Turbo Kits: Rational boost threshold yet?

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Also, @Ryephile learn to drive a stick you never-have-driven-a-sportscar-noob!


Heh...

Funny guy! It actually makes me think back to when I didn't have a sports car, street rod, hot hatch, German autobahn stormer, or otherwise performance car. ermmm....long enough ago that many were still in pampers?

[Dimman]

Going back to what I posted about inertia, what about twin GT1548s?

[Visconti]

Originally Posted by gmookher

I'm sure visconti will full on advance the timing at 3000 and win some noobie sales with an SC he brings to market, but I dont think I consider johns tuning ethics as safest, but he does produce a stellar dyno chart..
if you want peak tq down low tho, chances are going sc will be a mistake, you'll have you foot all the way into it all the time, and will not enjoy it

About the only thing I agree with you on is the badass Dyno Charts my NA & Forced Induction BRZ/FRS/GT86s produce.

This is a direct result of hours and hours of R&D.

There's a reason why I've been involved with many many 'firsts' on this platform.

I understand dynocharts aren't everything, these cars drive on real roads / tracks under extremely harsh conditions. But I've already been there and done that, I know what it takes to make these cars to perform in real conditions.

My calibrations are not for the weak, they are meant to deliver a balance of performance and safety.

So saying that I'm going hit a car with a bunch of timing to produce that dyno number is bullshit.

I'm gonna hit that dyno number because I know what it takes.

-John

[Jesse@JDLAutodesign]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

I remember some later revisions of this with E85 making more power, faster, with a bigger turbo, at lower pressures, and running cooler....

AFI's manifold is a piece of art.

It was on e85 with a TS 3076r and production manifold on that graph. It is a nice manifold, i designed it

[buditjoenawan]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

...I'm proposing using the meat of its VE band; 2500-6500.

Like this?



2.0L, open deck, full exhaust, one cat, silicone(!) intercooler y-pipe, stock airbox, stock air filter, non variable cam anything, 93 octane, Unichip(!!!)

Sure, power drops off pretty quickly after 6000rpm. That's the compromise of a small, responsive turbocharger. Oh, and speaking of responsive, this tiny turbocharger produces positive boost at 2000rpm. I can just tip in with throttle in any gear and the motor is in boost, even in top gear. During a long road trip where the gas is anywhere from 93 down to 90 octane, it averaged 36mpg - in a 3200lb car.

Before anyone says this is a noobie kit or that it only appeals to folks who have never driven a "real" car, or that this is under-engineered, this thing was very fun on the street and great at auto-x. I wouldn't say that this is the only power curve that is good, so let's not claim that only our poop doesn't stink.

The keen-eyed may notice that we stopped the dyno pull short of 7000rpm. Beyond 6750, there was very bad spark breakup. We changed everything we can and it came down to the lightweight non dampened pulley. We swapped the stock one back and no breakup. Swapped a different lightweight one, and breakup. So....at least on a 2002-2003 WRX, I'd say no lightweight pulley.

So a modern motor with direct injection and full control of valve lift and timing should be far, far better than what I had right? Right?

-budi

[Ryephile]

Looks excellent. Thanks for sharing.

[gmookher]

240 TQ = FUN!!

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by buditjoenawan

Like this?



2.0L, open deck, full exhaust, one cat, silicone(!) intercooler y-pipe, stock airbox, stock air filter, non variable cam anything, 93 octane, Unichip(!!!)

Sure, power drops off pretty quickly after 6000rpm. That's the compromise of a small, responsive turbocharger. Oh, and speaking of responsive, this tiny turbocharger produces positive boost at 2000rpm. I can just tip in with throttle in any gear and the motor is in boost, even in top gear. During a long road trip where the gas is anywhere from 93 down to 90 octane, it averaged 36mpg - in a 3200lb car.

Before anyone says this is a noobie kit or that it only appeals to folks who have never driven a "real" car, or that this is under-engineered, this thing was very fun on the street and great at auto-x. I wouldn't say that this is the only power curve that is good, so let's not claim that only our poop doesn't stink.

The keen-eyed may notice that we stopped the dyno pull short of 7000rpm. Beyond 6750, there was very bad spark breakup. We changed everything we can and it came down to the lightweight non dampened pulley. We swapped the stock one back and no breakup. Swapped a different lightweight one, and breakup. So....at least on a 2002-2003 WRX, I'd say no lightweight pulley.

So a modern motor with direct injection and full control of valve lift and timing should be far, far better than what I had right? Right?

-budi

O_O It doesn't look like a truck dyno!

[raul]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Response doesn't match the purpose of this responsive car?

Missing the point. The car's NATURAL torque kicks in at 4.5k+ RPM. He's essentially asking for a completely different kind of powerband. It's an engine meant to be revved high, which means downshifting for power. It's as simple as that. Sure, it's responsive all around, but when you put your foot down at 2k you barely feel it. It doesn't mean you have delayed response, just means you don't have the torque the OP describes he wants.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by raul

Missing the point. The car's NATURAL torque kicks in at 4.5k+ RPM. He's essentially asking for a completely different kind of powerband. It's an engine meant to be revved high, which means downshifting for power. It's as simple as that. Sure, it's responsive all around, but when you put your foot down at 2k you barely feel it. It doesn't mean you have delayed response, just means you don't have the torque the OP describes he wants.

You may want a refresher on what the stock torque curve looks like:



Looks to me the natural torque curve "kicks in" at 2500 RPM. I'm looking to shelf that up. We've seen good results with some boosted setups where the infamous 3500-4500 RPM torque dip can be tuned out.

We're going to have to agree to disagree that this engine is "high revving". My 2ZZ-GE revs to 8500 and my motorcycle revs to 13k. Those are engines that need downshifting to access their torque peaks.

[raul]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

You may want a refresher on what the stock torque curve looks like:

Looks to me the natural torque curve "kicks in" at 2500 RPM. I'm looking to shelf that up. We've seen good results with some boosted setups where the infamous 3500-4500 RPM torque dip can be tuned out.

We're going to have to agree to disagree that this engine is "high revving". My 2ZZ-GE revs to 8500 and my motorcycle revs to 13k. Those are engines that need downshifting to access their torque peaks.

That spike in torque isn't usable with the famous torque dip our engine has. What you are looking for is essentially to get rid of the torque dip, which is different from the car's current character. It'll change how you drive the car altogether.

And well, high-revving is relative. So there's really no point discussing that one. The point is that you currently have a usable torque band from 4.5-7.4k RPM, but you want to move that down the range to say, 2.5-5.5k. You may have bought the wrong car my friend.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by raul

.... What you are looking for is essentially to get rid of the torque dip, which is different from the car's current character. It'll change how you drive the car altogether......

TAA DAA! You're right, it'll change it from sucky to useful.

No idea how you can rationalize a stock torque band goes to 7400 unless you're using a dyno graph made from Crayola. The torque plummets over 6k and the airflow is dead at 7k.

Please re-view @buditjoenawan's post, as he nailed it.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by raul

That spike in torque isn't usable with the famous torque dip our engine has. What you are looking for is essentially to get rid of the torque dip, which is different from the car's current character. It'll change how you drive the car altogether.

And well, high-revving is relative. So there's really no point discussing that one. The point is that you currently have a usable torque band from 4.5-7.4k RPM, but you want to move that down the range to say, 2.5-5.5k. You may have bought the wrong car my friend.

So you're saying that every FI build should keep the stock torque curve?

[raul]

Originally Posted by Dimman

So you're saying that every FI build should keep the stock torque curve?

Not at all. But the demand for an FI kit that focuses on low-mid rpm torque is rather low I would think (maybe we should make a poll to see if there's enough interest generated and get one made?), as most people trying to increase power significantly aren't too concerned about cruising RPMs. Most are happy to downshift for power, since it adds to the joy of driving the car.