Buschur Racing, FP Red/FP Black/HTA86 comparo of sorts
Jun 2, 2010, 09:32 PM
#16
Newbie
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first of all, i don't think that's a fair comparison, and second there is a cost factor and convenience for choosing an FP BLack. I've personally used the FP Black on both the 2.0 and the 2.4 engine. I can tell you that the spoolup and response between both engines are night and day.With the added dsiplacement, unlike this case where the turbo being discredited is on the smallest motor, the response of that turbo is amazing. I've also used the 6262 on both engines and non of them are anywhere near as fun as the FP BLack. The second factor is the ease and cost of this setup. it's like plug-n-play. No expensive manifold, no external wastegate, no downpipe mods, water and oil supply lines.... and the list goes on. Personally, i think it's on the best turbos ever made for ppl like me. Thanks again to FP for a great product.
I am kinda double going back on myself, from this chart it appears the fpblack is a pretty pointless turbo as it's non stock framed counterparts really spool only a few hundred rpm slower but have much higher power potential
I think the standard smallest exhaust housing( .68?iirc not .82 I know that's not the smallest) 35r would spool almost the same as a black but could break 600whp much easier
or even a better comparison, the 35r on pump would kill a black on pump...
dave quick q...
Idk why I am hating on the black, some people show it's spool ungodly early though(way different than your data which I trust), are the tuner's just making the max torque earlier db? or loading the dyno funny? corr factors?
I think the standard smallest exhaust housing( .68?iirc not .82 I know that's not the smallest) 35r would spool almost the same as a black but could break 600whp much easier
or even a better comparison, the 35r on pump would kill a black on pump...
dave quick q...
Idk why I am hating on the black, some people show it's spool ungodly early though(way different than your data which I trust), are the tuner's just making the max torque earlier db? or loading the dyno funny? corr factors?
Jun 2, 2010, 09:37 PM
#17
first of all, i don't think that's a fair comparison, and second there is a cost factor and convenience for choosing an FP BLack. I've personally used the FP Black on both the 2.0 and the 2.4 engine. I can tell you that the spoolup and response between both engines are night and day.With the added dsiplacement, unlike this case where the turbo being discredited is on the smallest motor, the response of that turbo is amazing. I've also used the 6262 on both engines and non of them are anywhere near as fun as the FP BLack. The second factor is the ease and cost of this setup. it's like plug-n-play. No expensive manifold, no external wastegate, no downpipe mods, water and oil supply lines.... and the list goes on. Personally, i think it's on the best turbos ever made for ppl like me. Thanks again to FP for a great product.
Jun 3, 2010, 12:19 AM
#22
Newbie
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i hope you guys aren't missing my point. What i'm trying to say is that the FP Black can be bolted to a stock motor and do wonders with very minor upgrades. The eventuality is that the larger frame trubos such as the HTA will make more power at the end of the day. But i'm reffering to this one piece of component that can be fitted to an evo with most things remaining stock and squeezing a reliable 450hp out of the motor without breaking a swett. Most person never mention the addtional hardware it takes to get those massive powerbands from the larger turbos such as displacement, headwork etc. And the fact still remains that the FP Black is still sitting on the smallest motor in the graph comparison. Why not post some results with it on a 2.3 or 2.4 motor and lets see how the spooling is. Besides, BadBish as always made extraordinary figures, alot of which has to do with the hardware used. I must admitt, i consider it to be a superior car to a lot of cars with similar or the same mods. Congrats though man.
Last edited by JDM-Evo9MR; Jun 3, 2010 at 12:22 AM. Reason: additional info
Jun 3, 2010, 06:07 AM
#23
Evolving Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ma
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i hope you guys aren't missing my point. What i'm trying to say is that the FP Black can be bolted to a stock motor and do wonders with very minor upgrades. The eventuality is that the larger frame trubos such as the HTA will make more power at the end of the day. But i'm reffering to this one piece of component that can be fitted to an evo with most things remaining stock and squeezing a reliable 450hp out of the motor without breaking a swett. Most person never mention the addtional hardware it takes to get those massive powerbands from the larger turbos such as displacement, headwork etc. And the fact still remains that the FP Black is still sitting on the smallest motor in the graph comparison. Why not post some results with it on a 2.3 or 2.4 motor and lets see how the spooling is. Besides, BadBish as always made extraordinary figures, alot of which has to do with the hardware used. I must admitt, i consider it to be a superior car to a lot of cars with similar or the same mods. Congrats though man.
Jun 3, 2010, 10:37 AM
#24
Evolved Member
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas and HATING it
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
[QUOTE=JDM-Evo9MR;8367636]i hope you guys aren't missing my point. What i'm trying to say is that the FP Black can be bolted to a stock motor and do wonders with very minor upgrades. [QUOTE]But to get the most out of it, the motor needs built.
