FP-HTA86 vs PTE-6765
Jan 10, 2011, 06:50 AM
#77
The dyno comparison posted of the two turbos on the EVO9 is a good one because it's back to back on the same car. That particular car made great peak power but for those of you looking at the entire graph, don't use either of those turbos with that combination as a comparison of actual low/mid range power as it's not optimal. Actually, here is a chart comparing the HTA86 on my car, HTA86 on the EVO9 posted on page 5 and of Mike's 6765 when he ran the 8 second/167 mph pass in his black car.
Same dyno, different times but good turbo comparisons. Keep in mind the car with the best overall power (mine) isn't using MIVEC, has the smallest cams in it too. Also, my car was using our 2.1 liter, Mike and the EVO9 were running the same 2 liter shortblocks. Cam shafts were different in all three. A/R on the turbine side were the same on my car and the EVO9. My car was using E98, EVO9 was using VP Import for fuel, EVO9 also had alky/water injection. Mike's car was running E98 at that time I think, if not then E85.
As for the FS635, that turbo beat out the old HTA82 I was running at the time by about 40 whp with close to the same spool I think. There's a thread on it somewhere. My car ran 9.11 at 157 on it I think. Robert at FP got motivated and quickly had an HTA86 built which gained another 40 whp over the FS635, spool up was better or the same if I remember right and the car ran 9.0 at 159.
I do believe I've posted this graph before, somewhere. Maybe not, it's a comparison I keep handy to remind myself that my goal is not the peak number but the power across the rpm range.
Someone else said that he thinks "a stroker and HTA86" are in his future. I agree with that. I have these two high RPM strokers I just finished and if testing goes well I believe that is what will end up in my RS. My 8 second goal is still in the back of my mind but a car that does everything even better than it does now is a little higher priority.
One last thing. The 2% fuel is required by law to denature the fuel, which means making it poisonous. It's just enough to make you ill or kill you. You can NOT sell ethanol straight, it is then considered "whiskey" and is subject to all types of permits, taxes and regulations.
Here's that graph:
Same dyno, different times but good turbo comparisons. Keep in mind the car with the best overall power (mine) isn't using MIVEC, has the smallest cams in it too. Also, my car was using our 2.1 liter, Mike and the EVO9 were running the same 2 liter shortblocks. Cam shafts were different in all three. A/R on the turbine side were the same on my car and the EVO9. My car was using E98, EVO9 was using VP Import for fuel, EVO9 also had alky/water injection. Mike's car was running E98 at that time I think, if not then E85.
As for the FS635, that turbo beat out the old HTA82 I was running at the time by about 40 whp with close to the same spool I think. There's a thread on it somewhere. My car ran 9.11 at 157 on it I think. Robert at FP got motivated and quickly had an HTA86 built which gained another 40 whp over the FS635, spool up was better or the same if I remember right and the car ran 9.0 at 159.
I do believe I've posted this graph before, somewhere. Maybe not, it's a comparison I keep handy to remind myself that my goal is not the peak number but the power across the rpm range.
Someone else said that he thinks "a stroker and HTA86" are in his future. I agree with that. I have these two high RPM strokers I just finished and if testing goes well I believe that is what will end up in my RS. My 8 second goal is still in the back of my mind but a car that does everything even better than it does now is a little higher priority.
One last thing. The 2% fuel is required by law to denature the fuel, which means making it poisonous. It's just enough to make you ill or kill you. You can NOT sell ethanol straight, it is then considered "whiskey" and is subject to all types of permits, taxes and regulations.
Here's that graph:
Last edited by David Buschur; Jan 10, 2011 at 06:55 AM.
Jan 10, 2011, 06:53 AM
#78
Sorry, forgot to describe the chart.
The solid line is my car.
The short dotted line is the HTA86.
The long dotted line is Mike's.
Further comparison to make it easier.
My car made 702 peak.
EVO9 made 719 peak.
Mike's car made 796 peak.
The average power across the same rpm the cars were tested showed:
My car made 293 average.
EVO9 made 222 average.
Mike made 190 average.
The solid line is my car.
The short dotted line is the HTA86.
The long dotted line is Mike's.
Further comparison to make it easier.
My car made 702 peak.
EVO9 made 719 peak.
Mike's car made 796 peak.
The average power across the same rpm the cars were tested showed:
My car made 293 average.
EVO9 made 222 average.
Mike made 190 average.
Jan 10, 2011, 06:56 AM
#79
I had to go back and edit that post with the graph. If there is something else wrong in it, point it out. I originally had the post saying we all had the same 2 liter shortblocks and then realized that the graph from my car was with the 2.1 in it.
Jan 10, 2011, 07:10 AM
#81
Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TR
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice comparision.. I really want to see a comparision between T4 hta86 T.S 1.06 A/R vs T4 precision pt6765 T.S 1.15 A/R. https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...turbo-kit.html
Jan 10, 2011, 07:35 AM
#84
Hahah should of known better then to expect an answer I guess
Any particular reason why you wouldn't consider a 67mm variant on your new 2.3? Wouldn't the power shift and torque increase create a powerband similar to a 2.0/86 but with higher peak?
Any particular reason why you wouldn't consider a 67mm variant on your new 2.3? Wouldn't the power shift and torque increase create a powerband similar to a 2.0/86 but with higher peak?
Jan 10, 2011, 04:09 PM
#85
I have no answer to the rpm, my best answer is 99% of people who own a car they play with over rev the engine. Part two is doing run after run after run at 10,000 rpm is ignorant. Some of those engines were run higher, I'd guess mine was run to 8,000 and to compare graphs all were cut off at 8,000. That graph is in my personal file as you can see it was printed in February of 2010, I don't remember the details.
The 67 is a turd in my book. I'm going for MORE low/mid range, not less.
The 67 is a turd in my book. I'm going for MORE low/mid range, not less.
Jan 11, 2011, 06:30 AM
#87
That is the goal of this new 2.3, yes. 8500 rpm is a completely reliable rev limit on our stroker. After so many of them being built and seeing the longevity I am probably being a bit conservative with the 8500 limit that I recommend. With the other changes we've made I'm hoping that an OCCASIONAL blast to 9800 rpm is going to be possible with the stroker. The only way to find out is to try it. My drag racing obsession is dieing off, I'd like to still see ONE 8 second pass from the car. I'd rather concentrate on other things than just getting that ONE 8 second run. I can always change the final drive to drop the rpm but initially I'm going to run it with the stock final drive because I want the most insane low end I can get.
Jan 11, 2011, 06:49 AM
#88
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: harrisburg, pa.
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buschur, if you did change the final drive and each gear lengthened, wouldn't that put more load on the motor at lower rpms and help spool the turbo a little quicker? And what about making your own 2.6l stroker? Over 1/2 liter displacement would be pretty killer! That would get more low end power right?
