BUschur Stage 3 long block Full race 4088r ...Kansai
Dec 14, 2009 | 04:09 PM
#91
Mike all runs were done in 4th gear.
300kw is no prob dude.. what turbo are you planning on running..on a ams 30r @ 2 bar I managed 340kw on a dynapac.
if i would do this all again I would go and i suggest you go to a 2.2 stroker..
best of both worlds, the ability to rev and extra displacement.
300kw is no prob dude.. what turbo are you planning on running..on a ams 30r @ 2 bar I managed 340kw on a dynapac.
if i would do this all again I would go and i suggest you go to a 2.2 stroker..
best of both worlds, the ability to rev and extra displacement.
FP Red, with kelford 272's for my build.
I'd love to build a 2.2, but i picked up a full 4g64 motor for $70USD ($100NZD here), so thats why i'm going 2.3.
All my parts on the on the way from the USA.
I'm doing this all on a strict budget.
Whats your max rev limit for your 2.3? 8000rpm?
Dec 14, 2009 | 07:46 PM
#93
1) Full-Race 40R Twinscroll 2.4L 714HP/646TQ
2) Full-Race 40R Twinscroll 2.4L - 740 whp / 672tq
3) Full-Race Twinscroll 42R 872whp / 700wtq
i asked him to repost in hp and tq for most people to compare more easily, it would also help to see the power from 3000rpm+ .. if someone didnt realize this, the dynoplot would not clearly indicate how johnny's evo feels
with your ethanol fuel i have no question you can hit those numbers, despite being at 1mile+ elevation
Last edited by Geoff Raicer; Dec 14, 2009 at 07:53 PM.
Dec 15, 2009 | 12:07 AM
#94
if it's 4th gear, then your "ratio" number is wrong and that might be effecting your dyno readings. (unless you are running crazy ratio's).
FP Red, with kelford 272's for my build.
I'd love to build a 2.2, but i picked up a full 4g64 motor for $70USD ($100NZD here), so thats why i'm going 2.3.
All my parts on the on the way from the USA.
I'm doing this all on a strict budget.
Whats your max rev limit for your 2.3? 8000rpm?
FP Red, with kelford 272's for my build.
I'd love to build a 2.2, but i picked up a full 4g64 motor for $70USD ($100NZD here), so thats why i'm going 2.3.
All my parts on the on the way from the USA.
I'm doing this all on a strict budget.
Whats your max rev limit for your 2.3? 8000rpm?
rev limit set @ 8500rpm... figures are inline with everybody else's. so there no magic here.
Look at Geoff's posts and links.
if you going 4g64 block do a destroked 2.1.
Dec 18, 2009 | 04:11 PM
#95
check out this evo johnny https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/7808401-post119.html going to test a 91-79
Last edited by Geoff Raicer; Dec 18, 2009 at 08:10 PM.
Dec 18, 2009 | 08:05 PM
#98
Oh boy, it never ends. Geoff, actually the head and cams made the same power up top as what was in the car previously, I think between the two the gains were around 10 whp. The way you typed it didn't sound specific enough for my taste.
Dec 18, 2009 | 08:13 PM
#99
im not here to start fights, but before the car got to ivey's, the owner wanted more from the setup. so i told him to get the headgames head, bigger cams, and a bigger intake manifold, then swap turbos, so were doing that
Dec 18, 2009 | 08:17 PM
#100
I am not here to fight either. I am just stating that Sean said the gains from the head were minimal and so was the cam swap. The intake on the other hand had very big gains, which would be expected with the stroker and the larger plenum.
Dec 19, 2009 | 07:58 AM
#101
check out this evo johnny https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/7808401-post119.html going to test a 91-79
again bud.. I cant stress what a difference being at high altitude is..
at sea level turbo intercooler etc are all more efficient..
I really don't think there will be a huge difference in power between the 2 heads.
Like Dave said maybe 10-15hp, I doubt it would be more, I have had a look at dave head work and seen the head work on Simon Norris and well they pretty much spot on... and very similar
Dec 19, 2009 | 10:29 PM
#102
I got to agree here with Dave as well
I really don't think there will be a huge difference in power between the 2 heads.
Like Dave said maybe 10-15hp, I doubt it would be more, I have had a look at dave head work and seen the head work on Simon Norris and well they pretty much spot on... and very similar
Are you comparing a HeadGames head to one of Dave's?
Dec 20, 2009 | 09:41 AM
#103
no I have not seent he head work, on your heads..
I am comparing Dave head to Simon Norris in the UK and the porting and shaping of combustion chamber were very similar.
If i had to change to a head I prob would go for the AMS cnc head, even then I dont think there will be a huge difference between your head and the AMS cnc head.
I am comparing Dave head to Simon Norris in the UK and the porting and shaping of combustion chamber were very similar.
If i had to change to a head I prob would go for the AMS cnc head, even then I dont think there will be a huge difference between your head and the AMS cnc head.
Dec 20, 2009 | 01:22 PM
#104
no I have not seent he head work, on your heads..
I am comparing Dave head to Simon Norris in the UK and the porting and shaping of combustion chamber were very similar.
If i had to change to a head I prob would go for the AMS cnc head, even then I dont think there will be a huge difference between your head and the AMS cnc head.
I am comparing Dave head to Simon Norris in the UK and the porting and shaping of combustion chamber were very similar.
If i had to change to a head I prob would go for the AMS cnc head, even then I dont think there will be a huge difference between your head and the AMS cnc head.
Dec 21, 2009 | 09:14 AM
#105
FullRace, for reference, if that's the car I think it is that is an old Stage 3 stroker that was pulled out of a wrecked EVO8 and put into the owners new EVO9. It was requested that we re-use as much from the old EVO8 set up as possible.
The car looks like it made good flat power all the way to 8,000 rpm. Not sure what you find wrong with the BF272 cams or the Wilson V2 intake manifold, seem to be working pretty good to me.
Since you don't follow the forums much I'll let you know that those cams and intake manifold on my RS ran 9.04 at 159.64 mph, seem to work pretty well.
My suggestion would be to increase the primary diameter on the header and get rid of the poor transition at the cylinder head on the header. I also agree on the 4" intake for the car. When the car was at our shop the owner only wanted it tuned on pump gas and did not want to keep spending money on it. Obviously he either got a sponsor or changed his spending habits, which is great for you guys.
Power looks great, don't get me wrong. I just think you may be targeting the wrong parts for replacement.
The car looks like it made good flat power all the way to 8,000 rpm. Not sure what you find wrong with the BF272 cams or the Wilson V2 intake manifold, seem to be working pretty good to me.
Since you don't follow the forums much I'll let you know that those cams and intake manifold on my RS ran 9.04 at 159.64 mph, seem to work pretty well.
My suggestion would be to increase the primary diameter on the header and get rid of the poor transition at the cylinder head on the header. I also agree on the 4" intake for the car. When the car was at our shop the owner only wanted it tuned on pump gas and did not want to keep spending money on it. Obviously he either got a sponsor or changed his spending habits, which is great for you guys.
Power looks great, don't get me wrong. I just think you may be targeting the wrong parts for replacement.
i agree with dave someone needs to take a second look and go over what is or gonna be replaced.. all that stuff is PROVEN time and time again theres no need for people to change stuff and experiment with different $hit when that stuff is proven to work and make good power.... just my 02.