Braineack

iTrader: (62)

yes, it completely normal for 1.6L motors to make **** power.

it's also normal for dynapack dynos to read 10-15% lower than the dynojet you probably dynoed on.


hey remember that time i said it's probably boost drop? that was cool.


Are you suggesting that his turbo is so small it can barely support 150rwhp at 7psi? Even considering that 150rwhp on a dynapack on a 1.6L is a very common number on almost ever sized turbo thrown at it?

Twodoor

iTrader: (2)

I am saying that I don't think he has a 2554. He doesn't seem to clear on the issue, and I think he has something smaller than the 2554.

Braineack, I really want pictures of his turbo, so we can see if it is really a 2554. I specified that it looks like a TD03 9b because that turbo would only support around 150 WHP on a 1.6. This would explain the boost drop, and the low power. I dynoed a 3000GT on stock 9b turbos (3.0 liter with twin 9b's) on a dynapack dyno and had the same boost drop with a MBC sourced on the intake manifold.

Keith

18psi

iTrader: (76)

Oh I see what you're getting at. I wouldn't be surprised. I mean it took us 4+ pages to get basic info from OP, it will be another 20 before we actually have his turbo's specs.


By the time we get all the information about this car/build/setup, ND's will be stanced clubricer rust buckets and we will be waiting for the NZ unveiling.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Here's raw rota-dyno numbers from Shueinds last dyno with his SR20 T25 on his 1.8L




and and here's one of my dynos:

Horton

My car is a 1.8 by the way.

I'll get a picture of the turbo

Twodoor

iTrader: (2)

Holly ****!

Looking at the results, everyone was thinking it was a 1.6 even though you probably already said it was a 1.8

Now I am even more convinced he has a tiny turbo smaller than a 2554... or the blades are bent to ****.

Keith

Horton

Here's the only pic on my phone showing the turbo. I'll get a better one when I can be bothered to go to the garage.

The blades all look fine and there is no evidence of any damage to the blades or the housing. There's minimal radial play and no in or out play at all.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

looks like a 2554 to me, so explain the similar power output as the one I compared it to.

concealer404

iTrader: (3)

Just how bad is this exhaust, exactly?

Fireindc

iTrader: (13)

Edit: I haz the dumb. What boost control are you using? Is the wastegate tight?

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Indeed, 5 psi begi basic, very little timing, no intercooler, no MAT sensor, stock exhaust, 100 degree weather.

turbofan

iTrader: (1)

...on what?

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

That was the first run i did with my car when i first installed the begi kit.

albumleaf

iTrader: (7)

So.. did this one ever get sorted out? I think I actually have a similar problem

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Could be the angle, but the intake cam looks advanced in the pic in post 227. That would explain all of his issues.

�kos Radics

Hi,

i see this is a quite old thread,but did it ever been solved? I got into similar situation with a turbo 1.6. Car ran great,put put 235 to the crank,TQ was kept below 300Nm (~ 1 bar peak boost). Car ran fine,but after the owner took it home and made "some launch control sessions for the pals",ticking noise was coming from engine. After dissasembly,the rods were bent,they needed to be replaced.

I am not as experienced as the tuner of the car in this post,but i tuned lots of cars from NA to supercharded/turboed cars,low power to 600+. I had never have any issues with launch control on any cars,except this 1.6 miata.
After this car,i tell every miata owner to be cautious on the launch control.

So,i am after a logical solution,what happened,how could be the rods overstessed by launch control,whereas other cars does not have issues like this.I personally had the feeling, internet rumours about stock rod safe limit was not correct and the rods simply could not handle more than the double TQ they were designed for,but after reading this post,i feel we just fell into the same situation as Horton did.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

My guess is overboost because of -30 degrees of timing as soon as launch control goes back to normal timing.

�kos Radics

In my case,overboost protections was set to 1.1 bar,so it is unlikely. Yesterday i did some search,found similar case on a supra where 5 rods were bent from launch control. My bet is,its not the launch control which is the issue,but the hard launch. I mean engine is at full boost,and when the clutch is released,the power is instantly jumping up,but it needs to move the car,so the rods are momentarily overstressed.

Also found some VAG 1.8T cases,where the rods were bent due to launch control. I know these rods are weak anyway and can bend with any more torque than 350-400Nm. I also had one of these engines and i bent the rods with mid size turbo and big torque low down. I was running E85,so definiately no knock occured.

Full_Tilt_Boogie

iTrader: (1)

Ive got nothing. But I enjoyed reading through this old thread. I even found a new signature.

DNMakinson

iTrader: (3)

I would not say Launch Control per se, but possibly implementation. Since you mention full boost at clutch release, are we talking about extreme retarded anti-lag type settings? Then you're getting everything hot, so detonation can become an issue.

From an article about setting up all the pops and bangs type Launch Control:

"Now before I scare you too much, let me say that like all things, this only happens if it is abused. Be sure to not stay on the 2step limiter too much. I suggest to people to never be on the 2step longer than two seconds. This way the exhaust pressures and temperature never build up for too long. As long as 2step is set up properly and not abused you will be fine. The times where I hear of it becoming a problem, is with owners that think all the loud popping and backfiring is so cool, that they do it all the time for long periods of time, and then are all confused why the motor blew."

Just a thought. DNM