Stage 2 Cosworth Kit Preview!!!!

[glamcem]

Originally Posted by stonenewt

Anything I find up there includes ethanol be it injection or E85. Does Cosworth kit use ethanol at all?

I have no idea

[ajc209]

This makes similar power and has a similar curve to the innovate intercooler. The graph cosworth shows is from their engine dyno. 190hp stock. 290hp with sc and stage 1.3

There is alot more to it that just power graphs. The innovative intercooled last about 10mins on track before intake temps get high enough that timing is pulled and you lose power.

This will be a highly engineered solution properly stress tested in a number of simulations on an engine dyno. I wouldn't be surprised if their test setup ran 100k+ simulated miles.

Cosworth make OEM and have experience building Formula one engines far superior to our road car engines.

[ajc209]

With Cosworth you are taking less of a risk and price wise in the Uk they are good.

£4800 including ECUtek licence and tune.

That similar to the Kraftwerks, Litchfield, AVO, HKS .....

[glamcem]

Originally Posted by ajc209

This makes similar power and has a similar curve to the innovate intercooler. The graph cosworth shows is from their engine dyno. 190hp stock. 290hp with sc and stage 1.3

There is alot more to it that just power graphs. The innovative intercooled last about 10mins on track before intake temps get high enough that timing is pulled and you lose power.

This will be a highly engineered solution properly stress tested in a number of simulations on an engine dyno. I wouldn't be surprised if their test setup ran 100k+ simulated miles.

Cosworth make OEM and have experience building Formula one engines far superior to our road car engines.

I don't like assumptions but I am having hard time believing that there will be much of a difference because by design they are more prone to heat soak and put a lot more stress on the engine (bottom end torque, heat management issues etc) ..

[OICU812]

Final proof in the pudding will be when a North American car gets one tuned by a reputable tuner. Those will be the dynos and discussions I'll be paying attention to. Often companies oversell their specs, what's to say that CW may have undersold this kits abilities? Who knows... Hopefully soon we will.

[Lawnik]

Originally Posted by ajc209

This makes similar power and has a similar curve to the innovate intercooler. The graph cosworth shows is from their engine dyno. 190hp stock. 290hp with sc and stage 1.3

There is alot more to it that just power graphs. The innovative intercooled last about 10mins on track before intake temps get high enough that timing is pulled and you lose power.

This will be a highly engineered solution properly stress tested in a number of simulations on an engine dyno. I wouldn't be surprised if their test setup ran 100k+ simulated miles.

Cosworth make OEM and have experience building Formula one engines far superior to our road car engines.

Have you expirenced this yourself with the innovate? I hear it a lot from non owner/users but as an owner for over 18,000km and 8 full track days can't understand where it came from.

My longest session was 38min and the last few laps were the quickest, just like all the standard 20 min sessions. Several 20min sessions were in 97 degree heat, again no power pulled. Just solid repeatable power.

This is with the smaller 70mm pulley running about 11 psi, intercooled.

I'm very interested in what the Cosworth kit will do and how they will make the stage 3 power goal with this unit. It is smaller than the 210 sprintex unit but is advertised to spin a good amount faster. Once the boost is cranked up the temps will increase though.

Maybe it's with E85 or race gas? Maybe the blower can be upgraded?

Also I will bet the Cosworth kit with coolant will weight 15-20lbs more than the sprintex but interested to see the final weight.

If it performs to the stage 3 level on pump gas somehow I will consider changing over. I love the PD power delivery in this car, only thing even close to NA power which I would prefer. Seems like Cosworth agrees.

[Lawnik]

If it does perform, first thing will be to assist @OICU812 install his.

[raven1231]

Originally Posted by OICU812

Final proof in the pudding will be when a North American car gets one tuned by a reputable tuner. Those will be the dynos and discussions I'll be paying attention to. Often companies oversell their specs, what's to say that CW may have undersold this kits abilities? Who knows... Hopefully soon we will.

Based on their ridiculous claims of their other stages, and utilizing crank horsepower in place of wheel, I would think they didn't under sell anything....But like you said who knows

[Lawnik]

I don't know if this thread can handle anymore of my opinion but consider this in response to the PD's characteristic "fall on it's face at high RPM's"

Does it, yes it sure does from experience.

Which do you think is the worst for the Subaru boxer engines;

High intake temps associated with PD's
High under hood temps associated with all FI and even NA
Low RPM boost associated with PD's and small turbos
Quick boost ramp up associated with turbos generally
High RPM's associated with NA, centrifugal's and mid to large turbos

In my opinion it's high RPM. At least with subaru boxer engines.

Sources Crawford, Element and Dezoris

Maybe that's why I haven't experienced the heat soak issues. I reduced my redline indicator to 6800 and at the track shift just past it or at the most 7200. It's no faster revving it higher and doesn't promote ringing the engines neck every gear.

Last opinion if your still reading,

The fastest parts or set up will not make you the fastest except if your a pro. Most of us aren't, practice will be the single most effective route to faster lap times. Practice requires a consistent, smooth and reliable set up that is fun and enjoyable. This car is ready out of the box, just don't screw it up.

[qqfob]

Originally Posted by raven1231

Based on their ridiculous claims of their other stages, and utilizing crank horsepower in place of wheel, I would think they didn't under sell anything....But like you said who knows

are you serious? utilizing crank hp instead of the wheel? there's so many variables with chassis dynos that many would consider them inaccurate. and when was the last time you bought a car at the dealer based on whp?

[raven1231]

Originally Posted by qqfob

are you serious? utilizing crank hp instead of the wheel? there's so many variables with chassis dynos that many would consider them inaccurate. and when was the last time you bought a car at the dealer based on whp?

Never. I don't buy cars based on horsepower.

[stonenewt]

Originally Posted by glamcem

so if you now agree with me on that there is no torque advantage of the CW, I can explain why they look similar

No I don't agree they have the same torque, I just was making a point by plotting them side by side & on the same scale. Until the runs are done on the same, proven consistent, rolling road then you're always comparing apples & pears in terms of output levels.

As for the rest of your post
1) starting at 2200 instead of 2050 make very little real difference to the shape of the torque curve overall. Visually you might see a large difference however your mind makes that area bigger.

2) This is a high revving N/A engine, even if there's a load more torque down there you really don't want to be putting it into the road as the engine, in it's form in the Twins, won't be designed to take low rpm torque. Abusing the stock engine like that is going to cause problems in the long term. If you add in supporting mods then you're talking apples & oranges plus you'll need to add the supporting mods price to the sprintex setup, & as it'll be internal mods I can't imagine that'll be cheap.

[Deep Six]

Originally Posted by Lawnik

In my opinion it's high RPM. At least with subaru boxer engines.

Sources Crawford, Element and Dezoris

Maybe that's why I haven't experienced the heat soak issues. I reduced my redline indicator to 6800 and at the track shift just past it or at the most 7200. It's no faster revving it higher and doesn't promote ringing the engines neck every gear.

.

I mentioned the same thing earlier in this thread and frankly it's the only reason I have not yet chosen a solution. I would like to move my rpm range at the track from primarily 6-8K (tune raised limiter) down to 5-7K if I can get the power band to match. This would significantly reduce the chances of having valvetrain failure. Many corners would be taken one gear higher and overall less shifts would be involved at most tracks. Additionally the PD low rpm performance is much more engaging for daily driving.

[stonenewt]

Originally Posted by glamcem

they simply started the dyno pull from or after 2200 rpm on the Innovate dyno graph but way before than that on the CW dyno, take a look at this dyno graph and you'll see the difference in low end, I wouldn't really worry about the numbers since different dynos, different smoothing factors (and size differences of the graphs) but if you look at the whole picture it's pretty easy to see how flat is this one compared to the other

So here we have the Cosworth graphs (stage 2.0 & 2.3) v's the graph you've given. I've applied the whp to crank hp correction factor from a manual BMW E82 130i to the graph given as it's a fairly good match to these engines in terms of platform, torque & power. I've superimposed the sprintex graph over both of the Cosworth graphs with peek torque at the same level to compare the torque curves. (I'm not comparing absolute numbers the shape is what's important)