I assumed $300 for the turbine, and lets say 2-hours if you pay Helen Keller to work the dyno. Its a $400 test and I've already spent $6k total on turbo parts for this hunk of ****.

 

If only we could quantify, in dollars, all of our time that you wasted getting to this point of actually having a turbo car.

 

The closest would be Artie's plot of a non functioning stock '99 manifold and a gutted '99 manifold swapped at the same dyno day. (2560, my manifold & exhaust, ebay 18x12x3 i/c, megasquirt, etc) How much do you think a functioning VTCS (or whatever it's called) would give?

 

Thread jack in progress...

I will not either unfortunately. I have not been to the dyno yet so I do not have a good baseline to compare it to. My main goal here is to create a larger and relatively unobstructed plenum for the WI injectors to spray into. The improved flow is another benefit from doing so.

If you do do it, it takes time, even with a die grinder and a large burr. I probably have about 4-6 hours in it so far, and will probably have about 10-12 hours in it before I am completely finished. The upper manifold goes quickly, and a lot of it can be busted out with a chisel. The lower takes a lot more time, mostly due to the thick webs between the adjacent runners. I am probably going to leave a lot of that material there in fact.

It is still less time than it would take for me to fabricate a new one from scratch. The adapted Edelbrock manifold could probably be done pretty quickly with a band saw and a TIG, but then the cost of the Edelbrock manifold has to be considered.

I'll start a new thread and post up some pictures and what not when I finish it. I am snapping photos as I go. It will be a few weeks until I have the dyno plots though. I have a lot of other work to get done as well, like replacing the pistons.

Thread jack over.

 

Thanks for posting that BTW. That shows some nice gains, about 8% at 7K RPM and probably more at higher RPM if extrapolated. Did he have VICS working when he did the stock run?

It also looks like the results are what one would expect. That is, reduced torque at lower RPM but more torque at higher RPM, and a cross-over point at about 5K-5.5K RPM.

 

No. I do not know why he didn't. Sorta going 95% of the way there and then...sigh.

 

with the vics it would have only raised the mid range a few percent and not affected the top end. which is why I want to try it on my car for ***** and giggles.

 

little late to the show but thats what the search shows.. all the runs graphed were made using the same psi?

 

This argument shouldnt even be an argument. From the first post with that graph showing a 35R outspooling a 30R with the SAME a/r. Thats not going to happen.

I may not have a miata anymore but I have a Honda S2k. I have a 3076R and I have ridden in 35R cars and they lag a LOT more and every dynochart I have ever seen shows a 3076R spooling 500rpm sooner than its 35R counterpart, so that first dynochart is inaccurate. Secondly, youll make a good 15-20whp more with a .82 or .86 housing over a .63 or .64 depending on if you are T2 or T3 flanged. I would not even begin to use a 30 series turbo on a T2 flange...it just doesnt have the turbine wheel to match the compressor. The larger backside ( hotside ) gives lower egt's, keeps exhaust reversion at bay ( good for detonation suppression ), and is just more efficient and youll lose 200rpm of spoolup from a .63 to a .82....trust me the tradeoff is worth it.

I run a EQ manifold, stock engine ( f20c1 ), 3076R .82, AEM, etc...

I make 431whp / 282 ftlb @ 12psi. full boost @ 4300rpm all the way to 9000rpm. The torque curve is completely flat to redline. With the .63 hotside people drop torque in the upper rpms and lose overall topend HP. Best to make use of the power deeper into the rpms IMO.

 

got dyno charts comparing your setup to a larger turbo with smaller A/R?

 

I dont need it, I know what I know because I have experienced it. Im not worried about proving it to you.

 

Then why bother posting? What in the world would possibly make you think that you're important enough to have your word taken at face value? You have some anecdotal evidence off a motor that has absolutely nothing in common with ours beyond "they both have pistons and valves". The guy asks you politely for some graphs or charts or data that we could discuss, and you lip off like you're hot ****?



I saw results from a gutted '99 IM - 10whp. Really disappointing. I'm testing a new IM in 3 weeks, back-to-back, so we'll see.

 

This is like a preschooler response. You need a F20 forum for your *current* ride. But that was a joke right?

 

You're projecting; now go sit in the corner and drink your juicebox.

 

sigh... this is the same reason I dont believe in god. nobody can show dyno plots of his existence.

btw, I had sex with angelina jolie. I dont need to prove it to you. the only proof I need is that I did it.

 

[threadjack]
Details on gutted IM? I have die grinder & carbide bit begging to be used...
[/threadjack]

 

I think ZX-Tex did it. It basically convinced me that it's not worth it.

Does anyone have charts of Paul's Machine before/after gutting his IM?

 

he threw a BEGi Intake manifold on it:

 

this is an interesting thread. I have a 2871 with a .68AR. The top end is a little lacking, but it makes monster torque numbers at a really low rpm. At 14psi it makes 320ft/lbs at 4000. you can tell it really starts to run out of effeciency on the top end as HP really stops climbing at about 6200 rpm. I've wanted to try the larger AR or maybe a bigger turbo, but I've found what I have suits my needs really well. It probably could be better, but the devil you know is better than the one you don't...

 

Get a IM for it and see that top end come up. The one BMC is coming out with is looking mucho nice-o