No one ever said the .63 doesn't perform. We only stated the .82 a/r v-band/4-bolt will OUTPERFORM it. Precision just confirmed this with the OP.

The whole point of the upgrade is to increase the outlet diameter of the turbine. Staying in a 5-bolt configuration doesn't resolve this matter.

If there isn't enough info on this thread alone to make you see the light, nothing will.

No hard feelings, but it's tough to debate with people who have nothing to fuel their point of view and avoid the main point of the discussion.

 

Thank you for the history lesson. But I would like to know what your position is now that you've heard it from Precision themselves, since my opinions mean nothing to you. Do you agree or disagree that the larger t-housing will help the OP's 2.3 make more power?

I realize that the rep from AMS was kind enough to clearly state that they tested the .63 vs .83 5-bolt housings against each other. I NEVER discussed the OP crossing over to a .83 5-bolt because that wouldn't be worth the effort as you can read in my previous threads. My arguements have been consistent throughout this thread. Have you changed your mind at this point?

 

it's hard to say much else about the two housings without testing them on the dyno. which I'm going to do

 

I just bought the 4 bolt Garrett v-band turbine housing talked about earlier in this thread. soooo step 1 is complete. now for the expensive steps...the manifold lol

 

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=369970

 

Precision didnt add any knowledge to this discussion. There are only two so called back to backs with 35r and precision 63 and 4bolt 82. The one freddy302 did, good for 50whp. and the one AMS did when they designed their kits. They saw no significant power gain with 82. they saw the 63 spool faster. no numbers given. My money is on AMS results. They did more controlled testing than freddy302 and precision hasnt done any testing on the 4g63. They may have honda camp telling them the 82 is more efficient but honda engines are far more sensitive to high back pressures. So feedback they get from honda camp does not necessarily apply to 4g63 camp. The only feedback precision likely has is the feedback they got from AMS. Its not likely that everyone down there is aware of the testing that was done.

 

well since johnboy is gonna do a back to back dyno comparison, let wait the final results and decide on that. Only thing is, we have make sure that there is nothing different between the two runs so there will be no variables. Gl on testing and in for the results.

 

I think that you are either;
a- dense
b- in denial
c- can't read

Ams never tested a .63 5-bolt vs a .82 4-bolt/v-band housing. Ams stated this themselves.

You are going to continue this to all end for some strange reason- Maybe you have these components on your car and are hesitant to invest the time and money to upgrade. IDK.

Either way, "the guys that jump into the pool will get wet. You can stay dry on the sidelines."

You can not debate efectively with nothing to bring to the table. And I can see that even when you are in the wrong you will attempt to squirm and twist the topic.

We'll just sit back and wait for the OP to post the results. I will then stand back and watch you have this discussion with David Buschur.

 

im running a .82ar in my rb25 skyline, its pretty responsive, not sure how it compares to the 4g63 though, i get full boost by 4000rpm

 

^^^ You have a bit more displacement and cylinders then us 4g63's... At least the Honda spectrum is a bit more closer in comparison then the Rb series....

Dan

 

That's how I've understood this debate as well. So I don't why he would say I have no clue what I'm talking about, but ok. Dan I will also agree the RB holds no water in this debate due to 2 more cylinders, and higher displacement.

 

[QUOTE=4kinboost;6135054]I think that you are either;
a- dense
b- in denial
c- can't read

Ams never tested a .63 5-bolt vs a .82 4-bolt/v-band housing. Ams stated this themselves.


I say the exact same thing about you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I say the exact same thing about you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I say the exact same thing about you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve@NrgTech View Post
Harry, Let me try to explain what 94awdcoupe is saying. Basically he's responding to your statement about telling the OP to switch to a garret housing and saying you've seen that gain 50whp with your own eyes. Then your using an example of someone who changed 2 things, not 1 to gain that much power. 94awd is also stating that he believe the bulk of the power gained was from getting rid of the RNR 2.25" o2 housing. I have to say i agree with him. Precision's .63 housing has been tested and was designed by them to outflow the garret .82 housing.

Now the reason AMS was brought into this is because the OP asked about "UPGRADING" an AMS kit. Harry, you told the OP to switch to an .82 housing and he would gain 50whp. To most people that sounds like your stating that AMS left 50whp on the table when they put this kit together. 94awd is trying to explain that AMS tested the PRECISION .63 housing vs GARRET .82 and saw no gains in power. Thats why they supply their kit with the .63 housing.

Back to Freddy's car, I would HAVE to agree that the huge gain in power was changing out the 2.25" housing. I do not believe a PRECISION .63 housing was outflowed in the 550whp range on a 2.0L. I think the only benefit to switching to a .82 would be the higher amount of boost you could run on straight pump, but then again IDK the runner size on the RNR headers. I know the shearer header tubes are big in diameter to keep backpressure to a minimum and keep 93 octane boost levels in the high 20's safely
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Steve, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Now while I cannot state 100% that the gain in power mentioned was from the O2 housing being so small it is very likely.

What i can tell you is that when we designed out kit a great deal of time and effort went into it. while most of you might of been around when this happened I will give you a little back story. Our kit was not the first turbo kit to come out. in fact it was a little down the line in release dates. However I can tell you without a doubt we were one of the first to start making a kit. We just take a great deal of time to get it right so that we don't have to revise it later on over and over again.

In regards to the housing in particular Martin tested a slew of housings for this kit. From Garrett to PTE etc. the .82 made almost the EXACT same power as the PTE .63 but the PTE housing spooled a great deal quicker. When looking at the very marginal difference in HP compared to spool it was no brainer to go with the PTE 5 bolt housing. A/R on a housing is a really touchy topic. Its not a cut and dray case...its sort of like how one 272 cam can be much different then another. They both might read .63 but their end result can be very different. Just like the difference between a Jun 272 and an HKS 272 cam...night and day.

As far as I know I don't know of anyone that makes a .82 A/R 5 bolt housing. you can run a different housing but I don't recommend it. I really don't recommend running a W/G off our header as that collector was never meant to take one and you might really change the flow properties of it and it might not even regulate boost well off the collector.

It might be hard to understand but we did not just throw this kit together. We really took out time in researching and engineering this piece. The results speak for themselves. we have more cars running this kit competitively and on the street than I can even count.

If you really want to keep spool close to the same and go for some more top end power I have a fix for you...... GT850R After all that is EXACTLY what the GT850R was designed for.

Eric

 

And yes I have a precision 63 5 bolt on my car. I made 550whp at about 30psi. I picked up 70whp by keeping the 63 a/r 5 bolt and turning up the boost. no 82 a/r needed on my car. and its a 2.3 liter.

 

I think what you're misunderstanding (which AMS said as well) was that they never tested the .63 5 bolt, to the .82 4 bolt. I'm pretty sure AMS stated they tested the .82 but it was a 5 bolt. I'm so confused right now.

 

You aren't confused. You are dead on. Since your reading comprehension is higher than 9th grade, you and the other 1000+ readers of this thread have gotten the point. Some people choose to be difficult and feel the need for lenghty explanations.

He quoted AMS and still didn't understand the underlying message. Since they tested the housings on the same manifold, WG and downpipe combo, common sense tells you it was a 5-bolt.

Facts are facts, they don't need to be elaborated.


And great, he made 550 on 30psi. I made 534 on 93 PUMP GAS with my STOCK 2.0 bottom end, head, intake, and tb (35r kit with .82 a/r 4-bolt) and a big fat boost leak. I'm willing to match my dynosheet vs. his to show the difference in the power under the curve. But this will never happen because there is no substance behind his madness.