Keith-PURE Tuning

iTrader: (1)

Borg Warner S259 Dyno Results.

Test were performed on our Mustang Dynamometer MD-1100-AWD-SE.

Car: 2003 Evo 8
Engine: 2.0L
Fuel: 93 octane / 118 octane
Turbo: Borg Warner S259 / Open T3 .55ar Stainless Turbine Housing
Intake Manifold: Magnus (Street)
Cams: HKS 272
Max Boost: 23psi on 93oct / 37psi on 118oct
Atmospheric Temp: 76Deg
Relative Humidity: 5.7%



We will be testing the Kelford Cams and the New Magnus Intake Manifold on this car and will post the results when finished.

MR Turco

iTrader: (16)

so on 93 it only made 350? seems like low #s and boost. It is a monster with the 118 but seems useless for the street.

sabastian458

iTrader: (25)

350 tq- 438 hp. low tq.


seems ok, you get about the same hp but more tq out of a 30r tho.

ForcedPerformance

iTrader: (6)

.55 A/R turbine housing? Is that a typo?

Keith-PURE Tuning

iTrader: (1)

Nope.

jouniu

What is the idea of this setup? .55 A/R sounds like a joke. This can't perform well.

mrdevo

iTrader: (4)

So this reads similarly to a dynojet? Would the car have made more power up top at slightly less boost, it seems that after 7400 the turbos run similar? Heat generated?

Keith-PURE Tuning

iTrader: (1)

No the tq is spot on for the the cars setup and a Mustang Dyno. Tq isn't going to vary much from two similar framed turbos. The cars setup will vary the tq more. This will be shown when we use different cams and intake manifold a little later in the month.
Different dynos will read different though giving a misconception, so you have to compare and use the proper reference.


Thought I would post some pictures of the engine bay.

Dragracer187

iTrader: (1)

nice setup, where are the 2 hoses coming from the valve cover going to? catchcan? any pics of that?

Keith-PURE Tuning

iTrader: (1)

No Dynojet 248's / 224's read 8-10% higher whp than Mustang Dynos. We have tested this on on the 2WD configuration but not the AWD but I'm sure this won't vary by much.

I would have to look at some of the logs to see if the heat went up drastically enough to cause a loss of power but I highly doubt it did. Again the cars supporting parts including motor design will determine the power layout more than the turbo. I am not a big fan of the cams or the intake manifold that were chosen for the car so we wil be looking to get rid of the engines weaknesses asap. Just thought we would toss up the initial graph for initial viewing.

Keith-PURE Tuning

iTrader: (1)

Doesn't perform well? The dyno graph is up for viewing. Not sure what else you need?

We were going to use a .70 A/R but with this turbo and manifold there was no way to make the downpipe clear the A/C so .55 won by default.

Keith-PURE Tuning

iTrader: (1)

Catch Can is on my to do list but I haven't gotten to that yet.

MR Turco

iTrader: (16)

I guess for street i dont see the point of this setup. You make the same power with less lag on a IX turbo.

sabastian458

iTrader: (25)

well, I kinda spoke a lil too soon for my personal experiance. DDL shows I am at 431whp and 401 tq. Another friends car made 420's on pump on a 2.0 last year on a 30r

On the other hand, I didnt think to acount for the .55 housing. I have never heard of 1 that small. I and my friend ran the .82 housing, which might have contributed to the difference in results


Car looks sick tho.

Steve93Talon

iTrader: (5)

Seems to spool late for the .55 housing. Curious why you didn't use the .70 T3 housing? I'd love to see a BW S200 series with the divided T3 housing on a divided manifold, should outspool the other housings with more top end.