Shaun

Hi Mel,
Likewise.... good to meet up.

I forgot about your "instant" comments about the lack of noise.... I think you mentioned it after about 10 meters of travel! I know what you mean though, as that was something all us Spec C owners (past or present) have known. Still.... that's what adds to the Spec C "experience" imo.

I hope you're suitably impressed with your car when you get it back..... i'm sure you will be. Let us all know how you get on mate!

evonorth

Hey up old man
imagine your time with the stock suspension parts
Sorry mate but you are not getting no where near the best out of the car
A stock jdm scooby would of killed that time
you are now trying to substitude lack of talent with power
It will end up at 600bhp like the spec c was soon
I feel you would of been better off with an rs4 or m3 similar mate
Sorry to sound negative but the car tuning game is defo not for ya

Shaun

Quick update on the LM400 Billet:
Old turbo is now with Turbo Dynamics and is being "upgraded" with a new compressor cover and the new Billet wheel as I type. Billet LM400 turbo will be back with Litchfields tomorrow. Plan is to pick the car up on Friday morning and drive to Tracktive for the mapping on the same day. I will obviously do some comparisons within Delta Dash, but I may be in a position to get a comparative dyno run at PowerStation (for all you dyno queens) on Saturday.

Paul,
You're obviously missing the point about what this thread is all about..... as you may of noticed, it's not about my lack of driving ability!

I don't have to be a championship winning driver (as neither does anyone else) to appreciate the differences that the previous modifications have made.... THAT is the point behind all of this.

There is no hidden agenda on making the car to be anything other than a road car and I certainly have no aspiration to achieve anything with it competition wise. After the MLR Sprint I would be a muppet to even try!

I like modifying and learning stuff and I am in a fortunate situation where I am able to do that and share information with others.

No ego's here to crush mate.... hence why I openly admit that I'm crap behind the wheel. If I wanted the car to kick everyones ***** I would draft in my very own Stig.... like I did the other year. That's the easy bit!

Now... if I said or gave the impression that I was a "driver" you would have a point.

-Nic-

iTrader: (4)

Looking forward to the comparison

Toffee

iTrader: (3)

[quote=-Nic-;9974797]Same here fella, wandering what my LM420 will be like with a bit of billet

Shaun

Lee,
IMO if you were ever going to look at modding the turbo, I would junk that 420 core and go straight to the 450 or even 500 Billet core. Seriously though... you won't be concerned with lowdown grunt for competition track stuff. You have a JDM 2ltr so use a turbo spec that makes advantage of your higher rev limit capabilities.

Toffee

iTrader: (3)

Yeah I know what you mean and it makes sense, but it still gets used on the roads (Sunday mornings ) and at present I am fairly happy with the power to be honest? maybe a good spanking at Oulton may make me change my mind but it does go pretty well with what I have now.

If I am going to go for a new turbo I think it will be rotated and it will be attached to a 2.33L

Really interested in the quicker spooling billets though fella, equally interested in the cost lets see what difference the billet makes to your LM400 first though

Cheers,
Lee.

Ilya

nothing yet? we is waiting ))

Shaun

April 2011 - LM400 Billet
Yesterday I went to pick the Hawkeye up from Litchfields with their "hot off the production line" Billet LM400 fitted. This was the first customer fitment that had taken place on this latest range of LM's.

Car was ready and waiting for me and after a quick chat with Iain I tootled off to Tracktive Solutions for the remap. I was aiming to return back to Litchfields today, a) to test drive Mel's LM450 Spec C and b) to complete some back to back tests with Iain on mine against the LM400 non-billet (more on these two items later).

As I am sure you are aware until you have had the appropriate remap completed for a turbo change, you shouldn't give the car any "beans". Fuelling, boost and ignition need to be checked and altered to suit if required. Obviously I wasn't going to drive the car hard, but I thought I would take the opportunity to take advantage of EcuTEK's Delta Dash "Live Tuning" facility for additional safety. With the "Live Tuning" within Delta Dash you can adjust parameters like wastegate and ignition. With this in mind I reduced these values, so a) the boost would be reduced and b) ignition would be reduced...... just in case.

Richard (Tracktive Solutions) set about the mapping which took about an hour. Unfortunately traffic was quite heavy and yesterday was pretty warm in Melton Mowbray.... ambient temps were 22degs (is Summer here then!). It's fairly difficult to do any real back to back tests when mapping on the road, let alone when atmospheric conditions have changed since the last data from previous mapping sessions.

Anyway with the car all "mapped up" thanks to Richard's expert kowledge, I made my way back home and at last I could actually start to compare this Billet with the previous non-Billet LM400. The intention was to get back home and complete various datalogs and dyno runs using EcuTEK's Delta Dash and Road Dyno. Always best to do this on the same "bits" of road as previously, so I could attain a meaningful comparison.

I will come on to the driving "feel" in a bit, but let's discuss what was found with the data logging.

LM400 Billet - Logs and Dyno Runs
LM400 Billet vs LM400 Non-Billet Dyno Runs

The RED line is the Billet and the CYAN line is the Non-Billet.

Ignore the peak BHP figures as not only was it warmer for the Billet run (in comparison to the Non-Billet run), but I was also unable to rev the engine as high due to traffic. I would expect the peak figures for the Billet to be at least as high, if not more, than the Non-Billet under the same conditions.

You will immediately notice an increase in both power and torque from initial spool to around 5k rpm with the Billet graph. This was one of the area's that the Billet was looking to address over the non-billet version. The peak differences in torque between the turbos is only half of the story,even if those peak figures are higher with the Billet LM. Looking through the same rpm range it shows that in places the Billet is actually picking up circa 20lbft (don't just concentrate on peak value comparisons!).

The fascinating thing about this graph is that every other Billet turbo I have seen that has been compared against it's non-billet reference, has in fact given less power and torque in the initial spool area. Litchfields have managed to circumvent this "trait" by developing a specification of the Billet Compressor wheel to ensure that driveability is not only maintained, but actually bettered. For the purpose of a road matched turbo this is paramount in my opinion, and whatever the specification is of this wheel..... it's certainly worked!

It is worth pointing out that the topend power was never a purpose to move to a Billet core in this instance. The exhaust housing on the LM400 is only spec'd to enable 400bhp, so there was no point in building a core spec for more peak power.... the turbine already makes those figures! It's also worth pointing out that I am only running this turbo at 1.3bar at the top end.... Richard played with the boost and whilst it will make more boost, ignition is then having to be reduced. It's catch 22 and in Richard's opinion he would rather run more ignition than screw the **** out of a turbo..... especially on a TMIC where charge temps can become a problem.

If I am being honest I never expected this Billet to provide these kinds of lowdown increases.

For comparison lets look at LM400 Billet vs the VF37 running at circa 340/340.



Obviously there is a massive difference in the overall power and torque but it's worth coming back to the initial lowdown "grunt" in comparison. You still see a very very slight loss for 500rpm over the VF, but this has been improved over the non-billet that was compared earlier in this Project Thread. It will be interesting to compare the acceleration figures then......

Road Dyno Acceleration (4th gear)
As with all these things you really need to compare several area's and this is exactly what the EcuTEK software can do for us.

I wonder if the acceleration figures back-up what the Road Dyno Graph says:

LM400 Billet
40 - 60mph = 2.4s
50 - 70mph = 2.1s
60 - 80mph = 2.2s
70 - 90mph = 2.4s

LM400 Non-Billet
40 - 60mph = 2.6s
50 - 70mph = 2.2s
60 - 80mph = 2.2s
70 - 90mph = 2.4s

VF
40 - 60mph = 2.6s
50 - 70mph = 2.5s
60 - 80mph = 2.6s
70 - 90mph = 2.9s

Yep... that backs the dyno figures up then!

According to the Road Dyno supplementry graphing (that gives vehicle speed - not shown) it shows that 70mph is reached at 4900rpm in 4th. This provides additional back-up to the acceleration times above (below and up to 70mph) being quicker and factual, as up to circa 5k rpm revs on the power graph shows power/torque increases over and above the same rev band against the non-billet 400 power graph.

Looking at the Delta Dash logs gives some other interesting information.

The peak airflow is slightly down but this was undoubtedly due to the increased temps, which inturn kerbs the potential BHP.

The actual spool of the LM400 Billet is some 1-200rpm better than the Non-Billet version.

All the data attained shows that the Billet has indeed "done" what it was supposed to do. However as with any "figures", they only tell you part of the story..... how the car drives and feels is more important in my book than certainly any dyno graph. This brings me on to the road test information.

LM400 Billet on-road feedback
The area of "change" that can't be "shown" with a dyno graph is the response. On the road, positive advancements in this area can lead to dramatic differences in how the car drives and feels. Coupling the proven "in-gear" acceleration benefits with quite a dramatic change in response has made a big difference on the "black stuff".

The initial response of the non-billet turbo was great. As soon as you pressed the accelerator the turbo would go straight to boost and you would feel "hey up here we go". However the response would then not follow through with the perceived boost build-up and after the initial core "flick" it would actually build boost less than anticipated. After a couple of seconds it would then pick up and go as expected. There was always a slight "gap". This Billet has "filled" that gap and now when you throttle on you get the same sudden "flick" (if not better now) and that empty space is no longer there.... it keeps building boost at the anticipated rate that the initial response suggests. It's hard to explain but it is so much better.

Not until you have driven the car under normal conditions do you really appreciate this area and the improvement that this Billet specification gives. If your sitting on a dual carriageway at 70mph, you now only have to squeeze the throttle (you seriously don't have to bed it in to the bulkhead now) and the turbo immediately bounces past 1.5bar (you were on vacuum before at 70mph say). Also "driving" through the gears is much much better. Between gear changes before, it felt flatter between changing gear and getting back on to boost.... now it is so much more responsive getting back up to boost again on throttle. If I did a timed acceleration run through the gears I would expect it to be a fair bit quicker than before.

Alot of this is down to the change in the compressor wheel design as much as the 30% "weight loss" of the wheel itself. Since it takes less energy to spool it is much more responsive, urgent and sensitive to throttle inputs.

Obviously all this assists what you see on the dyno graph. It really does feel "stronger" from 2500 - 5000rpm.

LM400 Billet vs LM400 Non-Billet - Back to back road test
Iain invited me back today to "compare notes". Iain also proposed that he would organise for another Hawkeye to be made available with the original LM400, so we could both drive them back to back down the same piece of road to compare.

I followed Iain, with Iain driving mine and me driving the other JDM Hawkeye. In some ways I was shocked but based on my initial feedback above I shouldn't of been should I (but you do question what you perceive at times, and whether the difference is real)! The difference was immediately noticeable for the very same reasons I have mentioned above. In short, the LM400 lacked the response, spool and mid range urgency of the LM400 Billet.

I was interested to hear Iain's view when we swapped cars back. He said exactly what I had determined..... the LM400 Billet really does make a difference and these back to back road tests confirmed it again. It was really interesting to complete some form of comparative back to back testing.

Iain explained that he was really pleased with how the LM400 Billet has turned out. It achieves exactly what he wanted and I for one won't be arguing with that! The more and more you drive it, the more and more you appreciate the differences and what that relates to on the road car.

Unrelated but certainly interesting within the context of this Project Thread, the other Hawkeye had none of the chassis mods that I have had done to mine. The difference in drive was night and day. The other Hawkeye felt vague, whilst mine was much more "edgy" and "precise". It was like getting in to an "aged" car driving the other Hawkeye.... it just felt lacking in feedback and sloppy. These chassis mods detailed in this thread have a massive positive impact and I would certainly not want to go back to the Hawkeye feeling as it did.

Oh yeah.... what about the LM450 Test Drive
As already mentioned Mel offered me a drive in his LM450 equipped Hawkeye Spec C and we finally managed to get this sorted today!

I was expecting lot's of lag from the turbo and engine combination, but in some ways I was very surprised by the outcome. Obviously the car has more grunt... that goes without saying (we are talking about another 50-60bhp). There is a noticeable amount of "delay" between pressing the loud peddle and getting up to peak boost, but once your on song it certainly goes!

Obviously because it's a bigger turbo you are waiting around for the boost to build, but the rpm to which you hit 1bar is only about 500rpm later than the Billet LM400 (in top gear). However it is the "dead zone" between flooring the throttle and making any decent boost that is the difference, along with response coming back on throttle. I suspect the Billet LM450 will improve upon this over the non-billet version (based on the difference the Billet wheel has made to the LM400).

Overall I was impressed with the LM450 on a 2ltr. The lesser driveability over the Billet LM400 is not a show stopper, but it does exist. It's horses for courses depending on what you want out of the car and how that best suits your driving style. Personally I feel you need to "stir" the gearbox more on the 2ltr / LM450 combo, whereas I find the Billet LM400 much more of a lazier and less frantic driving experience. OEM is the best way I can convey how the Billet LM400 feels.

As a pure road car where driveability is key... the Billet LM400 has the non-billet LM450 licked in many ways, but if you want a power delivery that is more "peaky" and certainly faster in the upper JDM rev limit (and you have a 2ltr), the LM450 feels very nice. I would expect the Billet LM450 to be nicer (driveability wise) still.

The Billet LM400 really does deliver an OEM "expectation" of driveability in my opinion.

After appreciating the benefits of the change to Billet on the LM400, the LM450 Billet is certainly on the cards..... thanks for that Mel!!!

So is that my "lot" then?!
You gotta be kidding! I think I've only just started AGAIN!

We still have some more Whiteline "goodies" to fit which will hopefully add positives to the existing chassis mods already made. Then of course there is always the ultimate desire to step it up on the power front..... just a tad. I really am undecided on whether to move much more with this, but I suspect the next "upgrade" to the turbo side will ultimately require a FMIC and induction / inlet changes. Is this worth the sacrifice in overall driveability.... we will have to wait and see if the "risk" is worth taking.

Many many thanks to Litchfield Imports and Tracktive Solutions for all their support and "fitting" me in at such short notice, with this latest round of Project modifications. There really are companies out there that cut through the bull****, providing services and products that deliver what is promised.

Watch this space for further developments!

T5NYW

iTrader: (4)

Any Idea of a rough cost to remove turbo/ billet fitted/ Turbo refitted/ remap?

Tony

Pm me if you like

Shaun

Roflol - doesn't ask any further questions about the difference, just wants to know the costs for the upgrade!

You have txt.

-Nic-

iTrader: (4)

Great write up Shaun

I want one

T5NYW

iTrader: (4)

Its either better and how much
or

its no better and I'm not bovered LOL

I have some cheaper Racing options now, so looks like my Old Scoob will be sold in May

I'm after a Hawk Spec C or a newish Saloon, which i get, will also effect my choice of race car

Tony

MartynJ

Billet is the way forward Shaun
Out of interest how many g/s per second of airflow are you seeing at peak and at say 4000rpm. It'll give me something to compare the SC46 to from the data logs I have from a similar specced vehicle.

Martyn

Ilya

thx 4 the write up - excellent as alwayz.

I need the price and availability for Billet LM400 and Billet LM420,
should I call Iain or he will announce it here you think?

Shaun

Nic,


Tony,
FWIW I personally think you're wasting your cash if you're thinking of replacing your Hawkeye with another Hawkeye, but of the Spec C variety. Just my opinion though. I can agree that the JDM hatch would be a change worth looking at though.

Martyn,
I have limited data so far with the Billet, which is not helped with higher Intake Temps than I previously had for comparison.... but in 4th gear it made 238g/s at 4k and peak was 328g/s. Intake Temps were 25degs at 4k and 24degs at peak. The peak figures are in-line with what the non-billet did in cooler temps, so like for like the Billet should flow a bit more in cooler "like for like" conditions.

Also the peak airflow will increase with more boost.... this is only running 1.3bar at peak flow and I know Iain has different different boost levels at the top end (i.e. more boost) and he was nearly touching 340gs even on the non-billet. Everything is relative.

Ilya,
The Billet LM400 is ready to buy now.... the Billet LM420 is yet to be finalised specification wise. The Billet LM450 and Billet LM500 are also ready to buy now. Personally, after driving the non-billet LM450 it's Billet version (based on how the Billet LM400 has responded) should be better.... I would either look at a Billet LM400 or Billet LM450 imo. I can't see where the LM420 "sits" now.

I am not sure on final pricing (Iain did say he would visit this thread to comment) for the Billet versions (and I could be totally wrong), but I think they are the same price as the non-billet versions virtually. I know when we both spoke yesterday Iain did say it was a "no brainer" which one to go for, so I assume from that they are the same price.

MartynJ

That's the kind of info I was looking for Shaun, it's not doing badly at all.
An SC46 equipped Hawkeye we tuned recently made 238.8g/s of airflow at 4221rpm and 365g/s of airflow at peak at 1.5 bar boost during a 3rd gear pull.
So in essence exactly what you would expect to see, larger turbo, slightly slower to spool but with more top end airflow.

Martyn

Shaun

Martyn,
Is that on an OE inlet pipe, airbox, TMIC and 2ltr?

What was the BHP peak for that corresponding airflow?

What were the Intake Temps?

Toffee

iTrader: (3)

Thats easy to answer, its better than the LM400 because it make a lot more power and its better than the LM450 because it has quicker spool up. In my opinion it is clearly better than the other options even though I have never tried them, so I suppose that's a daft statement, mind you, you havent tried the LM420

I am assuming if there was an LM380 it would be better than the LM400 for all the reasons you have stated that the LM400 is better than the bigger turbos because it will spool faster? but that means the LM360 will be even better!!!!!! at this rate I will be driving a Fiesta?

Personally I would rather you did the testing before the conclusions, from a business point of view it must be more costly having so many options on offer? it would make sense to have a shorter list and therefore cutting the business costs supplying all of the different options > just like the MD321 H/T/V simply 400/450/500

Still reading with interest though
Lee.

Shaun

Hi Lee,
I understand what you're suggesting, but the above comment is my current "thoughts" based on what I have driven and what I have also been informed about, with regards to the differences in the turbos and how they perform.

The fact is it is slower to respond and slower to spool than the 400.... all I am suggesting is that the difference between the LM420 and LM450 (let's forget about the Billet versions) seems to be alot narrower than I envisaged on the road (this is from the horses mouth and from my comparison of the 400 vs 450 on the road), but the LM450 provides circa 30bhp more than the 420. That was my point.

I was surprised that the LM450 was as good as it was.... I know from Tracktive and Litchfields that the LM420 is circa 2-300rpm slower to spool than the 400, yet the 450 is only circa 500rpm slower than the 400. Yet the 450 has so far given Mel 460bhp.

Until a LM420 Billet is produced.... if it does get produced, I feel the current LM420 Non-Billet does sit out on it's own somewhat when you would naturally go for a Billet version now if you were purchasing. The same goes for the LM500 Billet.... I am led to believe the results have been impressive in testing, against it's Non-Billet version.

I am not saying the LM420 is not a good turbo, but in the current "Billet" line-up I don't see where the non-billet unit stands. Which compared to the results that the Billet versions are attaining is a logical statement.

One thing that would provide another "indication" of your LM420 is to get it on a Rolling Road. I appreciate you say that it has been improved since the FMIC and remap, but none of us have any evidence to suggest that it is only now, with the FMIC, is the turbo actually providing it's potential (i.e. 420bhp). The current "feel" seems to be is that it has already surpassed that. It may well of done, but it would be good to have some meaningful data to substantiate that. Even Litchfields tell me that during their own testing, the OE TMIC becomes a problem at anything much over 400bhp.

I would be more than willing to perform some datalogs and acceleration logs in Delta Dash with you on what your ECU is seeing.... airflow would be a good one as that should give an indication of the region of power. If this interests you give me a shout and we can try and sort something out.

The more data we can gain and share the better....... and I'm all for gaining knowledge!

Toffee

iTrader: (3)

Now your talking, one of the main reasons I have for not getting my car on a RR is simply because the results are never conclusive, who's dyno was it, what was the weather like, who was operating the dyno and the list is endless, the only reason I would have to put mine on a dyno would be to check the map to see if it could be improved for better performance.

If I could get my car tested / compared to other comparable cars / turbo's like for like this would be of interest

Yes the fmic helped to release more power, but as yet we dont know if this would be the same with the LM400, if it has released more power on my LM420 with all my mods then the same must be said for all of the other larger turbo's.

I think your delta dash comparrison would be interesting, however these conclusions would still be inconclusive because you JDM car with extra kit (ICE) added and my car which is probably lighter than a standard spec c are different cars. I will would guess mine is responding as quick as yours but giving the kick in the back the LM450 you tried? we will see.

But the answer is still yes I would both like you to have a check and for someone else who has experience of other scoobs to have a go, I am guessing it is a lot better than you are expecting, however I am open minded that maybe there is better to be had

The next time I am planned to visit Tracktive I will pm you

Lee.

Shaun

Lee,
The weight difference is not a problem as such. That's what ballast is for!

Your car (OE weight) is 70kgs lighter than an OE JDM STI. I weigh 15.5stone which equates to around 100kgs. If I sat in with you that should cancel out the majority of any weight differences (assuming yours is lighter and mine is heavier than stock figures)... a few kilos won't make that much of a difference in reality.

Pavlo

Dyno testing of OEM TMIC vs Hyperflow "Monster" FMIC showed a 35hp gain on an otherwise identical car. Taking it from 375hp to 410hp. The same kind of test on the same spec of car showed a similar gain, both cars were using 321h turbo so a similar size to what's being talked about here.

Even on the road I would say a GOOD fmic is worth around 30hp, but you certainly do feel a change in the response and lag, but boost threshold generally improves a little, as you go bigger with the turbos, these differences in response get smaller.

Shaun

OK.... I have been back out earlier today to log the new turbo again. At least this time the atmospheric conditions are more in-line with what they have been on other tests.

The results were certainly interesting........

LM400 Billet vs LM400 Non-Billet Dyno Runs


Note: I completed 3 runs and all dyno runs were within 1bhp of each other as previous tests have been completed in the same way. Same piece of road, same specifications of weight etc.

If you compare this latest graph with the same comparison graph in my previous post, you will notice a few differences. Not only have the peak figures increased slightly, but also from the run start rpm to 5k rpm there are consistant increases over the previous run.

I was also in a better position to hold on to the revs for longer, with the latest run above going past 7k rpm. The turbo holds on to the power nicely at the higher revs. You will also notice that the peak torque on the latest run is not only slightly higher than the previous run, but more importantly comes in over 200rpm earlier.

Everything makes for a seemingly quicker run. Let's look at the acceleration figures of this latest run.

LM400 Billet
40 - 60mph = 2.3s
50 - 70mph = 2.0s
60 - 80mph = 2.1s
70 - 90mph = 2.4s

LM400
40 - 60mph = 2.6s
50 - 70mph = 2.2s
60 - 80mph = 2.2s
70 - 90mph = 2.4s

VF
40 - 60mph = 2.6s
50 - 70mph = 2.5s
60 - 80mph = 2.6s
70 - 90mph = 2.9s

From 40-80mph the latest run has picked up again over the previous run.

One final comparison is to see how this latest data compares against the OE VF on the dyno graph.

LM400 Billet vs the VF37


Remember we had never matched the 2-3000rpm power/torque of the OE VF.... we have now!

All in all pretty substantial data on how the new Billet LM400 peforms.

It has to be said I am very happy with all of that, especially the acceleration improvements with a "full fat" STI fully loaded up with ICE, DYNOMAT and my lardy ****. (the car is even heavier now than it ever has been since the original LM400 was fitted)

Suberman

Very impressive Shaun! Massive gains from 3k rpm onwards and yet, pretty much identical spool to the factory VF37

And reading your on-road feedback pretty much tells me that it feels much more responsive (sensitive to throttle inputs) than the non billet LM400, but how does it compare to the VF37? Response wise.

Shaun

I am unable to give an objective "view" on the comparison to the VF37 with regards to response. It has been eight months since I drove the car with the VF37, so it would be wrong of me to try and compare unfortunately.

However based on my memory the LM400 Billet feels no worse in overall response from the VF37.... that's about as much as I can really say. It drives superbly now with the LM400 Billet and like I said previously, I can only liken it to an OEM "feel".

When you consider it is achieving these stats with no changes on either the inlet or intercooler, it works out to be such a nice package, ideal for road use.

I am under no illusions that further increases in power (by fact of a bigger turbo) will ultimately benefit from alterations within the inlet and intercooling areas. However I can't help but want to explore any further turbo changes, whilst initially keeping the same parts and seeing where we are. One step at a time.

It will be interesting to provide more data on each and every future stage, seeing what the real on the road differences are. This is one of the facilities I love about EcuTEK's Delta Dash.

Ilya

shaun,
is your turbo 58 or 76 mm inlet?
did u install litchfield's heat sheald? how does it differ from oem?
what is race bronze bearing carrier?

i am planning on placing the order for billet lm400 with Iain, but some options are not clear to me

Shaun

58mm inlet which utilises the OEM inlet pipe and pipework from the inlet to the OEM airbox. It is all completely boggo OEM inlet stuff.

Yes I have the Litchfield's Heat Shield, but I believe you can refit the OEM one with some minor modifications. No difference.... apart from the fact it fits straight on.

The race bronze bearing adds reliability to the turbo. What sets the LM's apart from nearly all the other hybrid twinscrolls are the materials used. You pay more but you should be getting a more reliable unit. Turbos can suffer bearing and cracked housing issues due to heat build-up. Using the "better" materials for the housing and core provides increased reliability longterm. You also get the ceramic coated exhaust housing with these turbos.

You get what you pay for.

The decision is simple.... get the LM400 Billet (or whatever size takes your fancy) and I'm sure you will be impressed.

T20Driver

iTrader: (3)

What injectors are you using Shaun ?

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

I'm going for the 400 after my wedding, gonna stay stock inlet/intercooler. I'll map using vpower and vpower+nf, should see circa 20bhp gain over just vpower, that'll do for the nice summer days.

Shaun - are you still logging mafv in your logs, I prefer this over maf g/s, would be nice to see it.

Cheers,
Paul.