Holset HX-40 Pro on G4CS 2.4 = Amazing

[fastfive0]

posted a couple vids up in the dsmvideo links forum...check em out and let me know what you think....

 

[hubz91talontsi]

delta im only 30min away =D

 

[andy4g63]

posted a couple vids up in the dsmvideo links forum...check em out and let me know what you think....

You, for sure shorshifted first gear, but then second gear and up , the car seemed to move fast. Is that a bolt-on, or T3 housing on your HX-35???

 

[fastfive0]

It's a Bolton hx40 on stock boost and stock exhaust till this weekend .

 

[JusMX141]

The stock exhaust is what's murdering your ability to carry boost easily between shifts.

 

[fast4g63t]

I think there are so many wv pa md members running holsets because there are probably thousands of guys around here that upgrade there cummins powered rams and just pitch the holsets I dont know why but they dh well that just helps us dsm'ers out.Anyone know of a place that post compressor maps of the different types of holset turbo's.Theres so many of them im not sure which one i want to go with and the maps would be a huge help.

 

[aero_sallee]

I think there are so many wv pa md members running holsets because there are probably thousands of guys around here that upgrade there cummins powered rams and just pitch the holsets I dont know why but they dh well that just helps us dsm'ers out.Anyone know of a place that post compressor maps of the different types of holset turbo's.Theres so many of them im not sure which one i want to go with and the maps would be a huge help.

A bunch of them are posted in the Results only thread.
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/tur...-results-only-complete-installed-systems.html

 

[dacowgod]

Got the GM MAF recalibrated this weekend -
Airflow on the HX-40 with 19.8 psi(wastegate spring pressure) is 39 lb/min at 4,000 RPM hitting 43 lb/min at 4300 rpm and fluctuating but never tapering off to a 7500 shift.

I dont have a log of my old setup, but I do recall seeing 57 lb/min at 36 psi in the 6200 range w/ the old 6031e but full boost didnt show up til 5200 rpm and I spun it out to 8 grand, it also had ALOT of lag between shifts.

Keep in mind you usually net 9-11 hp per lb/min, the old setup only net 8 whp per lb/min Though I am fairly certain the turbo was at fault.

IF the new engine is at 10 hp per lb/min the car is within 30 WHP of my old setup already at practically half the boost.
(All speculation right now though the car definitely FEELS faster)

Overall My bet is the new engine/turbo combo is faster in its current state than the old one was. in the 1/4 .. The old combo ran a 12.22 at 116 last year, w/ a crappy trans and 36psi I am heading to Pittsburgh Raceway on Saturday as long as the weather gets nice. I have ~300 miles on the car now, but snow is in the forecast until Thursday so I probably wont have enough miles on it or have time to turn the boost up and tune it in by Saturday. I'd love to hit 40 PSI and a 10.99 this year

 

[talondave]

Drop your car off at my house, I will put miles on it for you!!! !

 

[TSi_with_psi]

What cams did you guys go with on your 2.4L HX40 combos? I'm using the FP3 cams myself, with 1mm oversize valves, crower springs and retainers, and the head was heavily ported by BJ's Cylinder head service.

 

[nanokpsi]

Got the GM MAF recalibrated this weekend -
Airflow on the HX-40 with 19.8 psi(wastegate spring pressure) is 39 lb/min at 4,000 RPM hitting 43 lb/min at 4300 rpm and fluctuating but never tapering off to a 7500 shift.

I dont have a log of my old setup, but I do recall seeing 57 lb/min at 36 psi in the 6200 range w/ the old 6031e but full boost didnt show up til 5200 rpm and I spun it out to 8 grand, it also had ALOT of lag between shifts.

Keep in mind you usually net 9-11 hp per lb/min, the old setup only net 8 whp per lb/min Though I am fairly certain the turbo was at fault.

IF the new engine is at 10 hp per lb/min the car is within 30 WHP of my old setup already at practically half the boost.
(All speculation right now though the car definitely FEELS faster)

Overall My bet is the new engine/turbo combo is faster in its current state than the old one was. in the 1/4 .. The old combo ran a 12.22 at 116 last year, w/ a crappy trans and 36psi I am heading to Pittsburgh Raceway on Saturday as long as the weather gets nice. I have ~300 miles on the car now, but snow is in the forecast until Thursday so I probably wont have enough miles on it or have time to turn the boost up and tune it in by Saturday. I'd love to hit 40 PSI and a 10.99 this year

Timing and af ratio has almost evreything to do with hp per lb/min. Compressor efficiency has very little to do with it. Pump gas typically yields 8-9 hp per lb/min and race gas can be as much as 10-12.
The torqu of a stroker motor does make the car feel much faster though. I remeber when I went from stock motor with a PT67 to the stroker, the car felt completely different.
Good luck at the strip. I can't wait to finally take my pos this year.

 

[dacowgod]

Timing and af ratio has almost evreything to do with hp per lb/min. Compressor efficiency has very little to do with it. Pump gas typically yields 8-9 hp per lb/min and race gas can be as much as 10-12.
The torqu of a stroker motor does make the car feel much faster though. I remeber when I went from stock motor with a PT67 to the stroker, the car felt completely different.
Good luck at the strip. I can't wait to finally take my pos this year.

I agree, but would like to add a little bit.

I believe in my particular case turbine efficiency was a considerable factor.

My previous setup was was running 57 lb/min at 36 psi.. on a 6031e.. Problem here being the 31e portion of the equation.

With such a small turbine wheel, even with the .82ar hotside the turbo was still a restriction at higher boost levels it was like trying to blow through a straw. Which means in turn the engine is wasting/losing energy from the abundance of backpressure building up at the turbocharger.

I believe a 6052 (same compressor, bigger exhaust wheel) would have proven a bit better at similar a/f's and airflow #, although in the same token less backpressure = less heat = more timing and/or ability to lean mixture out a bit more = more cylinder pressure = more power so again, I do agree with you just thought I'd throw that out there for food for thought.



..............
As for the cams.. I am running BC 280's... Which I am not convinced are the best for a stroker, but they are what I had and are not the worst choice either. I believe FP4's are a better choice, just out of range of my budget at the moment... I am running a stock IM at the moment, with a ported cylinder head that is flowing 288 cfm per cylinder@28" of water at .450 lift ,w/ stock valves, BC springs/retainers.

No dyno #'s yet and probably none for at least a month or so as we just got 6 inches more snow this week, so I had to park the DSM again .. no run time = no tune time

 

[dsm-onster]

Definately. I will be running fp4s if I ever build my 2.4 motor. More duration than fp3X cams, less lift though. But I think a better balance. Still more lift than fp3s. A 2.3/2.4 motor likes more duration and shows it at a lower rpm than a shorter stroke motor like a stock 4g63 or a destroker. It's about air velocity (piston speed), not rpms.

 

[nanokpsi]

I agree, but would like to add a little bit.

I believe in my particular case turbine efficiency was a considerable factor.

My previous setup was was running 57 lb/min at 36 psi.. on a 6031e.. Problem here being the 31e portion of the equation.

With such a small turbine wheel, even with the .82ar hotside the turbo was still a restriction at higher boost levels it was like trying to blow through a straw. Which means in turn the engine is wasting/losing energy from the abundance of backpressure building up at the turbocharger.

I believe a 6052 (same compressor, bigger exhaust wheel) would have proven a bit better at similar a/f's and airflow #, although in the same token less backpressure = less heat = more timing and/or ability to lean mixture out a bit more = more cylinder pressure = more power so again, I do agree with you just thought I'd throw that out there for food for thought.



..............
As for the cams.. I am running BC 280's... Which I am not convinced are the best for a stroker, but they are what I had and are not the worst choice either. I believe FP4's are a better choice, just out of range of my budget at the moment... I am running a stock IM at the moment, with a ported cylinder head that is flowing 288 cfm per cylinder@28" of water at .450 lift ,w/ stock valves, BC springs/retainers.

No dyno #'s yet and probably none for at least a month or so as we just got 6 inches more snow this week, so I had to park the DSM again .. no run time = no tune time

Turbine efficieny will increase the actual lb/min value though, not the hp made per lb/min. Less backpressure will equal greater VE, which in turn will increase airflow.

As far as cams, I ran my dyno on pump with the comp 101400s(FP4), and swapped over to the 3xs while I had the car down for the awd swap. I also changed to a much better exhaust manifold though, so I won't be able to give a quantifiable difference the cams made. The 3xs definately have a more agressive profile though. Between the two changes, all I need to pick up is 2 or 3 lb/min to cross the 60lb mark at 23-24psi and 93 octane.

 

[jrohner]

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

[/IMG]

You should run it with only the 1 bolt holding the turbo to the manifold

 

[JEFFREYCASTGSX]

I was waiting for this thread to begin. I can't wait to ride in this car, Ricky!

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

Thanks for posting the pic of the engine, I haven't had a chance to upload any yet, I've been scrambling to get everything together and broken in so I can race next weekend . All i can say is the ERL manifold is a perfect piece, Fitment is excellent in a 2g, I cant believe how much room still available with such a large setup its perfect.

to update the AWD Spyder, The chassis conversion to AWD is already complete, as well as the engine(built 2.0 eagle rods/9:0:1 wisecos) and drivetrain are installed. The ONLY holdbacks right now are getting another ERL Manifold, Another Meth kit, and hooking up the fuel pump. everything else is done.. for it to "drive". Then comes a little bondo and Paint.

I will bring it up to PRP one day this summer to see if I cant get a pass or 2 just to see how it goes.

Dang i didnt know there were so many guys in west virginia building dsm's now i used to live close to wheeling and there were only a few of us building these cars.Im planning also on doing the 2.4 holset setup.Have you guys ran into any fitment issues with the turbo?Im building a 95 eclipse gsx auto and havent seen too many people putting the holset on the autos.Are there any major modifications to the hot side of the holset to get it working on the cast manifolds?

I forget that Ricky's now a WV resident....I still consider him as part of the "Maryland Chapter" of my DSM Fraternity.

I too am vaguely considering going HX40 or HE351VGT (same compressor) if I ever get my budget in order enough to complete my 2.4 build. Thanks for posting this up.

Seems like a lot of WV, PA, MD and OH guys are going with Holset equipped 2.3/2.4 builds.

We should plan a meet. Keyser's only ~90 miles from me...

delta im only 30min away =D

Why doesn't anyone on here live around me!!

 

[dsm-onster]

Turbine efficieny will increase the actual lb/min value though, not the hp made per lb/min. Less backpressure will equal greater VE, which in turn will increase airflow.

As far as cams, I ran my dyno on pump with the comp 101400s(FP4), and swapped over to the 3xs while I had the car down for the awd swap. I also changed to a much better exhaust manifold though, so I won't be able to give a quantifiable difference the cams made. The 3xs definately have a more agressive profile though. Between the two changes, all I need to pick up is 2 or 3 lb/min to cross the 60lb mark at 23-24psi and 93 octane.

A good exhaust manifold upgrade makes a VERY large difference. As much as a SMIM in many cases. So you're right, you can't really suggest a definate quantitative difference that your cams made. Fp3x cams have less duration to minimize the overlap, and have more total cam retard to negate the loss in top end power from less overlap. They have more lift to help counter the midrange loss from less overlap. They are designed for someone who wants to push the limit of their current turbo with a stroker; high back pressure of which will be negated more by the less overlap, and other variable clocked in as an attempt to maintain the ve curve. Someone who's chose a turbo that sits in the middle of BOTH maps for their goal, the fp4s have more overlap for faster spool and that overlap wont be a penalty in VE because the turbo won't be pushed so hard that there's such a difference in backpressure vs. boost pressure. The overlap will just manifest more VE up top so long as your turbo choice was balanced.Since spool speed increases with overlap, you should have more power under the curve.

Or you could be really up with the times and run a cheap twinscroll setup . Overlap will never be an issue when pushing the turbo and you will have the higher duration of the fp4 cams to give you more VE up top, the larger overlap to give you the faster spool speed, and higher VE up top and not so much lift that you can't run som really high compression. Faster spool, same topend, thus more power under the curve . . .400's will be my next cam purchase if I build my 2.4 motor since I'll already have a twinscroll setup from this build here.

 

[nanokpsi]

Yeah, I thinking I will pick up most of the power increase from the header. Here is the new piece that replaces the rev hard I previously had.

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

Almost ready to rock

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

I think 30-50 whp from the changes sound reasonable. If I get froggy I will dial the cams in on the dyno, but I should be able to max out the 67mm on E85 pretty easily so I might not need to.

Sorry for the hijack. I hope the weather clears in time for you to go to the track. At least you still have cold temps. It was like 80 and humid here yesterday.

 

[dsm-onster]

Pertty

 

[dacowgod]

track was rained out.... Maybe this weekend will be different