Understandable. I know where your coming from. But calling someone a idiot before seeing the basis of his analysis visually just seemed harsh to me. Anyway sorry for the off topic.

Chris

 

Electronic boost controllers can't help that much can they? The gate is being forced open because of exhaust back pressure. Having a solenoid increase the duty cycle will only delay the inevitable briefly won't it? And besides most electronic boost controllers aren't closed loop so can't really do the above.

Besides, doesn't FP suggest you are sort of blowing hot air at the compressor speeds of 8k rpm and 30'ish psi as an example?

 

Right. I think this is just part of the MBC vs EBC controversy that has been going on for year. Some say EBC is better some say MBC is better. I personally believe if you get a good EBC and actually spend the time to tune it perfect it will outperform a MBC. But most people just throw it on the car and set the max boost and leave it at that.

 

Wow....idiot??? You obviously have not had the pleasure to sit and actually carry on a conversation with 9sec9. I can say with probably 99.9% certainty that he would make you question your own intelligence level afterwards. He unlike most (including myself) on this board will go out of his way to test and test again or do data analysis over and over again on products for Evo community. This not only helps he and I but it also helps progress this hobby we all have. So, robertinaustin until you can positively help out like 9sec9 has the last year and not blatantly bash him personally STFU!!

 

I confirm PART of this, at least. As for COMPLETE bs, when you look at the overlays, then tell me that it's COMPLETE bs. I've seen many comparisons made when dyno plots were very close, yet the conditions, turbos, cams, engine builds were all completely different. After all, isn't it the results we're interested in and HOW we got there? Whether it's EBC, MBC , Red, Green, BBK, Cosworth, JUN, BFC, Twin Scroll, etc. It's the results we're after. My scanner took a hike, so I'm having to 'shoot' the picture of the plot. Very soon.

 

It definitely helps with the right settings and in two ways. First let me just point out that EBC vs MBC probably will be similiar until you're trying to push the turbo up top. My experience stems from a buschur MBC which is fine and dandy and the GM 3 port which I'm still playing with.

What I've noticed is the MBC taper compared to the 3 port while not substantially more is enough to produce a power difference. With the 3 port I can essentially tell it from 5000rpms onward to use a much high duty cycle effectively removing more of the pressure in the wastegate line that would be there with a MBC.

 

This all seems pretty subjective to me. You are comparing two DIFFERENT things to prove a point. This isn't FACT, it is SPECULATION.

Apples to Oranges. To do a "real" comparison you would have to take the SAME car on the SAME day with the SAME fuel/mods and swap the turbo. Even then you would have some variables that you could not control (tuner, change in temperature, install issues, etc).

 

One of the main reasons I posted all those charts in this thread is to show how different even the same turbo can be on different cars, with different fuels, etc etc.

Some evos are stronger than others, some are weaker. Comparing two cars, across the state, on different dynos, with different fuel, is a horrible comparison.

Just look at the 400whp stock turbo in those charts I posted. It made more power than all the FPgreens except for one (and it had less mods then most of them). Does that mean the stock turbo is better than the FPgreen? No it doesn't. It means that one car is very strong. I would imagine if you put a FPgreen on that car it would make even more power.

My statement in the other thread you keep referencing is that that specific BBK made more power on pump than any FPgreen that has been through our shop, which is a 100% accurate statement. I never stated it was a direct comparison. Also, could I tune a BBK next week that makes less power on pump? Yes I could, that specific evo might be weaker, or maybe it will be stronger?

 

Sorry you don't like what I have to say about your buddy, but most everyone in this thread realizes the stupidity of this comparison. Maybe Tom had a brain fart, but I doubt it. He actually admits it's bunk. It's obvious from his original post he has an agenda here and it is to discredit the BBK.

FWIW, I have no dog in this hunt. I'm not friends with FP or anyone involved with the BBK. I'm all for comparing turbos, but let's do some actual comparisons and not draw conclusions from random dyno charts posted. To do this is IDIOTIC whether you like it or not, yes even if it is your buddy.

So, no more cut and paste plots. Let's see some actual comparisons.

 

Here's the picture of the comparison I did, BEFORE making any posts. It was for my own analysis, so all points of reference, notes, etc were made for my own pleasure. I think it's worthy of pointing out also that the two GST plots were 3rd gear (slower spooling) and 4th gear (quicker spooling) pulls. The penciled plot is Davids in 3rd gear. Notice the higher peak torque was reached at a higher boost level, yet the rpm points of both the 'dis-similar' turbos was nearly identical, even though the Green had a higher point to reach. The obvious is that the Green made more power at higher boost until they reached the 30.5 psi mark, then they were both making the same boost. Shortly thereafter, the EBC (or was it the turbo??) held higher boost, yet the power was much closer. Again, what would have made the difference 3 years ago? Cams, both are/were using very good cams. Other subtle differences, but both fairly well modded and tuned by professional tuners. So what would be the differences. New technology on the BBK vs 3 year old technology on the Green. EBC vs MBC. Anyway, the reasons for me making the comparison becomes a little clearer. As for the idiots and personality conflicts, please, let's keep it on the details, after all, that's where the devil lives.

 

guys,

please....

(cbrd spraying water on the fire....)...

let's not get out of hand... good for discussion, enough for the name calling...

I do see merit in running an EBCS... however most of my tuning on these car is done with an MBC.... however, ALL of my tuning on subaru's is done with stock ecu controlled boost.... and that may also become more common for me on the evo, especially with map switching .

cheers
cb


PS. even comparing mustangs (here we go on the dyno thing) the roller masses can be different, size of rollers, combination, whether youre using wheelspeed rpm, inductive pickup, obd pickup etc..

 

Ahhh, the Internet. Allowing human beings to miscommunicate at the speed of light since Al Gore invented it

 

9sec9,

You might want to rework your pencil overlay skills.

You are showing that the BR plot has higher torque from 4000 on over the BBK but the BR hp matches the BBK hp up top when both torque plots are different, which is impossible.

Torque=hp.

If the BR torque is higher than the BBK torque at a certain RPM, then the HP will be higher than the BBK hp as well.

(Torque * RPM) / 5252 = hp

oh and btw, did you really just do dyno overlays between two different dynos with a pencil?

 

I did some testing withs stock evo8/10.5. I have EBC and put extra map sensor to WGA hose. After 5500rpm pressure in WGA hose=ambient. So in that point system start to be back pressure controlled. I will do the same test when I get RED installed and it is warmer . I recommend that measurement for every tuner, it is easy to see how EMS tries to keep target boost level and see if there is something wrong.

 

You are completely correct.

But when said heat is also transmitted through the resized shaft to resized bearings to support it, in a housing that was not designed for them and get the cooling and lubrication from a system that was not designed for them. seems to show that that heat can also be bad.