Mine and a buds FP20gLT dyno results.
sgtblamo,
Save your time and money and stick with the Forged manual controller on your car with this turbo.
I feel a good manual controller is the best choice.
This turbo will absolutely hold 20-21 psi of flat boost from 3500 rpm 7.000 rpm, no problem.
As for holding 30 psi of boost at redline, it could also happen but it is going to happen on a car that is not flowing the absolute maximum amount of air through it that it could be. In other words a car with a really good exhaust, head, cams is not going to see 30 psi at 7,000 rpm.
If I said at one point or another that this turbo would hold 30 psi at 7,000 rpm I retract the statement now. Unless I go dig up logs of my car doing it when we were testing it I cannot back it up. I believe Robert has all my logs at this point from the testing.
The last car I dyno'd we hit 32-33 psi and the boost was around 27 psi at 7500 rpm. So, not holding 30 psi. The car did make killer power though 413 whp 400 ft lbs on our dyno.
Also as far as dyno comparisons. Our MD dyno reads A LOT different than a Dynojet. The same car (EVO9)on the same day with the same tune dyno'd on an AWD Dynojet 25 miles from us, dyno'd 271 whp, then the car was driven directly to our shop and dyno'd again, it only made 214 whp on our dyno. You do the math, that's a HUGE difference. Our black EVO made 730'ish on our dyno, took it to the same Dynojet and it made 903 whp on the Dynojet, do the math again.
Save your time and money and stick with the Forged manual controller on your car with this turbo.
I feel a good manual controller is the best choice.
This turbo will absolutely hold 20-21 psi of flat boost from 3500 rpm 7.000 rpm, no problem.
As for holding 30 psi of boost at redline, it could also happen but it is going to happen on a car that is not flowing the absolute maximum amount of air through it that it could be. In other words a car with a really good exhaust, head, cams is not going to see 30 psi at 7,000 rpm.
If I said at one point or another that this turbo would hold 30 psi at 7,000 rpm I retract the statement now. Unless I go dig up logs of my car doing it when we were testing it I cannot back it up. I believe Robert has all my logs at this point from the testing.
The last car I dyno'd we hit 32-33 psi and the boost was around 27 psi at 7500 rpm. So, not holding 30 psi. The car did make killer power though 413 whp 400 ft lbs on our dyno.
Also as far as dyno comparisons. Our MD dyno reads A LOT different than a Dynojet. The same car (EVO9)on the same day with the same tune dyno'd on an AWD Dynojet 25 miles from us, dyno'd 271 whp, then the car was driven directly to our shop and dyno'd again, it only made 214 whp on our dyno. You do the math, that's a HUGE difference. Our black EVO made 730'ish on our dyno, took it to the same Dynojet and it made 903 whp on the Dynojet, do the math again.
And 371whp for his friend with the meth shot works out to around 425whp on a Dynojet. Again, that's not exactly typical 16G territory.
Anyone with a sense of reality knows better than to expect miracles with a stock-sized turbo. However, putting the aforementioned numbers within easy reach while maintaining spool characteristics that are closer to stock than even the smaller GT series is no small feat. I've never witnessed two people waltzing into Andrew's shop and delivering those numbers with a 16G. The fact that they did it, and did it rather easily is impressive.
Having read this, I might toss out the fact that I made roughly the same peak hp using lesser fuel, HKS 280s, and a regular EVO 8 TME running only 19psi. My point? Forcing the turbo to wheeze well outside of its design limits and efficiency range doesn't necessarily result in significant increases in power, especially with the high PR undoubtedly created as a result of that tiny hotside. Yes, it can be done, but this is the reason why it usually isn't.
There comes a point whereby increasing the boost further results in returns that are so diminishing, that it isn't worth the extra heat and reduction in turbo longevity.
David,
I thought you had mentioned in another post that the EMS made more power using an eletronic boost solenoid over a MBC. However, if that's what you recommend, then that's what I'll do.
I presently am running 23 psi on 93 w/ minimal if any knock (based on what my tuner told me when he set up my EMS) w/ AFR's @ 11.3-11.8 WOT. So with the 20G9LT, would I be able to run around the same or less boost and make more power on the street?
I thought you had mentioned in another post that the EMS made more power using an eletronic boost solenoid over a MBC. However, if that's what you recommend, then that's what I'll do.
I presently am running 23 psi on 93 w/ minimal if any knock (based on what my tuner told me when he set up my EMS) w/ AFR's @ 11.3-11.8 WOT. So with the 20G9LT, would I be able to run around the same or less boost and make more power on the street?
Sgt blamo,
At that same boost level the 20gLT is going to make more power, yes.
About a year ago I did some testing with the AEM boost controller. On the dyno it was absolutely AWESOME. Then when the car hit the street the boost got nutty. I messed with dialing it in and then the weather changed. Everytime there was a change in something it had to be done again. We were using the GM selonoid then. I heard that the new improved selonoids worked better but after seeing a few other tuners that I feel can actually tune try to use them with what I'd call crappy results, I decided to abort screwing with them all together.
You just can't beat a good manual controller.
Ted B.,
You are 100% absolutely correct about trying to force a turbo to make boost levels that it doesn't typically want to maintain. It is absolutely not the best way to try and make power.
With the old 20g-9-5, I found the best place to run the turbo was around 28-29 psi peak boost and just let it fall off from there to around 25 psi. This kept the turbo in the sweet spot.
The new 20GLT, we have been running to 32-33 psi, which is really likes and then just letting it taper off, typically 27 psi or so up top. I've run my RS even higher in boost and this new turbo will actually continue to make power up to 35 psi.
One other thing you mentioned was the pressure ratio. We measured this already and made charts, they are posted in the other 20g thread. Not sure if you saw it. The pressure ratio on this turbo is actually excellent, the 10.5 housing mated with this larger turbine wheel really flows well.
At that same boost level the 20gLT is going to make more power, yes.
About a year ago I did some testing with the AEM boost controller. On the dyno it was absolutely AWESOME. Then when the car hit the street the boost got nutty. I messed with dialing it in and then the weather changed. Everytime there was a change in something it had to be done again. We were using the GM selonoid then. I heard that the new improved selonoids worked better but after seeing a few other tuners that I feel can actually tune try to use them with what I'd call crappy results, I decided to abort screwing with them all together.
You just can't beat a good manual controller.
Ted B.,
You are 100% absolutely correct about trying to force a turbo to make boost levels that it doesn't typically want to maintain. It is absolutely not the best way to try and make power.
With the old 20g-9-5, I found the best place to run the turbo was around 28-29 psi peak boost and just let it fall off from there to around 25 psi. This kept the turbo in the sweet spot.
The new 20GLT, we have been running to 32-33 psi, which is really likes and then just letting it taper off, typically 27 psi or so up top. I've run my RS even higher in boost and this new turbo will actually continue to make power up to 35 psi.
One other thing you mentioned was the pressure ratio. We measured this already and made charts, they are posted in the other 20g thread. Not sure if you saw it. The pressure ratio on this turbo is actually excellent, the 10.5 housing mated with this larger turbine wheel really flows well.
. . . Also as far as dyno comparisons. Our MD dyno reads A LOT different than a Dynojet. The same car (EVO9)on the same day with the same tune dyno'd on an AWD Dynojet 25 miles from us, dyno'd 271 whp, then the car was driven directly to our shop and dyno'd again, it only made 214 whp on our dyno. You do the math, that's a HUGE difference. Our black EVO made 730'ish on our dyno, took it to the same Dynojet and it made 903 whp on the Dynojet, do the math again.
Last edited by EVOlutionary; Dec 27, 2006 at 09:08 AM.
A 25% increase is a bit high as a standard for "low HP" cars and might raise people's expectations regarding what their equivalent numbers might be.
No, no, no.
David Buschur's dyno is NOT configured like ANY other Mustang dyno I know of, and those numbers cannot be applied universally across Mustang dynos, so don't even think about it.
A Mustang dyno typically reads about 12% less than a DJ, and a Dyno Dynamics typically reads about 15% less. But don't take this as gospel, as I have seen some Mustangs that are configured to give more or less exactly what a Dynojet gives, and this is sometimes done deliberately to make customers feel good.
The only way to get an idea of what's really happening is to know without ambiguity what a bone-stock EVO 8 averages on the dyno in question, and use that as a basis for comparison.
David Buschur's dyno is NOT configured like ANY other Mustang dyno I know of, and those numbers cannot be applied universally across Mustang dynos, so don't even think about it.
A Mustang dyno typically reads about 12% less than a DJ, and a Dyno Dynamics typically reads about 15% less. But don't take this as gospel, as I have seen some Mustangs that are configured to give more or less exactly what a Dynojet gives, and this is sometimes done deliberately to make customers feel good.
The only way to get an idea of what's really happening is to know without ambiguity what a bone-stock EVO 8 averages on the dyno in question, and use that as a basis for comparison.
I prefer to look a the trap speed. I think we should get back on topic and off of this dyno thing. They're all different big deal.
Last edited by Jeff_Jeske; Dec 27, 2006 at 10:15 AM. Reason: SP
No, no, no.
David Buschur's dyno is NOT configured like ANY other Mustang dyno I know of, and those numbers cannot be applied universally across Mustang dynos, so don't even think about it.
A Mustang dyno typically reads about 12% less than a DJ, and a Dyno Dynamics typically reads about 15% less. But don't take this as gospel, as I have seen some Mustangs that are configured to give more or less exactly what a Dynojet gives, and this is sometimes done deliberately to make customers feel good.
The only way to get an idea of what's really happening is to know without ambiguity what a bone-stock EVO 8 averages on the dyno in question, and use that as a basis for comparison.
David Buschur's dyno is NOT configured like ANY other Mustang dyno I know of, and those numbers cannot be applied universally across Mustang dynos, so don't even think about it.
A Mustang dyno typically reads about 12% less than a DJ, and a Dyno Dynamics typically reads about 15% less. But don't take this as gospel, as I have seen some Mustangs that are configured to give more or less exactly what a Dynojet gives, and this is sometimes done deliberately to make customers feel good.
The only way to get an idea of what's really happening is to know without ambiguity what a bone-stock EVO 8 averages on the dyno in question, and use that as a basis for comparison.
I realize this number WONT be completely accurate, but for trying to convert to DJ numbers, I believe this is a good ballpark method, but hardly meant to give anyone an exact conversion.
Actually, Dynojets read very consistently as do Dyno Dynamics (although these two give VERY different numbers). It's the Mustangs that toss the monkey wrench into the picture, as they can be configured to read more like the former or the latter.
The main point of my post was to squash this talk of global 20-25% correction factors, which are incorrect (Buschur's dyno falls outside of the statistical norm). And yes, nothing tells the tale like trap speeds.
Carry on . . .
The main point of my post was to squash this talk of global 20-25% correction factors, which are incorrect (Buschur's dyno falls outside of the statistical norm). And yes, nothing tells the tale like trap speeds.
Carry on . . .
Last edited by Ted B; Dec 27, 2006 at 08:51 AM.