Evo 8 RS + FP Green 73HTA + boltons
Jan 6, 2011, 02:18 AM
#1
Evo 8 RS + FP Green 73HTA + boltons
Heres an FP Green 73HTA Ported with a decent amount of bolt ons with stock block and head. This seems to be a great turbo for 93octane. It has great spoolup and great power overall. Looking over the logs we see 25.1psi by 3843rpm according to the omni 4bar map sensor.
Fuel & Boost: 93octane @ 26psi
Mods:
FP Green 73HTA ported with stock actuator
Megan O2 housing
MAP ported exhaust manifold
Invidia downpipe and test pipe
Works ABM catback
GSC S1 cams
Precision 880cc injectors
Injen intake kit with Perrin filter
ETS 3" intercooler
Nisei lower intercooler pipe
Synaspe BOV
Walbro 255 (I'm think of doing the bypass valve mod)
Perrin EBC Pro soleniod
Omni 4bar map sensor
104octane tune coming soon.
E85 current results below (unfinished) Has less timing then the 93octane tune uptop right now / car ran out of fuel pump.. to be continued
Fuel & Boost: 93octane @ 26psi
Mods:
FP Green 73HTA ported with stock actuator
Megan O2 housing
MAP ported exhaust manifold
Invidia downpipe and test pipe
Works ABM catback
GSC S1 cams
Precision 880cc injectors
Injen intake kit with Perrin filter
ETS 3" intercooler
Nisei lower intercooler pipe
Synaspe BOV
Walbro 255 (I'm think of doing the bypass valve mod)
Perrin EBC Pro soleniod
Omni 4bar map sensor
104octane tune coming soon.
E85 current results below (unfinished) Has less timing then the 93octane tune uptop right now / car ran out of fuel pump.. to be continued
Last edited by tscompusa2; Feb 15, 2011 at 11:22 PM.
Jan 6, 2011, 04:01 AM
#4
Thats the idea, flat and smooth. Wait until the 104octane is done. Goal is to go over 500whp and keep torque under 400.
Ya beta copy I got from Jay@boosted tuning. So far its awesome!
Jan 6, 2011, 08:18 AM
#7
Evolved Member
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my opinion here: but if you need smoothing over 3 (maybe 5 max), the pull was too rough to be accurate. i.e. if you're hitting bumps in the road and making spikes, it's likely skewing the results if you need a high smoothing level to get rid of it.
But i could be wrong.
But i could be wrong.
Trending Topics
Jan 6, 2011, 08:26 AM
#9
Just my opinion here: but if you need smoothing over 3 (maybe 5 max), the pull was too rough to be accurate. i.e. if you're hitting bumps in the road and making spikes, it's likely skewing the results if you need a high smoothing level to get rid of it.
But i could be wrong.
But i could be wrong.
makes 433/356 @ smoothing of 5.
Jan 6, 2011, 09:01 AM
#12
Evolved Member
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you made a smooth pull that wasn't affected by the road, it shouldn't require anything over 5. Going from 5 to 12 shouldn't make it look any smoother unless it was very unsmooth to begin with.
I'm not really sure what part of my comment was wrong. My notion of smoothing or smoothing in this graph's case? But again, if 12 is making the graph smoother than 5, I suspect the initial pull was too bumpy to gauge much from anyway.
If you simply like having it at 12 for the sake of having it at 12, and it's just a personal default, that's another story. Just careful you don't miss something.
Jan 6, 2011, 09:20 AM
#13
The point isn't how closely max power matches from one smoothing level to the next. It's about the entire power range.
If you made a smooth pull that wasn't affected by the road, it shouldn't require anything over 5. Going from 5 to 12 shouldn't make it look any smoother unless it was very unsmooth to begin with.
I'm not really sure what part of my comment was wrong. My notion of smoothing or smoothing in this graph's case? But again, if 12 is making the graph smoother than 5, I suspect the initial pull was too bumpy to gauge much from anyway.
If you simply like having it at 12 for the sake of having it at 12, and it's just a personal default, that's another story. Just careful you don't miss something.
If you made a smooth pull that wasn't affected by the road, it shouldn't require anything over 5. Going from 5 to 12 shouldn't make it look any smoother unless it was very unsmooth to begin with.
I'm not really sure what part of my comment was wrong. My notion of smoothing or smoothing in this graph's case? But again, if 12 is making the graph smoother than 5, I suspect the initial pull was too bumpy to gauge much from anyway.
If you simply like having it at 12 for the sake of having it at 12, and it's just a personal default, that's another story. Just careful you don't miss something.
as i said already, there was back to back pulls done and the power was equal. if you take a car with a smoothing of 3 and it makes for example 500whp then you set the smoothing to 20 and it makes 400whp then your 3 smoothing is false advertising.
Every cars different. I wanted to display this particular graph with a smoothing of 12 because its where i felt it best represented the vehicles powerband the best at.
Moral of this rant is, a higher smoothing level will mostly always represent a more accurate representation when using these virtual dyno programs. Theres a point where to much smoothing will actually take away real HP/TQ, but i wanted to display this graph at 12, so it involved in lowering the tq like it did.
I know exactly what you're saying though, and its not the case on this particular car. I am not here to post false power numbers. I kind of feel disrespected you're even trying to assume i dont know what im doing with this program.
Jan 6, 2011, 09:28 AM
#14
Evolved Member
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this wasn't an accurate graph i would not have posted it up to begin with. some computers log slower then others, etc.. there is more involved then just smooth roads.
as i said already, there was back to back pulls done and the power was equal. if you take a car with a smoothing of 3 and it makes for example 500whp then you set the smoothing to 20 and it makes 400whp then your 3 smoothing is false advertising.
Every cars different. I wanted to display this particular graph with a smoothing of 12 because its where i felt it best represented the vehicles powerband the best at.
Moral of this rant is, a higher smoothing level will mostly always represent a more accurate representation when using these virtual dyno programs. Theres a point where to much smoothing will actually take away real HP/TQ, but i wanted to display this graph at 12, so it involved in lowering the tq like it did.
I know exactly what you're saying though, and its not the case on this particular car. I am not here to post false power numbers. I kind of feel disrespected you're even trying to assume i dont know what im doing with this program.
as i said already, there was back to back pulls done and the power was equal. if you take a car with a smoothing of 3 and it makes for example 500whp then you set the smoothing to 20 and it makes 400whp then your 3 smoothing is false advertising.
Every cars different. I wanted to display this particular graph with a smoothing of 12 because its where i felt it best represented the vehicles powerband the best at.
Moral of this rant is, a higher smoothing level will mostly always represent a more accurate representation when using these virtual dyno programs. Theres a point where to much smoothing will actually take away real HP/TQ, but i wanted to display this graph at 12, so it involved in lowering the tq like it did.
I know exactly what you're saying though, and its not the case on this particular car. I am not here to post false power numbers. I kind of feel disrespected you're even trying to assume i dont know what im doing with this program.
I didn't mean any disrespect. It's not like i know how well you know the program or how to use it
. Just wanted to throw it out there as food for thought. For all i know, my insinuated poor conditions could just as easily be stifling your results. If it came out any other way, my bad.
For what it's worth, you and I seem to frequent the exact same threads lol
Jan 6, 2011, 09:32 AM
#15
I didn't mean any disrespect. It's not like i know how well you know the program or how to use it . Just wanted to throw it out there as food for thought. For all i know, my insinuated poor conditions could just as easily be stifling your results.
If it came out any other way, my bad.
. Just wanted to throw it out there as food for thought. For all i know, my insinuated poor conditions could just as easily be stifling your results. If it came out any other way, my bad.