HTA Single Scroll 92 octane Pumpgas
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
HTA Single Scroll 92 octane Pumpgas
After some deliberating this winter on exactly what turbo kit I wanted to put on my personal car, JR of ETS and Scott of FP helped me zero in on the 3586. Obviously this has been a popular choice for many as of late, and I thought that knowing what it would be capable of is always good from the tuning standpoint.
I am still not 100% done with my 2.2 LR build, but I couldnt stand looking at the box of goodies piled up in my corner of the shop so on the turbo went. Thursday afternoon we had it done so on the dyno it went. Now at this point some are probably cringing thinking why is Aaron trying to destroy a perfectly good stock bottom end. Using a tuning approach that some might employ and I had picked up from our Honda tuner, I started some WG pulls to see where the AFRs were and how close I was going to be maxing out the 1000s.
I knew I wasnt going to have enough fuel for this turbo on E85 so I made the switch back to STRAIGHT 92 octane with no additional octane boost. 374whp at 16psi straight of the box. Because I use the MAFT Pro for speed density conversion on my stock ECU, it ended up in some low load cells I never saw on the stock turbo. Some quick tweaking and I got everything squared away and started cranking the boost.
Since I am going to do open road racing with this Evo, spool wasnt my primary concern, keeping backpressure and EGTs down was more important.
This is the list:
ETS 3586HTA (FP provided of course) single scroll kit
ETS 3.5" exhaust
ETS 4" intercooler and piping
stock intake manifold
stock computer
GSC S2 MIVEC cams
FP Beehive valve springs
RC1000s
Modded 255HO Walbro
92 octane
Now here is how it overlays with the stock turbo:
I will post up the rest of the dyno comparisons at various boost levels when I get back from my Mother's Day trip this weekend. This was at 26psi peak with 10% fuel left according to EvoScan.
Some other interesting numbers it generated:
374/291 @ 16psi
423/315 @ 20psi
437/329 @ 22psi
455/349 @ 24psi
482/361 @ 26psi
504/365 @ 28psi
At 504whp/365 ft lbs. and still had 5% more fuel out the top on the 1000s.
The timing is conservative and I havent gone back and played with the MIVEC table yet to see what I can coax out of this behemoth. When the 2.2 is done, I will be throwing an AEM, Magnus Dual rail, 4 more 1000s, and go back to E85 and really turn up the volume knob.
Aaron
I am still not 100% done with my 2.2 LR build, but I couldnt stand looking at the box of goodies piled up in my corner of the shop so on the turbo went. Thursday afternoon we had it done so on the dyno it went. Now at this point some are probably cringing thinking why is Aaron trying to destroy a perfectly good stock bottom end. Using a tuning approach that some might employ and I had picked up from our Honda tuner, I started some WG pulls to see where the AFRs were and how close I was going to be maxing out the 1000s.
I knew I wasnt going to have enough fuel for this turbo on E85 so I made the switch back to STRAIGHT 92 octane with no additional octane boost. 374whp at 16psi straight of the box. Because I use the MAFT Pro for speed density conversion on my stock ECU, it ended up in some low load cells I never saw on the stock turbo. Some quick tweaking and I got everything squared away and started cranking the boost.
Since I am going to do open road racing with this Evo, spool wasnt my primary concern, keeping backpressure and EGTs down was more important.
This is the list:
ETS 3586HTA (FP provided of course) single scroll kit
ETS 3.5" exhaust
ETS 4" intercooler and piping
stock intake manifold
stock computer
GSC S2 MIVEC cams
FP Beehive valve springs
RC1000s
Modded 255HO Walbro
92 octane
Now here is how it overlays with the stock turbo:
I will post up the rest of the dyno comparisons at various boost levels when I get back from my Mother's Day trip this weekend. This was at 26psi peak with 10% fuel left according to EvoScan.
Some other interesting numbers it generated:
374/291 @ 16psi
423/315 @ 20psi
437/329 @ 22psi
455/349 @ 24psi
482/361 @ 26psi
504/365 @ 28psi
At 504whp/365 ft lbs. and still had 5% more fuel out the top on the 1000s.
The timing is conservative and I havent gone back and played with the MIVEC table yet to see what I can coax out of this behemoth. When the 2.2 is done, I will be throwing an AEM, Magnus Dual rail, 4 more 1000s, and go back to E85 and really turn up the volume knob.
Aaron
Last edited by JohnBradley; May 12, 2009 at 10:44 PM.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Right now with the timing only 1* at peak torque and 9* out the top I really feel there is plenty more left even on pumpgas. In an attempt to make the stock block stay together I am not tuning crazy (YET), but I think there is an easy 40-50whp with more timing. It responds very well to boost (something like 20whp a pound with no timing added) and I have no doubt it will be the same with timing. It was interesting to note that the car moved the powerband to 7900 on the 504whp pull despite the fact that there wasnt any knock on either of the 482 runs (peaked at 7700).
Trending Topics
Evolved Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
As much as I like the torque and spool of a stock turbo or stock appearing turbo, I am a boost and rev junky. Making power at 7900 is alot more fun than just 5900 and then it starting to taper.
The few things I would suggest for a street car is probably slightly smaller cams and a twin scroll if you were really worried about spool. To be honest it makes really good power by 4k, so just anticipating the need for power and staying a gear or 2 low is all it takes.
aaron
The few things I would suggest for a street car is probably slightly smaller cams and a twin scroll if you were really worried about spool. To be honest it makes really good power by 4k, so just anticipating the need for power and staying a gear or 2 low is all it takes.
aaron
thanks.
