Regarding the Fmic.....

Is there any chance that the vf37 will make more power with it?(So in other words making more than the 340-360bhp that has been achieve by the majority),or the vf37 is that small that it would not make that much of a difference if it had a Fmic?thanks

 

The problem with the VF36 & 37 is that the exhaust housing is so small. It is a major problem. I managed to wring 395 hp /394 ft lbs out of the one in my Blob eye demonstrator after having £600.00 of work done to it by Owen Developments. They made a bunch of parts from Inconel to try and resist the latent heat generated in the small area. It worked.

Once the back end starts to overheat the power drops off dramatically and it is increasing the chance of turbo failure on an exponential scale.

David APi

 

I guess 395bhp for 600 british pound is still not bad considering it became comparable with the lm400 power wise(reliability maybe not).

 

Regarding headers I can confidently say that the best are the stock ones, the Tomei are not better and can in most cases detract from spool up and also top end. Porting doesn't work well either, Subaru did a good job.

My own car has been converted to twin scroll and I have used the stock headers and up pipe "as is" although I do expect that I might find the limit given my heads etc.

So far the LM500 billet is spooling extremely well up to 1 bar which is as far as I've taken it and I've not touched the mapping in real terms yet

cheers

bob

 

Does anyone know if the litchfield Race Turbo fitting kit (Oil line with heat wrap and Water pipes) comes complete with the oil feed that contacts the block to the avcs and the turbo?(as seen in this link)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Turbo-Oil-...#ht_878wt_1037

As my oil feed pipe cracked and as im looking to upgrade the turbo to the lm450 in the near future so it would be been wiser if i can just buy the kit in the first place,and if so can i use it on the vf37 at the moment?any help is much appreciated as im stuck in the middle of nowhere,many thanks.

 

Why don't you just ring Iain ?

 

The problem is that i live in Malta.Tried to contact him but for no avail,supposely does who have installed the kit to their turbo will know what im talking about.Thanks

 

I don't think it does, when my engine was being assembled we had to acquire the correct oil feed pipe as you describe from Subaru, my heads are Cosworth and are USA spec not Europe so the std part which would have been used again would not fit, if you buy that kit then ask for that part to be supplied in addition, I can call him for you if you like and mail you the answers will be on Monday now though as I am flogging myself to exhaustion in the gym for five hours of Spinathon and Body Combat tomorrow.

cheers

bob

 

So in other words on my stock jdm engine the original oem std oil feed pipe is to be used as in Iian fitting kit its still not included.So if im getting this right ian's Lm series oil feed fitting is 'after' the block to the turbo 'only' and not to the avcs?.That's awesome Bob,thanks very much for your help.

 

Top feed comes in the kit and you still retain your return pipe.

 

Hi Shaun! I have a few quastions for you.

1.What spark plugs do you you on 480bhp car? Stockers Sti or one step colder? Two steps colder? What do experienced subaru enthusiasts prefer in the UK? NGK PFR7 or Denso IK22, IK24? In my experience during a cold winter NGKs are starting a cold engine better, but Denso IK22 make engine run little quieter and smoother. Before the incoming mapping day I have to decide what spark plug model to use with my MD321T Billet turbo just installed. I'm stuck with the choice, some say put the racing series plugs there.

2. Tommorow I give my car to install the Hybrid X01R fmic. The installer offers me to rotate the intake manifold and do a lot of custom work. Does it worth it on a turbo like LM450? I think the difference in piping lenght is about 1 meter, will it be tiny unnoticable difference or 1meter is noticable behind the steering wheel? What is your opinion about rotating the intake manifold? I think it's expensive move and a little difference in perfomance. But if a little there and little there in summ the car will be different at the end.

3. I will push my EJ207 for 450bhp, there are 30K miles on the clock, and I am thinking about a stronger engine, looking at the 2.35 shortblock. Do you have any dyno sheets to compare the perfomance of 2.0 and 2.35 engines on a turbo like LM450?
I see here people pushing their EJ207 for 450bhp for a long time with no issues, the difference is 2.35 can hold much more power. But if to compare how long they both will last, may be they are the same ?

 

Hi Semion,
1. I swear I have NGK PFR7's in and they're 100% fine.

2. IMO rotating the manifold is not worth the expense at this level.

3. I personally would not spend all that cash on a 2.35. I would wait and if your 2ltr has issues (and there is no reason why it should at this level), consider a 2.1 kit. Cheaper and a good match for this turbo imo. Which leads me onto.........

John Felstead (who owns a JDM Newage STI with a 2.1ltr engine VF set-up) wanted to see how my set-up performed on the road. He is working with another Turbo manufacturer, testing a spec similar to the LM450. I met him at a competition track event last month and threw him my keys. The feedback was interesting.

Although John has a different turbo fitted at the moment, he did have the VF twinscroll fitted for several months with this 2.1 engine (he originally has the OEM engine and modded it).

John said my set-up was about 700rpm slower on spool up, when compared against the VF. However, this is comparing a VF attached to a 2.1ltr. John said that his 2.1ltr gave him just under 500rpm better spool with his VF turbo. This is one of the reasons why you should NEVER take pure rpm comparisons on their own. Once you disect the data, you then realise that you're giving away around 400rpm in spool, on a like for like engine set-up. Also... I have a FMIC and John still retains the TMIC.

We all know a VF36/37 will top out at around 360bhp (on a good set-up). The LM450 is already giving me over 440 of each. The extra you get back, imo, is so worth any loss in spool over the VF.

Anymore peak torque and your would start to lose grip with my current wheel / tyre set-up (17's & 235 RE070's). John was just breaking traction in 2nd in mine.

My set-up on John's 2.1 would be a proper **** kicker!!

Having said all of this, I think this set-up on a good 2ltr is properly good. I would have no issues in recommending this over the LM400.... but it's horses for courses.

 

Hmm.. 2.125 conversion does it worth it? If my crank will be ok, do I really need to do 2.125? Have to buy the crank, pistons, rods, etc.. And pay for remapping of course. 0.125cc difference only..
Can't find LM450 on 2.1 dyno graph on this site, may be you have some? Very interesting and actual information for me!

 

I'll let someone like John explain the real world differences. Don't just concentrate on the cc alone... the stroke plays a bigger part in this instance.

I'm not saying do it now, but should your engine need replacing, this is what I would do. A 2.35 will cost you alot more!!

 

Double post

 

Does the bigger stroke affect revving? Will the 2.1 car still rev up to 8000rpm that nicely as 2.0? More stroke-more torque, as I know, but there must be a negative thing in 2.1 conversion, I would like to know what it is.

I found the billet crankshaft 2.5l made by Arrow Precision, does anyone here use it? It's lighter, so should rev very well. The price difference between Sti 2.5 crank and Billet crank is about 1000 pounds, not cheap, but their low pressure oil lines are very good for reliability, so it can be used on a ultimate street cars, especially who likes to rev the engine up to the red zone, and some track days will not be killing your engine days!

 

No.
Yes.

Why does there have to be a negative thing?

Why do you want it to rev better (billet crank wise)? - you will need some set-up to make use of the standard 8200rpm JDM limit, let alone utilising anymore revs.

I used the standard nitrided crank on my old Spec C 2.5ltr build. Never missed a beat and it took a right spanking on road, track and competition.

 

Bore/stroke ratio should be in balance, depending on the car purpose . More stroke- more torque and less revving. For example, I owned the honda s2000 car, it's 2.0L engine and it had a 9k rpm limit. The newer model honda s2000 is 2.2L, more stroke but the same engine, rev limit is 8K rpm. The piston speed is encreased due to bigger stroke, so that is the limiting factor, I suppose. What subaru engineers are guided by, making the rev limits on 2.0 and 2.5 engines I don't know, but I think it's in bore/stroke balance area. Camshafts, valves, springs parameters are about the same.

 

It's not a problem on the 2.1 conversions. Even if it was though.... why people bang on about the increased rev limit on a 2ltr JDM is beyond me - when individuals just think it's a great thing in isolation.

Unless you have some massive turbo to produce power up in that area, it's pretty pointless in many respects. Good for holding on to a gear, say mid corner etc, but we're on about pure track use here.

So.... no negatives for the 2.1 route.

 

I get people in here, or on the phone all the time, wanting to use 9000 rpm. My question is always " why the **** do you want to do that ? "

"I like revving it" - is the usual answer.

To my knowledge there are no cams that work much above say; 7200 - so the extra 1800 rpm is just for being flash and boasting and make a noise. And wearing out a whole bunch of expensive kit.

We have a 2.1 that makes 655 hp on a sniff of Methanol and Tesco and l do allow the owner to run it on to 9000 when heading for the line at the strip. Not ideal, as the engine is off load up there and all sorts of things could happen [ not yet anyway .... ] But it does save the time of the extra gear shift.

Most hp charts and dyno runs will tell you why there is no reason to rev the brains out of it and it is surely the most inefficient and dangerous way to treat a Subaru engine. FOR NO PURPOSE.

Change gear at 8800 and the revs will drop to somewhere in the high sixes. Most charts show peak power at 6600 [ ish ] and torque peak at 4200-4400. So you are way beyond the useable power band. Run it up to 7000 if you must and work it hard from 3500 and you'll make better progress, your engine will last longer and you'll be right on the bootlid [ until top gear ] of the 9000 rpm guy.

RCM's car will go to or beyond 10,000 but that engine has all sorts of exotica inside.

Very high revs doesn't pay dividends on a flat four Subaru engine.

David

 

Agreed!

 

Couldn't agree more with any of that !
2.1 FTW and the right spec will climb to 8000rpm with no drop off in power, it'll still be there at 8500rpm if you need it to be.

 

I'll mark this momentus occasion in my diary - all three of us agreeing!

 

8000 rpm is nothing on our puny stroke cranks. It's the valve train that's the limiting factor.

It's real handy having an 8Krpm limit, even on an engine thats out of puff by 6.5K. The fastest way is not to use peak power as your shift point, you need to look at the maximum area under the power curve and from that generate your shift point if looking for peak performance, it will always be beyond peak power, sometimes by quite a margin.

Your complete engine spec package determines what works best for road use and competition use, on the road i'll rarely see 6Krpm, in competition i'll see 8Krpm on occasion, which is why i installed uprated rods in my 2.1 build to allow that.

 

Does anybody use titanium rods on the Sti?

The new Hybrid fmic kit has a different piping route, below the engine, and does not fit my car, because of the aluminium jdm subframe and a motor shield. So I have to cut the pipes and do a lot of welding to route the piping traditionly. Also the core size is different comparing to GT2, now it's lower and wider, it fits better to bumper's window of the newage impreza. But the core tanks are still visible from the window, I don't like this look. The perfect is when you see only the core, no side tanks.

 

I agree about the endtanks looking 'ugly'.

Hyperflow FMICs don't suffer this; they're huge (wide) and all you see is the core (I have one). But I also have a black protective mesh in front. So if you fit a mesh, then the endtanks issue would be a moot point ahyhoo.....

 

About the high revs- I was driving Honda S2000 and Sti Spec C both same day with my girlfriend's girlfriend . I asked her what car is faster? She answered - of, course, Honda! I understand her, because revving up to 9k is so emotional, and after each gear upshift you just can't hide a smile on your face.

Equal lenght headers + titanium catbacks are sounds like honda, I prefer this sound more than boo-boo-boo rattling.

p.s. Check out the best sounding EVO that I know. Even the driver's window falls off because of such a high speed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGv02ZJjkyU.

And check out the revs up to 10K of that EVO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNmTp2YRo3Q

 

Very nice.... so you building a drag car now then!!!!!

What do you want.... thoughts based on emotion or facts based on reality!

 

Edited for accuracy.

 

Missed this earlier shaun.

I think i said your setup is 1000rpm down on my VF37 and 2.1, it's probably 750rpm down on my current setup.

New tyres would certainly help tame the way the torque comes in on yours, those ancient RE070's are only fit for the bin or an airfield day now, way too hard!

I think we have found why mine isn't producing the top end, will know for sure the night before Blyton, turbo is off the car tomorrow for some mods.