignition management. In essence, it allows for lots of boost with very little or no ignition retard. Voila, lots of power. It aint so easy in the real world to keep making this power unless you want to run race gas all the time--- as Adam appearantly did. Let it also not be forgotten that he also punched a hole through his block from a bent rod, which was likely a result of poor ignition management and too much boost.

As anyone who has ever tuned a turbo car can attest to, in the real world, we are handicapped by available octane. This limits boost and forced us to tune much more conservatively. The fact that even when running pump gas, we are still making 270-290hp, more reliably, with lower EGTs than anyone running piggybacks speaks loudly for the cause of proper engine management. That, and about a million other documented incidences. Not to mention that its value will increase exponentially as boost and power levels rise further.

As for my lack of drag strip results, I think it's been explained before. Anyone how lives in Southern California and visits ISR knows that my car has been sitting down there on a lift for nearly 6 months-- either in a broken state or in the process of waiting for BPM tranny parts. Many others will also know that I'm the process of designing my own turbosystem using my car for a mock-up. Others will also know that my car is running in FWD mode in order to properly test and quantify the results on the Dynojet. I'm sorry I can't satisfy Rao's and 8Complex's curiousity at this time. But soon...

Cheers,
-Shiv

Shiv, sorry I don't live in California and drop by ISR every few days.

I really don't care if you ever get to the track so take yor time.

I am genuinely curious about this though. If you have a 90 day lead time for articles, how did you do a full evaluation of the BPM gearset if you car has been laid up or running in FWD mode for 6 months? Just curious, nothing else.

Well, Rao, I'm surprised this comes as a suprise to you. I've told you more than once why my car has been sidelined for so long. That's why I've ignored your constant sniping in the past few months.

And yes, we work with 3-4 month lead times upon submission of the draft. In this case, scheduling, logistics, parts avilability and mechanical issues necessitated even longer lead times and schedule shuffling. Not to mention that comments likes your's make it very difficult to participate on this forum and write the project series at the same time.

Cheers,
Shiv

Sorry I asked Shiv - I was just curious because I read the latest article in SCC and I was impressed with your evaluation of the BPM gearset. I had mistakenly assumed that the evaluation was based on your car running with the new gears and differential in AWD mode.

I have not "sniped" at you at all. I have never made any type of personal attack.

I now know that you will test your car when you are ready and make subjective evaluations of the car in the mean time - fine by me.

I am sorry that you feel uncomfortable.



[This message has been edited by rao (edited March 29, 2001).]

*shrug* I guess that is reasonable enough, but I'm surprised you haven't caved in and actually bought the parts to fix your trans instead of waiting 6 months for BPM to give you what you need. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif I know I couldn't be 6 months without my car, that is for sure. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/eek.gif

Well, whenever you get the chance to go to the track... Just remember that it's something some of us want to see, as well as being a good selling point on the kit.

[This message has been edited by 8Complex (edited March 29, 2001).]

Great results guys!

Edwin - What is your "Custom Turbo"?

A 13.9 sec ET doesn't exactly sound like a 265 wheel hp, awd Impreza, does it?

It certainly does not!

My turn to chime in.

I ran my car for about six months with all the piggybacks: J&S, ITC, AFC, Bell 20002, and MBC. The car required constant monitoring, back fired like hell, and had a power curve that felt like the new WRX; fast sometimes but very uneven.

In August I had had enough of it, sucked it up, and bought a TEC. Since then I have learned a whole lot about tuning cars, and generally have been happier with my car.

Power is relative, and obviously you guys can't take any butt dyno claims, but the car feels a lot faster.

Because:

A. It has enough fuel to run a good deal of advance

B. It has been tuned by shivhttp://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif


On the subject of drag racing. I went once before the car was TECed, and blew the trans. I would like to go back, but I won't until I get a proper trans behind it. I won't talk any further on the subject.

On the subject of the dyno session, I don't believe my car made its torque peak @ 4600rpms. It looked much lower when I saw it. Probably a typo.

Now onto the discussion of 3" exhausts. TR, I saw a huge improvement when going to 3", when it came to spool up and top end performance. Before I went TEC I was trying to eek out every last hp. Now I don't feel it is nearly as necessary at 7psi.

You also can't compare Efoo's car to mine in that respect because he has a different turbine, that spools up quicker. This was evident on the dyno. It is marginal, but definitely noticeable. I believe the Minnam turbo really comes into its own ubove 7psi. But I wouldn't know anything about that, right shivhttp://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/rolleyes.gif


MattC

Matt - I just looked at your dyno chart. You do indeed make max torque at 4600rpm. There is a little torque spike at 3800rpm where you got 227 ft/lbs, but it dropped to 222 ft/lbs by 4300rpm and rose again to 230.3 @ 4600rpm.

Have you been running 9psi again? Don't make me drive down there to buy you a Friendly's kid's meal, Matt. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

-Edwin

Off topic, but just wondering if Shiv has any plans for some seriously powerful WRX kits? I know I'd be interested.

For all intensive purposes, MattC makes close to peak torque at just 3800rpm. The fact that he hits it again at 4600rpm is simply a wastegate control issue. At 9psi, MattC's Minnam turbo set up is showing no signs of reaching flow limits. In fact, the turbo seems to be just getting into its sweet spot. From what I could tell tuning Efoo's car, the turbo may not be capable of supporting higher boost as efficiently. Still, as far as flow is conderned, either turbo configuration is far ahead of a T28-based set up.

WRXRob-- I do have plans to offer WRX products. Mostly engine management items. But more R&D is required before it's ready to roll. IMHO, the new EJ20 is too different for relying on the same tried and true upgrades that have been used for years. Some Japanese tuners have had their hands full trying to keep these new motors in one piece. I need to learn more about what is going on. Our WRX USTCC racecar should teach us a lot.

Cheers,
Shiv

Hi Guys,

Now that I've caught some much-needed sleep, I try to answer some previously asked questions.

Kyle-- I don't believe that the piggy-backed 7psi Minnam turbo made as much peak power as the 7psi TEC-II'd Minnam turbo. While comparing percent gains is valid, one would have to assume that the dyno at UPRD is properly calibrated and repeatable. This has been a concern of mine and others. This is also one of the reasons that UPRD stopped offering the awd dyno for inertial style testing. In this case, seat of the pants is all we have to go on. I'm sure my customers who have went the piggy-back route can attest to the differences in peak power as well as powerband flexibility.

JC-- We wanted to get some good burnout pics of both Efoo's RWD turbo RS and MattC's FWD turbo RS. Time restrictions prevented us from doing so, unfortunately.

kgb-- I'm not sure of any IHI that is comparable, in terms of flow/PR/etc,. to that of the Minnam spec'd T3/T04. FWIW, it appears that the T3/T04 used in Matt's, Chris' and Joe Hogan's Imprezas are capable of easily supporting 10psi to redline. This leaves us with another 30-40 wheel hp of potential. But I would rather extract the power later once we know more about what these motors are capable of in the long run. As it stands at 7psi, I'm confident that these turbo RSes will exhibit excellent durability with minimal fuss.

Ru fan-- I'm not sure how much torque the BPM tranny can take. I suspect the full dogbox, which I now run, is significantly more durable for higher torque levels than the 1/2 dogbox. Long term durabilty remains to be seen. Others who are using it seem to be keeping them in one piece, which is good http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

Turk-- I've been encouraging the US aftermarket to offer WRX parts for quite some time. So far I don't have any leads on tranny upgrades though. Seems like are only options come from the likes of Hollinger, BPM, STi, MRT, etc,.

Gregg 99-- Those who run S-AFCs, ITCs, and boost controllers will probably be very satisfied with the flexibilty that programmable engine management offers. It does come at a cost though. However, it is priced similiarly to that of a fully piggy-back array. As for the effects of Cobb's turbo cam, it was hard to quantify given the fact that they were on an auto-tranny'd RS with a built motor. Too many variables. However, it was clear that peak hp was bumped up to approx. 6200rpm instead of the typical 5800rpm peak power point with the stock cams. I would have loved to do controlled testing with each and every component http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif And yep, I do have maps for the cam upgrade.

Greg 99-- Yes, fuel rails can be bought seperately and used with stock injectors. I should have a new batch available within 2 weeks.

Did I miss anyone?

Cheers,
shiv

Ethan - my turbo is a T3/T4, but with a different compressor wheel than that found in the Minnam kits. My turbo spools up faster in exchange for a slightly less crazy top end.

-Edwin


[This message has been edited by efoo (edited March 29, 2001).]

Shiv, it seems like your package is helping a lot with power, but I still think there needs to be more tuning involved. There is a kit by ForcedAirTech that only runs 5psi and makes 265 hp to the wheels. It utilizes a T3/T3 turbo, so it boosts up at 1700 rpms and is at full boost at 3000 rpms. I guy with this kit, can't remember his name, ran a 13.9 with 5psi of boost with a 2.5inch exhaust. Now tell me that is not pimp as hell. Come on, you guys should be pulling harder than that anyday of the week. Does your package still need more finetuning or what? Let us know. Peace, Kevin

Edwin - Thanks, but I should have asked what turbo your running, that's what I really meant http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

A 13.9 sec ET doesn't exactly sound like a 265 wheel hp, awd Impreza, does it? http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/wink.gif

Shiv

Efoo, call it a FrankenTurboKit. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/biggrin.gif

going back a bit on this discussion. the 3" uppipe and exhaust have seemed to make quicker spoolup. so then a bigger turbo with the 3" plumbing would be able to sustain more boost at higher RPM's with minimal lag. sounds optimal to me.

Shiv, would East Coast trips be something you would do on a regular basis? If so, does it cost anything if you are a Vishnu customer to benefit from the tuning?

cant wait to join the fun. my car is getting Rallispec'd turbo'd starting Saturday. I'll be using the piggyback RRFPR for now. I guess around this time next year I will make a desicion on 'real' engine mgmt. (tranny too)

Ethan - sorry about the mis-understanding. I've corrected my post to answer your question correctly. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

impRS - that would be AaronB from azscooby.com. and I think he'll be the first to tell you that his car doesn't make 265hp at the wheels. if it did, he'd be embarassed to only run a 13.9 ET. http://www.i-club.com/ubb-files/smilies/smile.gif

a stock 227 crank hp 2002 WRX runs a 14.2 ET, according to magazine articles. common sense will tell you that if you made 265 hp at the *wheels*, you'd be moving a lot faster down the track.

Anyways, go turbocharge your own car, and let us know how fast it runs. You could still be right. If you can get 265rwhp at 5psi then the rest of us turbo owners must all be doing something horribly wrong, and I'd like to know what it is.

-Edwin

impRSa01, Did he prove he got that time w/ a track slip? if not, don't beleive everything people say.
hey i someone wrote gullable on the bottom of your keyboard? weird..