Gt3065 on Stage IV IX - 2.0 L vs 2.3 L
Mar 30, 2008, 05:01 PM
#1
Account Disabled
Thread Starter
iTrader: (91)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 2003 Evo VIII - Silver
Posts: 16,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gt3065 on Stage IV IX - 2.0 L vs 2.3 L
Our customer Superscout03 decided to get a 2.3 L stroker in his lovely Evo IX
This presented a great opportuinity to test and compare the Stage IV Evo IX with Buschur Gt3065 Turbo Kit pump with Aquamist
2.0 L stock
compared to
Dyno Flash built 2.3 L with Buschur Pistons and Pauter rods (balance shaft delete)
both graphs are with stock ecu reflash tuned at 28 psi
The stroker really works well on the Gt3065 - up to 7,500 there is no loss in power only gains - it really spools up hard - great for a road racing application
This presented a great opportuinity to test and compare the Stage IV Evo IX with Buschur Gt3065 Turbo Kit pump with Aquamist
2.0 L stock
compared to
Dyno Flash built 2.3 L with Buschur Pistons and Pauter rods (balance shaft delete)
both graphs are with stock ecu reflash tuned at 28 psi
The stroker really works well on the Gt3065 - up to 7,500 there is no loss in power only gains - it really spools up hard - great for a road racing application
Last edited by DynoFlash; Mar 30, 2008 at 05:10 PM.
Mar 30, 2008, 07:18 PM
#5
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ct
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was there something wrong with the car when it was brought in? Thats a rediculous gain in spool and looks as if the car wasn't making full boost until almost 5500rpms before the stroker. Shouldn't the 3065 reach full boost 47-4800rpms on a 2.0?
Trending Topics
Mar 30, 2008, 07:32 PM
#8
nice post!! im glad that you guys decided to do this first before the rest of the work was done. the progress of his car from the stock 2.0 to the built set up will defintiely help me out and by doing the comparison with the 3065r first is everything i could have hoped for since im thinking about getting the next upgrade that he is doing (which i wont say as im not sure if he or you want everyone to know yet or not). when do you guys think you will finish up all the work on his car (pm'd him a couple of times and he told me what was going to be done)? those are the results that i am anxious to see!
Last edited by TwStDeVo; Mar 30, 2008 at 07:34 PM.
Mar 30, 2008, 08:45 PM
#9
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mesoamerica/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,905
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
I realize that it's outside the scope of Al's test but I'd like to see the 2.3/3065 compared to a 2.3/HTA 35. My only qualm is as to how much the more restrictive turbine side of the 3065 impacts negatively on power output above 5500 RPM in comparison to the full house 35. Back pressure is not where it's at on a stroker. The HTA 35 is just such a nice turbo and on a stroker should spoolup really well without the tradeoff of increased exhaust backpressure. I used to lust after the 3065 until the HTA 35 came along.
Last edited by sparky; Mar 30, 2008 at 08:49 PM. Reason: diction
Mar 31, 2008, 08:28 AM
#14
I realize that it's outside the scope of Al's test but I'd like to see the 2.3/3065 compared to a 2.3/HTA 35. My only qualm is as to how much the more restrictive turbine side of the 3065 impacts negatively on power output above 5500 RPM in comparison to the full house 35. Back pressure is not where it's at on a stroker. The HTA 35 is just such a nice turbo and on a stroker should spoolup really well without the tradeoff of increased exhaust backpressure. I used to lust after the 3065 until the HTA 35 came along.
After seeing results like this, I wonder where are all the people who answer 2.0 liter in polls are?
It's always been true I thought that there was no change in peak power but more torque and earlier spool.
