BorgWarner S256 Dyno Results!
Feb 27, 2008, 04:37 PM
#20
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: local area man
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bump for more info. Sorry to go crazy on you man, but damn near nobody runs these cams. Information is scarce!
Some questions about the 2.0 liter:
Stock head?
Stock block?
Tuned on stock ECU?
Mar 1, 2008, 01:15 PM
#24
Evolving Member
Thanks Keith, this is some really good testing. I appreciate it.
Yes the Mustang dyno reads low according to most people. Especially when compared to Dynojet.
Gary
Yes the Mustang dyno reads low according to most people. Especially when compared to Dynojet.
Gary
Last edited by Talonboost; Mar 1, 2008 at 04:22 PM.
Mar 14, 2008, 08:12 PM
#28
Evolving Member
Very Purdy!
Looks like the compressor covers are still available polished, which is nice, and should reflect some of the heat from the exhaust manifold.
Who made the exhaust manifold?
Gary
Looks like the compressor covers are still available polished, which is nice, and should reflect some of the heat from the exhaust manifold.
Who made the exhaust manifold?
Gary
Last edited by Talonboost; Mar 14, 2008 at 08:15 PM.
Mar 15, 2008, 08:49 AM
#30
The manifold is from Full-Race.
Yes the EGT's are a little cooler with any form of Alcohol. The E85, big cams and the .70ar on the 2.3L caused the difference in spool. All the little differences add up fast, but the car did make good power with some head room to spare. Could have turned up the boost to 30-32psi and the number would have been around 550whp, but we ran out of time that day and the customer was happy with 500whp.
Yes the EGT's are a little cooler with any form of Alcohol. The E85, big cams and the .70ar on the 2.3L caused the difference in spool. All the little differences add up fast, but the car did make good power with some head room to spare. Could have turned up the boost to 30-32psi and the number would have been around 550whp, but we ran out of time that day and the customer was happy with 500whp.