Is it possible to get 600whp (e85) on a 2.4 (non LR) with an optimized setup?

(tune, ETS intercooler, good pipes, 3" exhaust"

Might add a Magnus

I don't want to overspool the turbo

 

Yes. This also on C16, Aaron said it has more in it if it were on E85.


https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...croll-c16.html

 

Here is a thread of the car when I was working at Spec-Ops... mind you these were at 32psi

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-new-cams.html

 

You may want to consider going single scroll vs twin scroll on the 2.3/2.4 unless you want maximum grunt at low rpm's. The larger engine creates more backpressure then the smaller engines on the same turbocharger. More backpressure and the VE of the those engines can create a peak and fall of the powerband. The longer rods of the 2.4 help but it can still be an issue with a small housing.

Also, excessive back pressure at high rpm is harder on the Valves (heat).

Here is example of 2.3 fp red. I'm sure it was alot of fun either way but we all know back pressure is the devil.

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...eet-beast.html

 

Says the guy with an MHI Red and a 2.2

 

LOL. Let me try and explain why I didn't go with the 2.3. Every Red 2.3 dynojet graph I've seen falls over after 7K or so. This could be a combination of boost control,VE or most likely the excessive back pressure from the bigger crank. I was concerned with this back when chose this turbocharger. I also had a few discussions with Greg@gsc since he has experimented with a few 4G63 /Red combinations and sponsored Nils (time attack winner for 3-4 years IIRC)

I also didn't want the added vibration of the larger crank. There are also a few broken 100mm cranks out there. Maybe it was power, tuning,bad day etc.. Who knows.

I built the engine so that if I went with a larger turbocharger I could safely rev to 9400 or so. The 2.3 is limited to around 8200 or so if you do the math.

2.3 has a 1.5 rod/stroke ratio
2.2 has a 1.63 rod/stroke ratio
2.0 has a 1.7 rod/stoke ratio

There are also articles out there that discuss stroke, VE and cylinder filling.
Take a look at the links above and compare. You can also see the smaller engine holding more torque out the top.

Now, If you have enough exhaust housing and turbocharger a 2.3 can have a fat powerband. I've seen this personally on a 2.3 DSM in a colt.

When I went from the 2.0(90K mile stock block/cam 25-39psi) to 2.2 (S2, headwork,25-34psi) you can see from my dyno graphs that it made almost the same line and power up top. I attribute this to the MHI housing and back pressure limiting the power.It still pulled almost linear from 6500-8000 power wise.

 

Food for thought. Even though you have a "2.2" and I have a "2.3", the 2.3 crank has double the amount of added stroke over 2.0 compared to the 2.2 (12mm vs. 6mm).

If you have an 85.5mm bore, then the displacement of your engine is 2158.8 cc.

My engine, with an 85.5mm bore has a displacement of 2296.6 cc.

That's an added displacement of .137 liters, which is a little more than .1 liters. More like .1 and a 1/3. So you have a way better rod ratio on the pistons are only going up and down an extra 6mm but you're down more than an extra .1 liters




While not my car, this is a LR 2.3, and it ekes out a smidge more power over 7k. Like and extra 100rpms or so

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...in-scroll.html

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, though. Turbine housing is a restriction. To help mitigate this, I have port-matched almost everything on the car...including porting the hell out of the hotside and also porting the compressor outlet. I also have a Works 3" O2 housing, so no 2.5" or 2.75" restriction right after the turbo.

I'm also interested to see how much the HTZ wheel help, if at all, up top.

And regarding side loading issues, that's why I got the bores WPC treated. Won't help the 1.5 rod ratio, but it should hopefully help reduce friction and wear.

Will all of that translate on the dyno? I have no idea but I hope so

If my car dynos like Mike's at ~608whp or so, I'll be a happy camper.

 

Good points ,but you may be missing the point I'm trying to make. Review the three 2.3 dynographs. An MHI housing was designed for low end torque but will be more restrictive up top.
The SS open housing will make less torque down low but flow better up top.

571 car, unknown compression 2.3, headwork, MHI housing. Makes a boatload of torque at very low rpm but falls after 7K

608 car, high comp 2.3,headwork 4" exhaust MHI housing ( Not sure why its so low on torque in the midrange, maybe too much cylinder pressure or something)

633 car, Headwork SS housing , but it still makes a boat load of torque but falls off after 7K .

The 100mm crank with this particular turbo and housing seems to make more torque early on but suffer above 7K. I'm not against the 2.3 setup as its been tried and true. It makes a very fun street car where you have power everywhere. I'm just pointing out the differences between the 94mm and 100mm engines with this particular turbocharger. It seems like the 94mm engine makes power until 8000 where the 100mm engine is being restricted somehow. Cylinder filling, backpressure,VE, limited turbine wheel etc..

We are all looking forward to your coated everything results. You will break 600whp and hopefully your upgraded 6 speed holds the power.
Sidenote, I have the version 1 Tomei 02 housing thats small and full exhaust. There may be more power in an 02 dump or different housing but I'm fine with the Decibel level.

 

Sorry, not trying to miss the point or pick nits

Yeah, I think we all know the 10.5 housing is a bottlenexk. Question is, how much of a bottleneck? 30whp? 50whp?

Since the Red and the Black have the same turbine wheel, I am curious how much more air the HTZ Red comp wheel can push, if any, before we see things level off/take a nose dive at 7k. I think I'll set boost cut between 8200 to 8500 depending on what the tuner says.

I think the 608whp result from English only losses like 20 hp from 7-8k.

I'll take the extra grunt at low rpms for a street car that will occasionally see the track. Hopefully WPC treatment will save my 6 speed from eating itself

 

gee, i wonder if theres a bolt on option to deal with this.... perhaps a reputable turbo manufacturer in the mitsubishi community could design and sell a better flowing turbine housing...
nah, that would be dumb.

 

If you're talking about a single scroll housing, yes, that obviously exists.

If you want twin scroll, you're SOL at the moment. And you know how I feel about turbos like the Black and smaller...unless you're chasing numbers, spool and fun goes down without the MHI housing.

I do know of someone who is working on a 12.0cm housing, but that is still in development.

 

Spec ops has thrown out good dyno # and track results.

 

"If you want twin scroll, you're SOL at the moment. And you know how I feel about turbos like the Black and smaller...unless you're chasing numbers, spool and fun goes down without the MHI housing."

Agree 100%. The MHI housing adds a lot of fun for a street car. Once you put the open housing on it , It just moves the band up and the response isn't as good.

 

I feel like all it does is move th epowerband to the right, and makes about 50 more hp, but the power still flat lines or even falls off, it's just a little later when this happens. The twin scroll nozzles of the stock manifold still create a restriction. Not worth it IMO to run a single scroll "stock frame" turbo.

 

Well, technically the FP manifold has runners that are 20% bigger

And you can gain a little bit of area by gasket matching both the exhaust mani exit and the turbine housing entrance. How much extra area, you'd have to get someone who knows how to measure that in regards to the original opening.

And of course, that doesn't solve the 10.5cm problem anyways.


You edited your original comment, which said: "...you will see a bunch of graphs but most cars dont back it up at the track to be honest."

So, which cars are you talking about? Most of these 600whp cars will trap 130+ in the 1/4 mile. Abacus' car is an exception because of the 4.11 FD. And I feel like we've already had this conversation with you regarding the 4.11 FD in a different thread lol