Notices
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain Everything from engine management to the best clutch and flywheel.

368whp pumpgas (stock turbo)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 06:13 AM
  #46  
ldstang50's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: CT
Originally Posted by ShapeGSX
Uhh, you don't just drop the driveshaft to dyno an Evo on a 2wd dyno.
i know that, i was quoting our good friend and oh so knowledgeable evotexas
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 06:49 AM
  #47  
Ted B's Avatar
EvoM Guru
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Liked
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,334
Likes: 63
From: Birmingham, AL
Notes...

- Smoothing of the power curves would probably show the actual hp peak to be ~360. This is not an unusual figure for similarly equipped EVOs.

- That being said, there are EVOs without an expensive aftermarket IC or AEM EMS making right around the same power. This being the case, the mods quoted herein do not appear to represent any 'price breakthrough' revelation where $/whp is concerned. After all, there was a rather hefty $4k spent between just the AEM EMS and IC alone.

- Finally, it's been demonstrated that the hotside mod should not be expected to increase peak hp.
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 06:51 AM
  #48  
ldstang50's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: CT
Originally Posted by Ted B
Notes...
- Finally, it's been demonstrated that the hotside mod should not be expected to increase peak hp.
Ted-
When you guys say hotside mods, do you mean the side between the intercooler and the throttle body? If so what do you mean by mods to that side? I/C pipe? or something else?
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 06:56 AM
  #49  
Ted B's Avatar
EvoM Guru
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Liked
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,334
Likes: 63
From: Birmingham, AL
The hotside mod refers to the larger housing for the exhaust side of the turbo. This does not change the internals of the turbo (or its ultimate flow capacity), but it does give a nominal boost to midrange torque potential.
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 07:17 AM
  #50  
ldstang50's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: CT
ahh ok, thanks
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 08:27 AM
  #51  
Geo@EvoStore's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
From: Orlando,FL
Originally Posted by BadazzCR
Show me someone that has done that power for less money on stock turbo with pump gas (shell 93).
http://store.evostore.com/0311sepugase.html

Those are very good numbers though. We also had a customer make 331awhp and 354tq with stock cams on 93 octane. Also these are Mustang Dyno numbers.
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 08:34 AM
  #52  
Ted B's Avatar
EvoM Guru
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Liked
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,334
Likes: 63
From: Birmingham, AL
Originally Posted by Geo@EvoStore
In all fairness though, the car in the above link uses water/methanol injection, which isn't truly comparable to 93 oct pump fuel because it effectively raises the octane.
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 10:47 AM
  #53  
plokivos's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,902
Likes: 4
From: Atlanta
still nice numbers on that white car.

I always wonder if a shop's going to build a fast car with lots of hp, reliability should always be there. Not everyone of us could afford a straight race car that doesn't last 30,000 miles.

anyway, that's my thought of the day.
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 10:51 AM
  #54  
Smogrunner's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,558
Likes: 1
From: Inland Empire, CA
Originally Posted by BadazzCR
Show me someone that has done that power for less money on stock turbo with pump gas (shell 93).
First of all, great job Doug! Seeing those numbers makes me feel glad I followed the stock"ish" turbo route. Those torque numbers are ungodly. I'll take you up on the same power for less money challenge though. First, I'd like to make one point: You should post the map you sent the customer home with. You yourself said there was some sort of a knock event at 6800 so we are really comparing a final number of 350, right?

You're customer and I actually have an extremely comparable setup so I'll just compare the differences:

I saved $1600 for the Xede instead of the AEM
I saved $450 by keeping my stock injectors.
I saved $300 by keeping my stock airbox.
I save $50 by not using manual boost controller.

I lost $950 by adding the 10.5ti (hotside is just $250)
I lost $100 for the Xedeflash

So, in the end, I saved $1,350. That is a lot of money. Had I gone with the hotside only, I would have saved $2050. Remember, all this talk about 10.5 etc is quickly becoming a mute point, as all 2005s have it stock. You did not mention what year this car was. But assuming you did it on a 03 or 04, that is impressive indeed.

Next, this map is a 91 octane map. As the good tuner you are (and I honestly believe that), you know that a significant amount of HP was left on the table for the lower octane tuning. I did not touch my tune, just dynoed it on my straight 91 octane tune. I'm sure you'll agree that I would have at least 5 to 10 more hp and at least 10ft/lb more torque than that on a 93 tune. Talk to Al and other tuners who have to play ball on 91 octane and they will tell you it is truly challenging to make big safe power on that pisswater.

Still, I am very impressed with those numbers, especially the torque. Great job.

Attached Thumbnails 368whp pumpgas (stock turbo)-91-octane-map.jpg  

Last edited by Smogrunner; Jan 17, 2005 at 11:11 AM.
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 11:09 AM
  #55  
bryans2k's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
From: Texas
Talking

Originally Posted by EVOTEXAS
How much is 340 AWHP on a Mustang dyno? I did that with an ECU flash included in about 1500 dollars worth of mods. I don't even have all the bolt ons yet either. If it's not 368 WHP, it's right there within the margin of error. Stock turbo, pump gas, etc. I'll put the AMS upper IC pipe on this week sometime and dyno on Feb 5th and I'll let you know my new numbers.

I don't know how much it is but I know it wasn't enough for you Sunday to be able to leave me


bryan
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 11:50 AM
  #56  
EVOTEXAS's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 2
From: Texas
Originally Posted by ldstang50
i know that, i was quoting our good friend and oh so knowledgeable evotexas
Just responding to YOUR comment, so if my comment was elementary, it was to be on your level of understanding. Go shave your head.
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 11:52 AM
  #57  
EVOTEXAS's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 2
From: Texas
Originally Posted by bryans2k
I don't know how much it is but I know it wasn't enough for you Sunday to be able to leave me


bryan
You know the problems I was having and you also have an upgraded turbo and I don't, among other things. It was fun though!
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 04:17 PM
  #58  
TurbotrixRacing's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (21)
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 0
From: Edison
Originally Posted by Smogrunner
First of all, great job Doug! Seeing those numbers makes me feel glad I followed the stock"ish" turbo route. Those torque numbers are ungodly. I'll take you up on the same power for less money challenge though. First, I'd like to make one point: You should post the map you sent the customer home with. You yourself said there was some sort of a knock event at 6800 so we are really comparing a final number of 350, right?

You're customer and I actually have an extremely comparable setup so I'll just compare the differences:

I saved $1600 for the Xede instead of the AEM
I saved $450 by keeping my stock injectors.
I saved $300 by keeping my stock airbox.
I save $50 by not using manual boost controller.

I lost $950 by adding the 10.5ti (hotside is just $250)
I lost $100 for the Xedeflash

So, in the end, I saved $1,350. That is a lot of money. Had I gone with the hotside only, I would have saved $2050. Remember, all this talk about 10.5 etc is quickly becoming a mute point, as all 2005s have it stock. You did not mention what year this car was. But assuming you did it on a 03 or 04, that is impressive indeed.

Next, this map is a 91 octane map. As the good tuner you are (and I honestly believe that), you know that a significant amount of HP was left on the table for the lower octane tuning. I did not touch my tune, just dynoed it on my straight 91 octane tune. I'm sure you'll agree that I would have at least 5 to 10 more hp and at least 10ft/lb more torque than that on a 93 tune. Talk to Al and other tuners who have to play ball on 91 octane and they will tell you it is truly challenging to make big safe power on that pisswater.

Still, I am very impressed with those numbers, especially the torque. Great job.


I can attest to the urine in the gas .. LOL.. Great numbers ..


Mark
turbotrix
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2005 | 06:24 PM
  #59  
megatron's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
those numbers are way crazy on a stock turbo. i think the ems is in my near future.
Reply
Old Jan 18, 2005 | 09:16 AM
  #60  
ldstang50's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: CT
Originally Posted by EVOTEXAS
Just responding to YOUR comment, so if my comment was elementary, it was to be on your level of understanding. Go shave your head.
It was shaved but i'm out of the military now
was that MY comment? I couldn't tell since you quoted it. You might want to bold it next time just to be sure I know I wrote it.

Never argue with an idiot, first they bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
I got it ok, you win, I'm tapping out, I'll move to the high school threads
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:42 PM.