Author Topic: Kevin's 2.4L build (Read 9854 times)

kennysabarese · « **Reply #25 on:** January 20, 2011, 10:11:26 PM »

Crap that's why mine is so slow and throwing all those codes

GXPinKC · « **Reply #26 on:** January 20, 2011, 10:23:11 PM »

Quote from: Kenny on January 20, 2011, 10:11:26 PM

Crap that's why mine is so slow and throwing all those codes

Houstice · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2011, 08:55:39 AM »

Dave,

What kind of turbo have you installed on this Sol?

Thanks

Jas

Divingsolo (formely Randy@DDM) · « **Reply #28 on:** January 22, 2011, 01:22:58 AM »

Official details to follow from Dave tomorrow, but Kevin is on his way home to TX with a fun car.

Dave@DDMworks · « **Reply #29 on:** January 22, 2011, 05:36:33 PM »

Like Randy said, Kevin is on his way back with a very different car then when he arrived here.

The car came in with only 121hp at the wheels and left with 304 at the wheels:

And this is how the engine bay turned out after the install:

thanks again to Kevin for stopping by and allowing us to work on the car and transform it for him!

LatinVenom · « **Reply #30 on:** January 22, 2011, 05:41:22 PM »

Can you guys tell us what Turbo went in this car?.

NormSky · « **Reply #31 on:** January 22, 2011, 06:01:23 PM »

Love the fuzzy dice.

Flat, late(4,000 rpm)torque curve. One draw back of tuned exhaust manifold.

Looks much better than when you started and not bad for 60% gain in power.

Houstice · « **Reply #32 on:** January 22, 2011, 06:10:28 PM »

VERY NICE DDM!!!

CONGRATULATIONS KEVIN!!!

Dave@DDMworks · « **Reply #33 on:** January 22, 2011, 06:11:46 PM »

Latinvenom - The turbo that went on the car is a Borg Warner S256, with room to grow when he is ready for more.

Normsky - Not really sure what you are talking about with "one draw back of tuned exhaust manifold". The original dyno was 121hp, so we added 151% more power to the wheels

Jackknife · « **Reply #34 on:** January 22, 2011, 08:16:25 PM »

Normsky - Not really sure what you are talking about with "one draw back of tuned exhaust manifold". The original dyno was 121hp, so we added 151% more power to the wheels

[/quote]

I think Normsky is using the "Hahn correction factor" in his computation...

NormSky · « **Reply #35 on:** January 22, 2011, 08:41:57 PM »

Only makes 200 lbs torque @ 3000 rpms. That's even lower than Carl-in-Texas turbo you did years ago.

All depends on the gasoline used for the low base number. Maybe because of lower octane since most 2.4 Kappas out down close to 150, so the improvement is more like 110%.

Keep those dice dusted off.

Dave@DDMworks · « **Reply #36 on:** January 22, 2011, 08:59:58 PM »

Sure is better than 150ft/lbs@3000rpm's

Seriously though, there is a big difference between runs on a dynojet (as used in the dyno above) and the dyno that we use here at the shop when it comes to turbo dyno runs. For naturally aspirated or supercharged runs it does not make a difference, but because of a turbo's inherent response time the dyno can make a difference. If you are not familier with the dynojet dyno's that are most common, they have a large 3000# roller that is used for the inertial mass. So as you spin this large roller up you can calculate the torque and then the horsepower from doing so. Typical runs on a dynojet are going to last 12-14 seconds, which gives a longer time for the turbo to come on and makes the torque curve look better than on our dyno. Our dyno is a portable unit that has 10" rollers that weigh around 700# and so the dyno runs are shorter, not giving the turbo as much time to spool resulting in what looks like a slower response then what you seen when you drive the car. Our dyno is a load bearing dyno and we could put load on the car to help the turbo spool earlier on the graph, but prefer to just run all runs in inertial mode to keep everything the same between cars/runs. As a note, Carlintexas car was on a dynojet also.

Also all of our dyno numbers use SAE correction, when you see a dyno with STD correction, it will read higher then SAE. On a 300hp car going from SAE to STD will add around 13-15hp.

After driving the car, it compares very well to other turbo kits we have driven here. The response on Kevin's was better then the other kits we have driven and with the S256 he has the capability to produce more power down the road if he chooses to. That is why we like some of the more expensive turbos out there, they can offer better spool time and provide more power.

As for the octane numbers, we didn't change gas in the car the whole time, what gas was in the car when we dyno'd it stock was in it when we dyno'd it with the turbo. Are you suggesting that we made those numbers on 87 octane? That would be impressive!

Divingsolo (formely Randy@DDM) · « **Reply #37 on:** January 22, 2011, 09:06:36 PM »

Same gas for both runs, and I've never seen running 87 to 93 octane give ~25whp on a stock N/A system. Stock ECM's are programmed for 87oct, so going to 93 will not give any significant performance difference, at best maybe 5whp especially not 20+whp. Some cars are just low, some are high, but the average that we've seen completely stock is 130-140.

NormSky · « **Reply #38 on:** January 22, 2011, 09:24:44 PM »

Go with log style manifold and journal bearing turbo which costs less and makes more in the normal driving/operating range than tubular/bearing setup. Try 250ft/lbs@3000rpm's.

This example is not tuned completely, so it may have more potential.

I'll give you 10-15 hp difference STD/SAE comparison.

BTW, what happened to the dyno graphs on your website for supercharged 2.4s?

NormSky · « **Reply #39 on:** January 22, 2011, 09:25:52 PM »

Gotcha!

Quote from: Randy@DDMWorks on January 22, 2011, 09:06:36 PM

Same gas for both runs, and I've never seen running 87 to 93 octane give ~25whp on a stock N/A system. Stock ECM's are programmed for 87oct, so going to 93 will not give any significant performance difference, at best maybe 5whp especially not 20+whp. Some cars are just low, some are high, but the average that we've seen completely stock is 130-140.

Dave@DDMworks · « **Reply #40 on:** January 22, 2011, 09:34:54 PM »

Quote from: NormSky on January 22, 2011, 09:24:44 PM

Go with log style manifold and journal bearing turbo which costs less and makes more in the normal driving/operating range than tubular/bearing setup. Try 250ft/lbs@3000rpm's.

(Image removed from quote.)

This example is not tuned completely, so it may have more potential.

I'll give you 10-15 hp difference STD/SAE comparison.

BTW, what happened to the dyno graphs on your website for supercharged 2.4s?

That run you are using for a reference was made with a combination of 91-100 octane gas running dangerously lean (mid 14's air fuel) at peak torque and still made less overall power.

Also our website is being completely redone and not everything has made it back up there yet.

Dave@DDMworks · « **Reply #41 on:** January 22, 2011, 09:36:37 PM »

Quote from: NormSky on January 22, 2011, 09:25:52 PM

Gotcha!

???

NormSky · « **Reply #42 on:** January 22, 2011, 09:46:13 PM »

I'm running similar boost on 92 octane without a cat.

Arabas · « **Reply #43 on:** January 23, 2011, 04:37:32 AM »

Great work DDM!!!
the engine bay looks amazing, everything seems to be in the perfect place!
great hp and torque too!!
i believe this could be offered as a DDM kit!!
i have the same dice too, in black!!!

i suppose this must be faster than lnf tuned +bolt ons

LatinVenom · « **Reply #44 on:** January 23, 2011, 07:18:19 PM »

So in your opinion the 20G is or can be better than the S256?.
I think the only way to prove that would be to have 2 cars on the same Dyno with identical equipment( except the turbo) and then tune them.

NormSky · « **Reply #45 on:** January 23, 2011, 08:06:21 PM »

Latin, the graph I provided is from the lessor 16G, 20G. Sure it don't hold hp up top but so little time is spent there unless your on a Dyno or the drag strip. 16G on the 2.4 is a nice bump in allot of torque down low where you need it in an autocross or just street driving.

Brad Kenny · « **Reply #46 on:** January 24, 2011, 09:59:26 AM »

Dave,

Thanks for the thread to show Kevin's build. I appreciate the look into your day-to-day life without having to micro-analyse everything you did and why.

The engine bay looks much better from beginning to end (cleaner). You guys did a great job and I am sure you provided just what the CUSTOMER wanted.

Houstice · « **Reply #47 on:** January 24, 2011, 10:02:25 AM »

Dave@DDMworks · « **Reply #48 on:** January 24, 2011, 05:23:38 PM »

Thanks guys, he was very happy when he left, he was out driving it for so long on the test drive, we thought he might have gotten pulled over

Also we started a new section on the website that we will be updating with builds here. It will contain all of the pictures and dyno runs for cars that come through the shop, here is the link:

http://ddmworks.com/build_logs_home.html

Thanks!
Dave

SKY888 · « **Reply #49 on:** January 25, 2011, 10:49:03 AM »

engine looked awesome!

Power increase doubled!

good job DDM!

News:

Welcome Guest!!!

Author Topic: Kevin's 2.4L build (Read 9854 times)