1.6L 2560r record attempt
02-15-2013, 12:51 AM
#182
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 2,826
Total Cats: 67
Update. The white na6 has its much taller wing mounts and braces, water leak fixed, vacuum lines and boost controller done and it's been driven.
It's running heaps lean so that's great news, it barely even drives once warm up enrichment has stopped. Obviously it wasn't driven hard when lean.
New crusher style front bar flat floor and splitter early next week tune late next week.
Dann
It's running heaps lean so that's great news, it barely even drives once warm up enrichment has stopped. Obviously it wasn't driven hard when lean.
New crusher style front bar flat floor and splitter early next week tune late next week.
Dann
Reply
0
0
02-15-2013, 12:58 AM
#183
I'm not convinced you're going to see a 700 rpm advantage in spool. I know some have seen that but they haven't really been apples to apples comparisons. That's why I'm curious to see you're results, same motor, same manifold. I know this is going to go over like a lead balloon, but when FM tested the two turbos on very similar setups the EFR showed virtually no advantage in spool.
Jimj
Jimj
Heres what you're missing, to make the same power as an efr you'll need a 3071 or maybe even 35something Now compare spool data.. the efr will blow the GT out of the water. This is what they mean by "spools like a 2560 yet makes the power of a 3071". Bigger turbos make more power since at peak power they are in their efficiency ranges however because they are bigger turbos they suffer in spool. The EFR on the other hand spools sooner. So technically it is apples to apples.
Reply
0
0
02-15-2013, 09:10 AM
#186
Sure you're trying to be mean, it wasn't me that started comparing the EFR to the 2560, I'm saying it's a silly comparison. All the spool of 2560 with the power of a 3071.... you keep using that comparison to bash Garrett turbos, why not try comparing th EFR to a more similar Garrett?
You know what 18psi, you need to grow up a little, I was responding to a specific post where a question was asked about something i said and being as clear as possible in order to avoid some jerk going off because I wasn't clear.
Jimj
You know what 18psi, you need to grow up a little, I was responding to a specific post where a question was asked about something i said and being as clear as possible in order to avoid some jerk going off because I wasn't clear.
Jimj
Stop posting and start reading. I promise you if you DON'T come into a conversation completely clueless then start arguing with everyone because you were either un-clear originally, or plain re-gurgitating known basics or arguing irrelevant info, I WILL NOT be "mean" to you and cause your panties to wad up.
Seriously. Just so you stop crying here's a +1 rep
Reply
0
0
02-15-2013, 09:50 AM
#187
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 7,949
Total Cats: 1,003
Dann, I'm not sure if your serious or not....you have a built motor, you're not going to break it at twice that psi. At 12 psi I'm sure the MSM will be fine but you're not using the EFR to it's potential and it's a considerably more expensive turbo, why not save the money and use a 2560? One thing I think is an advantage is a simpler downpipe connection on the EFR, but again is it worth the money?
I'm not convinced you're going to see a 700 rpm advantage in spool. I know some have seen that but they haven't really been apples to apples comparisons. That's why I'm curious to see you're results, same motor, same manifold. I know this is going to go over like a lead balloon, but when FM tested the two turbos on very similar setups the EFR showed virtually no advantage in spool.
Jimj
Jimj
Please stop bringing irrelevant crap into the thread. thank you.
I took it away because he was irritating me.
Reply
0
0
02-15-2013, 10:19 AM
#190
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 2,826
Total Cats: 67
Lol what's the point.
Here's another question, what's the most powerful (peak) road course miata around. Andrews black car is around 360whp right? When this has an ear it will be able to make 400, I imagine gearboxes are the main issue.
In Australia the main specialist miata shop says that miata go quicker at 180rwkw than 220rwkw. All I hear is "I cannot be bothered to engineer a traction and/or drive ability solution".
With 17x10 slicks and ms2's ebc setup nice with a nice responsive EFR I hope that 250+rwkw is drivable and quicker than 200rwkw.
Dann
Here's another question, what's the most powerful (peak) road course miata around. Andrews black car is around 360whp right? When this has an ear it will be able to make 400, I imagine gearboxes are the main issue.
In Australia the main specialist miata shop says that miata go quicker at 180rwkw than 220rwkw. All I hear is "I cannot be bothered to engineer a traction and/or drive ability solution".
With 17x10 slicks and ms2's ebc setup nice with a nice responsive EFR I hope that 250+rwkw is drivable and quicker than 200rwkw.
Dann
Reply
0
0
02-15-2013, 10:20 AM
#191
Lol what's the point.
Here's another question, what's the most powerful (peak) road course miata around. Andrews black car is around 360whp right? When this has an ear it will be able to make 400, I imagine gearboxes are the main issue.
In Australia the main specialist miata shop says that miata go quicker at 180rwkw than 220rwkw. All I hear is "I cannot be bothered to engineer a traction and/or drive ability solution".
With 17x10 slicks and ms2's ebc setup nice with a nice responsive EFR I hope that 250+rwkw is drivable and quicker than 200rwkw.
Dann
Here's another question, what's the most powerful (peak) road course miata around. Andrews black car is around 360whp right? When this has an ear it will be able to make 400, I imagine gearboxes are the main issue.
In Australia the main specialist miata shop says that miata go quicker at 180rwkw than 220rwkw. All I hear is "I cannot be bothered to engineer a traction and/or drive ability solution".
With 17x10 slicks and ms2's ebc setup nice with a nice responsive EFR I hope that 250+rwkw is drivable and quicker than 200rwkw.
Dann
Reply
0
0
02-15-2013, 10:34 AM
#199
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 2,826
Total Cats: 67
I said quicker not faster.
The issue we have had so far is that the throttle is non linear, thats what I feel the issue is anyway.
With the ms2 ebc I hope that it will be linear enough to make good of the power rather than just be tail happy.
I have pics of the temporary test wing mounts also, wanna see?
Dann
The issue we have had so far is that the throttle is non linear, thats what I feel the issue is anyway.
With the ms2 ebc I hope that it will be linear enough to make good of the power rather than just be tail happy.
I have pics of the temporary test wing mounts also, wanna see?
Dann
Reply
0
0
