BR, 2.4, high hp/high rpm build?
I see you only pushed it to 7500 rpm in the other thread with the dyno sheet due to the smaller turbo and tuning on it from what I read.
Can we expect you put will be putting a turbo on it to properly show it being capable of 900+hp and 9k rpm? Dont mean to sound like a dick but thats the point right. Big power and RPM.
Can we expect you put will be putting a turbo on it to properly show it being capable of 900+hp and 9k rpm? Dont mean to sound like a dick but thats the point right. Big power and RPM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: Midwest
On a side note I dont see it likely this turbo holds consistant power to 9k as you see it already peaking and falling in the dyno to only 7500. Could timing changes in the tune carry is a bit further, sure... but I expect it will still be falling off long before 9k rpm which makes revving it out much further kinda un-ness. Something maybe the 2nd quoted comment from Bushur eludes to.
Sematics aside, the jist of my post was to ask if there will be some testing to come very soon that would be a little more exciting/ revealing than something already being done by a good number of other stroker motors. This seems to be a motor intended to be more in the realm of what AMS has done with the 2.3RR motor, which have proven to take things to another level over the normal stroker and what I am hoping this 2.4 motor will be aiming at testing to achieve right off the bat. Which is what I am hoping to see after the expectations sewn by this thread to this point had me so anxious for those results.
Last edited by twkdcd595; Jan 8, 2010 at 09:15 AM.
Its not what I would consider anything but a small frame turbo. Regardless if we put aside my personal opinion of its size, its not what turbo anyone I know would think of to use for a 900+hp 9k rpm build.
...
The first part of the above quoted is what I was basing my comment about when I stated the tune not being there, albiet he states it possibly had fuel issues as well which obviously affects tuning. The turbo part of my comment is explained above.
On a side note I dont see it likely this turbo holds consistant power to 9k as you see it already peaking and falling in the dyno to only 7500. Could timing changes in the tune carry is a bit further, sure... but I expect it will still be falling off long before 9k rpm which makes revving it out much further kinda un-ness. Something maybe the 2nd quoted comment from Bushur eludes to.
Sematics aside, the jist of my post was to ask if there will be some testing to come very soon that would be a little more exciting/ revealing than something already being done by a good number of other stroker motors. This seems to be a motor intended to be more in the realm of what AMS has done with the 2.3RR motor, which have proven to take things to another level over a standard stroker and what I am hoping this 2.4 motor will be aiming at testing to achieve right off the bat.
...
BTW, there will be no reason for a build at this power level to go to the 9,000 rpm that it is expected to hold up to.
On a side note I dont see it likely this turbo holds consistant power to 9k as you see it already peaking and falling in the dyno to only 7500. Could timing changes in the tune carry is a bit further, sure... but I expect it will still be falling off long before 9k rpm which makes revving it out much further kinda un-ness. Something maybe the 2nd quoted comment from Bushur eludes to.
Sematics aside, the jist of my post was to ask if there will be some testing to come very soon that would be a little more exciting/ revealing than something already being done by a good number of other stroker motors. This seems to be a motor intended to be more in the realm of what AMS has done with the 2.3RR motor, which have proven to take things to another level over a standard stroker and what I am hoping this 2.4 motor will be aiming at testing to achieve right off the bat.
add: it probably will start to fall off slightly on a 2.4 setup as it reaches 9k though. - and i see what you're saying. you wanted to see the big boy setup, not this..
Last edited by tscompusa2; Jan 8, 2010 at 09:23 AM.
Can we expect you put will be putting a turbo on it to properly show it being capable of the 900+hp and 9k rpm you put an emphasis on? Dont mean to sound like a dick but thats the point right... big power and RPM capable. Seems like you would want to make that the priority to test what its purpose built to achieve instead of the FP red/ stock ecu/ etc. build.
If you read this thread, you would notice that this motor was originally built for me and I was going to install either a HTA3586 or a PTE6765 on it and take it to 9k and about 700whp on E85 on BR's dyno.
A couple months ago, I decided to take the plunge and buy a house and therefore had to put the new car plans on hold for a little bit. This was already after David had built the motor for me. I feel extremely bad about putting David in the position of finding a new customer to test this, but some priorities have to take precedence. So if there is anyone to blame for this thread not meeting your "expectations", blame me. But there's no need to be a douche about it.
Hopefully in a few months the house situation will calm down and I can go back to the original plan I mentioned above.
i assure you a fp red WILL hold powerband until 9k EASILY if the mods are there.... you're acting like the fp red is a 16g, when its more comparable to a gt35r. of course its not good for much over 600whp.... I don't think that they are doing the big setup with Rogue's car, that was more for the other guy (slorice).
add: it probably will start to fall off slightly on a 2.4 setup as it reaches 9k though. - and i see what you're saying. you wanted to see the big boy setup, not this..
add: it probably will start to fall off slightly on a 2.4 setup as it reaches 9k though. - and i see what you're saying. you wanted to see the big boy setup, not this..
I dont' think a red can hold the power to 9k on a high revving 2.4. There's just to much air being flowed for the stock turbine housing. I have no doubts a 2.4 can spin that high, i've had a few 2.4L 100mm crank k24 honda motors do it no problem. Good flowing head, big cams and a big turbine wheel/turbine housing
I dont' think a red can hold the power to 9k on a high revving 2.4. There's just to much air being flowed for the stock turbine housing. I have no doubts a 2.4 can spin that high, i've had a few 2.4L 100mm crank k24 honda motors do it no problem. Good flowing head, big cams and a big turbine wheel/turbine housing
most of the time its not needed...i do have a few friends that have 9.4-9.6 second street honda's that trap in the mid 160's and they need to rev to ~11,000 ish to finish in 4th...kinda crazy lol
thats nuts.... this guy said he was trapping upper 130's. it was a gutted out hatch it had to of weight only 2100lbs at the most. AWD wooped his ***, but his car had *****.
I had picked up some bad gas(my fault) - It made tuning it a *****. It will be fixed monday and reloaded on the dyno.
And I was under the assumption that the change from Mustang to DJ was more like 12%.
433/444 = 492/504
And I was under the assumption that the change from Mustang to DJ was more like 12%.
433/444 = 492/504
no its not that much of a difference.. its about 40whp over what ive seen. I loaded my logs in virtual dyno and i was within 30-40whp diff from iveys dynojet vs buschurs mustang. iveys dyno numbers were spot on with evoM's dyno numbers. the dynojet numbers in that java program are inflated to hell. so 477/488 - still a beast of a car. i hope my 2.3 can do this at low boost like your car is.