Debunking The Myth of the GTX3071R ATP Stock Location
Feb 20, 2013, 09:58 PM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Debunking The Myth of the GTX3071R ATP Stock Location
I recently acquired a nice Evo 8 MR which was "done" in every way except the motor. We had to immediately rectify the total lack of power.
I looked at all the stock placement turbo options, discussed the pros and cons with various friends who own Evos. Every single one recommended I go with a stock housing turbo like an FP or CBRD, and strongly suggested I stay away from stock placement Garret ATP turbos. All this was said with no credible information other than hearsay.
With the guidance of Church Automotive Testing (who tunes over 1,500 cars per year) and the willingness to try something counter to the current trends, we decided to go for it (based on Garret's proven track record for making power over and over again).
At this point the car's cam gears are set at 0, and we couldn't finalize the tuning as the clutch began to slip on the dyno.* We are very satisfied with the results so far. Spool is only 700-800RPM later than stock Evo 8 MR turbo. Results are on California 91 octane, with conservative timing, and running slightly on the rich side due to horrible gas.
Response is just as good as stock, and power output is linear and controllable. I'm more than pleased at this point. There's a lot more to be had, will be taking it step by step.
Car's current power mods are as follows: HKS 272 int/exhaust cams, cam gears, Full Race exhaust manifold, Invidia o2 housing, Works 3" down pipe, 3" Works Resonated Test Pipe, Kansai Service 3" Titanium Exhaust.
Take two will be springs, valves, retainers, and head work so we can rev the motor higher. Will probably also add meth at that point to extract more power.
Peak boost is 26psi vs 22psi on stock turbo.
Baseline tune was with the same mods except running OEM turbo and OEM exhaust manifold.
I'd be happy to address any questions or comments.
Thanks,
Joe
Boost & AFR plots below for reference:
I looked at all the stock placement turbo options, discussed the pros and cons with various friends who own Evos. Every single one recommended I go with a stock housing turbo like an FP or CBRD, and strongly suggested I stay away from stock placement Garret ATP turbos. All this was said with no credible information other than hearsay.
With the guidance of Church Automotive Testing (who tunes over 1,500 cars per year) and the willingness to try something counter to the current trends, we decided to go for it (based on Garret's proven track record for making power over and over again).
At this point the car's cam gears are set at 0, and we couldn't finalize the tuning as the clutch began to slip on the dyno.* We are very satisfied with the results so far. Spool is only 700-800RPM later than stock Evo 8 MR turbo. Results are on California 91 octane, with conservative timing, and running slightly on the rich side due to horrible gas.
Response is just as good as stock, and power output is linear and controllable. I'm more than pleased at this point. There's a lot more to be had, will be taking it step by step.
Car's current power mods are as follows: HKS 272 int/exhaust cams, cam gears, Full Race exhaust manifold, Invidia o2 housing, Works 3" down pipe, 3" Works Resonated Test Pipe, Kansai Service 3" Titanium Exhaust.
Take two will be springs, valves, retainers, and head work so we can rev the motor higher. Will probably also add meth at that point to extract more power.
Peak boost is 26psi vs 22psi on stock turbo.
Baseline tune was with the same mods except running OEM turbo and OEM exhaust manifold.
I'd be happy to address any questions or comments.
Thanks,
Joe
Boost & AFR plots below for reference:
Last edited by jbkonis; Feb 25, 2013 at 08:04 AM.
Feb 22, 2013, 06:49 AM
#2
I had very similar mods except I had stock exhaust manifold but had ported IM/TB and was tuned on 93 at 22psi. Supposedly there was knock so it was left at that. I only made 375/325. I was very disappointed at the time. But I will be getting it retuned, both on 93 and E85 and this makes me a little more excited. I'm glad there's a little more results from this turbo now. Have fun with the new power and I'll be sure to post up my results once its retuned.
Feb 22, 2013, 12:29 PM
#5
Evolved Member
i dont see any debunking going on and thats not 700rpm later spool.... 3,300 rpm the evo 8 turbo makes 325tq, your turbo on the other hand makes 300tq at 5,000 rpm and never reaches 325tq.
that evo 8 turbo was also tuned very poorly or had some other issues, the powerband should not drop off so much.
ive seen FP blacks (bigger turbo) reach 300 ft lbs at 4,000 on a stock 2.0 and it usually keeps climbing from there...
people use fp, map, cbrd because they work.
that evo 8 turbo was also tuned very poorly or had some other issues, the powerband should not drop off so much.
ive seen FP blacks (bigger turbo) reach 300 ft lbs at 4,000 on a stock 2.0 and it usually keeps climbing from there...
people use fp, map, cbrd because they work.
Feb 22, 2013, 12:44 PM
#6
i dont see any debunking going on and thats not 700rpm later spool.... 3,300 rpm the evo 8 turbo makes 325tq, your turbo on the other hand makes 300tq at 5,000 rpm and never reaches 325tq.
that evo 8 turbo was also tuned very poorly or had some other issues, the powerband should not drop off so much.
ive seen FP blacks (bigger turbo) reach 300 ft lbs at 4,000 on a stock 2.0 and it usually keeps climbing from there...
people use fp, map, cbrd because they work.
that evo 8 turbo was also tuned very poorly or had some other issues, the powerband should not drop off so much.
ive seen FP blacks (bigger turbo) reach 300 ft lbs at 4,000 on a stock 2.0 and it usually keeps climbing from there...
people use fp, map, cbrd because they work.
Feb 22, 2013, 12:52 PM
#7
i dont see any debunking going on and thats not 700rpm later spool.... 3,300 rpm the evo 8 turbo makes 325tq, your turbo on the other hand makes 300tq at 5,000 rpm and never reaches 325tq.
that evo 8 turbo was also tuned very poorly or had some other issues, the powerband should not drop off so much.
ive seen FP blacks (bigger turbo) reach 300 ft lbs at 4,000 on a stock 2.0 and it usually keeps climbing from there...
people use fp, map, cbrd because they work.
that evo 8 turbo was also tuned very poorly or had some other issues, the powerband should not drop off so much.
ive seen FP blacks (bigger turbo) reach 300 ft lbs at 4,000 on a stock 2.0 and it usually keeps climbing from there...
people use fp, map, cbrd because they work.
To me it looks as though TQ #'s are on the left graph and HP #'s on the right graph
So stock turbo 316hp 329tq
3071 387hp 374tq
Dynapacks are a PITA
Trending Topics
Feb 22, 2013, 02:13 PM
#9
Evolving Member
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jupiter Florida
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha thats awesome! i knew there was something wrong with that power band lol. im so used to reading typical dynojet/mustang dyno charts where they overlap.
anyways, 1,000 rpm isnt too bad a sacrifice for the power gained up top. interested to see what it does on e85
anyways, 1,000 rpm isnt too bad a sacrifice for the power gained up top. interested to see what it does on e85
Feb 22, 2013, 04:07 PM
#10
This is hilarious. I read it correctly, then saw the responses so I though I read it wrong. Then I look again just now and see that I saw it correctly the first time. You guys have me on a rollercoaster ride here. STOP CONFUSING ME!!! Well now that I saw that I was right the first time this thing looks like it can be pretty beastly. I hope my retune can achieve a little more than this on 93 since I have a few more mods and can't wait to see it on E85. Yet I say again, have fun and I will hopefully be posting up my dyno of this thing on E85 in the near future. Unless my tuner posts the results himself. Keep us updated!
Feb 23, 2013, 05:54 PM
#12
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fuel was our main restriction. We need to do more tuning, but had to quite due to clutch slip. I'll post up AFR and boost curve later today or tomorrow for reference.
:
