Evo8 2.3L FP 73 HTA VD graph 3rd gear pull
Sep 26, 2013, 05:28 AM
#16
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
CR 9.0:1
ETS claim that their LP2 will "flow over 20% more then stock" and gain 12hp as maximum on a stock turbo car. I believe these gains should be even more sustantial on a higher flowing turbo and engine.
JB vs DBB - boost threshold rpm in 3rd gear is almost the same, DBB may be 100-150 rpm earlier. The most noticable change is overall transient response between shifts, on\off throttle conditions, partial throttle low boost accelerations etc.. I believe that can be improved even more with a good LICP, more actuator preload and more intake cam advance.
Last edited by Biggy VIII; Sep 26, 2013 at 05:51 AM.
Sep 26, 2013, 06:56 PM
#17
I really love the DBB HTA Green. I wish I could try one before I buy it to see if it is enough compared to my 6262. Anyone*who has one and *wants to try a 6262 let me know. we can swap them out for a week and see who likes what better!
Sep 27, 2013, 06:59 PM
#19
Really surprised with that much gain from the ETS V2 LICP... ETS measured 12whp on a stock car, but you have proven it can do much more on a well modded one.
What I like the most of ETS piping is that it's super thick and smooth...it was one of my first mods and it's great
What I like the most of ETS piping is that it's super thick and smooth...it was one of my first mods and it's great
Sep 28, 2013, 12:21 PM
#21
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
I guess, I do now, but only DBB and with all the supporting mods.
JB version dissappointed me very much.
Dont forget that it is a stroker engine, that consumes much more air, so any restriction for a 2.0l will be choking a 2.3 twice worse.
Yeah its thick and smooth, but I didn't expect it to be so heavy! )) Anyway the difference in geometry is substantial, so are the gains. Even if the numbers would remain the same, it gained some spool and produced that power on lower boost level.
JB version dissappointed me very much.
Really surprised with that much gain from the ETS V2 LICP... ETS measured 12whp on a stock car, but you have proven it can do much more on a well modded one.
What I like the most of ETS piping is that it's super thick and smooth...it was one of my first mods and it's great
What I like the most of ETS piping is that it's super thick and smooth...it was one of my first mods and it's great
Yeah its thick and smooth, but I didn't expect it to be so heavy! )) Anyway the difference in geometry is substantial, so are the gains. Even if the numbers would remain the same, it gained some spool and produced that power on lower boost level.
Last edited by Biggy VIII; Sep 28, 2013 at 12:35 PM.
Sep 29, 2013, 09:07 AM
#25
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
It looks to me like a lack of airflow at high rpm. I can make some more boost no problem, my WGDC is only 68% at 8k rpm. But I can see the same shape of power curve at 6-7k even if I make a run on wastgate spring pressure WGDC set to 0. Power/torque numbers are lower, but the shape of the curve is the same.
I have seen that kind of shape of power curve at 6-7K rpm on several different non mivec 2.0 (6.7-7.5k) and 2.3l (6-7k) engines. All of them had different turbos, boost level, cams, intakes, IC and pipings, but all of them used stock TB and stock non-ported IM. I think that getting rid of restriction may help.
I believe it may gain some more up top with a 65-70mm throttle body and a nice ported IM.
What do you think?
Yes that may be true too, than a nicely retarted intake cam could help up top, as it is usually done by mivec, but that will loose some low-mid range torque.
I have seen that kind of shape of power curve at 6-7K rpm on several different non mivec 2.0 (6.7-7.5k) and 2.3l (6-7k) engines. All of them had different turbos, boost level, cams, intakes, IC and pipings, but all of them used stock TB and stock non-ported IM. I think that getting rid of restriction may help.
I believe it may gain some more up top with a 65-70mm throttle body and a nice ported IM.
What do you think?
Yes that may be true too, than a nicely retarted intake cam could help up top, as it is usually done by mivec, but that will loose some low-mid range torque.
Last edited by Biggy VIII; Sep 29, 2013 at 09:11 AM.
Sep 30, 2013, 03:58 AM
#28
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
- AFR is 11.2 at peak power, 11.5 in the "dip", holding that way till redline.
- Boost is 21.17at peak power, tapering to 20.59 in the "dip" and falling to 20.3 at redline. I was not trying to to make a solid flat boost curve, just adjusted it a bit to make it taper slower than it does on a constant wgdc%.
- Timing is 8* at peak power rpm\load, going to 10* in the power "dip", redlining at 14-15* at 7625. Knocksum 0.
I think I should start logging Airflow2byte to see how does it corelates to the power\torque graph.
Sep 30, 2013, 05:50 AM
#30
Good, give us news about the airflow and backpressure. The IM and TB are your last bolt-ons restrictions like you said before.
That where the MAF still in place is a great tool, where in SD you can't have a precise reading of airflow in a specific situation.
That where the MAF still in place is a great tool, where in SD you can't have a precise reading of airflow in a specific situation.