English Racing SD Evo 9 HKS7460 E85 - Results are in.
Oct 22, 2010, 01:15 PM
#62
It's a 54mm inducer and 74mm exducer. Puts is up between a GT3076 and a GT3071.
Seems pretty likely it is over 50 pounds/min. But it is opinion on both our parts.
Really, looking at the pictures, it is pretty surprising how well this thing responds. The wheels don't look to be anything special. They are pretty large in size but the aerodynamics don't look revolutionary, or even all that aggressive.
The only conclusion I can come up with is they spent a lot of R&D work on simply matching the housings and wheels up to maximize the performance of the combination. That and the turbine housing is a pretty small A/R.
It would actually be really interesting to see this against a GT3071R in the 0.78 A/R divided T3 housing.
Seems pretty likely it is over 50 pounds/min. But it is opinion on both our parts.
Really, looking at the pictures, it is pretty surprising how well this thing responds. The wheels don't look to be anything special. They are pretty large in size but the aerodynamics don't look revolutionary, or even all that aggressive.
The only conclusion I can come up with is they spent a lot of R&D work on simply matching the housings and wheels up to maximize the performance of the combination. That and the turbine housing is a pretty small A/R.
It would actually be really interesting to see this against a GT3071R in the 0.78 A/R divided T3 housing.
Oct 22, 2010, 01:29 PM
#63
My opinion at first was based on the initial dyno runs, assuming Ivey had it maxed, which seems to be backed up so far, and with the pics of the wheels, it again seems to fall inline.
But, you are right...in the end, it's just my opinion. I don't know if we will ever know the mass airflow of the compressor until someone maxes it out and logs it. In the meantime, we can go by the dyno data as they come in, and make rough estimates from there.
Oct 22, 2010, 02:00 PM
#65
Lol so every car, mod and turbo combination in the world only need 600rpm of exhaust energy to spool up, according to you 
The run was started earlier so its not a apples to apples comparison for measuring spool. If you want to truly compare spool the runs would be needed to start at the same RPM. Period.
So your observation is incorrect.
The run was started earlier so its not a apples to apples comparison for measuring spool. If you want to truly compare spool the runs would be needed to start at the same RPM. Period.
So your observation is incorrect.
your taking it wrong. I never said every turbo takes 600rpm to spool. that would be an improper extrapolation of my statements. dont care if you dont want to learn what I am saying to be true but it is. it comes from spool tuning and extensive observation of spool logs. reread what I wrote if you want to learn something.
Oct 22, 2010, 02:01 PM
#66
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it was 48 nor would i be surprised by 52. It has the inducer to pull off 52lb/min, but that really doesn't mean much. Exducer diameter and height would give a better idea. The exducer diameter is up high enough to get 52+ pretty easily too.
Like I said though, the aerodynamics (compressor and turbine) look to be good. But the aerodynamics on the the 16g are pretty good too, so it's nothing real impressive.
The taller blades seem to help at high boost pressures, but this turbo is going to be maxed out at a low enough pressure that I don't know how much that will really matter either. A taller blade would likely make more mid-range boost and torque though.
This thing is still inconel on the turbine and not titanium, right?
The inducer on the turbine is probably where most of this is coming from though. At 60mm, it's a split between the wheel FP is using (67/65mm) and the stock wheel (54mm). Probably a good middle ground on flow and inertia. The 65mm turbine in the green will kill it on pumpgas as it will flow considerably more at a lower pressure, that 5mm smaller wheel probably helps tremendously on response.
Like I said though, the aerodynamics (compressor and turbine) look to be good. But the aerodynamics on the the 16g are pretty good too, so it's nothing real impressive.
The taller blades seem to help at high boost pressures, but this turbo is going to be maxed out at a low enough pressure that I don't know how much that will really matter either. A taller blade would likely make more mid-range boost and torque though.
This thing is still inconel on the turbine and not titanium, right?
The inducer on the turbine is probably where most of this is coming from though. At 60mm, it's a split between the wheel FP is using (67/65mm) and the stock wheel (54mm). Probably a good middle ground on flow and inertia. The 65mm turbine in the green will kill it on pumpgas as it will flow considerably more at a lower pressure, that 5mm smaller wheel probably helps tremendously on response.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Oct 22, 2010 at 02:05 PM.
Oct 22, 2010, 02:05 PM
#67
I have one more observation about why this turbo spools so fast. my housings are being coated. I noticed a pretty substantial difference easier to show in pictures. When I get the housings back I will show what I am referring to. I noticed the difference when I was porting the FP green housing and the HKS housing prior to coating.
Oct 22, 2010, 02:09 PM
#68
your taking it wrong. I never said every turbo takes 600rpm to spool. that would be an improper extrapolation of my statements. dont care if you dont want to learn what I am saying to be true but it is. it comes from spool tuning and extensive observation of spool logs. reread what I wrote if you want to learn something.
Regardless, I still stand by my original statement in my reply.
"The run was started earlier so its not a apples to apples comparison for measuring spool. If you want to truly compare spool the runs would be needed to start at the same RPM. Period."
IMHO, to get an accurate spool comparison of turbo A vs B, the runs have to be started at the same RPM. Thats just my main point.
Oct 22, 2010, 02:12 PM
#69
...
The inducer on the turbine is probably where most of this is coming from though. At 60mm, it's a split between the wheel FP is using (67/65mm) and the stock wheel (54mm). Probably a good middle ground on flow and inertia. The 65mm turbine in the green will kill it on pumpgas as it will flow considerably more at a lower pressure, that 5mm smaller wheel probably helps tremendously on response.
The inducer on the turbine is probably where most of this is coming from though. At 60mm, it's a split between the wheel FP is using (67/65mm) and the stock wheel (54mm). Probably a good middle ground on flow and inertia. The 65mm turbine in the green will kill it on pumpgas as it will flow considerably more at a lower pressure, that 5mm smaller wheel probably helps tremendously on response.
Oct 22, 2010, 02:31 PM
#70
R/TErnie...do you think the Magnus V5 is hurting your performance over lets say a stock ported manifold like the MAP rev 2? I plan on running this turbo on a stock bottom 2.0L but don't know if its worth getting the Magnus V5 over a MAP rev 2...heck I don't even know if the HKS turbo flows more than the stock intake manifold can handle...any thoughts from anyone here in regards to the intake manifold on a stock bottom 2.0L...?
After speaking to Adam@MAP seems like even their rev 3 benefits motors making 600+HP...he suggested the rev 2 for the HKS turbo on a stock bottom 2.0L...but he was also concerned that the trubo might be past its efficiency level too for the rev 2 to shine...hence my question about possibly a too big of a manifold to be making less TQ and HP on a 2.0L...
so what do you guys think?
After speaking to Adam@MAP seems like even their rev 3 benefits motors making 600+HP...he suggested the rev 2 for the HKS turbo on a stock bottom 2.0L...but he was also concerned that the trubo might be past its efficiency level too for the rev 2 to shine...hence my question about possibly a too big of a manifold to be making less TQ and HP on a 2.0L...
so what do you guys think?
Oct 22, 2010, 02:35 PM
#71
These aren't exact and are just off the top of my head.
Stock
48mm exducer/54mm inducer
HKS
54mm exducer/60mm inducer
FP HTA Green
57mm??? exducer/65mm inducer
FP Red/Black
59mm ??? exducer/67mm inducer
Stock
48mm exducer/54mm inducer
HKS
54mm exducer/60mm inducer
FP HTA Green
57mm??? exducer/65mm inducer
FP Red/Black
59mm ??? exducer/67mm inducer
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Oct 22, 2010 at 02:38 PM.
Oct 22, 2010, 03:28 PM
#72
Replies within
BoostedTuning,
I'll do another dyno pull starting at the same RPM when I go back to DO next week. I think you'll still be impressed.
R/TErnie...do you think the Magnus V5 is hurting your performance over lets say a stock ported manifold like the MAP rev 2?
It may be giving up a bit down low, but its certainly helping up top. I say this from my experience with installing it on my FP Red setup... and from seeing the power difference going back to the stock turbo.
I plan on running this turbo on a stock bottom 2.0L but don't know if its worth getting the Magnus V5 over a MAP rev 2...heck I don't even know if the HKS turbo flows more than the stock intake manifold can handle...any thoughts from anyone here in regards to the intake manifold on a stock bottom 2.0L...?
I don't know... my guess is that a ported stock manifold would yield better all around gains and better throttle response due to the lack of plenum volume. Due to the plenum volume being less...I also expect the stock manifold to make less power past 5k.
After speaking to Adam@MAP seems like even their rev 3 benefits motors making 600+HP...he suggested the rev 2 for the HKS turbo on a stock bottom 2.0L...but he was also concerned that the trubo might be past its efficiency level too for the rev 2 to shine...hence my question about possibly a too big of a manifold to be making less TQ and HP on a 2.0L...
so what do you guys think?
If you're on the stock 2.0L bottom end... you would be ill advised to generate 500 ft lbs of torque on the stock rods. Where the stock ported intake manifold will make gains is NOT where this turbo needs help. You'll be cutting back on boost down low to keep the torque safe and then you won't be as efficient past 5k+ with the stock manifold. So from my point of view... having mods that specifically target power bands from 5K+ only help your stock 2.0L survive.
That's not to say that your response will be better with the big cams, magnus v5, etc... it most certainly will not spool faster with these mods, but you certainly won't have the top end and overrev range that something similar to my setup would. I hope that makes some sense.
It may be giving up a bit down low, but its certainly helping up top. I say this from my experience with installing it on my FP Red setup... and from seeing the power difference going back to the stock turbo.
I plan on running this turbo on a stock bottom 2.0L but don't know if its worth getting the Magnus V5 over a MAP rev 2...heck I don't even know if the HKS turbo flows more than the stock intake manifold can handle...any thoughts from anyone here in regards to the intake manifold on a stock bottom 2.0L...?
I don't know... my guess is that a ported stock manifold would yield better all around gains and better throttle response due to the lack of plenum volume. Due to the plenum volume being less...I also expect the stock manifold to make less power past 5k.
After speaking to Adam@MAP seems like even their rev 3 benefits motors making 600+HP...he suggested the rev 2 for the HKS turbo on a stock bottom 2.0L...but he was also concerned that the trubo might be past its efficiency level too for the rev 2 to shine...hence my question about possibly a too big of a manifold to be making less TQ and HP on a 2.0L...
so what do you guys think?
If you're on the stock 2.0L bottom end... you would be ill advised to generate 500 ft lbs of torque on the stock rods. Where the stock ported intake manifold will make gains is NOT where this turbo needs help. You'll be cutting back on boost down low to keep the torque safe and then you won't be as efficient past 5k+ with the stock manifold. So from my point of view... having mods that specifically target power bands from 5K+ only help your stock 2.0L survive.
That's not to say that your response will be better with the big cams, magnus v5, etc... it most certainly will not spool faster with these mods, but you certainly won't have the top end and overrev range that something similar to my setup would. I hope that makes some sense.
BoostedTuning,
I'll do another dyno pull starting at the same RPM when I go back to DO next week. I think you'll still be impressed.
Oct 22, 2010, 04:36 PM
#73
Eric,
Well how is the Magnus V5 on your car?...you still run the stock 2.0L from what I know...Do you see any low-end loss? spool loss? I know you will gain up top...but I am not sure if your loss of low-end or spool...even with the HKS turbo...would be due the the Magnus or the FP cams you are running...as compared to the HKS cams that come with the kit...the cams seem to be little more aggresive than the S1...but less less than the S2's
Yeah...I know I am playing with fire at 500TQ but I don't think that turbo is capable of 500TQ on a stock 2.0L...but who knows...I would like to get 500HP though...lol...
With that said...I still don't know what the stock intake manifold is rated up to in terms of HP levels...As stated above...not sure if I get the stock ported if that will even show any gains if the turbo will be beyond its effeciancy level...You are boosting your turbo at 35psi...would you say there any more room to play with it or is that all? Is it possible for that you will test your turbo at lower boost to see what power it makes...?
anyone know what the stock intake manifold is rated up to in terms of HP? not ported...just stock...and stock TB...thanks...
Well how is the Magnus V5 on your car?...you still run the stock 2.0L from what I know...Do you see any low-end loss? spool loss? I know you will gain up top...but I am not sure if your loss of low-end or spool...even with the HKS turbo...would be due the the Magnus or the FP cams you are running...as compared to the HKS cams that come with the kit...the cams seem to be little more aggresive than the S1...but less less than the S2's
Yeah...I know I am playing with fire at 500TQ but I don't think that turbo is capable of 500TQ on a stock 2.0L...but who knows...I would like to get 500HP though...lol...
With that said...I still don't know what the stock intake manifold is rated up to in terms of HP levels...As stated above...not sure if I get the stock ported if that will even show any gains if the turbo will be beyond its effeciancy level...You are boosting your turbo at 35psi...would you say there any more room to play with it or is that all? Is it possible for that you will test your turbo at lower boost to see what power it makes...?
anyone know what the stock intake manifold is rated up to in terms of HP? not ported...just stock...and stock TB...thanks...
Oct 22, 2010, 08:23 PM
#75
We are trying to keep this thread about the 7460 and comparing only to setups that are close to the same like Jeremy's. While your results look good they arent comparable between being on a dynapack and being on gas at far less boost. It would be fine if you want to make your own thread that has your results however and they can refer to it as needed.
Nothing personal I promise
aaron
Nothing personal I promise
aaron