Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats. (https://www.miataturbo.net/)
-   Dynos and timesheets (https://www.miataturbo.net/dynos-timesheets-21/)
-   -   GT2554R Record??? leads to a run of the mill EFR build (https://www.miataturbo.net/dynos-timesheets-21/gt2554r-record-leads-run-mill-efr-build-87880/)

Braineack 05-17-2016 11:49 AM

these micro-aggression against the 1.6L have to stop. The 1.6L can self-identify as a 1.8L if it wants to; displacement is fluid.

aidandj 05-17-2016 11:50 AM

:rofl:

sigd

18psi 05-17-2016 11:51 AM

should we have a trans-displacement section?

don't be a discriminating bigot

aidandj 05-17-2016 02:51 PM

The butthurt is real over there.
Out of respect for Greg's channel I don't want to troll too much. But it's hard not to.

1993z32 05-17-2016 03:38 PM


Originally Posted by aidandj (Post 1332321)
The butthurt is real over there.
Out of respect for Greg's channel I don't want to troll too much. But it's hard not to.

Troll away, lol. Sometimes I like to watch people duke it out in the comments since I usually restrain from saying things that could bite me later. If people are being absolutely ridiculous like that guy and using personal attacks I usually just delete the comment and block them if they return. Not that I want to be a dictator of the comments, but because it just adds nothing. I want the comment section to be somewhere people can browse for more information on the video, not see useless hatred and name calling.

Girz0r 05-17-2016 04:07 PM

So to take away anything from all of this... Not 276?

Braineack 05-17-2016 04:13 PM

Yes 276, it was a fucking Dynojet

aidandj 05-17-2016 04:15 PM

Add a 3" exhaust and get another 300rpm of spool

18psi 05-17-2016 04:19 PM


Originally Posted by Girz0r (Post 1332341)
So to take away anything from all of this... Not 276?


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1332343)
Yes to 76 it was a f****** Dyno jet

Yah, with a 110 trap basically it's close enough for us to stop arguing about it.

1993z32 05-17-2016 04:28 PM


Originally Posted by 18psi (Post 1332347)
Yah, with a 110 trap basically it's close enough for us to stop arguing about it.

THANK youuuu. I'm totally jazzed on having a "250-270whp depending on who you ask and how it was tested" 1.6L.

Girz0r 05-17-2016 04:32 PM

Congratz then Greg :likecat:

aidandj 05-17-2016 04:36 PM

It probably does range between 250 and 270. Cold air does magic for turbos.

LownSlow616 06-01-2016 03:11 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Attachment 172977

stefanst 06-01-2016 08:32 PM

1 Attachment(s)
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1464827528

helly 06-02-2016 04:12 AM

He's too busy eating tacos :-)

aidandj 06-29-2016 12:57 PM

Kaboom


Braineack 06-29-2016 01:00 PM

timing breaks rods.\

he didn't need all that horsepower to beat a c6.

sonofthehill 06-29-2016 01:10 PM

Ouch!
Does this mean I don't need to try and live my life 12 seconds at a time?
I will still try for a 12.99 tonight, hopefully I won't suffer a similar fate.

18psi 06-29-2016 01:20 PM

He shoulda run -8* tapering to -10* to make 650whp on stock rods

shuiend 06-29-2016 01:23 PM

Looks like its time for the 1.8 upgrade and a nice MKTurbo setup.

18psi 06-29-2016 01:25 PM

nonsense. Pretendingtofgt is about to disprove the whole 1.8>1.6 myth

you guyths need to embrace da future

1993z32 06-29-2016 01:32 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1342314)
timing breaks rods.\

he didn't need all that horsepower to beat a c6.

*C5 Z06, and I know. I had planned this day (the 300hp attempt part, not the blown engine) ever since I pulled the trigger on the 2860R a couple months ago, Corvette guy just happened to challenge me at the perfect time so it lined up. It was fun while it lasted and I knew the risk, time to start over!

Braineack 06-29-2016 01:37 PM

VVT.

you're welcome.

1993z32 06-29-2016 01:46 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1342346)
VVT.

you're welcome.

But is it realllllyyyy worth it over a standard BP4W??

Savington 06-29-2016 01:49 PM

As an aside, overboost protection won't cause a total loss in oil pressure. The oil pump is still spinning at ~6000rpm regardless of whether the injectors are on or not. You will lose some pressure briefly, but that's just because the bearings aren't as heavily loaded as they were a split-second beforehand. IOW, hitting overboost didn't break the rod, but ~300whp on a stock bottom end did :party:

1993z32 06-29-2016 02:04 PM


Originally Posted by Savington (Post 1342355)
As an aside, overboost protection won't cause a total loss in oil pressure. The oil pump is still spinning at ~6000rpm regardless of whether the injectors are on or not. You will lose some pressure briefly, but that's just because the bearings aren't as heavily loaded as they were a split-second beforehand. IOW, hitting overboost didn't break the rod, but ~300whp on a stock bottom end did :party:

Yeah I'm not thinking the oil pressure had anything to do with the rod failure, I was thinking going from 235wtq into a full power cut and then back on boost was probably pretty stressful for the rods (rapid changes in torque?) because it developed the ticking sound immediately after that happened. The wording int he video was a little confusing because when I was leaving the dyno we still hadn't figured out what was damaged.

Braineack 06-29-2016 02:45 PM


Originally Posted by 1993z32 (Post 1342354)
But is it realllllyyyy worth it over a standard BP4W??

A standard BP4W isn't going to give you 150rwhp as a base...

18psi 06-29-2016 03:25 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1342383)
A standard BP4W isn't going to give you 150rwhp as a base...

4w is a z3 or 6d with slightly less midrange
it will make same power

there is nothing wrong with starting with a 4w

Braineack 06-29-2016 04:46 PM

nothing wrong except that's it's missing out on a bucket full of mid-range and no extra top end (especially once you bolt up a square top) -- out of the box.

If youre going to do a motor swap, do it right.

Savington 06-29-2016 05:01 PM

It really does make a huge, huge difference between 3000 and 4000rpm. I've posted charts comparing them before, since I had the same 2871R setup on a BP4W and a BP6D head. Especially with larger turbos, the difference is dramatic.

18psi 06-29-2016 05:32 PM


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1342417)
nothing wrong except that's it's missing out on a bucket full of mid-range and no extra top end (especially once you bolt up a square top) -- out of the box.

If youre going to do a motor swap, do it right.

midrange yes.
topend same.
get your NB knowledge straight, old timer

:giggle:

nitrodann 06-29-2016 07:11 PM


Originally Posted by Savington (Post 1342421)
It really does make a huge, huge difference between 3000 and 4000rpm. I've posted charts comparing them before, since I had the same 2871R setup on a BP4W and a BP6D head. Especially with larger turbos, the difference is dramatic.

Im personally limiting the power of even 2560r cars in that range due to drivetrain reliability and traction. In what scenario is having even more than a 2560r on a BP4W worth it (300 odd ftlb)? Autocross with a built everything huge huge wing and slicks?

Dann

18psi 06-29-2016 07:27 PM

more? probably not. but having 300tq when running good tires and 3.6 final drive is pretty cool

codrus 06-29-2016 07:32 PM


Originally Posted by 1993z32 (Post 1342361)
Yeah I'm not thinking the oil pressure had anything to do with the rod failure, I was thinking going from 235wtq into a full power cut and then back on boost was probably pretty stressful for the rods (rapid changes in torque?)

Nah, the rod sees larger compressive load changes every other crank rotation because it's a 4-stroke. A power stroke is maximum compressive load, an intake stroke is maximum tensile load (worst when pulling against a vacuum in the manifold).

--Ian

aidandj 06-29-2016 07:39 PM

I think the boost cut was just coincidence. And it was doomed anyways.

1993z32 06-30-2016 11:59 AM


Originally Posted by aidandj (Post 1342448)
I think the boost cut was just coincidence. And it was doomed anyways.

Just odd that it's been putting down roughly 240wtq for a year, and it was only making 230-235 all day, and after a very abrupt OBP limit it was game over. But it's anyone's guess really. I'm interested to see what the other 3 rods look like.

18psi 06-30-2016 12:22 PM

Like most of the members on this site, they likely aren't straight ;)

1993z32 06-30-2016 12:23 PM


Originally Posted by 18psi (Post 1342596)
Like most of the members on this site, they likely aren't straight ;)

Ahhhhh where's the drumset emoji when I need it most :laugh:

codrus 06-30-2016 12:26 PM


Originally Posted by 1993z32 (Post 1342593)
Just odd that it's been putting down roughly 240wtq for a year, and it was only making 230-235 all day, and after a very abrupt OBP limit it was game over. But it's anyone's guess really. I'm interested to see what the other 3 rods look like.

Where did you have the redline set? Did you rev it higher when upping the boost? Ever miss a shift and hit 2nd instead of 4th?

AIUI, most rods fail in tension (that's where they're weakest), usually at high-RPM with vacuum in the intake manifold (maximum tensile load), and it's not unusual for something that weakens a rod to result in it a seemingly random failure days or weeks later.

FWIW, my stock motor had arrow-striaght rods when I took it apart, with 50K boosted miles on it, much of those at 250-260 rwtq.

--Ian

1993z32 06-30-2016 12:50 PM


Originally Posted by codrus (Post 1342598)
Where did you have the redline set? Did you rev it higher when upping the boost? Ever miss a shift and hit 2nd instead of 4th?

AIUI, most rods fail in tension (that's where they're weakest), usually at high-RPM with vacuum in the intake manifold (maximum tensile load), and it's not unusual for something that weakens a rod to result in it a seemingly random failure days or weeks later.

FWIW, my stock motor had arrow-striaght rods when I took it apart, with 50K boosted miles on it, much of those at 250-260 rwtq.

--Ian

Yeah it definitely saw a few flashes of unsafe RPM in its day, mostly due to times when the flatshift was being temperamental and I'd get a nice little 7700rpm overrev despite the limiter being at 7300. The engine has been through a LOT. I was just thinking the OBP was the straw that broke the camel's back, because the ticking sound developed immediately afterwards, and it was loudest right by where the rod exited, making me think it might have been bent enough to be tapping the bottom of the cylinder wall?

Forrest95M 06-30-2016 10:38 PM

TLDR: are you still rocking the 2.5" exhaust?

1993z32 07-01-2016 12:24 PM


Originally Posted by Forrest95M (Post 1342732)
TLDR: are you still rocking the 2.5" exhaust?

Yes, catless + straight pipe.

18psi 07-01-2016 12:48 PM

that is definitely one of the reasons you couldn't make 300

LownSlow616 07-01-2016 12:50 PM

Didnt you buy a gt2560 as well as the gt28? Why didn't you end up going for 300 with the 2560?

1993z32 07-02-2016 08:44 PM

Alright WHO CHANGED MY THREAD TITLE :magna:

shuiend 07-02-2016 09:18 PM


Originally Posted by 1993z32 (Post 1343196)
Alright WHO CHANGED MY THREAD TITLE :magna:

You just now noticed? I did that like the day you blew the motor.

1993z32 07-02-2016 09:36 PM


Originally Posted by shuiend (Post 1343200)
You just now noticed? I did that like the day you blew the motor.

Speak of the devil. Hey thanks for the sticky cats in the mail, I did a little unboxing video on my other channel saying thanks and linking mkt and mt. We will spread the knowledge!

aidandj 07-02-2016 09:52 PM


Originally Posted by 1993z32 (Post 1343205)
Speak of the devil. Hey thanks for the sticky cats in the mail, I did a little unboxing video on my other channel saying thanks and linking mkt and mt. We will spread the knowledge!

Oh god. Keep them away...

thumpetto007 07-02-2016 10:02 PM

Wait, you couldn't hit 300whp? lol.

I'm glad I listened to these guys and bought the 2001 1.8VVT with flat top.

shuiend 07-02-2016 11:11 PM


Originally Posted by 1993z32 (Post 1343205)
Speak of the devil. Hey thanks for the sticky cats in the mail, I did a little unboxing video on my other channel saying thanks and linking mkt and mt. We will spread the knowledge!

Just watched the video. It was pretty good. Enjoy the stickers.

1993z32 07-03-2016 01:32 AM


Originally Posted by thumpetto007 (Post 1343209)
I'm glad I listened to these guys and bought the 2001 1.8VVT with flat top.


I'll add your vote to the "VVT is worth it" ballot.

Savington 07-03-2016 04:00 AM

1 Attachment(s)
BP4W was an 83.5mm bottom end, stock BP4W head/cams, ABSURDflow manifold/DP, GT2871R 52-trim 0.86a/r, VICS manifold.
VVT was an 84mm bottom end, stock BP6D head/cams, same turbo setup, Blox B18 Honda IM.

Three runs on 100 octane, one run on E85.

VVT > *

Attachment 232012

Braineack 07-03-2016 09:23 AM

yeah but look at that bump at 4500. Not a bad place to start :jerkit:

.one lane 07-03-2016 02:36 PM

TIL... I need VVT in my life.

dasting 07-06-2016 09:26 PM


Originally Posted by Savington (Post 1343253)
BP4W was an 83.5mm bottom end, stock BP4W head/cams, ABSURDflow manifold/DP, GT2871R 52-trim 0.86a/r, VICS manifold.
VVT was an 84mm bottom end, stock BP6D head/cams, same turbo setup, Blox B18 Honda IM.

Three runs on 100 octane, one run on E85.

VVT > *

Why no VVT enabled, stock IM, 14 psi run? How much of the low end bump, if any, would you attribute to the Blox? (not familiar with it, though I'd guess its short runners are better for upper revs anyway)

I'm a VVT convert, have one in my '96. Just curious.

Savington 07-07-2016 04:45 PM


Originally Posted by dasting (Post 1344387)
Why no VVT enabled, stock IM, 14 psi run?

Blew up my built BP4W, replaced it with a built BP6D but my first dyno session was without VVT. This was way back in 2010 when MS didn't do VVT and I had to figure out how to make my AEM Series 1 box do it (with Jason and Julian's help).


How much of the low end bump, if any, would you attribute to the Blox? (not familiar with it, though I'd guess its short runners are better for upper revs anyway)
Good guess. I would attribute about 0% of the low-end bump to the Blox. You can actually see the small dip at 4500rpm where the Blox doesn't work as well as the OEM VICS manifold did. This was before the days of Squaretop popularity so I didn't have one of those to test. The Blox did me no favors on the bottom end, but the VVT more than made up for it.

Girz0r 07-12-2016 05:05 PM


Originally Posted by 1993z32 (Post 1342354)
But is it realllllyyyy worth it over a standard BP4W??


Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 1342383)
A standard BP4W isn't going to give you 150rwhp as a base...


Originally Posted by Forrest95M (Post 1342732)
TLDR: are you still rocking the 2.5" exhaust?


Originally Posted by 18psi (Post 1342830)
that is definitely one of the reasons you couldn't make 300


Originally Posted by 1993z32 (Post 1343205)
Speak of the devil. Hey thanks for the sticky cats :likecat: in the mail, I did a little unboxing video on my other channel saying thanks and linking mkt and mt. We will spread the knowledge!


Originally Posted by aidandj (Post 1343208)
Oh god. Keep them away...


Originally Posted by .one lane (Post 1343316)
TIL... I need VVT in my life.



So hopefully MS3, 3" exhaust, VVT will be learnt.. Yes? :naughty:

CalebMars 07-12-2016 08:40 PM

What's a guy got to do to get a forged 1.8 build thread started in this biatch?

1993z32 07-12-2016 09:01 PM


Originally Posted by Girz0r (Post 1345764)
So hopefully MS3, 3" exhaust, VVT will be learnt.. Yes? :naughty:

What can I say, I have learned to live by the mt.net bible. Will you all allow one noob question? (It's more of a poll) Research says the VICS manifold out-performs the VTCS manifold even with VTCS deleted. But is it worth paying for a complete VICS manifold and ditching the VTCS manifold I already have? Or is it just a "yeah I definitely felt a difference bro" modification? And is $100 a steal for a complete VICS manifold?

Thanks

aidandj 07-12-2016 09:02 PM

Ditch the VTCS its shit.

$100 is a decent price. Pretty average.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:49 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands