Explain the MD321 turbo?
20 March 2009, 08:47 AM
#155
Couldnt believe my eyes when this popped up this morning.... How wrong I was 
For irony's sake I tried the FP Green and FP HTA Green and now on the MD321V and it beats them both for response, spool up, torque, bhp and reliability all the way up the range.
It just shows that saving money short term to buy a cheaper alternative in order to get the peak figures (the green made 465bhp on mine) is only part of the story. There is so much more to a turbo/engine than peak figures. Buy one turbo and buy the right one.
For irony's sake I tried the FP Green and FP HTA Green and now on the MD321V and it beats them both for response, spool up, torque, bhp and reliability all the way up the range.
It just shows that saving money short term to buy a cheaper alternative in order to get the peak figures (the green made 465bhp on mine) is only part of the story. There is so much more to a turbo/engine than peak figures. Buy one turbo and buy the right one.
21 March 2009, 12:56 AM
#159
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ECU Mapping - www.JollyGreenMonster.co.uk
Posts: 16,548
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Couldnt believe my eyes when this popped up this morning.... How wrong I was
For irony's sake I tried the FP Green and FP HTA Green and now on the MD321V and it beats them both for response, spool up, torque, bhp and reliability all the way up the range.
It just shows that saving money short term to buy a cheaper alternative in order to get the peak figures (the green made 465bhp on mine) is only part of the story. There is so much more to a turbo/engine than peak figures. Buy one turbo and buy the right one.
For irony's sake I tried the FP Green and FP HTA Green and now on the MD321V and it beats them both for response, spool up, torque, bhp and reliability all the way up the range.
It just shows that saving money short term to buy a cheaper alternative in order to get the peak figures (the green made 465bhp on mine) is only part of the story. There is so much more to a turbo/engine than peak figures. Buy one turbo and buy the right one.
Simon
08 April 2009, 04:46 PM
#160
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South East
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
out of interest, what size is the compressor outlet on the 321's?
and is the V in the middle of the H & T in size/power?
Steve
and is the V in the middle of the H & T in size/power?
Steve
Last edited by ScoobyDuck; 08 April 2009 at 04:47 PM.
08 April 2009, 08:23 PM
#163
I've just had a thought...
I want to get 350/350 and would like to replace my TD05 16g (possibly).
However, that said, if my goals change in the future, then the hassle and expense of keeping changing turbos doesn't really float my boat, so would a MD321H be okay? (it'll easily make 350 as it's a 400 turbo). I'm basically looking to 'future proof' myself with a "one-stop shop" choice of turbo, and the H would seem to bridge the gap nicely between 350 and - possibly, later on - 400.
...BUT... will it still spool about the same - or at worst, a shade slower - as my 16g? Or, being a 400-rated turbo, would it be uneccessarily laggy for only a 350 goal and, therefore, not really recommended?
I want to get 350/350 and would like to replace my TD05 16g (possibly).
However, that said, if my goals change in the future, then the hassle and expense of keeping changing turbos doesn't really float my boat, so would a MD321H be okay? (it'll easily make 350 as it's a 400 turbo). I'm basically looking to 'future proof' myself with a "one-stop shop" choice of turbo, and the H would seem to bridge the gap nicely between 350 and - possibly, later on - 400.
...BUT... will it still spool about the same - or at worst, a shade slower - as my 16g? Or, being a 400-rated turbo, would it be uneccessarily laggy for only a 350 goal and, therefore, not really recommended?
08 April 2009, 09:44 PM
#164
It is a 400 bhp turbo.
As good as it is, it cannot (and nor can any other) spool as quickly as a pint-sized 16g.
For 350 there are plenty of much cheaper options but really depends on what you want to drive. 400bhp is an awful lot - don't forget that.
As good as it is, it cannot (and nor can any other) spool as quickly as a pint-sized 16g.
For 350 there are plenty of much cheaper options but really depends on what you want to drive. 400bhp is an awful lot - don't forget that.
08 April 2009, 10:28 PM
#167
I can get 2 bar at 3000 and I have run 2.4 bar through it. Sounds pretty special at that boost I can tell you and the seat feels like it is gonna break off the hinges.
Most of the time I peak at 2 bar and tail to 1.8 top end or run it on lower boost (1.5 bar) to save myself the temptation
Most of the time I peak at 2 bar and tail to 1.8 top end or run it on lower boost (1.5 bar) to save myself the temptation
Last edited by dynamix; 08 April 2009 at 10:32 PM.
09 April 2009, 08:14 AM
#168
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Slowly rebuilding the kit of bits into a car...
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Joz, to repeat myself, I reckon the H needs a forged motor to give it's best, my std STI is on 390 bhp but this is at 1.5 bar, turbo can easily manage 2 bar.
HTH
dunx
HTH
dunx
10 April 2009, 04:23 PM
#169
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Poole, Dorset
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can get 2 bar at 3000 and I have run 2.4 bar through it. Sounds pretty special at that boost I can tell you and the seat feels like it is gonna break off the hinges.
Most of the time I peak at 2 bar and tail to 1.8 top end or run it on lower boost (1.5 bar) to save myself the temptation
Most of the time I peak at 2 bar and tail to 1.8 top end or run it on lower boost (1.5 bar) to save myself the temptation
10 April 2009, 10:24 PM
#171
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Also known as The Gimp
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought I'd add my results to this thread.
Made 402.5bhp - 359lbft following my map with Simon at SRR Tuesday.
OEM TMIC
MD321T
Forge recirc DV (RED spring and shim)
Fuelab regulator
Walbro 255 fuel pump.
RCM Team Ice 3" with Sports Cat exhaust system.
Lateral 3 bolt headers and up-pipe
Hyperflow cold air feed
V-Power with 100mls of NF
550 Pinks (was at 90% duty)
Steve
Made 402.5bhp - 359lbft following my map with Simon at SRR Tuesday.
OEM TMIC
MD321T
Forge recirc DV (RED spring and shim)
Fuelab regulator
Walbro 255 fuel pump.
RCM Team Ice 3" with Sports Cat exhaust system.
Lateral 3 bolt headers and up-pipe
Hyperflow cold air feed
V-Power with 100mls of NF
550 Pinks (was at 90% duty)
Steve
11 April 2009, 01:39 PM
#172
Steve, get some mapped 650's or 740s in there - you're losing out on that all-important extra c.50bhp that the T can make on a 2.0L AVCS! (or is it only the STi that gets thoses heads?).
Also, is it not advisable to run 450 on the OEM STI v.7 TMIC?
(or is it only the STi that gets thoses heads?).Also, is it not advisable to run 450 on the OEM STI v.7 TMIC?
Last edited by joz8968; 11 April 2009 at 01:47 PM.
11 April 2009, 02:13 PM
#173
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ECU Mapping - www.JollyGreenMonster.co.uk
Posts: 16,548
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
the top mount and injectors holding Steve's car back.. well not really holding it back as it is damn quick.. and errrrmmm the injectors were higher than 90%.. but within a safe margin of maxxed! 
Simon
Simon
11 April 2009, 06:21 PM
#175
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Also known as The Gimp
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Joz8968, I'm on the case. But in a couple of months. The misses will have my nuts on a plate and feed them to me if I spend anymore money. lol
Simon, sorry matey. As you could tell that day I had eyes like **** holes in the snow due to lack of sleep. I heard you mention the 90% so assumed thats what the injectors were running at.
And your right, it don't half go now. lol
Steve
Simon, sorry matey. As you could tell that day I had eyes like **** holes in the snow due to lack of sleep. I heard you mention the 90% so assumed thats what the injectors were running at.
And your right, it don't half go now. lol
Steve
11 April 2009, 07:10 PM
#176
Steve, don't worry about the injectors not pulling their weight - they will be!. Simon would have chosen an appropriate IDC level to what's optimal/safe - and as said, it would be more than 90%.
With mine, for example, Simon set the IDC to 98% which is allegedly still safe, as the variance across all 4 injectors is way less than 2%, in worst case scenarios. So they should never get maxed out, as the 2% is still giving headroom (but also without being over-cautious, therefore otherwise wasting power).
With mine, for example, Simon set the IDC to 98% which is allegedly still safe, as the variance across all 4 injectors is way less than 2%, in worst case scenarios. So they should never get maxed out, as the 2% is still giving headroom (but also without being over-cautious, therefore otherwise wasting power).
