My Evo work-in-progress pics
#48
Originally Posted by Ludikraut
Alright, finally found some time to edit my pics and to post a review of my impressions of the Rotorpro / HPS rotor/pad combo. Here's how we stand after about 1 month of use, which included one track day (read my review here) at Gingerman (roughly 150 track miles):
The rotor(s):
+ no warping
+ no appreciable wear
- almost all of the paint burned off
The pad(s):
+ about the same as stock
- not good enough for the track (although I kinda knew that going in)
I am very impressed with the rotors so far. My only complaints aren't performance related at all. Complaint number one has to do with the fact that the paint burned completely off during the track sessions. Complaint number two has to do with the fact that the slot/dimples combination on the rotor make a buzzing noise when I'm driving down the street. I initially had the rotors installed, with the slots facing forward. Last weekend I changed them to have the slots facing backwards, hoping that it would eliminate the buzzing noise ... it didn't. So the final word on which way to install the rotors: it doesn't matter, since the vanes inside the rotor are not directional (unlike the stoptechs for example). The pads I'm a little less impressed with. They are fine for the street (IMO equal to stock pads), but fade rather badly on the track.
My recommendation?
Definitely get the rotors ... but ... get them slotted only and do not get them painted at all. At ~$300 for all 4 rotors and ~$160 for both fronts, these are a steal.
---
If you're going to track the car, don't get the HPS pads.
l8r)
Front Passenger side pics below
The rotor(s):
+ no warping
+ no appreciable wear
- almost all of the paint burned off
The pad(s):
+ about the same as stock
- not good enough for the track (although I kinda knew that going in)
I am very impressed with the rotors so far. My only complaints aren't performance related at all. Complaint number one has to do with the fact that the paint burned completely off during the track sessions. Complaint number two has to do with the fact that the slot/dimples combination on the rotor make a buzzing noise when I'm driving down the street. I initially had the rotors installed, with the slots facing forward. Last weekend I changed them to have the slots facing backwards, hoping that it would eliminate the buzzing noise ... it didn't. So the final word on which way to install the rotors: it doesn't matter, since the vanes inside the rotor are not directional (unlike the stoptechs for example). The pads I'm a little less impressed with. They are fine for the street (IMO equal to stock pads), but fade rather badly on the track.
My recommendation?
Definitely get the rotors ... but ... get them slotted only and do not get them painted at all. At ~$300 for all 4 rotors and ~$160 for both fronts, these are a steal.
---
If you're going to track the car, don't get the HPS pads.
l8r)
Front Passenger side pics below
#49
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 0
From: 41° 59' N, 87° 54' W
Almost there ... stay on target, STAY on target...
Some pics of the AMS GT3071R kit going into my Evo. Car should be all done end of this week or early next week. All I can say is - very, very nice workmanship!
l8r)
l8r)
#50
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 0
From: 41° 59' N, 87° 54' W
Alright, finally got my dyno charts from AMS.
First off, the current level of modification is:
- Vishnu Signature Series exhaust (3")
- Vishnu HF cat (cat and test pipe converted to full v-band flanges)
- AMS GT3071 turbo kit
- AMS built 2.0 liter (ross pistons, crower rods, built valvetrain)
- AMS FMIC
- K&N intake
- HKS 280 cams
- Vishnu Camgears set to -2 intake / 0 exhaust
- Greddy Type-S BOV
- Vishnu XEDE piggyback
- XEDEflashed ECU
- Innovate LM-1
- Rotorpro rotors/Hawk HPS pads/SS brake lines
- Mitsubishi brake ducts
- Custom brake ducting
- SS clutch line ... STOCK CLUTCH
Found out some interesting things tuning the new setup... but for now I'll list just the dyno charts. The first three compare the evolution of my modifications, from stock to Vishnu stage 1, Vishnu stage 1+ and now the AMS 3071. As usual they are in uncorrected format.
SAE corrected dyno charts for the new setup are here.
l8r)
First off, the current level of modification is:
- Vishnu Signature Series exhaust (3")
- Vishnu HF cat (cat and test pipe converted to full v-band flanges)
- AMS GT3071 turbo kit
- AMS built 2.0 liter (ross pistons, crower rods, built valvetrain)
- AMS FMIC
- K&N intake
- HKS 280 cams
- Vishnu Camgears set to -2 intake / 0 exhaust
- Greddy Type-S BOV
- Vishnu XEDE piggyback
- XEDEflashed ECU
- Innovate LM-1
- Rotorpro rotors/Hawk HPS pads/SS brake lines
- Mitsubishi brake ducts
- Custom brake ducting
- SS clutch line ... STOCK CLUTCH
Found out some interesting things tuning the new setup... but for now I'll list just the dyno charts. The first three compare the evolution of my modifications, from stock to Vishnu stage 1, Vishnu stage 1+ and now the AMS 3071. As usual they are in uncorrected format.
SAE corrected dyno charts for the new setup are here.
l8r)
Last edited by Ludikraut; Aug 26, 2005 at 09:39 AM. Reason: Fixed power only dyno chart
#52
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 0
From: 41° 59' N, 87° 54' W
Well, I figure you'll hear it in about a month when we cruise down to Dyno4mance ... and if we're all really lucky, Shiv will figure out how to get the stock ECU to let me rev to 9K.
Alright, now on to some interesting dyno run comparisons.
The two runs (both 3rd gear pulls) in this attachment reflect going from a tune that was running AFRs of ~11.5 to a tune with a little bit more safety margin at ~11.3 AFR. There was very little (if any) power lost. Basically whatever power loss there was, I'd attribute mostly to run-to-run variance. Check it out..
l8r)
Alright, now on to some interesting dyno run comparisons.
The two runs (both 3rd gear pulls) in this attachment reflect going from a tune that was running AFRs of ~11.5 to a tune with a little bit more safety margin at ~11.3 AFR. There was very little (if any) power lost. Basically whatever power loss there was, I'd attribute mostly to run-to-run variance. Check it out..
l8r)
Last edited by Ludikraut; Aug 26, 2005 at 09:50 AM.
#53
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 0
From: 41° 59' N, 87° 54' W
Next comparison: low boost (20-21psi) vs high boost (22 - 22.5 psi)
These two runs (3rd gear pulls) compare the difference between running less boost w/ more timing vs more boost w/ less timing. On Run 54 we were still running around 20 to 21 psi of boost, and on run 58 it was turned up to just over 22psi, barely dropping to 21 psi by redline. Looking at the two graphs - in retrospect, I'd say that if I had to retune, I'd probably go for an initial boost of 20 psi and then try to let it build up to 22psi in the higher rpms (past 6000 rpms).
l8r)
These two runs (3rd gear pulls) compare the difference between running less boost w/ more timing vs more boost w/ less timing. On Run 54 we were still running around 20 to 21 psi of boost, and on run 58 it was turned up to just over 22psi, barely dropping to 21 psi by redline. Looking at the two graphs - in retrospect, I'd say that if I had to retune, I'd probably go for an initial boost of 20 psi and then try to let it build up to 22psi in the higher rpms (past 6000 rpms).
l8r)
#54
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 0
From: 41° 59' N, 87° 54' W
And last, but certainly not least ... cam timing.
When I first got the car to break it in, the HKS 280 cams were installed straight up (0/0) and spool up was ... well ... less than optimal. The turbo would begin spooling around 3800 rpms, with full boost by maybe 4100, if not later. Needless to say, I wasn't very enthused or amused.
At this point a HUGE THANKS goes out to AMS, because they spent an inordinate amount of time troubleshooting the slow spool issue and were more than fair in what they charged me for labor.
Ultimately we finally got a decent baseline tune on the car, which would be Run 038. We did not adjust boost at all between runs, only timing. So, to summarize the runs (SAE correction):
Run 038: 344 whp, 300 tq - 0/0 - Baseline tune, 2nd worst spoolup, worst topend
Run 042: 358 whp, 303 tq - -2/-2 - didn't lose spoolup, much better topend
Run 043: 361 whp, 302 tq - -4/-4 - worst spoolup by far, best topend
Run 048: 356 whp, 314 tq - +2/+2 - slightly better spoolup, good topend, good torque
Run 054: 360 whp, 317 tq - +2/0 - Best spoolup, Best Torque, Best topend (just look at the curve)
I've also attached a second graph, comparing just the torque curves (uncorrected) ... IMO it's easier to see the differences.
So it looks like Ted B was 100% on the money when he decided on the +2/0 settings for his HKS 280s (running a TME turbo). Even with a bigger turbo (GT3071), there is no appreciable topend to be gained by retarding the HKS 280 cams. The gain in spoolup was significant, to the point where the car now spools up at 3500 rpms and hits full boost before 4000rpms.
l8r)
When I first got the car to break it in, the HKS 280 cams were installed straight up (0/0) and spool up was ... well ... less than optimal. The turbo would begin spooling around 3800 rpms, with full boost by maybe 4100, if not later. Needless to say, I wasn't very enthused or amused.
At this point a HUGE THANKS goes out to AMS, because they spent an inordinate amount of time troubleshooting the slow spool issue and were more than fair in what they charged me for labor.
Ultimately we finally got a decent baseline tune on the car, which would be Run 038. We did not adjust boost at all between runs, only timing. So, to summarize the runs (SAE correction):
Run 038: 344 whp, 300 tq - 0/0 - Baseline tune, 2nd worst spoolup, worst topend
Run 042: 358 whp, 303 tq - -2/-2 - didn't lose spoolup, much better topend
Run 043: 361 whp, 302 tq - -4/-4 - worst spoolup by far, best topend
Run 048: 356 whp, 314 tq - +2/+2 - slightly better spoolup, good topend, good torque
Run 054: 360 whp, 317 tq - +2/0 - Best spoolup, Best Torque, Best topend (just look at the curve)
I've also attached a second graph, comparing just the torque curves (uncorrected) ... IMO it's easier to see the differences.
So it looks like Ted B was 100% on the money when he decided on the +2/0 settings for his HKS 280s (running a TME turbo). Even with a bigger turbo (GT3071), there is no appreciable topend to be gained by retarding the HKS 280 cams. The gain in spoolup was significant, to the point where the car now spools up at 3500 rpms and hits full boost before 4000rpms.
l8r)
Last edited by Ludikraut; Aug 26, 2005 at 10:29 AM. Reason: forgot to attach pics ... doh!
#55
Thanks for posting all of this. This is great info and I have been waiting a long time to see it. Plus I like how you are using the run viewer to compare all the raw info and make real comparisons.
Was this done on AMS's 2wd dyno? The only reason I ask is the car will load faster on a 4wd dyno wich would only increase the spool which is a good thing. The only reason I say this is the 3rd gear pulls seem a little laggy. How much better does the car build on the street vs. the dyno? I also thought the bigger turbo and the 280's would keep it from falling off up top but still very good numbers.
Was this done on AMS's 2wd dyno? The only reason I ask is the car will load faster on a 4wd dyno wich would only increase the spool which is a good thing. The only reason I say this is the 3rd gear pulls seem a little laggy. How much better does the car build on the street vs. the dyno? I also thought the bigger turbo and the 280's would keep it from falling off up top but still very good numbers.
#56
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 0
From: 41° 59' N, 87° 54' W
Yeah, I agree with you on the topend. I also thought the 3071 would be able to hold on a little bit longer, but even retarding them -4 made no gains over the final setting of +2/0. All pulls were done on a 2wd dynojet at AMS. The 3rd gear pulls are laggier, IMO, because it doesn't put as much of a load on the car as doing 4th gear pulls, which is why I had him do one final 4th gear pull. Most of the tuning was done in 3rd gear, so that there wouldn't be as much wear and tear on the car. On the street the car spools up right around 3500 rpm now, which is ~600 rpms later than on my stock turbo setup and MUCH better and earlier than it did during my break-in period.
l8r)
l8r)
#59
Good job!
The cam timing results are interesting, but expected. Given the similarity of results posted sometime previously by another individual, I too am sold on the +2/0 arrangement for the HKS 280s, which seems to work in good harmony with the engine's flow characteristics.
Those who've been led to believe that cam gears aren't worth the trouble should take note of the extra 16whp, 17 ft lbs, and quicker spool time.
The cam timing results are interesting, but expected. Given the similarity of results posted sometime previously by another individual, I too am sold on the +2/0 arrangement for the HKS 280s, which seems to work in good harmony with the engine's flow characteristics.
Those who've been led to believe that cam gears aren't worth the trouble should take note of the extra 16whp, 17 ft lbs, and quicker spool time.