RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

440 whp on a mustang dyno, on 93, with a IX turbo? lol

mandy1

iTrader: (1)

torque curve looks better at 23psi,seems that at 37 have some backpressure issue,also hp falls down to fast at 37psi,cams will help,but i have make flatter hp & torque curves with hks 272 than this with gt35r .63,i think the problem should be the exh housing. thats my thoughts.about the 10% diference from the mustang dyno,its true,i even see more on rotary engines.but i love the load simulator.

MR Turco

iTrader: (16)

Oh i read the graph completely wrong.

Keith-PURE Tuning

iTrader: (1)

An Evo IX turbo will not make the same number on 93oct on a Mustang Dyno! Again what point of reference are you using????
I must be Dynojet or Dynapack.

Show me a IX turbo that makes 440whp at 23psi on a factory calibrated Mustang Dyno and I will rescind my statements! I would believe what you said if this were a Dynojet, but not a Mustang Dyno!

Hear are some other graphs of some Evo 8s and 9s we have built on pump and race gas for a better point of reference.

05 Evo VIII
Stock Motor
Stock ECU
Stock Intake Manifold
24psi
93oct

This is a direct comparison of the OE Evo8 turbo vs the OE Evo9 turbo at the same boost.


06 Evo9
Stock Turbo
Stock Motor
Stock ECU
Stock Intake Manifold
26psi
100oct


06 Evo9
FP Green Turbo
Stock Motor
Stock ECU
Stock Intake Manifold
27psi
E85

This particular graph is a car that was untouched by us for the first couple dyno pulls so we could see how it faired from Switzer's Dynojet to our Mustang Dyno. On the Dynojet the car made 435whp / 450wtq. The difference doesn't hold up to our 2WD testing of 8-10% from a Mustang to a Dynojet but we haven't directly tested AWD cars yet, but what you can see is a substantial difference in readings with the exact same car on two different dynos. Numbers don't actually mean anything without a point of reference to compare.

MR Turco

iTrader: (16)

Sorry keith i read the graph totally wrong. my apologies.

leecavturbo

more pics looks the nuts

supersal

iTrader: (1)

hey Kieth - do you have graphs of a S258 vs. GT30R on your Dyno?


thanks
Sal
.

Billy@EnglishRacing

iTrader: (18)

I like the kit, the manifold looks like it fits nice and snug

Keith-PURE Tuning

iTrader: (1)

Nothing truly comparable. This car was done from head to toe. The few 30r cars weve done have had stock motors, a couple with stock cams, etc. Not realy a good comparo.

partyboy1122

iTrader: (16)

I am considering this turbo. I may be getting a super deal on one. Are you saying the .70 a/r will not clear? and A/C will have to be removed?

8UpUrV8

iTrader: (9)

Is this turbo Ball Bearing, Extended tip??

8UpUrV8

iTrader: (9)

Keith,

Have you tested this setup with any other intake manifold?

Reason I ask is because there's already been results of a Stock Ported 65mm intake will outperform it...

Make more power possibly...

partyboy1122

iTrader: (16)

I am pretty sure Borg Warner turbos are not BB.

Keith-PURE Tuning

iTrader: (1)

I know I mentioned in previous posts we were going to be switching the intake manifold and cams to try and improve on the cars setup. I know I'm usually long winded when I post so you guys must have missed it.

We will be putting this on over the weekend to see the dyno results.


We are still waiting on the Kelford cams.

I'm not completely convinced an OE ported intake manifold will out-perform the Magnus street intake manifold on every setup.

The Borg Turbos are not Ball-Bearing.
The .70a/r would be the preferred one but this Full-Race maifold with that .70 turbine housing didn't allow the A/C to remain in the car. The Shearer manifold should allow the clearance but I haven't verified it yet.

8UpUrV8

iTrader: (9)

Hope you have good results with the cast Magnus!

If you had the time to do a stock ported vs. cast or sheetmetal Magnus, that would give you some good clarification!