MAP EF-series Turbochargers results thread
Oct 21, 2014, 01:23 PM
#1576
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people talk about 400 dyno jet hp. Big difference between mustang, and a DJ .. or lets put it this way.. trap 120+full weight
Also, 6600ft elevation hurts. You loose 3.3psi right off the top here
And lastly.. pump gas. (and a safe tune)
Oh.. and this motor doesn't seem to like much timing.. Could only manage about 270 or so mustang dyno whp on the VD (310ish DJ). At 24 tapering to 17-18psi on the stock snail. Could probably squeeze a little more out with more boost.. but what's the point if I have something larger coming to put on, and do it safely.
I want to make an easy, low boost safe 400ish whp. My built 2.0 wrx on a super hx40 was a little laggy, there is no way this ef4 can be that bad
Last edited by GravityKnight; Oct 21, 2014 at 02:36 PM.
Oct 21, 2014, 03:04 PM
#1577
I ordered the EF4. They said I might have it in two weeks but couldn't tell me for sure when it would ship.
I'd rather error on the side of a little too much lag, than the side of not buying enough turbo to meet my goal and end up having to tune it as aggressively as possible to try and squeeze the target power out of it. Much rather be able to hit that target at lower boost and less aggressive timing. The idea was a reliable / pump gas car (I've run stuff on e85 before, it's great.. but I always had trouble with the black goo build up.. and the nearest e85 station is 30+ miles away)... So it has a built motor, twin disc, etc. and only looking for 400 mustang dyno hp (or in the realm of 120-122 trap). Should be over built for the most part.
I'll post results when it shows up. Finished fuel system upgrades (AEM pump, stock filter bypass with larger connections, magna fuel filter up front, 3/8" line coming off factory hard line up front, an fittings to STM rail adapters, Aeromotive AFPR etc.... just waiting for FIC injectors...)
-Todd
I'd rather error on the side of a little too much lag, than the side of not buying enough turbo to meet my goal and end up having to tune it as aggressively as possible to try and squeeze the target power out of it. Much rather be able to hit that target at lower boost and less aggressive timing. The idea was a reliable / pump gas car (I've run stuff on e85 before, it's great.. but I always had trouble with the black goo build up.. and the nearest e85 station is 30+ miles away)... So it has a built motor, twin disc, etc. and only looking for 400 mustang dyno hp (or in the realm of 120-122 trap). Should be over built for the most part.
I'll post results when it shows up. Finished fuel system upgrades (AEM pump, stock filter bypass with larger connections, magna fuel filter up front, 3/8" line coming off factory hard line up front, an fittings to STM rail adapters, Aeromotive AFPR etc.... just waiting for FIC injectors...)
-Todd
Oct 21, 2014, 04:12 PM
#1579
Couple things to keep in mind.
Most people talk about 400 dyno jet hp. Big difference between mustang, and a DJ .. or lets put it this way.. trap 120+full weight
Also, 6600ft elevation hurts. You loose 3.3psi right off the top here
And lastly.. pump gas. (and a safe tune)
Oh.. and this motor doesn't seem to like much timing.. Could only manage about 270 or so mustang dyno whp on the VD (310ish DJ). At 24 tapering to 17-18psi on the stock snail. Could probably squeeze a little more out with more boost.. but what's the point if I have something larger coming to put on, and do it safely.
I want to make an easy, low boost safe 400ish whp. My built 2.0 wrx on a super hx40 was a little laggy, there is no way this ef4 can be that bad
Most people talk about 400 dyno jet hp. Big difference between mustang, and a DJ .. or lets put it this way.. trap 120+full weight
Also, 6600ft elevation hurts. You loose 3.3psi right off the top here
And lastly.. pump gas. (and a safe tune)
Oh.. and this motor doesn't seem to like much timing.. Could only manage about 270 or so mustang dyno whp on the VD (310ish DJ). At 24 tapering to 17-18psi on the stock snail. Could probably squeeze a little more out with more boost.. but what's the point if I have something larger coming to put on, and do it safely.
I want to make an easy, low boost safe 400ish whp. My built 2.0 wrx on a super hx40 was a little laggy, there is no way this ef4 can be that bad
I think one reason I stayed with a 2.0 is so I wouldn't have issues.
I trapped 120mph with my 6spd, but I'm at a much lower elevation. Seems psi would be psi no matter of elevation.
Good luck, man! Sounds like you're well on your way.
Oct 21, 2014, 05:24 PM
#1580
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is one way too look at elevation. Sure you already know some/all of this, but for anyone wondering. Atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 14.7. Up here it is 11.43psi. Add boost to that (lets say 20 psi to make it easy). Total manifold pressure would be 34.7 vs 31.4 ... which is not as huge of a difference as it would be for an n/a motor, but it still hurts (along with more lag etc.) The more boost you run, the smaller the difference in actual pressure feeding your engine... (assuming the turbo/setup is designed for said higher boost level of course).
Oct 22, 2014, 10:44 AM
#1581
Thank you!
Here is one way too look at elevation. Sure you already know some/all of this, but for anyone wondering. Atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 14.7. Up here it is 11.43psi. Add boost to that (lets say 20 psi to make it easy). Total manifold pressure would be 34.7 vs 31.4 ... which is not as huge of a difference as it would be for an n/a motor, but it still hurts (along with more lag etc.) The more boost you run, the smaller the difference in actual pressure feeding your engine... (assuming the turbo/setup is designed for said higher boost level of course).
Here is one way too look at elevation. Sure you already know some/all of this, but for anyone wondering. Atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 14.7. Up here it is 11.43psi. Add boost to that (lets say 20 psi to make it easy). Total manifold pressure would be 34.7 vs 31.4 ... which is not as huge of a difference as it would be for an n/a motor, but it still hurts (along with more lag etc.) The more boost you run, the smaller the difference in actual pressure feeding your engine... (assuming the turbo/setup is designed for said higher boost level of course).
Last edited by kaj; Oct 22, 2014 at 01:04 PM.
Oct 22, 2014, 03:16 PM
#1582
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand, it just seems absolute pressure is absolute. Since the air is thinner, maybe the turbo has to work harder, but you're still getting desired boost. If you dial in 20psi, you're getting 20. You don't subtract for elevation difference. Then again, I'm no engineer.LOL
Boost is added to atmospheric pressure, less atmospheric pressure = less overall pressure which = less power potential
We as humans look at atmospheric pressure and boost as two different things (well, they are in a lot of aspects). But your engine is looking at the total 'absolute' pressure feeding it. We call it boost when the pressure rises above atmospheric pressure.. but your engine just works with what it's getting, whether it be an n/a engine at the top of pikes peak getting like 8 psi, or a boosted engine at sea level getting a total of 40psi etc.
Last edited by GravityKnight; Oct 22, 2014 at 03:21 PM.
Oct 22, 2014, 05:38 PM
#1583
Gotcha. I guess I always thought 20psi of pressure in a cylinder was 20psi, whether it stuffed in a little 14.7 air or worked harder to force a lot of 12.2.
I found this and am still trying to wrap my head around it LOL. Need to go back to school. http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/pressure_ratio
I found this and am still trying to wrap my head around it LOL. Need to go back to school. http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/pressure_ratio
Last edited by kaj; Oct 22, 2014 at 05:48 PM.
Dec 19, 2014, 05:01 PM
#1587
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, due to the time, I cannot speak directly about this particular failure without knowing more about the specifics, but we actually have come to some interesting conclusions about some combinations of engines and turbos that we believe are likely directly related to many failures.
I am including a link to our turbo recommendation information available on our blog and I am happy to answer questions about our findings. The research we did was born of an effort to want to deliver a superior product and superior customer service for our customers and we want to thank our customers for their support and look forward to providing them with the very best of both for years to come!
http://www.maperformance.com/blog/se...t-turbo-turbo/
I am including a link to our turbo recommendation information available on our blog and I am happy to answer questions about our findings. The research we did was born of an effort to want to deliver a superior product and superior customer service for our customers and we want to thank our customers for their support and look forward to providing them with the very best of both for years to come!
http://www.maperformance.com/blog/se...t-turbo-turbo/
Dec 19, 2014, 05:04 PM
#1588
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that you mention it, I actually recall there being an issue with a customer supplied line. If I recall correctly, there was a problem with the oil feed line which had been revised but the correct bolt had not been shipped which actually cut off or diminished the oil flow pathway through the banjo...I BELIEVE we took care of that issue to the customer's satisfaction...at least that is my hope. I would definitely like to know if that is not the case.
Nate
Nate
Dec 19, 2014, 06:00 PM
#1589
Now that you mention it, I actually recall there being an issue with a customer supplied line. If I recall correctly, there was a problem with the oil feed line which had been revised but the correct bolt had not been shipped which actually cut off or diminished the oil flow pathway through the banjo...I BELIEVE we took care of that issue to the customer's satisfaction...at least that is my hope. I would definitely like to know if that is not the case.
Nate
Nate
personally, i received AWESOME customer service.
Dec 20, 2014, 08:27 AM
#1590
Now that you mention it, I actually recall there being an issue with a customer supplied line. If I recall correctly, there was a problem with the oil feed line which had been revised but the correct bolt had not been shipped which actually cut off or diminished the oil flow pathway through the banjo...I BELIEVE we took care of that issue to the customer's satisfaction...at least that is my hope. I would definitely like to know if that is not the case.
Nate
Nate
Kaj, I know I saw it in the thread somewhere (but I'm on my phone right now), you were running the stock block even, right?
I'd like to see what an ams intake manifold does to an ef 2.5 that's being pushed. I have S2 cams, an AMS VSR intake manifold, and a ported evo 8 head. I haven't seen a combination of those 3 things (or compareable) on a built, 2.0 liter I don't think.
My guess is that it'd move the graph to the right a bit, but it may not help much in the top end while hurting the bottom end with an ef2.5. That's the big reason I'm thinking the ef3 would be good for the mods I already have.
Last edited by cerevo; Dec 20, 2014 at 08:30 AM. Reason: grammar fail.