T-uk

Was this another "snipe" at an IHI being inferior to your pet MHI turbo, or was it a comment about the measurement setup? I hope it was the later, as so far, IMHO, your posts don't "sound" quite like a broken record.

knowing john I would bet it was with regards to the measurement set-up but even if it was a "snipe" what is the problem?

scoobynet is all about fashions and trends and recently(last 12 months anyway) every second post mentioned hybrid turbos from lateral, now the fashion is changing and it sounds like some are so blinkered they cannot allow this. this is in no way a dig at mark as he is where I got my TD05 turbo from but I would bet in 12months time there will be another set-up above all else.

the thing with john is he tries many set-ups and each one offers an improvement over the last, he shares his results openly and informs us where each gain over the old set-up was made.I actually think it is a pity, that there is, as far as some are concerned "a hidden agenda for everything".

perhaps john,andy and harvey should stop pushing the limits until you all catch up

MorayMackenzie

T-uk,

Re: "scoobynet is all about fashions and trends and recently(last 12 months anyway) every second post mentioned hybrid turbos from lateral, now the fashion is changing and it sounds like some are so blinkered they cannot allow this."

I guess you are suggesting that I am one of the "blinkered". LOL.

I am fairly sure that John was in fact commenting on the rolling road measurements rather than having a go at the IHI, but it wasn't completely clear. I was just asking john to confirm this. As I said in my post, I believe that John is generally not one to become blinkered, which is why I was suprised that the post could be ambiguous in this respect.

Moray

john banks

Not at all Moray - if you noticed I have deliberately avoided commenting on the whole issue of late as indeed it has been done to death, I think we've moved beyond all that and Mark and I have no remaining issues re turbos I am very pleased to say. In fact we are having useful dialogue about further options. I had no intentions of slagging off any turbo, and indeed I am not doing. It was the only other car that ran on the same day with the same RR setttings which is the only reason for comparison. I mapped the car so if anything I feel the 300 BHP on the MD304 is a reflection on my mapping if it really is only 300 BHP and I wouldn't blame the owner if he thought this, but I don't think he does. It is a proven performer at this boost level and I actually really enjoyed driving it whilst mapping. I am not even sure we can say my car at 1.6 bar with a shed load of octane booster has a third more power than an MD304 at 1.1 bar because of limitations of rolling roads despite them being done on the same day. But if it is about a third that is not terrible thing.

I was more expressing my slight disappointment at my own figures which I felt were lower than I might hope to achieve elsewhere, but a lot of disappointment that the MD304 car I put a lot of effort into didn't do better.

However, if the figures are comparable to Powerstation, 300 BHP at 1.1 bar would be about right.

I don't think you are blinkered Moray. Sometimes I struggle to tell what you are saying/meaning but that is partly to do with communication through a BBS. I don't think from my POV there are any real agendas, of course I want to show off about my 400+ UK internals figure even if it is meaningless (or a plain stupid thing to do). I feel I can put the UK 2.0 to bed or blow it up trying to get more now

Really we went there to test the rollers on a hot (thermally ) car to see how the setup coped, but we got carried away and started looking for figures from my car. Interesting to see that it didn't really respond to VERY silly boost Think even with NF, that octane becomes an issue.

The 20G is not short of issues like most turbos out there. It is not the last word. But it has a role and has done well on a few 2.0s. Will be interesting on the 2.33 how it fares. Andy's EGBP readings were surprisingly low which is a good sign. If it chokes or surges at the midrange boost level I need to run for 400 lbft I'll move to a Garrett with a P20 - I'll lose a bit of response but gain easy top end I think.

[Edited by john banks - 5/23/2003 12:27:55 PM]

ChristianR

iTrader: (1)

lol - that has to be the funny quote of the day award.

john banks

Christian, rest assurred it is nothing like your figures. The point of the post was to share and let's be honest, show off what I'd managed on UK internals to get off a RR since people put great store by their results (overly so IMHO). I am personally pleased to have a RR say I've managed over 400, but the standard internals bit is the bit I'm most pleased with, not even that I've done it but surprise they have stood up to it (so far ). Makes you a bit happier to run 350 on one Whilst I am now commercial in Subaru tuning in some ways I wish I wasn't because it make people suspicious of you and your motives. Of course there is a halo effect when you've got a good result yourself (although the fact that I've run my engine to high limits IMHO says little about my ability to tune and says more about the integrity of the Subaru engine that has for so long been berated as being made of chocolate). I started as an enthusiast from this BBS and that is how I still treat it. The fact that I've spent virtually everything I've made from tuning other people's cars on my own is something my wife finds interesting

Adam M

john,

after my first 2.33 post, it occured to me that I never said well done.

400bhp on standard internals is an achievement, and bragging is not a bad thing in this situation.

I would like to add though that subaru engines have not been labelled as made of chocolate because of their inabilities to handle tuning.

I have no concerns whatsoever about the integrity of my new engine to handle 600+bhp. My main concern is the distinct possibility that it could still throw a big end bearing, and I would be none the wiser as to why it happens. Personally I think it is related to the inherently small (narrow) big end bearing surface for such a high output 4 cylinder engine. Pat tells me it is considerably smaller than even a standard pinto.

There isn't an apparent correlation between tuning and big end failure, so despite strengthening, I am no more certain of the longevity.

People have theories and I have included the potential solutions in the build, but it is no guarantee. Until we are certain of what is causing it, I will always view the subaru engine as weaker than the offerings from mitsubishi and cosworth.

MorayMackenzie

Hi John,

Thanks for the clarification. Impressive figures, especially for a "mere" UK block.

How fast did you have to rev the engine for that power figure?

I guess you were running on the richer side of (wideband) lambda 0.85 to keep the pistons cool at 1.6bar boost at high revs.

Moray

john banks

Running 11.5:1 midrange 11:1 at the top depending on boost (because maxxing out JECS load the map looked a bit funny I put in numbers to open the injectors at high RPM basically) - I could lean it more but I preferred the EGTs below 900C with all the messing about with multi runs and silly boost levels. We did try it up to 1.8 bar, but it didn't hold to the top. I just left the fuel map as it was from before but turned the fuel pressure up. Rev limiter was at 7000 RPM, peak power was always between 6000 and 6500 RPM from memory but there were a lot of runs.

MorayMackenzie

PS: I guess the wife must be happy that you have a (partially, at least?) self financing hobby that keeps you amused. I have yet to hear of a wife whose shopping hobby is genuinely self financing to any extent.

David_Wallis

Well done john... makes me wish I had tried harder..

Adam.. if you think you can get 600 what do you expect from my Baby turbo ??

Serious Question.

David

T-uk

christian,

note the smilie at the end, anyway you do not count with the big 2.5 .460bhp+ 420torque, just out of interest which rollers was this on?

moray,

blinkered was probably a bad choice of words. all I was meaning is that it is progress. standard piston, rods, headers,cams, heads. basically a remapped standard ecu,big turbo+breathing with fuelling to cope, who would have believed these results a year ago.

I am never sure what angle you are coming from to be honest.

crank up the boost on that 18g and show us possibly the best torque curve from a 2litre...

Adam M

I dont think i can get 600bhp. I thik the engine has been built to withstand 600.

My turbo is smaller than yours because I wanted it to spool for the road.

I will also be limiting my revs, and my cams have been chosent o match this lower power band.

My turbo is rated for 550bhp, but I am not bothered to see if it makes that or not. My goal is 500lbft and that is all that matters, that and keeping the engine as reliable as possible.

If my turbo (not engine) can make 550, am sure yours can make 600 but bear in mind to flow that power you will need to rev proportionally more to make up the capacity deficit.

Pavlo

Adam,

rev more, or run more boost

john banks

500lbft wow. What sort of RPM are you hoping to get this from? Running that sort of torque for a decent RPM band I suspect the power will come by itself I mean if it is still there at 5800 RPM you'll have 550 BHP

I would like 400 lbft from say 3900 to 5900 RPM holding 450 BHP from there to 7500 RPM if possible.

Adam M

sorry paul, I meant boost for boost.

Obviously anything that increases the amount of oxygen in the cylinder per minute. You could equally add nitrous, or make the charge denser.

MorayMackenzie

John,

Interesting torque figure, more than 360ftlb at 1.6bar. This implies it should be possible to make 300ftlb at a modest boost level on a UK block. Interesting stuff. I bet you get to run quite a bit of spark lead with those AFRs.

I wonder where the advance to optimum AFR tradeoff is best left. I suspect I may just experiment with a calibration running shedloads more fuel and timing.


T-uk,

I agree, "blinkered" was a bad choice. Your suggested alternative would have been much better.

As to cranking up the 18G, I have a standard gearbox.

Moray

Adam M

no real idea john, it is dependent on the cams. These have been specced for max low and mid range torque, and will give somethign away at the top without giving a high idle.

I intend to be running 2.0 plus bar as soon as it is possible. Given the choice of turbo I am hoping that this wont be unreasonable at 4k.

Only time will tell, something that I have plenty of. Have pulled out of TOTB, after the dyno (booked for next tuesday) has been cancelled due to the engine not being ready.

am gutted and feelign melancholy about it, so all this is pie in the sky until I see the thing fire.

T-uk

so does JB at the moment, clutch too!

I have the lateral stuff here ready though

john banks

To be fair Moray the actual boost was difficult to tell and it had a little midrange hump, the headline figure was the power and the boost was given at that power level. I am a firm believer in midrange boost - sod the gearbox I have a Lateral one sitting It could have been more like 1.7-1.8 bar but there were a few problems in telling (MAP sensor tops out at 1.67-1.72 bar depending on calibration you use, boost gauge was under-reading because of a MAP leak in the early runs - so MAP wasn't shown at all, the roling road showed 1.6 to 1.8 midrange depending on run and I honestly can't remember what the midrange boost was for the 406/363 run so I would take the torque figure with a pinch of salt because of the way the load was coming in plus a lot of the runs were part throttle until 4500 RPM to make sure it didn't surge, but in fact it didn't when run WOT.

We were really supposed to be testing the rollers.

When I last ran my TD05 at 1.7 bar on these rollers with the 28 second run it did under 330 lbft but was roasted like a Sunday special.

I've previously shown plots of the sort of timing I run on this setup, this was pulled back 2 degrees to control det with different setups, and richer than previously. I've not done enough testing to find the exact sweet spot. I have been slightly reluctant even though the gearbox and engine will be changed. So maybe sod the gearbox is not true One gearbox for sale... never raced or rallied LOL.

[Edited by john banks - 5/23/2003 2:47:38 PM]

Pavlo

You could easily be ready for TOTB Adam, and I as well as many others will be dissapointed if you are not there.

With you and Steve Guirey not going, and disco posibly selling his car, it may mean I am left with a place. I could possibly get the car sorted in time for some runs at the pod prior to TOTB. But to be honest you have a big head start.

Please reconsider, there is help available if it means you can/will run at TOTB.

It would seem that this is another prime example of an organisation that can't do it's job, even when something close to blank cheque is waved in it's face. (not LP if anyone is wondering)

Paul

P20SPD

iTrader: (1)

Adam, not another one pulling out

John and Moray, sorry for sounding simple (i am), but 360lbft at 1.6bar, and suggesting 300lbft at low boost, seems odd to me.

I have no idea why it seems odd, just curious as to what you mean by low boost. Now i know dynos are not worth the paper they are written on, but i achieved 325 at a peak of 1.3bar on sunday, which the graphs at least were consistent with my previous dyno run.

I think the crossover equated to between 315 and 320, so would suggest a reasonable figure of torque.

My question is, would you not expect more from 1.6bar?

Am i right in my calculaions here? lets say peak power was at 6400?? then 406/6400*5250=333lbft

is that right?

is that due to the mapping on your part John, ie safety or, am i completey on the wrong track?

from a very confused

Steven

Leslie

Just like to add my congratulations John, as an old tuner. Very impressed indeed.

Les

john banks

Safety was out the window except from the detonation point of view Nothing was held back to be honest, this is pretty near to what I could get out of it.

You don't expect to still be making peak torque at peak power.

Assuming equal efficiencies on the two setups (which they are not for multiple conflicting reasons between our cars - running higher boost on mine is bad for turbo efficiency and charge temp, running NF on mine is good, running aggressive timing on mine is good, running a larger turbine wheel on mine is good, running a smaller AR turbine housing on mine is bad etc) but as a guide for arguement's sake, and assuming the torques from different RR are comparable) then if you make 320 lbft at 1.3 bar then you could extrapolate to 2.7/2.3 * 320 = 360 lbft at 1.7 bar. Sorry that was a long sentence.

STi M'8

As T-uk mentionned, nobody could stand serious if anyone had announced such figures only a year ago (only 12 months).
This is kind of achievement

Between us, what do you expect from the 2.3L John ?

Gentlemen, place your bets now

P20SPD

iTrader: (1)

Run out of breth reading that John

Think i understand it, so all in all, assuming all things equal, then my torque figure aint that bad

Steven

P20SPD

iTrader: (1)

With John who knows, as he will continoulsy move his own goal posts, after all he is famous for saying "No more modifications" or words to that effect.

Spoon

I'd still prefer thousands of miles at that figure rather than 15 seconds.

Can it really be a true representation?

I respect your constant toying with the motor because everyone can learn something, but, i'd also have to believe the 15 second figures aren't really worth a jot.

What are your thoughts on the engine lasting?

That doesn't mean it's not entertaining reading though, well done.

David_Wallis

Adam.. if theres anything I can do to help let me know..

Scoobynet is back on track with some good threads

David

Pavlo

Spoon,

the standardness of the internals doesn't really affect the power obtainable if they stay together. However, a year ago people would have said it wasn't even possible for an engine to last 15 seconds like johns. This os however the 3rd car with over 400 RR hp on standard internals that I know of in the UK, and there are only a handful of others that have have done it with fully uprated internals.

It's also worth noting that this wasn't just thrown together for the dyno runs, and has been running at very high power outputs for about 6 months now. Although only really hitting 400hp for the last 3 or so I think.

Paul

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Scary John
But no doubt the "chocolate engine" theory could well be out of the window
At what point will you need to strengthen parts like the driveshafts/diffs though?
Also the clutch, i think its the way these are used/abused that make them fail, 31k and v little judder on mine but no quite as much power
I take it your going to upgrade when this one gives up the ghost?

Tony