pick a turbo (FP Green, BR20G, ETE32)

[larryd]

yeah i kept Kevin on the phone for a few hours

 

[Ben K]

Originally posted by Z1500
FYI on contacting us. We got about 100 emails and phone calls today. So email or leave a message and sometime between 1-3AM we will call you back I don't think I put the phone down for more than about 10min. all day.

Kevin
www.agpturbo.com

Yes, I agree. If you call and we don't answer. Leave a message. We will return your call very quickly.

 

[NDgsx]

Originally posted by NosLaser
...If we're going to rip into each other about things from a year ago, you didn't know what fuel pressure regulator over run was and thought that 100psi fuel pressure was just great. People eat that up too. ...

When did I say I didn't know what FPR over-run was? And when did I say 100+psi fuel pressure was just great? It's horrible because you run a huge chance of locking up your injectors, and doing all sorts of bad things. However, it was a reality on my car, and I got away with it. Would I ever set up a car like that again? No. When people ask for nitrous advice, I tell them to run a wet kit, even though I ran a dry kit. My car was producing some wild fuel pressure; unsafe yes, but I got lucky and got away with it.

In a thread on dsmtalk a long time ago. Someone asked you about advice on their setup, you recomended a walbro 255 and a B&M regulator. When someone asked why the B&M regulator instead of a sx and said that your base fuel pressure would be too high already you said that you never "had that problem" on the laser.
You recomended enormous fuel pressures in the same thread.

I know you remember it. Bill Mariano and I kept hounding at you until you were about ready to kill someone. We were actually wrong about fuel being sprayed into the fpr with a dry kit. Refresh your memory enough?

This is way off topic though, if you want to continue pm me.

 

[jdmawd]

Originally posted by NDgsx


In a thread on dsmtalk a long time ago. Someone asked you about advice on their setup, you recomended a walbro 255 and a B&M regulator. When someone asked why the B&M regulator instead of a sx and said that your base fuel pressure would be too high already you said that you never "had that problem" on the laser.
You recomended enormous fuel pressures in the same thread.

I know you remember it. Bill Mariano and I kept hounding at you until you were about ready to kill someone. We were actually wrong about fuel being sprayed into the fpr with a dry kit. Refresh your memory enough?

This is way off topic though, if you want to continue pm me.

dude you forgot to add *i have said to much already*

 

[thorin]

And this pointless post is almost as pointless as your post to Nick.

--Thorin

 

[NosLaser]

I remember the thread perfectly, but you will have to cut and paste an example of where I recommended for someone else to do the same thing I did. I never ran into problems running that amount of fuel pressure, but that's not to say I wouldn't have, and that's also not to say that someone else wouldn't. The Laser broke a lot of rules that I definately wouldn't recommend, but got away with at the time. This is why I stress doing thins the right way the first time so harshly.

Regards,

 

[jw]

Man, is this another pissing contest? I have been reading on the threads and you guys seem to like to step on one anther toe or something. Things get old real quick and this is the internet where nothing will get done really. Grow up. You guys dont have to quote one another to prove your point. If you feel things are not right and need to be corrected, feel free to post but do not have to end up in another pissing contest. Just my 2 cents so dont quote me and expect me to argue back.

 

[NosLaser]

....Man, is this another pissing contest? I have been reading on the threads and you guys seem to like to step on one anther toe or something. Things get old real quick and this is the internet where nothing will get done really. Grow up. You guys dont have to quote one another to prove your point. If you feel things are not right and need to be corrected, feel free to post but do not have to end up in another pissing contest. Just my 2 cents so dont quote me and expect me to argue back....

First of all, Have a good day.

Regards,

 

[NosLaser]

....On the "proven" topic, yes a few of the mutts have parts that are very good individually. That doesn't mean that they will work well in the real world AS A COMBONATION. Does anyone remember the franks anymore? That was Robert's early ideas, the green and red were the finished product after a lot of trial and error.....

You are right. This may be 'inside information' but the Mutts were introduced and designed to become a full bolt on 'Garrett' turbo. When they finish the process of doing their own custom casting, the turbine side is going to have a full Garrett internal shape/dimension and a Mitsubishi flange on it to bolt on to the factory style manifolds. That's not to say the current design is lacking, it's just that the end result, where the true Mutt turbos are going, is going to be better.

....The compressor sides of the mutts are full garret, with combos that have run well on full garret dsms in the past. The turbine wheel looks good on paper, and works well in it's native housings. The 7cm turbine housing works well, it's on almost every dsm turbo. They have mitsubishi turbine wheels though.
No one has any proof that the T3 wheels (plural as in any of them) and 7cm housing are a good combonation. Will they be large enough to keep the compressor off of the surge line of it's map? Will they have to much backpressure?...

Okay. I want to be careful how I respond to this. When comparing a Mutt to a Green, they are basically the same turbo, but flip-flopped. On a Green, you have a Garrett wheel in a Mitsu compressor housing, and a Mitsu wheel in a Mitsu turbine housing. The Mutt is a Garret wheel, Garrett compressor housing, Garret wheel, Mitsu turbine housing. I personally favor the Mutt because of the following. The Compressor side has much tighter clearances, and the overall shape and design of the housing is very influential on the boost characteristics, spool-up, over-all flow capacity, etc. of the turbo. Not to say that the 50 trim wheel in the machined Mitsu compressor housing doesn't work, because we have seen it work, and it gets away with it just fine. (I personally like the Green turbos.) However, you would be hard pressed to argue with me that the same 50 trim Compressor wheel in it's native housing isn't a bit better than the 50 trim wheel in a Mitsu housing. Agreed? Now, on to the turbine side. Here, we have the samce scenario, backwards. HOWEVER, let's start with the fact that the T3 hi-flow wheel is a better design than the TDO6H wheel. Just wheel for wheel, can we agree on that? Now, the TDO6H wheel in a native 7cm Mitsu turbine housing is a combination that works. We have all seen that too. The T3 Hi-flow wheel in the 7cm housing also works, but doesn't have 6-7-8-9 years of use behind it to back it up. Don't think for a second that DSM-Performance just slaps a T3 hi-flow wheel into a stock 7cm housing. The housing has a lot of machining done to it internally to accomodate the specific clearance requirements of the Garrett wheel, or obviously it would spool like crap. Here is a small disclaimer. **Every clearance in a turbocharger is VERY important.** The compressor side clearances are much tighter, and are required to be VERY exact. The turbine side clearances aren't quite as tight, and don't have to be AS perfect (see prior disclaimer on them being VERY important, but I'm using this argument to make a point) as the compresor side. Based on that idea alone; forget the turbine wheel on either turbo for a second, I would rather have a Garrett wheel in a Garrett compressor housing over a Mitsu wheel in a Mitsu turbine housing if I had to make a choice between the two. The Green is a great turbo, the ETE32 is just better. Let's put it another way. If the ETE32 had a TDO6H wheel on it, then would you be satisfied to say it's better than the Green based on the fact that the Comp. wheel/Comp. housing is better alone? Now just let time take it's course, and give the Mutt turbo's a chance to be proven. I've said it before, I'll say it again. It tooks years for people to break into the 12's on 16g's and 20g's. Nowadays you suck if you CAN'T run 12's on a 16g. Why is it the Mutt turbo is given such a bad rap so early in it's introduction? People laughed at Albert Einstein at first too...

...Maybe they will work great, maybe they won't. Very few of us have a good enough grasp of engineering and aerodynamics to know if a selection of parts will work well in reality. I know I'm not one of them....
Which I agree with. That is why the average Joe Consumer wants to see dyno sheets and timeslips because they don't have enough of a grasp on how a turbocharger works to make their decision.

...Ok now it's time for all my statements to be taken out of context in an attempt to make me look like an idiot. ...

Maybe next time Nick.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Originally posted by NosLaser
It tooks years for people to break into the 12's on 16g's and 20g's. Nowadays you suck if you CAN'T run 12's on a 16g. Why is it the Mutt turbo is given such a bad rap so early in it's introduction?

I broke into the 12s with my 16G the second time I went to the track with it. [email protected] was my first 12 second pass. Backed it up that night with a 12.9. Two and a half years later, I still have the exact same turbo on my car, and I'm only 0.3 seconds faster. Though I have gained over 7mph.

Enough has been learned about our cars in general that it shouldn't take anyone too terribly long to get any turbo combination working well, and close to its full potential. That is, if the turbo itself is a good combination of parts.

Tuning doesn't really change all that radically depending on the turbo. You might have hurdles to overcome like MAF overrun. And you might have to adjust your driving (something I haven't been able to do since gaining the power it takes to go from 104 to 112mph). But if you have a good running combo, then swap turbos, it shouldn't take all that long to get the combo running right.

According to the guys at DSM Performance, they have sold hundreds (or was it thousands?) of these turbos. Why is it that I have yet to see a time or mph out of them that really impresses me? At what point do we deem the sample large enough?

Forced Performance, on the other hand, has announced great times out of their turbos BEFORE they are even released! That is what I want to see. Tried and true turbo combinations. Calculations are fine for some, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.

That brings up another point. I'd really like to see DSM Performance test these turbos out on shop cars before they release them. Make sure that the calculations really add up to something great.

 

[NosLaser]

...I broke into the 12s with my 16G the second time I went to the track with it. [email protected] was my first 12 second pass. Backed it up that night with a 12.9. Two and a half years later, I still have the exact same turbo on my car, and I'm only 0.3 seconds faster. Though I have gained over 7mph. ...

You misunderstood what I said. I didn't mean Mike Smith put a 16g on his car, and after years of tuning, he finally got in the 12's. I meant from the introduction of the 16g and 20g turbos back in the early 90's, when DSM guys first started bolting them on cars, it took them forever to finally start to run good with them. Your car is a 97 so obviously, your case occured years after all the trial and error had been done, and everyone at this point has a pretty good grasp on what to tune for to get a 16g to run good. Regardless of quantity, the Mutts haven't been out long enough to prove or disprove their worth. Everything else I agree with.

Regards,

 

[IPT]

Originally posted by ShapeGSX



According to the guys at DSM Performance, they have sold hundreds (or was it thousands?) of these turbos. Why is it that I have yet to see a time or mph out of them that really impresses me? At what point do we deem the sample large enough?

Call them up and ask about dyno sheets.. They have dyno pulls for all their turbos they just ahve never posted them. (god only knows why). What type of times are you looking for?? I far as I know their has not been anyone to run 10's on the ETE32. But there are more than a handful that run low 12's around 120 mph on SMICs and then there are the cars that are running 11.4's with stock internal motors. Then there was the one guy that ran 6.9's in the 1/8th in an automatic car with stock bottom end. (that was on an ETE42).


You really brring up a good question though. What should be considered proven? What kind of number would impress you??

 

[jdmawd]

there are more than a handful that run low 12's around 120 mph on SMICs and then there are the cars that are running 11.4's with stock internal motors.

120 mph on a side mount


11.4 on a stock motor

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

 

[ShapeGSX]

Originally posted by NosLaser
You misunderstood what I said. I didn't mean Mike Smith put a 16g on his car, and after years of tuning, he finally got in the 12's. I meant from the introduction of the 16g and 20g turbos back in the early 90's, when DSM guys first started bolting them on cars, it took them forever to finally start to run good with them. Your car is a 97 so obviously, your case occured years after all the trial and error had been done, and everyone at this point has a pretty good grasp on what to tune for to get a 16g to run good. Regardless of quantity, the Mutts haven't been out long enough to prove or disprove their worth. Everything else I agree with.

I didn't misunderstand. I'm just saying that "tuning the turbos" wasn't the issue for all those years. It was tuning the cars. It was figuring out that 24psi of boost can be run just fine on race gas. It was that leaning out the car til just before it starts to knock and pull timing seems to work pretty damn well. Tons of other little things. The trial and error wasn't tuning for a particular turbo. It was tuning in general!

Is tuning for one particular turbo really so different from another? NO! Just watch the knock while you lean the car out and add timing.

I'd like to think that we are all over those tuning hurdles such that most anyone could bolt up a turbo to a well set-up DSM and get the car to run pretty close to its potential.

That HAS been the case with the Green and Red turbos. And I bet that the FP30 will have similar and quick success.

That has NOT yet been the case with the Mutts. Or, well, perhaps it has been the case. Not sure which is worse, realizing that the full potential of your bigger than a 20G turbo is a 12 second time, or taking years to get to the full potential on a well set-up car.

Anyway, they have both been out for comparably short times.

 

[NosLaser]

...It was that leaning out the car til just before it starts to knock and pull timing seems to work pretty damn well. Tons of other little things. ...

...Just watch the knock while you lean the car out and add timing. ...

Alright. I'm not going to divuldge my personal tuning 'secrets' because afterall this is a competative sport. But I'll tell you one thing; by leaning the car out, you are taking away the ability to make a lot of extra horsepower. (obviously there's a such thing as running too rich) I'm going to ask a simple question. If horsepower is a combination of air and fuel, why would you think that taking away one of those elements is going to make MORE power? If you'd like, we could get into a serious technical discussion here, and I'm sure people will chime in to support your theory becase it's what they have been told is right in the past, but I will guaren-damn-tee that they don't have a real clue about how combustion works, about flame travel, about burn efficiency, about quench area, and I could go on and on. If you don't believe anything else I say, believe this. Your theory of leaning the car out and adding timing is definately not the best way to make power. What did your car dyno to the wheels (if you had it dyno'ed)? I will make a bet with you, if you are game. If you tuned your car the way you described, give me one weekend with your car, and I'll pull another 30++ horsepower to the wheels.

Regards,

 

[ShapeGSX]

Originally posted by NosLaser
Alright. I'm not going to divuldge my personal tuning 'secrets' because afterall this is a competative sport. But I'll tell you one thing; by leaning the car out, you are taking away the ability to make a lot of extra horsepower. (obviously there's a such thing as running too rich) I'm going to ask a simple question. If horsepower is a combination of air and fuel, why would you think that taking away one of those elements is going to make MORE power?

If I don't have enough air in the cylinder to take advantage of the extra fuel, at a given timing advance, then not all of the fuel will be burnt. The extra fuel takes up room that air could be taking up in the cylinder. Leaning it out also gets you closer to stoich.

Consider that I run the car pretty damn rich on pump gas. When I throw in race gas with a lower specific gravity, the mixture will only get richer.

I suppose an argument could be made to advance the timing a ton to give the mixture extra time to burn as it is being compressed.

When I race, I advance the timing by 7 degrees. But if I just run it like that with race gas in the car, I'll end up running 100mph if I'm lucky. When I start to lean it out, I start to make real gains in power.

DSMLink tells me I'm running at a 10:1 A/F ratio. I lean it out to 11:1, and I gain a whole lot of power.

I only have two knobs to turn here.

If you'd like, we could get into a serious technical discussion here, and I'm sure people will chime in to support your theory becase it's what they have been told is right in the past, but I will guaren-damn-tee that they don't have a real clue about how combustion works, about flame travel, about burn efficiency, about quench area, and I could go on and on. If you don't believe anything else I say, believe this. Your theory of leaning the car out and adding timing is definately not the best way to make power. What did your car dyno to the wheels (if you had it dyno'ed)? I will make a bet with you, if you are game. If you tuned your car the way you described, give me one weekend with your car, and I'll pull another 30++ horsepower to the wheels.

I haven't dynoed my car. But consider that I'm running 112mph in a full weight AWD 2G (3310lbs with me in it).

Now, I did run that 112mph run with a blown head gasket. I suspect that the head wasn't getting much cooling. The upper rad hose was empty after that. I made one more pass and still pulled over 110mph while letting off in 3rd and 4th. Upper hose was empty again. I suspect that things got pretty hot in there since there probably wasn't any coolant in the head. That was the fastest the car ever ran.

So something weird was definitely going on with that pass. Enough to make me question if what I am doing is right. I didn't even have the car leaned out as much as a I normally do, and my timing was only at 6 degrees, not 7.

The fact that the car ran a ton faster without coolant in the head is a clue to me, but I haven't deciphered it yet. And I'm not about to try it again. It does make me think that perhaps I'm running combustion temps that are much too low normally.

Incidentally, one of my cylinders was at 75psi the next day. The gasket probably blew because I had forgotten to put in the head locating dowel pins when I built the engine over a year ago.

 

[NosLaser]

...If I don't have enough air in the cylinder to take advantage of the extra fuel, at a given timing advance, then not all of the fuel will be burnt. The extra fuel takes up room that air could be taking up in the cylinder. Leaning it out also gets you closer to stoich. ...

You'd be right...if we were talking about a naturally aspirated engine. You don't don't want to be 'that' close to stochiometric on a turbocharged car. They run best right around 12.2.

...Consider that I run the car pretty damn rich on pump gas. When I throw in race gas with a lower specific gravity, the mixture will only get richer. ...

Instead of leaning it out, why don't you try turning the boost up more, or advancing timing? Obviously once again you can have a 'too rich condition' but let me ask you this. What kind of total timing are you getting in say 3rd gear by 6k rpm with race gas?

...DSMLink tells me I'm running at a 10:1 A/F ratio. I lean it out to 11:1, and I gain a whole lot of power. ...

Wow. In that case you definately aren't running too lean. The way you were describing your tuning seemed that you were running it right on the threshold of detonation, and then just turning it back a notch. I didn't have all the information when I made my previous statements, so my bad.

...I haven't dynoed my car. But consider that I'm running 112mph in a full weight AWD 2G (3310lbs with me in it). ...

That seems about right. As does my estimation that we could prolly pull another 30+ wheel HP from the car. Ross's car which we tuned ran a little over 114mph with the same setup (more or less) and that's @ 30HP. Point being, there is power to be gained, and if you are ever in South Florida, let's do it!!!

...Now, I did run that 112mph run with a blown head gasket. I suspect that the head wasn't getting much cooling. The upper rad hose was empty after that. I made one more pass and still pulled over 110mph while letting off in 3rd and 4th. Upper hose was empty again. I suspect that things got pretty hot in there since there probably wasn't any coolant in the head. That was the fastest the car ever ran.

So something weird was definitely going on with that pass. Enough to make me question if what I am doing is right. I didn't even have the car leaned out as much as a I normally do, and my timing was only at 6 degrees, not 7.

The fact that the car ran a ton faster without coolant in the head is a clue to me, but I haven't deciphered it yet. And I'm not about to try it again. It does make me think that perhaps I'm running combustion temps that are much too low normally.

Incidentally, one of my cylinders was at 75psi the next day. The gasket probably blew because I had forgotten to put in the head locating dowel pins when I built the engine over a year ago....


Hmmm... Do you know what your total timing was at? It's very possible that the head gasket blew due to 'mechanical failure' and stress rather than detonaton (especially since you mentioned you left out that dowel.) I guess what you are saying is you were running your normal tuning setup, but as the head heated up, combustion chamber temps went up, cylinder pressure went up, and you made good power. If you are running 11:1 A/F ratio, then you actually have room to work. Let me know your total timing and I'll be able to better answer your question.

Regards,

 

[ShapeGSX]

Here is a screen capture of the log of that 110mph head gasket blown pass.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewEngDSM/files/blown_datalog.jpg

Timing gets up to about 22 degrees total (stock 5 degrees of advance at the CAS).

Engine is a 6-bolt with 2G pistons, and a 1G head/intake manifold.

And I actually can't really run more boost (small 16G). At least with my current Hallman boost controller. I'm getting spikes to 24.5psi as soon as I shift, and it ends up falling to around 20psi. I think that an electronic controller would let me run more boost without those spikes. I'm working on getting one.

I am datalogging boost in that screen capture, too.

EDIT: Checked some other logs. Normally I get around 23 degrees of advance. But because my coolant temp was so high on that pass, the ECU retarded timing by a degree.

 

[NosLaser]

I can finally get to the site to reply. WTH was up with that? Anyways... Your logs seem alright, however on race gas, you should try adding a bit of fuel, and adding timing (just to be safe, as ultimately you may have to go the other way with the fuel.) You can realistically get upwards of 28-31 degrees on race gas, and make some really good power. Have you been to the track since the blown head gasket? Any results?

Regards,

 

[ShapeGSX]

I have been back to the track since then. But it was a 95+ degree day with some incredible humidity. I think my best was around 108mph that night.

I'll try the timing advance. This is not the first time I have heard that running lots of advance can give some incredible power. Ian McFetridge and Luke Yarborough (?) both ran some really high advance numbers with a 16G and had some fantastic numbers.

Unfortunately, my next event is the Shootout. Makes me nervous to try something new so far from home. Especially since I'll be running on Sunoco fuel instead of my normal C16.

 

[rich]

Originally posted by NosLaser
The ETE32 will spool faster, and make more top end power than the Green though.

What is the basis for you saying the ETE32 will spool faster and make more top end power than a green? Did you do a back to back dyno comparison of the two turbos? Has any ETE32 trapped anywhere near the mph a green turbo has trapped?

rich

 

[rich]

Originally posted by dyezak
I agree with going with the proven turbo's. The 20g and the Green are proven, and unfortunatly I've know two guys who were running the Green and went to a mutt and (one guy) litterally threw the Mutt away (Ross Cox). He ran a 11.2 on the green but couldnt get out of the 12's with the Mutt (lv. 5). He went to a red and is running 10.2's now in a 2g AWD Automatic.

You got this one all screwed up there chief.

Russ Coxe has a red 2G AWD AT. He has ran a T3/T4 on that car for at least the past 3 years. It has never had a mutt on it. It has gone as quick as 10.5.

I believe you are confusing him with tom dorris (co-creator of DSMLink). Tom has a white 2G AWD MT. It ran 11.5's on an internally gated GREEN. He switched to a big mutt (T66 cold side), and couldn't get the thing to spool before 6K. Sent it back for another mutt, this time a 60-1 cold side (ETE52). Slapped it on and took it to the track. Ran horribly, couldn't get it to build or hold any kind of high boost. He yanked the mutt off again and put a RED on it this past week. I have a hunch he isn't going to be running any mutt turbos again anytime soon...

rich

 

[NDgsx]

"The Compressor side has much tighter clearances,"

Have you checked clearances on a green? Care to post some numbers?

"and the overall shape and design of the housing is very influential on the boost characteristics, spool-up, over-all flow capacity, etc. of the turbo. Not to say that the 50 trim wheel in the machined Mitsu compressor housing doesn't work, because we have seen it work, and it gets away with it just fine. (I personally like the Green turbos.) However, you would be hard pressed to argue with me that the same 50 trim Compressor wheel in it's native housing isn't a bit better than the 50 trim wheel in a Mitsu housing. Agreed? "

I've never looked at the inside of any garret T4 compressor housing, so I can't agree or disagree.

"Now, on to the turbine side. Here, we have the samce scenario, backwards. HOWEVER, let's start with the fact that the T3 hi-flow wheel is a better design than the TDO6H wheel. Just wheel for wheel, can we agree on that?"

Better in what respect? For what application? It depends on what you want.

"Now, the TDO6H wheel in a native 7cm Mitsu turbine housing is a combination that works. We have all seen that too. The T3 Hi-flow wheel in the 7cm housing also works, but doesn't have 6-7-8-9 years of use behind it to back it up."

To be nit picky very few people were using the TDO6H wheel back in the day. It's only very recently that a lot of people started running it.

"Don't think for a second that DSM-Performance just slaps a T3 hi-flow wheel into a stock 7cm housing. The housing has a lot of machining done to it internally to accomodate the specific clearance requirements of the Garrett wheel, or obviously it would spool like crap."

I wasn't talking about the tolerances at all. I was talking about the shape of the scroll on the turbine housing. Now I haven't taken apart any T3/T4, so I have never had a garret turbine housing in my hands. It seems though that with the taller wheel the scroll opening would be wider and not as deep (for the same a/r).

"...Maybe they will work great, maybe they won't. Very few of us have a good enough grasp of engineering and aerodynamics to know if a selection of parts will work well in reality. I know I'm not one of them....
Which I agree with. That is why the average Joe Consumer wants to see dyno sheets and timeslips because they don't have enough of a grasp on how a turbocharger works to make their decision."

I know enough to get an ballpark idea of how a turbo will perform, but I don't have access to a wide variety of turbine housings and wheels. Inducer and exducer dimesions are nice, but blade pitch is just as important. Actually looking at the parts isn't a liberty that many have (I mean in real life not pictures). Even then there is SO much more that goes into how a turbo will perform in reality.

This is where my major gripe comes in. I don't have a problem with Daniel or extreme turbo. I know he had been working on dsm turbos for a while and started playing around with garret and mitsu hybrids. That's cool, he was trying something different.
My problem is when dsm-performance came along and put one turbo on a car, ran a 11 with a *BIG 16G ET*, then started hyping the crap out of all these combonations. Then a little ways into it all of a sudden their "changes" made all their levels exact matchs of the G-pumper turbos Marco at Magnus had been selling for years.
Then they come out with the new style full garret/mitsu turbine housing. A few of the combos look nice, but they have not run any on a car. Then they do a massive group buy on them. WTF do car manufacturers go out, design a car, then sell to the masses? No they test it first to find any problems. Well unless they're ford.
That's downright un-profesional and does not show a company has faith in their own product, IMHO. Say I'm at a friends house, he works for advil, and he has no pain medicine. I'm going to wonder why aren't I?

Sure they might give great service, but I want my service from someone who has direct experience with the product they are selling. I just glanced at their site, they say, "The 190LPH is so infrequently used, we don't even list it in our catalog nor do we recommend it."
They recomend the 255. Then take a glance at the FPR advice, "About the cheapest adjustable FPR available is the B&M Command Flo. Don't let the price scare you. Several of our cars use them and they WORK. "
Yes if you like a car that runs rich as hell at part throtle and has all kind of driveability problems that's a splendid combo.
Their BSFC numbers look like they came straight out of a old SCC article. We do not have a .60 BSFC. If they want to get nit picky why are they quoting their hp numbers at 90% duty cycle? If everything were ideal that is to high of a duty cycle already, try 85%.
These things tell me that they don't have as much experience as they say they do. That's some pretty basic stuff that they are wrong about.

To sum it all up, Buschur said it best, you can buy hype or you can buy horserpower.

Oh crap I think I have just opened the floodgates.


"Maybe next time Nick. "

Thanks for making a well thought out response, try not to get to pissed and keep it up. It's a much more interesting discussion that way.


Oh and btw the different specific gravity of race fuel allows you run shorter injector on times to achieve the same air to fuel ratio as you do on pump gas. It's not actually running leaner.
I know people reading Josh and Aslan's posts who don't know about fuels would get confused as hell by the "lean it out" comment.

 

[NosLaser]

....The Compressor side has much tighter clearances,"

Have you checked clearances on a green? Care to post some numbers? ...

I wonder if you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the compressor side of any turbo has tighter clearances than the turbine side; not that the Mutt is tighter than the Green or vice versa.

..."Now, on to the turbine side. Here, we have the samce scenario, backwards. HOWEVER, let's start with the fact that the T3 hi-flow wheel is a better design than the TDO6H wheel. Just wheel for wheel, can we agree on that?"

Better in what respect? For what application? It depends on what you want. ...

On this subject, 'on paper' the T3 hi-fow wheel will spool faster, and also have more top end capability than the TDO6H wheel, if you are looking at specs for both turbos. Real world? Remains to be seen...so you've got me there.

...I know enough to get an ballpark idea of how a turbo will perform, but I don't have access to a wide variety of turbine housings and wheels. Inducer and exducer dimesions are nice, but blade pitch is just as important. Actually looking at the parts isn't a liberty that many have (I mean in real life not pictures). Even then there is SO much more that goes into how a turbo will perform in reality....

I have seen both wheels side by side, and the T3 hi-flow looks much better than the TDO6H; one less bade, less pitch, etc. but again they would have to be used in a side by side application.

...That's downright un-profesional and does not show a company has faith in their own product, IMHO. Say I'm at a friends house, he works for advil, and he has no pain medicine. I'm going to wonder why aren't I? ...

I can't tell you that I would have done things the same way, because I wouldn't. But, by the same token, shops aren't open and in business just for the people. Having a shop is these people's job, their income. A lot of smaller shops don't have a lot of capital to begin with, so what were they supposed to do; not eat for the first 3 months while they test turbos? That example is a little extreme, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do. Daniel knows enough about turbos to make me confident that they would never release a 'bad' product. I don't know too many people who are unhappy with their Mutt turbo either. Granted, I'm sure there are some out there, but there are some out there unhappy with the Green, or what-have-you.

...Then take a glance at the FPR advice, "About the cheapest adjustable FPR available is the B&M Command Flo. Don't let the price scare you. Several of our cars use them and they WORK. "
...Yes if you like a car that runs rich as hell at part throtle and has all kind of driveability problems that's a splendid combo....

Oh, you mean like what a VPC does? I personally had no driveability problems and I had the 255LPH HP and B&M combo on my Laser, but I guess for everyone who's had a good experience, there is one with a bad experience.

...Their BSFC numbers look like they came straight out of a old SCC article. We do not have a .60 BSFC. If they want to get nit picky why are they quoting their hp numbers at 90% duty cycle? If everything were ideal that is to high of a duty cycle already, try 85%.
These things tell me that they don't have as much experience as they say they do. That's some pretty basic stuff that they are wrong about....

Alright Nick, you are reaching here. Look at the quote from the site:

...Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) is the amount of fuel in lbs/hour that an engine will use per each horsepower. This is about as subjective a figure as there gets. Short of a dyno chart and fuel delivery logs, there is hardly any way for you to determine exactly what your BSFC is or will be. Just know that turbocharged engines like the 4G63, will run .60 or higher on the average. Naturally aspirated cars use slightly less fuel per HP and will run about .50 BSFC on average. Through various calculations that we have done with the use of dyno charts and datalogs, a well-tuned and properly modded DSM can safely have a BSFC of .56-.58. for street use. If you're strictly a "top-end" type person, you might want to go a hair fatter than that to keep cylinder temps down in the longer gears (3rd and 4th). A properly modified and tuned 4G63 on very high octane race fuel could probably run as lean a .50-.53 and be OK....

Pay special attention to the quote that states 'just know that turbochargd engines such as the 4G63, will run .60 or higher on the average.' It's a very vague quote, and nowhere did it say our engines run at .60.

...To sum it all up, Buschur said it best, you can buy hype or you can buy horserpower....

Was this before or after Buschur's great advice of "Good enough for 10's, good enough for you!" ?

Regards,