jusmx141 said:

Spark blowout. Depending on how much airflow that beast is making, you may be having a tough time keeping the plugs lit.

Dave's been fighting the same issue all year with his low-10 HX40 setup. Seems everytime he ups the boost a little he also needs to close the plug gap as well. He's down to around .022" which seems to be enough to keep the plugs lit to 38psi or so.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's spark blowout but i'm not sure. On the second dyno pull on spoolup at 21psi right before it broke up at 22psi it was making 308hp and 297tq on a mustang dyno. Thats around 354whp and 340tq on a dynojet. I don't know to much about how much air it's pushing but from looking at 1gDSM4g63 dyno http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm454/1gdsm4g63/HX52/hx52dyno.jpg and comparing boost etc my setup looks promising.

On spoolup I'm making over 100+whp more than him at that same boost level. Power wise his 26psi on spoolup looks like my 21psi right before it breaks up and i'm not even tuned for wot yet. So I guess it is moving a little air.

spoolin ddub said:

Update. i made it to the mustang dyno. On the AEM logs my car on full spoolup hit 22psi by 5300 then broke up . Looking at the logs I was told it appears i'll reach peak boost (40psi) around 5800rpm . It shocked everyone. But i'm still depressed. I have to find and fix what's wrong and am scheduled next Thursday to hit the dyno again. I'll be back with the final numbers.

Click to expand...

Can you get the boost graph put on your dyno sheet?

dsm-onster said:

Can you get the boost graph put on your dyno sheet?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how mustang dyno's are set up but it shouldn't be a problem. I'm scheduled tomorrow to hit the dyno. Looking at my AEM logs I actually hit 22psi be 5200rpm.

That's a little later than 1gdsm4g63's hx52 (22psi by 4800rpms). But you're obviously flowing more air. It's reasonable for a turbo that moves more air to spool later. It would be nice to see a good picture looking down your turbine housing inlet. I wonder if the later spool of your turbo is due to larger volutes.

dsm-onster said:

That's a little later than 1gdsm4g63's hx52 (22psi by 4800rpms). But you're obviously flowing more air. It's reasonable for a turbo that moves more air to spool later. It would be nice to see a good picture looking down your turbine housing inlet. I wonder if the later spool of your turbo is due to larger volutes.

Click to expand...

he's only get 22psi 400 rpm sooner. But he has a higher compression motor and has a more aggressive timing map. Remember this was only the second wot pull on the dyno. It still isn't tuned.

I gained no spool speed with higher compression with my setup. FELT stronger Got on up on the rpms better which when looking at the boost gauge then at the tach it seamed like spool was faster. But after viewing the logs. It was the same going from 7.8CR to 8.8CR (going from stock pistons to 8.3 wisecos with the 43cc chamber 4g67 head). My tune, once dialed in, actually lagged a little more but because I was making power instead of dumping fuel and lighting it later so that it burns in the exhaust more

Spool speed alone doesnt matter. You're going to take it to the dyno fixed so we can see the powerband. It's all good.

You know, we actually have the compressor map to his turbo. So we know it doesn't come alive until after 30psi. It would be nice to know what his setup does when his turbo is in its prime. And it would be nice to kjnow your turbos prime in the first place (like a compressor map). So in all, this may seam like a wash because his setup isn't even pushing it by any stretch. Typically turbos are qualified as 'better', 'superb' when being pushed. Unfortunately there's no one pushing the hx52.

dsm-onster said:

Spool speed alone doesnt matter. You're going to take it to the dyno fixed so we can see the powerband. It's all good.

You know, we actually have the compressor map to his turbo. So we know it doesn't come alive until after 30psi. It would be nice to know what his setup does when his turbo is in its prime. And it would be nice to kjnow your turbos prime in the first place (like a compressor map). So in all, this may seam like a wash because his setup isn't even pushing it by any stretch. Typically turbos are qualified as 'better', 'superb' when being pushed. Unfortunately there's no one pushing the hx52.

Click to expand...

I'm not knocking the HX52. It is a nice turbo. My turbo's efficiency range is 30+psi also. I'll have the numbers tomorrow.

Why am I saying this? You seam to have an 'in' with some of the builders of these turbos. These turbo creators need to start putting out maps. We need to know what we are getting, not "bah! dont worry, it works. See the cars I've sponsored." Spend the money in research! You will be rewarded with buyers who will not complain because they chose a turbo themselves that exactly meets their expectations. Otherwise, they and we both know that the results can be altered with high compression, less pumping loss, less rotating mass, etc. Labeling a horsepower number does not help their buyers or themselves. Since results will vary wildy from platform to platform and setup to setup within the platform. Hell, even dynamometers which give the horsepower number we're looking for vary greatly between brands and locations.

dsm-onster said:

...These turbo creators need to start putting out maps. We need to know what we are getting, not "bah! dont worry, it works. See the cars I've sponsored." Spend the money in research! You will be rewarded with buyers who will not complain because they chose a turbo themselves that exactly meets their expectations. ..

Click to expand...

I agree, I would love to see some maps of popular new style turbos, I understand that it is expensive step for companies. But without it, makes me feel like they are working with just trial and error. As an engineer myself I understand but is scared...

Just a handful of maps. Just to see how the new tech affects the flow and efficiency. They we won't be so completely in the dark. Unless they prefer us to be for whatever reason.

Just one or two from each line up to see how their tech helps vs the typical wheel. For example, the 68hta map and the gt35r hta map, or the 6262 and 6765 map. And one or two of the wheels from comp.

Just to get an idea of how the new tech affect the wheel. So we're not completely in the dark. . . Unless that's what they want. . .

Make it over one hill and there goes another one.

Made it to the dyno and the car pulled pretty good. It broke up a tad bit and boost kept falling. Car spiked to 32psi and fell to 22psi . So there are a few more bugs to work out (bad boost leak). But it's getting there. It made 472hp.

I hope there's more in it than that

dsm-onster said:

I hope there's more in it than that

Click to expand...

472whp on a mustang dyno is around 542whp on a dynojet. That's at 22psi. The turbo is not even breathing. I'll be back with the final numbers.

RvlutionMtrsprt said:

I don't get where the $2500 figure is coming from. It would seem to me that this $1700 CT367 is fairly competitively priced vs other 700hp ball-bearing turbos.
Comp Turbo
Now if this turbo weighs significantly less and you can get it rebuilt... Those would be two things I'd weigh heavily in my consideration assuming all/most other aspects of the turbo were on par with the competition.

Click to expand...

I have been reading this thread and thought that I would chime in. I agree with this post 100%.

What was the final result of all this?

I noticed the link for Comp Turbos on MAP's site and wanted to look into the "Comp" brand itself.

More info would be nice, as any new turbo that hits our market tends to get dogged until results are posted. We get all this debate back and forth with recommendations against it, most of the time by people suggesting other turbos that have been around longer and have been proven (and are cheaper). Instead of seeing more talk about potential and assumptions about how they're built, let's see some results and some facts. If the Comp turbo (and Turbonetics) uses or copies Garrett parts, let's see the source of this information and more details to support this claim. That's a strong statement to make.

I know DSMers are cheap and like to follow what the majority has done, and I know it's never popular to do something different around here without getting slammed for it, but let's stop trying to slam everyone for doing something a little different than the norm and slamming every new product that comes out that competes with a product you like. And let's deal with the facts as much as possible. I saw so many assumptions about price, build quality, parts used, etc being thrown around in this thread and no information to support these claims.

What I find ironic is that the Holset turbos got so much flak when they came out. The Holset enthusiasts would fight tooth and nail to defend them. Now we're seeing Holset crowd dogging this new turbo. It's a little funny, and it seems to happen with every new product that hits our market.

Let's see the results.

Ludachris said:

If the Comp turbo (and Turbonetics) uses or copies Garrett parts, let's see the source of this information and more details to support this claim. That's a strong statement to make.

Click to expand...

Every aftermarket turbo built is generally modeled after something built by a manufacturer like Garrett. Take the popular FP3065, for example...FP takes a GT3076R cartridge, installs a GT35R compressor and cover, then installs a DSM bolt-on turbine housing and sells it as a 3065 which is a proven turbo. The best part about it is FP gives full credit for the durability of their turbos to Garrett in the listing for any of their turbos using the GT center housing.

Along comes Comp turbo (formerly Innovative turbo) claiming to have reinvented the wheel, when anyone surfing through their catalogs can tell you that many of their center housings and compressor wheel designs are visually identical as well as identical in size and measurement to Garrett and BW wheels that have been around a very long time. Of course there is not going to be any documentation of this from Comp; why give out one of their biggest secrets?

Comp's turbos look impressive, and their rebuildable ball bearing center housings are a stroke of genius....but my biggest concern before shelling out for one of their units priced 30-50% higher than a comparable Garrett would have to be is Comp going to be around when I need to get my turbo rebuilt, or are they going to close their doors in a few years like Innovative did in 2007?

So far we have a 472whp dyno chart which doesn't impress me in the least for the asking price of the unit- but I'm like you, I'll be tuned in to see where this goes in the future.

Went thru alot of BS and had a gang of bugs on my setup. When I dyno'd the car I had two major boost leaks and the car was tuned ultra conservative. To this day I don't understand why but on that lowboost 472whp tune peak timing was 7* and that was 472whp on a mustang dyno (540whp dynojet). I'm still pissed. I'm surprised the car made any power on that low of peak timing. Mike Reichen raised peak timing 5*. The way it felt I probably gain 100+whp just from that one simple change. With the BS out of the equation the car will be ready this year and i'll post my numbers.

I'm very excited to see it, trust me. I want to know the true potential, and so far you're about the only person with a build aggressive enough to push one of these turbos to it's limit.

jusmx141 said:

I'm very excited to see it, trust me. I want to know the true potential, and so far you're about the only person with a build aggressive enough to push one of these turbos to it's limit.

Click to expand...

Don't forget Revolution Motorsport. He will soon be in the 8's without nitrous weighing 3250lbs.

I generally base my expectations for any turbocharger off of real-world results, not necessarily what shop cars with unlimited funds can pull off. I want to know what the guy who tinkers with his car in the evenings after work and races it on the weekends can do, not what the guy who puts in a 40-hour week doing nothing but making his car faster can do.....mostly because I want to know what works for 99.9% of the potential customer base and not just the .1% that throws every hour they're awake and every dime they earn into their car.

That is why reliability is so important to me- nobody wants a turbo that requires constant attention. This is why I say the most impressive thing about Comp's ball bearing setup is that it's rebuildable, so you get the durability of a ball bearing turbo which is able to be rebuilt in the event of a problem....and we all know DSM's have their share of issues.

jusmx141 said:

I generally base my expectations for any turbocharger off of real-world results, not necessarily what shop cars with unlimited funds can pull off. I want to know what the guy who tinkers with his car in the evenings after work and races it on the weekends can do, not what the guy who puts in a 40-hour week doing nothing but making his car faster can do.....mostly because I want to know what works for 99.9% of the potential customer base and not just the .1% that throws every hour they're awake and every dime they earn into their car.

That is why reliability is so important to me- nobody wants a turbo that requires constant attention. This is why I say the most impressive thing about Comp's ball bearing setup is that it's rebuildable, so you get the durability of a ball bearing turbo which is able to be rebuilt in the event of a problem....and we all know DSM's have their share of issues.

Click to expand...

Well spoken

jusmx141 said:

....but my biggest concern before shelling out for one of their units priced 30-50% higher than a comparable Garrett...

Click to expand...

But the Comp Turbos are not priced higher than a comparable Garrett. The vendor that I originally found selling the Comp Turbos has the Garretts priced higher. It is only $50 or so higher but definitely not 30 - 50%.

Even if the majority of the design is a copy of existing technology the improvement on the bearing design and replacement constitutes a step forward. For a company to research and develop a turbocharger from the ground up with a goal of producing the most advanced turbo today the cost would be very high. Which is passed on to the customer and therefore prices a very large majority of enthusiasts out of that particular turbo. The enthusiasts that would be purchasing such a forward-thinking turbo would be the aforementioned .1%.

If a company is thinking ahead, which Comp Turbo obviously is given their replaceable bearing and oil/water-less design, then small steps and changes to existing designs are much more welcome than a radical from scratch design.

TwoLiterLaser said:

But the Comp Turbos are not priced higher than a comparable Garrett. The vendor that I originally found selling the Comp Turbos has the Garretts priced higher. It is only $50 or so higher but definitely not 30 - 50%.

Even if the majority of the design is a copy of existing technology the improvement on the bearing design and replacement constitutes a step forward. For a company to research and develop a turbocharger from the ground up with a goal of producing the most advanced turbo today the cost would be very high. Which is passed on to the customer and therefore prices a very large majority of enthusiasts out of that particular turbo. The enthusiasts that would be purchasing such a forward-thinking turbo would be the aforementioned .1%.

If a company is thinking ahead, which Comp Turbo obviously is given their replaceable bearing and oil/water-less design, then small steps and changes to existing designs are much more welcome than a radical from scratch design.

Click to expand...

Not to mention comp machine their own center sections in house from a block of aluminum. This means cooler temp under the hood. I love my custom 6265 unit it just simply puts to shame my old borg warner s259