Ebay Disco Potato - Page 3 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


DIY Turbo Discussion greddy on a 1.8? homebrew kit?

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-15-2010, 11:44 AM   #41
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,353
Total Cats: 1,319
Default

Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 11:27 AM   #42
Junior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 296
Total Cats: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railz
set-up:
supertech 8.8:1 pistons
949 racing/m-tuned rods
lightweight crank(additional oil ports added for rod bearings. weight reduction from the other end of counter weights, NOT knife-edged)
rotating assembly fully balanced
cometic HG
stock head valve train
ported rebello head
china 2871
DW 1000cc
e85 fuel
ARTech mani,DP,full 3" exhaust
MBC
tial WG & bov
COPS
F1 racing 1.6 stage clutch 6-puck(wtf, seriously?)
STOCK 1.6 tranny ( yeah i know right?)
STOCK intake manifold
MSII

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington
Full setup:
1862cc 8.6:1 shortblock
stock VVT head, stock cams
Supertech 83.5mm 8.6:1 pistons
M-Tuned rods
BE billet OPGs
ARP head studs, OEM head gasket
ABSURDflow v-band manifold/downpipe
Garrett GT2871R - 52 trim compressor, .86 A/R TiAL turbine housing
TiAL MVS EWG
3" open exhaust
Blox B18 intake manifold
stock B18 throttle body
Precision 600hp intercooler
AEM EMS, self-tuned
ID1000cc injectors
ABSURDflow SS fuel rail
Fuelabs FPR, 70psi base pressure
Walbro 255HP
E85
6-speed/3.909 Torsen

With respect Sav ... are you serious? From what I can see you're comparing a built 1.6 with a built 1.9 w/VVT??

So a 19% increase in displacement = how much more torque?? No ****.

Unless I'm missing something, to quote you with reference to the F1 6 puck clutch; WTF? Seriously ...
GrahamC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 01:26 PM   #43
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,353
Total Cats: 1,319
Default

I went through the two lists and identified the actual differences.

Railz has: crank work, ported 1.6 head, Chinabay 2870, stock intake manifold, MS2
I have: VVT, 1.8, no crank work, no head work, Garrett GT2871R, Honda IM, AEM EMS

So your argument is that the increase in displacement (which is a little less than 17%, by the way, and that assumes that his motor is stock bore which it likely isn't), the stock VVT head (vs his Rebello-worked 1.6 head), and the ECU change is worth 100ft.lbs at 4000rpm?

There are two explanations available for this:
a) Either the turbo has inferior flow/efficiency characteristics at low RPM which produces poor low-end torque, or..
b) 1.6 motors are DRASTICALLY inferior to 1.8 motors

Which one do you think it is? (hint: the motors are different, but not that different.)
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 05:13 PM   #44
Junior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 296
Total Cats: 4
Default

I'm saying two set ups are too different to point the blame entirely at the feet of the churbo. There are so many contributing factors to be conclusive.

I think it's pretty well known that the quality control of these units is more than a little questionable as well. Some people are seeing good numbers, the others aren't.

In order for this comparison to be worth a damn is for the same car running the genuine vs directly comparable chinacharger at the same boost, on the same day on the same dyno.
GrahamC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 05:32 PM   #45
Murderator
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,165
Total Cats: 2,573
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18psi View Post
Do you know for a fact that you'd make 300+ on the same pressure level and tune with an authentic unit?

NO.

Lets not get carried away too far guys.

When someone does a back to back dyno pull with everything staying same except swapping turbo from chinacharger to authentic and makes xx amount of power more on the real deal I'll be convinced.

Til then we're just poking a turd and wondering who **** it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post
This argument gets used a lot and it never gets any less stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamC View Post
I'm saying two set ups are too different to point the blame entirely at the feet of the churbo. There are so many contributing factors to be conclusive.

I think it's pretty well known that the quality control of these units is more than a little questionable as well. Some people are seeing good numbers, the others aren't.

In order for this comparison to be worth a damn is for the same car running the genuine vs directly comparable chinacharger at the same boost, on the same day on the same dyno.
Apparently its far less stupid to compare a ported 1.6L to a vvt 1.9L with a bunch of different **** with the only thing in common being that they both run e85 and both came out of a miata.

LOL

I'd do the test myself if someone with a flanged 2871 let me borrow it for a couple days

Last edited by 18psi; 12-22-2010 at 06:03 PM.
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 12:39 AM   #46
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,353
Total Cats: 1,319
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamC View Post
I'm saying two set ups are too different to point the blame entirely at the feet of the churbo. There are so many contributing factors to be conclusive.
Too different? What are all of these factors, guys? The intake manifold makes no difference at that RPM, I have a dyno chart to prove that. The fuel is the same, the exhaust manifold is the same. If your argument is that the setups are different, you need to back that up, because I don't think they are all that different. It's displacement and the head - the differences are quantifiable, there are comparisons out there detailing the gains that should be seen from VVT heads and 1.6>1.8 swaps, and the difference we're talking about is larger than that.

Quote:
I think it's pretty well known that the quality control of these units is more than a little questionable as well. Some people are seeing good numbers, the others aren't.
Link me to the good numbers, because I sure as hell haven't seen them.

We're not talking about chump change, here - we're talking about 100ft.lbs of torque at 4000rpm.
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 01:27 AM   #47
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,923
Total Cats: 0
Default

As much as I would like to believe that the chinachargers are complete garbage, I still think it deserves a proper test. Someone like myself (when I had a turbo car) or Savington have spent a lot of time on the small details that most people overlook when doing their build. These small details are what win races and decide who's going to be on the podium or who's going to be watching me stand on the podium. I just can't see someone taking that same attention to detail if they are going to cheap out on one of the most important components of the build. Sure I believe there's going to be a difference between the turbos, but I don't think it's going to be as big as people would think. Obviously we aren't going to see a true comparison from the cheap seats, so until we see someone with a setup like Savington install a chinacharger we won't have any proper data to do a comparison.

When people start building cars for second place, I'll become a believer.
JayL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 08:35 AM   #48
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Severn, MD
Posts: 1,927
Total Cats: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post

There are two explanations available for this:
a) Either the turbo has inferior flow/efficiency characteristics at low RPM which produces poor low-end torque, or..
b) 1.6 motors are DRASTICALLY inferior to 1.8 motors

Which one do you think it is? (hint: the motors are different, but not that different.)
c) Tune.


And a combination of a, b, and c.

Hell, seeing the other cars with stock turbos (Suby, DSM) that I've owned/seen pick up a ton of HP and TQ (especially in the midrange where railz car is falling short) with a better tune on a bone stock car, I can certainly see where maybe railz tune is inferior to yours.

That said, I do believe that a) is a contributor.

If you jump in the wayback machine and look at the old threads in the turbo section of M.net with Link powered FMIIs vs Shiv and his similar hardware Tec II equipped car and then Markp running his Haltech, you could see the obvious differences in power in cars with virtually the exact same hardware on bone stock motors, yet with superior engine management and tuning. Not saying the MSII railz runs is inferior to the AEM, but well, it is.

I've also watched a lot of professional tuners go for that high peak number and neglect the midrange. I don't know railz tuner and he could have a spot on tune, but it's really hard to tell. His thread says nothing about timing, boost at X rpm, AFR, etc. I didn't search further than his dynosheet thread.

Frank
fmowry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 09:34 AM   #49
Junior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 296
Total Cats: 4
Default

Yup, head, displacement, general health of the engine, timing, fueling, heatsoak, spark plugs, gearbox issues .... hell, anything could affect the power the car puts down.

I can believe that a genuine Garrett is more efficient than the equivalent Chinese copy, but the tests need to be more scientific to ascertain exactly how much more efficient. The 1.6 vs 1.9 in completely different car, different tune, spark map, and fueling comparison doesn't do it for me.
GrahamC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 09:40 AM   #50
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,813
Total Cats: 1,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post
The intake manifold makes no difference at that RPM, I have a dyno chart to prove that.

1.8L absurbflow manifold vs. 1.6L begi manifold (granted i was at like 12psi and he was wastegate)



Same curvez.




Regardless of everything, railz turbo still spools like dickhole.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 09:46 AM   #51
Junior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 296
Total Cats: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
Regardless of everything, railz turbo still spools like dickhole.
GrahamC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 09:51 AM   #52
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,813
Total Cats: 1,780
Default

Here's how Phil's built 1.6L with his 2870 chinacharger looked compared to everything...looks more in line with how it should, just died out up top...i blame the stock IM for that.


Attached Thumbnails
Ebay Disco Potato-levnubbin.jpg  
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2010, 10:23 AM   #53
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
 
TurboTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,479
Total Cats: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post
.... the exhaust manifold is the same.
Uhh actually I put a little special secret sumin-sumin magic on my manifolds when I'm making them. I do hope you use gloves when installing or working on it, or at least wash your hands thoroughly with hot water and antibacterial soap, 20sec minimum per CDC. Close attention should be paid to the nail areas, as well as the area between the fingers. A squirt of Purell afterwards can't hurt too.

That **** don't burn off either so do not think you're safe just because you've put XXX time on that setup. Being the first vband setup I did, I may have gone a little overboard with yours.

Last edited by TurboTim; 12-23-2010 at 10:38 AM.
TurboTim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 07:53 AM   #54
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,353
Total Cats: 1,319
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
Here's how Phil's built 1.6L with his 2870 chinacharger looked compared to everything...looks more in line with how it should, just died out up top...i blame the stock IM for that.
That's the kind of curve I would expect to see given the displacement/head difference, BTW - same spoolup but just moved forward several hundred RPM. Clearly, the ~900rpm spool difference is the benefits of having the 1.8 and VVT on my car, and the turbos perform the same.

Wait, that's not right - I forgot to mention that Phil runs 9psi more boost to produce the same torque numbers that I do.

I'm done, guys. Maybe I'll do the comparo just to silence the doubters, but I doubt it would have an effect - I'd just get some bullshit about how the air density was 2% different or how I didn't spend enough time on the china turbo tune or the moons of Jupiter were out of alignment or some other bullshit.

The data we have isn't perfect, but it's close enough to convince me. I welcome the day that someone matches my numbers with a cheap turbo, but I'm not holding my breath.

Last edited by Savington; 12-24-2010 at 08:38 AM.
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 06:51 PM   #55
Murderator
iTrader: (76)
 
18psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,165
Total Cats: 2,573
Default

You tested the racelands. Everyone was really glad you did.
Why not do this?
No one will make excuses, I think you're the one that's taking all this way too seriously. You do a back to back dyno pull changing absolutely nothing at all besides garrett/chinacharger and post results and you will be the 1st to do something like this and have that much more respect.

Then you can shut people like us up with one single post instead of arguing for a whole page and still not being able to completely convince any of us for certain.

You could probably care less about "convincing us", but I'm just sayin.
18psi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 07:07 PM   #56
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 2,322
Total Cats: 12
Default

People are getting way to excited about this. I would expect the garret to be better then a China but I didn't care. The fact that I can make over 200 HP, reliably, with a $250 turbo is awesome. I'm happy to make that trade off.
dustinb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 08:18 PM   #57
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,353
Total Cats: 1,319
Default

e: nm, not worth my time or effort.
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 08:44 PM   #58
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,982
Total Cats: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post
That's the kind of curve I would expect to see given the displacement/head difference, BTW - same spoolup but just moved forward several hundred RPM. Clearly, the ~900rpm spool difference is the benefits of having the 1.8 and VVT on my car, and the turbos perform the same.

Wait, that's not right - I forgot to mention that Phil runs 9psi more boost to produce the same torque numbers that I do.

I'm done, guys. Maybe I'll do the comparo just to silence the doubters, but I doubt it would have an effect - I'd just get some bullshit about how the air density was 2% different or how I didn't spend enough time on the china turbo tune or the moons of Jupiter were out of alignment or some other bullshit.

The data we have isn't perfect, but it's close enough to convince me. I welcome the day that someone matches my numbers with a cheap turbo, but I'm not holding my breath.
Sav: Hopefully I'll be able to do this in the near future when I get my clutch situation sorted. I talked to the local dyno shop and he has a used 2871 that he said he'd let me have for $400. I'm going to try to get him to throw in some free dyno pulls with it.

Must this comparo be with a garrett 2871 or can it be with a comparable sized "name brand" turbo like precision or whatever?
miatauser884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 08:47 PM   #59
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,353
Total Cats: 1,319
Default

Baller. I think we all want to see it done with a 2871, since that's the nomenclature that the China turbo mfgs. are ripping off.

Honestly it wouldn't even take dyno pulls to compare - swap the turbo on the street and leave the fuel map alone. If you're tuned for the China turbo and the Garrett runs lean, then you know which one flows better.
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2010, 09:48 PM   #60
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,982
Total Cats: 10
Default

2871 it is then.
miatauser884 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Project Gemini - Turbo Civic on the Cheap Full_Tilt_Boogie Build Threads 57 07-19-2017 05:11 PM
NEW-Wiseco Piston, K1 Rods, Supertech Valves & Spring/Retainer, TB&C pedals Rudes333 Miata parts for sale/trade 17 11-05-2015 02:16 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
"Chimney Ethanol" E100 MiataGarage Engine Performance 5 09-30-2015 12:04 AM
Miata new person and a what's it worth! Model192 Meet and Greet 16 09-29-2015 09:50 PM


Thread Tools

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 09:35 AM.