2.0 or 2.5 what's better?
19 February 2009, 07:42 AM
#121
Nick,
still those dont make sense, they look like 2 different rolling roads to start with, the second (JDM) graph shows 267bhp@wheels but only 159bhp/ton, where as the first (2.5) shows 259bhp 162bhp/ton, which straight away shows inconsistancies
On the rhs jdm graph, the faint red line is more in line with the torque delivery of the twin scroll unit, it is a shame i am not at home because if you actually saw what the standard (unmapped) car does, it will shock you a little
Tony
still those dont make sense, they look like 2 different rolling roads to start with, the second (JDM) graph shows 267bhp@wheels but only 159bhp/ton, where as the first (2.5) shows 259bhp 162bhp/ton, which straight away shows inconsistancies
On the rhs jdm graph, the faint red line is more in line with the torque delivery of the twin scroll unit, it is a shame i am not at home because if you actually saw what the standard (unmapped) car does, it will shock you a little
Tony
Yup, the car weights plugged into each run caused the odd bhp/ton(ne) figures. The UK STi was 1600 Kg, the VF37 JDM is in at a lardy 1700 kg.
I've no idea what the red line mods were. The headline figures are in the order of 360/360, so I guess this was pushing the twin scroll as far as it goes (in line with the SN car development figures & Bob Rawles car).
Rickyas graph is a good starting point and presumably yours will be of the same order? Though I'd love to add a 22% trans. loss to my 4th gear run, It just wouldn't be fair play to do that
Surely someone has a Dyno Dynamics run of an 06> UK STi?
19 February 2009, 09:50 AM
#122
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your engine is so heavily modded that it bears no absolutely relation to a stock 2.5.
How does this provide an objective contribution to the debate?
19 February 2009, 10:07 AM
#124
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In any event Spec C will be substantially (100 kg+?) lighter than a UK car. Couple of fat birds in the back seat perhaps??
Also as previously stated Spec C runs a VF36 turbo not a VF37.
Last edited by Blind Side; 19 February 2009 at 10:10 AM.
19 February 2009, 11:08 AM
#125
I had my JDM STI on the corner weight scales last week. With 1/4 tank of fuel it weighed 1444Kg, to get it up to 1700kg you would need 256Kg of extra weight, thats 3 fairly hefty passengers.
17" version Spec C book weight is 1370kg, JDM STI book weight is 1460Kg, so you can fairly safely say the Spec C with 1/4 tank of fuel is around 1355Kg.
17" version Spec C book weight is 1370kg, JDM STI book weight is 1460Kg, so you can fairly safely say the Spec C with 1/4 tank of fuel is around 1355Kg.
19 February 2009, 11:11 AM
#126
I am confused here. Spec C should weigh around 1390 kg with a full tank of fuel (as opposed to 1460 kg for JDM STI).
In any event Spec C will be substantially (100 kg+?) lighter than a UK car. Couple of fat birds in the back seat perhaps??
I'm aware of this additional superiority. Either 1700 Kgs was the actual weight during the run or extra weight has been plugged into the RD calculations afterwards, which bumps up the wheel outputs on road dyno runs - a bit like the high tyre pressure trick.
Also as previously stated Spec C runs a VF36 turbo not a VF37.
Ok - so does that make it a std JDM STi? Perhaps that makes it a more valid comparison?
In any event Spec C will be substantially (100 kg+?) lighter than a UK car. Couple of fat birds in the back seat perhaps??
I'm aware of this additional superiority. Either 1700 Kgs was the actual weight during the run or extra weight has been plugged into the RD calculations afterwards, which bumps up the wheel outputs on road dyno runs - a bit like the high tyre pressure trick.
Also as previously stated Spec C runs a VF36 turbo not a VF37.
Ok - so does that make it a std JDM STi? Perhaps that makes it a more valid comparison?
19 February 2009, 11:11 AM
#127
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 2.5 Type UK is quoted at weighing 1495kg. Spec C at 1390kg and I think (as I can't remember exactly) that a JDM STI is around 1450kg.
EDIT: Just checked an S204 brochure I have and that was quoted at 1445kg.
EDIT: Just checked an S204 brochure I have and that was quoted at 1445kg.
19 February 2009, 11:58 AM
#128
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Side
I am confused here. Spec C should weigh around 1390 kg with a full tank of fuel (as opposed to 1460 kg for JDM STI).
In any event Spec C will be substantially (100 kg+?) lighter than a UK car. Couple of fat birds in the back seat perhaps??
I'm aware of this additional superiority. Either 1700 Kgs was the actual weight during the run or extra weight has been plugged into the RD calculations afterwards, which bumps up the wheel outputs on road dyno runs - a bit like the high tyre pressure trick.
Also as previously stated Spec C runs a VF36 turbo not a VF37.
Ok - so does that make it a std JDM STi? Perhaps that makes it a more valid comparison?
Nick
Originally Posted by Blind Side
I am confused here. Spec C should weigh around 1390 kg with a full tank of fuel (as opposed to 1460 kg for JDM STI).
In any event Spec C will be substantially (100 kg+?) lighter than a UK car. Couple of fat birds in the back seat perhaps??
I'm aware of this additional superiority. Either 1700 Kgs was the actual weight during the run or extra weight has been plugged into the RD calculations afterwards, which bumps up the wheel outputs on road dyno runs - a bit like the high tyre pressure trick.
Also as previously stated Spec C runs a VF36 turbo not a VF37.
Ok - so does that make it a std JDM STi? Perhaps that makes it a more valid comparison?
Nick
19 February 2009, 12:27 PM
#129
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 February 2009, 12:49 PM
#130
Std heads
Std cams
Std ECU
Std Maf
Std gearbox
Std diff
.......
Sure the engine is forged but the 2.0L is forged too. It has the benefit of a great turbo to make use of the strength in the block that area 52 built but you are talking about the 2.0 vs 2.5 argument and using the gobstopper as an example of a great 2.0 - that is hardly a std block or engine is it?
All other mods that have gone on are for safety or out of necessity for the power, ie clutch or fmic
When you have a wall of torque why would you want to rev the nuts of something to 8000 rpm ?
19 February 2009, 02:03 PM
#131
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a road car?!?! No thanks!
19 February 2009, 03:18 PM
#133
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A high revving NA engine can give a wonderful and rewarding driving experience that no FI engine could ever reproduce, and vice versa.
19 February 2009, 04:28 PM
#134
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just thought I'd put my two penneth worth in. Now I've got no idea what a lot of you were talking about with this map and that mod etc, and to be honest only got down half way of the second page before I stopped reading. However, here's my opinion.
I had the 2004 STi UK spec, absolutely standard, and loved the way it revved, and the way the turbo kicked in, but unfortunatley it had to go last year. Happily though I've just ordered and 06 STi 2.5 with PPP. To me I didn't notice that it had lost any of it willingness to rev, plus it had more torque and so pulled harder. So to me it had the characteristics I loved about my 2004 STi, but with more torque, so to me is a winner.
I would like to add though that I only took it out for half an hours test so will have a better opinion after a couple of weeks or so :-)
Incidently, I did find that the steering was a bit lighter than my old Scooby, I prefered it a bit heavier. Is this really the case or just that I've ben driving a Fez ST around for a while which handles like a go-kart?, or is it the Toyo tyres?
I had the 2004 STi UK spec, absolutely standard, and loved the way it revved, and the way the turbo kicked in, but unfortunatley it had to go last year. Happily though I've just ordered and 06 STi 2.5 with PPP. To me I didn't notice that it had lost any of it willingness to rev, plus it had more torque and so pulled harder. So to me it had the characteristics I loved about my 2004 STi, but with more torque, so to me is a winner.
I would like to add though that I only took it out for half an hours test so will have a better opinion after a couple of weeks or so :-)
Incidently, I did find that the steering was a bit lighter than my old Scooby, I prefered it a bit heavier. Is this really the case or just that I've ben driving a Fez ST around for a while which handles like a go-kart?, or is it the Toyo tyres?
19 February 2009, 05:28 PM
#135
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zed Ess Won Hay Tee
Posts: 21,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i managed 390lbft from my 16g 2.5
i suspect it may have done a bit more then that if cylinder number 4 had more then 10psi compression lmfao!
this run was done with a buggered ringland
2.5 FTW!
cant wait to get cylinder number 4 working again ha ha!
i suspect it may have done a bit more then that if cylinder number 4 had more then 10psi compression lmfao!
this run was done with a buggered ringland
2.5 FTW!
cant wait to get cylinder number 4 working again ha ha!
Last edited by StickyMicky; 19 February 2009 at 05:33 PM.
19 February 2009, 08:34 PM
#137
Scooby Regular
The 2.5 isn't weak, its stock pistons aren't brilliant, but replace them with a set of forged pistons and it'll be just as strong as the Newage 2 litre engines.
Last edited by MartynJ; 19 February 2009 at 08:36 PM.
20 February 2009, 09:56 AM
#142
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CHIPP'N HAM
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ATWRX
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
88
01 February 2016 07:28 PM
