http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=fp3065&hl=en

(Looks like Nez136 enjoys his 3065)

This turbo is way to big if you do road-racing imo on a 2.0....but given the atp and br 3065 I would go with br...

 

yea that was before i even was tuned!

I think on a road course the 3065 is PERFECT with a 2.0. There is a lot of top end to work with and that is what you need. Maybe not Autox but for sure it would be a blast at Road America!

 

Actually I guess it comes down to driver preference...

I would rather have a more nimble car + less power but whatever floats your boat...

Nez I see you got the stroker...any more vids?

 

Well whats really impressive with the 3065 is that at 25psi on a wet track (on and off rain), i spun through 1st, 2nd, and a little into 3rd and still ran a 12.2 @ 117.9. It was my first time EVER drag racing. They canceled the rest of the night after my first run b/c from the rear angle i was all over the place when i was spinning and the rain was picking up. I figured out 30 psi on my EBC after i left the track....its soo much fun.

Click Me! Im the second white Evo that runs in this video. Given i have a 2.3, it should deliver VERY similar results on a dry day with a 2.0 on a similar setup.

I dont have any other vids, this was only a couple weeks ago, im still getting the car perfect, now the stock ignition is starting to break up at high boost.

 

NO, top end is the last thing you need for road racing. What you're talking about (big turbo on 2.0) is best for drag racing only. To utilize this 3065 propelry for road racing would require a 2.3 (an option I'm considering), because what you need most is mega torque coming out of turns and mid-range torque for acceleration. Top end is useful on some parts of some tracks, but it's generally not the most important thing.

Deadbeat, that's great to hear. I don't think this will be a good setup for trying out road racing, but it should still be fun. I just can't imagine never launching or racing but having this much power only for the street where you can never use it. That was my concern.

gofaster87, I road race, and we do some standing starts. I rape people off the line with my launches. Jumping ahead as many spots as possible by turn 1 is very important (or pulling ahead of the pack as far as possible by turn 1).

 

I think until you have driven this turbo you can not comment on the discussion. The 3065 has plenty of low end tourqe to get you through a road course on a 2.0. Like Mr. Howser said, its driver preference I didn't say it was the most important thing, I think it is the perfect all around turbo with lots of top end for the 2.0 on a road course . How would i know? Dryad and i installed the turbos at the same shop, he's on a 2.0 and he doesn't have compaints about spool.

 

With 272 cams, the 16 g will hit 23 psi by about 4k rpms
(yes i've seen it a hundred times.), the 3065 about 41-44k rpms. My setup hits at 38k-39k rpms.

 

Come to road america and tell me that top end is the last thing you need....

 

Was that first vid of you on the street with a 2.0 or a 2.3? Sounds sick. Little jealous over here if you know what I mean?

 

There you go again spewing your crap all over the board. What are you talking about you dont need top end on a road course? The turbo isn't laggy if thats what your trying to get at, theres more than enough tq down low, a lot more than the stock turbo IMO. Go back to the newb forum. It was nice not seeing your posts for a month or so, people could actually speak their minds without you interrupting every other minute.

I guess he's going back on the ignore list

 

I cannot comment until I've driven that turbo??? Uh, ok. Hey, if you think it somehow defies the laws of physics, then that's fine. I'm a fan of that turbo and think it's awesome, but perhaps you just don't know much about road racing, I dunno. It doesn't have terrible spool, but it's nothing...and I mean NOTHING...like a stock turbo in terms of response and low-end torque when on a 2.0. That's just how it is, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Top end is great on Road America, but we aren't talking about one track. We are talking about road racing in general, in which case a large turbo on a 2.0 (especially non-built) is not ideal. It's just physics, man...that's how it is.

 

2.3, but like i said, it was in need of a tune badly at that point, when i had the 2.3 installed my timming completely changed and i gave up on tunning the Utec! I think dryad'ss 2.0 was spooling faster at that point with the Jestr tune in his car
FYI i have a AMS custom flash now.

 

Then I think you suck at driving. Theres some physics for ya.

 

Im selling my car now
thank you for the education, i no longer need to be in the evo world.

 

Wow, where did that come from? What in the world did I say that deserved such a nasty personal attack? What crap did I spew? All I said was the truth and fact about road racing. Doogie was saying the same thing, and so would any of the other main road racers in the Motorsports forum. I didn't say you don't need top end on a road course. I said it's one of the lesser needs...much less so than low-end and mid-range torque. That's just how it is. I beat plenty of high HP cars all the time. Hell, I had a 600cc bike that had trouble pulling away on the straight since he couldn't enter and exit the final turn as fast. It's not about top end, it's about momentum and exit speed.

How can you say it's not laggy? It's just a fact of life. Is it too laggy? No. Is it laggiER than the stock turbo? By a long shot. I have not seen any 3065 that has more (especially not a LOT more) torque down low than a stock turbo. I hit 300wtq at 3300rpm on the dyno plot and 383wtq by 3800rpm. Again, this is without load. The 3065 doesn't touch that, but it blows the stock turbo away on the top end for sure. I think a 3065 with 2.3 is an ideal setup for road racing and one that I may end up doing, but I was refuting the comment about how a 3065 on a 2.0 is PERFECT for road racing, because it's not. Is my opinion worthy of such a hate-filled reaction? I think not.