this thread is really left short changed without the previous graph for comparison. how much loss of spool was there?

 

As soon as this new chart is in their online dyno database we'll be able to directly compare the overlays. From the printed charts I have here doing a little tracing the loss of spool appears to be ~400 RPM. From previous testing performed by MAP they've shown their anti-surge ports to cause about 200 RPM loss of spool. If I'm able to gain 200 of the 400 back I'll be very satisfied with this turbo. They sent me both covers to try out since this is the first EF2.5 they've created. I've done all their EF2 and now EF2.5 protoype testing so when it's all said and done we'll have great information since it's all from the same car, dyno, tuner, and fuel. This is the first time I've had an anti-surge cover turbo on this car so it'll be a learning experience to see what, if anything, changes, and we'll have actual data to back it up.

If you want to see my previous charts though, they're posted all over this forum in my dyno results threads, my build thread, and of course on Cobb's dyno database website.

Actual road conditions though, this turbo is very fun. I raped a Porsche Carrera S coming back from an early dinner with the g/f so that was fun...poor guy seemed upset Like I've said, spool and response is a bit down from what I'd prefer, but once it picks up steam the car pulls really well.

 

This is a really nice improvement.

 

Thank you. I think after a few tweaks this turbo will be a real contender and fit nicely in their turbo lineup.

 

Very nice results!

 

400rpm loss of spool aint worth it for 13hp gain. but will wait for better data. their have been many who switched to ported cover on the red. no other changes. no one reported 200 rpm spool loss. that would be very noticeable loss of spool. some reported faster spool, but no dyno data was ever posted

 

Frickin sweet numbers! Ricer dyno math says you're knocking on the door of my BBX pump gas numbers...which reminds me, your stock MAF housing must be flat-lining up top. Probably fine.

I wouldn't want to run this setup on anything but pump gas unless you kept the boost at the same level, the stock block needs to stay in one piece please

 

I hope to have something concrete for us to examine within a few weeks. Hopefully sooner...gotta look at my calendar and talk to Cobb.
I bet you're probably right, my stock MAF has to be at the limit; I'll have to do some logs to check my IDC % and MAF voltage. I agree fully on the stock block needing to remain intact, E85 is off the table as a regular use fuel...maybe I'll whip out a few dyno queen runs sometime to get higher on Cobb's leader board though I believe this current setup should put me around the #10 Mitsubishi slot.

 

Very good numbers on stock cams setup. E85 is some good stuff. Wish i had it available in Canada

 

They might be running the MAF sensor up to a certain PSI then switching to MAP sensor. I am sure if Cobb tuned you, it should be pretty safe.

Nice numbers!!!

 

that doesnt tell the whole story once he can over lay both dyno sheets we will be able to see what really matters, power under the curve and the entire powerband vs ef2.

 

 

^EF2 all the way based on that chart lol.

I agree I don't think the other cover will do much but it might make the change worth while. It seems the EF2 wheels are a better match and the results above could easily be different temp/weather changes.

So this just appears that the EF2.5 added lag without any payoff.

 

Temps/weather were roughly the same; 70's and dry.

 

I'm discussing with MAP and we have a few ideas on changes to try. This is why it's called prototype testing I suppose

Step one will be to try out the standard cover and see how that compares, those results will determine where we go from there...