When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
This is one of the oddest and almost heartbreaking build stories that we have encountered here at ER. A 2004 Yellow GSR that was "fully built" by a now defunct shop in Vegas. The aftermath was INSANE and unless we had documented it fully, probably unbelievable.
When we recieved the car from EnglishRacing Transport, our car delivery side, the first thing we did was pull half of the HKS electronics out of it and return it to a stock ECU. The F-Con and associated pieces may have been awesome in their day but the stock ECU far surpasses what it is capable of. After that had been done, a check of the build, and notation of some of the crazy mods, I put it on the dyno.
This was supposed to be HKS 272s, 2150s, E85, a LR2.0L, 6466 topmount kit, and had an HKS V core (or whatever the 4" intercooler is) on the car. Some of this was easily identified and the rest not so much. The Green line is after switching to GSC S2s and an ETS 4" FMIC to eliminate those as unknowns. It was slightly better but obviously no where near a 6466 at that boost level.
When the car came off the dyno we did a compression test and came up with 90 across the board. Less than stellar for a motor that was supposedly less than 3000 miles old. The decision was made to do a long rod 2.4 with all the bells and whistles otherwise.
Imagine our surprise when the head came off and we saw this -
The previous "shop" had made the mistake of putting 2.3 pistons in a 2.0L without using 156mm rods. The resulting compression ratio calculated out to around 5.9:1, great for a 1960s VW beetle but insanely low for an Evo. No wonder the car had 90psi of compression and made 574whp at 37psi and GSC S2s.
Fast forward to the same 37psi, a LR2.4, GSC R2s, and the same 6466 -
The rpm pickup was being gunnybag so the numbers are vs speed. Here is the little bit of the RPM trace that we did get however -
Aaron
Last edited by JohnBradley; Dec 1, 2016 at 09:58 AM.
Any idea the difference in spool with the 2 motors? Kinda hard to tell and looks like they were started at different RPM's; I hate charts with speed on the x axis. Nonetheless gotta love picking up >200whp on the same fuel and boost level oh and all while widening the area under the curve.
This thread is already full of win...haha. Once Joe replaces the INSANE longtube manifold with a real turbo kit (likely ETS), we will have new numbers to post from this car.
Any idea the difference in spool with the 2 motors? Kinda hard to tell and looks like they were started at different RPM's; I hate charts with speed on the x axis. Nonetheless gotta love picking up >200whp on the same fuel and boost level oh and all while widening the area under the curve.
The spool difference is hard to quantify since we went from a 5.9:1 2.0L with big cams to a 9:1 2.4 with larger cams. The bottom dyno graph is honestly the best representation of difference. As I mentioned unfortunately this car was causing the tach pick up to go INSANE, it had some CDi on it that doesnt play nice with DJ electronics. Comparing the low compression motor and HKS272s vs the 2.4 and R2s they make the same power at 4500 for instance, but the 2.4 is at 15 less psi to do it.
800whp should be enough for mid 140s to high 140s in a full weight car.
ETS standard kit, a front pitchmount (forget to mention it had been removed...Crazy right?), and a retune I suspect it will make more for sure.
This thread is already full of win...haha. Once Joe replaces the INSANE longtube manifold with a real turbo kit (likely ETS), we will have new numbers to post from this car.
So the secret to the bellhousing breaking torque is I am VERY sure was the use of nitromethane to make INSANE spool. We drained the tank to find some darker yellow and thick fuel that would barely light even with a propane torch. Having some experience with that fuel from poor choices in my past I know what normally has those characteristics.
ALSO
This is a long rod 2.4 not a short rod. I was corrected about that this morning.
Nov 30, 2016, 03:02 PM
