ETS 3586HTA- A tuners perspective
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
ETS 3586HTA- A tuners perspective
After some deliberating this winter on exactly what turbo kit I wanted to put on my personal car, JR of ETS and Scott of FP helped me zero in on the 3586. Obviously this has been a popular choice for many as of late, and I thought that knowing what it would be capable of is always good from the tuning standpoint.
I am still not 100% done with my 2.2 LR build, but I couldnt stand looking at the box of goodies piled up in my corner of the shop so on the turbo went. Thursday afternoon we had it done so on the dyno it went. Now at this point some are probably cringing thinking why is Aaron trying to destroy a perfectly good stock bottom end. Using a tuning approach that some might employ and I had picked up from our Honda tuner, I started some WG pulls to see where the AFRs were and how close I was going to be maxing out the 1000s.
I knew I wasnt going to have enough fuel for this turbo on E85 so I made the switch back to STRAIGHT 92 octane with no additional octane boost. 374whp at 16psi straight of the box. Because I use the MAFT Pro for speed density conversion on my stock ECU, it ended up in some low load cells I never saw on the stock turbo. Some quick tweaking and I got everything squared away and started cranking the boost.
Since I am going to do open road racing with this Evo, spool wasnt my primary concern, keeping backpressure and EGTs down was more important.
This is the list:
ETS 3586HTA (FP provided of course) single scroll kit
ETS 3.5" exhaust
ETS 4" intercooler and piping
stock intake manifold
stock computer
GSC S2 MIVEC cams
FP Beehive valve springs
RC1000s
Modded 255HO Walbro
92 octane
Now here is how it overlays with the stock turbo:
I will post up the rest of the dyno comparisons at various boost levels when I get back from my Mother's Day trip this weekend. This was at 26psi peak with 10% fuel left according to EvoScan.
Some other interesting numbers it generated:
374/291 @ 16psi
423/315 @ 20psi
437/329 @ 22psi
455/349 @ 24psi
482/361 @ 26psi
504/365 @ 28psi
At 504whp/365 ft lbs. and still had 5% more fuel out the top on the 1000s.
The timing is conservative and I havent gone back and played with the MIVEC table yet to see what I can coax out of this behemoth. When the 2.2 is done, I will be throwing an AEM, Magnus Dual rail, 4 more 1000s, and go back to E85 and really turn up the volume knob.
Right now with the timing only 1* at peak torque and 9* out the top I really feel there is plenty more left even on pumpgas. In an attempt to make the stock block stay together I am not tuning crazy (YET), but I think there is an easy 40-50whp with more timing. It responds very well to boost (something like 20whp a pound with no timing added) and I have no doubt it will be the same with timing. It was interesting to note that the car moved the powerband to 7900 on the 504whp pull despite the fact that there wasnt any knock on either of the 482 runs (peaked at 7700).
Aaron
I am still not 100% done with my 2.2 LR build, but I couldnt stand looking at the box of goodies piled up in my corner of the shop so on the turbo went. Thursday afternoon we had it done so on the dyno it went. Now at this point some are probably cringing thinking why is Aaron trying to destroy a perfectly good stock bottom end. Using a tuning approach that some might employ and I had picked up from our Honda tuner, I started some WG pulls to see where the AFRs were and how close I was going to be maxing out the 1000s.
I knew I wasnt going to have enough fuel for this turbo on E85 so I made the switch back to STRAIGHT 92 octane with no additional octane boost. 374whp at 16psi straight of the box. Because I use the MAFT Pro for speed density conversion on my stock ECU, it ended up in some low load cells I never saw on the stock turbo. Some quick tweaking and I got everything squared away and started cranking the boost.
Since I am going to do open road racing with this Evo, spool wasnt my primary concern, keeping backpressure and EGTs down was more important.
This is the list:
ETS 3586HTA (FP provided of course) single scroll kit
ETS 3.5" exhaust
ETS 4" intercooler and piping
stock intake manifold
stock computer
GSC S2 MIVEC cams
FP Beehive valve springs
RC1000s
Modded 255HO Walbro
92 octane
Now here is how it overlays with the stock turbo:
I will post up the rest of the dyno comparisons at various boost levels when I get back from my Mother's Day trip this weekend. This was at 26psi peak with 10% fuel left according to EvoScan.
Some other interesting numbers it generated:
374/291 @ 16psi
423/315 @ 20psi
437/329 @ 22psi
455/349 @ 24psi
482/361 @ 26psi
504/365 @ 28psi
At 504whp/365 ft lbs. and still had 5% more fuel out the top on the 1000s.
The timing is conservative and I havent gone back and played with the MIVEC table yet to see what I can coax out of this behemoth. When the 2.2 is done, I will be throwing an AEM, Magnus Dual rail, 4 more 1000s, and go back to E85 and really turn up the volume knob.
Right now with the timing only 1* at peak torque and 9* out the top I really feel there is plenty more left even on pumpgas. In an attempt to make the stock block stay together I am not tuning crazy (YET), but I think there is an easy 40-50whp with more timing. It responds very well to boost (something like 20whp a pound with no timing added) and I have no doubt it will be the same with timing. It was interesting to note that the car moved the powerband to 7900 on the 504whp pull despite the fact that there wasnt any knock on either of the 482 runs (peaked at 7700).
Aaron
Last edited by JohnBradley; May 13, 2009 at 08:42 AM.
Newbie
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Where are you seeing this? "It responds very well to boost (something like 20whp a pound with no timing added)". Based on your results, it's close to 20whp per TWO pounds.
440/315 @ 22psi
455/332 @ 24psi
482/361 @ 26psi
504/365 @ 28psi
440/315 @ 22psi
455/332 @ 24psi
482/361 @ 26psi
504/365 @ 28psi
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Sorry for the confusion.
Aaron
Last edited by JohnBradley; May 11, 2009 at 08:18 AM.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Anything else would be stupid according to FPs description :P
That and Scott and I talked about the turbo for what I am going to be doing with the car so I got the one I needed
I am also going to start playing with the MIVEC now and seeing what I can get done to help it out a little. I am not too worried about the spool to be honest as on the street the car feels really good.
aaron
That and Scott and I talked about the turbo for what I am going to be doing with the car so I got the one I needed
I am also going to start playing with the MIVEC now and seeing what I can get done to help it out a little. I am not too worried about the spool to be honest as on the street the car feels really good.aaron
Last edited by JohnBradley; May 11, 2009 at 08:36 PM.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Now up to 531/396 at 29psi and reasonable timing on 92 octane. I think that is about all there is in it though. If I up the timing it wants to knock and pulls more than if I had just left it low, but either way it wants to backfire.
Going to leave it alone and call it a day on poor little stock block.
Going to leave it alone and call it a day on poor little stock block.
