Hey cool man, I'm about to turn 21 as well. I've had my car since I turned 16.

Isn't it amazing how much we seem to have done already? Not just with cars but with life?

Give yourself a pat on the back and a quick blow job:jerkit:
You're THAT AWESOME.:loser:

If I was that awesome, I wouldn't waste time on this fucking board. Let alone driving. Where could I possibly have to go?

:D lol

With his 6spd and 4.1FD I doubt he sees any <4.5krpm on track.

270 flywheel power? Damn, I made already 250 on a Superflow with oem cat and restrictive 2.x" catback.

No.

279 WHEEL horsepower. (even though that stupid dyno screen shot doesn't say so)

shit, 100 more whp than me. Its time for some MSM cams and a new mani, plz.

Still in love, btw.

I'm starting to think so too, and the Throttle body being too small...especially seeing how his HP drops...that should stay climbing. Sav's running the stock '94 intake/tb right? EDIT: sorry I see on his pics it's a newer head. Hmmmm....how do dynapack #'s compare to dynojet #'s?

I wouldn't have 20,000 posts if I was awesome.


and fwiw, 280rwhp at 14psi = waeksuace!

dynapack and dynodynamics read 12% lower in my experience. Everyone keeps comparing paul and artie's dyno to this one and mine...after you factor in the 12%, it looks like we're hitting a wall somewhere. There is definitely a wall and its not the turbo, not the housings, not the exhaust, not the manifold...I wonder what else it could be?

Maybe not fiberglass, but there's carbon-kevlar scuba tanks out there. Just get one and put a TB and some runners on and... oh baby.

did you test the vics closed to at least see if you were giving away low end for free?

brad gained 30 rwtq at redline with his BEGi IM on his 1.6L:

http://www.boostedmiata.com/brads/Dy...e_after_IM.jpg

and lost 25 rwtq at 4500....

didn't someone around here say something about variable boost?

that could be a function of his EBC tables, we need to get him rocking a good mbc.

Matt,
Variable intake geometry is where it's at. Ok, so the stocker's are restrictive being designed for 35 hp/cyl not 80...

Absolutely, there's a flow issue. One could certainly buy 3 more MAP sensors, put one on each side of the intercooler, each side of the throttle... I guess you don't even need that, just some jars filled with water like a El Cheapo carb balancer... You should be able to pick out where your losses are.

Obviously you could machine out your TB or just put a mustang one on as a place to start. If you don't see a big improvement you're barking up the wrong tree.

The obvious other place to look is head work - that's what the non-turbo world does when they want more flow. Certainly my car was a lot stronger with it than without.

Nothing wrong with a little pride. I like setting the bar higher for myself.

Same to you ---- rag.

If one has an intake manifold with a mustang TB flange, it should be very simple to make an adapter plate to bolt on a factory TB to see what harm that makes. It would have to be done at the dyno day, cause no one is going to pay for a dyno session to see what the loss is going to a smaller TB.

I think Travis was talking about it on a m.t thread which I did not subscribe to, lost it. Anyway, the idea would be to raise the boost level at higher RPMs to offset the torque loss due to high-RPM flow losses, and flatten out the torque curve. With an EBC (and enough turbo overhead) this is pretty easy to do. I had been wondering about this approach myself a few months ago.