Dynoed My Car

[1998gstspyder]

On Jan. 2 I dynoed my car at Church's Automotive. My goal with this turbo was 300whp/300torque and I got it on 96ish octane (101 mixed with 91) and 23 psi.

Numbers were:

317whp , 338 torque

some crank figures could be
assuming 12% drive train loss...360 hp
assuming 15% drive train loss...372 hp
assuming 17% drive train loss...381 hp

I have no intentions of drag racing (traction is an issue...fwd) or auto cross (too heavy and not modified for handling).

A very concise list of my performance mods are the following: MHI Evo III 16g turbo, apexi 3 inch turbo back, greddy profec spec s EBC, ported Evo III exhaust manifold/o2 housing, FIC 650cc injectors, Apexi SAFC 2, Walboro 190lph fuel pump, HKS 272/272 Cams, HKS SSQ BOV, Dejon Tool 3'' Intake, ACT 2100lb Clutch, Flywheel (12lbs), ETS Intercooler, Autometer gauges, AEM AFR guage.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[Splitpi]

I thought the 190 was rated at 350 to 400hp? So if youre only gonna gain less than 100hp get the 190?????

This is in essence similar to saying, "I have an impact wrench that can deliver 700 ft/lb of torque. It requires 90 psi. I have a 1 gallon pancake compressor that can deliver 90 psi. I'm good to go!"

If you followed the link I posted, I crunched the numbers and explained why it not true to give a flat statement of 190 = 350 hp. The flow rate is dependent upon voltage and pressure. Horse power is dependent upon flow rate. If you increase the boost pressure your ineffect increasing the fuel pressure. As the fuel pressure increases the fuel pump becomes less and less efficient [dramatically so]. The 190 is not a good fuel pump for push fuel at 19+ psi of boost and expecting big numbers easily from it. You begin running near its max flow rate.... which for me should be discouraged and use a larger flowing pump which can flow the same amount closer to its operational envelope.

 

[disciplekyst]

Who wants to refute that?
OP you pretty much have a complete answer here.

 

[CTP]

Who wants to refute that?

Me! Me! Me!

Until he can post an air fuel log to show it's running lean, it isn't the pump. The thing would have blown up on the first pull if it was running lean enough to cause that power fall off.

I don't see the issue. He running a severly over-worked, tiny turbo and it's dropping power up top. The torque curve is identical to every other high-boost 16g on earth. It's nothing surprising.

 

[dsm-onster]

This is in essence similar to saying, "I have an impact wrench that can deliver 700 ft/lb of torque. It requires 90 psi. I have a 1 gallon pancake compressor that can deliver 90 psi. I'm good to go!"

If you followed the link I posted, I crunched the numbers and explained why it not true to give a flat statement of 190 = 350 hp. The flow rate is dependent upon voltage and pressure. Horse power is dependent upon flow rate. If you increase the boost pressure your ineffect increasing the fuel pressure. As the fuel pressure increases the fuel pump becomes less and less efficient [dramatically so]. The 190 is not a good fuel pump for push fuel at 19+ psi of boost and expecting big numbers easily from it. You begin running near its max flow rate.... which for me should be discouraged and use a larger flowing pump which can flow the same amount closer to its operational envelope.

At 27 psi the 190lph low pressure fuel pump is enough for 345whp or so. See APE. Why doesn't he have more?

 

[SOADweskey]

My re-wired 190 is not the limiting factor in my setup with Big 16G at 20psi. My afr is steady 11.2:1 all the way to redline.

 

[rock0134]

I have read so many threads on whether or not the 190 rewired is enough for a b16g or evo316g, and after all that I went with the 190. I have that, 880's (the link I bought was chipped for them), and am hoping to get over 300 hp this spring when I get the car out of storage.

This thread is making me question if it is going to be enough with the stock fpr but either way, it's already bought.

 

[1998gstspyder]

I dont have AFR on the sheets, but off my AEM AFR guage, it would read 11.3-5..


my goal was 300/300 so I am happy. I'm not sure if I'm going to do much more to the car. It's been three years and over 10,000 dollars already.

 

[Splitpi]

At 27 psi the 190lph low pressure fuel pump is enough for 345whp or so. See APE. Why doesn't he have more?

See RRE Also APE uses a different part number from Wally than the part RRE sells as the DSM Wally. Whether there is a difference I don't know. And how similar the two tests are, I don't know.

66.5 psi ~= 129.5 lph ~= enough for 539.58 cc/min injectors at 80% Duty.

I would check your math. What BSFC are you using to calculate with? Turbo's will generally be around 0.6 to 0.5 BSFC. ~= 330.16 chp to 275 chp. This is right near where I calculated with a quick and dirty linear interpolation of the log line, and 1998GST realized in the dyno... though his pump did seem to have a slightly higher flow rate and he was running very slightly lean with the 11.3 - 11.5 AFR.

Though, this is nothing to be ashamed about, 1998 put up very respectable numbers and I would be proud to call them my own if I had his setup and car. I am just point out where he could further improve. And the fuel delivery is the primary area.

For Soad: The difference between 20 psi and 23 psi is quite a bit ~ 12 lph or 30 to 25 chp difference (depending on BSFC). Devil is in the details.

 

[CTP]

though his pump did seem to have a slightly higher flow rate and he was running very slightly lean with the 11.3 - 11.5 AFR.

wat?


Since when is 11.5 lean? Last time I checked that's the safer side of ideal.

 

[slowgsr]

Looks like a standard 16g powerband. I'm not sure what everyone is so surprised about. He's trying to hold 23psi on 272's. That thing is huffing so hard it's probably going to melt the charge pipe.

Ditto to that.

 

[slowgsr]

I don't see the issue. He running a severly over-worked, tiny turbo and it's dropping power up top. The torque curve is identical to every other high-boost 16g on earth. It's nothing surprising.

Again great response!!

I like my TQ curves like 10yr olds.. Flat as possible, however his TQ curve looks more like my girlfriends bust line.

 

[Asimmons90GSX]

Me! Me! Me!

Until he can post an air fuel log to show it's running lean, it isn't the pump. The thing would have blown up on the first pull if it was running lean enough to cause that power fall off.

I don't see the issue. He running a severly over-worked, tiny turbo and it's dropping power up top. The torque curve is identical to every other high-boost 16g on earth. It's nothing surprising.

The evo3 turbo has been making 400whp for a while. So it's not too tiny of a turbo IMO. And he said he had a mix of 91 and 101 octane fuel. That's plenty for 23 lbs of boost on that turbo. He could run 28 lbs on race gas with that turbo if he wanted. So its not huffing and puffing really.

 

[Asimmons90GSX]

Go with a 255hp and run some 110 and I'm sure you'll hit the 350-400whp range.

 

[DSMsOwnYourV8]

The evo3 turbo has been making 400whp for a while. So it's not too tiny of a turbo IMO. And he said he had a mix of 91 and 101 octane fuel. That's plenty for 23 lbs of boost on that turbo. He could run 28 lbs on race gas with that turbo if he wanted. So its not huffing and puffing really.

Agreed. I'd say the 16g is more along the lines of a mid sized turbo, a t-25 garret is a tiny turbo. Evo 3 16g's are rated upto 29 psi, so I'd say he's fine at 23 Psi.

 

[dsm-onster]

66.5 psi ~= 129.5 lph ~= enough for 539.58 cc/min injectors at 80% Duty.

I would check your math. What BSFC are you using to calculate with? . . .

. . .The difference between 20 psi and 23 psi is quite a bit ~ 12 lph or 30 to 25 chp difference (depending on BSFC). Devil is in the details.

129.5 lph = 539.58cc injectors at 100% IDC not 80% IDC. 129.5 lph = 205.56 lb/hr.

(Fuel Flow) / BSFC = Crank Horsepower

205.56 / .6 = 343hp
205.56 / .5 = 411hp​

APE sells actual walbro pumps. 190lph, 255lph and their High Pressure counterparts. The 190lph pump characteristics they table is for the fuel pump you are discussing. I've bought 255HP pumps from APE for my DSM and my T-bird and I've installed 2 other locals 255HP fuel pumps who've bought from RRE. They are the same.

APE's chart of the standard 190lph pump shows lower flow at that pressure than RRE stated. Does the OP have a hp or regular 190? Does the OP have a rewire?

I agree with the reasoning behind your discussion and always try to promote the "higher flow lower boost" means of attack. It is better for the fuel system as you're alluding, easier to tune, and generally more reliable daily driven horsepower. Yes, the walbro 190 should be rewired if you plan on pushing 400whp. And rolling out 400whp with a 190 is much easier with lowboost and more VE and/or more volume displacement setups. Why push a 190? However, there is enough fuel flow for 23psi and 320whp. Though not neccesary, it is interesting that the OP can lower his base fuel pressure to as low as 31 psi base and his 650s will still flow enough fuel for his dynoed horsepower.

The bsfc I use is one supposed by so many of the dsmlink logs I see and their corresponding dyno run. I used to trust that .6 BSFC is about where the 4g63 maintains its efficiency. But, DSMs commonly have lower BSFC than most other factory turbocharged engines and engines with non-stock turbochargers added. In fact, all 4 cylinders typically have a lower bsfc, as intended by their manufacturer. The GENERAL bsfc that garrett uses has to encompass:

1. v6s and v8s and larger 4 cylinders. It is commonly known that the smaller the displacement the lower the pumping loss, of course.
2. 2 valve heads and poor flowing cams.
3. Longblocks with poor flowing log style exhaust manifolds; and poor flowing, very much "unengineered" intake manifolds.
4. Less than 3" exhaust with flowthrough mufflers and highflow catalytic converters.​

The first 3 don't apply to our stock 4g63. All 4 don't apply to the OP's setup. I've gotten myself in trouble recently speculating that the generally proported turbo bsfc can be used to prove or disprove a dynosheet when an airflow/fuelflow log is known. However, the commonly catagorized BSFC is NOT more than a generality and is rather impractical to use with respect to our engines considering the so many upgrade paths and all the dsmlink logs on the dsmlink forums which are showing lower airflow/fuelflow numbers than would be expected with their matching dynograph. Turbo 4g63s have a lower bsfc than the common number.

96 octane affords more timing advance wich extracts more power from the fuel to a point before the increased pumping losses at the compression stroke outweigh the gains. In otherwords, he's more likely to achieve MBT. Add his better-that-stock cams which alter pumping losses greatly just by lift and duration. Infact, the better cams also allow the intake manifold to flow more, as 272s have an intake valve close angle which causes there to be a helmholtz 3rd harmonic at 4600rpms (the 3rd harmonic is which most aftermarket intake manifolds are tuned) and a 2nd harmonic at 7000rpms. This and the higher lift, more duration cam means not only better VE; but less work neccesary to draw in and expel the aircharge, which directly affects BSFC. Any change in engine VE (not total VE) heavily influences a change in BSFC. Better VE, the ability to run a more efficient burn and burn for longer before blowdown means a much different BSFC than stock.

What is the BSFC of HIS setup?

 

[Thor06]

I'm kind of a noob when it comes to tuning, but I think the weird curves can be explained by his setup. Arent 650's kind of hard to get a decent tune on an SAFC? The next thing I see is the ported and free flowing exhaust side plus 272's, but hes still on that stock IM. Also, hes got no wideband log to tune off of, no data logging, no ignition tuning, and 11.3-11.5:1 AFR's seem a little rich and too variant to me on race/pump gas mix. All of those things pretty much spell less than expected numbers and weird torque/power curves IMO. I'd say if you got DSMlink which can input the wideband signal (correct?) or got a muffler o2 reading on a dyno, got a less restrictive intake mani, and spend some time tuning or having someone tune it, I'd think you could smooth 'er out a bit and gain a bit of power and torque.

 

[dsm-onster]

The evo3 turbo has been making 400whp for a while. So it's not too tiny of a turbo IMO. And he said he had a mix of 91 and 101 octane fuel. That's plenty for 23 lbs of boost on that turbo. He could run 28 lbs on race gas with that turbo if he wanted. So its not huffing and puffing really.

Well, he'll be down to 23-24psi by redline with 272s. The op is running at 23psi now. Peak hp won't go up because of raising the boost at this point. The race gas would afford much leaner a/f mix and more timing. Raising the boost will give him a flatter powerband, which is good for the street.

I havn't tuned for 98 octane personally. But, I do think the tune is likely a bit conservative for 98 octane. Thus the 320whp. . . Though I'm sure the dynoshop knows the OP's horsepower goal. And likely tuned for a little more than that. Why push for more?

 

[CTP]

Agreed. I'd say the 16g is more along the lines of a mid sized turbo, a t-25 garret is a tiny turbo. Evo 3 16g's are rated upto 29 psi, so I'd say he's fine at 23 Psi.

Please, please, pleeeeease STOP thinking in terms of boost. Boost pressure is irrelevant. I don't care if it's rated to 90psi. It can only do 90psi on a weedwacker, not a 4G with 272's. Turbos are mass flow limited, boost is a meaningless figure.

And a 16g is far from a mid-sized turbo. A T-25 hardly even qualifies as a turbo and a 16g is small. Mid-size is T04E's, the larger GT28's, the GT30 series, S256's, and stuff along those lines.

Just because one shop and a couple maladjusted people made 400hp on a E16G does not make it a 400hp turbo. As you can see by the OP's dyno chart, even the powerband for very low 300's is nearly useless unless you're towing a boat. Especially with cams, the turbo simply cannot flow enough air.

 

[Splitpi]

129.5 lph = 539.58cc injectors at 100% IDC not 80% IDC. 129.5 lph = 205.56 lb/hr.

(Fuel Flow) / BSFC = Crank Horsepower

205.56 / .6 = 343hp
205.56 / .5 = 411hp​

I disagree with this. Injectors are measured at 80% idc [typically]. So a 500 cc/min injector is flowing 500 cc/min when it is at 80% idc, at 100% idc it would be in the neighborhood of 625 cc/min. If I have a fuel pump that is flowing 500 cc/min, I use 500 cc/min @ 80% IDC.... not 625 cc/min @ 100 IDC to calculate. I am looking at the relationship of feed to flow. I.e. a fuel pump delivers 500 cc/min [irregardless of IDC], but if look in terms of the injector flow [which the link equations correlate too] then injector will consume all the feed at 80% IDC. Thus:

((Flow (lb/hr)) * .8(Injector measured IDC)) / BSFC = HP

In essence what your equation did was solve for running 431.66 cc/min injectors[measured at 80% IDC] @ 100% IDC ~= 539 cc/min and then re-baseline to the higher flow number. I disagree, you would be running 431.66 @ 100% IDC or 539 @ 80%, but definitely not 539 @ 100% [as 539 @ 100 ~= 674 cc/min].

Think of it this way ... at 500 cc/min maximum flow, the fuel pump cannot flow any more. I have injectors that can flow 500 cc/min @ 80% [using the industry standard]... fuel pump has no concept of IDC, its an injector correlation. At 100% IDC the injectors COULD run up to 625 cc/min... but the pump will still only flow 500 cc/min [so they would never reach 100%]. To translate to horsepower we treat the fuel pump flow as if it is feeding an injector as its calibrated value [500 cc @ 80 IDC], not 500 cc @ 100 IDC as your equation stated.

1 lph = 16.67 cc/min = 1.59 lb/hr [conversions... for anyone reading this and following along]

Edit:
But I do agree on BSFC. It can very from car to car and even run to run. For all intents and purposes, its a fudge number tieing alot of unknowns to the the fuel consumption. And it is only exact the moment it is run and measured via the dyno, AFR and fuel flow. And on the next run the air could be warmer and the fuel mixture not as homogeneous and the BSFC could be slightly different. This is why I do prefer to give BSFC as a range rather than assign a static value. And I think we both agree on that point.

 

[dsm-onster]

Yes, injectors flow about the same at 80% idc as 100% idc. But that is because it takes time for the solenoid to close. At 80% idc, the solenoid won't be nearly closed before its needed to open again.

Injectors are measured with a grauduated cylinder at constant open over a much broader period of time than an injector pulsewidth.

Assigning 80% dutycycle to an injector with that simple formula assumes that there is no deadtime or time to close.

550cc injectors flow 550cc in one minute at 43.5 psi. Whether it does this at 80% idc or not, at 100% idc it flows 550cc in one minute.

The equation, Fuel lb/hr ÷ BSFC = CrankHP still stands. The 190 flows 205.56 lbs/hr. That is the only way to find BSFC, or use BSFC to determine approximately how much hp 205.56 lbs/hr can support. Stating that 550s flow 550cc at 80% idc just means that you don't have to calculate %idc to figure the hp potential of 550s at 80% idc.

205.56 lb/hr fuel pump flow is equivalent to 4 539.595cc injectors at 80% . . .or more. You don't have to believe the "or more" part. But, 205.56 lb/hr still fows enough for 343hp at .6 BSFC.

 

[2gGSX]

Why look at BSFC when you can look over more tangible numbers, such as airflow?

Arguing over this does nothing to determine the capabilities of the OP's fuel system IMO. Just as airflow should be measured in mass-flow versus "boost", fuel flow should be measured in mass-flow versus volume-flow. The fact is at 100% IDC he flows a max of 540cc/min, which in mass-flow given the OP's mix is 3.5-3.7 lbs/min of fuel depending on the specific gravity of the 101 octane fuel he mixed in (VP's 101 octane fuels range from .72 to .80).

Given that his wideband was reading 11.5:1, his max supportable airflow is 40 lbs/min to 42.5 lbs/min.

Given that all of this is completely theoretical, and taking into account a "safety margin" of 10% then he'd be able to support 36 to 38 lbs/min of airflow.

If this were his peak airflow number then that would correlate very well with his dyno numbers, however there's the massive top end drop-off which could be a whole other thread in my opinion.

 

[Splitpi]

The equation, Fuel lb/hr ÷ BSFC = CrankHP still stands. The 190 flows 205.56 lbs/hr. That is the only way to find BSFC, or use BSFC to determine approximately how much hp 205.56 lbs/hr can support. Stating that 550s flow 550cc at 80% idc just means that you don't have to calculate %idc to figure the hp potential of 550s at 80% idc.

205.56 lb/hr fuel pump flow is equivalent to 4 539.595cc injectors at 80% . . .or more. You don't have to believe the "or more" part. But, 205.56 lb/hr still fows enough for 343hp at .6 BSFC.

No, say for example that I have a fuel pump can that only feed say 500 cc/min MAX (2000 cc/min total flow), no if ands or butts. I can through 1000 cc/min on and they will be running a very low duty cycle (i.e. remain closed more than open...) but still the max I could hope for is 500 cc/min out of the 1000 cc/min injectors because that is all the fuel that can be supplied.

What your equation is doing is saying i have injectors that can flow 500 cc/min when run at 80% duty cycle. But I will calculate them at peak cycle and use that number. The Injectors will not flow more than 500 cc/min at 80% the extra 20% duty is has no extra fuel because the fuel pump cannot flow more. This is why you tie the fuel flow from the pump to the injector at the calibrated value. You are not using the equation properly.

You should be able to reverse the values and it would be equivalent. i.e.
(HP * BSFC) / (4 * .8) = Injector Size

((343 * .6) / ( 4 * .8 ) ) * 10.5= 675.28 cc/min

where as:
(Flow * factor) / #Cylinders = Injector size @ 80%
(205.56 * 10.5) / 4 = 539.6 cc/min

Note: 539.6 cc/min @ 100% IDC = 674.28 cc/min flow (however 674.28 is larger than 539.6 by 20% so how you get a fuel pump that has a max output of 539.6 cc/min to flow 674.28 cc/min is a mystery to me).

The two numbers are not equivalent, and yet they should be identical if used properly.

You use the number above and plug it into this equation which is tieing the fuel pump to the injectors based upon the industry standard duty cycle at which that flow rate was measured:
((Injector Size / 10.5) * Duty * 4) / BSFC = HP
((539.6 / 10.5) * .8 * 4) / .6 = 274.1 hp

If I reverse solve it:
((274.1 * .6) / ( 4 * .8)) * 10.5 = 539.6 cc/min

They are identical.

Also fuel pressure is irrelevent to the equation because we are 1:1 matching and the fuel will always be 43.5 psi over boost [or what ever the base fuel pressure is set at]. So we are only concerning ourselves with the flow. 43.5 psi is the industry standard again. To compensate for lower/higher base pressure we calculate the new flow rate ato 80% IDC with:
SQRT(New Pressure / Old Pressure) * Old Flow = New Flow Rate @ 80%

I.e. 500 cc/min @ 43.5 psi @ 80% IDC <-- for anyone that cared to know and not really relevant
are used at 30 psi, then they would actually flow:
SQRT(30/43.5) * 500 = 415.23 cc/min @ 80% IDC @ 30 psi

 

[DSMsOwnYourV8]

Please, please, pleeeeease STOP thinking in terms of boost. Boost pressure is irrelevant. I don't care if it's rated to 90psi. It can only do 90psi on a weedwacker, not a 4G with 272's. Turbos are mass flow limited, boost is a meaningless figure.

And a 16g is far from a mid-sized turbo. A T-25 hardly even qualifies as a turbo and a 16g is small. Mid-size is T04E's, the larger GT28's, the GT30 series, S256's, and stuff along those lines.

Just because one shop and a couple maladjusted people made 400hp on a E16G does not make it a 400hp turbo. As you can see by the OP's dyno chart, even the powerband for very low 300's is nearly useless unless you're towing a boat. Especially with cams, the turbo simply cannot flow enough air.

Ctp you have a way of putting words into people's mouth, I never said a 16g was a slap on and boom you have a 400hp turbo. I just said it's not TINY, because it's not that small. There are a hundred turbo's that come stock in cars that are a lot smaller than a big 16, and with the right setup, a MHI EVO 3 16G turbo can hold 23 psi all day long with no problems - it's not an overworked tiny turbo like you say it is... The Op's problems are not in his turbo.

 

[slowgsr]

Ctp you have a way of putting words into people's mouth, I never said a 16g was a slap on and boom you have a 400hp turbo. I just said it's not TINY, because it's not that small. There are a hundred turbo's that come stock in cars that are a lot smaller than a big 16, and with the right setup, a MHI EVO 3 16G turbo can hold 23 psi all day long with no problems - it's not an overworked tiny turbo like you say it is... The Op's problems are not in his turbo.

I have to agree that a 16G is a TINY turbo, it is a damn small turbo, maybe not when you compare it to stock turbo's that came on these cars, but in general it is a small tiny turbo.

A straight T3 50trim i would still consider to be a small turbo.. but not TINY, and if the 16G is smaller then then 'small' 50trim it makes it tiny .

I must say, a 16G making 400whp on any fuel setup with any boost pressure is overworked. Just because it can do it, dosen't make it ideal or in any means practical to use, but we all know the 16G is loved by so much of the DSM community i will try not to bash it.. after all, i will be putting my big 16g up for sale shortly that i pulled off my talon that the previous owner used on the 'build'.. So we need to keep plenty of love flowing for this particular turbo, atleast until after i sell it Anyways...

I do believe that the original posters problem with his HP and TQ #'s falling is due to his improperly sized turbo. His turbo is running out of breath, simple as that, and look at his TQ curve, it drops so drastically after peak VE is reached at 5252, the engine becomes less efficient after that, but his VE shouldn't drop that fast IF AIRFLOW was not a problem, if anything the cams should increase VE, with enough airflow

Id be interested to see what his VE tables look like.

 

[DSMsOwnYourV8]

I have to agree that a 16G is a TINY turbo, it is a damn small turbo, maybe not when you compare it to stock turbo's that came on these cars, but in general it is a small tiny turbo.

A straight T3 50trim i would still consider to be a small turbo.. but not TINY, and if the 16G is smaller then then 'small' 50trim it makes it tiny .

I must say, a 16G making 400whp on any fuel setup with any boost pressure is overworked. Just because it can do it, dosen't make it ideal or in any means practical to use, but we all know the 16G is loved by so much of the DSM community i will try not to bash it.. after all, i will be putting my big 16g up for sale shortly that i pulled off my talon that the previous owner used on the 'build'.. So we need to keep plenty of love flowing for this particular turbo, atleast until after i sell it Anyways...

I do believe that the original posters problem with his HP and TQ #'s falling is due to his improperly sized turbo. His turbo is running out of breath, simple as that, and look at his TQ curve, it drops so drastically after peak VE is reached at 5252, the engine becomes less efficient after that, but his VE shouldn't drop that fast IF AIRFLOW was not a problem, if anything the cams should increase VE, with enough airflow

Id be interested to see what his VE tables look like.

I guess it just depends on who's looking at the turbo. I'm a valet and I drive a ton of turbo charged cars everyday, vw's, volvo's, saab's, and in comparison to those, a big 16g is definitely bigger, and considering dsm's come stock with smaller turbo's than a big 16g, it's not tiny to me, but I guess putting it next to a gt42r, it's a baby, but point being is I don't think he is overworking an E 3 16g that is putting just over 300hp to the wheels, yet. If he was putting 400hp to the wheels, then it's a different story. I just think there are more variables that play into this, because although a E 3 16G is not a typical 400hp turbo, there have been guys that have put over 400hp to the wheels on that turbo with stock motors + cams, so to say that his turbo is the only problem, is not the case when other guys have been able to put a lot more power down with that turbo. I'm not saying it's a slap on 400hp turbo, but it can make that power - overworking it or not- and it's been proven.