Full Race TS 3076 results
Jul 23, 2008, 03:56 PM
#63
There isn't a 100HP difference, the original graphs are fixed. 4K basically claimed Sean fabricated a "magical" dyno sheet.
I guess I have a hard time understanding why peak numbers are so important when it wasn't the objective. Am I the only guy that wants an evo that makes more power than I can use but is reliable? I know a 40 yr/old isn't the typical Evo driver. Maybe on a day that is under 100F Sean can push A/F above 11.3, raise the boost and give everyone what they crave if he has the time. He did give me exactly what I asked for though and I wound up with more than the 450/450 I expected under these conditions.
I do appreciate your compliment on my combination being "amazing" as we careully selected the parts to meet the original goals with a margin of safety. Expensive is a relative term however...
I guess I have a hard time understanding why peak numbers are so important when it wasn't the objective. Am I the only guy that wants an evo that makes more power than I can use but is reliable? I know a 40 yr/old isn't the typical Evo driver. Maybe on a day that is under 100F Sean can push A/F above 11.3, raise the boost and give everyone what they crave if he has the time. He did give me exactly what I asked for though and I wound up with more than the 450/450 I expected under these conditions.
I do appreciate your compliment on my combination being "amazing" as we careully selected the parts to meet the original goals with a margin of safety. Expensive is a relative term however...
Jul 23, 2008, 04:01 PM
#64
In this case, expensive is certainly not relative when you consider stock-framed turbos making equivalent or more power on stock manifolds, stock 2.0s, stock heads, etc. No, peak power is not the only thing that's important, and it's not all I'm talking about (maybe others are).
Last edited by Warrtalon; Jul 23, 2008 at 04:04 PM.
Jul 23, 2008, 04:04 PM
#66
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NW Georgia
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks real good man. AEM is a great solution when you can get away with it (as in don't have to worry about an OBD-II inspections).
I also had my aquamist setup on my VIII to use the nitrous maps in AEM. With the combination of the DDS3 failsafe and the aem nitrous maps you've got a near bulletproof failsafe.
Congratulations and enjoy the ride!
I also had my aquamist setup on my VIII to use the nitrous maps in AEM. With the combination of the DDS3 failsafe and the aem nitrous maps you've got a near bulletproof failsafe.
Congratulations and enjoy the ride!
Jul 23, 2008, 04:10 PM
#69
In this case, expensive is certainly not relative when you consider stock-framed turbos making equivalent or more power on stock manifolds, stock 2.0s, stock heads, etc. No, peak power is not the only thing that's important, and it's not all I'm talking about (maybe others are).
I don't think so, I consider those cars time bombs when pushed that far that will eventually need to do what I decided to do up front. Which setup do you think will last longer at those power levels. I prefer to build it not to break rather than wait for it to happen. I've learned how expensive it can be to pay for a weekend of racing and be done in an hour.
A worthwhile investment for me.
Jul 23, 2008, 04:14 PM
#72
Maybe some people were looking at the HP curve in the second graph? 
In addition, I used to be a bit unimpressed with the peak numbers of many of the EWG TS results I saw, especially in comparison to some Green peak numbers, and especially per dollar, but I have yet to see a Green that doesn't have significantly more engine work done to it (enough that the bill starts to catch up to the cost of a EWG TS setup) make over 500lb/ft. We just saw this one make more tyan that.
So in addition to the fast spool and peak tq. at such low RPM of these EWG TS setups, I have put much less emphasis on EWG TS vs. Green comparisons.
But there will always be people who see the cost of a EWG TS kit and the peak numbers it produces vs. the cost of a Green setup and the peak numbers it produces and dismiss the EWG TS.
In addition, I used to be a bit unimpressed with the peak numbers of many of the EWG TS results I saw, especially in comparison to some Green peak numbers, and especially per dollar, but I have yet to see a Green that doesn't have significantly more engine work done to it (enough that the bill starts to catch up to the cost of a EWG TS setup) make over 500lb/ft. We just saw this one make more tyan that.
So in addition to the fast spool and peak tq. at such low RPM of these EWG TS setups, I have put much less emphasis on EWG TS vs. Green comparisons.
But there will always be people who see the cost of a EWG TS kit and the peak numbers it produces vs. the cost of a Green setup and the peak numbers it produces and dismiss the EWG TS.
Jul 23, 2008, 04:17 PM
#73
Granted the motor does have 20% more displacement than a 2.0, but eclipsing 300whp by 3500rpm with a 3076R is no joke. Better save for some drivetrain repairs/upgrades - and a serious clutch.
A TS T3 1.06 is still a moderately sized hotside. But if you think about it, 480whp on 93+meth with a moderate 28psi is pretty good for a 3076R with a regular .63 A/R open T3 and the same combination. But, the open T3 isn't going to deliver 300whp by only 3500rpm, and that's the difference.
This car is going to be a ton of fun on the street.
A TS T3 1.06 is still a moderately sized hotside. But if you think about it, 480whp on 93+meth with a moderate 28psi is pretty good for a 3076R with a regular .63 A/R open T3 and the same combination. But, the open T3 isn't going to deliver 300whp by only 3500rpm, and that's the difference.
This car is going to be a ton of fun on the street.
Last edited by Ted B; Jul 23, 2008 at 04:19 PM.
Jul 23, 2008, 04:23 PM
#74
Granted the motor does have 20% more displacement than a 2.0, but eclipsing 300whp by 3500rpm with a 3076R is no joke. Better save for some drivetrain repairs/upgrades - and a serious clutch.
A TS T3 1.06 is still a moderately sized hotside. But if you think about it, 480whp on 93+meth with a moderate 28psi is pretty good for a 3076R with a regular .63 A/R open T3 and the same combination. But, the open T3 isn't going to deliver 300whp by only 3500rpm, and that's the difference.
This car is going to be a ton of fun on the street.
A TS T3 1.06 is still a moderately sized hotside. But if you think about it, 480whp on 93+meth with a moderate 28psi is pretty good for a 3076R with a regular .63 A/R open T3 and the same combination. But, the open T3 isn't going to deliver 300whp by only 3500rpm, and that's the difference.
This car is going to be a ton of fun on the street.
Last edited by BillAce; Jul 23, 2008 at 05:38 PM.
Jul 23, 2008, 04:28 PM
#75
Granted the motor does have 20% more displacement than a 2.0, but eclipsing 300whp by 3500rpm with a 3076R is no joke. Better save for some drivetrain repairs/upgrades - and a serious clutch.
A TS T3 1.06 is still a moderately sized hotside. But if you think about it, 480whp on 93+meth with a moderate 28psi is pretty good for a 3076R with a regular .63 A/R open T3 and the same combination. But, the open T3 isn't going to deliver 300whp by only 3500rpm, and that's the difference.
This car is going to be a ton of fun on the street.
A TS T3 1.06 is still a moderately sized hotside. But if you think about it, 480whp on 93+meth with a moderate 28psi is pretty good for a 3076R with a regular .63 A/R open T3 and the same combination. But, the open T3 isn't going to deliver 300whp by only 3500rpm, and that's the difference.
This car is going to be a ton of fun on the street.
the king has spoken