TS HTA3076 93oct
Dec 21, 2012, 07:58 PM
#16
sorry you are insulted. there is really no gentle way of posting a negative comment. but I stand by my views. if I build 500whp setup I will get 400tq by 3800rpm. that is a 1000rpm to the left of what you have. there is really no way to describe how much more fun the car is. but if you ever get to tampa be sure to look me up. be happy to show you. 
Dec 21, 2012, 08:35 PM
#20
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*******it Jerry...do you have a personality disorder?
If there is a chance for you to get on your soap box and scream "laggy" or comment on how a tubular turbo header or intake manifold ruins the bottom end power of a set up, you never miss a chance. You are correct...feel better now??
I do feel that "VERY laggy" or you saying that I "killed tq" by using these is a subjective debate. This 2.0L set up still makes 300lb/ft by 4100 and 300whp by 4,400. Not to mention it makes over 500whp from 5,800 past 8,000 and 450+ wtq on pump gas...that doesn't sound dead to me.
If there is a chance for you to get on your soap box and scream "laggy" or comment on how a tubular turbo header or intake manifold ruins the bottom end power of a set up, you never miss a chance. You are correct...feel better now??I do feel that "VERY laggy" or you saying that I "killed tq" by using these is a subjective debate. This 2.0L set up still makes 300lb/ft by 4100 and 300whp by 4,400. Not to mention it makes over 500whp from 5,800 past 8,000 and 450+ wtq on pump gas...that doesn't sound dead to me.
To me a laggy setup falls off boost between shifts, that is laggy. All else is just moving the power band over in order to achieve big power. You want a setup that makes massive torque at 2000rpm go buy a V8.
Dec 21, 2012, 10:13 PM
#21
I enjoy helping people better their setups. Unfortunately that requires stepping on peoples toes when you tell them there are more optimum ways of doing things.
about twelve years ago I got to try some stainless headers on a dsm. I immediately noticed large loss of low end torque. I also noticed engine compartment temps sky rocket. 175 peak on cast manifold. and 325 with stainless header. I never use tubular headers when there is a cast counterpart available for the job. makes no sense to me. there are four common types of cooking pans. copper, aluminum, stainless, and cast iron. lets forget the first two. nobody is using copper or aluminum for headers. I used to have stainless cookware. cooked eggs for breakfast on temp 4 every morning. tried a cast iron pan cause I heard cooks like cast iron. holy wow. burned the crap out of my eggs at temp 4. was able to cook at 2 with cast iron. heat that is supposed to turn your turbine wheel ends up in your engine compartment. cast iron holds heat well. stainless sheds it quickly. compound that with there is far more surface area on tubular manifolds. but hey that's why I asked what the goals of car are. if you are trying to optimize 93. great. its a good thing to kill low end torque. shame they look so dang cool. guess that draws people into the madness.
four things I don't like about your setup:
intake mani. you would get a broader power band with a ported stocker. dave buschur optimized the ultimate power band for 750whp. tested every manifold out. stupid to think you know more than him.
tubular header. great for high rpm drag cars. horrible choice for daily.
2.0. love this one. Porsche 6 cylinder started with 2.0 six. evolved to 4.0 six turbo. maybe they don't know what they are doing. but guess gm vetts got it wrong too. makes no sense to me to not grab an additional 15% size during rebuild.
93 octane. makes no sense to me to limit your octane to 93. so much more power available with more detonation resistance.
its easy to make power. the challenge is power with response.
about twelve years ago I got to try some stainless headers on a dsm. I immediately noticed large loss of low end torque. I also noticed engine compartment temps sky rocket. 175 peak on cast manifold. and 325 with stainless header. I never use tubular headers when there is a cast counterpart available for the job. makes no sense to me. there are four common types of cooking pans. copper, aluminum, stainless, and cast iron. lets forget the first two. nobody is using copper or aluminum for headers. I used to have stainless cookware. cooked eggs for breakfast on temp 4 every morning. tried a cast iron pan cause I heard cooks like cast iron. holy wow. burned the crap out of my eggs at temp 4. was able to cook at 2 with cast iron. heat that is supposed to turn your turbine wheel ends up in your engine compartment. cast iron holds heat well. stainless sheds it quickly. compound that with there is far more surface area on tubular manifolds. but hey that's why I asked what the goals of car are. if you are trying to optimize 93. great. its a good thing to kill low end torque. shame they look so dang cool. guess that draws people into the madness.
four things I don't like about your setup:
intake mani. you would get a broader power band with a ported stocker. dave buschur optimized the ultimate power band for 750whp. tested every manifold out. stupid to think you know more than him.
tubular header. great for high rpm drag cars. horrible choice for daily.
2.0. love this one. Porsche 6 cylinder started with 2.0 six. evolved to 4.0 six turbo. maybe they don't know what they are doing. but guess gm vetts got it wrong too. makes no sense to me to not grab an additional 15% size during rebuild.
93 octane. makes no sense to me to limit your octane to 93. so much more power available with more detonation resistance.
its easy to make power. the challenge is power with response.
Last edited by 94AWDcoupe; Dec 21, 2012 at 10:18 PM.
Dec 22, 2012, 06:25 AM
#22
^ I see now what's going on here...you burned your eggs and instead of owning up to the fact you must be a little slow to burn eggs, you blamed it on the stainless cookware for lying to you about how it functions. From that day on, stainless is evil and Jerry is not a dummy!
Dec 22, 2012, 10:03 AM
#23
Oh man, ^^^
Drifto, nice setup and thanks for the chart. What's your opinion on the response of the setup on the street?
94AWD can go off all day on how it impacted the dyno chart, but all that really matters to me is when you push the pedal, does it go. I've been in cars that would have looked awesome on a dynochart in 3rd gear but were COMPLETE dogs on the street. Boost threshold isn't that big of a deal, you simply keep the car in the appropriate gear. What does matter though is transient response, and I am very curious if the long tube stuff hurts you there or not.
Also, FWIW 94AWD, you just made an argument FOR stainless with your egg pan demonstration. You burned the eggs because MORE HEAT was making it through the metal, thus you had to turn down the heat. The stainless pan wasn't magically ejecting more heat to the atmosphere while having a cooler surface, it simply wasn't allowing as much heat through the metal to begin with so the pan cooking surface was cooler at a given cook top setting. Your argument of them increasing underhood temps because of more surface area is correct though. The thinner material also allows more heat to pass compared to a thicker material. 16g 321 will allow more heat out then 0.2" thick cast iron, but that 0.062" stainless is roughly equivalent to 0.125" thick cast iron. Or another way, those schedule 40 weld-els will keep in about as much heat as a 0.20" thick cast iron manifold. Either way, you use 1/2 the metal to get the job done for a given design and that's why stainless is superior...as well as various other material properties at high temps.
Drifto, nice setup and thanks for the chart. What's your opinion on the response of the setup on the street?
94AWD can go off all day on how it impacted the dyno chart, but all that really matters to me is when you push the pedal, does it go. I've been in cars that would have looked awesome on a dynochart in 3rd gear but were COMPLETE dogs on the street. Boost threshold isn't that big of a deal, you simply keep the car in the appropriate gear. What does matter though is transient response, and I am very curious if the long tube stuff hurts you there or not.
Also, FWIW 94AWD, you just made an argument FOR stainless with your egg pan demonstration. You burned the eggs because MORE HEAT was making it through the metal, thus you had to turn down the heat. The stainless pan wasn't magically ejecting more heat to the atmosphere while having a cooler surface, it simply wasn't allowing as much heat through the metal to begin with so the pan cooking surface was cooler at a given cook top setting. Your argument of them increasing underhood temps because of more surface area is correct though. The thinner material also allows more heat to pass compared to a thicker material. 16g 321 will allow more heat out then 0.2" thick cast iron, but that 0.062" stainless is roughly equivalent to 0.125" thick cast iron. Or another way, those schedule 40 weld-els will keep in about as much heat as a 0.20" thick cast iron manifold. Either way, you use 1/2 the metal to get the job done for a given design and that's why stainless is superior...as well as various other material properties at high temps.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Dec 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM.
Dec 22, 2012, 10:58 AM
#24
^ I see now what's going on here...you burned your eggs and instead of owning up to the fact you must be a little slow to burn eggs, you blamed it on the stainless cookware for lying to you about how it functions. From that day on, stainless is evil and Jerry is not a dummy!
Dec 22, 2012, 11:05 AM
#25
To answer your question 03whitegsr, the car is incredibly responsive. I have zero complaints about how the system works in traffic at the strip or on a road course. I'm most impressed with the flexibility of this little turbo. I've had it on the car for the past 7yrs, and everytime I think its done it gives me more.
BTW, it gave me more this morning...
BTW, it gave me more this morning...
Dec 22, 2012, 11:07 AM
#26
Also, FWIW 94AWD, you just made an argument FOR stainless with your egg pan demonstration. You burned the eggs because MORE HEAT was making it through the metal, thus you had to turn down the heat. The stainless pan wasn't magically ejecting more heat to the atmosphere while having a cooler surface, it simply wasn't allowing as much heat through the metal to begin with so the pan cooking surface was cooler at a given cook top setting. Your argument of them increasing underhood temps because of more surface area is correct though. The thinner material also allows more heat to pass compared to a thicker material. 16g 321 will allow more heat out then 0.2" thick cast iron, but that 0.062" stainless is roughly equivalent to 0.125" thick cast iron. Or another way, those schedule 40 weld-els will keep in about as much heat as a 0.20" thick cast iron manifold. Either way, you use 1/2 the metal to get the job done for a given design and that's why stainless is superior...as well as various other material properties at high temps.
Dec 22, 2012, 11:17 AM
#28
So you believe in magic? Because you sure aren't using science with that logic.
The surface HAS TO BE HOTTER to transfer more heat. The boundary layer is no different between the stainless pan and the cast iron pan. The thermal characteristics of the air absorbing the heat is no different. The ONLY WAY that stainless pan can reject more heat to the atmosphere is if the surface is HOTTER. If it was hotter, the stainless pan would cook the egg quicker.
Your assessment is 100% incorrect. The stainless material IS BLOCKING HEAT from reaching the egg. THAT IS FACT with a couple centuries worth of engineering and physics data to back it up.
The surface HAS TO BE HOTTER to transfer more heat. The boundary layer is no different between the stainless pan and the cast iron pan. The thermal characteristics of the air absorbing the heat is no different. The ONLY WAY that stainless pan can reject more heat to the atmosphere is if the surface is HOTTER. If it was hotter, the stainless pan would cook the egg quicker.
Your assessment is 100% incorrect. The stainless material IS BLOCKING HEAT from reaching the egg. THAT IS FACT with a couple centuries worth of engineering and physics data to back it up.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Dec 22, 2012 at 11:20 AM.
Dec 22, 2012, 11:20 AM
#29
An FP Black on a 2.4 usually makes 300 ft lbs by 4100....VERY impressive Walker. I have been waiting to see the results from the new header. So this kind of follows what 03whitegsr was saying yesterday, TS seems to reset what most think of octane limit vs boost? I'd be interested to see the knock voltage if it was logged.
Aaron
Aaron
Dec 22, 2012, 11:29 AM
#30
Something to realize here when talking response. These are VDR plots, they will be more laggy then an actual dyno. It's simply because of smoothing and how the calculations are made. A dyno will show a couple hundred RPM better response then a VDR chart. You really should compare to similar VDR charts and not dyno charts. I've already done that and sent it to Drifto, he's welcome to post it if he wants it in this thread.
I should add, the boost curve won't be affected, but the torque and power curves will due to the calculation method. This setup might just make more power at a given boost level is the important thing to consider with that statement.
I should add, the boost curve won't be affected, but the torque and power curves will due to the calculation method. This setup might just make more power at a given boost level is the important thing to consider with that statement.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Dec 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM.