New goods- the FMIIR turbo system.
02-17-2011, 10:03 AM
#23
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 128
Total Cats: 2
I agree with you totally on the 15-18psi numbers, but I really like making torque at 3500rpm. At 11psi my car is solid on the track though a bit underpowered feeling, at 15psi it comes alive and becomes angry, 18psi is wild. Unfortunately NASA makes me run 210whp in TTB so my GT2860rs is horribly inneficient at that level.
Reply
0
0
02-17-2011, 05:06 PM
#24
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Nice use of the quote feature. ARE YOU STILL BEATING YOUR WIFE!!!!11
Are you talking to me?
I've considered this, but I lucked out and the power plant does what I need it to from 3400rpm onward, but it's boring at 210whp.
Did you guys use a GT2860rs with the .86 or .64 turbine housing?
Are you talking to me?
Did you guys use a GT2860rs with the .86 or .64 turbine housing?
Reply
0
0
02-19-2011, 07:21 PM
#27
That's it. Properly sized injectors are also required if you plan to make more power than your current hardware can support. For a current FMII owner, the upgrade looks like this:
1. Buy the bigger turbo
2. Buy the external wastegate
3. Buy the external wastegate compatible downpipe
4. Buy a larger set of injectors (optional, depending on power goals)
Reply
0
0
02-19-2011, 07:56 PM
#29
And now you have 3 more upgrade options in addition to the standard 3071 - the 2860, the 3071, and the 3076. All with a different turbine housing than the standard 3071, different compressor housing than the 3071, EWG, and supporting downpipe.
It's not a "new kit" - it's an upgrade option for an existing kit.
It's not a "new kit" - it's an upgrade option for an existing kit.
Reply
0
0
02-21-2011, 11:33 AM
#30
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 128
Total Cats: 2
Hustler, back when I tried the potato we used the .64 ar hotside. It had the 9 blade NS-111 wheel as I recall.
On our car we're using the 15" IC because this car has A/C, and with the E85 it doesn't really matter.
Fooger has it figured out.
The idea here is we wanted to come up with a bolt-on turbo kit that's up to our standard of quality & will support goals in the 400-500 whp range. Previously we couldn't do this- the smaller a/r hotside on the internally gated 3071 makes it great street turbo however it limits out realistically at or under 400 whp uncorrected from the choked-off top end.
On our car we're using the 15" IC because this car has A/C, and with the E85 it doesn't really matter.
Fooger has it figured out.
The idea here is we wanted to come up with a bolt-on turbo kit that's up to our standard of quality & will support goals in the 400-500 whp range. Previously we couldn't do this- the smaller a/r hotside on the internally gated 3071 makes it great street turbo however it limits out realistically at or under 400 whp uncorrected from the choked-off top end.
Reply
0
0
02-21-2011, 06:41 PM
#31
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
This makes a world of difference as you know. However, after looking at Robert Harris' car and my car with almost identical motors, it was clear the .86 made this turbo "desirable".
Reply
0
0
02-21-2011, 07:53 PM
#32
Elite Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 5,165
Total Cats: 855
- Buy the Hydra
- Buy the 550cc injectors (optional, depending on power goal).
BEGI kits follow a similar modular approach. So it's as much a new turbo kit as any of the others already on the market.
--Ian
Reply
0
0
03-06-2011, 02:35 PM
#33
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 286
Total Cats: 235
given that the car is running a 2.0 with a smaller(3071 instead of my 3076) and e85 fuel instead of the 93 im running on, im kinda surprised that it didnt achieve higher numbers down low? the big laggy 3076 produces the same numbers on my smaller engine. but this one blows by mine at higher rpms.. i think i need to increase my boost more to compensate for the smaller engine 
cool to see that you guys are doing the bigger turbos too now.. thats what kept me from buying a kit back in the day, no big turbo setups ..
cool to see that you guys are doing the bigger turbos too now.. thats what kept me from buying a kit back in the day, no big turbo setups ..
Reply
0
0
03-06-2011, 03:28 PM
#34
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
given that the car is running a 2.0 with a smaller(3071 instead of my 3076) and e85 fuel instead of the 93 im running on, im kinda surprised that it didnt achieve higher numbers down low? the big laggy 3076 produces the same numbers on my smaller engine. but this one blows by mine at higher rpms..
Reply
0
0
03-07-2011, 02:34 PM
#38
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
Yes the thin air altitude they are at produces dyno plots that look very laggy and the SAE correction factors if applied are a bit generous for turbo boost up top.
At sea level you can expect ~4 to 600 rpm better spool more low end torque and peak power numbers somewhere between the corrected and uncorrected numbers probably closer to the uncorrected at the higher rpms
Bob
At sea level you can expect ~4 to 600 rpm better spool more low end torque and peak power numbers somewhere between the corrected and uncorrected numbers probably closer to the uncorrected at the higher rpms
Bob
Reply
0
0
04-05-2011, 03:09 PM
#40
Newb
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17
Total Cats: 0
I believe I got a ride in this car when I was at FM (if it's the "Alcohol" car).
Either way, it was astonishing.
Jeremy, has all the testing since been done on the catch can setup?
If so, let me know, as I might want to add that while my car is still in your hands (the '01 SE).
- Paulie
Either way, it was astonishing.
Jeremy, has all the testing since been done on the catch can setup?
If so, let me know, as I might want to add that while my car is still in your hands (the '01 SE).
- Paulie
Reply
0
0
