S4 Turbo w/ V-Band Clamps in the works - Page 3 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Bellengineering - Miata Accessories Ordering and General Information Stephanie Turner 830-438-2890 ext. 103 [email protected]

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-10-2009, 05:42 PM   #41
meatbag
iTrader: (50)
 
gospeed81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,357
Total Cats: 26
Default

I just want to know...when you start thinking big...like 400+whp BIG...what's the real bottleneck.

I know JayL makes a lot of power through a stock intake manifold, but last I heard this was where the blame was placed for the yellow car's poor showing.

I'm still with the turbine A/R crowd.
gospeed81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2009, 06:01 PM   #42
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bell Tuning & Performance
Posts: 1,338
Total Cats: -78
Default

They are still thinking it is the turbine a/r and possibly the Intake manifold. At this point, the intake manifold is the easiest/cheapest/fastest part to fix and re-tune.

The car made 284 whp, and 267 ft lbs of torque at 4300 rpm. That is awesome until you see the torque taper off to red line and know what boost level it is running. If I told you that it was running 13-14 psi you would think it was THE bomb. But at 16-17 psi, you start to question it. It would appear that the lower a/r, which was chosen for faster spool up, will not be the ideal set up. It spools fast, so the lower a/r is doing what it is supposed to, it just does not meet the power goals.

The new intake manifold is installed. We need to run vacuum lines to it and it will be up and running. We will know for sure whether it is the turbine housing or IM after tuning.
Stephanie
Stephanie Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2009, 06:06 PM   #43
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bell Tuning & Performance
Posts: 1,338
Total Cats: -78
Default

We tried to make the stainless tube manifold work with the v-band. The problem is the support brace would still be needed and there is no where to put it that is solid. We had a solid flange before, but not now. So we are left with the more expensive option of making it in house, from thicker material. Plus the added expense of the v-band flanges and clamps. We also decided to include the turbo coolant re-route with the kit, as most people who track their car have a similar set up.
Stephanie
Stephanie Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2009, 06:32 PM   #44
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Steph, remember when we tuned my car? The torque died to0.

Remember that on my car, we're talking about the Dynojet you guy's use and the DynoDynamics that we tuned my car on...my DD read 12% lower. My 261whp/252swtq comes to 288/277 if we allow some fudge factor and use a 10% shift. I should also note that these #'s were done with a 3" exhaust...and a 2.5" exhaust gasket (duh) with your log manifold (it was much faster after pulling the gasket, and I had to add some fuel). Even with the big turbine, my torque dies too.

I questioned the intake plenum initially, then I reviewed my compressor map:

How much air are we actually moving, and how much frictional loss do we incurr? We may be at the limits of the compressor. Or...are we limited by the head? Its easy to look at at Honda or Nissan head and consider these questions when you compare them to a miata head...even one that's been ported.
Did you hit MBT in Rob's car, or detonation?

Can we see the tables and the log?
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2009, 06:36 PM   #45
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

I also plan to tune my car on Sunday with the Absurdflow hot-parts and we'll see if the #'s change. I have a feeling they won't, and that torque will die, again.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 04:59 PM   #46
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bell Tuning & Performance
Posts: 1,338
Total Cats: -78
Default

If I had the tables and logs, I would be happy to share them. There are on Tim's laptop right now.
Stephanie
Stephanie Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 07:50 PM   #47
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
 
TurboTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,485
Total Cats: 248
Default

I ain't got jack shitznit on my laptop.



Ohhhh right wrong tim. You need to rename that boy.
TurboTim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 11:18 PM   #48
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboTim View Post
I ain't got jack shitznit on my laptop.



Ohhhh right wrong tim. You need to rename that boy.
I'm getting on a mustang dyno this thursday. I will probably break it with the insane torque I'm about to lay down.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2009, 09:53 PM   #49
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 1,523
Total Cats: 4
Default

You people are truly bad people at your core. This **** is necessary on my car. I want it. I will have to go back into the illicit trade business to fund this expenditure.
webby459 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 05:05 PM   #50
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bell Tuning & Performance
Posts: 1,338
Total Cats: -78
Default

Well we have ruled out the intake manifold. That was not it. Has to be the turbine a/r. Back to back dyno runs and more accurate WG spring showed no dyno improvement. So the only thing left is the a/r ratio.
Stephanie
Stephanie Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 05:22 PM   #51
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
 
TurboTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,485
Total Cats: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanie Turner View Post
Well we have ruled out the intake manifold. That was not it. Has to be the turbine a/r. Back to back dyno runs and more accurate WG spring showed no dyno improvement. So the only thing left is the a/r ratio.
Stephanie
Did that intake have a 70mm throttle body or the OEM throttle body?
TurboTim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 05:26 PM   #52
meatbag
iTrader: (50)
 
gospeed81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 7,357
Total Cats: 26
Default

I just talked to Robert about this as he was scooping more free parts I need into trunk this morning. I was sorry to hear that's the case as I know he's ready to make big power.


Ya'll are still planning on running back to back dyno runs to test OEM manifold versus new one even after changing turbine A/R right?

This would give us 4 graphs of the same setup to judge effects of both variables. I was pretty well convinced from the get go that the turbine was the problem with HIS car...but I'm sure the intake manifold will make a big difference for EVERYONE.
gospeed81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 05:44 PM   #53
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bell Tuning & Performance
Posts: 1,338
Total Cats: -78
Default

If we can get the car back, then yes, we will do back to back testing.
Stephanie
Stephanie Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 05:49 PM   #54
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

According to all the big-brained people I've spoken with, you have to either pick long runner or short runner...which means mid or high-end torque. I'm fine with my parabolic torque...but it may be different now with my new goodies.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 05:51 PM   #55
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bell Tuning & Performance
Posts: 1,338
Total Cats: -78
Default

I would not complain about 260 ft-lbs torque at 4300 rpm. I think that would be way too much fun. But on the track, it might not be ideal.
Stephanie
Stephanie Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 06:07 PM   #56
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanie Turner View Post
I would not complain about 260 ft-lbs torque at 4300 rpm. I think that would be way too much fun. But on the track, it might not be ideal.
Stephanie
Its not. I didn't print anything out from my last dyno session due to the leak, but my curve was flat at 10psi. It was also flat at 10psi on the old set-up. When we cranked the boost up, the hump emerged.

There's a mechanical blockage somewhere in there and as soon as I get back to the dyno we'll see if its the turbo kits or the throttle body.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 06:13 PM   #57
Elite Member
iTrader: (41)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seabrook, TX
Posts: 2,409
Total Cats: 19
Default

I really dropped the ball when I ordered this with the .64, but at that time, I was planning to put it on a stock 94 block and only run 12psi or so. For that purpose, this turbo would have been great. Somewhere done the line, I decided I wanted to put my 2.0L in there and make my daily NA. Parts were already ordered when i changed my mind on engines and now I get to order more. For the 2.0L, there is no excuse why I shouldn't have gone with a 2871.

I will be putting the .86 housing on in December or January, so we will see then.
rharris19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 06:17 PM   #58
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

You might be happy with a turbo like mine on the built motor. I'd try both, or just take mine for a spin and decide.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 06:20 PM   #59
Elite Member
iTrader: (41)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seabrook, TX
Posts: 2,409
Total Cats: 19
Default

You still have the .86 2860rs? I think the new housing will get this to where it needs to be and then i will decide if a 2871 is needed. Probably not, but we will see.
rharris19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009, 06:29 PM   #60
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,889
Total Cats: 28
Default

FWIW I am happy with my 2871, albeit a 0.64 A/R.
ZX-Tex is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Garrett Turbo, 1.8 Oil Pan, & Misc. Stuff nbdooey Miata parts for sale/trade 9 08-30-2017 10:50 PM
Another Cast Manifold Corky Bell Prefabbed Turbo Kits 18 11-22-2016 10:01 PM
Back to Stock Part Out!! Turbo Parts, MS2 Enhanced 01-05, Suspension, and MOAR! StratoBlue1109 Miata parts for sale/trade 16 10-02-2015 10:39 AM
Bad head gasket or ? shooterschmidty Engine Performance 8 09-30-2015 11:28 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:22 AM.