Savington

iTrader: (31)

I think you're on crack.

Me vs Dave (ft.lbs):

3000rpm: 140 vs. 126
3500rpm: 165 vs. 145
4000rpm: 200 vs 150
4500rpm: 250 vs 180

You want to talk about boost levels? One of the reasons my torque is so much better is because I'm seeing 14psi at 4400rpm, whereas Dave is seeing 10.3psi at 4400rpm - even though I have a larger compressor and the exact same hotside. My manifold helps, but not that much, guys. The damaged wheel hurts him, but I've driven his exact setup - it drives like that dyno graph says it does. Spools very late, comes in very hard.

To review:
-he spools way slower
-the power hits harder (torque rises faster and faster as revs increase, vs a smooth increase like mine) which makes the car harder to drive
-i make more torque everywhere, even with a larger turbo

It's nothing personal at all against him, but it is personal against the 1.6/2860RS .86 combo. It's a bad combo - too little displacement and too much turbo. After driving that 2860RS car, and then riding in another car with a 1.9 liter and a 2860RS, and then driving my car, I've come to the conclusion that anything larger than a 2560R on a 1.6 isn't all that great an idea - larger than a 2560R and you'll spool like crap, and then blow up the motor anyway. If you're building an engine to handle the power, you may as well build a 1.8/1.9, and then you've got the displacement to run a big turbo with good driveability.

Gotpsi?

iTrader: (5)

Ya but yours says corrected flywheel HP his does not. FWHP<RWHP

Splitime

iTrader: (24)

Mine is whp.

As mentioned I have damaged turbine goodness in there.

I am on Scotts old timing maps and a simple fuel tune. Nothing really tuned.

I am also running a turbo manifold with runner sized for like 600whp+ big turbo builds... annoyed with that from time to time, but it feels great on track so who cares?

I am also running a good amount less boost... on a 100% stock 1.6L.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

You guys honestly think I'm stupid enough to compare a FWHP to a WHP chart? My chart is WHP too. Ignore the stupid viewing program.

It doesn't matter how much boost you're running - running less boost doesn't change the fact that you don't get to 10psi until 4400rpm. The turbo is too big for the motor, in my opinion. You're better off building a 1.8 to take advantage of the headroom of a turbo like that, or running a 2560 because on a stock 1.6, you can make enough power on a 2560 to blow it up anyway.

tyson87

iTrader: (6)

i use a 2854 and i get 12lbs at 3900rpm on a stock 1.6

shlammed

iTrader: (8)

what if you ran something like flatshift on the 1.6 to keep it in boost between shifts?

UrbanSoot

iTrader: (24)

it wont make THAT much difference but it should help a little bit. i dont think it will be significant enough because it doesnt change powerband

shlammed

iTrader: (8)

it wouldnt change the poweband, it woudl just assist in keeping it alot more driveable for road racing style driving.
would keep you at the max power for that rpm because your still at or close to max boost.

upgrading to a 1.8 makes sense but sometimes people have strange goals.

Gotpsi?

iTrader: (5)

[QUOTE=Savington;451144]You guys honestly think I'm stupid enough to compare a FWHP to a WHP chart? My chart is WHP too. Ignore the stupid viewing program.

I was actually quite surprised but thanks for clarifying.

nufi

So, i speak with the seller and he change the turbo for the GT25 (BALL BEARING)
0.60 A/R
TURBINE: .49 A/R
TRIM: 55

Witch my new future setup what can i expected ? ( the best results in yours opnions)
If yours know a identic setup , tell me know


Ps.
He dont have with .60 A/R :(

Savington

iTrader: (31)

With that .49 A/R, it's anyone's guess. 200whp? 220whp, MAYBE? If you must purchase from that seller, then I'd say go for it, and purchase a .64 A/R housing from someone else. The wheels are the same between the various A/Rs so they should all swap right in.

What country are you from?

nufi

but i think is spool very fast and early no ?

Savington

iTrader: (31)

It would spool pretty quickly, yeah. The .64 A/R turbine would still be a better option.

Techsalvager

the T3 looks interesting, of course you probably need either an adapter or new manifold\redone manifold
but here is some data on spool
https://www.miataturbo.net/forum/t26641/
first post has a T3 I'm guessing but don't know for sure that looks somewhat like the turbo in the first post.
Of course I take it also comes down to alot of other variables in the setup, piping, exhaust, etc

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

You'd want a 60 trim T3 with a Stage I .48 A/R turbine, that would be comparable with a journal bearing 2860 with a .63 A/R more or less.