will post photos and dyno sheet tomorrow
Dyno #'s and photo's of t3/t04e
Got the custom non water cooled t3/t04e turbo tuned to day by Clark from kingPin performance in AZ at AZ dyno chip!!
on 16 psi 91 gas made around 320whp 330 FtLbs of torque
22 psi on c16 gas made 389whp 433FtLbs of torque dyno was a AWD dyno jet
Need to change the Turbine Housing so i can see if it will make more power
turbo
$500. of of ebay Garrett hybrid custom t3/t04e turbo

Compressor Specs:
- T04E housing 3" inlet 2" outlet
- 50 trim compressor wheel 2.12/3.00 49lb/min

Turbine Specs:

-76 trim T350 turbine wheel (stage 5)

-.63 4 bolt Turbine Housing A/R Ratio WIll be going to a bigger size

Turbonetics Evolution wastegate
http://minosauto.com/waste.jpg
http://minosauto.com/upipe.jpg
http://minosauto.com/t3t4turbo.jpg
http://minosauto.com/t3back.jpg
http://minosauto.com/turbo.jpg
http://minosauto.com/dynooo.jpg
Note work Done by me :disco: The up-pipe was not fun :furious:

great #'s for 91 piss.

can u boost more than 23psi w/ that turbo?

good up to 32psi !! photos great #'s for 91 piss.

can u boost more than 23psi w/ that turbo?

good up to 32psi !! photos

So why did you only run 23 on c16? If you were det. limited to 23psi on c16 then it would'nt matter if the thing was good for 50 psi.

Nice work on the fabrication. Can't wait to see what it will do with a bigger hot side.

i'm going to be selling the car so i only went to 23psi.if i keep it i will boost it to around 26-27

Good numbers man.

I had fun tuning this car. Just as I expected the turbine housing is to small. So small that we could not make more top end boost. It had a stock turbo like power curve where the power peak was really early. 91 octane fuel runs where actualy tuned at only 16 psi and not 18-19. Adam wanted a super safe 91 map and was not interested in pushing it on pump gas. I know it would do 340-350 on pump if I pushed it. On the C16 tune I ran around 21-22 psi peak in the logs. By 6k rpm boost would fade down to 18 or so. Notice how the car made alot more trq then hp. Thats a sign of an airflow problem. More boost got us more trq and thats it. Car never knocked on C16. We just decided to stop at this point. In a few weeks adam is going to trailer the car back down for a larger .82 AR turbine. I suspect this car will really come to life with the larger turbine. I suspect 400-430whp will be a nice safe C16 tune if Adam will let me run the boost to 25 or so. All in all a pretty nice setup and nice people made this one a fun tune.

Clark

Glad you finally got that thingy running adam- my car is dead and will remain dead until I get rid of it. Is that the solid tech kit? or did you change out those pipes man?

C

Edit: just saw the note that said work done by you.

ChessMaster
sad to hear you are selling the car
Clark
Sent you a email .Thank you for all the help

hay was this kit done by solid tech? If so I think out cars were there being worked on at the same time. :)

solid did the work the 1st time and didnt put coolant in the car and a head gasket went out :mad: Also i had to re do all the pipes cause the one's he did looked like a :huh: .send me a email and i can send you the photos of the work they did :furious: hay was this kit done by solid tech? If so I think out cars were there being worked on at the same time. :)

That sucks! The work they did on my car was grate!

yeah solid tech did a crappy job on adam's car. Never did like those guys..

C

what other mods do u have on ur car. great numbers man.

good to see you finally posted :)

what other mods do u have on ur car. great numbers man.
Turbonetics Evolution wastegate
APS DR500 FMIC
APS BOV High volume twin vent
APS Cold Air Intake
APS 3.5 Turbo-Back Exhaust with MIL Eliminator
Borla Header
APS Tumbler-Delete Valve’s
APS Race Fuel System
Walbro 255Lph Fuel Pump
MZM 720cc top feed injectors
SX Fuel Pressure Reg.
Iridium Power plugs Ikh22
GFB pulley set
GReddy Profec B spec II
Utec
spec stage 3 clutch
Darton Iron Sleeves
CP forged Pistons with rings
Pauter 4340 connet. rods
ARP Head Studs
Cometic Head gaskets
port and polish heads
Axis titanium Retainers

hey man, forgot to ask..

U planning on running it in Alb when the track opens up again?

C

very nice! good to see the numbers at low boost levels

Very nice #'s and setup no doubt. But i have a question is there a kink in your compressor outlet right off the turbo?

why do u want to get rid of it?
replacement?

just curious.

Just as I expected the turbine housing is to small. So small that we could not make more top end boost. It had a stock turbo like power curve where the power peak was really early. By 6k rpm boost would fade down to 18 or so. Notice how the car made alot more trq then hp. Thats a sign of an airflow problem. More boost got us more trq and thats it.

Clark-

Do you think it could be a compressor airflow limit?

From your description of how the car behaved, it sounds exactly as what I experienced on my Turbo Dodge. At one time, I had a TO4E 50 / Stage 3 / 0.63 turbo (basically the same as on this car with the exception of my smaller turbine wheel). I would also get serious top end boost drop off. I could spike into the low 30's, but even with the wastegate disconnected, boost would fall into the mid 20's up top no matter what I did. Power would only go into the very very low 400's and that was with the aforementioned disconnected wastegate. Yet...and as you noted, torque increases were there as I was able to get about 475 ft lb of torque. And I needed some 110 fuel mixed in to stay out of KR.

I basically felt the TO4E 50 compressor was out of air. So, I swapped to a Precison SC6152S which uses basically the same turbine side as the turbo you are talking about (Stage 5 turbine in a 0.63 A/R housing), but this time it is paired to a Garrett GT40 56 trim compressor in a ported shroud TO4S 0.70 housing.

POW! The car picked up 100 whp.

The next time at the dyno on pump gas with alky injection the car made 500 whp / 514 ft lb.

This is the Green's compressor wheel and very similar housing and with a slightly smaller turbine housing (I don't know how the TD06H wheel compares to this 76 trim turbine wheel). I'd expect the compressor to flow as much as the Green, and it is.

I'm surprise that even with the external gate, you appear to be "pushing" exhaust and dropping HP up top. Is it a small-ish wastegate?

BTW, that's quite a car, must be fun to drive!!

chessmaster, what happened to your car? that thing was SICK

Greens use a smaller compressor cover and inlet and I have tuned them up in this range. This is a T04E comp so its 3 inches. I have a t04 on my car and recently put donw 423whp with clutch letting go. I recently tuned this same turbo on an EVO to 404whp. So in short No.. I dont think this is a compressor airflow. The .63 housing is way, way to small for this EJ engine. They work on an inline 4 that is an undersquare design. But on the EJ its a big bottle neck. This car will pick up lots of power up top with a .82 AR housing and I bet it spools the same if not faster. If this where my car I would build up a GT30R-12 in a .82 housing. But just upgrading to the .82 turbine is a cheap test.

Clark

The .63 housing is way, way to small for this EJ engine. They work on an inline 4 that is an undersquare design. But on the EJ its a big bottle neck.

How far is the turbo from the exhaust ports?

Is the reason its a bottleneck because you are trying to rev the car way out? My car is not a revver (peak power in the 6000 rpm range and at 7000 rpm power is about 90% of that at peak) and thus has to make power via torque so maybe thats why the 0.63 is not presenting a problem on my car.

The reason is the EJ motor has a high piston speed due to the short stroke.

Clark

Mines the opposite at 3.44" / 3.69".

Whats the bore/stroke of the STi?

Larry
Tampa Bay, FL
2002 MB C320 Sport Wagon-15.4@91
1996 Ford Ranger
1991 Dodge Spirit R/T - 12.3@117 (368 whp)
500 whp / 514 ft lb on pump gas

http://mysite.verizon.net/res1elpe/hood%20pinocchio.jpg

3.92 X 3.11

The reason is the EJ motor has a high piston speed due to the short stroke.

Clark
:confused:
How does that logic make sense? For a given rpm, the longer the stroke, the higher the pistons speed not "the lower." If you had a 2mm stroke, but a HUGE bore, the piston speed would be almost nothing not tremendous like your statement would have you believe.

:confused:
How does that logic make sense? For a given rpm, the longer the stroke, the higher the pistons speed not "the lower." If you had a 2mm stroke, but a HUGE bore, the piston speed would be almost nothing not tremendous like your statement would have you believe.
ok, im not the only one that was really confused by that statement...

The reason is the EJ motor has a high piston speed due to the short stroke.

Clark

Kingpin, youre wrong. If i have 25 seconds to go 50 yards, i can take my time, and go slow, but if i have to go 100 yards, in that same time, im going to have to run. in other words, long stroke means fast piston speed, and short stroke means slow pistin speed. this is the reason F1 cars use really small strokes, because they can rev way higher keeping piston speed down. remember the term RPM means revolutions per minute.

EXAMPLE: Engine A has a stroke of 3 inches, and engine B has a stroke of 4inches.

During one minute of running at 5000 RPMs (revolutions per minute) the Pistons in Engine A would have travelled 15000 inches, and the piston from Engine B is travelling 20000 inches. In that minute, Which one of those pistons would have gone faster? Obviously Its Engine B. Longer stroke, faster piston speed.

Yep longer stoke = higher piston speeds for a given rpm.

STROKE times RPM divided by 6 gives you feet per min.

I've always wondered why Subaru gave us an over square engine but limited us to 7000rpm when a majority of the 2l out there are under square and set at the same limit.

that just means we can build our heads and rev up higher.

Yep longer stoke = higher piston speeds for a given rpm.

STROKE times RPM divided by 6 gives you feet per min.

I've always wondered why Subaru gave us an over square engine but limited us to 7000rpm when a majority of the 2l out there are under square and set at the same limit.

Unfortunatley, we're stuck with buckets instead of lifters/arms. Shim-under is an improvement over the WRX, but still limiting.

Dan

That makes sense. Gotta love those inline 4's... Thats alot of power for sure.

Obviously I ment to say slower piston speed :) Thanks for busting my chops guys :) I too wonder why subaru chose to give us big pistons and short stroke and then to limit rpm with the head design. I mean this is not even good for emissions

Clark


Mines the opposite at 3.44" / 3.69".

Whats the bore/stroke of the STi?

Larry
Tampa Bay, FL
2002 MB C320 Sport Wagon-15.4@91
1996 Ford Ranger
1991 Dodge Spirit R/T - 12.3@117 (368 whp)
500 whp / 514 ft lb on pump gas

http://mysite.verizon.net/res1elpe/hood%20pinocchio.jpg

dyno sheet! so you can see what clark was talking about
http://minosauto.com/dyno21psi.jpg

Looks a little laggy. How does it feel on the road?

dyno sheet! so you can see what clark was talking about
http://minosauto.com/dyno21psi.jpg

Please let me know how the swap to the 0.82 housing turns out. Your dyno curve shape looks alot like mine does and I also have the same turbine wheel and housing (Stage 5 and 0.63 A/R).

Adam ordered the housing so I should have it soon. After the holidays he is going to bring it back out and we will tune it once again. What we will see should be pretty amazing. That dyno curve starts at 2k rpm so its actually not that laggy. Its a shame that it was printed with MPH instead of RPm. I suspect the bottom end will rise up with the .82 housing. Time will tell.

Clark

dyno '.63 Housing' with rpm

http://minosauto.com/dynorpm.jpg

is that the new one?

Adam ordered the housing so I should have it soon. After the holidays he is going to bring it back out and we will tune it once again. What we will see should be pretty amazing. That dyno curve starts at 2k rpm so its actually not that laggy. Its a shame that it was printed with MPH instead of RPm. I suspect the bottom end will rise up with the .82 housing. Time will tell.

Clark

I will be awaiting your results. If things work as you hope, Ill probably switch out my 0.63 to an 0.82 as well. It will be nice to not have to do all the trial and error myself (as I usually do) :D I will be surprised (pleasantly) if you see a bottom end increase (with no other changes but the housing swap).

My dyno curves look very similar to what is posted below (but just a little over 100 whp higher :D ). Part of it has been lack of dyno drum load which caused boost to drop when it doesnt seem to do so as drastically on the street. But, part of it may be too much backpressure. I havent measured backpressure on this combo yet, but have in the past with other turbos as it is quite revealing.

This dyno doesn't look laggy... I'll take back the orginal statement. :D

Yeah.. Thats not much lag... 300whp just past 4k! :) I really worked that top end trying to bring power up out there.. I tried leaning out past trq curve and running rich with lots of timing. No dice. It would make 380-390whp and thats it. Trq kept comming up in the middle there and at 433 I felt we should stop. With the .82 and if we can get it to hold boost out to redline I expect 430-440whp. I do want to add that this engine is a sleeved 2.5ltr with forged pistons and I am not sure who put it together but it was as smooth as stock and made NO piston slap or noise. Very impressive.

Clark

Clark

how is it that a larger turbine housing will increase top end? please tell me this, because I have not experienced the same thing... wuite the opposite

Larger turbine housings flow more exhaust.

Clark

larger turbine lags more.

i put a .70 ar housing on my car, and got horrible response to boost, and low end. then i went to a .58 ar housing, and it spooled up quicker, and i noticed no difference at the real low end stuff.

infact it was worse, i made an extra psi boost at 3k rpms, and more at 4k, and it had better spool alltogether.,.. the one tradeoff was that the turbine doesnt flow as well up top

Block was put togeather by Ron, right adam?
none the less, you better not sell (before we race, heehee)

larger turbine lags more.

i put a .70 ar housing on my car, and got horrible response to boost, and low end. then i went to a .58 ar housing, and it spooled up quicker, and i noticed no difference at the real low end stuff.

Sounds like your car needed to be tuned after the turbine swap. Never assume that a larger turbine increases lag. If only turbo science was that easy. You will never make big power with a .58 AR housing. Just to small to flow enough gas.

Clark

Sounds like your car needed to be tuned after the turbine swap. Never assume that a larger turbine increases lag. If only turbo science was that easy. You will never make big power with a .58 AR housing. Just to small to flow enough gas.

Clark

how can you say that is correct? i just dont understand that one. please fill me in. ive used multiple housings on my turbo, and the results were exactly that. prove that to me with facts clark. I know a certain someone who made 536 wheel horsepower with a .58 a/r housing exactly the same one and wheel as mine is. everyone sais that increasing the a/r increases lag, and ive prooven that too. we know how to tune, and obviously we didnt slap on a housing, and run it. I retune my car after everychange i make.

edit (i know larger housings make lesspower.)

lets just go ahaid and see what this car, that is being discussed in this thread, spools at after that larger a/r housing. i got a hundred dollars on later spool. (all things being equal)

I'm sure it will spool a little slower, but will hit harder and with a good tuner most lag can be tuned out. Then again, knowing adam, he'll throw some laughing gas at the equation just so he can make his brother poo his pants.

laughing gas is the only, (and real antilag) outright solution to lag, besides a V8 motor or something. You cant really tune all lag away, If a turbo is going to spool at 4k, its going to spool at 4k. You can do some things like leaning out afrs right before spool to assist it, basically turn up the EGTs, but you cannot tune lag out. and that housing may hit harder, but it will hit later. as ANYONE from precision, turbonetics, Garrett, a larger a/r turbine housing will move the power band to the right. NOT THE LEFT. cmon clark you know this.

I got all the parts from AXIS , Statkus Engines Performance"does are 7sec drag car' did the motor :D
The heads have a Street/Race Port with Dual Spring Valvesprings
and Titanium Retainers



Block was put togeather by Ron, right adam?
none the less, you better not sell (before we race, heehee)

laughing gas is the only, (and real antilag) outright solution to lag, besides a V8 motor or something. You cant really tune all lag away, If a turbo is going to spool at 4k, its going to spool at 4k. You can do some things like leaning out afrs right before spool to assist it, basically turn up the EGTs, but you cannot tune lag out. and that housing may hit harder, but it will hit later. as ANYONE from precision, turbonetics, Garrett, a larger a/r turbine housing will move the power band to the right. NOT THE LEFT. cmon clark you know this.


Actualy you are wrong about tuning to minimize lag. A rich mixture with retarded timing will spool a turbo faster then leaning AFR's. Pegdrgr has posted logs showing this. A richer mixture has more after burn which creates more heat in the turbine. Leaning AFR's and running advanced timing on spoolup makes more trq and makes the engine more responsive to throttle input but does increase lag.

Going to a larger AR turbine does not always increase lag. In general terms you have a larger path for exhaust to flow and less work is produced from the turbine wheel because more gas runs past the Turbine wheel OR that gas is at a lower velocity. But in certain cases opening up the exhaust flow and reducing preturbine backpressure actually produces more trq and faster spool because more flow can run through the turbine and the compressor can spin up faster as its not fighting the engine on the intake side as much. More airflow through the motor means more power and more power means more heat and more heat means faster turbo response. I have proven this again on these motors as have other forum members. Pegdrgr did a great test where he clipped a turbine wheel and dyno tested the car again in the same day. Maybe he can post his results. It was something like 40-50ft lbs more trq at the same boost right in the middle. Everyone scratched there heads and could not believe the results. What he did was lower EGP and allowed more airflow through that motor.

What you are up against if I had to guess is typical. You have a larger t4 compressor wheel that is hard to get going into the effeciency range on your size engine. As a result you need all the work you can get on that turbine wheel. Had you gone to a larger Turbine wheel in the larger housing you would have probably made the best compromise on spool up and power. A larger wheel is going to produce more trq on the shaft to get the compressor moving. Hopefully you can understand what I am saying here. Man I wish I could say going to a larger AR increases lag and moves the power bad to the left but thats certainly not true. If you would like more information search around on RX7 boards as Wankel engines behave this same way. They need a HUGE AR on the turbine to produce power. I am aware of Nicks car and his power level with the .58. That does not mean it would not have made 600whp with the larger AR housing though.

On Mikes car he runs a .7 AR turbine with a P trim wheel and a 60-1 compressor. Full spool by 4k rpm and minimal lag and great response. He is installing a T04 R with a larger turbine wheel as this turbo is really hitting hard in the middle.

As for Adams STI. I dont know what will happen with the larger .82 housing. We will certainly find out and the results will be posted. Going to the larger housing on this car was not to gain low end and thats not even a concern. It has what I think is to much low end and midrange power now. The reason we are going to the larger Turbine is to produce more trq at higher RPM's. This car dies of hard at 380whp and even with th external gate the boost level falls hard due to very high EGP. If the .82 produces another 30-40ft lbs at redline and raises his power peak up 500-1000 rpm it will be a great success for the cost Adam is putting out. Anything gained down low will be frosting on the cake.


Cya

Clark

Actualy you are wrong about tuning to minimize lag. A rich mixture with retarded timing will spool a turbo faster then leaning AFR's. Pegdrgr has posted logs showing this. A richer mixture has more after burn which creates more heat in the turbine. Leaning AFR's and running advanced timing on spoolup makes more trq and makes the engine more responsive to throttle input but does increase lag.


gosh dangit, im not smoking crack. thanks for shining light on something i thought was happening, but never heard talked about, so i thought i was just imagining it.

Actualy you are wrong about tuning to minimize lag. A rich mixture with retarded timing will spool a turbo faster then leaning AFR's. Pegdrgr has posted logs showing this. A richer mixture has more after burn which creates more heat in the turbine.

I will also agree with the above thoughts.

I have some dynos that show how overfueling the engine can decrease lag substantially.

Dynorun_002 is with "normal" fueling and Dyno_013 shows what what happens when I drastically overfueled the car to the point of rich misfire (via the alky injection system) :banana:

Unfortunately, I was getting boost drop off on these runs from about 30-32 psi down to 26-27 psi as my wastegate flapper was getting blown open.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res1elpe/powercurves.gif

ill have to try that. i know that there are people that swear by leaning out, as it increases EGTs and also people that richin it up prespool RPM ranges. as far as the turbine side giving better spool... i just dont see it. UNLESS the turbine someone is changing from is sided wrongly in the first place... like way to small. for example people around here are doing rear mounted turbos on there Fbody V8 cars, and they are using P trim wheels with large a/r housings. when they went to larger turbine housings they actually didnt lose any spool, because there egps went way down, and that increased the effeciency of the motor. remember clark that EGPs are needed in moderation. lowering the EGPs isnt allways the answer. you were the person who told me that, if youd like me to quote you on it i can dig it up for you.

Leaning out to increase EGT actualy in practice produces cooler temps at the turbine. this is especialy true on the EJ motor as we have long pipes. I learned this while spending some time with a car that had two EGT probes. One in the up and one in the manifold. Running a rich mixture causes afterburn in which fuel burns in the exhaust system out side the ports. This produces hotter and more dense gas at the turbine. The above dyno chart is a decent example of that but I prefer Pegdrgrs graph as it shows boost.

There is an optimal EGP ratio. Running under that is great if you have a honda with 11 to 1 comp and are running 6 psi :) Your example of an F body is a good one and pretty much proves my point. Its a black art to size turbos correctly and every once in a while something works and you dont exactly understand why. The big mistake I see people make is that they choose a turbo on compressor flow and pay little attention to Turbine flow maps. That turbine flow has to be there. How to get there is up to you. Large AR and little wheel or a large wheel and smaller AR. One will work better but which one?

Clark

I guess I'll trow my .02c in. Wlith turbo sizing you have to remember basic physics laws. If you want something to move ( i.e. large compressor wheel) you need to exert sufficient force on it. There are 2 ways of accomplishing that. 1. is with smaller exhaust housing that increases exhaust gas velocity and hits the smaller turbine wheel with stonger jet of gases. This accomplishes the task with tradeoff of high rpm flow restriction. You are also limited on what size compressor wheel you will be able to move and higher exhaust back pressure lowers detonation threshhold, making detonation more likely.
2. With larger exhaust housing that allows the user of larger turbine wheel. The greater torque of the larger turbine wheel moves the larger compressor wheels with greater ease and larger exhaut housing allows greater high end power and decreases chances for detonation. The trade-off is slower spool if you go too large.
I hope this makes the "black science" a little clearer. This is how it was explained to me by my mentor who is one first name bases with Mr. Garrett himself and real word experience.

Alex...

how rich do you tune for under like 1-10 psi spool areas to maximize spool..? ill try it and let you know what happens.

how rich do you tune for under like 1-10 psi spool areas to maximize spool..? ill try it and let you know what happens.

I cant answer your question on my car except to say that the wideband on the dyno was solidly pegged full rich (which means richer than 10:1).

Try richening the car up until it rich misfires on spool up. If you can, log boost vs. rpm and then compare that with the same data for a leaner fuel tune and see if you are getting more boost at a given rpm.

In my case, I found out about this quicker spool by accident. I noticed on the street that the car appeared (by seat of the pants) come on harder from a lower rpm when I had the alky system cranked up what I thought was too hard down low. I then datalogged it and saw that boost was indeed arriving sooner tuned like this (I didnt touch timing). I then knew that boost was in fact arriving sooner, but figured that running it that rich would make less power even though more boost was there at a given rpm. Well, it turns out that more boost more than makes up for way too much fuel at a given rpm:D

interesting, ill have to try that. im worried about milage, im getting around 25 now, and i love it. the only problem with fattening up the prespool stuff is that thats the area i drive around in, like when im loping from a light or on the freeway, im going at about 3-4 psi, and that would really kill milage if i made it richer than 10-1. my car starts to misfire at around 9.8 to one. 10-1 is runs pretty bad. im thinking of installing a sparkplug in my uppipe, and running a coil for it, and then hooking it up to the switch, then tuning for around 10.0-1 AFRs. my spool issues would go away, as well as my turbine blade, and any gaskets i have in my exhaust system. it would be fun anyways.

Can you make seperate maps? One for daily driving and one for spool?

i could do that, i dont have the map selector though, need to pick one up.

interesting, ill have to try that. im worried about milage, im getting around 25 now, and i love it. the only problem with fattening up the prespool stuff is that thats the area i drive around in,

Cant you tune it to run ultra rich only at WOT?

not really, i might be able to construct a map that basically is either a WOT race map on pump gas, or a dont touch that gas, or your going to suck the whole tak of fuel down in 3.1 seconds map. i tried tuning it alittle tonight, and i must say, that the OLF, is not meant for auto cars. it just doesnt know when to give fuel and when to not. anyways ill get some maps, and logs of 10.0 runs from 0 boost up to like 10-12 psi boost, and some of it at like 13.0 to one. remember im on a garrett full t4 that doesnt get fulll spool till like 5k atleast. anyways, im exited to find out whats going on with it, and find out weather richening it up, r leaning it out under full spool on my car will prove to be an honest improvement, ot not.stand bye for updates.

Please pardon my ignorance as I am not sure what OLF stands for :D

Im also unsure of why the car would run wickedly rich just driving around town with a an ultra rich WOT tune? Wouldnt your ECU be in closed loop (and thus watching the O2 sensor) and make the appropriate fueling changes? Or, is it a case where your ECU can only take out so much under closed loop that youd still run rich?

OLF is open loop fueling. After certain throttle position or certain load, his EM goes into open loop and is not taking 02 readings into account. HTH's -Chuck

Topic very advanced for me, but I am catching little nuggets of knowledge from you gentlemen, and am very thankful for this type of discussion. Can someone please post for comparison sake (for the newby-newbies), exhaust housing size, turbine wheel size, and compressor wheel size of the stock VF39. Thanks again!

Speaking of closed loop, I have been told that the stock o2s won't read below 10:1 and below 11:1 they are some what inaccurate.....

The stock o2 sensor is a wideband unit but it does only read to 11 to 1. Its pretty useless once you have a real meter like the LM1 that reads down in the 9's. These cars run rich and have to run rich to make power.

Should have some real good data soon. I am testing some diff combos of our new turbo kit and I am tuning some cars this weekend and next week. GT35 and GT3040 platforms.

Clark

Should have some real good data soon. I am testing some diff combos of our new turbo kit and I am tuning some cars this weekend and next week. GT35 and GT3040 platforms.

Clark
Anxiously awaiting those 0.63 vs 0.82 a/r results!

Me too.. I kinda wish this turbo had the Stg3 wheel with the .82 but we will find out. Kind of concerned that the 5 is spinning the 50 trim to hard. But this is what testing is all about.. :)

C

I kinda wish this turbo had the Stg3 wheel with the .82 but we will find out. Kind of concerned that the 5 is spinning the 50 trim to hard. But this is what testing is all about.. :)

C

I agree on the turbine compressor match. In my opinion (based on some tests I and fellow Turbo Dodge guys have done), there doesnt seem to be a need for anything greater than the T3 Stage 2 wheel in the 0.63 a/r housing when you are running the TO4E 50 trim compressor. I ran the TO4E 50 with the Stage 3 and a buddy ran the TO4E 50 with the Stage 2 and on the dyno the cars are the same and run the same trap speeds at the track. His just spooled a few hundred rpm sooner. I really think the turbine housing plays a much bigger role than the turbine when it comes to making power and keeping backpressure down. Ive actually wanted to try running a very small turbine wheel (maybe a Stage 2) in an 0.82 a/r just for yucks to see what happens.

Addressing the "earlier spool with retarded timing and rich operation" argument above. Pegdrgr's research showed that he got higher MANIFOLD PRESSURE when he retarded timing down low. IIRC, he did NOT change AFRs down there during this testing. However, this doesn't address the real finding of his study: he made more power and more torque in every facet of the test running more advanced timing. People have to realize that manifold pressure and airflow (and thus, power) are NOT the same. Manifold pressure is a measure of backpressure, and I think we can all agree that backpressure is generally bad.

In short, Jared, all you will be doing if you repeat the Pegdrgr experiment is running your car less efficiently and giving up power.

About the issue of over- or under-square engines being more efficient, cleaner or better for power: that's hooey. The engine is a nice combined tool. There are advantages to both styles of engine. I think that Subaru goes with an oversquare design because it helps with packaging.

-Sean

Addressing the "earlier spool with retarded timing and rich operation" argument above. Pegdrgr's research showed that he got higher MANIFOLD PRESSURE when he retarded timing down low. IIRC, he did NOT change AFRs down there during this testing.

Thats a totally different scenario.

The excess fuel is what will get things rolling. In my post #58 on the previous page, I did not change timing at all, only fueling. After the period of obvious misfiring, this really brought the power on sooner.

Me too.. I kinda wish this turbo had the Stg3 wheel with the .82 but we will find out. Kind of concerned that the 5 is spinning the 50 trim to hard. But this is what testing is all about.. :)

C
As an aside.....I made a quick backpressure measurement this afternoon.

At 25 psi boost, I saw 45 psi manifold backpressure. This is with the Precision SC6152S turbo (GT40 56 trim (aka GT35R) compressor, Stage 5 turbine, 0.63 a/r turbine housing). This makes the ratio 1.8:1 and is actually alot better than I thought it would be :banana:

It is still missing the point. Are you tuning for specific boost numbers of for power and torque? Because, even though he got higher boost fractionally earlier during that test, his car made LESS power!

I run a lot of boost compared to most people. But I don't do it just to see a certain manifold pressure. I do it to make power. Period. Have fun.

-Sean

It is still missing the point. Are you tuning for specific boost numbers of for power and torque? Because, even though he got higher boost fractionally earlier during that test, his car made LESS power!

I run a lot of boost compared to most people. But I don't do it just to see a certain manifold pressure. I do it to make power. Period. Have fun.

-Sean

Not to argue....but in my post #58, the boost was identical for both runs. It just came on sooner. Having more boost at an earlier rpm more than made up for the excess fueling (on my car at least). So, at "x" rpm the car was making more power when it was overfueled down low.

I imagine that each car will vary as far as results go, but 505 whp on pump gas works for me :D

Let's all just be friends ;) - I was addressing Pegdrgr's research, which has been variously quoted and mis-quoted during this thread.

And 505 on pump is nice work!

-Sean

Leaning out to increase EGT actualy in practice produces cooler temps at the turbine. this is especialy true on the EJ motor as we have long pipes. I learned this while spending some time with a car that had two EGT probes. One in the up and one in the manifold. Running a rich mixture causes afterburn in which fuel burns in the exhaust system out side the ports. This produces hotter and more dense gas at the turbine. The above dyno chart is a decent example of that but I prefer Pegdrgrs graph as it shows boost.

I have a similar chart here showing boost pressure vs rpm with various levels of fueling.

The dark blue line is with the methanol (this is not even overfueling the car, just some excess fuel). The red line is with a base FP of 38 psi and the black line is with a base FP of 50 psi. The light blue line is 50 psi base FP with a very small shot of N2O (0.018" jet).

The kicker is that the methanol brought boost on as quickly as the N2O.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res1elpe/alkyboostresponse.JPG

Let's all just be friends ;) - I was addressing Pegdrgr's research, which has been variously quoted and mis-quoted during this thread.

And 505 on pump is nice work!

-Sean

I undnerstand your point in that boost is not what you shoot for...but power. You can have 25 psi boost and make 200 hp or 500 hp. Boost doesnt mean crap without everything else being in place.

I was as shocked as the next guy when I saw what happened on the dyno.

On the street, it "felt" like overfueling the car was bringing boost on sooner, so I datalogged it. It turns out it was. So, then I thought.....well, its boosting sooner, but its probably so rich that its killing power and the extra boost isnt "doing" anything. So, I ran it on the dyno, overfueled the sucker and saw that my butt dyno wasnt lying!

I will stress that I didnt change timing at all. So, I cant comment on the effects it might have had. My timing was basically stuck at 12 degrees advance.

And 505 on pump is nice work!

-Sean

Not to take this thread too far of course----

But, I was a little disappointed as I thought I had 550 in the bag.

I found out on the dyno that the boost was dropping off due to my weak actuator (I have an internal gate). I think I have since fixed the problem and will hopefully be able to hold full boost all the way out next time.

How to get there is up to you. Large AR and little wheel or a large wheel and smaller AR. One will work better but which one?

Clark
You answer that one conclusively and youll end up with a religion started in your name :D

Running a richer AFR and retarded timing will certainly bring boost on faster and you can get to that trq peak sooner in the RPM band as in the graph on the dodge. I explained why earlier. This trick has been done for years. Its helpfull on a drag car trying to manage a really big turbo. If you go back and read that post that Pegdrgr made you can clearly see that I never do this in tuning. The reason is that off boost and the area under that boost will have less power and it will be less responsive as Sean says. That was the point I was making back then.

People are so concerned with "lag". There is no lag in modern turbos. Lag is gone. I think people have forgot what Lag really is. Drive a 930 turbo. I counted 2 and almost 3 seconds to get BACK to full boost when letting off and going WOT at 5k rpm on a 930. Thats lag fellas.. If I do that in my car the lag time is un measurable. I go from 0 to 20 psi so fast I cant even count to 1. I have no lag. How wide is my power band? 5k to 7k rpms.

Boost onset is what we should be talking about or how about the power band?

I always tune for trq. Many tuners do not and thats a mistake. Thats why I tend to get alot of power out of cars. Tune for trq and tune for a broad power band and the Hp will follow. I see guys always looking at that peak number. Its funny. I get a kick out of tuning cars now.. I make probably 20 pulls tuning the bottom end and midrange around the trq peak and mean while the car is making nothing up top cause its not tuned. After every pull every guy in the area runs over to look at the screen to see what that peak is.. "Still at 290whp, something is wrong" Mean while they missed the 15ft lbs I just got at 3k :)


This test that is upcoming on this car going to a .82 is going to be interesting. It will certainly pick up on the top end. We all know that. But what happens down low and what happens to that TRQ curve down low is what I am interested in. If it makes less trq down low I will be suprised but its possible. It does have that big stg 5 wheel. I expect it gains power in every area of the curve.

1.8 to 1 is not that bad and is certainly amazing for that combo and power level. I cant understand that. That just goes to show that this really is a black art. But what you should do is try a .82 and dyno again as I believe you will hit that 550 and a turbine housing is cheap.

I have decided to run a .82 AR GT35R on my car so people can see what the Kit will do. I will then install the larger 1.06 housing and retune and show people what that will do. I might even toss on a GT3040 with .82 as a test. I have to do this as people will want to know how things work when they shell out this kind of cash. After that I will go to a larger compressor. The days of having 400 honest to goodness whp on pump gas are very close fellas. Its a big step for the Subaru com. When we start laying down 500-600whp on stock blocks its just another mile stone. Thats what makes this hobby fun. Guys like Jeff Sponaugle who is about to lay the smack down with his monster and guys like Nick that are not afraid to run T04R's on EJ motors. Guys like Mike going to something even larger. If only this hobby and all this research was cheap!

Sean. I think you are right about packaging being the reason subaru did this but still. Its odd. Not many engines are like this. On paper it looks good but I cant help but think if we had that smaller less det prone piston and a longer stroke if we would not make more power on lower octane fuels. I have been thinking alot about my next motor and I have pretty much decided on a big stroke and small-er bore. I figure if i am going to sleeve it anyways why not run 1.8 sized pistons with a 2.5 stroke for a test?


Cya

Clark

People are so concerned with "lag". There is no lag in modern turbos. Lag is gone. I think people have forgot what Lag really is. Drive a 930 turbo. I counted 2 and almost 3 seconds to get BACK to full boost when letting off and going WOT at 5k rpm on a 930. Thats lag fellas.. If I do that in my car the lag time is un measurable. I go from 0 to 20 psi so fast I cant even count to 1. I have no lag. How wide is my power band? 5k to 7k rpms.

Boost onset is what we should be talking about or how about the power band?

Yeah....we use the term "lag" as slang to mean when you get full boost. I know that technically its not correct, but its just the common nomenclature.

That 930 sounds like a real POS to drive.

This test that is upcoming on this car going to a .82 is going to be interesting. It will certainly pick up on the top end. We all know that. But what happens down low and what happens to that TRQ curve down low is what I am interested in. If it makes less trq down low I will be suprised but its possible. It does have that big stg 5 wheel. I expect it gains power in every area of the curve.

I am certainly waiting :D

1.8 to 1 is not that bad and is certainly amazing for that combo and power level. I cant understand that. That just goes to show that this really is a black art. But what you should do is try a .82 and dyno again as I believe you will hit that 550 and a turbine housing is cheap.

I am pretty sure it will hit the 550 with what Ive got now that I have stiffened up the actuator so boost should hold better up top. I honestly dont think that Id want any more than that anyway.

I too am rather surprised about the 1.8:1 ratio. I really would have had it pegged much higher than that. But, as you mentioned, its really hard to predict these things....trial and error always seems to be the only conclusive way.

The days of having 400 honest to goodness whp on pump gas are very close fellas. If only this hobby and all this research was cheap!

God bless good ole American brute force engineering :D

But what you should do is try a .82 and dyno again as I believe you will hit that 550 and a turbine housing is cheap.
See.....the difference in "cheap" between the Subie and Dodge crowds is quite the relative term :D

clark, where are you running timing in the 10 20 30 - full boost columns to get this anti lag effect and maximize spool? ive been doing many little tuning tests on my car, and have not been able to change spool up dramatically at all, with juts changes in AFRs. im thinking that timing is just as important to cause that "after burn effect."

clark, where are you running timing in the 10 20 30 - full boost columns to get this anti lag effect and maximize spool? ive been doing many little tuning tests on my car, and have not been able to change spool up dramatically at all, with juts changes in AFRs. im thinking that timing is just as important to cause that "after burn effect."


Retard is very important to gain this effect. Try removing 2 degrees at a time from those lower load ranges and data log map. As you go down MAP should rise.

Cya

Clark

A local guy tested .48 vs .63 a/r in a 60-1 HERE (http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/showthread.php?t=89519&page=2&pp=20). His results with the .82 a/r are posted in PPB about a week ago.

A local guy tested .48 vs .63 a/r in a 60-1 HERE (http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/showthread.php?t=89519&page=2&pp=20). His results with the .82 a/r are posted in PPB about a week ago.

Here's the pic showing .48 vs .63 vs .82 a/r turbine housings, all with the same 60-1 garrret turbo. All dyno runs were done in less than a 2 week time period.

green = .48
red = .63
blue = .82

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid151/p600adb15f0d42b2711caf87cbea162b5/f5d3ddd0.jpg

Here's the pic showing .48 vs .63 vs .82 a/r turbine housings, all with the same 60-1 garrret turbo. All dyno runs were done in less than a 2 week time period.

green = .48
red = .63
blue = .82

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid151/p600adb15f0d42b2711caf87cbea162b5/f5d3ddd0.jpg

Excellent info.

Can you post a larger image?

While the green line does come on alot faster its also very rich in comparison to the blue line on spool up. I bet you can get the Blue line to the area of the red line with tuning. That green run actualy pegs the AFR meter on spool up. Remember the AFR plot is 200-300 rpm off since it takes time to read through the pipe and Gas pump. The power difference is incredible up top.

I hope this image shows up:


http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43246&stc=1

If not ,here's the link:

http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43246&stc=1

Yes...that power gain up top is unreal. Looks like about 90 whp at 6000 rpm!

And, one can clearly see a different curve shape with the larger housings (both the 0.63 and 0.82 a/r).

Were all these at the identical boost pressures? (I am assuming they were, but just double checking.)

All runs were done on 21-22 psi of boost.

In response to the a/f ratio statement, yes the green line was not as nice of a tune as the other runs, but it was just a quick and dirty tune. Remember, I was ultimately going to a .82 a/r turbine. I just tried the .48 a/r, & dynoed, so I could get some basic data on how the power was affected by the different housings. Also, as you can see I run it leaner as the turbo spools up to help generate more heat and facilitate as early of a spool up as possible. The reason those three a/r lines don't line up identically, is because the bigger housings spool later (despite what some people are saying), and thus I have to remain slightly leaner longer until peak torque hits, and then I can drop the a/f ratio down.

Remember, I was ultimately going to a .82 a/r turbine.

Your results have made me further consider doing the same as I currently run an 0.63 a/r.

If you are seeing an approximate 10% hp gain from the 0.63 to the 0.82 a/r at the 400ish whp level, I am thinking I would see some nice gains as well.

However, I have also seen another test which was not as nice of a gain going with the 0.82 over the 0.63 a/r and this was on a 500 whp car. However, that car was a 2.0L revver and the smaller housings seem to be able to be stretched further with revs (when compared to higher torque, lower revving engines like yours and mine).

Im going to take a grandstand seat and see the 0.82 a/r results of Clark and hope they duplicate yours. Then, maybe Ill pony up the dough for the 0.82. Getting me to spend $ on the car is a tough gig. Any of you guys know a good place to get one setup for the Stage 5 wheel using the standard 5 bolt internal gate discharge side?

I have been thinking about getting a T3/T04e 57 trim with the specs Clark recomends over changing the housing on My 50 trim. Do you guys think that I should replace the housing on My 50 trim, or purchase a new t3/t04e 57 trim with the specs that Clark recomended? Keep in mind that in the end everything will equal out price wise. My plan for this car is to make a 400 wheel horse power and have the power not fall off the way that it is doing now. If it was up to me I would keep the 50 trim and just replace the housing and pull off the 400 whp without the drastic drop that is occuring now, but on the other hand, I don't want to drive 600 miles and pay for two hours of dyno tunning and not get my expectations meet.
I also wanted to say thaks to Clark for all the help and recomendations that he has given to me.


Thank you,
Adam Romero

Hmm, I think clark might be sending you the right direction. I would pick up that turbo you have now considering what clark says it could do on a ej207 ;-)

None the less, Adam. I'm almost 100% sure you will be happy with the gains from just a houseing swap. But a 57 trim might be more fitting to your setup. I do imagine you have discussed your goals with him. right?

hit my up on AIM sometime.

The torque drop off up top is typical of these larger garrett units. That's why I'm working on switching to one of the new HT series turbo units by Schwitzer.

The torque drop off up top is typical of these larger garrett units. That's why I'm working on switching to one of the new HT series turbo units by Schwitzer.

You think the drop off is a function of the turbo? Are you sure its just not the "natural" tendency of the engine itself?

I did a quick dyno test to see what my engine's "natural" power/torque curve shapes were. Its pretty easy....just disconnect the intercooler hose at the throttle body :D Its quite revealing.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res1elpe/Allmotor!.gif

And, coincidence or not, the "natural" torque curve matches the engine VE curve pretty closely. Take a guess at about how long the intake runners are on my car :D

http://mysite.verizon.net/res1elpe/runner length.jpg

Originally Posted by AZScoobie
Sounds like your car needed to be tuned after the turbine swap. Never assume that a larger turbine increases lag. If only turbo science was that easy. You will never make big power with a .58 AR housing. Just to small to flow enough gas.

Clark

how can you say that is correct? i just dont understand that one. please fill me in. ive used multiple housings on my turbo, and the results were exactly that. prove that to me with facts clark. I know a certain someone who made 536 wheel horsepower with a .58 a/r housing exactly the same one and wheel as mine is. everyone sais that increasing the a/r increases lag, and ive prooven that too. we know how to tune, and obviously we didnt slap on a housing, and run it. I retune my car after everychange i make.

edit (i know larger housings make lesspower.)

ok not to be an ass, but ill just throw alittle i told ya so in here. let this one go down into the books larger air ratio turbine housings spool later than smaller ones.

ok not to be an ass, but ill just throw alittle i told ya so in here. let this one go down into the books larger air ratio turbine housings spool later than smaller ones.

well honestly, you are being an ass. 4sfed4 is giving graphs of non-subaru cars. we arent talking about non-subaru cars right now. we are talking about the ej257 engine + turbo. lets keep this on track and wait to see results with this setup first.

what about being a boxer motor is going to change the outcome? I have also done this test with my car. it is a subaru car and thats the info i tried to post in like page 2.

honestly, im the only one who can call myself an ass for saying i told ya so. watch and see whats going to come of this test.

turbine housings dont spool the turbo faster and gain top end.,... if they did the WHY the F_U_C_K would people be buying the smaller ones? so they can have higher boost onset and less power?

Jared. The funny thing is that everyone that reads your posts is going to for sure think you are an ass. Just like they do already after you claimed this and that about your car but never produced. Remember the posts about you running and making "all this power" with low boost. haha. Funny stuff..

They also think you are a missing the point that I was making. The Ej motor is a different animal then inline 4 cyl cars. I believe Xephers results are great as he has gained 90whp from a cheap housing. But he is also making a mistake saying that running lean is helping is spoolup which it is not and I pointed out that his small housing runs are way, way richer which throws off the results a bit.

I am not saying what you are making it look like I said either and people will realize that too. While you are busy trying to prove people in the public eye wrong the rest of us in this post are busy with research on what works.

Clark

the rest of us in this post are busy with research on what works.

Clark

gider dun.. ;)

R&D Nerds: 1
Interweb Engineers: 0

Adam. The 57 trim has a bit more room to the right on the comp map. If its 400 your after then only change the turbine. If its 440 you want go to the 57 trim. The other thing is that I think you have a 2/34 inlet on your comp and my turbo builder says thats going to start being a problem with the 57. I have done some research on the stg5 vs stg3 wheel dilema. Running the stg5 is a bit lopsided for the 50 trim comp. Its not a poplular combo. But.. In your case with your ported heads I kinda think its going to be ok with the larger AR housing. You are def flowing more with your big ports and because of the shape of that dyno curve you have now I think you are going to be better off this way. My predictions are as follows.... Broader trq curve with no loss in trq except for the peak. Much more trq at redline. Probably over 50-70ft lbs more. 400-420whp peak. The reason the trq will be less is because we will not have to spike boost as hard to get the turbo to hold boost at redline. Your current setup would hit 24 and fade to 19. I plan on running 22-23 all the way through which will reshape the curve alot. Should be fun and informative.

I just tested a stg3 .63 to a stg3 .82 and then from the 50 trim to the 57 trim. The results where eye opening. The 57 turbo car lost 30ftlbs at the trq peak but gained 8whp. Not a good trade off. The 57 needs more boost. The .82 housing made 10-12ft lbs more at 3000, less at 4k (peak) but 50ft lbs more at 6k. This car showed exactly what I have seen before. More trq down low do to the increase in flow.

Cya

Clark

I just tested a stg3 .63 to a stg3 .82 and then from the 50 trim to the 57 trim. The results where eye opening. The 57 turbo car lost 30ftlbs at the trq peak but gained 8whp. Not a good trade off. The 57 needs more boost. The .82 housing made 10-12ft lbs more at 3000, less at 4k (peak) but 50ft lbs more at 6k. This car showed exactly what I have seen before. More trq down low do to the increase in flow.

Cya

Clark

Post the plots!

Is this the test thats been discussed for a few weeks?

Sounds good!!! when do you think you will have the .82 housing?Adam. The 57 trim has a bit more room to the right on the comp map. If its 400 your after then only change the turbine. If its 440 you want go to the 57 trim. The other thing is that I think you have a 2/34 inlet on your comp and my turbo builder says thats going to start being a problem with the 57. I have done some research on the stg5 vs stg3 wheel dilema. Running the stg5 is a bit lopsided for the 50 trim comp. Its not a poplular combo. But.. In your case with your ported heads I kinda think its going to be ok with the larger AR housing. You are def flowing more with your big ports and because of the shape of that dyno curve you have now I think you are going to be better off this way. My predictions are as follows.... Broader trq curve with no loss in trq except for the peak. Much more trq at redline. Probably over 50-70ft lbs more. 400-420whp peak. The reason the trq will be less is because we will not have to spike boost as hard to get the turbo to hold boost at redline. Your current setup would hit 24 and fade to 19. I plan on running 22-23 all the way through which will reshape the curve alot. Should be fun and informative.

I just tested a stg3 .63 to a stg3 .82 and then from the 50 trim to the 57 trim. The results where eye opening. The 57 turbo car lost 30ftlbs at the trq peak but gained 8whp. Not a good trade off. The 57 needs more boost. The .82 housing made 10-12ft lbs more at 3000, less at 4k (peak) but 50ft lbs more at 6k. This car showed exactly what I have seen before. More trq down low do to the increase in flow.

Cya

Clark

Just like they do already after you claimed this and that about your car but never produced. Remember the posts about you running and making "all this power" with low boost. haha. Funny stuff..

i never said i was going to tear down the world of subarus with low boost, my PM explains this. i am content talking about trivial **** via PMs . By the way just because i never posted info and numbers on my car at low boost doesnt mean i never came through. ask anyone who has riden in it on 10 psi its prety darn fast, id say good for 13s. thats off topic, and stuff people can PM me about if they want to talk about it.

about people thinking im an ass, i dont think that is fair, but if they do then .... oh my gosh someone over the internet thinks im an ass. Ill live with it. Im trying to proove a point.

the thing is, that clark has corrected me many times on nasioc here, that is one thing that i have tried and trued. the larger a/rs will spool later! period! im sorry but you can contact any manufacturer about it. thats how it will end up just about everytime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ill hold to that, and the "results" will show the same thing. ive done it.

im not being a web engineer, im telling people that ive done this test with my car. .58 a/r housing versus a .70 a/r housing on the turbine side, and have seen nothing but HUGe spool time differences. I have tried leaning out afrs and have tried richening them up and have noticed that you are right! i can get quicker spool with richer spool AFRs. BUT i can not overcome that difference in air ratios and make my larger housing spool faster. thats so moronic to think because why would anyone run a smaller housing anymore, if it would offer quicker spool AND better HP numbers. everyone would be sizing huge ones to they could spool earlier, and make awesome top end.

i never said i was going to tear down the world of subarus with low boost, my PM explains this. i am content talking about trivial **** via PMs . By the way just because i never posted info and numbers on my car at low boost doesnt mean i never came through. ask anyone who has riden in it on 10 psi its prety darn fast, id say good for 13s. thats off topic, and stuff people can PM me about if they want to talk about it.

about people thinking im an ass, i dont think that is fair, but if they do then .... oh my gosh someone over the internet thinks im an ass. Ill live with it. Im trying to proove a point.

the thing is, that clark has corrected me many times on nasioc here, that is one thing that i have tried and trued. the larger a/rs will spool later! period! im sorry but you can contact any manufacturer about it. thats how it will end up just about everytime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ill hold to that, and the "results" will show the same thing. ive done it.

im not being a web engineer, im telling people that ive done this test with my car. .58 a/r housing versus a .70 a/r housing on the turbine side, and have seen nothing but HUGe spool time differences. I have tried leaning out afrs and have tried richening them up and have noticed that you are right! i can get quicker spool with richer spool AFRs. BUT i can not overcome that difference in air ratios and make my larger housing spool faster. thats so moronic to think because why would anyone run a smaller housing anymore, if it would offer quicker spool AND better HP numbers. everyone would be sizing huge ones to they could spool earlier, and make awesome top end.

He is right you know. I don't know where this myth of earlier spool times with bigger a/r's started. it just isn't normally true. my dyno charts show that. Clark's experiences are a rare occasion.

also, my method of leaner a/f ratios to facilitate earlier spool up is also used by Bob Norwood on his Pro Stock cars, the Rigolis, ESX, all the Colorado local Mistubishi legends, and countless other folks. So if I'm doing something wrong, well then I guess they are doing it wrong too.

Mark R

im glad someone else chimed in.

Well if all those people tune lean to gain spool then they are wrong. Just flat out wrong. Why not run your own test to find out which brings map on faster? Its actually common for drag racers with big turbos to employ this method to get the turbo going as fast as possible on the line up against a trq convertor before they launch. After that they never drop into those low load ranges down the track so AFR is where they want it and not overly rich. Its been proven on these boards and I do this for a living so if you want to prove this be my guest :) I know people dont like to be wrong.. but this time you are wrong.


Adam. The turbine housing should be here in a week. I will email you when I have it man.

4sfed. My other tests where on other cars and not adams. You will have to wait for those results.

I think it might be time for a recap on this post. I just reread the entire thing as I have been scratching my head about some of the things Jared is charging me with saying. Lets read a couple of qoutes from me and Jared through this thread. Its actually a good read and there is alot of info here. There is also alot of hard heads that have closed minds about R & D. They read it and its gospel to them.

Points made by me:

This car will pick up lots of power up top with a .82 AR housing and I bet it spools the same if not faster.

I suspect the bottom end will rise up with the .82 housing. Time will tell.

Sounds like your car needed to be tuned after the turbine swap. Never assume that a larger turbine increases lag. If only turbo science was that easy.

Actualy you are wrong about tuning to minimize lag. A rich mixture with retarded timing will spool a turbo faster then leaning AFR's. Pegdrgr has posted logs showing this. A richer mixture has more after burn which creates more heat in the turbine. Leaning AFR's and running advanced timing on spoolup makes more trq and makes the engine more responsive to throttle input but does increase lag.

On Mikes car he runs a .7 AR turbine with a P trim wheel and a 60-1 compressor. Full spool by 4k rpm and minimal lag and great response. He is installing a T04 R with a larger turbine wheel as this turbo is really hitting hard in the middle.

Going to a larger AR turbine does not always increase lag. In general terms you have a larger path for exhaust to flow and less work is produced from the turbine wheel because more gas runs past the Turbine wheel OR that gas is at a lower velocity. But in certain cases opening up the exhaust flow and reducing preturbine backpressure actually produces more trq and faster spool because more flow can run through the turbine and the compressor can spin up faster as its not fighting the engine on the intake side as much. More airflow through the motor means more power and more power means more heat and more heat means faster turbo response. I have proven this again on these motors as have other forum members. Pegdrgr did a great test where he clipped a turbine wheel and dyno tested the car again in the same day. Maybe he can post his results. It was something like 40-50ft lbs more trq at the same boost right in the middle. Everyone scratched there heads and could not believe the results. What he did was lower EGP and allowed more airflow through that motor.

What you are up against if I had to guess is typical. You have a larger t4 compressor wheel that is hard to get going into the effeciency range on your size engine. As a result you need all the work you can get on that turbine wheel. Had you gone to a larger Turbine wheel in the larger housing you would have probably made the best compromise on spool up and power. A larger wheel is going to produce more trq on the shaft to get the compressor moving. Hopefully you can understand what I am saying here. Man I wish I could say going to a larger AR increases lag and moves the power bad to the left but thats certainly not true. If you would like more information search around on RX7 boards as Wankel engines behave this same way. They need a HUGE AR on the turbine to produce power. I am aware of Nicks car and his power level with the .58. That does not mean it would not have made 600whp with the larger AR housing though.

As for Adams STI. I dont know what will happen with the larger .82 housing. We will certainly find out and the results will be posted. Going to the larger housing on this car was not to gain low end and thats not even a concern. It has what I think is to much low end and midrange power now. The reason we are going to the larger Turbine is to produce more trq at higher RPM's. This car dies of hard at 380whp and even with th external gate the boost level falls hard due to very high EGP. If the .82 produces another 30-40ft lbs at redline and raises his power peak up 500-1000 rpm it will be a great success for the cost Adam is putting out. Anything gained down low will be frosting on the cake.

There is an optimal EGP ratio. Running under that is great if you have a honda with 11 to 1 comp and are running 6 psi Your example of an F body is a good one and pretty much proves my point. Its a black art to size turbos correctly and every once in a while something works and you dont exactly understand why. The big mistake I see people make is that they choose a turbo on compressor flow and pay little attention to Turbine flow maps. That turbine flow has to be there. How to get there is up to you. Large AR and little wheel or a large wheel and smaller AR. One will work better but which one?

This test that is upcoming on this car going to a .82 is going to be interesting. It will certainly pick up on the top end. We all know that. But what happens down low and what happens to that TRQ curve down low is what I am interested in. If it makes less trq down low I will be suprised but its possible. It does have that big stg 5 wheel. I expect it gains power in every area of the curve.

My point was obvious. I have seen some different things and I am playing in that direction. Before seeing data Jared is saying I am wrong. Its obvious Jared that you are confused in certain aspects. Lets look at some of your posts where you charge me of saying that going to a larger AR turbine will decrease lag. Why you said that I am saying that is beyond me. I even told you that you needed to go to a larger Turbine wheel in your larger housing and you skipped over that. Had you done that you would have been happy. Oh well.

Jared:


i just dont see it. UNLESS the turbine someone is changing from is sided wrongly in the first place... like way to small. for example people around here are doing rear mounted turbos on there Fbody V8 cars, and they are using P trim wheels with large a/r housings. when they went to larger turbine housings they actually didnt lose any spool, because there egps went way down, and that increased the effeciency of the motor

BINGO!!!!! Jared was on the right track!! But then he fell off that track almost instantly :(

Jared:
how is it that a larger turbine housing will increase top end? please tell me this, because I have not experienced the same thing... wuite the opposite

WHAT! How can a larger turbine housing increase top end? So what you are saying jared is that you think a smaller AR housing makes more top end power? I think Xyphers post pretty much proves you wrong on that one... Larger turbines flow more gas... Thats how..

Jared:
turbine housings dont spool the turbo faster and gain top end.,... if they did the WHY the F_U_C_K would people be buying the smaller ones? so they can have higher boost onset and less power?

WHAT! Turbine housings dont spool the turbo faster or gain top end :huh:

Jared:
edit (i know larger housings make lesspower.)

WOh... Larger housings make LESS power? Are you nuts? Will you do us all a favor and study this link to the Garrett GT product linup where it shows power ratings increasing with every step up to a larger AR? In Just about every case its worth 40-70hp going to the next size larger!

Garrett GT product listing with ratings. (http://www.turbofast.com.au/GTseries.html)

Jared:

lets just go ahaid and see what this car, that is being discussed in this thread, spools at after that larger a/r housing. i got a hundred dollars on later spool. (all things being equal)

Now you change your mind and say that changing the AR is going to change the spool? Of course it is... Will it change the power or trq? Thats the real question. You can read my post about what I think will happen...

Jared:
If a turbo is going to spool at 4k, its going to spool at 4k. You can do some things like leaning out afrs right before spool to assist it, basically turn up the EGTs, but you cannot tune lag out. and that housing may hit harder, but it will hit later. as ANYONE from precision, turbonetics, Garrett, a larger a/r turbine housing will move the power band to the right. NOT THE LEFT. cmon clark you know this.

I never said that it would move the power band to the left. Never and I never said that changing the housing on this car was to move the power band to the left. We are doing this to move the power band to the right!



Boy have I wasted time on this thread!!! Lucky it was over my lunch. I got a ton of stuff to do and need to get back to work guys. Fun playing around but this is getting crazy. I know you dont like me Jared and thats fine man. But its crazy to run posts like this. While I have an open mind and I am trying to do some R & D you have a closed mind man. You actually hit on my point exactly with the post you made about the Fbody cars So I know you are not an idiot. But you certainly like to try to do dirt on me thats for sure.

Back to work for me...

Cya

Clark

Well if all those people tune lean to gain spool then they are wrong. Just flat out wrong. Why not run your own test to find out which brings map on faster? Its actually common for drag racers with big turbos to employ this method to get the turbo going as fast as possible on the line up against a trq convertor before they launch. After that they never drop into those low load ranges down the track so AFR is where they want it and not overly rich. Its been proven on these boards and I do this for a living so if you want to prove this be my guest :) I know people dont like to be wrong.. but this time you are wrong.


Clark


Well, maybe I am wrong. I did a test years ago and concluded what I said before. Maybe i should re-verify these results with another trip to the dyno with some more experimention between rich and lean condition before spool-up.

yeah. If you do you will find you can bring map on much faster. Its a trade off because up until the turbo comes on you will make less power and in certain load ranges on the highway you can feel the loss in power. But if you got WOT fast that extra fuel and retarded timing will bring map on faster. I personaly do not tune like this because it can make the engine less responsive at times. I try to tune for max trq in all rpm ranges. But with a drag racer this king of tuning can really bring the turbo online.

Cya

Clark

im not even going to take the time to read over my actual posts, but i think either i just rushed through my posts and was back asswards about some things

what i said is that

larger a/r housings will spool later.

smaller ones will spool sooner.

larger a/r housings will make more top end.

smaller ones will make less top end.

i use lean afrs to assist spool but im going to try your way with retarded timing because its like antilag or more like launch control.

sorry to **** up this thread, im just trying to proove those points above.

im actually going to post my quotes i went through them and some of them are wierd. im working a grave yard job, and besides being a tired ass dude, i also dont proof read my posts.

/subscribing

Jared. Its obvious man that you learned a thing or two during this thread and you changed your mind now. None of your posts where edited by you except the one and I cut and pasted them all exactly how you wrote them. Its easy to say you simply got it backwards.. That happens. I do that sometimes but not as many times as you did with arguments against those statements by you.. :) Probably time to just admit you where wrong and lets all move on. Or dont.. Cause I dont really care eitherway.. You asked why you looked like an ass and I simply posted as to why you do...

Hopefully this can all go back on topic now as there really is alot of good info in this thread if you wade through the crap.

Cya

Clark

Hopefully this can all go back on topic now as there really is alot of good info in this thread if you wade through the crap.


All right now! ;)

ill move on, but i didnt change my mind. i just ****ed up. really. ask anyone who knows me and has been following my car locally, when i went from a .70 a/r to a .58 i lost top end and i gained quicker spool. lots of my other posts clark, i made right, and are the way i wanted to say them. even before those few that i just typed through and hit enter.
you can even read old posts by me about the turbo, I didnt change my mind. Ive been on the right track about certain things for the better part of a few years.

anywyas, moving on.

Well, people do need to be careful about how they word their experimental results. Interpreting data is a hard thing: even at level of a medical doctor, if you go in complaining of chest pains and they take an EKG, 5 different cardiologists may make 5 different diagnoses.

It is important to realize that the theory behind the various aspects of autmotive science is something very advanced in nature and is heavily abstracted so that a mechanic with only technical training can deal with the product.

All I am saying is to be careful when interpreting experimental data. I'll use electronics as an example since I don't want to BS something I don't know about: people try to enhance their computer's performance by supercooling them, but can you just continually cool a processor and make it faster? No, because at some low temperature the semiconductor material will no longer conduct the same, but that is complicated so the engineers and scientists just make it simple by telling the consumer and computer technician, that "cooler is better". This is likely true with characteristics of suspension and engine tuning as well; you may look up a fact from a reference book which is abstracted, therefore it is a good approximation in 99 percent of the cases. But then you take say, 50 of those variables together, not taking into account their abstracted nature, and now you have a model only correct 50 percent of the time.

I agree with you verc, its careless to just throw something on paper, or online without making sure they say the right thing.

Anyways, Id like to ressurect some material from this thread, because It seems like its a very revolutionary thing these guys are doing, in theory, and ill explain why. I also want to bounce my understanding off the people who are practicing this theory to see how well i understand it, and how i can better understand it.

Ok! I remember someone mentioning the "afterburn" effect that happens when you basically dump raw fuel into the headers/uppipe, and turbo. From what I am understanding, in theory, "afterburn" means that those unburnt particles of gasoline basically, are combusting in the uppipe. So, combining the overfueling effect with significantly retarded timing allows those gasses to burn preturbo, and those 2 things are what makes the turbo spool sooner. I believe this is the theory that is being offered here, correct me if im wrong, or add on if I am lacking something. I have a few questions for those who are using this tecnique.

Is there indeed fire blowing through the headers/uppipe/turbo when you richen up the AFRs and retard timing in that manner? (am i understanding it correctly?)

This one is going to be worded very wierdly:
Is the "AFTERBURN" effect, a product of both raw fuel in the uppipe, and the burn cycle not being complete when the Exhaust valve opens? basically when the exhaust valve opens the combustion event is actually still happening, there is still combustion going on, and it is pushed out of the cylinder like spent exhaust then effecting (igniting) the unburnt gasses in the header then uppipe then turbo?

If this is correct, that would explain the lull in power that 4sfeds car saw right before the turbo started to spool on his dyno chart showing leaning AFRs and overfueling.

in regards to the underfueling w/ advance vs overfueling w/ timing retard debate. . . Is the fuel igniting just before the turbo, going to cause the turbo to be over stressed? Will that in turn shorten the life of the turbo more than leaning it out prespool? Will it damage the turbine wheel or stress the bearings?

Is this basically a mild form of antilag or maybe mor appropriately launch control?

Another question, and this is the kicker for me. . . This might basically disprove my current understanding of what you called Afterburn.

How is it that the Wide Band that you are tuning with would remain accurate through the RPM range, If that fuel is actaully being burnt in the uppipe, and not in the compression chamber? It seems like it would look, (on the WB datalogs) that the AFRs are leaner than they actually are. See a WB is not measuring AFR directly, Its using 02s left over in the exhaust discharge to tell what the air fuel ratio must be in the cylinder. Am I correct????? Ok Im not sure if that makes sense. Basically what if the true AFRs in the cyl are 10.0 to 1. There is a bunch of unburnt fuel exiting the cylinders. That unburnt fuel is then being burnt after it leaves the cyl, and when it gets to the Wide Band sensor, The reading ends up at like 10.3 to 1, or maybe 11.0 to 1 or whatever since more fuel is being burnt after it leaves the cumbustion chamber. Is this true?

All these questions are to confirm my understanding is correct about what you are all saying here.

It makes sense to me, and seems that that is a no brainer that you would want to try to assist spool up in that way, i just never thought of using that effect when tuning a car, unless that car is actaully setup with antilag, or launch control, but then youre not even tuning that stuff in, youre just using it. The beauty of tuning with much timing retard and too much fuel for spool is, that you are actaully bridging the gap between a regular tune and actaully using LC or antilag which is normally only used to spool the turbo in nutral or while stopped. and those tecniques are being harnessed in real time while your car is rolling, and while you are actaully going through a gear. so it actaully makes the power band move to the left. I dont know if that last paragraph made sense. Its 4:25 AM and im trying to proof read my post in order not to be misunderstood again because i throw down some bass ackwards comment.

(My Flame suit is on, If Im way off, please help me, and everyone else understand how the afterburn is being achieved.)

bump

going to send clark an emai and see if the housing is in!!! Would like to use the car, have only used it 2 times!! trying to save the clutch till i get the new housing and can HAve clark show how to take off :(

Hows she driving right now? Getting the launch down?

i got the launching down on the pump map!!! DOnt want to miss with the race map till i go with the new housing or kingpins new turbo kit!! you want to buy my turbo set up? :alien: Hows she driving right now? Getting the launch down?

I know this is a bit off topic, but when you are stating a stage 3 or stage 5 turbine wheel, and then a .63 or .82 A/R housing, do they have to match up?
Like are all .63 housing created the same? or are there 3 different .63 housings, a stage 1, 3, and 5 hosugin, but all with the same .63 A/R ??

I know this is a bit off topic, but when you are stating a stage 3 or stage 5 turbine wheel, and then a .63 or .82 A/R housing, do they have to match up?
Like are all .63 housing created the same? or are there 3 different .63 housings, a stage 1, 3, and 5 hosugin, but all with the same .63 A/R ??
T-3 Turbine Wheels:
Stage 1 inducer dia. 2.319
Stage 1 exducer dia. 1.918

Stage 2 inducer dia. 2.559
Stage 2 exducer dia. 2.122

Stage 3 inducer dia. 2.559
Stage 3 exducer dia. 2.229

Stage 5 inducer dia. 2.798
Stage 5 exducer dia. 2.439

As for the T-3 turbin housing you just machine the inducer and exducer to fit the wheels.

The A/R ratio of a turbine housing is determined by dividing the area of the nozzle leading into the turbo housing by the distance from the center of the turbine wheel to the center of the nozzle.

The smaller the A/R, the smaller or more restricted the exhaust passageway through the turbine housing. The tighter passage results in higher flow speeds of the exhaust gases and increased turbine speeds. Larger A/R housings reduce the speed of exhaust gases and result in lower RPM of the turbine.

Exhaust system back pressure, measured before the turbo, is one of the best ways to determine proper A/R ratio.

The least amount of back pressure with the best power would be the most efficient.

It comes down to where do you like it to come in?

CARRY ON. :D