gtred

I recently bought the BEGI S3 kit for my 2004 MSM. It came packaged in an organized fashion with adequate assembly instructions. The 2860rs turbo had wastegate inserts that had been port matched to the divorced gas downpipe. The total package worked out very nicely for my application; a trackday car. I also was worried that the 2860 would be a poor match for my otherwise stock motor. I chose to go with the larger turbo as I had prior problems with excessive heat build up (1550 degrees f) and cracking in my prior OEM turbo during extended track sessions. My thought was that a larger turbo might give up some in spool-up, but may not be as restrictive and cause as much heat build up. I have been very happy with the end result. The spool up is well with-in the usable rpm. Best of all, at full target boost (12#), it maintains an EGT of 1325 degrees f thru the whole session. Of course, the turbo is large enough that you can turn the boost up way further... but, that is bound to be an epic fail on a stock motor.

NateA99

randomly chimming in, but ive got a 1.8l engine and im buying the FM II turbo with a stage 2 clutch and the FM rebuild kit. i know FM made 250whp with it at 10 or 11 psi. im looking for 300 flywheel hp. could i push the boost to say 12 or 13 psi to get to the 300hp? or too risky?

18psi

iTrader: (76)

question for you: do you have a log starting at 2k rpm in 4th or 5th gear showing your boost curve?
I have this same turbo and have seen so many different dyno plots that I don't even know when it spools anymore. I've seen full boost anywhere from 3300 to 3800 on this thing. And in FM's case it was something silly like 4200 (but they're at high elevation so maybe that's why).

250whp on a basic log setup on a 2560
So basically FM 250whp = REAL WORLD 200whp

There is no way in hell you're getting 300whp out of an FM2 2560 setup unless you push it to the very limit, like 18-20psi.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

You are getting rods and pistons also, right? Because why would you even think about rebuilding with the rubber OEM rods.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I still have never seen a log manifold 2560 break 220whp on a Dynojet in Texas. I've tuned 3 on a Mustang dyno and taking them past 200whp on that dyno is detonation-danger zone. It's kind of retarded to run them at 11.3-11.5:1 AFR to get over the detonation.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

did you turn up the boost? I have yet to see a 2560 setup NOT make 220rwhp.

a few examples:














all the above are the 2560. all will make 250rwtq at 3700RPM. 5 different motors/setups. I believe 3 of them are on logs, 2 being BEGi logs.

The last dyno posted is TurboTim's:



a true log.


btw, 18psi, the one that hit 310rwhp did not need 18-20psi--it needed 17.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

threadjack/
so brainey would you say that gt2860rs+etd tubular+veeveeteez= something close to those in terms of spoolup?
/threadjack

nitrodann

A friends AVO setup 1.6L makes 297rwhp on a mainline at 22psi and on E85 with a 2.5" exhaust with a 2560.

It can be done, It has a worked head also.

Dann

18psi

iTrader: (76)

Whoa dawg, that's a giant difference

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Again, cast manifold 2560, I suppose Texas summer has something to do with it too.

I know Paul's old 300whp dyno...I'm not putting that car on the track because it won't make it home.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Yes, built engine and E85 makes it a little different from typical cars.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

And that was like 1 of 2 or 3 cars to ever make that kinda power, And it wasn't on a log, And..........

nitrodann

The AVO kit has the worlds worst downpipe let me find a pic. BRB.

Also what do you think is possible on an optimised setup on E85. I tell you im going to find out.

BRB after ive found the avo kit pic.

Dann

nitrodann

OK, so its a crap photo but have a look at the downpipe.

Its cast, and has a 2" hole at a crazy slash cut cheated angle.



It made 300 on that setup so the turbo has some potential.

The car is getting a new manifold and 3.5" exhaust and again the boost will be turned to all of it. It has ID1000s and MS so it should be good.

Dann

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

you should see his IM.

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

Whatever bro, FM made 300whp on an FM2 @ 11psi, remember?

18psi

iTrader: (76)

I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that "the turbo has crazy potential". I'm not saying its a bad turbo, because its a great daily driver turbo, but: Its a built motor running e85, even if you pumped hot lava into the engine it would still make that power. Exhaust backpressure will choke up any turbo the same way. Show us the plot if you want people to be impressed.

nitrodann

I dont want people to be impressed, the boost doesnt come on until like 4000rpm its pathetic.

And I dont think it has crazy potential, Im just saying that it has some potential, where as a few people, some right here in this thread, write it off past 220whp.

This car is a 1.6L, so its got a crap head, it has a stock IM, it has a log manifold, and a horrible horrible downpipe AND a 2.5" exhaust and yet its making 300whp (boost-ALL OF IT). I am interested to hear peoples opinion in what potential it has with a long runner tubular manifold and a 3.5" exhaust. And then the IM will come.

I think that it has 350whp in it on E85, which is what the flow map suggests.

Dann

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I dunno. its the similar sized compressor wheel (the 2860 is 0.7mm larger inducer) with a better flowing/larger, by 0.9mm, turbine.

if you choose the same .64 a/r turbine housing, then the output flow is more or less the same. but the .86 a/r (only available on the 2860) lets it dump out a lot more lb/min worth of exhaust.

the main difference in the turbine is the amount of blades:

2560:


2860:



11 vs 9 blades.




I'm not familar enough with the 2860 to know the spool differences, everyone out this way has the 2560. But I'd expect the 2860 to have much better top-end. There'd be no reason to get a 2860 if it wasn't the .86.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

Its a .63 t3 which = .86 t2

Thanks


I see what you're saying. And I don't think people write it off, in fact I think on this site people suggest that turbo the most often. With our gearing though, and with the BP's ability to make lowend torque, people are starting to realize that bigger turbos are not any less fun down low, yet make a good amount more power up top. Built engine of course. With a stocker you'd have to limp anything bigger than the 2560 at low boost to save the rods.