PTE 6766 vs. FP 3794 - 5 different boost levels - Boostin Performance
Jan 16, 2013, 07:39 AM
#31
If you look at the time stamps on the Facebook graphs and the ones he posted here, they ARE the same graphs. It appears that the Facebook graphs are about 12.4% higher than those posted in this thread.
The logical guess is that the dyno shop that Boostin went to for testing has altered their mustang dyno's parameters to show results closer to a dynojet. Boostin probably asked the shop to give them their results with the default parameters for the mustang dyno for their true testing results. There are a bunch of mustang dyno shops that alter their parameters to match dynojet results these days so its not that far fetched of a guess.
-Jamie
The logical guess is that the dyno shop that Boostin went to for testing has altered their mustang dyno's parameters to show results closer to a dynojet. Boostin probably asked the shop to give them their results with the default parameters for the mustang dyno for their true testing results. There are a bunch of mustang dyno shops that alter their parameters to match dynojet results these days so its not that far fetched of a guess.
-Jamie
Last edited by Dynotech Tuning; Jan 16, 2013 at 07:58 AM.
Jan 16, 2013, 07:46 AM
#32
If you look at the time stamps on the Facebook graphs and the ones he posted here, they ARE the same graphs. It appears that the Facebook graphs are about 13% higher than those posted in this thread.
The logical guess is that the dyno shop that Boostin went to for testing has altered their mustang dyno's parameters to show results closer to a dynojet. Boostin probably asked the shop to give them their results with the default parameters for the mustang dyno for their true testing results. There are a bunch of mustang dyno shops that alter their parameters to match dynojet results these days so its not that far fetched of a guess.
-Jamie
The logical guess is that the dyno shop that Boostin went to for testing has altered their mustang dyno's parameters to show results closer to a dynojet. Boostin probably asked the shop to give them their results with the default parameters for the mustang dyno for their true testing results. There are a bunch of mustang dyno shops that alter their parameters to match dynojet results these days so its not that far fetched of a guess.
-Jamie
Jan 16, 2013, 07:52 AM
#33
After further inspection it appears the Facebook graphs were weather corrected and the graphs on here are uncorrected. Either the elevation of the facility is extremely high and the weather correction shouldn't have been used if it was over the SAE's recommended +/-10% accuracy limit or the heat from his exhaust system skewed the results a LOT.
Either that or the shop sets the uncorrected values as mustang results and sets the weather correction parameters to preset values to just multiply the results by 1.124 to simulate a dynojet compared to their mustang results. Devin does a lot of virtual dyno results in dynojet mode so maybe he just sets it that way to keep his tuning results between the simulator and the dyno more consistent for comparison. I'm sure Devin can give the explanation though.
-Jamie
Either that or the shop sets the uncorrected values as mustang results and sets the weather correction parameters to preset values to just multiply the results by 1.124 to simulate a dynojet compared to their mustang results. Devin does a lot of virtual dyno results in dynojet mode so maybe he just sets it that way to keep his tuning results between the simulator and the dyno more consistent for comparison. I'm sure Devin can give the explanation though.
-Jamie
Last edited by Dynotech Tuning; Jan 16, 2013 at 08:23 AM.
Jan 23, 2013, 08:19 PM
#38
Evolved Member
Don't you have an EFR9180 coming? Stuff has potential to get REALLY interesting when those arrive, I reckon there is a good chance they'll make this game more interesting and I know people have been taking delivery of them of late so numbers should start coming out soon.
Jan 26, 2013, 08:56 AM
#39
Sorry it's taken so long to respond to your questions and comments. I have been completely consumed with taking care of customer cars, and any extra time I've had has been spent looking for a new/bigger shop space for BP. Thanks for being patient.
I kept target AFR the same, so yes some fuel needed to be added up top for the 3794 
Thanks, and it was my pleasure.
It was a BS weather correction. It's not my dyno and when I pointed out that the weather correction was adding HP on a 50 deg day they told me, "thats what its suppose to be". I elected to post the uncorrected #'s which should be on par with the Mustang dynos @ Dynotech / STM / Buschur / CBRD / ect.
I think both turbo's were held back by their turbine housings, but they are the biggest that can be mated to a T3 manifold. If you look @ PTE, they have class legal turbo's that are restricted to 67mm compressor wheels just like the 6766, but have huge turbine housings/wheels and make way more power than a 6766. Check out the 6785 everyone.
http://www.precisionturbo.net/turboc...class-legal/34
I am assuming the GT3794R required fuel to be added at every boost level, did the amount that needed to be added at >50psi boost dive compared to the lower pressure ratios?
Speaks volumes for both your ability to put something together, and advances in turbo technology etc in recent years - not least your generosity in sharing these findings!!
PS. On your Facebook page you posted results of these turbos making >1000hp - here they are only just over 900... what am I missing here?
Speaks volumes for both your ability to put something together, and advances in turbo technology etc in recent years - not least your generosity in sharing these findings!!
PS. On your Facebook page you posted results of these turbos making >1000hp - here they are only just over 900... what am I missing here?
Thanks, and it was my pleasure.
It was a BS weather correction. It's not my dyno and when I pointed out that the weather correction was adding HP on a 50 deg day they told me, "thats what its suppose to be". I elected to post the uncorrected #'s which should be on par with the Mustang dynos @ Dynotech / STM / Buschur / CBRD / ect.
http://www.precisionturbo.net/turboc...class-legal/34
Last edited by Boostin Perform; Jan 26, 2013 at 06:34 PM.
Jan 26, 2013, 09:12 AM
#40
good info!Curious on the 55psi dyno #'s too. I wouldn't have even caught the 100ish whp difference between the Facebook post and this test if it hadn't been mentioned. I'm just curious which was the actual result.
Great test BTW, been looking forward to this release since you guys mentioned it on your FB page Very well done.
Could you compare the air temp readings for each turbo at each boost level? It may help to show how steeply the turbos Efficency drops as you exceed certain levels.
-Jamie
Great test BTW, been looking forward to this release since you guys mentioned it on your FB page Very well done.
Could you compare the air temp readings for each turbo at each boost level? It may help to show how steeply the turbos Efficency drops as you exceed certain levels.
-Jamie
The air temp comparison would be a great idea. I'll try and get some of that info up for you guys soon.
I'm pretty obsessive about #s at the best of times, and the >1000whp on a T3 turbo definitely got me all excited so I was going to notice if something changed . Another thing that got my attention is in the test it states he used E70, whereas going from previous posts about racing and tuning as either E85 (using E98 + C16 to custom blend) or straight E98 as a fuel - can't help but wonder what kind of difference that results in.
Last edited by Boostin Perform; Jan 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM.
Jan 26, 2013, 09:16 AM
#41
Thanks for the dyno clarification, good for you for catching it and not letting that incompetent dyno operator skew your awesome testing results
The 6766 offers a T4 twin-scroll 1.32 A/R housing that we use on Tyler's Drag evo. The spoolup doesn't suffer much since it basically emulates a .80 A/R single scroll at spoolup but it flows like a 1.19 A/R single up top. Grant at PTE really pushed us to try it and we are glad we did. I think it's minimal back pressure is what allowed us to achieve 830whp@44psi on his unported head.
I personally think the 6766 and 3794 are the biggest turbos that ever should be used on a 2.0L to still offer a useable powerband for most setups. Unless you want to rev to 12k rpm at over 1000-1100whp and go through bearings like they are candy.
-Jamie
The 6766 offers a T4 twin-scroll 1.32 A/R housing that we use on Tyler's Drag evo. The spoolup doesn't suffer much since it basically emulates a .80 A/R single scroll at spoolup but it flows like a 1.19 A/R single up top. Grant at PTE really pushed us to try it and we are glad we did. I think it's minimal back pressure is what allowed us to achieve 830whp@44psi on his unported head.
I personally think the 6766 and 3794 are the biggest turbos that ever should be used on a 2.0L to still offer a useable powerband for most setups. Unless you want to rev to 12k rpm at over 1000-1100whp and go through bearings like they are candy.
-Jamie
Last edited by Dynotech Tuning; Jan 26, 2013 at 11:12 AM.
Jan 26, 2013, 10:18 AM
#43
Thanks for the dyno clarification, good for you for catching it and not letting that incompetent dyno operator skew your awesome testing results
The 6766 offers a twin-scroll 1.32 A/R housing that we use on Tyler's Drag evo. The spoolup doesn't suffer much since it basically emulates a .80 A/R single scroll at spoolup but it flows like a 1.19 A/R single up top. Grant at PTE really pushed us to try it and we are glad we did. I think it's minimal back pressure is what allowed us to achieve 830whp@44psi on his unported head.
I personally think the 6766 and 3794 are the biggest turbos that ever should be used on a 2.0L to still offer a useable powerband for most setups. Unless you want to rev to 12k rpm at over 1000-1100whp and go through bearings like they are candy.
-Jamie
The 6766 offers a twin-scroll 1.32 A/R housing that we use on Tyler's Drag evo. The spoolup doesn't suffer much since it basically emulates a .80 A/R single scroll at spoolup but it flows like a 1.19 A/R single up top. Grant at PTE really pushed us to try it and we are glad we did. I think it's minimal back pressure is what allowed us to achieve 830whp@44psi on his unported head.
I personally think the 6766 and 3794 are the biggest turbos that ever should be used on a 2.0L to still offer a useable powerband for most setups. Unless you want to rev to 12k rpm at over 1000-1100whp and go through bearings like they are candy.
-Jamie
I would agree - Grant's advice paid off. The 1.32 twin scroll housing is perfect for the 6766.
Without a dogbox, a turbo bigger than a 6766 or a 3794 would not be usable at all. When you step it up to something bigger, a dogbox is necessary so you can shift @ 9500+ rpm and make use of the powerband. When it comes to the bearings, that's where aluminum rods come into play. Less weight = less wear on the bearings. There are also many downfalls with the stock Mitsu oiling system that can be improved upon as well. I reved my car to 10K last year because of the final drive I had, without any bearing issues. The main limiting factor I believe is the OEM gearset syncro based trans.
Thanks
Last edited by Boostin Perform; Jan 26, 2013 at 02:52 PM.
