Well, it's been a while since I've posted here, but I thought I'd give everyone here a shout out for the holidays, and a quick update on my GC8 project. I don't if any my fellow buddies from back in the day still lurk here (look at my member number; i'm from the really old school days of Nasioc), but here goes:
As the title reads: 452 whp, 434 wtq. On 91 octane, and 22 psi of boost, in colorado's mile high altitude.

Quick power mod list:
Engine: 2.5 Sti stock shortblock assembly
Heads: phase 1 DOHC heads (circa 1998 and stock)
Turbo and exhaust plumbing: custom welded stainless steel
Turbo: Garret 60-1 custom turbo built by TEC in Golden, CO
Compressor: late model .50 a/r, 60 trim 2.3"/3"
Turbine: 0.82 a/r, 76 trim, 2.2"/2.6"
ECU: link plus, apex-avc-r
Greddy FMIC
front x-member converted to WRX type, to facilitate better turbo plumbing

Other mods:
Tein HAs coilovers and strut tops, do-luck bars everywhere, cusco strut bars front and rear, cusco sway bars, all bushings converted to group n and whitline, sti front and rear control arms, front cusco type crossmember brace, Modena dogbox, sti plated mechanical diffs, 20 kg center diff, bigger axles, Prodrive GC06 18" wheels, bigger brakes of course, etc.

Future plans include a switch to USDM STi heads and cams, and a custom Schwitzer
turbo.

Happy Holidays,
Mark R

http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42898&stc=1
http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42899&stc=1
http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42900&stc=1
http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42901&stc=1
http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42902&stc=1

Damn OG! and nice car

Looks a bit laggy, but I bet it hits like a sledgehammer :eek:

Still though, a stout powerband from 5-7k rpms. Any plans to dragrace this car?; would love to see what she does :devil:

Looks a bit laggy, but I bet it hits like a sledgehammer :eek:

Still though, a stout powerband from 5-7k rpms. Any plans to dragrace this car?; would love to see what she does :devil:


I usually road race the car at the local track club events. The custom gearing mandates that the meat of the powerband be between 5000-7000rpm. Thus the setup was tailored to do this, as you can tell from the dyno plot. Basically I tried to maximize the area under the curve between 5000-7000.

I plan on doing a run at the drag strip when they reopen in the late spring. Even if they were open, it wouldn't do me much good anyways because it's currently a white out blizzard in Colorado right now.

Also, the car is daily driven to work and has 100,000 miles.

Mark R

Yikes...taking as much if not more than the ol 22T eh? Sounds like she's holding up well! :) What gearset/tranny are you using?


WRX34

It sounds like you have a well thought-out and executed powertrain. Congrats :cool:

Looks like an awesome setup. :banana:

Love the old school modified Subies. :)

Now thats nice....
Awesome power, nice power band..... cant say enough about it...

Junior

As usual Mark has one of the baddest subies in town.

Good numbers Mark.

For those who didn't catch it, this is at over a mile high altitude. These are truely impressive numbers up here. They are with in spitting distance of the highest HP numbers recorded on a dyno at this altitude by DSM's and EVO's with very expensive setups!!

Larry

sick ride bro :banana:

:D frederick :mad:

Mark

I have been waiting for this post of yours for along time.

Myself and HOK wish you a Merry Xmas. May you frequent these boards more often as you have been missed. One of the only true Guru's here.

Congradulations,

That is the most torque I've ever seen on 91 on a 4 cylinder car.

Really good job! :two_thumbsup:

Very nice setup, and with that weight of car, it should be pretty zippy.
Very good torque spoolup as well, especially for 91 octane. That 60-1 hotside is pretty large, and it shows in the width of the powerband uptop. Over 400whp for a long time.

I noticed on the dynoplot that these were corrected numbers, and that the correction is 1.22? That is a pretty significant correction factor, as that would net only 370whp uncorrected, and the difference in altitude at that boost level would not correspond to 70hp difference.

As well, one could determine in BSFC at that power level (22psi, 2.5Ls, NAVE less then 100%), and I suspect it would be unusually low. Any ideas on the duty cycle of your injectors, and the corresponding MAF readings?

Cheers,

Jeff

Me very jealous...good stuff :banana:

Should be a monster @ the 1/4 dragstrip.

I'd guess that would make you an across-the-spectrum Impreza god.:D Awesome.

I concede that the major power happens between 5-7k rpms, but you're still seeing 240ft/lbs at 4k rpms. That's not bad. The curve looks streetable enough.

I'm guessing traps could be well over 123.

As a note, does the MSD only work on cars with a distributor?

awesome mark, you need to post here more so the people interested can benefit from your wisdom:)

congrats.

Ben

Very impressive numbers! Are you using the AVC-R for its gear dependent capabilites? Just wondering why you didnt decide to use the Link Plus to control boost. I've had great results pushing 16psi+ using the 2 port solenoid.

Looking foreward to see what it traps at that altitude.

P.S. I'm as old school as you are :)

what size pump and injectors are you running?

what do you usually do with the car? little of everything? or just to drive from point A-B

oh and someone was asking about tranny and what not... he list what he has

"Modena dogbox, sti plated mechanical diffs, 20 kg center diff, bigger axles"

Wow, it's good to see some of guys from back in the day are still here!

WRX34 - The transmission uses Modena straight cut gears which use dog engagement. The gears are the original phase 1 Modena, and not the latest generation of their gears. Ratios are 3.000,1.930,1.440,1.095,0.826, with a final drive of 3.900.

Wombat - Merry Christmas! :p Make sure you wish HOK a Happy Holidays for me. I'll see if I can't send him an email when I get some time.

gpatmac - The MSD i'm using (msd dis-2) is used for distributorless ignitions. However, what you are probably thinking of is that it doesn't work with individual coil pack setups (i.e. wrx) because there is no separate ignitor pack. The newer RS's (1999 and later) also have coil packs with integrated ignitors, so the MSD won't work on these either. Supposedly though, you can wire in the ignitor from the old cars to use the MSD DIS-2, but you'll also have to use either the old style coil pack , or the MSD coil pack like i'm doing.

mrn98 - the car weighs in a hair over 2700 lb.

WRC 555 - I do like the avc-r's gear dependent capabilities. Mostly, I chose it because I've been using it for so long that I'm scared to change to something else (i've been using it since i turboed the car in 98!). Also, certain individuals waaaaaay back in the past advised me to use a separate computer besides the LINK to control boost. It's good to hear you are getting it work well though. I still contemplate making the switch, mostly to simplify my setup. Also, you are actually oldER school than I :banana:

Sponaugle - Yes, with the light chassis it definitely accelerates much differently than the GD setups I've been in! Also, it performs well in the corners at the local track; I' m able to maintain good traction with the size tires I'm using (225s), because of the lighter weight of the chassis. Although, I've had to stiffen the chassis significanlty because of my power levels; at one point the rear crossmember assembly got tweaked waaaay out of alignment (you could actually see the rear diff sitting crooked relative to the body). Changing to stiffer bushings in this area and adding some reinforcement braces in this area solved this.
The earlier torque spoolup has a lot to do with the smaller duration cams I'm using. These smaller cams are also the same reason that my torque drops off so quickly! I've tried the HKS 264 duration 9.5 mm lift cams in my heads before but found they pushed the powerband way to far up top for what i'm doing, and I litterally lost all my early boost and torque. The loss was as much as 50 ft-lbs in the 4k-5k rpm range(Note: these cams were for the STi ver3 heads, which actually fit into the US phase1 dohc heads without modification). I've been actually paying very close attention to your research on the cam topic, and your project, and am very curious to see your results on your latest project. In fact, I'm waiting on your results before I decide on what I'm going to do with my head/cam mods!
Also I knew I could depend on your sharpness to catch the correction factor :p . I'm not sure what to think of it exactly. Some people claim it's too optimistic. Others have come from sea level to find that it's fairly accurate. Me personally, I have driven cars at this altitude, and also at sea level (specifically the Bay Area in San Francisco), and found that cars at sea level turn into ANIMALS when compared to here. The altitude makes a BIG difference. Extensive discussions with the engineers at Turbo Engineering Corporation here in Colorado verify this. They have told me that if I were at sea level, they would have designed a totally different turbo for my application. Basically, running high boost levels here requires a lot of work from the turbo, and pushes the turbo into an efficiency range and pressure ratio range which they wouldn't see at sea level (this is obviously a very undesirable effect). Therefore, these aspects are factored into the trim and wheel/housing size when sizing turbos for altitude. They tend to agree that dyno numbers here require a significant correction factor to be compared to sea level numbers, because basically things can be done at sea level that just will not happen here at this altitude.
Also, the duty cycle of the injectors maxes out between 85-90%. Because I'm using the LINK Plus, I'm not using a MAF sensor (only MAP), and don't have any info regarding cfm numbers.

hotrod - thanks for the props. I'm finally starting to catch up with those elusive Mitsu guys around here! :D

what size pump and injectors are you running?

what do you usually do with the car? little of everything? or just to drive from point A-B

pump is a walbro gss 342. Injectors are Rochester 75 lb units. At my fuel pressure I am seeing over 800 cc/min.

I usually drive it through the snow covered mountain roads of colorado to work (60 miles roundtrip). I also cruise it around town when i'm in town. During the race season, it sees a lot of time at the local race track for open track events, and I also enter it into SCCA Solo 1 events. This spring, I plan on finally going to the local drag strip when they open up again, and finally publishing some 1/4 mile times.

Mark R

This is so similar to my car it's untrue. You even have the MSD in the same place!

It's a very nice package. Like you I have the uprated rear drive to go in (from an sti 6 typre R) along with the DCCD and controller (as apposed to your 20kg diff).

I am also interested how you get on with the link plus. I considered it a long time ago, but ended up buying a car with a Power FC already fitted. My concern with the link, is that even the 10 row link looses some resolution, but it has some nice features.

Paul

Pavlo: If you know how to tune a Power FC with the software (that was unavailable to the public) tuning the Link Plus will be a breeze. I've been running the Link Plus on my car for over 3 years now and naver had a problem. Rarely you will will find EMS these days with hardware glitches. Just remember that a car with a standalone EMS is as good as its tuner ;)

pump is a walbro gss 342. Injectors are Rochester 75 lb units. At my fuel pressure I am seeing over 800 cc/min.

I usually drive it through the snow covered mountain roads of colorado to work (60 miles roundtrip). I also cruise it around town when i'm in town. During the race season, it sees a lot of time at the local race track for open track events, and I also enter it into SCCA Solo 1 events. This spring, I plan on finally going to the local drag strip when they open up again, and finally publishing some 1/4 mile times.

Mark R

Note to self STAY FAR AWAY FROM BLACK RS :disco:

Awesome Car!!!!!!!

Every make it down to the Springs, or PMI???

Pavlo: If you know how to tune a Power FC with the software (that was unavailable to the public) tuning the Link Plus will be a breeze. I've been running the Link Plus on my car for over 3 years now and naver had a problem. Rarely you will will find EMS these days with hardware glitches. Just remember that a car with a standalone EMS is as good as its tuner ;)

I agree 100% - tuning is the key to any standalone.

Pavlo - you are correct in stating some concern with ECU resolution. Although the LINK doesn't have the best resolution, it is very adequate for what I'm doing. Very advanced systems like the MOTEC and Pectel units are definitely better, but expensive for guys like me and somewhat inaccessible to me from a technical support point of view, and also a little overkill for what I'm doing. Realize that full race teams require these advanced ECUs due to a fuel conservation issue: they want run the exact minimum amount of fuel to extract max HP, so they can minimize pit stops, carry the minimum weight of required fuel, etc. Also, they can afford the setup, especially if they can get the extra few HP here and there in their powerband. In my case, I make up for the coarse resolution by simply running on the slightly rich side of things where I have to. For the most part, I love the LINK and have had nothing but good luck with it. The only thing I wish it had was wideband capabilities. There are wideband converter boxes out there, and I'm in the process of sorting this stuff out and installing one. Also, the simplicity of the LINK is a big plus as far as tuning goes. The higher end race ECUs may have a million bells and whistles and features, but I simply don't have the data collection/acquisition & sensing resources, or the manpower and time which would fully capitalize on these features (i.e. individual cylinder fuel trim, individual cylinder ignition timing, diagnostic and automated active tuning while driving, etc).
Also, thanks for the compliments; it's good to hear such things from an accomplished individual as yourself.

Mark R.

wow this thread is a gentlemens who's who. brings back some memories of the good ole days of this board.... where we had discussions and info sharing :)

Come back with a bang eh Mr. R. I've been waiting a long time for this.. thanks for the Christmas present...

About the correction factor. I have done a compression test in both 3500ft ASL and at sea level and the difference was very significant. On my old compression tester it was a 20psi difference (the gauge reads low) what was VERY interesting is that I read 100psi where I live for each cylinder, but when I get down to sea level I got 120 psi, it interesting this also corresponds with the correction factor that xephyr is using. I say its spot on. Also, with no changes to the car, I drove from 3500ft to 0 ft and to get to 280 whp on my power meter id it took 20 psi at 3500 but only 16 psi at sea level. Now ignore the whp # but what is important is the difference in psi needed. What is neat (or not so neat) about the place where I live we have drastic changes in weather/ temperature, so much that the track gives relative altitude and correction factors at the beginning of the drag day. And when I was quoted a 3300 ft correction my car pulled a 13.4 and when it quoted 5000 ft I did a 13.8. same car, same driver, same psi and 60ft.

I remember having a discussion about this with a sea level guy and they never beleive me when I tell them the difference until they come up. Z06's pull low 14's up here stock if you can believe it.

I noticed on the dynoplot that these were corrected numbers, and that the correction is 1.22? That is a pretty significant correction factor, as that would net only 370whp uncorrected, and the difference in altitude at that boost level would not correspond to 70hp difference.


yes the SAE correction factor formula is broken for use at very high altitudes, it uses a fixed set of base conditions that roughly correspond to 800 ft altitude ( very near the altitude of the Detroit major auto manufactures interestingly enough)

If you dig into it a bit, the proper correction up here at high altitude is approximatley 1/2 the SAE correction. If you want to guesstimate the proper numbers use a correction factor of 1.11 and you will be pretty close.

That's why a lot of us here at high altitude throw out the SAE numbers and only use the raw numbers, because we know on that day with that set of atmospheric conditions the car actually put down that hp at the wheels.

Larry

you are saying that the higher you go in altitude the less the effect is on the hp figures?

do you have any sites that I can dig up on this? 1.11 is low I would say.

I remember having a discussion about this with a sea level guy and they never beleive me when I tell them the difference until they come up. Z06's pull low 14's up here stock if you can believe it.

:huh: thats crazy, over 2 secs slower. where in canada are u?

hotrod - do you remember what Easy Street ran here at the dragstrip? I remember the past couple of seasons they ran pretty consistent mid 9's around the nation, but were lucky to break into the 10's when they were here. If that is the case, it would be a good example on how dramatic altitude affects cars here.

Here is the detail of his appearence 2 years ago, I didn't get out to see him last year.
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=384966

He lost the engine at about 1000' on his 10.457 @ 113.21 pass and was running with and slightly ahead of John Shepard when it let go, his earlier run 10.061 @ 139.41 which was his first competition pass at this altitude.

I have no doubt that on that day the car was capable of at least high 9 second runs in the low 140's, if the engine had held on the second pass. More likely a time near the low mid 9's like Shepards winning 9.2@155 run. Ali would have put Shepard on the trailer on his second pass without the blown engine.

His first 10.061 pass was after a few minutes of road tuning up on the Red Rocks hog back road. That must have been a treat for someone ;)

Larry

the SAE correction also takes into account humidity, as it is corrected against the dry barometric pressure, which is overal pressure - water vapour pressure. So it doesn't correct to any specific altitude, but rather an altitude and humidity combination. Interestingly it gives increaseing correction factors with increasing humidty, but in the case of a turbo engine, humidty often helps so it can be a bit misleading.

Paul

Here's some more dyno stats which should help to confuse us even more.
I used a Dynojet Dyno, here in Colorado, at 5000+ feet of elevation. The Dynojet issues a graph with corrected numbers.
Cobb in Salt Lake City, which is at around 4400 feet of elevation uses a Mustang dyno. I don't know what Mustang dynos do for correction factors.

Here's some numbers from both dynos on stock cars:

Dynojet (Denver@5000+ ft.)
-stock RS: 112 HP
-stock WRX: 180 HP
-stock STi: 245 HP

Mustang (Salt Lake City@4000+ ft)
-stock RS: 120 hp
-stock WRX: 170 hp
-stock STi: 238 hp

As you can see, all of the numbers are really close, yet not consistently one way or the other. I don't know enough about Mustang dynos to make any real conclusions here, but I thought I'd just throw this info out just to make our lives even more confusing. :D

In January, Colorado will be getting another 4 wheel dyno: a Dyno Dynamics (it will be in Boulder, Colorado at Super Rupair, the nations largest independent Subaru shop). We also have a Dyno Pack in Broomfield, Colorado. Maybe I should visit all these dynos, collect the data, and start a dyno comparison thread! :banana:

Mark R

Note to self STAY FAR AWAY FROM BLACK RS :disco:

Awesome Car!!!!!!!

Every make it down to the Springs, or PMI???


I usually go to Second Creek Raceway. I plan on having more time in 2005 though to make it down that way during the race season, and get to hang out with you guys a little more.

The one in Broomfield is within walking distance of my house. If you plan to run up here or in boulder, let me know, I'd like to watch.

Good news about the Superupair dyno!! :)

Larry

All dynos do correction factors to the best of my knowledge. I know the Mustang dyno at Cobb does.

I made the same whp at the same boost at Cobb as I did on a local dyno at 500 ft. of elevation. The car felt pretty much the same driving in SLC as it did here.

wow this thread is a gentlemens who's who. brings back some memories of the good ole days of this board.... where we had discussions and info sharing :)

Come back with a bang eh Mr. R. I've been waiting a long time for this.. thanks for the Christmas present...

About the correction factor. I have done a compression test in both 3500ft ASL and at sea level and the difference was very significant. On my old compression tester it was a 20psi difference (the gauge reads low) what was VERY interesting is that I read 100psi where I live for each cylinder, but when I get down to sea level I got 120 psi, it interesting this also corresponds with the correction factor that xephyr is using. I say its spot on. Also, with no changes to the car, I drove from 3500ft to 0 ft and to get to 280 whp on my power meter id it took 20 psi at 3500 but only 16 psi at sea level. Now ignore the whp # but what is important is the difference in psi needed. What is neat (or not so neat) about the place where I live we have drastic changes in weather/ temperature, so much that the track gives relative altitude and correction factors at the beginning of the drag day. And when I was quoted a 3300 ft correction my car pulled a 13.4 and when it quoted 5000 ft I did a 13.8. same car, same driver, same psi and 60ft.

I remember having a discussion about this with a sea level guy and they never beleive me when I tell them the difference until they come up. Z06's pull low 14's up here stock if you can believe it.

FWIW

Expanding on HOK's post as we are in the same town. Never have I before been game enough to post this.

The track here is at 3600ft and is in low pressure zone where on the best of days the altitude correction is usually for 4700ft. At any secret street drags on a friday night the altitude can change over 800ft in 1 hour.
On some days the altitude correction has been upto 7000ft. When you add in the temperature changes that can be upto 50f in 8 hours it can be quite the fun to tune here.

As for ZO6's doing 14's this is true and C5's usually run 14.5 to 14.7 with the ZO6's trapping at 106-7mph. WS6 are 14.8 to 15.

As one of the 25 year veteran Drag guys up here pointed out. It is pointless comparing cars performance here unless running the same run together.

xephyr
That dog box is going to be priceless at the drags compared to a 6 speed. I'm betting .5 sec.

Dam you, Now HOK wants the 2.5 short block and I will have to help him build it in my garage.

hotrod
For me you still have the most impressive time ever posted here.

Brilliant Mark...that is a very impressive amount of power you made.

So did you go back to the stock DOHC RS cam after you ditched the HKS 264's?

Graham

Brilliant Mark...that is a very impressive amount of power you made.

So did you go back to the stock DOHC RS cam after you ditched the HKS 264's?

Graham
Yes, I'm using the stock DOHC RS cams. Although they are 'small', they give me awesome spoolup capabilities!

hotrod
For me you still have the most impressive time ever posted here.

Thanks for the props !! Much appreciated.

Larry

I remember being at the parts counter at flatirons subaru about 3 weeks ago. I was talking to some really high strung dude who had his '77 porsche 911 turbo S parked out front. The guy also had an STi he was buying suspension goodies for. Apparently he lives up in evergreen too. I was talking to the parts guy, and the porsche dude. The parts guy asked me how my car was doing, other dude wanted to know what I drove, so I told him. Then his eyes got all big and he said "oh my god... do you know who drives a black one of those?". At this point me and the parts dude kinda smirk. And he goes onto regale us of a tale coming down I-70 where some black RS was tailgating him and the porsche dude thought "oh, it's just an old subaru, I'll ditch this loser". Porsche dude proceeds to dig into the throttle, said he walked away for maybe 1/5 second and then the black RS passed him like he was standing still.... this was prolly when mark was on an older turbo setup too.

what alternator is that?

Nice setup, but should it be laggy as hell on the street?

this is what im talking about. NIICE

what alternator is that?

Nice setup, but should it be laggy as hell on the street?


The alternator is stock. The setup is slightly laggy on the street, but not too bad. My gear ratios make it alot easier to stay in or near the powerband.

I remember being at the parts counter at flatirons subaru about 3 weeks ago. I was talking to some really high strung dude who had his '77 porsche 911 turbo S parked out front. The guy also had an STi he was buying suspension goodies for. Apparently he lives up in evergreen too. I was talking to the parts guy, and the porsche dude. The parts guy asked me how my car was doing, other dude wanted to know what I drove, so I told him. Then his eyes got all big and he said "oh my god... do you know who drives a black one of those?". At this point me and the parts dude kinda smirk. And he goes onto regale us of a tale coming down I-70 where some black RS was tailgating him and the porsche dude thought "oh, it's just an old subaru, I'll ditch this loser". Porsche dude proceeds to dig into the throttle, said he walked away for maybe 1/5 second and then the black RS passed him like he was standing still.... this was prolly when mark was on an older turbo setup too.

I remember that incident. Yeah, that was fun. The Porsche guys around here always think they are faster than me, I think it's because my car looks stock. And yes, that was like 4 turbos ago (i.e. small turbo).

Xephyr you are my hero! Congrats on the super GC!!!! There are no words which can express how I feel about your car!!!

Pardon my ignorance (I'm not nearly as old school as you guys), but didn't you experiment with 22t blocks quite a little bit a while back? Obviously I see you're now running a 25t, why ditch the 22? I assume this block facilitates your track use/spoolup characteristics that you're after, etc. better than the Legacy block did?

Pardon my ignorance (I'm not nearly as old school as you guys), but didn't you experiment with 22t blocks quite a little bit a while back? Obviously I see you're now running a 25t, why ditch the 22? I assume this block facilitates your track use/spoolup characteristics that you're after, etc. better than the Legacy block did?

there just is no replacement for displacement, and yes more power happens earlier with the bigger engine.

very nice.

there just is no replacement for displacement, and yes more power happens earlier with the bigger engine.
Glad to see you've found something you like. Thanks a lot for all of the info you contributed regarding the 22t, I found it invaluable and still have a few of your posts bookmarked.

Glad to see you've found something you like. Thanks a lot for all of the info you contributed regarding the 22t, I found it invaluable and still have a few of your posts bookmarked.


Thanks for the compliments. There are still many locals here around Colorado who still stick with the EJ22t. That platform still has it's advantages.

For example, if a person is just trying achieve a specific HP level (versus the sky is the limit), the EJ22t can be an excellent choice: It's a rev happy engine, it can have a broad powerband in the right situation(due to increased VE up top), and lets not forget the block is practically bulletproof. I know of more EJ257 being blown up, than EJ22ts; and the EJ22t has been around a loooooong time!

I wish the EJ257 came with the same block structure as the ej22t. That would be a dream come true. Some people have resleeved the EJ22t block and made it into a 2.5. For really high HP applications, I think this would be the way to go. I know my friends here in Colorado have shipped out countless EJ22ts to England, as this 2.2 to 2.5 conversion is quite popular out there.

Mark R

Ok, I'm sure this guy has a sweet setup. But I call BS on those numbers. I tell you what I will pay 1000 dollars, since you're originally from the bay area if you can make 400 awp on 91 pump on either gruppe-s mustang dyno or vishnu's dyno. I will throw in 1 hour of tuning. If this turbo is optimized for altitude why are you correcting for sea-level any way, that just seems like hyperbole. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

Somethin' smellls... ...fishy. Oh wait that's my upper lip.

I think you'd lose your money!

All the dyno's give corrected numbers, some give both or if you specifically ask they will give you the uncorrected numbers.

Uncorrected numbers were 368.95 hp and 354.21 max torque, run conditions, 55 deg F, Absolute Barometric pressure 24.16 in/hg, 19% humidity.

That 24.16 in/hg equals a true atmospheric pressure of 11.87 psi, so at sea level he'd be making about 2.8 psi more actual manifold pressure at the same boost.

Mark's car and his power numbers are no joke.
;)

Of course the other option would be for someone who has a dyno sheet for 400 awhp on those dynos to come up here and see if they can hit 370 :)
Make it a ski vacation while your at it.

Larry

But what he says in his post is that this turbo is setup specifically for the high altitude and that he could not run this setup at sea level. So why correct for sea level? If he could that would be phenomenal. I just haven't seen anyone come close to hitting 400 on pump 91 on those dynos, a fully built 2.4 gt35r was hitting 350 awp and Marks making a corrected 100 awp more on pump. That doesn't seem right.

Ok, I'm sure this guy has a sweet setup. But I call BS on those numbers. I tell you what I will pay 1000 dollars, since you're originally from the bay area if you can make 400 awp on 91 pump on either gruppe-s mustang dyno or vishnu's dyno. I will throw in 1 hour of tuning. If this turbo is optimized for altitude why are you correcting for sea-level any way, that just seems like hyperbole. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

What makes you think I'm from the bay area?

Anyways, whatever.

We'll have 2 new dynos here in the next couple of months: a new Mustang, and a Dyno Dynamics. I'll take runs on both of them, and post numbers here. It sux though that I'm constantly having to defend myself on this board. I don't know what I did to piss off everyone on this forum, but this really gets old. I haven't posted here much in the past 5 years I've been a member, but everytime I do I'm reminded of why I get left with bitter memories. All I did was post dyno numbers. I don't own a dyno, so I have to use someone else's dyno, and I don't have any control over it. If you have a problem with the numbers, maybe you should call the people who own it. I build cars, not dynos.

As far as the turbo specs go, I didn't gain HP with the custom turbo, I just didn't lose as much HP as a sea level setup would have. Look at a compressor map and do the math: At sea level, running 22 psi, you deal with pressure ratios around 2.5. Here in Colorado, pressure ratios can be in excess of 3.0. So, now look at a compressor map, and compare efficiency ranges for those two numbers, and you'll see what we have to deal with out here. My turbo is not completely compensating for our altitude situation, it is simply maximizing what little air it has to work with.

If I happen to be in the bay area with my car, I'll gladly run on the dyno out there. There's a possibility I won't make 452 whp there; but then again I might make more. Either way, I suspect I would be close to that number, plus or minus.

If you want to bet money, bring a street legal pump gas car out here to the local track, and I'll lay $3000 on a 20 lap race. And yes, I'm serious.

I bet if you went there and pulled 400WHP he wouldnt pay. :lol:

I bet if you went there and pulled 400WHP he wouldnt pay. :lol:
Agreed.

What makes you think I'm from the bay area?
If you want to bet money, bring a street legal pump gas car out here to the local track, and I'll lay $3000 on a 20 lap race. And yes, I'm serious.

I'm sure you're an excellent road racer, I'm not debating your ability to drive your vehicle, what I'm talking about is that your dyno numbers are inflated. First of all, Dynojets are known for inflated numbers. So with the correction factor you're already inflating an already inflated number.

I know your just posting this number, but all I'm saying everybody is making your setup to be the highest AWHP 91 pump gas suby out there. It's just my contrarian point of view that your numbers are overly inflated. I'm also willing to bet 1g that it won't hit 400 AWHP on those dynos in the sf bay area. I will glady give the money to Gruppe-s so that if you were serious they would have the money ready. If you even did 400awhp that would be one hell of a pull and you would deserve the money.

Look, everybody says that dynos are good for quantifying relative changes but should not be used as yardstick for absolute power.

But everybody gets hung up on the number, and the number at best is misleading.

Of course the other option would be for someone who has a dyno sheet for 400 awhp on those dynos to come up here and see if they can hit 370 :)
Larry
That's just it I haven't seen a car come close on those dynos on pump gas.

here's a quote from this thread:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=690507&goto=newpost


Here in CA, the gas to a large exent is the limiting factor...Case in point
My older brother has a EVO with about $17,000 in drivetrain/power mods..
Full AMS GT35R kit with manifold/intercooler upgrade/cams/works throttlebody
now i think, etc...
91 Pump gas on a DD DYNO it would pull about 335-340 WHP, 100
octane-420WHp...C-16-470+ WHP.

On pump gas it on was able to get maybe a 25-35 WHP gain over the factory unit,
race gas more like 140+ WHP.. :eek: :huh:

My green ran out of breath about 370 WHP on Vishnu dyno/410-420ish on a dyno
jet...pushin 26-27 #'s of boost...That is why now i have a GT30-12 on the way
along with a stronger motor.

his 370 whp on a greened sti on c16 if I'm not mistaken. So again, no way is this guy going to make that hp on pump gas on the vishnu/gruppe-s dyno.

I'm sure you're an excellent road racer, I'm not debating your ability to drive your vehicle, what I'm talking about is that your dyno numbers are inflated. First of all, Dynojets are known for inflated numbers. So with the correction factor you're already inflating an already inflated number.

I know your just posting this number, but all I'm saying everybody is making your setup to be the highest AWHP 91 pump gas suby out there. It's just my contrarian point of view that your numbers are overly inflated. I'm also willing to bet 1g that it won't hit 400 AWHP on those dynos in the sf bay area. I will glady give the money to Gruppe-s so that if you were serious they would have the money ready. If you even did 400awhp that would be one hell of a pull and you would deserve the money.

Look, everybody says that dynos are good for quantifying relative changes but should not be used as yardstick for absolute power.

But everybody gets hung up on the number, and the number at best is misleading.
how much does your car make? since you have 1000 extra dollars lying around why not take a trip over to where mark is and see the differences? He has nothing to prove to you so why would he come and dyno on your dyno? If you are curious about the differences then take it upon yourself to go check it out. But i mean, remember if they are different dynos they might be inaccurate, and yours might have been high/low when you first dyno'd so that would be an incorrect base as well.

xephyr is at least 350whp which is ridiculous in the first place, its really not THAT commonplace, if people think he has the highest set up, let them and you can think he doesnt.

what really frusterates me is its comments like this that keep people like mark off the boards, when he is a very knowledgeable source of info that i could be learning from to make a great car.

Ben

but all I'm saying everybody is making your setup to be the highest AWHP 91 pump gas suby out there.

No you got that wrong! Were just saying that at this altitude he is generally considered the undisputed hottest subaru in town. There "might" be one other car up here,that is in the same power domain.

Mark has been flirting with 400 hp for years -- long before the WRX even came out.

At sea level there are probably a handful of others that are in the same league, but at an altitude of 5000 - 10000 ft, no one else I know of, is even close in a subaru. Although I understand a couple are expected to be coming on line soon

Larry

Ok, I'm sure this guy has a sweet setup. But I call BS on those numbers. I tell you what I will pay 1000 dollars, since you're originally from the bay area if you can make 400 awp on 91 pump on either gruppe-s mustang dyno or vishnu's dyno. I will throw in 1 hour of tuning. If this turbo is optimized for altitude why are you correcting for sea-level any way, that just seems like hyperbole. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

just cause one dynojet has been proven to read lower doesn't mean all of them do. people have been saying that dan's dyno,though a dyno jet, is giving the same readings as a dyno dynamics. also, tuning makes a huge difference in the way a setup is brought out. This also points to your reference from the thread which has a brother talking about another brother's evo with millions of dollars invested into it, my friend has an evo with the apexi turbo kit, the one they use on the sparco evo, and put down 400whp on 91 octane which was mildly tuned on a dyno that reads similiar to vishnu's. Just cause one has expensive parts and a really big turbo doesn't mean they'll make the power to back up the money spent. zephyr must be making wicked power and 450awhp is an incredible hp figure for a subaru and even though it might be off by a little bit, that is still very very impressive. congrats on the build up

thanks for all the support guys. whatever the true HP is, Larry is correct in saying a lot of the 'hype' is comparing my car to other cars in Colorado ( or high altitude); around here, there just isn't many other subarus (or other 4 cyl pump gas cars) in the high HP ranges, but there are a lot currently being built up. when the weather warms up in march, the local drag strip will open up and I plan on making a visit. hopefully a good timeslip will be able to provide some additional supporting evidence to my HP numbers.

i was planning on making a trip to the bay area when it warms up in the spring, so if I do, I'll swing by the dyno there, get a number, and start a conclusive dyno comparison thread. on the way, i could swing by cobb's dyno. also, we'll soon have the following dynos here in the Denver, Colorado metro area: Dynapack (installed in 2000), Dynojet (a 2003 model; it's not an 'old' Dynojet), Mustang (will be brand new; planning on being complete in January or February 2005), and a Dyno Dynamics (also brand new; some time in January or February 2005).

Hopefully, armed with all this data, I can assemble a true technical dyno comparison thread. This info would be very helpful, especially to myself, in getting a grasp on the relativity of these numbers. Please realize, that the above mentioned itenerary is significant in size financially, and time consuming as well. but because this is a 'technical' forum, and i (like some others here) thirst for knowledge, i am more than willing to attempt to undertake such a task.

so, have a happy 2005,
Mark R

I expect that the Dyno Dynamics will read the lowest of the bunch - it will be instersting to see the comparisions.

Mark,
Why don't you go run on Shiv's dyno. We all know that his dyno has never been accused of reading high :rolleyes:

Mnavorro,

You remarks are just totally ungrounded in reality. I don't think you have a firm understanding of how significant an effect altitude has on these cars. Mark's ucncorrected numbers are 369hp and 354tq. If we were to go run at sea level, it would be so much significantly higher. Of course, he would first have to dial back his boost a bit because down there the air is so much thicker his current boost maps would be super lean. That is what he is talking about when he says it is tuned for altitude. And knowning Mark personally, I can guarantee that he could tune his car at sea level in about an hour on the dyno and lay down uncorrected numbers really close to his corrected ones.

They call it corrected for a reason. They are SAE corrected numbers that make an attempt to take into account the effect of the thinnner air. It is a genuine attempt to level the playing field, not some attempt on Mark's part to make himself look good. Mark has dyno'd the car in both the winter and summer. The uncorrected numbers are significantly different based on the season with differences in temp and humidity. But surprise, his corrected numbers came out pretty much the same. :eek: The formulas work.

I say put your money where your mouth is, and drop your jaw when he takes your hard earned $$$. Or take that money, build a high powered car and come here to Colorado and try to beat either Mark's uncorrected or corrected numbers on MacSport's dyno. My money says you will lose either way. :huh: nuff said.

what kind of clutch are you using? and btw thats a sick car!

Whatever, you got to be kidding me. If he could do it my hat goes off to him. I think the lack of oxygen up there is suffocating your brain cells. I haven't seen any car come close to making that kind of power on 91 on those dynos. So if he did it would be a testament to how great his car is. DynoJet does not even come close to Vishnu's Dyno Dynamics. So my comments are grounded, and based in reality. But whatever, if anything, I'm just trying to point out that everyone get's all excited about these numbers when we don't have anything else to compare them with. Say for example what does a greened sti do up there, with the exact same corrections? What kind of numbers are they putting out? This gives at least gives some basis for comparison.

Look I'm not some guy who wants to rain on this guys parade, I just think there are some valid reason to question the numbers.

Regardless of how much power the car makes (and I for one believe what's Mark has posted), there is still a 300+ pound difference between this car and a GD STi. I'm sure the real intention here was not to get a specific number, but to build a seriously quick car and that's what it is. Who cares if it makes xxx power on yyy dyno? The real comparison lies in how much power it makes relative to other cars on whatever dyno you are talking about at the time. These numbers are good for reference in that respect, but trying to prove someone wrong by inviting them to a "lower-reading" dyno does nothing if the car is still much faster than 99% of the cars on the road, including 99% of the cars on this board.

It sux though that I'm constantly having to defend myself on this board. I don't know what I did to piss off everyone on this forum, but this really gets old. I haven't posted here much in the past 5 years I've been a member, but everytime I do I'm reminded of why I get left with bitter memories. All I did was post dyno numbers. I don't own a dyno, so I have to use someone else's dyno, and I don't have any control over it. If you have a problem with the numbers, maybe you should call the people who own it. I build cars, not dynos.

That is exactly why I rarely post on this board. Its funny that we are still branded "newbies" when punks with a 50000+ member number can be considered "Specialists" And then they have the balls to call BS on you. I never liked corrected numbers. Raw numbers are what your car will do right now at that exact place. At your altitude your car will pull like it has 370whp. Thats not BS and no one can dispute that. You need to come down to sea level and make some pulls. Just the added 2.8psi atm pressure should net you 400whp.

mnavarro,
Your need to make personal attacks doesn't make you any less wrong. You are obviously not very well versed in the history of tuning Subarus in this country, or you would know about Mark and the whole progression of his car. He is not some guy that just showed up, slapped a turbo on his car and claimed tuner. You say you haven't seen anyone close to his numbers and want to sort of comparison. Well, here is I-speed's car, with right around the same numbers as Mark's uncorrected numbers, on their 2.8l engine, no less:
http://www.i-speed.us/images/yellow/chris_yellow_dyno_01.jpg
And here is what the DMS guys are doing on the same dyno Mark uses:
http://rmdsm.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2458&highlight=results

You can continue to call names and claim that Mark is full of BS, but the empirical evidence supports him

You guys are way too serious, I'm not attacking Mark, but you come to his aid like a bunch of little girls. Do you know turbo they had on that 2.8 liter, an 18 g. Give me a break that car is setup to make torque not horsepower. They snapped the crank shaft with all the torque that they were making. I don't know what this proves, but you think you're making 80 more pounds of torque than this motor on pump gas? Now that's a laugh.

mnavarro what did your 2004 sti put down on your local dyno when it was stock?

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cnstmansti/detail?.dir=321e&.dnm=9e52.jpg

here is my corrected stock run on that same exact dyno vs cobb stage 1

no tq numbers cause they were having trouble with their tach pickup module.

here is the exact same plot, uncorrected http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cnstmansti/detail?.dir=321e&.dnm=b55d.jpg

You guys are way too serious, I'm not attacking Mark, but you come to his aid like a bunch of little girls. Do you know turbo they had on that 2.8 liter, an 18 g. Give me a break that car is setup to make torque not horsepower. They snapped the crank shaft with all the torque that they were making. I don't know what this proves, but you think you're making 80 more pounds of torque than this motor on pump gas? Now that's a laugh.

I wasn't talking about you attacking Mark. I was talking about your unneeded remark about lack of oxygen killing my brain cells. Or your remarks about a bunch of little girs coming to his aid. That kind of BS just doesn't further the technical discussion. You act like you can bully people into thinking you are right. You continue to claim that his #'s just aren't possible and have ZERO to back up your claim... :rolleyes:

EDIT: I posted the I-speed numbers just to show that Mark's numbers are far from ridiculously inflated. If his uncorrected numbers match something like their sea level numbers you can only assume that he will make a fair bit more power down at sea level. What does them running an 18g or breaking things have to do with the topic at hand? You are the one bringing pointless things to the table.

And you asked for something to help you understand the Macsports dyno, since by your own statement, dyno numbers are all relative. That is why I posted the DMS numbers. There is a huge sampling of DSM's there that you can compare to, for example Shiv's dyno, since he also tunes DSM's and try and extrapolate an understanding of where Mark's car would fall.

But you don't seem to want to have a technical discussion. You just want to stand there and say BS, BS, your numbers are BS. :banana: I think you are the one with the schoolyard mentality. :furious: Mark may be a personal friend, but I would step up and make the same remarks regarding any of the guys around here that have taken the time to set up their car and make them the real deal. And I try to bring tech to the table to do it...

mnavarro what did your 2004 sti put down on your local dyno when it was stock?


Ok with a catless dp and k&n intake I put down 239 hp and 230 torque on teh Gruppe-s mustang dyno. Stock sti's are in low 220s. With full supporting mods on an Sr40 turbo, header, I put down 317/332 awp/awt. This is at 1.4 bar at 11.1 afr. I have a nice area under the curve, probably similar to a 20g.

The suby that has put the most down that I'm aware of on pump on that dyno is Mikes from Gruppe-s, I want to say about 350, with gt35r and built 2.4 motor, with link ecu, external waste gate, yada, yada, yada.

I am not trying to argue, but I have been in quite a few modded Subarus. My wrx wagon makes 255HP/270TQ uncorrected on the same dyno as the one in question. I can spank stock STis and EVOs no problem. Our buddy Davidmsh has a 20g on his STi and my freind Michael has just returned from having ESX custom tune his 20ged STi to the tune of 330WHP at sea level. I have ridden with most of the faster Suby owners around here and this thing is head and shoulders above the rest.

But this is from experience as I have ridden in all of these cars. Mr. Navarro, I would double your bet against you any time you like. This car is so fast, it deserves it's own airstrip. None of our cars compare. I realize it is much lighter in weight, but that doesn't explain the rocketlike acceleration. Call me a fanboy if you wish, you would be too if you rode in it.

Great Job Mark!!!

Ok cnstman thanks for the plots. I think that helps put things in perspective for me. I think it's extremely helpful for people to see some baselines as a point of reference to understand what the numbers mean.

Stock corrected STI 265 vs 220 on mustang dyno, 215 dyno dynamics
Uncorrected STI 214 vs 220 on mustang dyno, 215 dyno dynamics

So if Mark's car is making 370 uncorrected, he's probably making somewhere close but probably under 400 on gruppe-s dyno/or vishnu's dyno. That still is great power for pump gas, and is a good bet, because I think he would come close. I can also say that nobody has come close to that power on those dynos on pump gas (except maybe some race car) so that's very impressive.

I think it's good for the community to have a better understanding of how to compare this stuff, I'm not one for accepting things on blind faith. I posted base line results on my thread just so that people had some frame of reference. You guys make me out to be some bad guy just because I was trying to make a point that the numbers are meaningless without some reference, and at best they are ballpark.

so are we betting or what?

there's a couple of g's floating in the air right now...

:devil:

Ok, I'm sure this guy has a sweet setup. But I call BS on those numbers. I tell you what I will pay 1000 dollars, since you're originally from the bay area if you can make 400 awp on 91 pump on either gruppe-s mustang dyno or vishnu's dyno. I will throw in 1 hour of tuning. If this turbo is optimized for altitude why are you correcting for sea-level any way, that just seems like hyperbole. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

mnavorro,
No one makes you out to be a bad guy for questioning numbers laid out by different dynos. It is how you do it. A statement like this is pretty aggressive, and would be why you got such an aggressive response. If you had just said that it was your understanding that different dynos read differently and that you would like to see how his car ran on a mustang, we wouldn't have come down on you the way we did. And then you responded with name calling and taunting. And towards several of the founding members of this board, no less. What did you expect? :confused:

I spoke to Mark last night, and he is planning a trip to Gruppe-S's dyno, and probably a stop at Modern's in SLC as well. Not to proove you wrong, but because that is the kind of empirical testing that Mark is fond of. I think once that happens you will see that MacSports' dyno and Cobb/Modern Garage's mustang dyno read really close to the same. Mark has an NA car that is very similarly set up to my RS, and we are within 2whp with me running mine at Cobb and him running at MacSports. There are differences from brands of dyno's as well as from dyno to dyno. And I would be very surprised if Mark didn't hit 400 at Gruppe-S.

Anyways, if you aren't serious about the $1000, I suggest you recant now, cuz Mark will be in the bay within the next 60 days... :devil:

No, If Mark wants to bet I will bet. I don't know how you can say the dynos read close, because they are not, maybe when both uncorrected. I don't know how you can say a stock sti 265 is close to 220. I must be missing something here. I think it will be closer than what I first thought, but I still don't think it will make 400. Again if it did, that it one sweet setup and I will gladly pay the G.

No, If Mark wants to bet I will bet. I don't know how you can say the dynos read close, because they are not, maybe when both uncorrected. I don't know how you can say a stock sti 265 is close to 220. I must be missing something here. I think it will be closer than what I first thought, but I still don't think it will make 400. Again if it did, that it one sweet setup and I will gladly pay the G.

You don't seem to paying attention, to your own argument, no less. :rolleyes: You claim that you cannot compare a dnyojet and a mustang dyno. I proceeded to show an instance where at very similar elevations, the two different dynos read very close to the same. Then there is that other variable, that you seem to continue to ignore, elevation. If one were to compare Cobb's Mustang at 5000ft to Gruppe-S's at sea level, they very likely wouldn't read the same. But I know of a Mustang dyno in Roseville at around 2500ft that happens to read very similar to Cobb's. In fact, as I have stated before, the same dyno will read different numbers on different days because of environmental conditionsand a number of other variables.

The problem here is that what is coming out of your mouth are very universal statements about how you cannot compare two different brands of dynos. And then you apply it to two very specific dynos. With enough data (which I tried to provide you with yesterday) you can actually make some comparisons and get ballpark numbers. I never said that the two dynos would read the same. But what I did say it that using SAE corrections on MacSports dyno would yield very close the actual numbers on Gruppe-S's when he gets there. You need to spend less time trying to be right and more time trying to understand. Do some math, and I think you will realize that Mark will pull 400 on Gruppe-S's dyno.

I will reiterate what was in my signature on this board for a couple of years: I don't care who is right or wrong, I just want to find out the right answer. I suggest you embrace that and search for knowledge instead of ego gratification. But maybe losing $1000 will show you that it isn't so damned important to be right... :huh:

I love how this thread went from a great discussion of tuning an old school subi.....to a pissing match.

who gives a rats ass about comparing dynos....go do it in one of the other 10zillion dyno comparo argument threads.

It's things like this that piss me right the hell off.

I want to hear more about his car and the old school guys....not who's willing to put money down on xephyr making XXXhp. Just lame guys. Lame.

I may have a high member number, but I was lurking long before i posted for the first time. And man, this place has changed. This was a blast from the past....for a moment. Like the story of the porche.....love that stuff.

-Matt


By the way.....sick car Xephyr, very nice job.

I have kept tabs on this car for a long time... I will never build my car up to this kind of power... mostly cuz I cant afford it. BUT I do appreciate all the work mark has put in, because it will help me in my mild tuning... ie what not to do...

thanks mark! keep pushing it.

:)

I bet if you went there and pulled 400WHP he wouldnt pay. :lol:

I'll bet he would pay, in fact I know him, he's a professional programmer and can afford it, not that he would want to pay it, but he would.

Nobody is making much over 350 whp with 2.5 liters or less here on CA 91 - Knock gets bad fast. In fact everyone I know with 2.5 or less on ANY engine runs very close to the knock edge over about 330 hp and 330 ft/lbs.

I have seen some high torque numbers 350-365 but they can't hold the torque past about 4500 RPM's so still only make around 300-330 whp.

I am not even disagreeing that some of you on this thread are saying well if he were at sea level he'd make even more....or words to that effect - You would have to make adjustments or retune to run down here and I strongly doubt, I'd love to be proved wrong, that you'd be anywhere around 400 whp, without knock, once tuned to CA 91.

I would love to hear of 400+ WHP WRX's or anything with 2.5 liters or less on CA 91, but I just haven't seen it.

It's not the engine, it's the fuel and the air.

Note: I am talking about using the Mustang Dyno at Gruppe-s, some dynos read higher and some read much higher. Some also seem to change their minds as the owners of the dynos make "corrections" after a first run.

Good Luck.

Nobody is making much over 350 whp with 2.5 liters or less here on CA 91 - Knock gets bad fast. In fact everyone I know with 2.5 or less on ANY engine runs very close to the knock edge over about 330 hp and 330 ft/lbs.




I've seen a couple of evos doing that. There are some wrxs that have done that as well. i think the name on the forum was avowrx. He made 375 on pump 91 in california

Do you guys really think your 91 is that much crappier than our 91 ant piss?

WOW!!! very nice...how well does the Greddy FMIC fit in there?
Thanks, Micah

ok,everyone, let's all calm down.

first, the issue here shouldn't be how much hp can be made, but how much torque. hp is simply a factor of how much torque is being made at a given rpm. so, theoretically, as long as you get enough torque at a high rpms, then high hp #s are achieveable.

of course the trouble with building lots of torque at high rpms, is timing. at high rpms there's less time to burn the air/fuel, so therefore more advanced timing is needed. the trouble with more timing is detonation,which in my case is specifically related to fuel.

so, yes, there is a limit to what can be done with pump fuel. but i don't believe this limit has been found by most cars.

now i realize there is a great abundance of finely tuned cars on the west coast. but there is also more abundance of race fuel. so, to get the high hp #, it's easier to just pump up on c16 and give it hell. but where i live, this is not as convenient of an option, so i've approached this a little differently.

therefore, my goal is to try to sustain more torque, higher in the rpm range, so that i can gain more hp,all on pump fuel. the limiting factors in this process will be ignition timing and air flow (this is under the assumption that the mechanical parts of the system don't break or fail, but we'll save that for another discussion!) so here are some of the options.

1. intercooler - cooling the air more will obviously lower your chances of detonation. but the air can only be cooled so much without the use of a refrigeration or ice/air/water system. for what i'm doing, i'm kind of stuck with the air/air ic. however, there are units that will flow better,which ultimately net more hp. i believe in my situation that the power gains in this area are not significant enough for me to deal with...yet.
2.water injection-once again,i dont think the significant hp gains i'm looking for will be found here,but it's always an option.
3. heads/cams-there are obviously some gains to be made here from a flow perspective. however, i'm determined to try and get a little more from my setup. plus, heads/cams don't necessarily solve all the issues with detonation.
4. turbo - this is where i think the real gains can be easily made,and the area i'm currently working on.

the turbo i'm using now is a 60-1 garrett. it is based on the same archaic design that garrett has been using for 30 years. it's an industry standard, and has proven itself time and again. unfortunately though, it doesn't use any of the new technologies available to us today.

the garrett gt series, however, does. it has a revised design to the turbine wheel aerodynamics which improves both flow and efficiency. there are also some improvements to the the turbine housing design, and of course the improvements to the famous ball bearing center section. however, it still uses the same archaic compressor wheel and compressor housing design.

the turbo i'm currently building is a schwitzer unit. it's a result of the release of schwitzer's very recently released line called the 'HT' series. it's turbine wheel and housing are even better in design than the gt series. but more importantly, it also has a much more advanced compressor wheel and housing design. when looking at the maps for these turbos,its hard to believe such a thing really exists. unfortunately though, they are only currently spec'd out for diesel applications. but because all the components are serviceable and interchangeable(unlike the gt series), i can build what i need for my gasoline application,which is what i'm working on now. according to Turbo Engineering Corp here in Colorado,they wouldn't be surprised if Garrett almost goes out of business in the future because of these turbos.

just for reference,TEC is the world's largest retailer and servicer of both Garrett and Schwitzer , and have received multiple awards from both organizations. Also, some of the main brains at Turbonetics were originally students of the founder of TEC. most people haven't heard of TEC because they focus mostly on diesel and industrial applications. they still keep a small contingent of high profile racing clientele though.

anyways, what will the new turbo mean for me? the obvious answer is more flow. the not so obvious answer is more timing. how?

first, because of the superior compressor design, charge temps will be significantly lower due to increased efficiency. this will help me keep the ignition timing advanced.

second, the superior design of the turbine will also flow more efficiently, which will help get the heat out of the cylinder, keep egts low, and thus keep in cylinder temps low up top and under high boost. this will also help keep the ignition timing advanced.

anyways, i'll keep everyone posted on how things turn out.

disclaimer: this is all theory and i don't claim to be an expert. i am just an amateur subaru hobbyist and enthusiast. please reserve your hate and discontent posts for another thread. i do,however,welcome and would appreciate open technical discussion and debate.

thank you,
mark r

WOW!!! very nice...how well does the Greddy FMIC fit in there?
Thanks, Micah

the greddy fm is a kit for jdm gc8 wrxs. it shares the same core as the kits for our wrxs, except the brackets fit the gc8. it bolts right on the car. however, i had to use the jdm bumper support. also, slight cutting had to be made to the bumper support, to clear the ic, and also to clear the my plumbing route. realize i routed my plumbing straight throught the front of the body, instead of through the fender, under the frame, etc. this required some slight cutting to the body around the headlights, and some customized pieces of tubing,siliconehoses, etc.

Mnavarro,

I dont see him having a problem getting around 400whp in Cali on those dynos. Dont they read high? Or at least higher than a Dynolog?
Heres a link to my dyno sheet done at Easystreet.
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=499544
I laid down ~350 whp on 91 everytime there with my setup.
I have a 2.2 litre, 60-1 turbo, and a 50 shot.
So he's got 0.3 litres on me, same size turbo, but no nos.
I think it would be very close.

What makes a turbo Diesel specific? Is it the material used for the components being unsuitable for gasoline engines(which i am not sure how that would be). Please explain:)

thanks
Ben

What makes a turbo Diesel specific? Is it the material used for the components being unsuitable for gasoline engines(which i am not sure how that would be). Please explain:)

thanks
Ben

no, it's just the wheel and housing combinations. basically they have listed what wheel to use with what housings for both the compressor and exhaust size, all spec'd out on a sheet and listed out for what size engine, power levels, boost, etc. they haven't done this yet for gas applications, but i am in the process of figuring it out myself.

Hi Mark

The Schwitzer HT turbos sound real interesting. I have not been able to find any links so far with details like maps and sizes - do you have any ?

I am building a 2.8l R4 and am still looking at turbos and these sound great.

www.turboengineering.com

The turbo I plan on using is one of the HT200 series turbos. He only has one map on his web site for the HT200 series, and unfortunately it's not the exact map of the one I'm planning on using. I guess there are more variations of the 200 than he lists right now. Hopefully he'll get more info on the website in the future.

Thanks Mark for the great lead - this is a winner.

The HT200 has a really nice surge line - much better than a GT-30R and can it really handle boost.

http://www.turboengineering.com/custom_performance_turbochargers/ht-series/ht200.html

It is a divided inlet " twin scrool" with a standard T3 mount. I was corected by Jim at TEC - he is great and really knows his turbos.

It is more than a 30R and less than a 35R - just the right size for a 2.5l Scooby or even a 2.8l.

I have decide to go with the HT-200 turbo for my R-4 and will change the plumbing to work with the divided inlet. I plan to run a collector with cyl 1 & 2 together and 3 & 4 together, is this right ? All will be equal length with a common divorced waste gate just before the turbo inlet.

Can't wait to see how this works - should be awesome.

Charlie, you are a bad, bad man... :lol:. People do say, two are better than one ;).

Rick

Thanks Mark for the great lead - this is a winner.

The HT200 has a really nice surge line - much better than a GT-30R and can it really handle boost.

http://www.turboengineering.com/custom_performance_turbochargers/ht-series/ht200.html

It is a divided inlet " twin scrool" with a standard T3 mount. I was corected by Jim at TEC - he is great and really knows his turbos.

It is more than a 30R and less than a 35R - just the right size for a 2.5l Scooby or even a 2.8l.

I have decide to go with the HT-200 turbo for my R-4 and will change the plumbing to work with the divided inlet. I plan to run a collector with cyl 1 & 2 together and 3 & 4 together, is this right ? All will be equal length with a common divorced waste gate just before the turbo inlet.

Can't wait to see how this works - should be awesome.


your cylinder pairing is correct.

he's still working on my turbo, and he has something in mind which he has not told me yet.

will keep you posted.

mark r

that turbo compressor chart, for those who didnt look or dont know how to read them correctly, is awesome!!! some people like turbos that make there power with lower pressure levels, like my t62-1http://64.225.76.178/catalog/compmaps/Fig10.gif see my turbo can only make somewhere around 1.8 bar of boost, give or take. and the surge line is alot farther to the right.

IO just want to compare both these for anyone who ends up reading this thread later, in search on info on turbos.

Chucktoo you mentioned a better surgeline, than the 60-1, but look how much of an understatement that is!!!!!!!!!!!

2.0 bar- T62-1 16 lbs/min HT200 13 lbs/min
2.5 bar- T62-1 30 lbs/min HT200 18 lbs/min WOW
3.0 bar- T62-1 54 lbs/min HT200 22 lbs/min :huh: :eek: :disco: :disco: :banana:
3.5 bar- T62-1 NA HT200 27 lbs/min!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4.0 bar- T62-1 NA HT200 31 lbs/min
4.5 bar- T62-1 NA HT200 35 lbs/min

THAT IS SO AMAZING, im packing my bags and leaving garrett forever!

the 60-1 is even worse than the 62, its horrible, the flow chart i am looking at, on turbonetics.com show it not even being able to reach 3.0 bar Pressure ratio. I mean think about that HT200 pushing your cars PR to 4.5? ......!!! THATS ALMOST 50 psi boost!!! surge line is a big deal when sizing a turbo for cars with motors as small as 2.0 2.5 liters.

Finally, back on track. Now this is good, solid stuff.

Can we get a mod in here to trim out all of the fat?

c'mon... fat is what makes the flavor so tasty. ;)

that is a very impressive compressor map, to be sure. i'm very interested in the outcome when it's fitted to an ej motor.

ken

Wow! Congratulations Mark!

these turbo's might be the answer I am looking for on a 1.6 liter non subaru application..

Im curious though about teh whole octane thing. At sea level there will be 3ish psi more boost, making more power... so that means the limits of the 91 will show up, right?
I am unsure how to figure int eh fact teh the turbo will be working at a lower pressure ratio at sea level.. will tehat help or hurt when your "wall" is the 91 octane ?

Mark

We ordered the HT-200-1 turbo and collectors today should be doing the install in about a month on the divided inlet [ twin scroll] tubro. There is a lot of new plumbing - the compressor inlet is 4 1/8" and the turbine outlet is 4" changing the down pipe a lot.

Life will get real interersting in scooby turbo land .

twin scroll is not anything having to do with compressors, IIRC, Its dual inlets on the turbine housing... Is that what you mean?

oh another question, for chuck, can i order the H300 with a 200 turbine wheel and or housing? I am in need of something with alittle more flow.

Ok I hate to bring this up again but does anybody think this is a high for a 20g:
http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/showpost.php?p=996639&postcount=9

this is on the same dyno I think...

Call Jim at TEC.

http://www.turboengineering.com/index.html

Ok I hate to bring this up again but does anybody think this is a high for a 20g:
http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/showpost.php?p=996639&postcount=9

this is on the same dyno I think...


Wow, how come you're not questioning Kingpin's results on his GT35R thread. They broke 400 whp on pump gas. They are also using the same type Dynojet that we're using here. Also, his numbers are corrected, but he's not just stating the fact like i do.

Yeah, maybe that's high too. I didn't look at the corrections. But seeing as how people think I'm so off base here, why would I do it over there too. Here's what HotRod said in another thread:

Yes there needs to be a correction for altitude even with a turbo car, but as you say its not a simple relationship. A turbo has to work much harder at high altitude just to get close to sea level performance. In terms or real world on track performance the NHRA altitude correction factors are pretty close.

They specify a 3% change in ET and mph here at Denver's altitude. Since power requirements go up at the cube of the change in speed that implies the change in power would be about 8.7 percent drop in power for a turbocharged car, and about 2x that for a NA car.

So for rule of thumb purposes, take the raw hp on a dyno at this altitude and take 1/2 the SAE correction and you will be pretty close to a proper correction.

Or you can take a flat factor of 1.087 x the raw numbers for turbocharged, supercharged cars here, and a flat 1.175 for NA and you will be ball park corrected.

Larry

Does this reasonable. Because it sure does seem reasonable to me? Which would mean
370*1.087=402. This seems to be much more of a realistic number on pump. Maybe the same follows suit with Kingpin. I think we all need to chill out about this and discuss it so that we all know how to compare results a little better. I apologize if I've offended you.

I just posted the SAE correction formula on the other thread!

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=698867


SAE appears to have tried to come up with a correction formula that comes out to a very user friendly correction factor of the form 1.xx .

When they did that the broke the formula for test conditons that fall well outside their "norm". If you discard the first and last terms of the formula so you get a correction in the form of % power compared to thier standard conditions the problem disappears.


Larry

You can tell the HT's are diesel turbos. They like to run real high PR's. Like the holsets for example. Should work well if you guys actualy reach those high PR's :)

I turned off the SAE and read wheel hp on our runs. We lost 11whp peak going to wheel from SAE. Not much correction going on that day. It was cool and pretty dry. Like 502whp uncorrected and 513 corrected.

X your getting alot of questions because of two reasons. Your chart is high for pump gas and your runs had a HUGE Correction factor. Probably due to the altitude. Thats why people are asking. Your wheel hp is in the 370range. Def under 400whp. Swing by the dyno shop and print a graph showing uncorrected wheel hp and let us know. When ever you get better then avg results like you did and like we did the haters come out of the wood work. Just dust your shoulders off and make more power next time like we are :)

We tested the 60-1 with T4 hotside. It sucked. Thats why it came off the car. It could barely crack 400whp because it blows hot air past 21-22 psi. The 62 is only marginaly better if at all in real world. They work better on larger displacement engines running lower PR's. Thats what they where made for. We tried it. It sucked and now the car has a T04R on it. Its the name of the game. Trial and error. Cant wait to see your results on your new turbo man!


CYa

Clark

I would disagree with only one thing... the only way to really shut the haters up is to show what times done on a track... straight or curvy... :D

Nobody is hating, just looking for results that we can compare. Nothing wrong with a little debate on this subject, concerning this is "Proven Power Bragging". But you're right it would nice to see his trap speed.

I would like to see everyones trap speed especially that kingpin car...

I would disagree with only one thing... the only way to really shut the haters up is to show what times done on a track... straight or curvy... :D

I seem to recall that Mark was less than 2 seconds behind a certain red '97 supra in the area at second creek raceway. What is so special about this supra? well for starters it's pushing 20lbs of instant boost, doing 1.4g's on the skidpad (prototype moton coilovers), had an extra 50mm of tire weidth up front, 70mm of tire width in the rear.... and has also held a track record at second creek that has stood for several months.... I seem to recall that Mark was on a powerplant that could only muster 380whp on the same dyno he put down his most recent #'s on. The supra is blowing the doors of trailer queen 911's that are fully prepped for GT2... Mark should be running right with those guys if not a little quicker. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

*willing to toss another $1000 into the pot to see if another 4 cylinder street legal pump gas car can touch him at second creek*

There is a big difference between the world inside the glass jar of a dyno, and a responsive and balanced car that kicks ass out in the real world. He's also on such a relatively BASIC setup with so much room for improvement it's retarded.

I thought this was proven power bragging....

jesus al mighty... No coast ....

I must need to make my posts EXTREMELY clear... I know Exactly what Marks car did before and now that he can pull these numbers I **think** i know what it will do... I've been trying to convince him very passively to **SHOW** his results... because I think people will stop romping on his threads... because i know what he goes through to get to where he is... i avoid all black 98RS' because of his car.. just in case ..lol

sorry if i wasn't clear...

Holy Lag

haha... gotta stand up fo' da Mountain States Krew nizziger

Ooops... sorry... I'm white, I'll refrain from doing that in the future.

yes please never do that again:)

[QUOTE=no-coast-punk]The supra is blowing the doors of trailer queen 911's that are fully prepped for GT2...QUOTE]
key word is wrong....
was

the car is gone for the DSR... remember?
yeah, and IIRC, its only about 8-10 seconds faster than the supra.
they're about a second off the top track record.

but to atibute to Mark... his cars are out of 98% of the people on this boards league. they're rediculously crazy, not to mention, he experiments with his car to make it better. seems like he's never satisfied... :rolleyes:
but, props to mark, looks sweet.

I'm from the Rockies too

but pimpin ain't easy.... :(

hahhaha

I don't see anyone asking it, but any idea what the price would be on the turbo TEC doesn't seem to list prices... If need be I can fire off an email, but I don't really want to waste anyone's time over there as im just curious...

i would have shot them an email allready, but they say its like 45 dollars or something for a quote on their website. i guess they do compressor turbine matches n stuff like that, and they are telling us that its worth 45 bucks.

I should have a price and delivery on a TEC HT-200 turbine and HT-300 compressor early next week they are burried this week.

That is my current plan if they can make it. The other question is what other AR housings are available.

I would love to see some HKS TO4R maps for comparision I think they maybe very simular but only the maps will tell.

Here are the respective wheels

Compressor Inlet Outlet Turbine all divided inlet Inlet

TEC HT-200 79.8mm 55.8mm Trim .49 100mm 51mm 74.2mm 64.5mm Trim 76 T03

TEC HT-300 84.7mm 61.5mm Trim .53 100mm 76mm 79.8mm 70.8mm Trim 79 T04

HKS T04R 84.0mm 66.7mm Trim .63 100mm 60mm 74.2mm 64.7mm Trim 76 T04

does the T04r have that nice of a surge line? i dont think that any of the t turbos will do that. i was looking in comparison on my car to the ht turbos, and my 62-1 fit somewhere in between the 300 and the 400 turbos as far as surge goes, which to me is SO amazing!

does the T04r have that nice of a surge line? i dont think that any of the t turbos will do that. i was looking in comparison on my car to the ht turbos, and my 62-1 fit somewhere in between the 300 and the 400 turbos as far as surge goes, which to me is SO amazing!

should have my ht-200 on in a week. just waiting on a flange. will keep you guys posted.

mr

so what did you pay for it? im interested obviously for my own purpose, as my turbo has been blowing oil out all ends for the last few months. anyways. if you dont want to post the price for whatever reason, then you can PM me.

thanks

so what did you pay for it? im interested obviously for my own purpose, as my turbo has been blowing oil out all ends for the last few months. anyways. if you dont want to post the price for whatever reason, then you can PM me.

thanks


i haven't paid for it yet. i have a special arrangement with tec, mostly because all those guys/gal down there are personal friends of mine. when i find out the price though, i'll post/pm you the info.

Lead the way Mark - there are several of us following you down the TEC path.

Can't wait to see what your already awsome car does with the divided inlet.

WOW, on 91????

VERY NICE!

Nice job Mark! I've seen your black RS at a few Colorado meets over the years. And then just before I left last year at the May SCCA Time Trials at Second Creek we talked. Your car was fast then... Keep up the awesome high altitude work!

Former member of the 9000ft club,
TRS

Check your pm on the awdpirates forum.

keep us posted on the turbo price....

Gotta smile when I hear some of the feedback in threads like this.

Mark has maintained a much lower profile than the names we're using to seeing on these forums - those who are generally regarded as experts - but there's few people on this side of the pond who have more Subaru building experience.

Consider that these numbers were attained without the kind of exotic hardware we're used to seeing on these high output cars, and it puts the achievement in perspective.

Nice work, Mark.

bump price?

ditto

I had the good fortune of meeting Mark when I was getting some work done on my STI by Tarmac USA. He is a really great guy and is very soft spoken. I really do not think he does this for his ego- I think he is simply obsessed with building mind blowingly fast Subarus. Anyway...

IMO, his car is absolutely amazing! I have driven a fair number of fast cars and motorcycles, but this is the only thing that I would describe as SCARY fast. Truly incredible.

Most of you know far more about building fast Subarus than I do, so take this for what it is worth. But it seems to me that Mark is just offering his insight on how to make fast Subarus, and that is awesome.

Just wanted to show some appreciation to a great guy.
Thanks Mark

I, for one, appreciate this thread (minus the obvious wanna-bes). Great information, Mark. Although I don't know you personally, I'd like to read more about your efforts with this car.

S.

i just called TEC, and talked to a Jake over there, and was told of one certain 2.5 rs with an sti motor in it, that recently made 475 hp at the wheels with about 20-21 psi boost (as he remembered) on PUMP gas! Is this that same car? Im sure it is, he said that it had a 60-1 on it before, and this turbo made more power, and came on 500 rpms earlier! The turbo that he used was an HT-200.

Can anyone confirm this? If someone is making that sort of power on pump, then Why is the garrett 35R anything that people are exited about at all? The prices that Jake was talking about were under 1000 for those asking. PLus these guys seem like really cool guys.

There is a post on that car. Done at altitude with something like a 22% correction factor. Wheel hp was down in the 300's. Still a ton of power for the alt.

Clark

How many ft-lbs in a 'WTQ'?

its on page one of this thread, if you are meaning this one, because i remember there was 22 percent correction on this one too. can you point me kingpin to the post?

How many ft-lbs in a 'WTQ'?
Did you have to nitpick in both threads? :rolleyes:

There is a post on that car. Done at altitude with something like a 22% correction factor. Wheel hp was down in the 300's. Still a ton of power for the alt.

Clark

Just to add since I have seen the dynos etc in person. The correction factors are optimistic to say the least. To put things in perspective Mark put down about 375whp UNCORRECTED on a dynojet dyno where a stock STi puts down about 220whp uncorrected.

For one other quick "high altitude" data point. I put down 395whp CORRECTED with a 1.23 correction factor on a 65F day with 6% with a barometric pressure of 24.40in-HG that day. Uncorrected my 395whp became 323whp on 91 octane pump gas. I have what I would call a typical FP Green like setup, if you want more details on my setup do a search on my name in this forum.

So in the end Mark ended up putting down about 155whp more than a stock STi on pump fuel with a "old technology" 60-1 garrett turbo at 5000-6000ft asl, anyway you slice it it's damn impressive IMVHO. With some basic comparison of my dyno numbers, 1/4 mile runs that I have done at Bandimere, and factoring in Mark's curb weight (around 28xxlbs) etc I think he could easily run high 11s in the 118-122mph range on pump gas UP HERE!!

Lets see I went 12.8@106 (1.76 60') with a TD06H-20G @20psi on the stock ECU (untuned and quite safe - afrs in the low 11.x:1 range and soft timing) with a curb weight of ~3475lbs. Based off of some other hp other people have put down at MAC (Scuba Steve) mostly and comparing his setup to mine and his times I would guesstimate that I was making around 285-290whp uncorrected on the same dyno as Mark at the time I ran my 12.8@106.

With the 50 trim (TEC Green like turbo) I put down 323whp uncorrected on the same dyno which means I should trap around 109mph or so. Given my curb weight of ~3500lbs and UNCORRECTED hp of 323whp compared to Mark's curb weight of ~2800lbs and UNCORRECTED hp of 373whp he should trap about 700lbs less (7mph) + 50whp (5mph) a solid 12mph more than I. So 109 + 12 = 121mph. Granted there are other factors like he is running a dog box with different gearing etc... but it would be by far the fastest 4 cylinder daily driven pump gas car I have seen run up here in about 4 years.

Sorry for the rant/ramble but bottom line it's damn impressive and I will vouch that Mark is a straight up honest and nice guy who is just like most of us... hopelessly addicted to hp/acceleration/speed/racing and all the fun parts it takes to get us there [heh] :).

ill look into it alittle more, but i think im going to go with the same turbo he is using. the HT-200. there are maps a few pages back on this thread. very impressive turbos which are actually based around the schwitzer family of turbochargers, and are hailing from the diesel origin. even if the numbers are WAY overcorrected, 475 being WAY high possibly the highest pump gas number ever achieved, even 400 whp is a Fing awesome number! Id be willing to venture out and say even if the correction were something like 1.11 which is half of what he did, thats still 431 hp. on pump that is nearly unrivalled and if there is a turbo that can do that, then im all for it!

another thing to mention, and this is all somewhat here say, as TEC gave me this info, not the owner of the car, but the HT-200 spooled 500 RPM quicker than a 60-1 with a t3 stage 3 wheel! look at the graph on page 1 and move the band over to the left by 500, and weve got a turbo that kills the GT30r and even bests the 35r at least on pump gas. hell even the compressor map says theres more power to be had. Its capable of a PR of 3.6 at a fairly efficient charge.

Dave, Thats alot of bench racing in that post. Bottom line... I travel all over and typicaly never see more then 10hp with the correction factor.

Jared. Try one and see how they work. I think you need a larger turbine housing. I told you that before and have for a while now. We have made 440whp on 91 octane with a 1.01 correction factor. In other words real whp.

The 60-1 is ****. We have been there there and done that. Even with the T04 Hot side. Its a low PR turbo with a wide map. Run it on a small 4 cyl and it blows hot air and has little gain above 20 psi. There are way, way, way better turbos out there.

Jared, Do this... T04R, .96 AR twin scroll turbine housing with a P trim wheel. Watch for results of this soon when I get around to posting them.

Clark

Dave, Thats alot of bench racing in that post. Bottom line... I travel all over and typicaly never see more then 10hp with the correction factor.



You are very correct. I know it's bench racing... can't really defend it I guess [heh]... sorry.

Also, what may work up here (mile high) may not work for others at, or near sea level. I remember Mark saying this turbo was designed for his motor AND this altitude... iirc

I am NOT a turbonerd (but aspire to be) so take this with a grain of NaCl - but the altitude does reek havok on All cars (naturally aspirated or not), so ymmv.

-Chad

Dave, Thats alot of bench racing in that post. Bottom line... I travel all over and typicaly never see more then 10hp with the correction factor.

Jared. Try one and see how they work. I think you need a larger turbine housing. I told you that before and have for a while now. We have made 440whp on 91 octane with a 1.01 correction factor. In other words real whp.

The 60-1 is ****. We have been there there and done that. Even with the T04 Hot side. Its a low PR turbo with a wide map. Run it on a small 4 cyl and it blows hot air and has little gain above 20 psi. There are way, way, way better turbos out there.

Jared, Do this... T04R, .96 AR twin scroll turbine housing with a P trim wheel. Watch for results of this soon when I get around to posting them.

Clark

[thread jack mode on]its just SO hard clark to think that that huge of a housing will be streetable. and to tell you the truth, lately ive been sitting that fence, of spool and top end, and im almost wanting to go with something as small as a 30r .63 housing because i know that spool will be awesome! i really really want to shoot for the over 500 club, but all in all, i HATE the way my car lagged on the street with that auto trans. what I mean by that is that I hate not being able to stall up and actually launch. what good is an AWD with no launch when you are street racing? I think realistically, if i made 450whp and was able to get better spool, launch the **** out if it (hopefully without nitrous) and run in the 11s, Id be happy over all. please post results on the t04r, because with that HUGE of a turbine housing I just cant understand the spool being better than what i had....? Let me know, ill be looking for your post. [thread jack mode off]

PS[thread jack mode back on] i trust your expertice so let me ask you this... does my 62-1 wheel create lag? like for example would the to4r compressor map make better mid range with lower turbocharger RPMs? would changing just that part of my turbo fix part of this? would i be able to keep the same housings? i have a .70 divided at home. i would also like to modify my GPmoto headers like jeff sponagle did and run twin scroll into that .70 housing and change my comp wheel to the R wheel. would that accomplish what you are talking about?[thread jack mode off]

With some basic comparison of my dyno numbers, 1/4 mile runs that I have done at Bandimere, and factoring in Mark's curb weight (around 28xxlbs) etc I think he could easily run high 11s in the 118-122mph range on pump gas UP HERE!!

Lets see I went 12.8@106 (1.76 60') with a TD06H-20G @20psi on the stock ECU (untuned and quite safe - afrs in the low 11.x:1 range and soft timing) with a curb weight of ~3475lbs. Based off of some other hp other people have put down at MAC (Scuba Steve) mostly and comparing his setup to mine and his times I would guesstimate that I was making around 285-290whp uncorrected on the same dyno as Mark at the time I ran my 12.8@106.

With the 50 trim (TEC Green like turbo) I put down 323whp uncorrected on the same dyno which means I should trap around 109mph or so. Given my curb weight of ~3500lbs and UNCORRECTED hp of 323whp compared to Mark's curb weight of ~2800lbs and UNCORRECTED hp of 373whp he should trap about 700lbs less (7mph) + 50whp (5mph) a solid 12mph more than I. So 109 + 12 = 121mph. Granted there are other factors like he is running a dog box with different gearing etc... but it would be by far the fastest 4 cylinder daily driven pump gas car I have seen run up here in about 4 years.


Above was my benchracing predictions. I was close ;)... I didn't take into account enough driver error/noviceness (Mark has only run the 1/4 mile a total of 5 passes in the past 5 years).

Today Mark ran a 12.2@120mph with a 1.95 60'. The most amazing part of his run to me was his 1/8th mile mph was 89mph and his 1/4 mph was 120. That is a gain of 31 mph from the 1/8 to the end of the 1/4 on 91 pump gas. His other two runs were 119 and 120mph in the 12.2-12.4 range.

Wow, I didn't realize this thread was still alive. Sorry for the late response, but here's some updates:

1. The prelimnary Schwitzer HT-200 results on a local Dynojet showed about 460 whp, 465 wtq (corrected) and 371 whp, 375 etq (uncorrected). This is about a 10 whp and 30 wtq gain on the Schwitzer over the Garrett 60-1. Also, it spools up about 500 rpm sooner in 3rd gear. In 4th gear, I've reached 25 psi as soon as 4500 rpm. If I can find a place to host some pics for me, I can post some comparison graphs for anyone interested. Here's a link to a pic of the Dynojet graph:
http://www.tarmac-usa.com/CandyPress/ProdImages/HT200ar74[1]L.jpg

2. I recently have been testing on a new local Dyno Dynamics dyno, and have so far netted 408 whp and 392 wtq UNCORRECTED on this dyno. We are still having some issues getting the load rate setting on the dyno set right, but the runs I have done so far have a really short duration time. Basically, it feels like the run happens so quickly that the turbo doesn't have time to spool up. Also, we had a couple issues with getting my car strapped down right; basically my tires wanted to break loose, and the car wanted to climb off the rollers! I think it was more of a tire issue if anything. I expect some more runs on dyno will net about 420 uncorrected whp on this dyno in the near future, based on the data I've seen so far.

3. I went to the dragstrip today, and as stated before, I suck at it. Basically, coming off the line, I'm simply smoked the tires through most of 1st gear on all three runs, which is why my 60' time is so crappy. Still I'm happy I'm getting a trap speed at +120mph which to most people puts their timeslips into the 11's. Unfortunately in my case, it amounts to a 12.2 since I launch like an idiot. I guess that's what happens when you put a circuit racer on a dragstrip! Remember these times area at a mile high altitude, with atmospheric pressures around 11.5 psi (versus around +14.5 psi at sea level). Bottom line is that our 1/4 miles are typically slower up here than the sea level folks.

4. As far as the price of the Schwitzer HT-200 goes, you'll have to ask TEC for an exact price, but I believe it's between $750 and $1000.

5. I've noticed on the HT-200 turbo, EGT's are much lower, yet power and torque is higher. I have started doing some experiments with timing to exploit the benefits of these temp drops, and so far, I've been able to flatten out the torque curve quite a bit. The Dynojet graph up above shows