I wouldnt call 400lbft @ 3500rpm from my VF37 rubbish.

 

Yes... but you had to rebuild the engine and stroke it to get that torque Mr Felstead.

 

I like gimps, (especially when they build me engines),,, but then I like balding elvis fans who like to holiday in Vegas also, but which one is better. There`s only one way to decide..

 

"...find out!"

If you're gonna quote, quote properly.

 

It came apart because of a duff thrust bearing dropping oil pressure, and then i found the pistons were showing some wear, so i thought i'd take advantage of changing the internals slightly whilst having to spend the money anyway. Extra cost was a 2.5 crank (i sold my 2.0 crank so that cost aprox £100) and steel rods (sold my original rods so another £100 only) so i can still rev it to 8K on the longer stroke, could have kept the OEM rods in there if i limited it to 7.5Krpm which would have been fine on this turbo.

Going 2.1 gained about 7.5% torque, it was producing aprox 375lbft as a 2.0 which is still pretty good.

Where my setup loses out is of course in top end power, but i've yet to think i need more power on the road, i'd rather have the torque and response, makes for a proper quick road and sprint setup.

Either way, it's just showing that the VF twin scrolls are not rubbish, as sugested above by evoboy.

 

That maybe the facts, but I still stand by my text message! pmsl

 

 

John,,
Sorry but the stock vf turbos are not big enough
My evo 6rs revs to 8100rpm,,
The evo 6rs is still making good power at 7800rpm,,
The vf are all over by 6500rpm,,,
The band isn't big enough
My old evo 8 with gsc s2 cams on a 9 turbo at 2 bar of boost made 430bhp,,

My 6rs is an opened engine and stock turbo, clutch etc,,
Runs an 11.7 @ 117.2mph at the strip..
I bet your forged 2.1 would struggle to match,,
Cost me nothing

I no about the vf turbos as my brother spec c had one on his car
I drove it a few times,, Came in well but died of death after 6000rpm,,
Rubbish times at pod on it,,
Why they rev to over 8000rpm on those turbos is beyond me,,
He put a tractive gt30 hybrid on much better
He said if he did it again he would put a LM450 on,,

 

I would suggest we blame the Scoob engine rather than the turbo. IIRC EVO engines produce higher figures than similar turbos used on Scoobs.

 

I dont do straight lines.

My rubbish turbo saw off plenty of the big boys in the twisties at TOTB this year, including most of the EVO's, and that was lugging a genuine road car 1550kg around.

It just proved yet again that spool and torque are what really matters at sensible speeds, ***** to all this power chasing malarky.

 

It's the ten minutes cooking that was the problem...

Not the runs in between

dunx

P.S. My VF 35 was set free by Richard Bulmer, and it pulled to the limiter just fine...

 

Just thought I would also say a big thanks to Andy Forrest.

Andy has done a fair amount of work with his own Spec C and what he found that worked with his OE TMIC, bigger turbo and inlet mods (Andy is however on a 2.5ltr which does make a difference and I assume a fuel mix). Andy has been most gracious to share some information with me, which has been one of the reasons why I never jumped straight into getting a FMIC from the off.

I may look at monitoring ACT's and looking at removal of the OE airbox prior to any FMIC changes.

 

I only ask Shaun because of its what I consider good value for money, it works well according to all the reports out there, and its weight compared to others that have been mentioned here...

Ooh your correct. I feel a right "tit" now,,, or is it a left tit

 

Evo's are so boring, I've had Evo 1 - 4 - 5 - 6 Makinen - 7 and 8 over the years and whilst being very efficient, are just not engaging to drive like a Subaru, which l have also had just about every version.

When I had 2 or 3 Evo's at my disposal, I used to say that if the Evo's were full of fuel and the Subaru was empty and l was running late for an appointment, I would still take the Subaru and fill it.

Don't get me started on the Evo turning circle... the Titanic had better lock.

Flame suit on and zipped up.

David

 

I have only just updated myself on this very interesting thread Shaun. I am back tomorrow and we can talk at some point.
I go back to what I said at post 413 or thereabouts. It is not just the temperature drop that is important but also how well the air flows ie lack of pressure drop across the core.
Others will also have noticed that a smaller turbo running close to its limit produces a lot of heat whereas a bigger turbo less stressed has considerably lower compressor discharge temperatures.
Regards heated throttle bodies, the reason for this is to prevent icing caused by the pressure drop in the orifice and it is not a winter/cold temperature issue but to do with pressure drop, relative humidity and actual temperature. Quite common at 25C in the right climatic circumstances.

As regards TMIC or FMIC I rely on my own experiences and a lot will depend on the car specification and turbo in use and how stressed or unstressed it might be. A specific example is a 2 litre producing 382 bhp on the rollersat TEG Sport. This car was fitted with an STi 8 TMIC. The car was specifically run with fine adjustments to the map to extract maximum power. No other modifications other than just fitting a Hybrid GT FMIC. 391 bhp on a tentative run, straight out the box, same rollers and 410 bhp after a short mapping session. This is only one of several examples I have.

 

Shaun, before you change to a FMIC, take some through the gears acceleration figures with the TMIC that includes say 3 gear changes, then make the comparison to the figures achieved with the FMIC with the same or possibly higher power output.
Something like a 30-130 run would be ideal, timing it from the moment you hit the throttle at 30mph.

ps don't sell your TMIC before you have done this

 

Evo 9 engines have one of the highest compression / power efficiency figures than any other engines.

 

I have a couple of things I want to try tonight with boost and ignition, which I'm able to "adjust" with Delta Dash. I will update the thread with the "why" later.

Harvey,
Thanks for the infomation.

Andy,
Or you could always save me the effort and let me know how (presumably) quicker the TMIC set-up is in that scenario.

I have a Racelogic Box, but not sure I could stretch to forking out to hire Bruntingthorpe to test this.

 

Interesting post Andy, I know enough to know that I shouldnt under estimate your input however......

My previous unbiased (I have nothing to sell like others do who recommenmd you buy things) input of preffering my car with the FMIC on is based on the cars performance, by this I mean when I am driving it fast, granted at these times I am not rolling on the power to see if the lower end is better or not, but I find that lets say 70mph 6th gear motorway overtakes have improved a lot by the increased torque that was achieved after getting the FMIC fitted, there may be more variables I am not aware of

Whilst lapping Oulton Park I also know that my gear change points have also moved, its more where I am grabbing the higher gears now is a lot earlier which I think/thought was due to the extra speed being carried again because I thought this was the extra torque punching me out of corners?

I listen to what you more knowledgeable guys say, it would be daft not to, but based on the difference of an LM420 with & without TMIC in my case only, the difference was alot I would have thought with an even larger LM450 the difference would have been even greater again.

I look forward to seeing Shauns results.

Lee.

 

For hard track use at that level Lee, I would also go with a FMIC.
My comments were aimed at road driven cars that maybe don't see sustained WOT or 100+mph so often.

 

^^ but as I mentioned even the motorway overtakes are easier, there is just more grunt to pull past people, previously the car had to be revved more to make it go?

Shauns current set up is very similar to where I was at > JDM engine, LM turbo and same mapper, once he sorts out the induction & FMIC he will be able to show the before and after results, maybe then it will make more sense.

Shocked by only seeing less than 420bhp though, I was thinking the results would have been nearer 440hp & 385 ft lbs? I would have guessed with the fmic 440+hp & 415 ft lbs

Lee.

 

Lee,
The non Billet core has produced 460bhp @ 1.6bar (peak power boost) on a Dyno Dynamics Rolling Road (mapped by another mapper and tested on an independant RR). The main differences between that car and mine are the turbo compressor core, Hybrid FMIC and CAI Kit.

My current figures are way way off what should be achievable outright with this LM and possibly, other supporting mods.

Just looking at the how wide and flat the BHP curve is on my latest RR graph, indicates that something is holding it back.

One of the items that "could" be causing a restriction (aside from any potential intercooler issues) will hopefully be eliminated in the next week or so, following dicussions I have had today.

More on this later though.... I need to charge my laptop up for tonights "session".

 

Without meaning to cause offence, Shaun.. what could you be changing that whoever mapped your car wouldn't have done? Or is there a reason they wouldn't have done what you propose to do.

 

The EcuTEK software I have gives the "customer" a lot of extra functionality, which I have used to great benefit with Tracktive. I can go away, take logs from the ECU, send that data back to Tracktive and they can send me an adjusted map file that I can then flash to the ECU again. This means I can try different maps and see what the end result is, against EcuTEK's Road Dyno and / or EcuTEK's DeltaDash. This approach is very useful when we are experimenting with different things, which is what this project is about.

Instances of this could be fine tuning boost control, trying different ignition curves, solving an overboost issues etc.

One of the other uses is to see how changing the boost or ignition, alters the power curve. Something that is made much easier (as regards to the effects this can have) by using a dyno. So far we have mapped on the road, but since I have all this extra functionality to hand, it was decided we would use this facility instead of sticking to their dyno for mapping at this stage.

It's interesting for me and gives others insight to the EcuTEK tools that are available and benefit these tools could provide to the "enthusiast".

 

[quote=Shaun;

It's interesting for me and gives others insight to the EcuTEK tools that are available and benefit these tools could provide to the "enthusiast".[/quote]

Maybe this should be another thread

I have picked up bits listening to you mention Ekutec delta dash, but I m way off understanding exactly what it is ? just moving to Syvecs, so it dont matter to me now

 

OK.... just come back from bashing the laptop.

I know Lee isn't interested in this but just to recap what functionality that additional EcuTEK software can provide us, the end user.

Delta Dash
Log and look at what the ECU sees.
Dependant on ECU, you can enter a function called "Live Tuning" where you can alter certain parameters, to change your map, switch between dual maps etc.
Road Dyno which is the dyno graphing tool and acceleration logger.

EasyECU
Enables you to flash (program) your ECU with a ROM file created by an authorised EcuTEK dealer.

What I hoped I could do tonight using the EcuTEK software, was to look at the effects (by using Road Dyno) of reducing overall boost and ignition, to see whether or not a) lower boost on it's own would keep the same or increase power (go part way to backing up the theory of an inlet restriction) and b) double check we hadn't gone past MBT.

What is MBT?

Depends which webiste you look on! Some refer to it as Minimum Best Timing, some Medium Best Timing and others Maximum Best Timing. I'm not sure it's important in reality. For the purpose of this explanation, does my set-up require less timing to make its optimum power.... i.e. have we added in more timing that is actually giving a power benefit. Adding more than the "best" timing can actually reduce your power. Some set-ups can be Knock Limited, which means you actually get DET before you hit MBT. We had no DET so far, so MBT was just worth checking.

Unfortunately my ECU does not allow me to alter wastegate duty etc (via the EcuTEK software, other than changing to a completely different map), so I had to skip that test for the time being.

Next was to look at reducing ignition timing to see if that had an effect on power.

First off I did three Road Dyno runs, to ensure I had a stable baseline bhp/torque comparison.

I then (using Live Tuning) reduced the overall ignition by just over 2degs. Since Richard had ended up putting in just under an additional 4dges of ignition overall (over my previous LM400 map), I thought this would be a good start.

I then completed two runs with the reduced ignition and they both showed the same result.... a reduction of 10bhp/10lbft at peak figures. With my limited knowledge I would suggest that means we have not exceeded MBT. If MBT had been passed I would of expected the same or more peak figures, with the reduced (retarded) ignition.

I can ADD ignition using this software, but I'm certainly about to start doing that! Would be interested to see what that would do though.

So nothing major tonight, but again, just some more testing and information.

So where do I go from here?

There is one more thing I want to test before I resolve myself to changing the intercooler.... I want to ensure there is no inlet (airbox) restriction. The easiest way to find this is out is by removing the airbox and fitting an induction kit or inner wing kit.

There is a possibility that the boost is being inefficiently produced (thanks to Andy for the explanation) caused by an induction limitation. The wastegate closes which spins the turbo faster to achieve the target boost, but as a result the reduced wastegate area of the exhaust gas backpressure increases. It looks like (going by the PS Dyno Graph) that we are starting to see very slight boost creep at the top end of the run.

Just to erradicate any possible airbox restriction, I want to change this specific item.

I have been speaking with API alot recently and I'm pleased to say they are rejoining the "party". The car will be booked in within the next couple of weeks with API for the airbox removal and fitment of an inner wing kit.

Again with my limited knowledge (I did some testing with Tracktive on my old Spec C in this area and we found an inlet restriction back then) I will be expecting some serious overboost with the fitment of the inlet kit, if indeed the standard airbox is causing a restriction. A simple "run up the road" will prove that, which will ultimately mean I will have to get back to Tracktive for another remap.

If this does not prove positive it will immediately be on to changing the intercooler, as I'm all out of realistic avenues to investigate...... and I just want to be hitting that BHP potential! lol

 

Oh no!!

Shaun I hope this isn't all my fault!! Lol

Mel

p.s can't wait to
See the results, oh and don't forget my turbo has the 76mm inlet with the 3" sfs inlet hose.

 

Yes.... it's all your fault!

You've cost me an arm and a leg.....Invoice is in the post!

 

Sorry for the off topic but most modern cars (Subarus included) just can't compare with older ones (on the feedback, enjoyment, rewarding to drive).
If you want a rewarding car get a 205 Gti. It's not all about power
A Subaru/Evo can be driven relatively quickly by an average driver, to do that in an older car requires more skills.
I'll get my coat now!

 

I had a 1.9 205 GTi as well - pile of poo.