Ted B

iTrader: (6)

I don't care for the politics either. I do however care about that which directly affects both me and my checkbook.

The proof of the pudding lies in real-world tuning and results. I have generated enough of that to return what I feel is a sound verdict regarding the 6-blade 20G. As always, YMMV, but I highly doubt it.

Nad1370

iTrader: (1)

I was just reading DB's findings on the 6 v.s. 5 blade.

5 blade made 420/475.
Bolted up the 6 blade and made 385/397 and was .5 richer.

Now I wonder the hp/tq #'s on the 6 blade was with the richer a'f/s than the 5, wouldn't that explain the lower results for the 6 ?
Unless I'm wrong and the #'s for the 6 was with the adjusted A/F's the same as the 5.

Anybody know this ?

kf6ytc

iTrader: (10)

And im sure DB is unbaised in his testing of these two turbo's right?

Ted B

iTrader: (6)

With a SD engine management system that bases fuel flow on manifold pressure, the richer A/F with the 6-blade at the same boost level as the 5-blade indicates the 6-blade doesn't flow as much air mass at that same boost level as does the 5-blade. The difference in A/F is the result of the problem, not the cause.

FWIW, my experience with the 6-blade 20G vs. the TME showed exactly the same trend. Even at the same boost level and rpm, I lost 50ft lbs with the 6-blade 20G, and that was after I tweaked the AFRs to match. I made ignition timing changes and boost increases as well in an effort to recover the lost torque, but to no avail.

Warrtalon

iTrader: (6)

Well, in addition to what Ted B said in response to you, a half point of AFR would not equal 35whp and 78wtq...

LordEvoIX

Well...please read post #46 because it has the latest posting from DB on this subject. What you quoted was from DB's own testing and we know he makes mistake once in awhile. I myself have been on his tail over this before (read : Nisei intercooler). What I have to give him credit for though is his willingness to admit and correct his mistakes publicly. We can crucify him for his mistakes or the way he sometimes rushes to hasty conclusions but unless you treat your wallet as your enemy, why punish yourself trying to punish him? Get your money worth!

So now he and FP came together to do a more thorough and perhaps more scientific test because of Robert's background in engineering but you choose to rely on his previous test and ignore the wealth of info. present in his latest testing that prove why the 5 bladed 20G is better than the 6 bladed 20G? That cannot be right.

Well, as for the pricing difference, I guess if one is just looking for a better bolt-on turbo than the 03' turbo, the 6 bladed 20G will suffice. For those looking for something more.......you know what you have to pay

LordEvoIX

Read post #14 on this thread --> http://buschurforums.com/forum/showt...6&page=2&pp=10

I'm glad these 2 are now working closely together Looking forward to bursting my credit cards

EVO8LTW

iTrader: (41)

The testing done to date points to the 20G-9-6 and the 20G-9-5 being indistinguishable except at very high boost/HP levels. When David tested the two against each other in February at the 380 whp level (BR dyno) he posted that the two 20Gs had the same AFR and power output. Only when they were tested at the 400+ whp level with Revolver cams when the RS was making 400+ did the 20G swap result in an AFR change and a marked power loss. That suggests that the 20G-9-5 is the way to go if you have a standalone and megacams (and all other supporting mods like a ported head), but that if you don't have all that then the 20G-9-6 gives the same results for less money. At least that's the only way that I can square the two rounds of testing on the two 20Gs.

Ted B

iTrader: (6)

But the TME gives better results than the 20G-9-6 for the same money. Been there, done that, demonstrated it, and know the difference every time I drive the car. Heck, even an EVO-8 16G with a $250 10.5cm hotside fares better.

I invite anyone and everyone to take a careful look at my graphs in post #42, and find one good reason to consider a 20G-9-6.

Zeus

iTrader: (66)

/\



Seriously!

EVO8LTW

iTrader: (41)

If the TME gives better results than the 20G-9-6 at your power level, then it likely also will outpace a 20G-9-5 since the two 20Gs appear to be the same at that level. So, that would leave us with the conclusion that a TME makes more sense than ANY 20G-9, except on a very heavily worked car making upwards of 460 dynojet.

Is that where you come out?

Ultimate CC

iTrader: (122)

Well I am not sure what else he could do to his car besides a built motor to be considered heavily worked

Ted B

iTrader: (6)

For the sake of simple terminology, the '20G-9-5' is actually a WR-9. This is a TME with WR compressor and EVO-IX compressor cover.


Without thorough A/B testing, we have no way to determine exactly how a TME stacks up against a WR-9. However, since the WR-9 is essentially a TME with both a compressor wheel and compressor cover that are proven to be slightly more efficient, I'd expect the WR-9 to give a nominal performance advantage over a TME if you really put the screws to it.

I doubt this advantage would be useful to those stuck with pump fuel. For those of us with meth injection and/or race fuel, it's a different story because we can turn up the boost pressure in the midrange (to 30psi for those who are brave). That's probably the only way to see the real performance difference between the TME and WR-9.

EVO8LTW

iTrader: (41)

There's a healthy difference between Ted's car and Buschur's RS -- ported head, more aggressive higher lift cams (Revolvers), bigger throttle body, ported intake manifold, standalone ECU, leaded race gas (with commensurate timing advance), etc.

EVO8LTW

iTrader: (41)

I don't know its fair to equate a 20G-9-5 to a WR with a 9 housing. Most 20G-9-5s aren't titanium, so it's like equating a TME turbo to an '05 turbo. Also, the 20G-9-5 is supposed to have a tweaked hot side (don't think Buschur has disclosed any more detail than that).

I've got a WR and have wondered whether there would be any advantage to going with the 9 housing. I'm dubious because the 9 housing didn't increase performance as between the 20G-8-6 and the 20G-9-6. I do seem to be getting some WOT compressor surge now though after porting my manifold and turbine housing, so maybe it's worth it.