md321t where from
#91
Since everyone is discussing turbo's.... I can add another one in to the melting pot.
I have just finished testing an AET bolt on single scroll turbo.
480bhp / 460lbft
Mapped on normal pump fuel (again no additives) with peak power being achieved at a lowly 1.4bar boost!
We have overlayed the power run from this turbo against my previous 2ltr engine (I now have a 2.5 Cosworth lump) that had the twin scroll turbo and the lowdown power/torque is actually better on this new set-up, then at 3400rpm the new set-up just takes off in to the sunset!
1 bar @ 2700rpm
1.5 bar @ 3000rpm
Need a stronger actuator, to see if turbo can hold the boost at the top end. If that happens we should just about bust 500bhp.
As a road car the driveability and power delivery is the mutts nuts. This new engine just pulls and pulls and rev's exactly the same as my old 2ltr did..... just a shed load smoother.
I have just finished testing an AET bolt on single scroll turbo.
480bhp / 460lbft
Mapped on normal pump fuel (again no additives) with peak power being achieved at a lowly 1.4bar boost!
We have overlayed the power run from this turbo against my previous 2ltr engine (I now have a 2.5 Cosworth lump) that had the twin scroll turbo and the lowdown power/torque is actually better on this new set-up, then at 3400rpm the new set-up just takes off in to the sunset!
1 bar @ 2700rpm
1.5 bar @ 3000rpm
Need a stronger actuator, to see if turbo can hold the boost at the top end. If that happens we should just about bust 500bhp.
As a road car the driveability and power delivery is the mutts nuts. This new engine just pulls and pulls and rev's exactly the same as my old 2ltr did..... just a shed load smoother.
#93
You impatient person.
Dyno graphs are at hand (well they are at home), but I do not want to release anything on these as they will be part of the article due to be published within the next 4 weeks.
I may be convinced otherwise..... cheque in the post please.
One thing to consider is that I am using Cosworth ported heads and Cosworth CAMS (which are wilder than the 06 Spec C ones) as part of the new engine spec with twin scroll headers mated to a custom made twin scroll to single scroll up-pipe.
It pulls very well and in fact is only the second Impreza ran so far on PowerStation's rollers (after the Type 25 race car) that needs to be double strapped, as it nearly passed (and would of done if Rich had kept his foot in) over the top of the front roller set when we did the initial power runs....... it nearly ended before it started!
Last edited by ex-webby; 31 May 2007 at 01:48 PM.
#95
Wow there are alot of BIG power figures!
How do these figures relate to road performance though?
Has anyone timed in gear acceleration times? i.e 40-100, 60-130, 60-100....
I think these figures are better to show how a turbo actually performs on the road, fairer than 1/4 mile as no launch is required....
On my Zen Powered RA with a tiny 18g\Meth I got the following results:
40-100= 5.02-5.3 Seconds Using 3rd-4th Gear
60-100= 4.01-4.2 Seconds Using 4th Gear
60-130= 8.5-8.9 Seconds Using 4th-5th Gear
The speed was measured using the PFC Commander as this was correct according to the Commander Revs, may not be accurate as using a VBOX or similar, but still a good guage....
The 60-130 is an excellent test, Alot of big power cars in the US use this test to guage a car's true on road performance.
(All runs were carried out approximately 6-8 times, which reflects the different times)
Main reason I ask is, in the future I may consider an MD or something similar, so just would like to see how much a bigger turbo may affect mid range acceleration.
How do these figures relate to road performance though?
Has anyone timed in gear acceleration times? i.e 40-100, 60-130, 60-100....
I think these figures are better to show how a turbo actually performs on the road, fairer than 1/4 mile as no launch is required....
On my Zen Powered RA with a tiny 18g\Meth I got the following results:
40-100= 5.02-5.3 Seconds Using 3rd-4th Gear
60-100= 4.01-4.2 Seconds Using 4th Gear
60-130= 8.5-8.9 Seconds Using 4th-5th Gear
The speed was measured using the PFC Commander as this was correct according to the Commander Revs, may not be accurate as using a VBOX or similar, but still a good guage....
The 60-130 is an excellent test, Alot of big power cars in the US use this test to guage a car's true on road performance.
(All runs were carried out approximately 6-8 times, which reflects the different times)
Main reason I ask is, in the future I may consider an MD or something similar, so just would like to see how much a bigger turbo may affect mid range acceleration.
#96
Mark,
The graph you have put up for your MD321T (impressive graph) is presumably on "funny" fuel and/or mental boost?!
Kev,
Nice figures!
R4LLY,
You are of course correct.... I will hopefully be doing some formal testing at the weekend of in-gear, 0-60, 0-100 etc of my set-up.
The graph you have put up for your MD321T (impressive graph) is presumably on "funny" fuel and/or mental boost?!
Kev,
Nice figures!
R4LLY,
You are of course correct.... I will hopefully be doing some formal testing at the weekend of in-gear, 0-60, 0-100 etc of my set-up.
#97
Amir
Last edited by R4LLY; 31 May 2007 at 08:56 PM.
#98
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 8.95 @ 168mph. Zero to 1KM 194.1mph
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaun,
I've been told that Paul's car was run on pump fuel, with no additives. He runs higher boost than you, but then he's got a smaller engine, on non VVT heads, and tamer cams, although the extra boost gave him about 70ftlbs more torque than you.
I guess the bottom line, is Paul's car with the MD321T set up did an 11.1 second 1/4, on only his second time out with the car
Mark.
I've been told that Paul's car was run on pump fuel, with no additives. He runs higher boost than you, but then he's got a smaller engine, on non VVT heads, and tamer cams, although the extra boost gave him about 70ftlbs more torque than you.
I guess the bottom line, is Paul's car with the MD321T set up did an 11.1 second 1/4, on only his second time out with the car
Mark.
#99
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: colchester
Posts: 7,226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
are you on about paul crafts,,,,if so his he running the sc50 (scooby clinic's) turbo now,,,,as the md321t was running out of puff at about 475bhp
and i think his best ever time was at the sso with the new turbo (sc50)
any way it seems to me like you a bit scared of this new turbo scooby clinic have brought out,,,,as it
cheaper
faster
you also get every thing needed to fit it
and to top it all off ,,and this is what every one wants MORE bhp/torque
just my thoughts
stu
and i think his best ever time was at the sso with the new turbo (sc50)
any way it seems to me like you a bit scared of this new turbo scooby clinic have brought out,,,,as it
cheaper
faster
you also get every thing needed to fit it
and to top it all off ,,and this is what every one wants MORE bhp/torque
just my thoughts
stu
Last edited by stuart148; 01 June 2007 at 08:57 AM.
#100
If people where to look at it that way they would just buy a 35R because it makes more power then the SC50 and the MD321T. Doesent mean its a BETTER turbo to me.
Just my opinion and prefernce of course but I wouldent choose a turbo on a peak number alone.
Renno
#102
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: colchester
Posts: 7,226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the only thing pi**ing me off about this thread,,,is mr lateral,,,saying md this,md that
wish he would get it in to his head,,,paul crafts is NOT running a md turbo
i dont know a lot/well nearly nowt about turbo's ,,,but kev from the scooby clinic as already said the sc46 turbo matches the md321t
so whats mr lateral's problem,,,is it because they is going to be some competition in the market
stu
wish he would get it in to his head,,,paul crafts is NOT running a md turbo
i dont know a lot/well nearly nowt about turbo's ,,,but kev from the scooby clinic as already said the sc46 turbo matches the md321t
so whats mr lateral's problem,,,is it because they is going to be some competition in the market
stu
#104
Scooby Regular
Scoobyclinics turbo's are new, that means its up to them to convince us customers that they are as good/better than Laterals. That means back to back dyno testing and also cars out there making the power they claim can be made. Scoobyclinics turbo's look good to me, and they have obviously got the cars out there making the power, but are they as good as/better than Laterals md321T? Well only back to back testing with an independant mapper will show this. Until then Lateral have the edge simply because their turbo has been proven time and time again over the past months.
I personally look forward to back to back dyno graphs before making a choice on what I'll be buying.
Last edited by borat52; 01 June 2007 at 02:45 PM.
#105
I still don't think dyno figures and graphs will be able to tell the whole story of which turbo will be better for road use.
Apart from 1/4 mile has anyone tested the mid range figures for both cars?
I'm sure if we could compare the times for say 60-130, 40-100 of the said turbos, we could guage which Turbo delivers more useable power on the road and which is more responsive.
This argument will not be settled with just power figures and graphs.
Apart from 1/4 mile has anyone tested the mid range figures for both cars?
I'm sure if we could compare the times for say 60-130, 40-100 of the said turbos, we could guage which Turbo delivers more useable power on the road and which is more responsive.
This argument will not be settled with just power figures and graphs.
#107
Scooby Regular
Agreed, you'll be able to tell with back to back dyno test which spools earliest and which gives the widest power band. If a turbo has a wider power band on the dyno its going to have it on the road too.
#108
Scooby Regular
seems to me that all the turbos compared are various different versions,a nd in some cases desgined to provide different performance.
only real way to get a result, all parties get together and use same dyno, same day and same mapper.
fit first turbo, map the bollox out of it and see what you get.
car off the dyno and fit different turbo, map the bollox out of it and see what you get.
car off the dyno and fit third different turbo etc etc
no two cars are the same, and also you boys and girls no that two different days are uinlikely to have the same atmospheric conditions (in some cases hour to hour can be different). so the argument is a waste of time unless you do back to back tests with the latest versions.
whats the date gonna be?
only real way to get a result, all parties get together and use same dyno, same day and same mapper.
fit first turbo, map the bollox out of it and see what you get.
car off the dyno and fit different turbo, map the bollox out of it and see what you get.
car off the dyno and fit third different turbo etc etc
no two cars are the same, and also you boys and girls no that two different days are uinlikely to have the same atmospheric conditions (in some cases hour to hour can be different). so the argument is a waste of time unless you do back to back tests with the latest versions.
whats the date gonna be?
#109
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: www.scoobyclinic.com
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
as I have clearly stated before it is not an us and them argument, I run a 321T on my personal car, scooby clinic did all the testing when the 321 evolved into a "T" and then an "H", Scoobyclinic also are a stockist of the MD series, and without doubt the MD321T and 321 H are stunning turbos, we just want to offer an alternative product exclusive to Scoobyclinic, something a little different, in fact we are just having our own custom exaust housing cast at the moment to aid spool on an even bigger direct fit turbo.
Back to back testing will be done next week,to busy this week due to scooby shootout last weekend and time attack this weekend, oh, and a bank holiday thrown in the middle, graphs will be posted as soon as poss, and a bit of live testing will be carried out at the Pod next sunday, should show us some times.
Cheers
Kev
as I have clearly stated before it is not an us and them argument, I run a 321T on my personal car, scooby clinic did all the testing when the 321 evolved into a "T" and then an "H", Scoobyclinic also are a stockist of the MD series, and without doubt the MD321T and 321 H are stunning turbos, we just want to offer an alternative product exclusive to Scoobyclinic, something a little different, in fact we are just having our own custom exaust housing cast at the moment to aid spool on an even bigger direct fit turbo.
Back to back testing will be done next week,to busy this week due to scooby shootout last weekend and time attack this weekend, oh, and a bank holiday thrown in the middle, graphs will be posted as soon as poss, and a bit of live testing will be carried out at the Pod next sunday, should show us some times.
Cheers
Kev
#110
Kev, as an independent Dyno Dynamics owner and user I would like to see the following in your back to back test to get fair results for both turbos.
Same Car
Same Day
Idealy same Air Temp & Intake Temp for all runs
SC50 Vs Lateral MD(500 equivalent not 321T)
Dyno Dynamics Using RPM PICKUP not on gear ratio.
Independant mapper (PAT or Bob R)
Shell VPower No additives.
Now that would make for interesting results
Conrad
Same Car
Same Day
Idealy same Air Temp & Intake Temp for all runs
SC50 Vs Lateral MD(500 equivalent not 321T)
Dyno Dynamics Using RPM PICKUP not on gear ratio.
Independant mapper (PAT or Bob R)
Shell VPower No additives.
Now that would make for interesting results
Conrad
Last edited by The Fixer; 01 June 2007 at 05:17 PM. Reason: spelling
#114
Some testing has been done on my car this week but all i can tell you at moment is that the SC42 made a lot more torque than the MD321H at same boost levels and spooled a lot quicker with no loss at top end. will know results very soon. thanks scoobyclinic
#115
Guess thats only what you have been told, looking at another thread you mentioned that when you had the 321 on the car it needed the mapping sorting to get the best out of it, on that basis it's not possible to compare your car as a before and after.
Also, turbo spool and the level and achieved rate is dependant on TWO things, the turbo and the mapping, having mapped quite a few cars with the 321H I always have to profile the boost response to minimise surge, its very possible to map it well into surge with full boost achieved at ridiculously low rpm, however that is not the most effective use of it.
To my eyes and ears reading this thread and others there is a degree of "isn't this great because" attached to the SC42 and SC50, in practice I suggest they are both able to do a good job BUT are not any different to their equivelant competition with an unearned reputation being provided as of now.
Time will show, needs more than one car and more than one tuner to map in order to achieve a solid reputation for doing what it says on the tin. Personally I am looking forward to being able to do that.
cheers
bob
Also, turbo spool and the level and achieved rate is dependant on TWO things, the turbo and the mapping, having mapped quite a few cars with the 321H I always have to profile the boost response to minimise surge, its very possible to map it well into surge with full boost achieved at ridiculously low rpm, however that is not the most effective use of it.
To my eyes and ears reading this thread and others there is a degree of "isn't this great because" attached to the SC42 and SC50, in practice I suggest they are both able to do a good job BUT are not any different to their equivelant competition with an unearned reputation being provided as of now.
Time will show, needs more than one car and more than one tuner to map in order to achieve a solid reputation for doing what it says on the tin. Personally I am looking forward to being able to do that.
cheers
bob
#116
Guess thats only what you have been told, looking at another thread you mentioned that when you had the 321 on the car it needed the mapping sorting to get the best out of it, on that basis it's not possible to compare your car as a before and after.
Also, turbo spool and the level and achieved rate is dependant on TWO things, the turbo and the mapping, having mapped quite a few cars with the 321H I always have to profile the boost response to minimise surge, its very possible to map it well into surge with full boost achieved at ridiculously low rpm, however that is not the most effective use of it.
To my eyes and ears reading this thread and others there is a degree of "isn't this great because" attached to the SC42 and SC50, in practice I suggest they are both able to do a good job BUT are not any different to their equivelant competition with an unearned reputation being provided as of now.
Time will show, needs more than one car and more than one tuner to map in order to achieve a solid reputation for doing what it says on the tin. Personally I am looking forward to being able to do that.
cheers
bob
Also, turbo spool and the level and achieved rate is dependant on TWO things, the turbo and the mapping, having mapped quite a few cars with the 321H I always have to profile the boost response to minimise surge, its very possible to map it well into surge with full boost achieved at ridiculously low rpm, however that is not the most effective use of it.
To my eyes and ears reading this thread and others there is a degree of "isn't this great because" attached to the SC42 and SC50, in practice I suggest they are both able to do a good job BUT are not any different to their equivelant competition with an unearned reputation being provided as of now.
Time will show, needs more than one car and more than one tuner to map in order to achieve a solid reputation for doing what it says on the tin. Personally I am looking forward to being able to do that.
cheers
bob
At 1.2bar MD321H was 350/330
At 1.4Bar 385/340 but will do more.
At 1.4Bar the SC42 was 385/385
and now at 1.5bar its 400/400 but will do more.
I picked car up today and its just fantastic, it comes on to boost earlier and stays on boost longer and less lag, but i dont think there is anyone else to compare this to as i maybe the first to have this turbo as my car was used as a test pilot for the SC42. they did say if i didnt like the turbo they will put MD back on.
I will be at jap show this weekend and cant wait to see what it will do, will be in black classic with scoobyclinic livery down side.
If you there come and see.
#117
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 8.95 @ 168mph. Zero to 1KM 194.1mph
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IRC450STI,
I'm sorry, but how on earth you, or anyone else would consider comparing two results, when one of them was with a slipping clutch, is beyond me.
And where did these figures come from, all posted by YOU
Posted 29th of May:
Posted on the 12th June:
Mark.
the MD321H was on my car for about 4 months when engine was rebuilt with a big spec and my aim was to have 400+bhp but was only mapped to 350BHP and torque was 330 due to standard gearbox, then i got a PPG gearset and mapped to 385BHP/340lbs ft because clutch was slipping at 400BHP/360lbs ft, now with twin plate exedy clutch the clinic ask me if i would like to try the SC42 so they could compare the two turbos
I'm sorry, but how on earth you, or anyone else would consider comparing two results, when one of them was with a slipping clutch, is beyond me.
And where did these figures come from, all posted by YOU
Posted 29th of May:
Mark.
#118
IRC450STI,
I'm sorry, but how on earth you, or anyone else would consider comparing two results, when one of them was with a slipping clutch, is beyond me.
And where did these figures come from, all posted by YOU
Posted 29th of May:
Posted on the 12th June:
Mark.
I'm sorry, but how on earth you, or anyone else would consider comparing two results, when one of them was with a slipping clutch, is beyond me.
And where did these figures come from, all posted by YOU
Posted 29th of May:
Posted on the 12th June:
Mark.
#119
BANNED
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Squires Milk Bar Last Friday of every month All welcome
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BITTER
IRC450STI,
I'm sorry, but how on earth you, or anyone else would consider comparing two results, when one of them was with a slipping clutch, is beyond me.
And where did these figures come from, all posted by YOU
Posted 29th of May:
Posted on the 12th June:
Mark.
I'm sorry, but how on earth you, or anyone else would consider comparing two results, when one of them was with a slipping clutch, is beyond me.
And where did these figures come from, all posted by YOU
Posted 29th of May:
Posted on the 12th June:
Mark.