Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

Many thanks David and Tim for the input. I've been at aroud 300 BHP before on my previous MY95 WRX with uprated TMIC, ScoobyECU @ 16.5 psi etc.

Family circumstances meant the wagon as a runaround, and runs around it does well, apart from losing oil on over run. My thoughts are to slowly upgrade on a budget and only do the engine when it needs a rebuild. I fancy the FMIC route purely because it was a PITA doing a MY99 TMIC on a phase 1 inlet manifold, and I just fancy going FMIC this time!

I've got a(nother) ScoobyECU on order with Paul that will hopefully suit the TD04 on it at the mo - when it arrives I'll see how my oil consuption goes and take it from there.

When it comes to a rebuild the insurance company may be the deciding factor regarding 2.0 or 2.5 litre.

regarding going FE and using inlet spacers, is there other work involved, as in moving fuel pipes, bonnet not closing etc

CustomScoobyIOM

ROFLPSML!

What a car that would be!

Donations of 6 speed gearboxes, diffs, driveshafts, valve springs etc most welcome

Got to get the up and down pipes made for that first. 2.65 Litre is being run in as we speak.

CustomScoobyIOM

P.S Can I be the first to say my car won't achieve 800bhp (Beat you all!)

Lucky to get 500bhp!

David_Wallis

certainly an odd exhaust housing to get 650bhp.

R19KET

Jon,

Why on earth not ? 2.65lt, 650bhp turbo, 500bhp + should be a piece of cake.

Mark.

R19KET

Compression for EJ257 using 1.4mm head gaskets, and early heads ONLY.

Compression:

Swept volume:

49.75 x 49.75 x 3.14 x 79 = 614 cubic cc's.

Unswept volume (1.4mm Head gasket):

50 x 50 x 3.14 x 1.4 = 11 cubic cc's.

Unswept volume (piston compression height)

49.75 x 49.75 x 3.14 x .3 = 2.3 cubic cc's.

Unswept volume (combustion space MY 92-96)

46.5 cubic cc's.

Unswept volume: (piston dish)

22 cubic cc's.


Total unswept: 11 + 2.3 + 46.5 + 22 = 81.8cc's

614 + 81.8 = 695.8 divided by 81.8 = 8.50:1

Mapped correctly, and without going crazy on the boost, the standard EJ257 is fine at 8.5:1 compression.

Mark.

CustomScoobyIOM

Most people have said that. Bought the bugger now so might as well use it

It's a Subaru, fights you all the soddin' way and nothing is ever a piece of cake as you know Mark

With regards to compression i'm running 9:1. Why? Don't ask....

Andy.F

Nothing wrong with 9:1 Jon (assuming you have adj cams ?) I run 8.8 and wish I'd gone higher !
If your turbo is the one I think it is with the DSM housing then it is a proven performer and should not disappoint.

CustomScoobyIOM

Andy - Yes I do.

Will send some pics shortly to your email account.

David_Wallis

it is the dsm housing

R19KET

Jon,

Getting the power isn't the problem, and hasn't been for some time now.

You've got a big engine, big turbo, and assuming it's all put together correctly, it should walk 500bhp.

How long it stays together, is another thing !

Have Axis solved the issues they had with the 2.65's ?

Mark.

Scoob+Bike=Fun

dont want you all to start laughing at me, but hyper sports and racing, very reputable, maybe not in the scooby scene, but mainly do one off's ( www.hypersr.com ) have said that 800-900bhp shouldnt be a problem for them with an ej25, i didn't ask how much it would cost though!

They have done a great job with mine, costing me around 5k in total to do the conversion on my '95 STI RA

so i guess 500 isnt a problem!

Tim W

iTrader: (1)

I'm sure that they think it's possible, and if they did do it the engine might even last the for all of a 1/4 of a mile, and the 8.5 seconds that it takes to travel it

I would be very concerned about any company making such claims, especially one who haven't really got the experience with Subaru engines and tuning them.

It's almost as good as a certain other company (who will remain nameless) saying, admittedly a few years ago now, that they could change the rods and pistons on an Impreza without taking the engine out, just by dropping the sump...a fundemental lack of knowledge shown there on the contruction of the boxer engine

CustomScoobyIOM

Ah yes good point Mark. Staying together is always a bonus!

Wouldn't know on the Axis problems. My short engine is from Crawford Performance built by Quirt Crawford.

R19KET

Thank goodness for that !

Mark.

David_Wallis

how does it feel anyway?

CustomScoobyIOM

The engine is currently being run in, in the Legacy at the moment. 1500 miles and gave it a bit of boost on the TD05 turbo. Very torquey compared to the 2.0 but we all know that anyway. Fantastic to drive.

P650 need up and down pipes making again. Was going to do it on the Legacy but the STI8 has 6 speed box, so prototyping on the Legacy is pointless.

Slowly gettnig there no rush!

richto

Not sure what the problem was with the 2.65 but they changed the pistons on the 2.5s to avoid ring land damage issues.

Andy.F

I think the problem Quirt had was with the 2.8, which IIRC snapped the crank !

tweenierob

Rob

Mark A

iTrader: (1)

Wooh

First time I've seen Rolling Road Rage.

vulnax999

iTrader: (7)

LOL

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Hi Rob : Thanks for your interesting post. Silly boy. ALS and 2.3 bar All part of the learning process. I see you are running 4 bar fuel pressure at atmospheric which will help with the 380`s but I expect you are pushing the limit on them. With your knowledge, experience and skill you are obviously able to get away with things that are beyond the average reader.
Please do not misunderstand my position. For an everyday road car I have no doubt that the 2.5 will be a pleasure to drive with noticably more torque and much lower down. However I made a conscious decision to continue with the 2 litre because I am interested to see how far it can be taken reliably and when I have achieved what I want from 2 litres it will be time to look at a bigger capacity which may or may not be 2.5 litres.
While I am sure a 2.5 with medium mods will make a nice car I think there is a lot to learn before the full power potential reaches that of the 2 litres. There have already been quite a few broken engines at medium power output and there will be lots more as the learning process continues. Good luck with your own car.
FYI there was never any problem with foot flat on the floor in 5th gear at 1700 rpm with gearing somewhere around 23 mph per 1000.

Conrad : How long ago was it ? Yes you kindly gave me directions for Scoobymanias new premises. I was just checking it wasn't some imposter because the Conrad I met seemed uncertain as to the best course of action whereas the Conrad behind the keyboard comes over as a great technical expert
JB : WTF has that got to do with anything ? I am happily doing my own thing which is obviously different to your thing but you have to make comparisons with my results and turbo and tell me you know I never made 585 bhp.
You are talking crap and insulting the professionalism of Barry and Ian who run the Well Lane Rolling Road.
Cooling : At Well Lane I can go on the rollers with throttle body temperatures around 40 degrees from heat soak in the knowledge that the temperature during the run will typically be in the teens or low 20's.
At G-Force the temperature also comes down but not as dramatically.
At Power Engineering the temperatures rise quite alarmingly. When I was there on a rolling road day my runs were aborted because of increasing temperatures and I was called back on an hour or so later. It was a hot day but on every visit I have made there temperatures have risen.
If I were Well Lane I would be upset by your wild, unfounded and completely untrue post.

From memory I have run on seven 4 wheel drive rolling roads so I think I have more experience than most. I don't know anybody else who has put the effort into comparing rolling roads as I have. On one occasion I ran at Well Lane, G-Force and Power Engineering within a 36 hour period so I know what these rolling roads are capable of.
At rolling road events at Well Lane, G-Force and Power Engineering my Subaru has always been the most powerful up to that time and from memory that may also have been the situation at Star. I am sure you will correct me.
The 585 bhp at Well Lane was against Skylines, etc. and Well Lane said it was the most powerful car they had ever had on their rollers. On the same day my '95 WRX Wagon with a catted exhaust, K+N filter and chip did 250 bhp 260 ft.lbs and I did not hear anybody say the results were over the top.
Why can I not infer anything from my run at Prosport ? 499 ft.lbs. No sign of slip and anyway if there was slip would it not give a lower reading ?
Yeah, right - that's why you went out and bought one !!!!
My results and acheivements speak for themself and my next development of the new engine will do likewise. You are the guy taking the fall. You are blaming the turbo and Well Lane rollers. Maybe you should consider that you are not as clever as you make out with 11,500 posts or whatever it is.
How can you compare a 2 litre engine with a 2.5 litre engine. It is like comparing apples with oranges. You seem to think that we have similar specs so we should have similar results. Does this not show how naive you are ? I could go into this at great length but there are better things to do that sit in front of a screen in futile debate. How can you compare a GT30R with an Ion ? When I bought the Ion many of the experts were commenting on how big it was, how laggy it would be (BTW for me it spools at exactly the same point as the TD05-06 but you seem to have it set up laggy) and how undrivable the car would be. It is like comparing oranges with lemons. The Ion was a big step forward when I got it and it was a direct replacement bar some dressing of the block. The GT30R requires different up-pipe and down-pipe so it is quite a different proposition. Absolutely no doubt it is a very good turbo though. Like I said comparing oranges and lemons.
Not quite sure what you are on about but I am not here to bench mark anything for you, just doing my own thing and I will run whatever fuel, mods, settings etc. I feel like without reference to you.
This all came about because you wanted to bring me and the Ion turbo into it.
You made reference to Steven Darleys times. I don't carry these figures in my head but I think the time difference was .4 seconds and the power difference about 140 bhp. .4 seconds is light years on the drag strip and Steven has consistently acheived far better starts than me for the 60 foot typically quarter of a second, ( I must be getting too old).
Well you are of course entitled to your own opinion but there is clearly a lot more to mapping than 11.5-1 AFR and ignition on boost just shy of detonation. Obviously if you can't get the results it is easy to blame the rollers and the turbo. Still doesn't explain how I got circa 585 bhp on a number of occasions over a ten day period when I was aiming for 600 bhp which eluded me.
You might think that but I don't. For a start did you just bolt it on ?

Paul : I admire your achievements with the 2.5 and you know how happy I was for you when you got into the 10's when we were at Elvington. Not many people can get high power out of a 2.5 at present and hold it together. I know, you know the difference between oranges and lemons and everybody knows the differences between apples and oranges
Anyway, there has to be a bit of common sense. I recall on one occasion when I was at G-Force, on their rollers that eliminated slip (if you remember their claims) that I got 600 odd bhp. I wish I had a camera for the look on some peoples face but obviously we discounted the result for obvious reasons and it took several tries before we were able to tie the car down satisfactorily. Much the same has happened to you at Power Engineering I would imagine.
From memory I think I had 533 bhp and about 420 ft.lbs and I returned six weeks later to another rolling road day with 200+ Club to do 585 bhp at 464 ft.lbs. Same turbo and exhaust but I am not aware I have ever said anything about the cam timing or fuel. It is not a matter of believing a good figure because as I have already explained I had several runs around that power level in a ten day period.
Anyway, you could always take your car to Well Lane and compare it with PE. That would be helpful. I already offered JB £100 towards his fuel and overnight accomodation to run at Well Lane but I see the offer hasn't been taken up. Hardly surprising.
Referring to your last post I have already explained my thoughts on the 2.5 engine being a good torquey everyday performer and I expect it to be reliable with mild modifications so it definately has a place and it will evolve in time.
FYI all my power runs have been in 4th gear except at G-Force where they want to use 3rd gear.

T-UK : Hi John. I am sure I can run the new engine at Dastek when it is fully debugged and I will have no problem letting you know in advance but that will be into next year.
You have misinterpreted the situation with regards to Dastek special day. JB was not trying to out do me, your words but he did say some time ago that he was wanting to "benchmark" my turbo.
Thanks for the invite to Dastek on 30th October. I would like to come but I will not know if I will be here until sometime during that week.

It amazes me how some guys have to go to the far end of a fa4t before deciding what turbo or mod to carry out without the conviction of their own beliefs. I have been quite happy to go my own way with confidence in my own assessments and shoulder whatever risks there might be. I was lucky with the last turbo, so much so I have bought another one. Some people might like to spend a lot of time extrapolating results with differing capacities, boost, fuel etc. etc. postulating and surmising. If they get the results good luck to them but I just do what I think is right and see if it works.

Anyway, you guys have fun, whatever turns you on I will just get on with what I am happily doing.

tweenierob

It wasnt too bad tbh, could get as high as 9.8:1 @1.5bar.. maybe lucky i suppose...
Lucky they didnt split

2.3bar was spike on ALS gearchange, got it sorted and then... Bang cant say it was unexpected..

Rob

David_Wallis

I beat your torque figure when you got 419

M0NEY

lol at rob, bloody nutter!

All this talk about apples/oranges and lemons has made me hungry. Lunch time. lol

Maddog

Know what you mean, what with cars that drive like a peach and things then go pear shaped!

john banks

My long and boring reply is here if anyone is interested:

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthrea...68#post3866968

Enjoy your rolling road day gents

sturu

right so have we tracked down the cost and what is needed what comp ratio should be rrun etc got lost when the fight kicked of and lost where i was in the tread can some one please post a list of parts needed to hit a reralible 450or more from a 2.5

john banks

It is not established that you can run 450 or more reliably long term on the 2.5 yet, you can change the pistons which I would recommend if pushing it, as I cracked the edge of one when doing so chasing 500 BHP, but no one has proven they can hold the heads on yet. I'm now running a daily boost setting that gives about 400, and a high boost setting that I use only occasionally that does about 440. Compression ratio with ported STi5/6/P1 heads and thin 0.6-0.8mm EJ257 gaskets should be about 8.6:1 which I'm happy with. The EJ257 is not a proven high power engine, and it looks to me that it is a good option for cheaply running up to the low-mid 400s BHP and similar torque without running silly boost. It is quiet, doesn't use oil and relatively cheap to replace.

Parts required are simply the usual parts to produce whatever power you want to produce. In this respect, the 2.5 is no different. Just need the short motor, headgaskets, oil, coolant, labour, mapping, gearbox and clutch to take the torque, otherwise it is the same as producing power on another engine size. See the other thread I've posted in which shows how on the 20G the peak power is virtually identical on the same octane and spec between 2.0 and 2.5. It is the torque delivery that changes dramatically, car feels far quicker, far more usable power, more area under the curve, quicker point to point, more relaxing, more flexible etc, but no more peak power which is what everyone (IMHO mistakenly) gets excited about.