BBK Full/E85 vs FP_GREEN/C16.. FACTS!
Jan 15, 2009, 05:42 PM
#1
BBK Full/E85 vs FP_GREEN/C16.. FACTS!
I know it may get controversial, but facts are facts. Besides, I'm getting even older and sinile and I better get my thoughts down before it's too late. So, here goes.
We've all seen the statements of the BBK Full turbo being compared to various FP
stock type turbos, primarily the FP_Green. Also, in the early statements, the
comparisons were made with comments which would lead you to believe that the BBK
is better for Pump gas than the FP turbos. This started me thinking, "Why would
PUMP make a difference in turbos?" I understand additional HEAT and other factors, but I still haven't read a single statement explaining WHY the BBK is supposed to be a better PUMP GAS turbo.
Now, I've recently read about a BBK Full being compared more favorably than ANY OTHER stock type turbo ever tested on a certain Mustang Dyno. This started me thinking again. "Now the BBK is supposed to be better on E-85 than the FP-Green." Is that a true statement? The only answer to that would be to get the facts of each tune, fuel, dyno used, etc. Since the BBK FULL was on a Mustang Dyno, I looked for FP_Green dyno sheets on a Mustang. I found ours, but I knew that I would hear the IMPORT FUEL vs E-85 and the 37.3psi vs 31 psi arguments,
and they would be valid arguments. So, the next best thing was to get another car with similar mods, on an EVO VIII, FP_Green, Mustang Dyno, C16 (not that far from E-85). Slight advantage to the VIII on the fuel, maybe. Then, the BBK was on an Evo IX AND it was using an electronic boost controller, which is a HUGE help up top. Advantage, Evo IX BBK FULL.
I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that ANY electronic boost controller is capable of helping hold boost above 6500 rpms, vs a manual bc. If both boost levels vs rpms is a known value, it should be easy to compare the turbos at various boosts and rpms against each other, especially if they cross boost paths during the pulls. The Evo VIII dyno sheet I found was David's RS BACK IN 2006. Long before it's current state of build. Both cars have similar part mods, just different selections. They both have stock appearing turbos. The one big difference I see was the EBC vs the MBC.
Now, the BBK Full was dyno'd in 3rd (slower spool up and later peak torque) and so was
David's RS. Guess what? They both hit peak torque at EXACTLY the same RPM. 4350-4400, give
or take 50 rpms. Not close, but Exactly the same. I then looked at the cross-over
of 5250 rpms. The FP-GREEN was making ~ 35 whp more than the BBK Full. Hmmmm, why??
More about that in a minute. The FP-GREEN was making 426 whp and the BBK was making
391 or so. (A little variance MAYBE, but very close). Remember the Electronic Boost
Controller vs the Manual Boost Controller? Keep reading.
Now, let's look at 6000 rpms. The gap is closing. Why?? Tune? Boost? We'll check in
a minute. At 6000, the FP_Green is now at 440 whp, the BBK is pulling up and.....
it comes in at 430 whp. Again, remember the electronic boost controller. Maybe
now would be a good time to introduce those numbers. I didn't bring boost into the
equation until now, because the FP_Green was running an MBC which caused a higher psi
up until about 5700 rpms. At about 5700, the EBC started doing it's job and
the MBC just static setting couldn't keep up. The boost of both turbos at 5700
was 30.4 (give or take .1 psi). What was the power of each turbo? The BBK Full
was about 413-415 whp, the FP_Green was making 431-432 whp. Remember the boost at
this was is EXACTLY the same, VERY SIMILAR FUEL. Both cars are cammed. One with
Cosworth M2's, the other with Revolvers probably. Still, same boost, same rpms,
different cars, different days, I know, I know, but if we're going to compare, this
is at least a reasonable comparison.
Now, let's keep going. The thread I read stated that the BBK FULL was really holding
boost up top. Was it the turbo, or the EBC. I think it was the EBC, not necessarily
the turbo. I say that, since boost logs were also posted for the EBC and I extracted
the information and compared it throughout each pull. Looking at the 6000 rpm's again,
the FP_Green was making 440 whp at 26 psi (remember, just 300 rpms ago, they were equal
in boost at 30.4), the BBK Full and the EBC are now boosting 28.6 psi, but making 10 whp
LESS. Extending the comparison on out to 7000 rpms, the FP_Green on the manual boost
controller is pushing 25.1 psi, the BBK FULL on the Electronic Boost Controller is
pushing 27.4 psi. The power difference is only 5-6 whp in favor of the FP_Green, Green/447,
BBK FULL/441 but the boost is BY FAR in favor of the BBK FULL. 2.3 psi! That's a lot
of difference and my own personal opinion is that the EBC is holding the boost, not the turbo.
I say that because on my own FP_GREEN set up, I have held 28 psi at this same RPM, so
that proves enough to me that the FP_Green CAN hold that boost level. We did it using
an MBC, not an EBC.
Now, let's go to 7500 rpms. At 7500, the FP_Green was making about 440 whp at 24.2 psi
while the BBK FULL was making about 438 at 26.6 psi. Again, a major difference when
trying to make comparisons, yet the FP_Green was still making a little more power.
If the same EBC had been used on the FP_Green that was used on the BBK FULL what might
have been the results? I have my own opinion, based on the fact what I KNOW about
our own boost on our own car at the same RPMS and dyno logs.
Had I opted to use OUR dyno chart instead of David's RS, the ONLY difference would
have been our torque and whp were SUBSTANTIALLY more than either of these comparisons
up until about 4800, (due to our 37.3 psi of boost), then we slowly tapered to nearly
identical numbers as Davids at 6000. After that, David's car was about 4-5 whp more for
1000 rpms, then back together.
Why this thread? To give an honest, logged, charted comparison of two turbos. The
hype sometimes needs to be tempered with facts. These were the facts. Differences
in days, cars, if there's methane gas in the air, etc, etc, ALL makes a difference.
My problem is that everything I've read in comparisons has AVOIDED mentioning what factors
favor which turbos. I've tried to give as honest and factual information as I could
find. I know the argument, "YOU CAN'T COMPARE DAVIDS RS TO THIS CAR! THEY'RE NOT EVEN
CLOSE TO THE SAME BUILDS!" I'm not stupid, I know that. But the fact remains, Davids car
was dyno'd with mods from 3 YEARS AGO, not this year. A LOT has progressed in 3 years,
such as the tuning with the EBC. You also can't forget the fact that the BBK was running
nearly 2.5 psi more boost. Ask any E-85 tuner or car owner who uses it. It works, plain
and simple. Ask AWD Mike if he likes it, I think he'll say yes. Finally, we're not
talking about PERFOMANCE at the track. We're talking about same Mustang Dyno, very, very
similar fuel, fairly equally modded cars with the benefit of the BBK using an EBC.
The thread is to help those wanting to hear the facts, READ the facts. I, personally, am
happy to see many competitive options. I look at all of them. But, when hype supercedes
the facts, I start doing my homework. I can't even IMAGINE comparing the BBK Full to the FP RED. Reality check. So you decide, Is it the turbo holding the boost or is it the EBC doing it's job? Either way, the FP_Green wins.
We've all seen the statements of the BBK Full turbo being compared to various FP
stock type turbos, primarily the FP_Green. Also, in the early statements, the
comparisons were made with comments which would lead you to believe that the BBK
is better for Pump gas than the FP turbos. This started me thinking, "Why would
PUMP make a difference in turbos?" I understand additional HEAT and other factors, but I still haven't read a single statement explaining WHY the BBK is supposed to be a better PUMP GAS turbo.
Now, I've recently read about a BBK Full being compared more favorably than ANY OTHER stock type turbo ever tested on a certain Mustang Dyno. This started me thinking again. "Now the BBK is supposed to be better on E-85 than the FP-Green." Is that a true statement? The only answer to that would be to get the facts of each tune, fuel, dyno used, etc. Since the BBK FULL was on a Mustang Dyno, I looked for FP_Green dyno sheets on a Mustang. I found ours, but I knew that I would hear the IMPORT FUEL vs E-85 and the 37.3psi vs 31 psi arguments,
and they would be valid arguments. So, the next best thing was to get another car with similar mods, on an EVO VIII, FP_Green, Mustang Dyno, C16 (not that far from E-85). Slight advantage to the VIII on the fuel, maybe. Then, the BBK was on an Evo IX AND it was using an electronic boost controller, which is a HUGE help up top. Advantage, Evo IX BBK FULL.
I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that ANY electronic boost controller is capable of helping hold boost above 6500 rpms, vs a manual bc. If both boost levels vs rpms is a known value, it should be easy to compare the turbos at various boosts and rpms against each other, especially if they cross boost paths during the pulls. The Evo VIII dyno sheet I found was David's RS BACK IN 2006. Long before it's current state of build. Both cars have similar part mods, just different selections. They both have stock appearing turbos. The one big difference I see was the EBC vs the MBC.
Now, the BBK Full was dyno'd in 3rd (slower spool up and later peak torque) and so was
David's RS. Guess what? They both hit peak torque at EXACTLY the same RPM. 4350-4400, give
or take 50 rpms. Not close, but Exactly the same. I then looked at the cross-over
of 5250 rpms. The FP-GREEN was making ~ 35 whp more than the BBK Full. Hmmmm, why??
More about that in a minute. The FP-GREEN was making 426 whp and the BBK was making
391 or so. (A little variance MAYBE, but very close). Remember the Electronic Boost
Controller vs the Manual Boost Controller? Keep reading.
Now, let's look at 6000 rpms. The gap is closing. Why?? Tune? Boost? We'll check in
a minute. At 6000, the FP_Green is now at 440 whp, the BBK is pulling up and.....
it comes in at 430 whp. Again, remember the electronic boost controller. Maybe
now would be a good time to introduce those numbers. I didn't bring boost into the
equation until now, because the FP_Green was running an MBC which caused a higher psi
up until about 5700 rpms. At about 5700, the EBC started doing it's job and
the MBC just static setting couldn't keep up. The boost of both turbos at 5700
was 30.4 (give or take .1 psi). What was the power of each turbo? The BBK Full
was about 413-415 whp, the FP_Green was making 431-432 whp. Remember the boost at
this was is EXACTLY the same, VERY SIMILAR FUEL. Both cars are cammed. One with
Cosworth M2's, the other with Revolvers probably. Still, same boost, same rpms,
different cars, different days, I know, I know, but if we're going to compare, this
is at least a reasonable comparison.
Now, let's keep going. The thread I read stated that the BBK FULL was really holding
boost up top. Was it the turbo, or the EBC. I think it was the EBC, not necessarily
the turbo. I say that, since boost logs were also posted for the EBC and I extracted
the information and compared it throughout each pull. Looking at the 6000 rpm's again,
the FP_Green was making 440 whp at 26 psi (remember, just 300 rpms ago, they were equal
in boost at 30.4), the BBK Full and the EBC are now boosting 28.6 psi, but making 10 whp
LESS. Extending the comparison on out to 7000 rpms, the FP_Green on the manual boost
controller is pushing 25.1 psi, the BBK FULL on the Electronic Boost Controller is
pushing 27.4 psi. The power difference is only 5-6 whp in favor of the FP_Green, Green/447,
BBK FULL/441 but the boost is BY FAR in favor of the BBK FULL. 2.3 psi! That's a lot
of difference and my own personal opinion is that the EBC is holding the boost, not the turbo.
I say that because on my own FP_GREEN set up, I have held 28 psi at this same RPM, so
that proves enough to me that the FP_Green CAN hold that boost level. We did it using
an MBC, not an EBC.
Now, let's go to 7500 rpms. At 7500, the FP_Green was making about 440 whp at 24.2 psi
while the BBK FULL was making about 438 at 26.6 psi. Again, a major difference when
trying to make comparisons, yet the FP_Green was still making a little more power.
If the same EBC had been used on the FP_Green that was used on the BBK FULL what might
have been the results? I have my own opinion, based on the fact what I KNOW about
our own boost on our own car at the same RPMS and dyno logs.
Had I opted to use OUR dyno chart instead of David's RS, the ONLY difference would
have been our torque and whp were SUBSTANTIALLY more than either of these comparisons
up until about 4800, (due to our 37.3 psi of boost), then we slowly tapered to nearly
identical numbers as Davids at 6000. After that, David's car was about 4-5 whp more for
1000 rpms, then back together.
Why this thread? To give an honest, logged, charted comparison of two turbos. The
hype sometimes needs to be tempered with facts. These were the facts. Differences
in days, cars, if there's methane gas in the air, etc, etc, ALL makes a difference.
My problem is that everything I've read in comparisons has AVOIDED mentioning what factors
favor which turbos. I've tried to give as honest and factual information as I could
find. I know the argument, "YOU CAN'T COMPARE DAVIDS RS TO THIS CAR! THEY'RE NOT EVEN
CLOSE TO THE SAME BUILDS!" I'm not stupid, I know that. But the fact remains, Davids car
was dyno'd with mods from 3 YEARS AGO, not this year. A LOT has progressed in 3 years,
such as the tuning with the EBC. You also can't forget the fact that the BBK was running
nearly 2.5 psi more boost. Ask any E-85 tuner or car owner who uses it. It works, plain
and simple. Ask AWD Mike if he likes it, I think he'll say yes. Finally, we're not
talking about PERFOMANCE at the track. We're talking about same Mustang Dyno, very, very
similar fuel, fairly equally modded cars with the benefit of the BBK using an EBC.
The thread is to help those wanting to hear the facts, READ the facts. I, personally, am
happy to see many competitive options. I look at all of them. But, when hype supercedes
the facts, I start doing my homework. I can't even IMAGINE comparing the BBK Full to the FP RED. Reality check. So you decide, Is it the turbo holding the boost or is it the EBC doing it's job? Either way, the FP_Green wins.
Jan 15, 2009, 06:10 PM
#7
Well I am going to say 9sec9 you are obviously swayed in your decision since you are sponsored by FP. Fact of the matter is there have already been 2-3 tests done that show at similiar boost and typical mods (not an extreme build) that the BBK held more boost and made more power. This is on the same dyno and both using same boost control. So really comparing two different setups and two different fuels and different climates is not much of a comparison at all. The FP Red is better than the BBK and the BBK is better than the Green. You said it yourself its been 3 years and things have progressed...Green is old news imo.
Trending Topics
Jan 15, 2009, 06:19 PM
#8
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: DA P!!!
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah........ no. Bench racing to prove which turbo is superior is subjective and misleading. Time is the only true test, as more people get the BBK you will see trends between both the FP Green vs. BBK and any other stock variant turbo that comes out. The law of averages is what determines which is best.
Jan 15, 2009, 06:22 PM
#9
interesting...my roommate Kreionic has a BBK Full on his car, BR stage 3 heads, S2 cams, JMF intake manifold and all the other bolt ons...he made 435whp on straight pump gas, i forget the boost level, 26-28 psi maybe, he made that power in 3rd gear on the 5 speed tranny...A car that Kreionic just tuned recently and one of our good friends Sick9 has a ported FP Green, stock motor besides s1 cams, stock intake manifold & TB, all other bolt ons though, plus 100% meth injection...with pump gas and 100% meth. he put down 435whp in 3rd gear and 455whp in 4th with the 6 speed tranny, i can't remember what Sick9's psi was at though...
Last edited by 06MREvo; Jan 15, 2009 at 06:26 PM.
Jan 15, 2009, 06:29 PM
#10
The BBK seems to be making a consistent 370+whp on pump gas on a mustang dyno. I have yet to see any green do this on an average built car. On E85, FP Green makes about 400whp on the nose, consistently. The BBk is making closer to 425, on average.
IMHO the FP Green had its time, and the BBK has taken its place now. The FP RED on the other hand seems to make similar peak numbers on pump gas. The midrange is a no contest to the BBK. On E85, it is almost an even trade of about 700rpms. The BBK wins in the midrange, and the red makes up for it up top. Peak power is only bested by 10-20whp, nothing crazy. This makes the decision very hard.
9sec9, I highly respect you, but I really think that the two cars you're comparing are not close enough to truely be a good comparison. IMHO get a BBK and a green, get the AFR and boost exactly the same, keep timing the same, and post the numbers.
IMHO the FP Green had its time, and the BBK has taken its place now. The FP RED on the other hand seems to make similar peak numbers on pump gas. The midrange is a no contest to the BBK. On E85, it is almost an even trade of about 700rpms. The BBK wins in the midrange, and the red makes up for it up top. Peak power is only bested by 10-20whp, nothing crazy. This makes the decision very hard.
9sec9, I highly respect you, but I really think that the two cars you're comparing are not close enough to truely be a good comparison. IMHO get a BBK and a green, get the AFR and boost exactly the same, keep timing the same, and post the numbers.
Jan 15, 2009, 06:35 PM
#12
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9sec9 I have a lot of respect for everything you have done and the info u have shared with the community but I really believe this comparison is rediculus. Different dynos, different days, and completely different parts. I mean were both built engines? Can you post the dyno charts you compared?
Jan 15, 2009, 06:38 PM
#14
I couldn't agree more. These cars are no where near close enough in setup to make an accurate comparison. To me, this thread is a blatent attempt to revive the interest in FP that they lost to CBRD/Blouch.
Last edited by Kracka; Jan 15, 2009 at 06:41 PM.
Jan 15, 2009, 06:44 PM
#15
I just got home and logged back in. I 100% agree with the above 'comparisons' statements. However, it wasn't me doing the comparing. The above mentioned BBK Full was dyno'd last month and I believe again this month and the comparison's to the GREEN were being made by them, not me. I simply decide not to create drama in their thread by putting attention on the 'details', but instead to let this one get thrashed, since this one was to point direction to the 'details' not the turbos. In this case, the details are the facts and the EBC being used. 3 years ago the 'fall off' up top was due to the mbc's, not the Green as was eluded to by the tuners of the BBK. The intention is to get prospective buyers of any parts, be they cams, turbos or manifolds , to compare the facts with ALL the facts. Not just part of the equation. The posts I refer to can clearly be found and have been read by many, yet no one curiously mentioned that the GREEN was 'old news' until the details were brought out.