Turbo installed. Lasted 4 days. Threw a rod.
it would actually be exaggerated over those, since it's probably 10-12% lower than a dynojet reading.
but what you really need to plot against is the torque; which would show how much it's spiking over the "norm" albiet those plots are from 2007-08
but what you really need to plot against is the torque; which would show how much it's spiking over the "norm" albiet those plots are from 2007-08
That makes sense. I was wondering how it was making so many mad torques.
EDIT:
Brain, Do you know all the specifics of that old chart comparing the 3 turbos?
I saved it a while ago but didnt name it properly so I dont remember if its a B6 or BP, etc.
EDIT:
Brain, Do you know all the specifics of that old chart comparing the 3 turbos?
I saved it a while ago but didnt name it properly so I dont remember if its a B6 or BP, etc.
How is the lowend THAT much stronger than other small turbo setups? Weren't there some questions about what turbo is actually on the car? Could it be something so tiny that it really is just choking out?
Last edited by pdexta; Sep 10, 2014 at 03:52 PM.
Now take the torque curve and boost curve and it all makes a lot more sense.
The car made noticeably less torque with a flat torque curve, and even with a "slight" hump didn't get near matching the figures it currently runs.
IAT's remained mid 40degrees at the end of a long pull too.
The car made noticeably less torque with a flat torque curve, and even with a "slight" hump didn't get near matching the figures it currently runs.
IAT's remained mid 40degrees at the end of a long pull too.
So it drops from about 13psi at its peak down to about 7psi in the top end. That's quite a dropoff. I guess you aren't going to blow anything up at 7psi with a tiny turbo at the top of the rev range. That is a very unusual boost plot and is why everyone was worried as hell. If the boost curve had been 13psi to redline with that torque curve then you would have been in serious trouble, but as it is it is just an amusing quirk.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,146
Total Cats: 1,087
From: Lake Forest, CA
You have a '99 head IIRC, 3" exhaust, and perhaps more aggressive timing?
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,146
Total Cats: 1,087
From: Lake Forest, CA
... different dynos, different places/elevation/humidity?
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,146
Total Cats: 1,087
From: Lake Forest, CA
I think the designation for this turbo would be "T-to small". It looks like a TD03-9b or there about in size.
Keith
That is because his turbo is WAYYYYY out of it's efficiency islands even making 8 psi at 6800. If the OP turned the boost down to 5 psi peak, it would make what we consider a "normal" looking graph and peak around 150 WHP on a dynojet.
I think the designation for this turbo would be "T-to small". It looks like a TD03-9b or there about in size.
Keith
I think the designation for this turbo would be "T-to small". It looks like a TD03-9b or there about in size.
Keith
fortunately, that's not the case at all.
because a 15g and T3 Super 60 isn't a small turbo. The 2554 setup was a very mild, untuned, build as well.








