EVO3 16g dyno results

[pboglio]

Jayrolla,

Yeah, and thats why I use a dynojet
Looks like your making some serious power on E85, can't wait to convert over myself.

[JayRolla]

Originally Posted by Artago

So.... then it's way way way off? I'm confused

Edit: Or are you saying it's close to a dynojet dyno but way off a load bearing dyno like mustang dyno?

Yea, I dynoed on a Dyno Dynamics All Wheel Drive. The heartbreaker of all dynos. Over 20 dsms dynoed that day with monstor turbos and the highest was 580whp.

Originally Posted by pboglio

Jayrolla,

Yeah, and thats why I use a dynojet
Looks like your making some serious power on E85, can't wait to convert over myself.

Ohh its fun stuff. I have some cams to through in but need to get the springs and retainers and actually get off my but and do the work. Hopefully 400+whp on a dynojet after that. Anbd then I cant wait to get an hx35 hangin on my head.

[jestoy7]

Very good thread and congrats on meeting your goal! If you were to do it all over again and stay on pump/race gas, would you have gone with the 660s? I'm working towards a similar setup and I have not made a decision on cams (264 or 272) and injectors (660 or 780s). Definately ECMLink V3 to tune.

[pboglio]

780's for sure, cause 660's on pump gas are near 100% duty cycle at about 400 w.h.p.

The cams and intake manifold go hand in hand. The HKS 264's are a great midrange cam, but I didn't see huge topend increases until I matched it up to a shorter runner intake manifold (EVO3 intake manifold). If I was unsure, I'd go 264 intake cam and 272 exhaust cam.

[romeen]

Gene, just curious why you shimmed the wastegate? Was it blowing open from the exhaust pressure alone? With the Blitz EBC there is a gain adjustment which affects how soon the WG begins to open relative to the target boost. The HKS probably has a similar feature.

[jestoy7]

THanks, Gene. I will be running the EVO3 intake manifold and it sounded like you were moving on to 272/272. It sounds like you were happy with the 264/272 but now want to shift your curve over and the 272 intake will achieve that, correct?

[pboglio]

Originally Posted by romeen

Gene, just curious why you shimmed the wastegate? Was it blowing open from the exhaust pressure alone? With the Blitz EBC there is a gain adjustment which affects how soon the WG begins to open relative to the target boost. The HKS probably has a similar feature.

I'm running the old school HKS EVC, the one I bought in 1993 for my 1g. I shimmed it because the EVO3 actuators have a 9 psi cracking pressure, which is way to soft for 22-25 psi. It hits harder with the shim, and I was able to hold 1 psi more on the topend. Old trick I learned 15 years back on my small 16g. There is a limit to the shimming and I've got "Jusmx141" being nice enough working on a 20 psi holset actuator for my EVO3 16g. I have no doubt that mod alone will push me over the 400 w.h.p. barrier. The gains my buddy saw when we shimmed/adjusted his EVO 9 turbo picked up about 30 ft/lbs midrange, and that turbo comes with a 13 psi spring from what we could measure.

Originally Posted by jestoy7

THanks, Gene. I will be running the EVO3 intake manifold and it sounded like you were moving on to 272/272. It sounds like you were happy with the 264/272 but now want to shift your curve over and the 272 intake will achieve that, correct?

Good for you, the EVO3 intake manifold made my topend go ballistic, and killed my clutch too. I'm on HKS 264's and I bought the Kelford 272's which flow more like HKS 280's. It will probably shift the power to the right but as it stands I have way more torque than I need at the moment anyways.

[RipperXX]

Originally Posted by DSMunknown

That's a beautiful curve. Just getting rid of the MAF is gonna bump the HP level significantly. Bout time you got on an actual dyno and confirmed your findings.

And here's a "Hell yeah!" to clocking the 16G. Hell yeah!

I disagree at least with the "significantly" part. 5-8 whp I can buy but I wouldn't call that "significant". I have had and used a GM MAFT setup, I went back to a 2G MAS. I didn't have any major problems with it, except for the tune was never consistent enough for my liking. Going back to a factory MAS, the car starts easier and seems to run a little better.


Now I am not saying on a car with a big ass turbo, there wouldn't be more of a gain from the GM MAFT, but I think on anything smaller than a 20g, it's not needed at all. Just my opinion which is biased on what I have observed.

[toofast82]

Originally Posted by RipperXX

I disagree at least with the "significantly" part. 5-8 whp I can buy but I wouldn't call that "significant". I have had and used a GM MAFT setup, I went back to a 2G MAS. I didn't have any major problems with it, except for the tune was never consistent enough for my liking. Going back to a factory MAS, the car starts easier and seems to run a little better.


Now I am not saying on a car with a big ass turbo, there wouldn't be more of a gain from the GM MAFT, but I think on anything smaller than a 20g, it's not needed at all. Just my opinion which is biased on what I have observed.

They are talking about switching to speed density, not maft.
Maf-t is notorious for a "wandering tune" that you are describing.

[RipperXX]

Originally Posted by toofast82

They are talking about switching to speed density, not maft.
Maf-t is notorious for a "wandering tune" that you are describing.

O.... well carry on then.

[Project90Talon]

Very nice, you're definitely putting what you have to good use. Keep it up.

[pboglio]

I've been trying to figure out why after installing a certain aftermarket compressor inlet pipe, which is the one that dynoed 384 w.h.p., why I'm seeing only 41 lb/min max airflow on the logger. I had thought perhaps the radically different size intake pipe may have thrown the MAF calibration off, which is very typical for different sized MAF airfilter adapters like the HKS vs. K&N, so I assumed the same thing was going on here and thought nothing of it.

Typically I would see on my 2.25" dia RRE compressor inlet pipe a max of about 43-44 lb/min. Well, I got bored and tossed this intake pipe onto the CAD system and ran a CFD anlaysis comparing it to my cheapy RRE inlet pipe and was quite shocked. The datalogs backed up what the CFD anlaysis showed. The difference between pipes was about 0.7 psi loss difference, which is roughly the 5% difference I'm missing in airflow (i.e. 41 lb/min vs. 43-44 lb/min).

I have the 20 psi wastegate actuator coming in and will post up a log with that, then I'll post up a log with the RRE 2.25" compressor intake pipe back on. Hopefully I I'll pick up the topend airflow I've been missing.

[RipperXX]

Your comparing intake pipes? Can you post pics of both pipes?

[pboglio]

Right now I have 4 different types of intake pipes I've tested. My testing has shown the ebay special 3" aluminum "injen" knockoff to be the highest flowing, I picked up 0.5 lb/min more airflow over my RRE 2.25" pipe, but I don't run it cause its a touch too long and it heatsoaks like crazy. To fit good it would have to be chopped in half, a good 2" straight section cut out, then rewelded 360*. I may do that and get it bead blasted cause it is a nice cast piece.

The other two flow far far worse (4" dia and 2.75" dia) and are from very big name companies, which I don't want to mention.

I already have on the drawing board a compressor inlet design that on the CFD simulation is beating out the 3" injen by a good margin, which already is the best I've ever physically tested and datalogged. Its very simple design, but since I'm going speed density I can optimize it for the bare minimum pressure loss. This is what I meant by "tricks"

At some point, you have to do things yourself to get the most out of the turbo.

[UofACATS]

Would you say it's fair to assume the smaller inlet of the turbo makes the larger intake (such as the popular 4" one) actually less efficient, not because of the in-efficiency of the intake itself, but because of the mismatched nature of the two? This could be because of the transition coupler which reduces the 4" size to 2.25" in a couple inches, right as air is entering the wheel, could cause significant disruption. (..Just my knee-jerk reaction.)

It's nice to see this testing done, thank you.

<- has seen the evo316G light

[pboglio]

^^^^Exactly. The coupler goes from 4" to 2.25" in less than 1". To be fair, it was never designed for a 16g, just the bigger inlet turbos.

On a speed density setup without the MAF taking up all the room, you could simply weld in a 3-5" long converging nozzle to the end of the 4" intake pipe and it would become a fantastic flowing pipe, almost exactly as free flowing as a straight 4" pipe.

[turbotalon1g]

Originally Posted by RipperXX

I disagree at least with the "significantly" part. 5-8 whp I can buy but I wouldn't call that "significant". I have had and used a GM MAFT setup, I went back to a 2G MAS. I didn't have any major problems with it, except for the tune was never consistent enough for my liking. Going back to a factory MAS, the car starts easier and seems to run a little better.


Now I am not saying on a car with a big ass turbo, there wouldn't be more of a gain from the GM MAFT, but I think on anything smaller than a 20g, it's not needed at all. Just my opinion which is biased on what I have observed.

You forgot to mention that 3 out of the 4 TB bolts on your car were lose, basically finger tight and that you refused to boost leak test your car when we were trying to diagnose your tune issues and you wouldnt listenwhen your O2 was obviously bad also.

These both "skew" your review of the GM MAFT, a piece that I have never really cared for anyway.

I picked up a huge gain going from a stock diameter intake to the FP 4" I think that I picked up psi and spool up not to mention top end.

[RipperXX]

Originally Posted by turbotalon1g

You forgot to mention that 3 out of the 4 TB bolts on your car were lose, basically finger tight and that you refused to boost leak test your car when we were trying to diagnose your tune issues and you wouldnt listenwhen your O2 was obviously bad also.

These both "skew" your review of the GM MAFT, a piece that I have never really cared for anyway.

I picked up a huge gain going from a stock diameter intake to the FP 4" I think that I picked up psi and spool up not to mention top end.

You have PM concerning this and a few other posts.

Originally Posted by pboglio

Right now I have 4 different types of intake pipes I've tested. My testing has shown the ebay special 3" aluminum "injen" knockoff to be the highest flowing, I picked up 0.5 lb/min more airflow over my RRE 2.25" pipe, but I don't run it cause its a touch too long and it heatsoaks like crazy. To fit good it would have to be chopped in half, a good 2" straight section cut out, then rewelded 360*. I may do that and get it bead blasted cause it is a nice cast piece.

The other two flow far far worse (4" dia and 2.75" dia) and are from very big name companies, which I don't want to mention.

I already have on the drawing board a compressor inlet design that on the CFD simulation is beating out the 3" injen by a good margin, which already is the best I've ever physically tested and datalogged. Its very simple design, but since I'm going speed density I can optimize it for the bare minimum pressure loss. This is what I meant by "tricks"

At some point, you have to do things yourself to get the most out of the turbo.

Would you be willing to post images of the pipes you have tested in the CFD sim? (from good to best)

[pboglio]

^^^Sure I can post some pics up.

I just received my "Jusmx141" 16g 20 psi adjustable wastegate actuator, a big thanks to Jus. Cracking "pressure" with a .120" preload (i.e. 2 shim washer thickness) is right at 19-20 psi. The Mitubishi actuator with .120" preload was at 12 psi cracking pressure. Regarding the spring force rating, I didn't have time to hang weights off the actuator rod end but it is "at least" 50% greater than the Mitsubishi EVOIII 16g wastegate actuator so I have no doubt it'll clamp the internal wastegate tight, testing will show for certain.

I'll post up some pics of the actuator and once I can burn off some more 93 octane, I'll splash in some 118 octane and do some comparative logs.

2 hours later: Got back from doing a run with the "Jus" actuator on. Guys who thought the 16g dropped boost due to compressor inefficiency's I think were wrong BIGTIME. I gunned the motor at 5500 rpms in 2nd gear to get past the "big boost" range of my turbo to avoid knock and the turbo held "WAY BEYOND" 25 psi past 7000 rpms. On the Mitsubishi actuator, I could do the same thing and the boost would plummet to about 19 psi by redline. On the Jusmx141 actuator, I was so far above 25 psi by 7000 rpms my boost gauge peaked out. I will definitely need a high concentration of 118 octane to attempt testing, but I'm expecting in 3rd gear some pretty high boost being held to redline, possibly the same +25 psi I saw in 2nd gear as I can typically hold as much boost in 2nd gear as I can in 3rd. The ignition timing got pulled back so hard, in the past usually I pull +10* timing on pump gas at these boost levels, that I can't comment on power increases, but you can bet if its holding 25 psi out to redline then the power will be there. This isn't the land of pump gas anymore.

The bad news, I blew something. After a couple of high boost pulls, something felt like it let go and the turbo got loud. Checked the radial compressor play, looks tight as the day I bought it. Spins like a ball bearing turbo. Came back and did a hot compression test: 160 psi, 149 psi, 150 psi, 160 psi, not great but not really going to affect power either. Then a leakdown test: 98%, 88%, 90%, 99%. Cylinders read #4,#3,#2, #1. Some of that low reading is always due to carbon deposits, specially on #2, so I'm not extremely worried. However, and thank God for this, I completely blew out the throttlebody gasket, she won't hold more than a couple psi on a static boost leak test. On the car, she'll hit full boost but its not as hard and its weak. Also, the boost leak is causing I'm sure the motor to lose metered air, so she was for sure running pig rich as well. Looks like a new t-body gasket and a little RTV should help out.

[UofACATS]

Originally Posted by pboglio

turbo held "WAY BEYOND" 25 psi past 7000 rpms.

[91stocker]

Do you think you would have seen the same improvement going to an external wg?

[pboglio]

Not sure. I think the external gate could eliminate the boost spikes which would keep the car on the edge of knock. Once you knock just a little, its like a bolder rolling down hill and you can't stop it while in boost at that point. By getting tight control of the wastegate, you can inch up on the boost and ride that knife edge. Then you can start inching up on the ignition timing and leaning the a/f ratios.

If you spike to say 25-28 psi, then drop back down to 20 psi, it's already too late and your knocking like crazy at that point. This is the main advantage of the external gate, perfect control.

Contrary to what people say, more boost isn't better. In some spots I am seeing more power, but I believe also the exhaust side of the turbo is being strangled by having to flow everything thru the turbine wheel.

[91stocker]

thanks, great info
Im already getting bad spikes in the low 20's. Looking to put a stop to that before it becomes a major prob.

Would the modded actuator get the job done as well as an external? I seen some threads on modded actuators. I like the stock appearance.

And do you think that 16g has any more left in it?

[2gGSX]

Originally Posted by pboglio

Contrary to what people say, more boost isn't better. In some spots I am seeing more power, but I believe also the exhaust side of the turbo is being strangled by having to flow everything thru the turbine wheel.

I completely agree, and I think this point is lost on a lot of people. In a small housing, you are going to start dealing with very unfavorable backpressure ratios when you keep cranking the boost up. There's a certain point where it will definitely offset the extra airflow gained and start costing you power.

[pboglio]

As far as holding boost, the modded actuator will hold it like an external. Boost control would require minimal wastegate actuator arm preload, and maybe even some light port work on the wastegate orifice. I think 20 psi spike holding out to 20 psi is very doable, but you'd have to live with 20 psi minimum.

With my "current" hard parts, the 16g is done. There is more in the turbo but it requires a custom compressor intake pipe, bigger j-pipe and compressor outlet porting, and switching to speed density and ditching the MAF. I calculate an increase in compressor airflow of about 14-15%. Then for kicks maybe slap in some VP Import 120 octane for another 5% based on their literature. Then I could see laying down some big numbers.

So, I'm maxxed out, and I'm not maxxed out.

[pboglio]

I thought people might get some useful info out of this. I tried a few things to squeeze more power out of my 16g. With the FP 4" intake pipe, I was flatlining at about 390 w.h.p. (ECMLink) on multiple pulls in the 65-70*F range. This is about 384 w.h.p. on a dynojet for comparison. I slapped on my old Dejon 2.75" intake pipe and bought a very short 3"-2.25" reducer, not completely optimal (because of the coupler NOT the intake pipe) but it was a major improvement. Damned if that intake pipe doesn't look good, chopped about 1.5" off the BOV return pipe and it fit 95% good. Anyhow, car started pulling 400-402 w.h.p. at the same mid 60*F temps. So definitely, the 4"-2.25" reducer hurts topend flow.

Next, I decided to install my Megan full 3" downpipe, open dumped. I currently run a mandrel bent 2.5" downpipe, 2.5" testpipe, into a Thermal 3" catback with a small 2.375" reducer at the cat flange, and a 2nd 3" muffler behind that. On paper, not the best flow exhaust system for these power levels. Holy crap that 3" open downpipe was loud. Surprisingly, didn't really notice any bottom end power loss tooling around, the noise plays tricks on your brain though in terms of power. Midrange torque peaked at 388 wheel torque vs. say 378 on the 2.5" downpipe, but other parts of the power band the 2.5" made more power. Peak power flatlined at 400 w.h.p. (ecmlink), almost identical to the 2.5" downpipe. I did immediately notice the car had less knock, so the lack of back pressure could have allowed me to run another 1-2* ignition timing on the same fuel. I guess this is what they would call tuning.

Finally, and from the CFD analysis I knew this part was going to make more power, I took my Injen style 3" compressor intake pipe, cut it in half, cleaned up the casting and shortened it to make it fit better using a 3" coupler for now until I could head to the welder. What makes this intake superior is the 3" to 2.25" merge. It isn't perfectly ideal as the merge isn't centered on the compressor inlet, but it is damned good for what it is. The BOV pipe needs to be lengthened a bit though to fit better. Anyhow, the car immediately laid down 406 w.h.p. at about 68*F, back on the 2.5" downpipe plumbed back into my 3" catback. Topend airflow in 3rd gear is up to 42.5 lb/min which is about +1.5 lb/min more than with the FP 4" intake pipe. The superior funneling to the compressor inlet allowed me to pick up some topend airflow and cranking the boost higher allowed me to take advantage of it. This same "high" boost setting did nothing for me on the FP 4" intake pipe and in fact I made a touch less going that high, so the improved intake flow goes hand in hand with cranking up the boost.

Basically, I was predicting a +20 h.p. increase going from the FP 4" intake to a completely optimized intake pipe, the Injen got me about +16 h.p., which still has room for improvement. I expected the 3" downpipe to pickup the topend and surprisingly it really only helped the midrange torque a bit. As far as boost goes, I'm hitting about 30 psi dropping to 21 psi at redline. My electronic boost controller is at about 40% its max setting on a 20 psi rated "Jus" modded holset wastegate actuator. The problem is to get more topend airflow, I'd have to put up with a massive midrange spike. That spike is slowing down my fuel pump as the datalogs clearly showed. I think there is more airflow in the turbo, but with my current 150 lph fuel pump I can't safely go after more boost. An external gate would probably allow me to pickup the topend while keeping the midrange reasonable.

The next testing is going to be an improved j-pipe. I'm expecting to pick up about +1.5-1.8 psi from optimizing it and porting the compressor outlet.

[habitatguy187]

Thanks for the great followup Gene! Can't wait to hear more.

[91stocker]

Nice followup, that is some very interesting info.

You saw little to no gains going from 2.5 to 3" with open dump?
Have you tried the improved intake pipe paired with the 3" exhaust set up?
and is that a "homemade" design j-pipe that you will be using?

[turbotalon1g]

I want to say thank you for posting up your findings it is a great help to us all trying to get every ounce of power out of the 16g.

Would you mind posting pics of the intake setup I am very interested.

[toofast82]

Is this new wga a modded Holset one or something? What psi spring does it have in it?