EVO3 16g dyno results

[Artago]

Very nice power curve, the car must be hella fun to drive. You got any pics of the turbo setup?

Tom

 

[romeen]

I'm impressed you're not running out of fuel with the Denso 150lph.

Considering what the pump is rated for it does an impressive job. According to RRE, when rewired it flows about the same as a rewired Walbro 190 at 15psi boost and about 17lph more than the 190 at 30psi boost.

RRE Instructions

Having said that I would imagine he's nearing the limits of his fuel system.

Gene, what were your IDC's?

 

[pboglio]

I'm running at the top of 3rd gear about 88%, but everywhere else about 80-85%. I'm also running A/F ratios in the 12.7:1 range on race gas, which is why I can get away with it. On pump gas I'm in the 90-95% range on my 660cc injectors on a cold winter day, so I'm nearing the end of what my fuel system can handle.

 

[JayRolla]

Very nice, I also agree ecmlink is close to a dynojet. I net 400-415whp and 430-440lbtq via ecmlink. But only made whats in my sig on a load bearing dyno. Damn heartbreakers. I may just hit the dynojet so I can be cool with my 16g power numbers, .

 

[Artago]

Very nice, I also agree ecmlink is close to a dynojet. I net 400-415whp and 430-440lbtq via ecmlink. But only made whats in my sig on a load bearing dyno. Damn heartbreakers. I may just hit the dynojet so I can be cool with my 16g power numbers, .

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?

 

[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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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