Peak HP won't be dramatically different on pump gas (what, maybe 15-30whp?). However the torque curve will be significantly different, with a bigger turbo (aka gt35r) making all of its power in the upper rpm range and a smaller turbo (aka stock) making most of its power in the middle rpm ranges.

Now when you're talking 1/4 mile times you also have to consider gearing and spool. Stock Evo gearing will have you between redline and ~5400 rpm for most of your run, which would favor the bigger turbo, since it is generating its power in the upper rpm range. However the slower spool negates that advantage everytime you shift, so unless you can shift w/out lifting your foot off the gas (read: keep turbo spooled to some degree), your 1/4 mile times will be very close. With no lift shifting the gt35r should be quicker.

l8r)

 

I agree, although the stock turbo should be able to hold 19-21psi all the way to 7500 rpms. Above those boost levels the gt35r says bye bye.

 

To put someone down because they may not have the exact and correct words to explain his point is simply CHILDISH. There are many people on EVOM that have a great way with words and making great sense, that is on paper and doesn't translate at all into the real world. So surprise or not , an editor for a magazine will not make a competent technician. SO go on if you please with put downs, all it means is that you have a way with words, thats it. FRE has experience, more so than many on here. He actually has a AMS kit on his car also. I dont disagree with his point, in fact I understand what he's trying to say. I run the AMS gt35r kit on alky/93 octane mix @25psi all day. There is in fact no use for the 35r on 22psi, its simply not usable . By the time you actually get to 22psi any stocker will be way ahead out of reach. Even at 25 psi that turbo is barely breathing. 11.5 1/4 mile @22psi is hard to beleive.

 

Knower have seen a couple gt35r cars played out here in southern california including mine. Using me as an example, I made 410whp on 91 octane on 21psi on a conservative tune, we've pushed it farther since then and got 425whp in 100 degree weather @ tuning technology.....Is 20-23 psi the most efficient way to use a gt35r? Certainly not, I've ran a racegas map making around 540whp on 30psi and it certainly makes the 91 map seem slow. But I would not go as far as to say it is unusable and I certainly would not expect a stock turbo to outrun the car @ 19-21psi, assuming both cars are setup right. So if you're speaking of "real-life" experiences with cars with gt35r. There are plenty of examples over here. Point is, 19psi on a stock turbo != 19psi on a bigger turbo. Which is what Fre was trying to substantiate earlier.

 

And peak whp numbers on a dyno != real world usable power on the track. I have said it in many other threads dyno numbers are for tuning only and even then dynos don't always do a good job. Track numbers are where true performance is proven. If you could tell me what you run at the track on 19-21psi that would be better proof than my car makes x hp on y dyno.

 

I agree, I am not here to internet dyno race anyone. But I am simply refuting your claim that 19psi on a stock turbo vs 19psi on a gt35r yields similar result. That with your earlier explanation of pressure vs volume does not add up. Have a good day.

 

I suppose that depends on your definition of similar...

l8r)

 

A stoker at 19psi will outrun a 35r @19psi. This is because the 35r is not in its efficient range yet. In fact , the stock turbo will put down a much broader range of torque and hp vs the 35r at 19psi. The 35r may put down a higher whp at 19psi but it would be at a higher rpm and for a short time, with much less torque.

 

And this was my point. I wasn't trying to prove that a 35r wouldn't make more peak power than a stock turbo at 19psi. I was trying to prove that in a real world situation the 35r will not really outperform a stock turbo at lower boost levels. The volume and density obviously was mispoken and I admit that, but that wasn't my point anyway. Dyno comparisons on a 35r to a stock turbo on the same car on the same dyno would be useful information in this argument and I have those. The only problem is when people upgrade their turbo they tend to upgrade a lot more than just the turbo so it is hard to get these numbers to be accurate. This is why when I dynoed at 279 on the stock turbo and went back to dyno on a 35r with the addition of 272s I couldn't just say the 310whp I made was totally due to the turbo. I would say about 15 of those horses were the cams, which is why I would say I only gained like 15hp. This is JUST changing turbos not a bunch of other crap too. Comparing between different dynos is pointless as there are way too many variables. I simply offer my real world experience with comparisons done on the same car on the same dyno with minimal parts variables (cams).

 

If you guys are speaking of using the rpm ranges the stock turbo is good for, then yes I agree the gt35r does not outperform the stock turbo. But where it shines is in the upper rpms and if you're building a gt35r on a 2.0 liter to rev to 7800 rpms, then that indeed is defeating the purpose. But I'm assuming most wouldn't do somethin like that and would build the motor and head to rev to 9000ish+. And yes I agreed already dyno racing is lame and let's just get back on topic....the thing that bugged me the most was your original posts and that did not reflect your "point" that you are making now about stock vs gt35r.

 

And as to the comment about having dyno comparisons, I have many of those as well. Tuning Technology is a pretty popular place for socal people to tune their cars, so there are countless dyno graphs of the stock turbo done there. I don't see any stock turbo cars making remotely close to 400whp on 91 octane on the same boost.

 

the gt35r really shines when running a 2.3 stroker motor..my racegas tune is making 550whp on 110oct @ 25psi only and 440whp at 18psi on 94oct..raising the boost to the max level possible isnt always the best way to make power..run less boost more timing can make same hp numbers with lower boost

 

You have to list all of your mods though. Most stock turbo guys probably don't have everything you have. What do you use for engine management, etc. That 400hp figure on 21psi or whatever sounds inflated to me anyhow. The only real way to show a universal power figure would be to run your car down the track and get some times/trap speeds at that boost level. I took the completely wrong approach to try to get my point across. That is why I deleted all those posts, cause I was trying to prove things irrelevant to what I really wanted to convey.

 

The figures are hardly inflated I assure you, this dynojet is very consistent in comparison with other dynojets out there. But I am not here to race whp on gay dynos (I will state once more). If you want to see my mods, here's an approx list:

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=152765

That's my thread on thinking of selling my car.

I agree with the statement about the timing issue. Boost obviously does not always equate to power, anyone with any knowledge of what's going on in tuning knows that. Unfortunately, it is hard for me to advance any kind of decent timing on 91 octane. My next power mod whenever my 2.0 motor dies is gonna be a 2.4 bottom end, that is without question. The gt35r + the 4g64 definitely makes for a better daily driver and better setup overall.

 

Look, anyone reading his posts equating pressure to density would be seriously misled. This is not a case of not having the right words, but rather someone stating completely incorrect facts. He said himself, Physics was not his strong suit. I called him on his numerous ridiculous statements (including his made up requirements for "disproving" his theory, which never included these requirements in the first place). He backpedalled on some, and corrected himself on others. The conversation tama_mog has had with him so far pretty much covers everything else. I do not agree that 22psi on a GT35R is of "no use." It's not the quickest spooling turbo on a 2.0, but that setup properly tuned and with a driver paying attention to his shifting is very potent.

The statements FRE is making now are much more reasonable/realistic. This thread has gone fairly far off topic, so I digress.