Who would want 12,000rpms to play with?

[mkivsoopra]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

Fuck me.


edit: Did you fly out the guy from New Zealand? Who was that checking balance of the TBs?

Both Simon and Nick from Synergy happened to be in the US at the time, so they were kind enough to swing by and give a hand for the first kit. That was Nick checking the ITB airflow.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by mkivsoopra

Both Simon and Nick from Synergy happened to be in the US at the time, so they were kind enough to swing by and give a hand for the first kit. That was Nick checking the ITB airflow.

Fantastic. Looks like a blast to drive.

[Kestrel]

Just here to say rotary. Rotary.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Tokay444]

How does 49psi at over 10,000 rpm not equate to more hp? I realize pressure doesn’t equal air mass, but talk about under achiever.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

How does 49psi at over 10,000 rpm not equate to more hp? I realize pressure doesn’t equal air mass, but talk about under achiever.

610whp from a destroked 2.0L (maybe 1.8L) is a pretty good number.

[Detroiter]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

610whp from a destroked 2.0L (maybe 1.8L) is a pretty good number.

Not at all really. On the Audi/VW 1.8t engine from early 2000's you can run a decent sized turbo and much lower pressure and get to 500+ hp all while only revving to 7K.

Since HP is derived from torque and rpm then increasing the rpm a ton to 11k or 12k should result in a very large improvement. That along with shoving 49psi from any decent sized turbo down it's throat and it's just sad actually.

But this is a test car and it is probably no where near done in terms of the tune department.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Detroiter

Not at all really. On the Audi/VW 1.8t engine from early 2000's you can run a decent sized turbo and much lower pressure and get to 500+ hp all while only revving to 7K.

Since HP is derived from torque and rpm then increasing the rpm a ton to 11k or 12k should result in a very large improvement. That along with shoving 49psi from any decent sized turbo down it's throat and it's just sad actually.

But this is a test car and it is probably no where near done in terms of the tune department.

Too many variables to say. Those Audi engines, unless I am mistaken, had direct injection, variable valve timing, variable intake length and a head that could flow really well. I don’t know how the EJ compares in compression or head flow, but the WRX didn’t get dual variable valve timing or direct compression until the FA motor.

Also, it was 42 psi—not 49 psi. On a higher flowing engine, psi will be lower for the same amount of air volume, so maybe the EJ is seeing higher psi because of air resistance. I don’t know. Maybe they didn’t tune aggressively considering the high rpms. Maybe the compression was reduced when shortening the stroke. Again, I don’t know.

I DO know that 600hp and 12k rpms sound like an amazing combination regardless how it compares.

[Tokay444]

Pretty sure Mazda released the first gas direct injected turbo motor on the MS6 in 2006.
Maybe they mean 4 to 9 psi.
4Piston.com does 500bhp from a 2.0L NA motor. Their boosted motors make up to 2500.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

Pretty sure Mazda released the first gas direct injected turbo motor on the MS6 in 2006.
Maybe they mean 4 to 9 psi.
4Piston.com does 500bhp from a 2.0L NA motor. Their boosted motors make up to 2500.

And...? I missed the point.

[Detroiter]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Too many variables to say. Those Audi engines, unless I am mistaken, had direct injection, variable valve timing, variable intake length and a head that could flow really well. I don’t know how the EJ compares in compression or head flow, but the WRX didn’t get dual variable valve timing or direct compression until the FA motor.

Also, it was 42 psi—not 49 psi. On a higher flowing engine, psi will be lower for the same amount of air volume, so maybe the EJ is seeing higher psi because of air resistance. I don’t know. Maybe they didn’t tune aggressively considering the high rpms. Maybe the compression was reduced when shortening the stroke. Again, I don’t know.

I DO know that 600hp and 12k rpms sound like an amazing combination regardless how it compares.

I agree with you on variables. There's always too many to make a direct comparison between different engines. But with the audi 1.8t motor it was port injection and with a relatively restrictive head even with it's 5 valves per cylinder marketing. To make it flow decently it required a fully built head along with some major porting. It does have vvt though when it's working right, damn cam chain tensioners on them were common failure points.

I wasn't trying to say 600hp or the 12k rpm red line wouldn't make an awesome car to drive. Just that it isn't quite an impressive power figure when utilizing such a high rpm along with forced induction.

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

And...? I missed the point.

Sorry to hear that.

[-Willis-86touge]

Originally Posted by mkivsoopra

Sorry, not FA20: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121567





Of course!

More curious or this then anything!! Do you have any specs, like zero 60, zero 100, top speed my guess roughly 160?? Etc just wanting to compare this with numerous upgrades for our platform, hell maybe it’s own right up would be nice

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Detroiter

I agree with you on variables. There's always too many to make a direct comparison between different engines. But with the audi 1.8t motor it was port injection and with a relatively restrictive head even with it's 5 valves per cylinder marketing. To make it flow decently it required a fully built head along with some major porting. It does have vvt though when it's working right, damn cam chain tensioners on them were common failure points.

I wasn't trying to say 600hp or the 12k rpm red line wouldn't make an awesome car to drive. Just that it isn't quite an impressive power figure when utilizing such a high rpm along with forced induction.

Yea you are right. The next gen had direct injection. I was also going off articles like this:

Aside from its incredibly free-breathing head, the 1.8T's main secret weapon is its turbo and induction system. All stock 1.8T's use a VW-sourced turbocharger, somewhat equivalent to a Garrett T30. That turbo feeds one of the few true variable-length intake manifolds on the market today. At low rpm, air flows through a set of long, thin intake runner tubes to enhance low rpm torque and driveability. At high rpm, a flap opens to connect the intake manifold's large open space (plenum) almost directly to the cylinder head, bypassing the tubes and enhancing top-end power.

https://itstillruns.com/engine-speci...t-6646210.html

Im not really sure if the turbo is even efficient at 42psi at 12k rpms or if the tune was conservative or if the tq was dropping off or if the compression was conservative or if they were trying to just play with getting the rpms to 12k without doing porting or other work. Who knows. Maybe they kept it conservative considering they were on the stock tranny. It probably could have much more potential. I was thinking of this Formua 1 engine when I was seeing the specs and thinking their figures were decent, considering I didn’t have many 12k rpm engines to directly compare it to:

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/a...s-honda-ra168e

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

Sorry to hear that.

Yep, seemed like three non sequiturs in a row. You were really in your own world there, weren’t you?