New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Could it not be a fault with a related component i.e. the actuator is the symptom not the cause?

Don't ask me which one though!

Mus

iTrader: (2)

is it a common problem with faulty actuator, i mean mine no probelms at all so far so good.

Black-Hawk

iTrader: (4)

But would'nt that depend on supporting mods and mapped boost presure?

chris_wrx

iTrader: (4)

got me wondering what mine will make 2.2 with all supporting mods 550 fmic parrell fuel rail with fpr i know it will be a safe turbo for the engine but i was hoping for near 400/400 sound far fetched now??

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

This is interesting, I recently put my car on Surrey RR, AFP 20g on a OE 257 with STIv3 heads, got 347HP and 375 Lbft. This was at 1.4 bar tailing to 1.2 bar at peak power. It was mapped by Paul and I see 0.1 more bar on the road throughout the rev range, also I hit 1bar 500rpm earlier on the road. It also ran rich on the RR (10.7 but it was mapped to 11.5). I spoke to Paul about it, since (like the OP) I was looking for 380HP. Its not taking a lot of timing and I think its due to it using a bit of oil - also Paul knows I use the car on track regularly so its mapped accordingly considering the OE pistons.



As you can see theres a huge lump of power, 90%+ from 4k5rpm to redline so I'm happy after the initial disappointment of the figures. The car did over 30 laps of Silverstone full GP circuit last Thursday in the space of 1.5 hours with only a 20min break inbetween. Car never skipped a beat and goes noticably more than the 16g it replaced, at the end of the day thats what matters.

What I can gather from this thread is the people not getting the 380HP seem to be running phase1 manifolds and a 90degree Samco inlet. Coincedence?

340BHP-WRX

iTrader: (6)

Not sure about the phase 1 manifolds but what I can say is that Andy Forrest told me the difference between 90 degree and front entry is minimal.

Leg@cy

iTrader: (2)

Further data for you....

I was runnung a

2.5 with afp20g
Phase 1 inlet
90' inlet
OE headers
3" exhaust
Simtek
360 Bhp @ 5450rpm / 380 lb torque @ 4400 rpm @ 1.4 BAR

these 2 are for the above





then had inlet raised to allow front entry
Tubular headers
and a remap
372Bhp @ 5400rpm / 390 lb torque @ 4600 rpm @ 1.3 BAR

I haven't scanned the later ones yet...
on Vmax

Mus

iTrader: (2)

nice spool up on a 2.5

340BHP-WRX

iTrader: (6)

Been looking into my issues further and it looks like my Hybrid FMIC is not a genuine Hdi hybrid,it's a bar and plate core not a tube and fin like that shown on Hdi's site.

What sort of losses could this cause ? I'm looking at buying a new intercooler anyway as my one has seen better days by the looks of things,the pipework looks terrible as it's chrome plated and has started flaking off

ZEN Performance

The early hybrid intercoolers were bar and plate, and we have back to back tested your style of core against the latest tube and fin cores, and found no difference.

maydew

iTrader: (9)

hi mate, maybe instead of picking at straws why not take the car to paul and get him to sort it , cheaper and less stress in the long run

Jolly Green Monster

iTrader: (4)

only just noticed this..

it is very easy to get stuck chasing numbers but I do agree it doesn't hold boost but the engine revs very freely and pulls well to the redline so is breathing well imho.. it took lots of timing and fuelling was deliberatly set to optimum to get most out of it.. but the tailing boost is stopping the power increase as rpm gets nearer the redline.. nothing other than the boost drop indicates a problem.. well that and the lack of power.. although for the boost it is running at peak power (around 1.1bar iirc) it makes very good power..
if you look at the graph the power flatlines.. if the boost was held the power would climb to a peak and then tail.. imho on the current set up there is nothing to be gained..
as can be seen from the second run with increased boost duty.. it made no difference.. so either the turbo is maxxed out (20g should make more than that so shouldn't be that) or the actuator is weak.. has been changed therefore very unlikely.. the solution to the problem is not obvious.. without changing something you shouldn't need to.. like the turbo.. whcih is not showing any obvious problems

do you have a dyno plot with the fuelling monitored? and/or boost?
I have seen that sometimes cars run richer on the rollers than when run on the road and therefore don't produce necessarily a true indication of cars power without tweaking the fuelling.. although dastek to be fair normally doesn't have this problem.. tweaking on a dyno though may extract a little more.. however this is partially irrelavent as the boost is dropping off.

in the past couple of weeks seen two cars, one on an 18g and one a 20g both I mapped on the road and both go on the rollers and make good power.. 360 and 373.. both with some safety margin and didn't like lots of timing.. and if tweaked on the rollers would have shown slightly more imho.

Simon

M535I

ill think you will find its a prosses of illimination and that is what he is doing , and unless you live next door and have a bottom less bank account its not that easy ! .

be patient mate im sure you will sort it out eventually.

ZEN Performance

The above two posts are spot on. Simon could give it to us, and we might spend a few days trying various things and get 20hp more, for which simon would have a huge labour bill to pay.

The car drives nicely, makes okay power and should be reliable, and that's why I didn't even touch the map on the day we put the car on the rollers, I might have got another 5-10 hp out of it tops, which would have been poor value.

Unfortunately the majority of cars do not make the headline grabbing figures, but we only tend to hear about the good ones.

dunx

iTrader: (3)

As a side thought.... a friend of mine didn't get the results he expected for his 2.5 STI, and when the oil pressure vanished, the engine was pulled and the exhaust housing was found to have a crack from the wastegate port.

?

DunxC

Mus

iTrader: (2)

some very intresting points

harvey

iTrader: (48)

I have noticed that some TD05-06 20G perform far better than others. In part I think it relies on whether the turbo was individually built with attention to detail and chosen components or it was an off the shelf item.

Current results on one of my own 05-06 20G. M/Y 95 WRX Wagon.
422 bhp and 360 ft/lbs on V-Power + N.F. around 1.8 ml/litre. Dynodynamics rollers at Steve Simpson.
STi 3 heads.
O/E ported headers and matched up-pipe
My own 3" open neck down pipe and Revolution exhaust system.
740cc injectors
Hybrid GT FMIC
Simtek ECU.
Spool on the road, 4th gear to 1 bar is 3,100 to 3,200 rpm.

Previous spec was with WRX heads, Link ECU, Hybrid bar and plate FMIC. Otherwise the same spec but on Optimax + N.F in those days.
Generally, 380-390 bhp and 350 ft lbs. These results were consistent at Steve Simpsons and at Dastek at that time. At a rolling road day at Dastek, running and mapped for race fuel the car did 409 bhp. Exactly the same spec.

When an Apexi Power FC replaced the Link we were unable to get the same power.

As already referred to above, in earlier posts, what is important is that all the modifications compliment each other. Items bought on a whim or a bit from here and a bit from there are unlikely to lead to joined up tuning and attention to detail is the difference between a willing engine and an also ran.

RA Dunk

what sort of boost are you running for that harvey?

340BHP-WRX

iTrader: (6)

If you had bothered to read through the whole thread you would have seen that I have already done that and i'm just posting on here to see what peoples opinions are

As for everyone else,thanks for the helpful replies

I'm really not sure where to go with this at the moment - getting it to hold boost upto the redline would be nice although I appreciate I might not gain alot from that.

Andy Forrest has offered to inspect the turbo but from what he and JGM have said,there is no reason to suspect anything is wrong with it.

Jolly Green Monster

iTrader: (4)

it is almost as through the engine consumes the air produced by the turbo very efficently and the turbo cannot keep up..

shame I don't have a copy of the graphs but did a few cars of the rollers yesterday.. one which didn't hold the boost and again suspected weak actuator as the first port of call.. it wwas a less specced car 16g and standard injectors but would hold about a bar.. made reasonable numbers but nothing like it would has it have held 1.3bar.. but the graph shape is similar to your car.. another with a restrictive exhaust and 2.5 with md321t and the power curve just dropped like a stone from 6000rpm where the 2.5inch exhaust was restricting but the boost pretty much held flatline.. your car doesn't do that.. the curve continues nicely so I don't suspect a restriction in exhaust on inlet..
Another which had no restrictions and held the boost and the power curve just continued climbing..

Simon

M535I

im going for the same setup as sy and im hoping for 380-400 so im reading this with the though of do i need to go bigger than 20g to obtain it !!??

340BHP-WRX

iTrader: (6)

You'd be looking at an MD321 from somewhere like Lateral Performance which iirc costs around £1300ish. I was told when I was deciding which turbo to go for that you would need to have a forged engine to handle the MD321 otherwise it won't last long.

JGM - Just thinking about what you were saying about my turbo,could it be a possibility that the air filter is too small and is not flowing enough air through it ? It's a K+N 57i filter ?

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Simon : If you get the part number of the K+N filter and email me the details I will determine the design capacity cfm for the filter.
I see many cars with joke air filters, either they are far too small or they are designed to stop bumble bees that let through grit and flying ants Owners are taken in by glossy advertising claims and cheap prices. "Why pay £55 for one when I can get one for £30?"
I have standardised on K+N filters because although they are more expensive than some of the alternatives, some of which I think are copies, they do have a technical department and they do have published information regards the capabilities of various filters. If they are prepared to put this effort in, I guess they are serious about doing the job properly.
How many other filter manufacturers have a technical department or publish technical data and cfm ratings or even bhp ratings and can you rely on any such figures anyway?

Two things as an aside. Any filter manufacturer claiming 10 bhp or similar gains to a Scooby from just fiting their filter is telling lies.

Secondly, while in the early days of developing my STi 6 Wagon which went on to produce relatively high bhp and torque figures in 2 litre format, I went to a Southern rolling road day at G Force, Aylesbury. This was when a 360-380 bhp Scooby was top dog because "experts" knew that anything over 400 bhp would not be road driveable, you would need a closed deck block and the engine would blow itself to bits in a few miles. What a load of tosh these guys talk. Anyway the car did 417 bhp, Optimax plus NF and was the biggest bhp road going Scooby at the time. The "experts" were silent but there were rumours of cheating but not to my face. As the car was taken off the rolling road, Chris Davies, the rolling road operator said to me there may be an inlet air restriction and I gave this some consideration afterwards and got in touch with K+N. (Real Experts with technical expertise not locked in Scooby dogma) The car was running an APS CAK which was the rage at the time but according to K+N, the filter on the APS kit was not intended for much over 325 bhp. I gave this further consideration and selected an appropriate K+N filter for maximum air flow within the space available which involved dispensing with the K+N kit, shortening the inlet tract and locating the filter in a segregated cold air area between the engine and inner wing.
I went back to G Force the following Friday and produced 434 bhp and then went on to stay overnight with Bob Rawle who mapped the car the following day. The difference was very noticable.
I returned to G Force the next week (probably 200 miles from home BTW although I could have gone to nearer rolling roads but my previous power figure from Well Lane, around 415 bhp had been rubbished by the "experts")
The car produced 450 bhp and all for an air filter which cost £40 delivered and a remap from Bob Rawle. Cheap tuning I would suggest.
The same filter stayed on the car as development programme continued to almost 600 bhp on race fuel with only 2 litres but that figure is now old hat as RCMS can now produce well over 700 bhp on only 2 litres.

It is worth putting a bit of effort into ensuring you have the right air filter and if you are in any doubt fit the largest quality air filter the space will allow.

As regards a turbo to reliably achieve over 400 bhp, it depends on your circumstances. Exceeding that power level on standard internals is not really reliable in my opinion. Hand built 05-06 20g turbos I have supplied to a number of people are all well over 400 bhp. Unfortunately, I now have difficulty obtaining reliable supply of complete conversion kits at the right price. Another value for money alternative is the Scoobymania/Area 52 ST420 which will produce 420 bhp if you can run 1.8 bar, spools well. (all providing you have the supporting mods). Another relatively cheap alternative with more power is either of the FP alternatives from Scoobymania/Area 52.
If you want to spend more money there is the MD321 and that is certainly effective on a 2.5 litre but perhaps not the best choice for 2 litre.

lunar tick

iTrader: (2)

Don't forget about the the MD321H Harvey - not cheap but on a 2L it's a match made in heaven I'll pop over sometime shortly and you can try mine if you'd like to have a test drive?

harvey

iTrader: (48)

I look forward to you coming over Andrew.

Did you see this bit???

I have driven a three MD321 2.5s and each one stood out. The 2 litre cars with MD321 were not impressive in the same way ans spool was not as good as I expected.

340BHP-WRX

iTrader: (6)

Rather than starting a new thread and explaining everything I though i'd bring this one back to life.

Had my car mapped again yesterday by JGM after spending a small fortune on mods trying mainly to get rid of the boost dropping off above 6k rpm but it still bloody does it !

I've just fitted: 740cc phase 2 injectors from Lateral Performance(flow matched),Turbo Dynamics uprated 1.2 bar actuator,Hybrid RS FMIC,CDF Racing lightweight pulley set,Zerosports cool thermostat.

I wanted the car to run about 1.6 bar and hold it all the way up but it drops to about 1.3 bar above 6k rpm.

JGM said it still takes loads of timing and pulls very well,fuelling is spot on and there's no det at all,he doesn't think the turbo is at fault and can't find anything else that could be causing it.

After reading back through this thread i've realised the one thing i'd overlooked is the air filter. It's a standard K&N 57i induction kit,think the part number is 57-0319.Could the filter be too small and not getting enough air through it at high rpm ?

Jolly Green Monster

iTrader: (4)

I don;t think it is the filter..

the inlet pipe is not brilliant being the original early classic type.. but not 100% sure that is the problem.. but the dogleg onto the turbo won't help.

it is almost like the heads are restricting it but seen 20g on other cars with worse spec heads and no issue..

Simon

340BHP-WRX

iTrader: (6)

Hi mate,It was just a thought really. I don't know where to go from here,if anywhere ! As we said yesterday,it goes well enough on the road but it just annoys me that the boost drops off when it shouldn't do !

Maybe i'll try replacing the inlet pipe with some samco or something but not sure if that'll gain anything as you say.

I'm going to clean the boost solenoid out tomorrow aswell

Ian

iTrader: (10)

i dont know a massive amount about turbos, but on the 20g, could it have porting for a 2.5 engine, and now it is on a 2.0 engine, it doesnt hold the boost up the rev range?

Jolly Green Monster

iTrader: (4)

yes that is definitly a possibility