EVO Green/20gLT information and new dyno charts.
Dec 19, 2006, 08:10 PM
#31
nix, our downpipe will work on your car with this turbo as far as I know. I'd recommend an alky kit but don't bother with the water, run straight methanol in the kit. As for the tune, nothing to suggest specifically.
Kevin, thanks for the input. Glad you like the turbo!
Kevin, thanks for the input. Glad you like the turbo!
Dec 19, 2006, 08:28 PM
#32
The dyno chart shows a ~500 rpm change in spool up, but on the street I can not duplicate this at all. Making several runs to account for run to run variations, the LT is always RIGHT behind the stock turbo, and occasionally it seems to reach full boost sooner. On average, it's VERY close to the stock turbo. From a butt dyno perspective, I really can't "feel" any extra lag. . 
Dec 19, 2006, 08:30 PM
#33
Evolved Member
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas and HATING it
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
hmmm...you know I am not in anyway questioning you, I just would think a MAF car would be "easier" to make more power on, and drivability would be better
But what do I know, I am a VW tech
Here is one for ya David... you and Al go head to head.
David... AEM EMS
Al... Evoflash
BTW, very nice graphs on the car
,
and a little
but do you got any word on the IX EMS yet?
[/I]
But what do I know, I am a VW tech Here is one for ya David... you and Al go head to head.
David... AEM EMS
Al... Evoflash
BTW, very nice graphs on the car
,and a little
but do you got any word on the IX EMS yet?[/I]
BTW, as far as I am concerned the stock computer with a flash is NOT exceptable.
Anyone that wants to compete against me in tuning I'm up for proving this. Just bring your car in with a flash on it, tune it and then we'll put an EMS on it, if I can't beat your numbers you can have the AEM free.
This applies to a car with a larger turbo than stock, atleast a 20G.
The AEM EMS has proven itself time and time and time again to make big power over what we've been able to make on the stock computer.
Don't ask me why, I don't know. I am a dumb redneck, just ask anyone.
Anyone that wants to compete against me in tuning I'm up for proving this. Just bring your car in with a flash on it, tune it and then we'll put an EMS on it, if I can't beat your numbers you can have the AEM free.
This applies to a car with a larger turbo than stock, atleast a 20G.
The AEM EMS has proven itself time and time and time again to make big power over what we've been able to make on the stock computer.
Don't ask me why, I don't know. I am a dumb redneck, just ask anyone.
Dec 19, 2006, 09:16 PM
#34
Evolved Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 2,210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk of having to have a AEM EMS makes me worried, i just installed this turbo tonight (tuesday) and going to get tuned on the stock ECU on Thursday. I hope to put down some good power on the stock ECU and not have to get a AEM EMS
Dec 19, 2006, 09:39 PM
#35
Evolved Member
iTrader: (28)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheyenne, WY
Posts: 1,176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add some to this, the 3071 flows a good deal less air than the Green/LT does, so Dave's point on that is accurate. The 3076 will move 52 lbs/min, about 3 lbs over the Green/LT. In reality, I have had a very hard time finding logs from poeple moving more than 50 lbs/min on that turbo even on race gas and high boost. I'm not sure why that is, but that is what swayed me from going that route to trying this turbo to see if my suspicions about it's airflow would turn out to be correct. Considering that this turbo spools up faster than the 3076, Dave's comment about the area under the curve making the LT the more usable option makes sense. The 3065 makes a compromise on the turbine wheel but still runs the 35R compressor wheel, so I personaly have a hard time even considering that a GT30 series turbo, whatever it's name may be. It's a full 13 lbs/min larger than a 3076!
When you add bolt on reliability/stealth to the mix, I am happy I went this route.
The dyno chart shows a ~500 rpm change in spool up, but on the street I can not duplicate this at all. Making several runs to account for run to run variations, the LT is always RIGHT behind the stock turbo, and occasionally it seems to reach full boost sooner. On average, it's VERY close to the stock turbo. From a butt dyno perspective, I really can't "feel" any extra lag. And as Eric said, the charts probably don't do it justice, the extra pull on the top end is just mean. And the midrange is just as strong since it hits full boost at the same RPM as the stock turbo did. The airflow charts I posted will illustrate this pretty well. A very nice power band indeed. And this is very important for street cars. I run at the track at least one night a week, and attend all of the local Import events, NOPI, and the Shootout every year, but street performance is still important to me, especially after taking my 2g about 10 steps too far for a daily driver.
When you add bolt on reliability/stealth to the mix, I am happy I went this route.
The dyno chart shows a ~500 rpm change in spool up, but on the street I can not duplicate this at all. Making several runs to account for run to run variations, the LT is always RIGHT behind the stock turbo, and occasionally it seems to reach full boost sooner. On average, it's VERY close to the stock turbo. From a butt dyno perspective, I really can't "feel" any extra lag. And as Eric said, the charts probably don't do it justice, the extra pull on the top end is just mean. And the midrange is just as strong since it hits full boost at the same RPM as the stock turbo did. The airflow charts I posted will illustrate this pretty well. A very nice power band indeed. And this is very important for street cars. I run at the track at least one night a week, and attend all of the local Import events, NOPI, and the Shootout every year, but street performance is still important to me, especially after taking my 2g about 10 steps too far for a daily driver.
Dec 19, 2006, 10:10 PM
#36
Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Port Washington Wisconsin
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have to imagine that this turbo with Daves ported O2 housing, and exhaust manifold would be the hot setup. Hey Dave u should really work on the ultimate package deal with the 20g/LT and those services. I just think that $1700 is a bit steep for the turbo. At least put this together in your staged upgrade path paired up with something else say maybe an alky kit for example. I would like to hear your opinion.
I would like to hear your opinion.
Dec 20, 2006, 12:07 AM
#37
Do not worry. There are cars putting 450-500 whp using the stock ECU and the stock MAF. Smogrunner's car is one them here in SoCal. Dave just prefers to tune with the AEM. I am pretty sure that your tuner will be able to tune this turbo with the stock ECU.
Dec 20, 2006, 04:49 AM
#38
Evolved Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the RACE GAS dyno sheet posted by Mr. Bushur on the first page, I see that the evogreen reaches same torque figure as the stocker with around 200RPM lag. I measured this by drawing a line to the x-axis (RPM) at the same torque number (y-axis).
I think this is why you do not feel a significant difference in spool. Using the same method, I measure peak torque beeing achieved 400RPMs later (but it is higher).
It is also noteworth to mention that at around 4.1k RPM where the stock turbo reaches its peak torque figure, the evogreen already starts making more torque (before reaching its higher torque peak) and starts walking all over the stocker from this point onwards.
Mr. Bushur, thanks for the graphs. In the future, if you get a chance please post a dyno comparison of IX vs. 20G-LT turbo on pump gas as well.
I think this is why you do not feel a significant difference in spool. Using the same method, I measure peak torque beeing achieved 400RPMs later (but it is higher).
It is also noteworth to mention that at around 4.1k RPM where the stock turbo reaches its peak torque figure, the evogreen already starts making more torque (before reaching its higher torque peak) and starts walking all over the stocker from this point onwards.
Mr. Bushur, thanks for the graphs. In the future, if you get a chance please post a dyno comparison of IX vs. 20G-LT turbo on pump gas as well.
To add some to this, the 3071 flows a good deal less air than the Green/LT does, so Dave's point on that is accurate. The 3076 will move 52 lbs/min, about 3 lbs over the Green/LT. In reality, I have had a very hard time finding logs from poeple moving more than 50 lbs/min on that turbo even on race gas and high boost. I'm not sure why that is, but that is what swayed me from going that route to trying this turbo to see if my suspicions about it's airflow would turn out to be correct. Considering that this turbo spools up faster than the 3076, Dave's comment about the area under the curve making the LT the more usable option makes sense. The 3065 makes a compromise on the turbine wheel but still runs the 35R compressor wheel, so I personaly have a hard time even considering that a GT30 series turbo, whatever it's name may be. It's a full 13 lbs/min larger than a 3076!
When you add bolt on reliability/stealth to the mix, I am happy I went this route.
The dyno chart shows a ~500 rpm change in spool up, but on the street I can not duplicate this at all. Making several runs to account for run to run variations, the LT is always RIGHT behind the stock turbo, and occasionally it seems to reach full boost sooner. On average, it's VERY close to the stock turbo. From a butt dyno perspective, I really can't "feel" any extra lag. And as Eric said, the charts probably don't do it justice, the extra pull on the top end is just mean. And the midrange is just as strong since it hits full boost at the same RPM as the stock turbo did. The airflow charts I posted will illustrate this pretty well. A very nice power band indeed. And this is very important for street cars. I run at the track at least one night a week, and attend all of the local Import events, NOPI, and the Shootout every year, but street performance is still important to me, especially after taking my 2g about 10 steps too far for a daily driver.
When you add bolt on reliability/stealth to the mix, I am happy I went this route.
The dyno chart shows a ~500 rpm change in spool up, but on the street I can not duplicate this at all. Making several runs to account for run to run variations, the LT is always RIGHT behind the stock turbo, and occasionally it seems to reach full boost sooner. On average, it's VERY close to the stock turbo. From a butt dyno perspective, I really can't "feel" any extra lag. And as Eric said, the charts probably don't do it justice, the extra pull on the top end is just mean. And the midrange is just as strong since it hits full boost at the same RPM as the stock turbo did. The airflow charts I posted will illustrate this pretty well. A very nice power band indeed. And this is very important for street cars. I run at the track at least one night a week, and attend all of the local Import events, NOPI, and the Shootout every year, but street performance is still important to me, especially after taking my 2g about 10 steps too far for a daily driver.
Dec 20, 2006, 05:00 AM
#39
I am having no trouble running this turbo on the stock MAS with the stock 2g ECU (DSMlinked). I also have the AEM as well, but I see no real advantage to it at this point, but I only have a few months into learning how to tune with it so far. I'm having some trouble with injector timing, at this point DSMlink is still 3 mph faster than AEM.
Justin, that is a good data point. Did you post that log on the DSMlink forums? I Think I may have seen it while searching. There are very few over 50 lbs though. There was one guy running in the high 10s with 49.x lbs, which coincides well with what Dave's car did on this 49 lb turbo, imagine that. I notice that you did that at high altitude. A turbo will still max out at the same flow rate, but you will have to run more boost those those of us at lwer altitude to do it. Just the same, I don't envy you at all.
I use the DSMlink logs to compare the spool. I prefer to look at airflow/rev than boost itself. Airflow/rev has an obvious peak when full boost is reached. Boost is a little more subjective due to the EBC trying to avoid the spike, and the fact that the pressure sensor is not all that fast. That being said, the Green/LT seems to spool at the exact same point as stock, or at least within 50-100 rpm (not very significant when you consider the usual CAS noise and the sample rate), but I'm hesitant to jus flat out say that since I only have 2 logs of my car on the stock turbo with 3rd gear pulls from very low RPM (taken when doing spool up timing tuning). I typically like to work with a larger data set. I will say that the spool is so close I consider it to be the same based on how insignificant the difference appears to be combined with the fact that I really can not tell the difference from the drivers seat.
Justin, that is a good data point. Did you post that log on the DSMlink forums? I Think I may have seen it while searching. There are very few over 50 lbs though. There was one guy running in the high 10s with 49.x lbs, which coincides well with what Dave's car did on this 49 lb turbo, imagine that. I notice that you did that at high altitude. A turbo will still max out at the same flow rate, but you will have to run more boost those those of us at lwer altitude to do it. Just the same, I don't envy you at all.
I use the DSMlink logs to compare the spool. I prefer to look at airflow/rev than boost itself. Airflow/rev has an obvious peak when full boost is reached. Boost is a little more subjective due to the EBC trying to avoid the spike, and the fact that the pressure sensor is not all that fast. That being said, the Green/LT seems to spool at the exact same point as stock, or at least within 50-100 rpm (not very significant when you consider the usual CAS noise and the sample rate), but I'm hesitant to jus flat out say that since I only have 2 logs of my car on the stock turbo with 3rd gear pulls from very low RPM (taken when doing spool up timing tuning). I typically like to work with a larger data set. I will say that the spool is so close I consider it to be the same based on how insignificant the difference appears to be combined with the fact that I really can not tell the difference from the drivers seat.
Dec 20, 2006, 07:17 AM
#40
You can make this turbo work with the stock ECU and reflash, of course absolutely.
I just got ahold of Al in the middle of typing this and asked his opinion on what the deal is and why I can make so much more power with the AEM.
He said it's the ability to control the timing without hitting the knock threshold. I would say I am in absolute agreement with that and that would have been my first guess.
Here's what I find happens. BTW, if this turns this thread into a tuning discussion I will have the mods lock it.
When I tried to tune the last car with this turbo on it and race gas as I was making more power and trying to put more timing in it the car would just trip the knock sensor and then retard the timing. This kept me from making more power. Since I don't tune using the stock ECU very often I don't know what the actual limits are to the amount of "noise" it can handle. Switching the the AEM I know what I can get away with and where I can set the knock threshold, this allows me to tune the car without the ECU fighting me and pulling timing.
**Well this is all sounded really freaking good a few minutes ago when I was speaking with Al and as I was typing the above paragraph. Here is the next problem. I just pulled up the logs of Bobby's car. The timing I was running at peak torque on it was only 7 degrees. Very freaking interesting as that was the same amount I was able to get away with on the reflash, 6-7 degrees.
SO, this really makes me once again wonder what the difference is.
Al said he NEVER changes the knock threshold with the stock ECU, he feels it is too important to keep the cars safe. Not sure if some of you other guys that are using the reflash to make big numbers are changing it or not?
I just got ahold of Al in the middle of typing this and asked his opinion on what the deal is and why I can make so much more power with the AEM.
He said it's the ability to control the timing without hitting the knock threshold. I would say I am in absolute agreement with that and that would have been my first guess.
Here's what I find happens. BTW, if this turns this thread into a tuning discussion I will have the mods lock it.
When I tried to tune the last car with this turbo on it and race gas as I was making more power and trying to put more timing in it the car would just trip the knock sensor and then retard the timing. This kept me from making more power. Since I don't tune using the stock ECU very often I don't know what the actual limits are to the amount of "noise" it can handle. Switching the the AEM I know what I can get away with and where I can set the knock threshold, this allows me to tune the car without the ECU fighting me and pulling timing.
**Well this is all sounded really freaking good a few minutes ago when I was speaking with Al and as I was typing the above paragraph. Here is the next problem. I just pulled up the logs of Bobby's car. The timing I was running at peak torque on it was only 7 degrees. Very freaking interesting as that was the same amount I was able to get away with on the reflash, 6-7 degrees.
SO, this really makes me once again wonder what the difference is.
Al said he NEVER changes the knock threshold with the stock ECU, he feels it is too important to keep the cars safe. Not sure if some of you other guys that are using the reflash to make big numbers are changing it or not?
Dec 20, 2006, 08:05 AM
#42
I doubt that the green turbo has much to gain over a 9 turbo. Consider that the green gained 20-23 hp over an 05 turbo and Dave estimates that it will gain about 40 lb/ft over an 05 turbo. That is on pump 94 octane gas. The 9 turbo gains about 20-25 hp over an 05 turbo on pump gas. Personally, I would rather get the 9 turbo for my 05. If I had a 9 and wanted more power w/o the loass of a lot of spool, I would look at other turbo options.
Dec 20, 2006, 09:12 AM
#43
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: OKC
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt that the green turbo has much to gain over a 9 turbo. Consider that the green gained 20-23 hp over an 05 turbo and Dave estimates that it will gain about 40 lb/ft over an 05 turbo. That is on pump 94 octane gas. The 9 turbo gains about 20-25 hp over an 05 turbo on pump gas. Personally, I would rather get the 9 turbo for my 05. If I had a 9 and wanted more power w/o the loass of a lot of spool, I would look at other turbo options.
Dec 20, 2006, 09:52 AM
#45
Actually, your incorrect. I do have the ported green turbo on my car now and did have a ported 9 turbo aswell. At this point in time both of these turbos were/are run on the exact same tune with 101 octane +meth inj. I have yet to dyno the car because I want to get it retuned for the 20GLT first. However, the butt dyno can tell a huge difference in the topend aswell as the midrange. I definately recommend this turbo for those who use their evo for a daily driver.
I said on PUMP GAS, there seems to be little difference between the GREEN and the NINE turbo. PUMP GAS, means 93-94 octane gas. It DOES NOT mean 101 ostane with meth.