Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Saturday September 20, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > Proven Power Bragging

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2007, 06:01 PM   #126
sponaugle
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4498
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
WRX H6-3.0 Turbo
www.surgelinetuning.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaabTuner View Post
Less timing than even the 2.0? Same displacement/cylinder. It must be more efficient.

Don't need to worry about square inches. The twist of the crank will also affect it; not just the pressure. So the best method is probably hp/liter ... or maybe torque/liter. Either way.

Back to the regular discussion.
Here is a graph of the H6 timing I used in my first setup (GT30R).



This was about 420whp with at 13psi. Note timing ramped to about 17 degrees at redline, and about 12 degrees at torque peak. That is quite a bit less then either the 2.0 or 2.5L. While it is the same displacement per cylinder, it is smaller in bore. 89.2 vs 92.0, or 3% smaller in diameter. Even given the difference in bore it still has low timing given the output torque. I would also characterize the motor as pretty knock resistantant based on my tuning experience.


Jeff Sponaugle
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
sponaugle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2007, 06:33 PM   #127
sponaugle
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4498
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
WRX H6-3.0 Turbo
www.surgelinetuning.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PHATsuby View Post
I am going to have to disagree on the thickness, from my eyeball and pictures I took, all of which are in my thread, the OEM sleeve from the H6 and the STi sleeve looked identical in thickness at the access hole. I don't see any reason why the taper would be much different internally but who knows as we never cut one apart, unless you have since then. THe exact numbers are somewhere in my thread but overall aluminum sleeve thickness at the top is only like a .7mm difference with much less hp per cylinder(I know you know this cause it was a point of discussion we had, haha). So yea, I agree it should hold up, just wanted to add that observation because originally we assumed and i was told it was a lot less thick, but no one had checked, so I checked and saw no difference. I could have been wrong though, but my eye is accurate enough to pick up on a 1/3 difference in thickness.

that is all. continue with technical discussion.

Ben

Since I have my case cracked open, I measured the thickness at the wrist pin access hole. On the H6 case it is right at .104" (2.64mm)s thick. (measured using a micrometer depth gauge. I don't happen to have an open 2.5L case here, but I will measure one when I get down to the shop.

Jeff Sponaugle
sponaugle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2007, 07:01 PM   #128
CatfaceType-R
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 81102
Join Date: Feb 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: I sell platinum cat jewelry.co
Default

man..this is gonna get nuts...i am h6 envy already
CatfaceType-R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2007, 07:07 PM   #129
Numbchux
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 71658
Join Date: Oct 2004
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Duluth, MN
Vehicle:
'84 Brat
4" lift and 29" tires

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponaugle View Post
H6 Rods:
5.180" long (center to center)
.8665" small end diameter
2.1650 big end diameter

STI Rods:
5.138" long (center to center)
.905" small end diameter
2.1650" big end diameter

Note the H6 rod length is the same as the 2000+ SOHC 2.5L non-turbo rods. However the small end diameter is smaller then any other Subaru rod I know of.

So you could use US STI rods, but you would need to get a custom piston that us the STI pin diameter as well as a custom comp height since the rod is a bit shorter.

Jeff Sponaugle
very interesting. thanks!
Numbchux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 01:21 AM   #130
SaabTuner
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67608
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SoCal
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponaugle View Post
This was about 420whp with at 13psi. Note timing ramped to about 17 degrees at redline, and about 12 degrees at torque peak. That is quite a bit less then either the 2.0 or 2.5L. While it is the same displacement per cylinder, it is smaller in bore. 89.2 vs 92.0, or 3% smaller in diameter. Even given the difference in bore it still has low timing given the output torque. I would also characterize the motor as pretty knock resistantant based on my tuning experience.


Jeff Sponaugle
Sounds about right. The motor is closer to a "square" bore/stroke and, judging by some of the more advanced other componants, I suspect the design is inherantly more efficient than the EJ20/25.

Have upgraded exhaust valves been considered for these builds? I don't think the EZ30 valves were really designed with turbo EGT's in mind.
SaabTuner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 11:05 AM   #131
sponaugle
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4498
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
WRX H6-3.0 Turbo
www.surgelinetuning.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaabTuner View Post

Have upgraded exhaust valves been considered for these builds? I don't think the EZ30 valves were really designed with turbo EGT's in mind.
Yes, and here is a picture:



These were not ready in time for Jeff Perrin's build, but I did get them in time to put into my H6 heads. You are likly correct that the EZ30 vavles were not designed with turbo in mind as they are not sodium filled. These heads have custom made Supertec exhaust valves for the H6 EZ30R. ( as well as the Supertec intake and exhaust springs, retainers, etc)

I should also note the heads use the same spark plugs as the US STI heads (the deeper reach ones).

Jeff Sponaugle

Last edited by sponaugle; 02-05-2007 at 11:11 AM.
sponaugle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 12:12 PM   #132
nxttruck2002
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 90879
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston, Texas
Default

'07 STI valves are not sodium filled.
nxttruck2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 12:36 PM   #133
sponaugle
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4498
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
WRX H6-3.0 Turbo
www.surgelinetuning.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nxttruck2002 View Post
'07 STI valves are not sodium filled.
True. I wonder if that was for a performance or cost reason?

Jeff
sponaugle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 12:58 PM   #134
nxttruck2002
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 90879
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston, Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponaugle View Post
True. I wonder if that was for a performance or cost reason?

Jeff
Some people said it's cost savings. Doug at TopSpeed said these ('07 STI) heads can make more power... So, I don't know....
nxttruck2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 01:47 PM   #135
PERRINJeff
NASIOC Manufacturer
 
Member#: 74110
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: PERRIN Performance
Default

Numbchux,
STI rods will work with custom pistons as Jeff S said. This is a great way to save some costs on the build. The custom pistons wouldn't out weight the $1500 rods!

alachua,
Driveline is all stock! Except for the Exedy Twin plate, PERRIN shifter bushings, SS, and a PERRIN diff cover. But nothing to strengthen it up. At this point the axles, tranny and rear diff, hold up to this power level just fine, under road race type conditions. But under drag racing conditions, i know something is gonna give. Most likely its the axles!

PHATsuby,
I knew you would chime in on that! The overall isn't a huge concern as like you and I have talked about in the past, the HP per cylinder is still much lower than the 4 banger.

WRX2FAST4UFOOL,
Soon! But 1000WHP on the 4 cylinder will be a little tuff. Or at least they won't last very long at that. But who knows! If the 3.6L STI comes out, we will be the first to push to 1000, you wait!

SaabTuner,
Good point. HP in the end is all about Cylinder pressure, and maybe a better term would be Cylinder pressure per cylinder.

As far as more efficient, not sure on that. Maybe a little more, but my findings with timing curves are more agressive that Sponaugles. But, i have also been able to tune and push it a lot more than Jeff, so in the end he may find the same thing. But at low 14psi (No WI), i run 26 degrees at redline, and about 18-in the midrange, and i think there is more room to go at these boost levels.

At 22psi, i am seeing about 16 ramping to 22-ish. Not too far from the 2.0L. Also the timing after 6000 is something we are still pushing. Since i have no idea what the knock voltages are supposed to be, i am always playing with increasing timing to test the waters. So who knows more timing at redline!

The smaller cylinders will make for less timing overall, which is why they are still a little less than the 2.0L timing numbers, and way less than the 2.5L numbers.

With Jeff S's new build i think that he will be going a little higher than mine. Those exhaust valves are much better, and will get rid of heat a little better (thinner an made of Inconel). So slightly cooler combustion chamber, and a maybe a little more timing!

That is the funest thing about this engine, lots of uncharted territory. Lots of things to discover, and lots of myths to dispel!
PERRINJeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 02:01 PM   #136
PERRINJeff
NASIOC Manufacturer
 
Member#: 74110
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: PERRIN Performance
Default

nxttruck2002,
Our 07 STI made about 15WHP more than any other STI tested on the PDXTuning dyno. Maybe they found out that the sodium valves retain more heat?? OR then tinner valve behind the head is less restrictive? There is a reason why most race cars use normal SS or inconel valves.
PERRINJeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2007, 02:14 PM   #137
PHATsuby
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 13617
Join Date: Dec 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: MN
Vehicle:
2001 Legacy GT back
to stock is a project too

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaabTuner View Post
Less timing than even the 2.0? Same displacement/cylinder. It must be more efficient.

Don't need to worry about square inches. The twist of the crank will also affect it; not just the pressure. So the best method is probably hp/liter ... or maybe torque/liter. Either way.

Back to the regular discussion.
If you are laughing at me I apologize for not being on your same intelligence level. Feel free to continue your discussion with sponaugle since he is much more intelligent plus has those parts at his disposal and I do not at the moment.

Ben
PHATsuby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2007, 01:55 PM   #138
wrxburton
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 83744
Join Date: Mar 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Nassau county NY
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
silver

Default

Have you guys ever thought about twin tubo setups? I am currently figuring out a plan of action and was thinking twin 3240's or a set of 3037's. Any reason you did not go that route? Is it because you would have had to remove to much stuff under the hood to get everything to fit? Also you mentioned you used a diferent radiator and STI thermostat and an extrenal oil cooler. Did you notice a difference in engine heat? Have you had any frivetrain problems with it? I know the clutch you have will hold but how about the axles and differentials? any trouble with them so far?sorry about all the questions but I would like to know what works and what dosent. thanks
wrxburton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2007, 05:44 PM   #139
Numbchux
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 71658
Join Date: Oct 2004
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Duluth, MN
Vehicle:
'84 Brat
4" lift and 29" tires

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrxburton View Post
Have you guys ever thought about twin tubo setups? I am currently figuring out a plan of action and was thinking twin 3240's or a set of 3037's. Any reason you did not go that route? Is it because you would have had to remove to much stuff under the hood to get everything to fit? Also you mentioned you used a diferent radiator and STI thermostat and an extrenal oil cooler. Did you notice a difference in engine heat? Have you had any frivetrain problems with it? I know the clutch you have will hold but how about the axles and differentials? any trouble with them so far?sorry about all the questions but I would like to know what works and what dosent. thanks
keep in mind, they're starting with an STi. so it's already got the 6MT and r180. pretty much the strongest drivetrain subaru has to offer...

also, check out PHATsuby's build in the legacy forum (probably will have to search). he's doing twin turbos on his EZ30R
Numbchux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2007, 08:15 PM   #140
MikeCee
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 136687
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: crosby, vokoun, tk, orpik
Vehicle:
15 iginla, dup...

Default

jdjfnjgvuicfjfdjfjdekugchvnmkz
MikeCee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2007, 02:54 AM   #141
SaabTuner
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67608
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SoCal
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponaugle View Post
These were not ready in time for Jeff Perrin's build, but I did get them in time to put into my H6 heads. You are likly correct that the EZ30 vavles were not designed with turbo in mind as they are not sodium filled. These heads have custom made Supertec exhaust valves for the H6 EZ30R. ( as well as the Supertec intake and exhaust springs, retainers, etc)

I should also note the heads use the same spark plugs as the US STI heads (the deeper reach ones).

Jeff Sponaugle
Sodium filling does help keep exhaust valves cool, but I don't think it has a very big effect on what peak EGT the valve can take. I think it's done more to improve the amount of "thermal flux" the valve can take. IE: 4lbs/min airflow @ 1600*F won't generate nearly as much thermal flux as 40lbs/min @ 1600*F.

This is my reasoning: as I understand it, the problem with high EGT's in exhaust valves starts in the same way as it does with turbine blades (with which I'm more familliar), and that is that it stems from oxidation on the surface of the metal. EG: many steel alloys, both stainless and mild, are quite strong @ 1600*F in a vacuum.

Ergo, since I just can't see sodium-filling dramatically lowering the temperature at the outer-most surface of the valve, I can't see it dramatically increasing the EGT the valve can withstand. Saab used to use Sodium-filled valves, but switched to a higher-grade of stainless with a stellite coating, and then to a superalloy. Chrysler friction-welded superalloy heads onto ordinary stainless stems and then moved to full superalloy.

But, that's just my take on it and non-filled valves are indeed cheaper, assuming similar materials. So who knows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Perrin
SaabTuner,
Good point. HP in the end is all about Cylinder pressure, and maybe a better term would be Cylinder pressure per cylinder.
Or, better yet, cylinder pressure x cylinder volume, since larger cylinders are less efficient, that would give you a good measure of how much subjective strain the cylinder is under.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Perrin
As far as more efficient, not sure on that. Maybe a little more, but my findings with timing curves are more agressive that Sponaugles. But, i have also been able to tune and push it a lot more than Jeff, so in the end he may find the same thing. But at low 14psi (No WI), i run 26 degrees at redline, and about 18-in the midrange, and i think there is more room to go at these boost levels.
It shouldn't be MUCH more efficient anyway, just a little ... if that. At least, that would be my guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Perrin
The smaller cylinders will make for less timing overall, which is why they are still a little less than the 2.0L timing numbers, and way less than the 2.5L numbers.
Yes, engines with smaller bores tend to have more compact, and efficient, combustion chambers. The trade-off, however, is reduced valve curtain area and increased inertial forces for the relative increase in stroke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Perrin
With Jeff S's new build i think that he will be going a little higher than mine. Those exhaust valves are much better, and will get rid of heat a little better (thinner an made of Inconel).
Actually, though it's not really pertinent, my observations via MatWeb have been that most superalloys, especially common grades of Inconel, disperse heat fairly poorly compared to their "ordinary" stainless counterparts (with some notable exceptions). However, because they are so good at resisting heat, they last longer at high EGT's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PHATsuby
If you are laughing at me I apologize for not being on your same intelligence level.
No way! I hope you're being sarcastic as I hadn't intended to come across as though I was laughing at you, or implying you were stupid.

I'm just sharing my opinion, and what facts I know, like everyone else, and I try to be light-hearted enough to laugh about it.

-Adrian
SaabTuner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2007, 04:13 PM   #142
SimAwd
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 136586
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: Mirabel
Vehicle:
2003 OBS
gray

Thumbs up

Realy nice job Jeff. Got some questions from a newby. Are you taking the car as a daily driver? If so,did you kept the car @ 600WHP? What about fuel consumption, more like a truck or not so bad? Driving it on slippery (we have snow in Quebec) or wet conditions hard to control? My other questions have been answered in the other 6 pages

Thanks, J.
SimAwd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 02:57 PM   #143
PERRINJeff
NASIOC Manufacturer
 
Member#: 74110
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: PERRIN Performance
Default

wrxburton,
Phatsubys build is up and running, but not sure on dynoing it yet. You will have to bug him. I am excited to see what it does! We didn't go that route as this is still a big test, and it is much less complicated to just run one turbo. In the end, one or 2 can do the same job. 2 might spool a little better, but with in reason, the ultimate power, and spool can be be about the same.

Regarding the engine heat changing with the remote cooler, nope! the H6 runs pretty hot compared to the 4 banger, and there was zero difference in overall coolant temps.

Its a very strange engine in that regards. It runs pretty hot at 0-2500 RPM. Once you get above that the temps drop quite a bit. It might be do to how Subaru designed the passages. Since the engine normally runs in the 0-2500 range, they made it run warmer to be more fuel efficient. Once above this point the temps drop 10-20C! The T-stat doesn't effect this at all BTW.

MikeCee,
flkafqoiqoieriqanlkng, anjajfewoi. So, qrjeroijqoiferi.

SaabTuner,
With ya there!
I think that the Inconel is good just for that reason, resiting heat. I was not really thinking, but that is what i was meant. But who knows, its all speculation, the dyno runs will show the difference, if any. But is sure is cool to say "I have inconel valves"!

SimAwd,
It is driven every day! Since we started running out of fuel at 600, no. But it is running about 550-570 with the boost it is set to.

Fuel consumption is the same as before. But still worse than the 4 cylinder. To give you an idea, when the 4 cylinder was installed, i would get 220-ish MPT (miles per tank). With similar type of driving, i get 180-200. So its worse, but still much better than a Ford 350 gasoline truck.

In the wet, when boost hits, tires start to break free. So it is a little sketchy. But in the dry it is perfect!

Thanks for taking the time to read all the info. There is a lot there, and a lot to take in.
PERRINJeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 08:33 PM   #144
subiescooby
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 106303
Join Date: Jan 2006
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: WA
Vehicle:
'04 STi
WR Blue Pearl

Default

wow... awesome write up... now just need some more pics and videos of dyno runs and driving around! I want one!
subiescooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 08:52 PM   #145
TJ
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 41735
Join Date: Aug 2003
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Look MFer
Vehicle:
I'm on your lawn
do something about it

Default

wow, what an amazing build
TJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 09:05 PM   #146
nxttruck2002
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 90879
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston, Texas
Default

Jeff, since the '07 valves are not sodium filled, does that mean they are solid (not hollow)?
nxttruck2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 06:27 PM   #147
mudshuvelz
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 140257
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Vehicle:
2004 WRX
Blue

Default

either jeff...what was your approximate cost, exluding labor for build?
mudshuvelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 06:29 PM   #148
mudshuvelz
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 140257
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Vehicle:
2004 WRX
Blue

Default

Either Jeff. what was your approx. cost for build? excluding your labor.
mudshuvelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 09:34 PM   #149
UK Scooby
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 92067
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: At the end of a rope
Vehicle:
2006 STI
BLUUUUUEEEEEE !!!!!

Default

subscribe
UK Scooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 01:58 AM   #150
SVXelerator
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 78963
Join Date: Jan 2005
Default

[quote=PERRINJeff;16937783]Numbchux,
STI rods will work with custom pistons as Jeff S said. This is a great way to save some costs on the build. The custom pistons wouldn't out weight the $1500 rods!



nice to hear the STi rods will work. Did you use the ARP 260-4701 head studs?
Thanks
SVXelerator is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PDXTuning/Perrin H6 Info PDXTuning Proven Power Bragging 573 01-13-2010 08:04 AM
Car chase ends in front of my apt. building with bad results. Erudition Off-Topic 42 12-12-2005 06:38 PM
H6 Turbo EZ30R tear down/build up for BE Legacy PHATsuby Subaru Conversions 2 07-04-2005 03:27 AM
My Build, with dyno results Crash477 Normally Aspirated Powertrain 49 02-28-2005 04:04 PM
I own a WRC rally car! Just completed build up!! wrx_in_efx Texas Impreza Club Forum -- TXIC 10 01-22-2002 07:38 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.