New Stock Turbo Record !!!!! 435 awhp 436tq!!!! STOCK ECU, STOCK BLOCK
have another 
, 2nd thought you need to be cut off
Mar 20, 2006, 09:57 PM
#62
That car did not trap 137, it trapped 117, which is nowhere near what a 469whp Evo would trap.
Don't lecture me with your run-on sentences regarding changing settings in the Mustang Dyno. You went through all that trouble only to look past the only thing that matters - roll weight. I'm not talking about those user-defined settings that can be changed; I already knew all that. Regardless, if you think the Aerocomp dyno doesn't read like a Dynojet, then this is a useless discussion anyway.
The 469 (or 459, although the thread still says 469 here on EvoM) was not legit and Jesus has never put down a trap speed remotely close to that whp figure.
Don't lecture me with your run-on sentences regarding changing settings in the Mustang Dyno. You went through all that trouble only to look past the only thing that matters - roll weight. I'm not talking about those user-defined settings that can be changed; I already knew all that. Regardless, if you think the Aerocomp dyno doesn't read like a Dynojet, then this is a useless discussion anyway.
The 469 (or 459, although the thread still says 469 here on EvoM) was not legit and Jesus has never put down a trap speed remotely close to that whp figure.
Mar 20, 2006, 10:08 PM
#63
NAMAHS,
Congrats indeed for such great numbers but I am aware that TTP engineering(Scott's Evo 8 MR) was making already 445tq on stock block, stock turbo and stock ECU as well months and months ago.
Don't go to far, I am making 364tq on a Mustang Dyno which converts to about 410-420 tq on a dynojet and that is with just 91oct. I am very very confident with the mods I just added(Bigger intercooler, headers) and the tuning coming up with methanol I can match your Torque and I haven't even mentioned using race gas yet.
But lets just admit the facts, 437/436tq is a great number, congrats on that great achievement , that tell us how capable this cars are. I give you a lot of credit for it.
Carlos
Congrats indeed for such great numbers but I am aware that TTP engineering(Scott's Evo 8 MR) was making already 445tq on stock block, stock turbo and stock ECU as well months and months ago.
Don't go to far, I am making 364tq on a Mustang Dyno which converts to about 410-420 tq on a dynojet and that is with just 91oct. I am very very confident with the mods I just added(Bigger intercooler, headers) and the tuning coming up with methanol I can match your Torque and I haven't even mentioned using race gas yet.
But lets just admit the facts, 437/436tq is a great number, congrats on that great achievement , that tell us how capable this cars are. I give you a lot of credit for it.
Carlos
Mar 20, 2006, 10:12 PM
#64
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: in front of your car
Posts: 2,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by namahs
the cams are great, the stock turbo has about 25 more horsepower in it, if we can hold the boost until redline, dan
Mar 20, 2006, 10:37 PM
#65
Housedj, you say that every time like people don't know. His boost is holding quite well already (23psi at 7k). Don't you realize by now that the stock turbo is physically INCAPABLE of pushing more boost than that at high rpm? It's just not able to do it...
Mar 20, 2006, 10:43 PM
#66
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: in front of your car
Posts: 2,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the stock turbo is running out of steam at high RPM which is why an aggressive set of cams carry it. they can squeeze maybe 3 more psi out of it with some more timing. or switch to cams with more lift as evos need that more than duration...
Mar 20, 2006, 10:50 PM
#67
Originally Posted by housedj
try taking the wastegate actuator off & turning the turnbuckle all the way down. that's what i did to hold boost longer...
I tried that trick on my first Renault Super 5 turbo II "cup" version some 13 years ago. The theory behind that is that the waste gate rod would hold/delay the aperture of the waste gate longer thus building more boost.
The downside is that not only you have to make constant painstaking rod adjustments which they are already difficult to made by nature(location of the turbo and extreme heat) but also the pressure of the rod agaisnt the diafragm of the actual waste gate solenoid is absolutely disproportional.
Your suggestion is good for absolutely minimal adjustments and only is good if you don't have other means of adjusting the boost, ie MBC or a waste gate solenoid replacement.
Like I said before, my first turbo car was a Renault 5 Turbo and I had the turbo positioned right in the top of the engine, just behind the TB but above the header, it use to take me virtually 20-30 sec to adjust the rod with two 10 milimeter metric wrenches. That method is very old and not recommendable but like you said it works ..
My .2c
Carlos
Mar 20, 2006, 11:03 PM
#68
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: in front of your car
Posts: 2,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fromWRXtoEVO
HouseDJ,
The downside is that not only you have to make constant painstaking rod adjustments which they are already difficult to made by nature(location of the turbo and extreme heat) but also the pressure of the rod agaisnt the diafragm of the actual waste gate solenoid is absolutely disproportional.
Your suggestion is good for absolutely minimal adjustments and only is good if you don't have other means of adjusting the boost, ie MBC or a waste gate solenoid replacement. Carlos
The downside is that not only you have to make constant painstaking rod adjustments which they are already difficult to made by nature(location of the turbo and extreme heat) but also the pressure of the rod agaisnt the diafragm of the actual waste gate solenoid is absolutely disproportional.
Your suggestion is good for absolutely minimal adjustments and only is good if you don't have other means of adjusting the boost, ie MBC or a waste gate solenoid replacement. Carlos
Mar 21, 2006, 03:34 PM
#70
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fromWRXtoEVO
NAMAHS,
Congrats indeed for such great numbers but I am aware that TTP engineering(Scott's Evo 8 MR) was making already 445tq on stock block, stock turbo and stock ECU as well months and months ago.
Don't go to far, I am making 364tq on a Mustang Dyno which converts to about 410-420 tq on a dynojet and that is with just 91oct. I am very very confident with the mods I just added(Bigger intercooler, headers) and the tuning coming up with methanol I can match your Torque and I haven't even mentioned using race gas yet.
But lets just admit the facts, 437/436tq is a great number, congrats on that great achievement , that tell us how capable this cars are. I give you a lot of credit for it.
Carlos
Congrats indeed for such great numbers but I am aware that TTP engineering(Scott's Evo 8 MR) was making already 445tq on stock block, stock turbo and stock ECU as well months and months ago.
Don't go to far, I am making 364tq on a Mustang Dyno which converts to about 410-420 tq on a dynojet and that is with just 91oct. I am very very confident with the mods I just added(Bigger intercooler, headers) and the tuning coming up with methanol I can match your Torque and I haven't even mentioned using race gas yet.
But lets just admit the facts, 437/436tq is a great number, congrats on that great achievement , that tell us how capable this cars are. I give you a lot of credit for it.
Carlos
dan
Mar 21, 2006, 04:17 PM
#73
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Westchester NY
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok...im a lil confused....how is this car on a Buschur stage 4 making that much power?? I know the meth & c16 makes a difference but those are some sick numbers...
