Next Catfish Engine Build
09-19-2014, 12:43 PM
#21
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,451
Total Cats: 479
GTX2867R and low boost because you bought the wrong pistons.
Smaller turbos that would spool faster need to make more pressure to achieve the same power but make more heat. You can't handle as much heat because you chose a higher compression piston. Therefore your car will be a slower spooling compromise.
For a serious car, I would use the 2867 at high boost with the lower compression pistons. And if it was track only, i'd consider e85.
Smaller turbos that would spool faster need to make more pressure to achieve the same power but make more heat. You can't handle as much heat because you chose a higher compression piston. Therefore your car will be a slower spooling compromise.
For a serious car, I would use the 2867 at high boost with the lower compression pistons. And if it was track only, i'd consider e85.
This is actually going to be my all-around car, for everything from track days to Cars n' Coffee. Anyone who saw me at Laguna Seca probably knows that reliability is WAY higher on my list right now than ultimate horsepower.So it's a compromise, and I don't actually mind a little boost lag as it's not really an issue at track rpm's, and is more fun than anything on the street. Compromises always mean that someone else's choice is better...for them.
No, we're planning a "serious" track car now that should end up with a 5:1 horsepower to weight ratio, but I'll start a new build thread when that happens.
Reply
0
0
09-19-2014, 12:59 PM
#22
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
I'd err on the side of a larger turbo than a 2560 if you want a little boost delay on the street. I abslutely loved the whooshiness of my 2876 on my 01. Plus you can run fairly low boost levels and get monster power.
I also have a theory that reducing boost response helps real world MPG but ... no data to back that up.
I also have a theory that reducing boost response helps real world MPG but ... no data to back that up.
Reply
0
0
09-19-2014, 01:12 PM
#23
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
No surprise. 9.5:1 might be what you want for a low-boost responsive Rotrex. Everyone with any turbo experience understands that 8.6 motors make more torque with a turbo than 9.0 motors because you can run more timing with lower compression, especially on pump gas.
9.5 is the bastard child of compression ratios - not high enough to take advantage of E85, and too high to work well on pump gas. I don't know why Supertech makes that piston, honestly.
9.5 is the bastard child of compression ratios - not high enough to take advantage of E85, and too high to work well on pump gas. I don't know why Supertech makes that piston, honestly.
Reply
0
0
09-19-2014, 01:18 PM
#24
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
This is like turbo BP 101, when did everyone suddenly forget that 8.6:1 is good and 9.5:1 is garbage? WTF?
Reply
0
0
09-19-2014, 01:41 PM
#25
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,451
Total Cats: 479
No surprise. 9.5:1 might be what you want for a low-boost responsive Rotrex. Everyone with any turbo experience understands that 8.6 motors make more torque with a turbo than 9.0 motors because you can run more timing with lower compression, especially on pump gas.
9.5 is the bastard child of compression ratios - not high enough to take advantage of E85, and too high to work well on pump gas. I don't know why Supertech makes that piston, honestly.
9.5 is the bastard child of compression ratios - not high enough to take advantage of E85, and too high to work well on pump gas. I don't know why Supertech makes that piston, honestly.
Reply
0
0
09-19-2014, 02:57 PM
#27
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,451
Total Cats: 479
No, don't really want to mess with E85 and will run premium only, or race gas at the track. I know, California premium is cat ****.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
