Author Topic: Bigger turbo, more aiflow but not more HP?! (Read 124198 times)

ihawk95 · « **Reply #150 on:** May 30, 2012, 11:23:04 PM »

Quote from: Sol Asylum on May 30, 2012, 11:11:21 PM

Was that the sound Millers car made just before he took it to DDM?

Let's see...last time I rode in the car it was on the way back from DDM. I think it was pretty quiet and well behaved, but that was in October.

Now the first time it came back from DDM, I drove behind it and the exhaust definitely made that noise!! Due to the O2 extender, which no one knew was melted at the time!

I'd have some of it on video, but that would have been on my phone of course.

I'll try to make up new noises when it comes back next time!

Swooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!!!

That was practice...

Kelu · « **Reply #151 on:** June 02, 2012, 06:55:20 AM »

Wohoo, 4th snail has arrived. After EFR6258, 2x Comp Turbos next in line is GT3071.

I know GTX version would be better with 20% but the price was almost double so I gave up also I had on my consideration Forced Performance or Precision Turbo but I don't want to mess again with turbos from small companies which don't provide at least a compressor map and went straight to the original and most test option Garret.

Here are some pics:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Info:

Quote

Compressor
-Wheel: 71mm w/ 56 trim
-Housing: .50 a/r
-Inlet: 2.75"

Turbine
-Wheel: 56.5mm w/ 84 trim
-Housing: 0.64 a/r
-Internally Wastegated (No Actuator)

Until now I have used the Garret manifold with an adapter flange with External Waste Gate because Comp Turbos were T3 flanged.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

EFR turbo even it was same flange as the manifold and internally gated (T25) required a 1,5" spacer between manifold and turbo because the compressor was hitting the frame, I'm expecting with GT3071 to be same.

I need to decide now:
a) should I keep the GT3071 using internal wastegate and to be "bolt-on" manifold? or
b) use and adapter to be able to route the external wastegate and weld the internal wastegate of the turbo?

miller11386 · « **Reply #152 on:** June 02, 2012, 10:30:14 AM »

try it internally gated first... no sense in re-inventing the wheel here.

If you have boost creep/ the wastegate gets blown open, then consider modifying the turbo.

Goodluck my Romanian friend!

Kelu · « **Reply #153 on:** June 02, 2012, 10:35:42 AM »

Trying it means:
- 2-3 days of work
- investment of 300-500 (wg actuator, spacer, modifying the downpipe, etc)

miller11386 · « **Reply #154 on:** June 02, 2012, 04:31:35 PM »

and externally gating it means welding the internal gate shut. With the way you go through turbos, i would opt for the mani mod vs the turbo mod

The choice is yours kelu!

Kelu · « **Reply #155 on:** June 04, 2012, 11:58:16 AM »

If GT3071 won't deploy good results than I don't know if there is another choice more appropriate than this. So I don't mind to weld the internal gate, i hope this will be the final turbo

The EFR6258 was comparable with a GT3071 but the only problem was about the delivery time and how Borg Warner and Full Race managed the warranty case.

Thanks for indicating your choices

|V3nom| · « **Reply #156 on:** June 25, 2012, 03:28:59 PM »

i know you just got a new turbo but did you try the efr6758? theres a kappa running it and hes making about 480whp/480wtq with near stock spool speed.

from the few pages that i read it seems like you need a better tuner, something aint right here especially after reading the first post...

Sol Asylum · « **Reply #157 on:** June 25, 2012, 03:38:55 PM »

Wasn't that the turbo that you had that dropped a nut Kelu?

elff · « **Reply #158 on:** June 25, 2012, 03:39:01 PM »

Venom

Kelu had one of the first EFRs. It broke, due to manufacturing defect. [BW not knowing how to install the nut that holds the compressor wheel] and after 4 months of not being able to get a replacement, moved to trying other options.

Continuing with the above thought.
Let us know if you can currently purchase one.
2 years after the fact and they still have almost zero availability.
It sucks because that Turbo can be awesome.

Kelu · « **Reply #159 on:** June 25, 2012, 03:44:22 PM »

Yeah. EFR are very nice, customer support and post sale services convinced me to drop the idea.

Now I'm going with GT3071R after breaking 2 identical COMP Turbos.

|V3nom| · « **Reply #160 on:** June 25, 2012, 04:34:44 PM »

i gotcha ya, didnt know about that. you had the 6258 and not the 6758 though right? HUGE difference between the two power wise.

Kelu · « **Reply #161 on:** June 25, 2012, 04:41:30 PM »

I ordered 6758 but I received 6258 which is identical as 6758 only 2mm difference in compressor wheel

|V3nom| · « **Reply #162 on:** June 25, 2012, 05:41:42 PM »

from what ive seen the 6258 is closer to the stock turbo but more of an updated version that makes a little more power and the 6758 is a little bigger and makes a good bit more power. supposed to be top of the line technology in those efrs. sorry you got screwed by customer support. i still think the 6758 is the way to go for a daily driver.

Kelu · « **Reply #163 on:** June 25, 2012, 05:49:11 PM »

The official description of those 2 models is pretty much same with a difference of:
- 6258 -> 44lbs/min -> 450hp
- 6758 -> 49lbs/min -> 500hp

|V3nom| · « **Reply #164 on:** June 25, 2012, 05:59:02 PM »

that must be an understatement since gmtech is almost at 500whp with the 6758.

Kelu · « **Reply #165 on:** June 25, 2012, 06:10:23 PM »

What type of dyno? Because as far as I saw, most US dynos show close to engine hp as whp.

miller11386 · « **Reply #166 on:** June 25, 2012, 06:23:20 PM »

GMT is on a dynojet

Mustang dyno would read ~10%-13% lower

Kelu · « **Reply #167 on:** June 25, 2012, 06:30:06 PM »

Quote from: miller11386 on June 25, 2012, 06:23:20 PM

GMT is on a dynojet

Mustang dyno would read ~10%-13% lower

Most dynojet read very close to engine hp. Mustang dynos depend on calibration and operator, I saw Mustangs showing more than dynojet.

elff · « **Reply #168 on:** June 25, 2012, 06:36:23 PM »

That's interesting. I am pushing 45lbs/min of air up top with the 2871

miller11386 · « **Reply #169 on:** June 25, 2012, 06:39:21 PM »

VE or maf readings elff?

I was only putting 33lb/min (30 lb/min VE) on my 2871

I am pushing out a lowly 28 lb/min (25 lb/min VE) on my stock K04

miller11386 · « **Reply #170 on:** June 25, 2012, 06:40:28 PM »

Quote from: Kelu on June 25, 2012, 06:30:06 PM

Most dynojet read very close to engine hp. Mustang dynos depend on calibration and operator, I saw Mustangs showing more than dynojet.

yeah i guess if you have an idiot on the controls, anything is possible. most that are setup properly show a 10%-13% decrease in power compared to a dynojet in the shootout mode.

|V3nom| · « **Reply #171 on:** June 25, 2012, 06:40:53 PM »

a 13% drop in power, on a mustang dyno, would net 417.6whp from 480whp. that seems like a huge difference just to be swapping dynos.

elff · « **Reply #172 on:** June 25, 2012, 06:54:15 PM »

Quote from: miller11386 on June 25, 2012, 06:39:21 PM

VE or maf readings elff?

I was only putting 33lb/min (30 lb/min VE) on my 2871

I am pushing out a lowly 28 lb/min (25 lb/min VE) on my stock K04

MAF but my VE is almost dead on with the MaF rate so I guess that would be both

Kelu · « **Reply #173 on:** June 25, 2012, 06:56:37 PM »

Many Mustangs don't show pure whp as well. A stock kappa should put down around 210whp in a vanilla stock form, only few I saw doing that. Westers and PAW iirc.

That's why I keep asking for stock engine dynos

Quote from: elff on June 25, 2012, 06:36:23 PM

That's interesting. I am pushing 45lbs/min of air up top with the 2871

When I was reading 43-44lbs/min my tuners' dyno was showing 375bhp and doctor confirmed he saw almost same value on his dyno. Dunno how his dyno is showing, whp or bhp but I appreciated him for disclosing this info as he does all the time

miller11386 · « **Reply #174 on:** June 25, 2012, 06:57:32 PM »

why was mine so slow??????? 12lb min difference= a lot of power loss there

News:

Welcome Guest!!!

Author Topic: Bigger turbo, more aiflow but not more HP?! (Read 124198 times)