perfect example (not making fun of u ibanez just making a point)

 

you forgot to spell check

Very nice results Dave, I am very tempted to put something like this on my 2.4 liter

 

BOOYA.... I bet that thing is a blast to drive.

OH yeh thanks for the MR wheels Dave and Jarrod!!! u guys rock!!!

 

scorke, sorry the price scares you. You figuring is slighly off though. If I sell you just a turbo and header you are still missing the 44mm tial, v bands, v band clamps, SS 3" 02 housing, dump tube for the wastegate, braided stainless steel oil line and fittings and the oil return line and fittings, new fan for the radiator and the lower i/c pipe. Now start over and figure it out again

I did not post a chart with the 3065 vs. this turbo.

 

Regardless it's the 1000 dollar turbo and 2200 dollar manifold that I am asking about, why is the manifold so pricy? I know that all the other parts add up to a fair bit of $$$ but that was never a question/issue, the 2k+ dollar manifold was.


Scorke

 

I would be very interested to see an overlay of Jarrods 3065 and this turbo...

 

That is a very interesting power curve. Perfectly suited for a FWD car. The numbers are impressive but a bit deceiving at the same time. The power under the curve is not what it should be. Looks like you found the secret to big pump gas numbers. I hope these results dont make people ditch their plans for a nice 2.3/35r combo.

 

I second that. Al's taking a shot at tuning my 3065 setup in el nino tommorow.

 

Please keep me updated on your progress....I have a 3065 on order..

 

Shot of the custom header and T67 turbo charger.

Stand by for the race gas tune. Car is done "Low" boost, 600+whp.

 

that mani is pure sex

 

scorke, the two parts, if you want to be them individually are $3200, if that's too much please build your own, shop for one somewhere else or buy an STi, but whatever you decide the price for just buying those two are going to be $3200 from me.

94awd, everyone's a critic. Not sure why it is so deceiving but for an example a GT40 on a 2.3 liter that made 575 whp here on race was making only 400 whp at 5600 rpm and this car is making 420 whp at 5400 rpm. I don't think the power is deceiving as much as the power that keeps climbing along with the torque. This makes the mid range not look as strong as it it.

A GT35R for comparison on a 2.3 liter here made 435 at 5200, peaked at 541 at 6250 and then fell off. Bot the GT40 example and this GT35 example were on race gas and are being compared to the alky/pump gas numbers from this car. To view the curves it looks like a more usable power band as the GT40/GT35R fall off giving it a flatter broader appearance when the actual fact is this car is making as much power in the mid range but a ton more up top.

Here is the graph from the car a few minutes ago. 34 psi of boost. Race gas. I stopped here. The car obviously has a lot more in it still. I am sure I could run it to 40 psi. Brand new build. I'd like to have Nick drive it like this and if he needs more it is a turn of the boost control away. I just spoke to him and he is very happy with the numbers at this relatively low boost level.

 

Haha, just looked at this sheet. I should have looked first and made another pull. So before it is asked why the jagged par about 6,000 rpm, it is where the tires spun. Also you will see the AFR go dead lean at about 7,000 rpm, the wide band got blown out of the tailpipe right there. It was laying behind the car when I stopped the runs.

Enjoy.

 

Also, 94 AWD, if you look at this graph now that it is on race gas and compare it to the other example I used you will see that it is now making 455 whp at 5,000 rpm.

 

I see what you are saying. Actually after thinking back on some of your other impressive dyno graphs you have posted they looked to have a similiar curve. I think its the way your dyno reads power is why it looks like it does.