Map, I like you guys. I love the service you give and the pride you put into your work. I also have nothing against bolt on turbo power. I love them actually. The BBK, HTA Green, HTA Red and HKS 7460 are all fantastic proven turbos. The HTA black is over the edge in my opinion. It makes marginal improvement in Power over the Red. It shines only when the bolton concept is ruined by eliminating the twin scroll effect in order to reduce back pressure. At that point the HTA82 compressor wheel should be given full reins in a nice single scroll setup. If the black is already stuffed with wheels that are too large for the housings why would you put bigger ones in there? For you the answer is that it would be good for your business to come out with a turbo that makes more HP in bolt on form. Great. While many on these forums may believe that can be done I DO NOT, I do not sugar coat things. This turbo is a failure if you ask me.

I dont know how anybody can look at the graph thats posted here and not see there is something seriously wrong with this turbo. at 6000RPM it is 75HP down in 3rd gear over what it put down in 4th. at 5000rpm it is almost 150hp down!!!!! Do you not see the same thing I am looking at? Because of my first sentence in this paragraph it would be a waste of time to debate this setup.

 

One man's "turd" is another man's treasure I guess. I notice you failed to mention the EF2 and EF3 turbochargers that we offer as well, your biased opinion is crystal clear. I'll concede that the EF4 turbo is not for everyone, but as Adam mentioned above the customer responsible for those graphs is elated with his results, and at the end of the day that's the only opinion that matters to me.

 

Quote from the customer with the dyno graph above;

"The car is a ****ing animal in every gear, 1st spins like hell, 2nd spins too, 3rd gets interesting to control and 4th gear pulls like a space shuttle launch. "

 

I am happy with where the car is; very very happy. The other night, in 3rd gear may I add, I pulled an instant bus length on a friends C6 Z06 (pm me for videos! HAHA!) I didn't brake boost either. Dyno sheets a dyno sheet, real world performance is what Im interested in.

 

My question is why are we cluttering up Jeffs log with everyone elses problems?

 

No problem here man We're simply trying to debunk a claim that the EF4 is a turd in defense of Jeff's dyno result.

 

Totally understand where your comming from sven I'm just gonna bust everyones ***** because I can . The funny thing is people who think these turbos are turds are the ones who have never been in a car with one. Your car makes great power on it with a 2.4 but to alot of people its "laggy" wtf ever ya know. If makeing pulls at 2k rpms and not seeing full boost in 3rd gear till 4800ish is laggy then yeah stick with another turbo and this is comming from a guy on a stock 2 liter.

 

now my guess would be there is nothing wrong at all. this turbo is just a laggy beast. here is a recent graph posted of the turbo in 3rd and 4th gears. look how laggy third gear boost curve is. this is a perfect example of why this turbo is a turd. the car is well setup/tuned car that makes fantastic power in forth. but there is something wrong with the turbo combination to look that bad in 3rd gear.

maybe this simple comparison will help you guys see the light. the second two graphs are of the third and forth gear of another car. mods that matter for the car are:
2.4 liter with 9/1 compression.
hta3582 with Hafe cast manifold (single scroll) with 82 hotside. single scroll.
38psi on 93octane/HFS3 meth kit

while this turbo is not a black it is same size turbo as black. the EF4 is larger
this setup is single scroll. the EF4 is twin scroll setup.

5000rpm third gear the EF4 (in cold wheather) is making 450tq
5000rpm third gear the HTA82 (in hotter weather) is making 625tq

5500rpm third gear EF4 is 75hp down from 4th gear. doesnt equal forth gear till 7800rpm
5500rpm third gear HTA82 is pretty much equal to 4th gear to redline.

twin scroll turbos of this size spool 6--700 rpm faster than single scroll equivalents.
EF4 is bigger turbo at higher boost on more powerful E85 and it is not equaling this smaller black size turbo setup.

I call it a turd. I would never use this turbo. there is enough data with graphs posted that this turbo is laggy. there are FAR FAR better choices to make. If you are happy with its performance by all means by one and use it. I could care less if you want to do that. I do care to help others who are willing to listen and learn.

I am not a MAP basher. their EF2 EF3 work well from what I have seen. I do not like the bullet hole anti surge cover designs. I paid 165 for one from PTE for a 35r turbo that didnt do squat to stop my surge issues. When I call FP and asked about their ported shrouds he just laughed at the absurdity of those selling the bullet hole style. IT DOESNT WORK. holes are too small to bypass enough air. if you have a bullet cover that isnt surging that doesnt necessarily mean its working. it could mean you arent spooling fast enough to even need a ported shroud. I found out the expensive hard earned way.

 

94 I think what your getting at is your personal taste, the owner of this car wanted a drag setup, which in your opinion should still have normal response, No one ever claimed to have created the perfect turbo or even one that spool identical to stock, Fact is None of the smaller turbos you mentioned will consistently make the power that Svens car makes. You might find 1-100 that does but it will be a single extreme case.

I kinda know where your coming from as i LOVE response I feel a small-medium stockframe turbo on a 2.3-2.4 is ideal (HTA green,EF3) And i feel anything bigger will be 'laggy' as you put it. but thats my biased road racing opinion coming out.
To go as far as you have and flat out say its a turd is rude to the owner he built the car with purpose in mind as evident by his mod choice, He doesnt care to add any spool as evident already by his issues in first and second, he cares about stong mid to top end rush and his setup delivers as good or better then any stock frame setup available.

 

I understand that early tq = fun, but not all automotive setups are that way. We all know that small turbos are zippy down low and can pull pretty well but they lose steam up top and the op wants it up top. To tell someone up top is not more important than down low is an opinion and not a fact. It is "your" view. If all that is important to you is down low tq, down low hp, you should be in the big displacement realm. I mean no matter what turbo you try to sell to the evom group you'll never have 400+tq at 1900 rpm and hold it like the v8s out there. They lose steam though, and this one pulls well past 7k.

 

I have a quick question for the OP and those of you that know for sure.

What are the negative effects for not having the combustion chambers matched when going with a 2.4L?

Thanks.

 

Replied to your email earlier .

 

I see we are trying to compare a load bearing dyno versus a virtual dyno on the street. Also possibly two different tunes on the SandR dyno seeing as there was 20 minutes between the pulls.

Any turbo on the street is going to make less power in a 3rd gear pull at 2000rpm's than it will in a 4th gear pull at 2000rpm's. 3rd gear is so short especially when your making power, it doesn't even come close to loading up as it would in 4th gear. Hence why both turbo's didn't even reach max boost.

I'm friends with S&R performance, i'm talking with them right now to see if I can get the datalogs for those pulls and see if any changes were made. Just to clear the air.

 

Thanks, Adam.

 

It's not even worth arguing about. We're comparing different turbos, with different measuring devices, on cars that may have been built with completely different goals. The OP modified his car with top end performance in mind and that's exactly what he got. 4th gear looks amazing, 43psi at 3700rpms is unheard of. 3rd gear doesn't look as good, but he started the pull later, its richer under 4000rpms during spool, and it's pretty lean after 5500 or so. Did the datalog show any knock?