Anyone have a 8.7 motor w/ 99 head and 2560?
This thread delivers in more ways than one lol.
I'm running a 9:1 motor,with FM's log-style mani, 2000 head and tuning towards 15psi. I should be hoping on the dyno within the next month or so, I'll let know with the numbers. Hopefully I'll see 240rwhp/230ftlbs at least, well I'd be happy with that for now.
I'll end up getting a 3'' exhaust and getting Tim's FM/BEGi replacement then shooting for 270/250 or more.
I'm running a 9:1 motor,with FM's log-style mani, 2000 head and tuning towards 15psi. I should be hoping on the dyno within the next month or so, I'll let know with the numbers. Hopefully I'll see 240rwhp/230ftlbs at least, well I'd be happy with that for now.
I'll end up getting a 3'' exhaust and getting Tim's FM/BEGi replacement then shooting for 270/250 or more.
I did 265rwhp/235ftlbs @12psi on my internally stock '94 1.8 with this manifold (2560) and my 3" bellmouth dp, metal core cat, magnaflow. With that nicer head and more boost you will be happy.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
it also depends if we're talking abotu 300whp on a power-*** dynojet or a mustang/DD.
People also seem to forget that the larger AR is less restrictive so it may help spool over 100kpa and will definitely make more power with the less restriction up top. However you're Tim's longer-runner manifold (turbo header) might benefit from velocity considerations and respond well to a smaller AR and a clipped turbine wheel. Then again, I'm talking out of my ***.
You need to pick how much power you want on which dyno, look at compressor and turbine maps and that will make your decision.
People also seem to forget that the larger AR is less restrictive so it may help spool over 100kpa and will definitely make more power with the less restriction up top. However you're Tim's longer-runner manifold (turbo header) might benefit from velocity considerations and respond well to a smaller AR and a clipped turbine wheel. Then again, I'm talking out of my ***.
You need to pick how much power you want on which dyno, look at compressor and turbine maps and that will make your decision.
Reply
0
0
Thread Starter
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,034
Total Cats: 5
From: Incline Village, NV
Paul's '99 headed '94 1.8 2560 w/BEGI cast intake, 70mm TB maxed at 300rwhp @14...17psi only gave him higher IAT's and like 307rwhp, so I'd say the max is right around 300 with that turbo, regardless of TiAL or garrett housing, internal or external WG...this is with the standard A/R 2560 (T2 flanged) obviously. Artie makes similar hp and 265ft-lbs. "instant" spool on both, that is what you get with the 2560...perfect for the street and awesome for the auto-x crew, but if you're a big boy like hustler and Sav and like running on a road course, I'd go with a larger turbo.
it also depends if we're talking abotu 300whp on a power-*** dynojet or a mustang/DD.
People also seem to forget that the larger AR is less restrictive so it may help spool over 100kpa and will definitely make more power with the less restriction up top. However you're Tim's longer-runner manifold (turbo header) might benefit from velocity considerations and respond well to a smaller AR and a clipped turbine wheel. Then again, I'm talking out of my ***.
You need to pick how much power you want on which dyno, look at compressor and turbine maps and that will make your decision.
People also seem to forget that the larger AR is less restrictive so it may help spool over 100kpa and will definitely make more power with the less restriction up top. However you're Tim's longer-runner manifold (turbo header) might benefit from velocity considerations and respond well to a smaller AR and a clipped turbine wheel. Then again, I'm talking out of my ***.
You need to pick how much power you want on which dyno, look at compressor and turbine maps and that will make your decision.
I can like with full bost/power by 4k, anything later i might as well go with a larger turbo and turn my car into a track car. However i still want to drive this on the street for another year while the body is still clean
Thanks for the input guys, keep it comin!
Reply
0
0
I don't know if this would matter but I logged my car once when my MBC was all f'd up and I was pulling 15-16 psi on a god awful tune. It pulled 207kpa by 3300 rpm thats 15psi so going with a larger turbo isn't a bad idea. I was going for a bigger one but the deal I found was convenient to me at the time. I'll be going with Sav's setup in about a year or so from now. So Tim will have the process down to a science by that time :-D.
I'll have to find that log and post it up, unless it was on the comp that crashed, but it might be on my flashdrive lol.
I'll have to find that log and post it up, unless it was on the comp that crashed, but it might be on my flashdrive lol.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
I made 15psi at 3800rpm, 10psi at 3000. If you're going tubular it will spin-up sooner.
I can't compare to a .64 because there are too many variables...but those gays don't make nearly as much torque.
I agree with you on 300whp, its a waste until you learn to drive the car.
I can't compare to a .64 because there are too many variables...but those gays don't make nearly as much torque.
I agree with you on 300whp, its a waste until you learn to drive the car.
Reply
0
0
I think Hustler pretty much has me convinced that the .64 turbine Disco is the way to go with the S4 manifold... that and a 3" exhaust should make 15psi by 3500. The bit of extra efficiency over the 2560 means a bit more power on a bit less boost, which I like.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
in any event, they're 100% interchangable if you decide to be different later.
Reply
0
0
^Yup, but I don't need all the top-end capability of the Disco, so it's a better tradeoff a few % points of efficiency up high and a couple hundred of spool down low to go with the smaller AR. Everybody loves the 2560, but I think a Disco on my planned setup is going to spool better than my old journal bearing T25, so it's an easy choice.
Plus, I've seen used Disco's go for $600 and you can't find used 2560's anywhere except here once in a blue moon. We'll see how BEGi's new v-band stuff comes out and what it costs... that might be some better spool yet with EWG.
Plus, I've seen used Disco's go for $600 and you can't find used 2560's anywhere except here once in a blue moon. We'll see how BEGi's new v-band stuff comes out and what it costs... that might be some better spool yet with EWG.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
sam,
I hit max torque at 4k rpm. Its not all about power up top, its about mid-range torque. I can drop to 3krpm in the slow R-L-R-loooooooooooooooooooong left at MSR and never "wish I had more low-end." Welcome to the world of throttle control. In 3rd gear I can easily embarass myself sub 4-k rpm...demonstrated on a youtube trackday vid.
I hit max torque at 4k rpm. Its not all about power up top, its about mid-range torque. I can drop to 3krpm in the slow R-L-R-loooooooooooooooooooong left at MSR and never "wish I had more low-end." Welcome to the world of throttle control. In 3rd gear I can easily embarass myself sub 4-k rpm...demonstrated on a youtube trackday vid.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
sam,
I hit max torque at 4k rpm. Its not all about power up top, its about mid-range torque. I can drop to 3krpm in the slow R-L-R-loooooooooooooooooooong left at MSR and never "wish I had more low-end." Welcome to the world of throttle control. In 3rd gear I can easily embarass myself sub 4-k rpm...demonstrated on a youtube trackday vid.
I hit max torque at 4k rpm. Its not all about power up top, its about mid-range torque. I can drop to 3krpm in the slow R-L-R-loooooooooooooooooooong left at MSR and never "wish I had more low-end." Welcome to the world of throttle control. In 3rd gear I can easily embarass myself sub 4-k rpm...demonstrated on a youtube trackday vid.
Reply
0
0
Newb
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 15
Total Cats: 0
From: kansas city missouri
Reply
0
0
Newb
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 15
Total Cats: 0
From: kansas city missouri
which turbine housing? The bigger the turbine housing, the more spark angle and more torque subsequently. If some of you california **** drove my car, and wanted 260-330whp (dynodynamics) then you'd all run the DP. However, Savinton and just about everyone else on this forum think you need a tiny turbine because you have this fantasy where 3800rpm is too late to hit 15psi, so you'll never give it a chance.
I think an 8.7 motor will make just as much power from a gt2560 as a 9:1 motor, but it won't make as much torque.
So I'll say you'll make 230whp at 15psi but only 210wtq on a dynodynamics, maybe less torque. Once you drive a stump-puller like mine, you'll never go back to little turbine housings. Then again, all my dyno #'s are with a 2.5" exhaust gasket...in 3" pipe. They're probably scary #'s now.
I think an 8.7 motor will make just as much power from a gt2560 as a 9:1 motor, but it won't make as much torque.
So I'll say you'll make 230whp at 15psi but only 210wtq on a dynodynamics, maybe less torque. Once you drive a stump-puller like mine, you'll never go back to little turbine housings. Then again, all my dyno #'s are with a 2.5" exhaust gasket...in 3" pipe. They're probably scary #'s now.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
elesjuan
Build Threads
7
Nov 3, 2015 01:51 PM
