Evo III 16G or GT?s

[weaver]

I'm buying a evo 16g from turbochargers.com They give you the choice of the 16G or the 16g GT version. I was wondering what you guys thing about the GT version. Is it as well made as the 16G? They have a page on their website defending the negative remarks about the GT, but I want to know what you thing about it.

Thanks

 

[ShapeGSX]

Actually the Evo III has horrible efficiency. I made a thread about it but no one seemed to care.

Probably because you were wrong.

Ok so we got one failure in CCDSM. I'm still not going to trash the turbo, but I'll let it be know that I myself went with an MHI because I plan on running 20-22psi which is really pushing it on either turbo.

No, 32psi is really pushing it. That's what I run. But it works great for torque at lower RPMs. At higher RPMs, the flow through the compressor inlet limits boost to ~25psi. 22psi isn't pushing it at all.

If you are only running 22psi on race gas, no wonder you think it sucks.

I'm running 118.8mph with it in a 3315lb car. I'm hoping to hit 120mph this year. I'm perfectly happy with its "efficiency," whatever it is.

 

[Marc91GSX]

What is stock boost on the EVO III? What boost do you plan on running when you get the MHI evo3 .


Isn't the GT the same?


Class rules don't apply to a heads up race and the street. But yes those are all very valid reasons to get an EVO3. If you going to do this, then why not get a sleeper 16G?

I didn't say those were my reasons for doing it, I was just stating that for an all around turbo it is hard to beat the 16g turbo (small, big, e3, gt, or any other variation). My post was in response to you basically calling everyone that uses the 16g as a novice to turbos. Most people don't want to go through the expense of changing manifolds, oil feed and return lines, coolant lines, and intake pipes to upgrade their turbo.

I did not dispute that you can get turbos from different manufacturers that perform better than the 16g, but you would be hard pressed to find one with the same performance and practicality of the 16g for the same cost.

Please note that I said nothing about the gt in this post and in my previous post I only brought up that the MHI is a production turbo so one would assume that it is designed for a longer life than an aftermarket equivalent.

 

[JayRolla]

Actually the Evo III has horrible efficiency. I made a thread about it but no one seemed to care.


Ok so we got one failure in CCDSM. I'm still not going to trash the turbo, but I'll let it be know that I myself went with an MHI because I plan on running 20-22psi which is really pushing it on either turbo. Of course I quickly regretted that for the above reason, but that's the problem with researching after the fact. Nothing would have been different with the GT however. Even at max efficiency both of these turbos are horrific. I can only hope I'm wrong and the EvoIII has some efficiency improving compressor changes over the B16G.

Why do guys with small 16g's always bash the evo b16g. I have less lag than I did stock and way more power, no boost creep and ive read a lot on these turbos and they produce large amounts of power running 20+ psi all day, no problems. Plus ive read and my turbo mechanic said these turbos are better than the evo 8's.

 

[ShapeGSX]

I had a small 16G on my car. Best I ever ran with the "super efficient" small 16G was 113mph. Now I'm running 118.8mph with the same mods and an Evo III 16G.

What's that, another 50 to 60 "inefficient" horsepower with the same spoolup? Umm, yeah, I'll take that.

 

[MyBeatGSX]

Probably because you were wrong.




No, 32psi is really pushing it. That's what I run. But it works great for torque at lower RPMs. At higher RPMs, the flow through the compressor inlet limits boost to ~25psi. 22psi isn't pushing it at all.

If you are only running 22psi on race gas, no wonder you think it sucks.

I'm running 118.8mph with it in a 3315lb car. I'm hoping to hit 120mph this year. I'm perfectly happy with its "efficiency," whatever it is.

If you don't believe me look up a compressor map for it. At 30psi you're worlds off the chart. Even 20psi you're WELL below 70%. The fact that you're running 32psi and only trapping 118 speaks for itself. Have you actually measured your pre or even post intercooler temps? I'm running 22psi on STREET gas on a stock sidemount with an S16G which is so much for efficient its laughable, which is why I feel like I just wasted $500.

Peak efficiency on the S16 is 77%. Peak on a B16 is 71%. The small slowly tappers off into the high 60's at higher flow (but stays well into the 70's at higher boost). The big rapidly falls into the mid to lower 60's with either higher boost or flow. You're so far off the chart at 32psi you'd be lucky to see 50%. You could do better than that with an old school straight vain roots blower.

 

[MyBeatGSX]

Why do guys with small 16g's always bash the evo b16g. I have less lag than I did stock and way more power, no boost creep and ive read a lot on these turbos and they produce large amounts of power running 20+ psi all day, no problems. Plus ive read and my turbo mechanic said these turbos are better than the evo 8's.

I now own both.

I'd prefer to listen to what a turbo engineer that mapped things out has to say, rather than a "turbo mechanic". Which I'm guessing your local shop's sales person.

 

[ShapeGSX]

If you don't believe me look up a compressor map for it. At 30psi you're worlds off the chart. Even 20psi you're WELL below 70%. The fact that you're running 32psi and only trapping 118 speaks for itself. Have you actually measured your pre or even post intercooler temps? I'm running 22psi on STREET gas on a stock sidemount with an S16G which is so much for efficient its laughable, which is why I feel like I just wasted $500.

Peak efficiency on the S16 is 77%. Peak on a B16 is 71%. The small slowly tappers off into the high 60's at higher flow (but stays well into the 70's at higher boost). The big rapidly falls into the mid to lower 60's with either higher boost or flow. You're so far off the chart at 32psi you'd be lucky to see 50%. You could do better than that with an old school straight vain roots blower.

Absolute baloney. I DID map it. Have you?

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

The red line you see there goes up and to the right as the turbo spools up. Boost peaks at 32psi at about 5100RPM and falls to about 25psi at 7300RPM as the line falls down and to the right. This was from a datalog of 3rd gear during one of my 118mph runs. The red line is right between the 69% and 70% efficiency islands. That doesn't look or sound like I am off the chart, now does it? In fact, it isn't even anywhere near 50% roots blower territory.

Over 30psi is only sustained for a very brief period, and is used to get a huge kick of torque at a relatively low RPM. The boost falls off linearly to 25psi as RPMs increase.

I've found that most people don't actually know where their turbos are actually operating on their compressor map. On top of that, there's the issue that the small 16G map and the Evo 16G map use completely different units on the X axis, so people think that the small 16G is really better than it is. The Evo 16G map uses m^3/sec on the x axis as opposed to kg/sec on the small 16G. The numbers look the same, though, and the small 16G's are slightly larger, so people think that the turbo kicks Evo 16G ass when it really doesn't.

Yeah, maybe the small 16G is more efficient in a tiny range where you don't even run. But the Evo III 16G actually FLOWS MORE AIR! Air heats up when you compress it, there is no way around PV=nRT. But that extra few percent of lost efficiency is dealt with by using something called an intercooler. Airflow is what matters, not efficiency.

So you keep laughing, and I'll keep on running 11s. Other people have done the same things that I have and had similar great success with this turbo.

Anyway, come on up to New England Dragway this year. Let me know, and I'll make it up there. I'll bring a printout of my compressor map, you can bring yours and we can put them on the ground and see which one gets to the end of the track first.

 

[JayRolla]

I now own both.

I'd prefer to listen to what a turbo engineer that mapped things out has to say, rather than a "turbo mechanic". Which I'm guessing your local shop's sales person.

Actually no he is not a local sales person and he is a very repretable dsm mechanic. He runs a local dsm shop here in Colorado Springs and a lot of people know him as a dsm guru. If the s16g is so much better why do they say the max power is 300whp and the evo b16g is 380whp.

 

[dsm-onster]

I don't think that there is an Evo III 16G that has been abused more than mine. Two and a half years of 20psi daily driving. Probably at least 30,000mi (I figured it out recently, but forgot! ). And drag racing once a month at 32+psi. It is still in perfect shape.

Regardless of the warranty of the original Lancer Evolution III, this is one tough little turbo. There should be no question about that.

That's just YOUR evo3 . I know one other that can say the same for the GT.

For that matter, the turbo in the Evo VIII is basically the same as the Evo III, and it is also very reliable. Have you ever heard of an Evo blowing its stock turbo?[/QUOTE]

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171068&highlight=blown+evo3

Big 16G, but close enough:
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1674780&pp=25&page=2

http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=143673&goto=nextnewest

Scroll down to "9 JULY 2001":
http://www.myevo.com/Driver_BenBriant.htm
I've got more Shape. But, I'm not here just to discredit the MHI EVO3.

 

[dsm-onster]

I had a small 16G on my car. Best I ever ran with the "super efficient" small 16G was 113mph. Now I'm running 118.8mph with the same mods and an Evo III 16G.

What's that, another 50 to 60 "inefficient" horsepower with the same spoolup? Umm, yeah, I'll take that.

Shape. 50-trim. It's more efficient than your EVO3. At 30 psi, it's more efficinet than my 18g, probably. Not my 60-1, but still. Come one. What's the use. You can run pump at 30 psi w/ a 50 trim and/or a 20G at 30 psi. Your EVO3 is not efficient at 30 psi.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Just to get the point across about how the small 16G map should be scaled with respect to the Evo III 16G map I have shown above, to convert from kg/sec to m^3/sec, multiply by 0.85.

So, the small 16G map ends at 0.29kg/sec. That is just 0.25m^3/sec (I rounded up). That means that if you want to hit .25m^3/sec with the small 16G, you will have to run a pressure ratio of at least 2.1, and you will do no better than 60% efficiency.

However, on the Evo III 16G, I personally am running about 0.27m^3/sec at a pressure ratio of 2.7, and the efficiency is between 69% and 70%.

Which one would you rather run? Which one flows more? Which one is actually more efficient, despite running much higher boost? The Evo III 16G.

I really hope that this puts this small 16G efficiency myth to bed. If not, I'll whip a scaled overlay of the two maps. Hell, I might do that anyway.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Shape. 50-trim. It's more efficient than your EVO3. At 30 psi, it's more efficinet than my 18g, probably. Not my 60-1, but still. Come one. What's the use. You can run pump at 30 psi w/ a 50 trim and/or a 20G at 30 psi. Your EVO3 is not efficient at 30 psi.

Dude, I like the Evo III. I'm in the 11s with it. I don't want to run 30psi all the time, just at the track. Hell, I rarely use full throttle at 20psi on the street as it is.

I'm really not going to swap the turbo. Trust me. I've had two different 16Gs on this car for a combined 85,000mi now! What makes you think I'd want to upgrade?

dsm-onster. AWD. It's more efficient than your FWD. Come on. What's the use? You can run 400hp and have great traction in 1st and 2nd gear! Your FWD is not efficient at 400hp.

Some people just like what they have, you know? I'm not falling into the "I'm upgrading my car every 3 months" trap. At least not anymore. Really, my car is pretty much done as far as I am concerned. Not many people can say that. I'm proud that I can, though. I've worked on it for 8 years now. Now I have a son, and I'm giving it a rest.

 

[beat90tsi]

What cams are you running Shape?

 

[MyBeatGSX]

What the units are in is meaningless. I have no idea where you got that map, but this one was actually stamped with MHI on it and is far more realistic for large wheel in a housing that clearly works better with the small wheel....

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

Like I said, that's for a B16G, I would hope the Evo has some modifications. But seriously doubt you could ever do enough small mods to a turbo to bring it from the map I just posted to the one you did. Somebody has a wrong map, and I'd be more inclined to believes its you, simply based on the fact that everyone knows the small is more efficient.

And as a side note. You can hang your 1/4 times over my head all day long. But anyone that's stupid enough to run a small turbo at full blast shows a lack of intelligence. Do you realize how severely you're overspeeding it? Running it so hard that boost bleeds down at higher RPM is no different than running with the wastegate welded shut. There's no way you're actually in that part of the map you graphed, or even in the map at all. In order to be in the map, the turbo needs to be holding set boost. If you're dropping boost because the engine's flow is over what the turbo can handle at a given boost, you're over the choke line. If in fact you were in that part of the map, the turbo would still be holding steady at 30psi. The only way it would randomly drop boost while still operating well within its efficiency range would be if you had a boost controller set up to do so.

 

[ShapeGSX]

What cams are you running Shape?

I currently have HKS 264I/272E. I have also tried out 264/264 and 272/264, and they were all basically the same with this turbo. So I swapped back to the 264I/272E combo because the idle was better than having a 272 intake cam in there.

 

[dsm-onster]

Absolute baloney. I DID map it. Have you?

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

The red line you see there goes up and to the right as the turbo spools up. Boost peaks at 32psi at about 5100RPM and falls to about 25psi at 7300RPM as the line falls down and to the right. This was from a datalog of 3rd gear during one of my 118mph runs. The red line is right between the 69% and 70% efficiency islands. That doesn't look or sound like I am off the chart, now does it? In fact, it isn't even anywhere near 50% roots blower territory.

Over 30psi is only sustained for a very brief period, and is used to get a huge kick of torque at a relatively low RPM. The boost falls off linearly to 25psi as RPMs increase.

I've found that most people don't actually know where their turbos are actually operating on their compressor map. On top of that, there's the issue that the small 16G map and the Evo 16G map use completely different units on the X axis, so people think that the small 16G is really better than it is. The Evo 16G map uses m^3/sec on the x axis as opposed to kg/sec on the small 16G. The numbers look the same, though, and the small 16G's are slightly larger, so people think that the turbo kicks Evo 16G ass when it really doesn't.

Yeah, maybe the small 16G is more efficient in a tiny range where you don't even run. But the Evo III 16G actually FLOWS MORE AIR! Air heats up when you compress it, there is no way around PV=nRT. But that extra few percent of lost efficiency is dealt with by using something called an intercooler. Airflow is what matters, not efficiency.

So you keep laughing, and I'll keep on running 11s. Other people have done the same things that I have and had similar great success with this turbo.

Anyway, come on up to New England Dragway this year. Let me know, and I'll make it up there. I'll bring a printout of my compressor map, you can bring yours and we can put them on the ground and see which one gets to the end of the track first.

And just think, the GT wheel does better! . . .

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1833061&postcount=6

Compressor efficiency is not such a huge factor with flow as many may think. But, hot air does have an influence on the fuel one would use. Pump gas is finicky and it may make all the difference in the world if the GT wheel puts less heat in the aircharge at the same psi regardless of intercooler or IAT.

 

[ShapeGSX]

What the units are in is meaningless. I have no idea where you got that map, but this one was actually stamped with MHI on it and is far more realistic for large wheel in a housing that clearly works better with the small wheel....

No, the units are not meaningless. WTF

Like I said, that's for a B16G, I would hope the Evo has some modifications. But seriously doubt you could ever do enough small mods to a turbo to bring it from the map I just posted to the one you did. Somebody has a wrong map, and I'd be more inclined to believes its you, simply based on the fact that everyone knows the small is more efficient.

Uhh, I got the map from Forced Performance. Here is the full map, complete with the header. I had to cut it off to fit in an excel graph.

http://linux.forcedperformance.net/merchant2/graphics/00000001/full/evo_ti_map_full.jpg

And yes, the Evo III 16G is different from the big 16G. The compressor inducer is 0.01" larger, the shank is smaller, and the blades are thinner. This all adds up to an effective compressor inducer area that is actually closer to that of an 18G than to that of a big 16G. And the compressor inducer area is what determines ultimate flow of a compressor.

 

[ShapeGSX]

And just think, the GT wheel does better! . . .

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1833061&postcount=6

You keep on coming back to that, and I keep on telling you why I think it is a dubious "conclusion". And then you agree. And then you come back with it again later. My 90 year old grandfather has trouble remembering stuff from minute to minute, but I don't think you have the excuse of being 90. Aaah, whatever...

 

[dsm-onster]

Dude, I like the Evo III. I'm in the 11s with it. I don't want to run 30psi all the time, just at the track. Hell, I rarely use full throttle at 20psi on the street as it is.

I'm really not going to swap the turbo. Trust me. I've had two different 16Gs on this car for a combined 85,000mi now! What makes you think I'd want to upgrade?

dsm-onster. AWD. It's more efficient than your FWD. Come on. What's the use? You can run 400hp and have great traction in 1st and 2nd gear! Your FWD is not efficient at 400hp.

Some people just like what they have, you know? I'm not falling into the "I'm upgrading my car every 3 months" trap. At least not anymore. Really, my car is pretty much done as far as I am concerned. Not many people can say that. I'm proud that I can, though. I've worked on it for 8 years now. Now I have a son, and I'm giving it a rest.

Hands down. I congratulate you on your success with the EVO3. I understand about the "if I mod this then I have to mod that" trap. I am going AWD this season. Of course .

It doesn't matter if you want to upgrade. It's your preference. I just don't understand why you would run at 30 psi when you know other turbos are moreefficient at this level . You are somewhat of an enigma to me. I have two kids and I see why it gets too expensive. So why push it? You know that I know you're one of the first EVO3 guys to get in the 11s. But why? Remember the original discussion? The GT compressor wheel has been shown to be a little more efficient.

I see a lot of similarities between you and I. I've got to bring a machine to it's logical conclusion.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Here is an overlay of the Evo III map with the Big 16G map that I did a couple years ago. There is a pretty big difference between the two. The Evo 16G is in blue, and the big 16G is in red.

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

 

[dsm-onster]

You keep on coming back to that, and I keep on telling you why I think it is a dubious "conclusion". And then you agree. And then you come back with it again later. My 90 year old grandfather has trouble remembering stuff from minute to minute, but I don't think you have the excuse of being 90. Aaah, whatever...

W/ the 7 cm^2 turbine wheel, the EVO3 GT does better at the track.

So the the EVO3 GT compressor cover, compressor wheel, or turbine wheel flows more. Which one do you think it is? Sorry for the loop.

 

[MyBeatGSX]

And yes, the Evo III 16G is different from the big 16G. The compressor inducer is 0.01" larger, the shank is smaller, and the blades are thinner. This all adds up to an effective compressor inducer area that is actually closer to that of an 18G than to that of a big 16G. And the compressor inducer area is what determines ultimate flow of a compressor.

Good, glad I'm wrong. I didn't waste $500. So its just the B16G that's a pile of crap.

Can you post up another one of that bigger purple Evo map for me to print out. That other one is too small.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Hands down. I congratulate you on your success with the EVO3. I understand about the "if I mod this then I have to mod that" trap. I am going AWD this season. Of course .

It doesn't matter if you want to upgrade. It's your preference. I just don't understand why you would run at 30 psi when you know other turbos are moreefficient at this level .

SCREW the efficiency! It doesn't matter!

For that matter, screw the boost I'm running!

Frankly, I'd rather run an airflow controller than a boost controller. Keep airflow constant instead of boost. Keep the airflow higher in the lower engine RPMs where the turbo is more efficient. If that means running more boost at lower RPMs, then so be it! It will make for a faster car.

The airflow is what matters. And what I see in my datalogs is that the airflow curve is flatter and higher if I run 32psi at 5300RPM and 25psi at 7300RPM than if I run 25psi across the board.

Frankly, this applies to all turbos. I can't be the only guy who has ever thought of this. WTF

The GT compressor wheel has been shown to be a little more efficient.

I fail to see how thicker blades that block more incoming air could possibly make a turbo more efficient. And I'll just point you up at my previous post right about now.

 

[ShapeGSX]

W/ the 7 cm^2 turbine wheel, the EVO3 GT does better at the track.

So the the EVO3 GT compressor cover, compressor wheel, or turbine wheel flows more. Which one do you think it is? Sorry for the loop.

I don't think any of them do, actually. Tom's airflow numbers are odd. They are much higher than they should be (like by ~5lb/min or more), and that points to an air metering issue. On top of that, there is one data point that Tom has that says he flowed "slightly" more air with the GT than with the Evo III. What is "slightly?" 0.5lb/min?

But hell, my air metering swings by 2lb/min depending on the weather/moon phase/whatever and the car traps the same. And my air metering uses a stock 2G MAF, which is regarded as being fairly accurate. GM MAFs, not so much.

There just isn't enough data to point to one compressor being better than the other in terms of airflow at this point.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Good, glad I'm wrong. I didn't waste $500. So its just the B16G that's a pile of crap.

Can you post up another one of that bigger purple Evo map for me to print out. That other one is too small.

Sorry about that! Linked the thumbnail.

This is the right one:
http://linux.forcedperformance.net/merchant2/graphics/00000001/full/evo_ti_map_full.jpg