The best Pump Gas "Turbo" set up? [Merged 5-7]

[nightspeed87]

I believe the 11.8 ET. ShapeGSX did this in "full dress". But not the 32 psi. Perhaps 32 psi at 4K, but not at peak HP or anywhere near shifting rpms.

Guys, I don't know many who've gotten a SOLID 350 whp out of the EVOIII. It's not a safe reality.

Water injection covers a multitude of sins though. . .I say just get a water/alky kit or build one and Then you're sure to get that out of your current set up. . . Pump gas comes w/a sacrifice. . . I think it's worth it, considering how much race fuel costs and how much turbos cost. . .

If you're hard pressed to upgrade anything then just upgrade turbine housings. You'll definately be able the flow enough out of the evo3 wheel to support your goals then. . .

I dont need 350 all the time, just maybe for a dyno pull or at the track.
I actually think I may go 50 trim down the road , im hoping slower spool will give a better and more linear power curve for my fwd instead of the quick hard hitting e3. And isnt it true that on a fwd by the drivetrain being less that its more likely for the fwds to reach those numbers on this turbo oppose to the awds, at least thats what im seeing so far.

 

[dsm-onster]

I dont need 350 all the time, just maybe for a dyno pull or at the track.
I actually think I may go 50 trim down the road , im hoping slower spool will give a better and more linear power curve for my fwd instead of the quick hard hitting e3. And isnt it true that on a fwd by the drivetrain being less that its more likely for the fwds to reach those numbers on this turbo oppose to the awds, at least thats what im seeing so far.

Just a lift a little. . . Traction gives you a certain allowable hp before smoking the tires. . . Slow spool is like rolling at a lighter throttle before punching it on a faster turbo. Unless you decide to use the use the fullpotential of the slower spooling turbo.

An EVO3 would be great for 350 hp every-once-in-a-while. . . Just swirt some water int he mix. . . or run a tank of race gas in the same once in a while. . .

 

[nightspeed87]

What seems to work for you since your fwd also w/ a lot of mods. I do want more top end than the e316g has to offer
mines already starts petering out by 6.5 , I think I want a turbo that holds full boost to like 7.5-8 on a camed 2.0 but has slower spool for a more linear torque curve. What I was thinking is that the bigger turbos spooling characteristics would allow the tires to have a better chance of keeping traction as opposed to one hitting way sooner and never letting the tires get going correctly. ( For example, why its not practical to do say a 2.4 build on a fwd. )
Correct me if im wrong but i believe torque curve has a lot to do with it as in were the power actual peaks at in the power band, and is in my opinion why high powered hondas dont deal with wheel spin as bad as say a srt4. Maybe you can
elaborate on this, but Im saying im sure you get better traction results from careful turbo selection.

 

[yukondoit]

wow guys i thought this thread died, and all of sudden tons of responses. anyways.

I've been looking towards methonal injection to make up for octane and cooling so i made just add that this summer for now. right now it runs like i dont have valve stem seals at all! so thats my current project.

 

[super95awd]

3052.....after all I did run 10's full weight on one with straight 93 octane, and am now going for 9's which aren't far off. Again, straight 93.

 

[daren_p]

What seems to work for you since your fwd also w/ a lot of mods. I do want more top end than the e316g has to offer
mines already starts petering out by 6.5 , I think I want a turbo that holds full boost to like 7.5-8 on a camed 2.0 but has slower spool for a more linear torque curve. What I was thinking is that the bigger turbos spooling characteristics would allow the tires to have a better chance of keeping traction as opposed to one hitting way sooner and never letting the tires get going correctly. ( For example, why its not practical to do say a 2.4 build on a fwd. )
Correct me if im wrong but i believe torque curve has a lot to do with it as in were the power actual peaks at in the power band, and is in my opinion why high powered hondas dont deal with wheel spin as bad as say a srt4. Maybe you can
elaborate on this, but Im saying im sure you get better traction results from careful turbo selection.

You are defently correct in your thinking, stroker defently not a good idea for a fwd & a larger, slower spooling turbo with more linear spool characterics defently help. I personally run the 3052 & I was a little worried at first as guys had said this is still a hard hitting turbo on initial spool. I would assume they were comparing it to other large non BB turbo's as I find this turbo to be much more linear when boost comes on & even though I'm making more power then the evoIII, I have just as good traction. The main reason for me to upgrade was the same reason as you, even with cams the evoIII started to lose pull about 6500. I also wanted something that was more boost friendly on pump gas. I am extrememly happy with the turbo itself but am now limited by pump gas. These X series of cams don't seem to like pump at all as they create so much extra cylinder pressure, you have to pull alot of timing to prevent knock. Meth injection will defently be in my near future so I can get the boost up from 19 to my desired 22 psi & get those timing sliders back from removing 4 deg, to zero'd out.

With fwd you will make the 350 whp goal easier as you don't have the same amount of drivetrain loss the awd has. With meth injection you should have a problem running atleast 22 psi with the evoIII & know guys who run even more boost without issues. Meth seems to be one of the best bang for the buck mods & should help you meet your goal with the evoIII.

 

[dsm-onster]

What seems to work for you since your fwd also w/ a lot of mods. I do want more top end than the e316g has to offer
mines already starts petering out by 6.5 , I think I want a turbo that holds full boost to like 7.5-8 on a camed 2.0 but has slower spool for a more linear torque curve. What I was thinking is that the bigger turbos spooling characteristics would allow the tires to have a better chance of keeping traction as opposed to one hitting way sooner and never letting the tires get going correctly. ( For example, why its not practical to do say a 2.4 build on a fwd. )
Correct me if im wrong but i believe torque curve has a lot to do with it as in were the power actual peaks at in the power band, and is in my opinion why high powered hondas dont deal with wheel spin as bad as say a srt4. Maybe you can
elaborate on this, but Im saying im sure you get better traction results from careful turbo selection.

Purposefully bogging the car comming out of the hole isn't the best way. You can't use but so much torque in 1st before you bake the tires. No matter where the powerband is. . . If you want to make the power come on more linear then modulate the accelerator pedal. It controls acceleration.

If the srt4 and the honda had the same suspension, weight transfer characteristics, weight, same everything (except in the engine bay); then the one with the most power under the curve would win. Simple.

Slipping the clutch and maintaining the fastest forward motion possible just on the edge of traction seams to work best for me. I pick a throttle position and control acceleration w/ my clutch pedal. Driving like this WILL eat a street disk after a while. . . But that's the price. If I have a faster spooling turbo (or a stroker); in third, where the car already has enough forward motion not to fry the tires, then I have power earlier then you w/ a slow spooler. If I get to 4th before you, I WILL finish the track earlier than you.

Don't get me wrong. I think lag is really overrated. I don't mind driving a laggy turbo. I'm a human and what sets me apart from the animal kingdom is my ability to supremely adapt to changes in my surroundings quickly. You have that gift, too .

Buy the turbo that gives you the best power for the powerband of your cams and intake manifold; no matter where the powerband is. Buy a clutch disk that can handle high heat. You want exactly the most power you can put down JUST BEFORE you lose traction. I doubt you can size a turbo, and cams, and build a SMIM that will build power through out the curve at just the very edge of traction for your setup. Then what do you do when you manage to get another traction upgrade?

Infinity G35 traction control and Masda 6 traction control: electronic controlled throttleplate that opens at a slower rate when you plant the pedal. This rate is what the engineers tested to be the best delivery of power to the wheel through out the powerband just before wheel spin.

 

[daren_p]

Or the simple solution, which I will do eventually is get an EBC such as the Apexi AVC-R that has gear selectable boost levels. Then once you set the controller up, you don't have to worry to much about playing with the gas & clutch

PS While I'm now seeing full boost around 4100 vs the 3500 I was seeing with the evoIII, I don't mind the extra lag at all even for daily driving. Everyone always says, boost is only a downshift away but my thought was sure this is fine for the highway or open roads but I do alot of city/heavy traffic driving & don't want to have to down shift everytime I want to pass one guy or merge infront of someone etc, it starts to become a pain. With the 3052 the extra lag isn't an issue in this situation as the boost starts building around 3000 rpms or maybe even slightly less & then gradually builds up to the mid to upper 3000's & then really starts to take off. The evoIII was much more what I would call off/on. You'd go from no pull to full boost, just like a switch. I like the lower linear power of the new turbo much better.

 

[nightspeed87]

Or the simple solution, which I will do eventually is get an EBC such as the Apexi AVC-R that has gear selectable boost levels. Then once you set the controller up, you don't have to worry to much about playing with the gas & clutch

PS While I'm now seeing full boost around 4100 vs the 3500 I was seeing with the evoIII, I don't mind the extra lag at all even for daily driving. Everyone always says, boost is only a downshift away but my thought was sure this is fine for the highway or open roads but I do alot of city/heavy traffic driving & don't want to have to down shift everytime I want to pass one guy or merge infront of someone etc, it starts to become a pain. With the 3052 the extra lag isn't an issue in this situation as the boost starts building around 3000 rpms or maybe even slightly less & then gradually builds up to the mid to upper 3000's & then really starts to take off. The evoIII was much more what I would call off/on. You'd go from no pull to full boost, just like a switch. I like the lower linear power of the new turbo much better.

Im with you on this, I do believe a more linear power band is better for fwd which is what you are pretty much confirming. The evo 3 can be sort of on/off switch if you go into it hard enough, and I dont even have cams yet so I can imagen even worse then.
I may look into a 50 trim variation turbo for my set up ( along with better tires, lsd and awd equal length half shafts ) and its should be pretty solid for what it is.
Also the apexi avc-r is in future plans also. who wants to try to balance out the throttle all your doing is spitting out some boost and slowing revving speed every time you back off it some. Id rather just have a set up where say I hit 12psi 1st, 18 psi 2nd, and full blast of say 22 up thru the rest of the gears and go wot every gear and get minimum spinning.

If the srt4 and the honda had the same suspension, weight transfer characteristics, weight, same everything (except in the engine bay); then the one with the most power under the curve would win. Simple.

Hm, Theres a lot of other variables here your right and this would also depend on what kind of race were talking about here, but basically the point I was getting at is the more instant hitting torque curve of the 2.4 verses the 1. whatever liter the honda has would make a big difference in traction, hence why fwd dsms usually dont do stroker. A awd srt4 would be bad ass though.

Slipping the clutch and maintaining the fastest forward motion possible just on the edge of traction seams to work best for me. I pick a throttle position and control acceleration w/ my clutch pedal. Driving like this WILL eat a street disk after a while. . . But that's the price. If I have a faster spooling turbo (or a stroker); in third, where the car already has enough forward motion not to fry the tires, then I have power earlier then you w/ a slow spooler. If I get to 4th before you, I WILL finish the track earlier than you.

The clutch part is true.. The the part finishing across the line faster would depend, your saying because of a faster spooling third would make you reach fourth faster and win the race... Not exactly, because say the higher revving lower displacement engine will be in high rpms the whole time where his power band was, say coming out of 2nd gear at 8 or 9k then nlts to third how low do you really expect the rpms to fall. Therefore boost is still there, lag wouldnt be an issue at that point... Plus depending on how much power (supposing it was a built 2.0 with higher revs than the stroker was capable of) the high revs also result to higher trap speeds as well. Or else shep or Rau would be running strokers.

But im not downing strokers, If I had AWD Id love to do a 2.4 build for a street car/ every once in a while track car.

But say on the street generally the faster spooling, or "stroked" engine would have more benefit ( if fwd then were supposing traction was remotely there from its type of powerband) Unless the race of the two was some sort of "illegal" top speed highway duel of course...

The only way Id think i could justify stroker on a regular fwd is if the turbo was soo slow of spool that the extra displacement was needed to get the car going , but that stroker would need some revs though.

With fwd you will make the 350 whp goal easier as you don't have the same amount of drivetrain loss the awd has. With meth injection you should have a problem running atleast 22 psi with the evoIII & know guys who run even more boost without issues. Meth seems to be one of the best bang for the buck mods & should help you meet your goal with the evoIII.

 

[dsm-onster]

Not exactly, because say the higher revving lower displacement engine will be in high rpms the whole time where his power band was, say coming out of 2nd gear at 8 or 9k then nlts to third how low do you really expect the rpms to fall. Therefore boost is still there, lag wouldnt be an issue at that point...

Hmm, RPMS would be high. And he'd blow the tires off the road W/ a NLTS from second to third. I could do this w/ my 60-1, which spooled to 20 psi by 4500 rpms, revhappy FP2Xs before I tweeked my fuel/timing; 8500 rpm revlimit. 55 mph burn outs is very ! The higher the rpms the quicker the spool; so down shifting to 5500-6000 is like a quick spooling turbo shifting earlier with respect to how it "hits" or how the power band looks from that point on. But of course having the flow of the big turbo is enough to push you faster when you DO get traction. A evo3 powered FWD vs. a 56 trim powered FWD. Of course the 56 trim will yield a better ET. But not because of traction, because of more power when it can be used; top of third, NLTS 3-4, & 4.

It all seams to be opinion. I can prevent my 14b, small 16g, and my 18g from being an on/off switch. Even w/ stock, early peaking cams. I can modulate the pedal rather easily. I know anyone can do what I do. Then when 3rd is there, I've got the quick spool time. I know a stroker and a 50 trim can be controlled w/ the accelerator pedal in a FWD, as it would "hit" similarly if the pedal were slammed to the floor instantly.

BTW, I have a m62, a bunch of intercooler piping, a second intercooler, and an electronic bypass valve in my shed for my FWD 60-1/m62 twincharge project for this season . Full boost from the 60-1 by 2800 rpms is to be expected now . My traction will go to pot I guess .

BTW,

With fwd you will make the 350 whp goal easier as you don't have the same amount of drivetrain loss the awd has. With meth injection you should have a problem running atleast 22 psi with the evoIII & know guys who run even more boost without issues. Meth seems to be one of the best bang for the buck mods & should help you meet your goal with the evoIII.

I agree wholeheartedly too. . .

 

[DILLDOUGH]

I believe the 11.8 ET. ShapeGSX did this in "full dress". But not the 32 psi. Perhaps 32 psi at 4K, but not at peak HP or anywhere near shifting rpms.

Guys, I don't know many who've gotten a SOLID 350 whp out of the EVOIII. It's not a safe reality.

Water injection covers a multitude of sins though. . .I say just get a water/alky kit or build one and Then you're sure to get that out of your current set up. . . Pump gas comes w/a sacrifice. . . I think it's worth it, considering how much race fuel costs and how much turbos cost. . .

If you're hard pressed to upgrade anything then just upgrade turbine housings. You'll definately be able the flow enough out of the evo3 wheel to support your goals then. . .

What do you mean it's not a safe reality? There are lots of people running evo16g's making well over 350whp reliably in their daily drivers, myself included.

 

[dsm-onster]

You're running 93 octane and no water injection? Dyno sheets havn't been posted in your profile.

Congratulations if you are. I still don't know many that run this level of power on pump gas alone w/ a stock longblock (stock cams, stroke, bore, head port). Maybe they all live in New England. It's colder there . Your idea of 'many' and my idea of 'many' can be very different. I've seen a stroker setup suck 400hp from an evoIII turbo. But to get 400 hp out of a stock long block takes lots of boost, from my experience. And from what I've seen consistantly.