406 BHP on standard UK internals at Star
22 May 2003, 09:36 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
406 BHP at 1.6 bar was the result, torque was 363 lbft. Standard UK internals, heads and ECU
Scrapyard £150 turbo transformed into a diamond by Andy F 
Think I've got some competition with Andy F with his headers now though as he seems to be equal using less boost
Roll on the 2.35 and then the fun will really start
22 May 2003, 09:43 PM
#3
lines up nicely with similar results on same turbo.
Well done mate. Does Dr Sam know?
A bit gutted rob didn't have the blitz controller sorted, and he didn't have a leak in an inlet hose (breather) causing it to go lean (just found that out) etc etc.
DIY 400hp turbo, does exactly what it says on the tin.
Paul
Well done mate. Does Dr Sam know?
A bit gutted rob didn't have the blitz controller sorted, and he didn't have a leak in an inlet hose (breather) causing it to go lean (just found that out) etc etc.
DIY 400hp turbo, does exactly what it says on the tin.
Paul
22 May 2003, 09:59 PM
#6
Excellent results.
when you say standard ecu, is it still using the standard subaru map? or have you changed it.
Also, what petrol were you using? and has anything else been changed? Are you still using stock airbox/exhaust/injectors?
[Edited by ChristianR - 5/22/2003 10:02:04 PM]
when you say standard ecu, is it still using the standard subaru map? or have you changed it.
Also, what petrol were you using? and has anything else been changed? Are you still using stock airbox/exhaust/injectors?
[Edited by ChristianR - 5/22/2003 10:02:04 PM]
Trending Topics
22 May 2003, 10:42 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sorry Adam, not sure if it is 2.33 or 2.35 - I have conflicting info. Maybe it is a rounding off problem with the measurements I have as they were only to 2 sig figs. The new engine is nearly ready to go in. Wanted a last fling with this one first Since Star readings have historically been comparable with Powerstation it may be on the conservative side (MD304 car with similar spec but more conservative pump fuel map at 1.25 bar on the road ran 300 BHP on the same rollers although it was only running 1.1 bar on the rollers the numbers are lower than expected on other rolling roads). 350+ ATW on accelerometer testing would support this. Star have halved their run length now to 15 seconds, so we'll need other cars for comparison.
Yes of course I remapped the ECU 550 cc injectors running high 3.9 bar differential. APS induction, MRT inlet, 20G, APS FMIC, Revolution 3", ported standard headers, Optimax and NF.
Don't really want to run cast pistons without NF at this level of boost.
For the new engine thinking of a manifold and water injection so can use pump fuel, plus the considerably better breathing heads - I hope I can get my 450/400 at 1.5 bar but we'll see. Emphasis is on torque, reliability and driveability. I want 400 lbft by 4000 RPM so that I get negligible lag on booting it anywhere above 4500 RPM as rev limiter will be at 7500 on the stroker... We'll have to see
[Edited by john banks - 5/22/2003 11:32:13 PM]
Since Star readings have historically been comparable with Powerstation it may be on the conservative side (MD304 car with similar spec but more conservative pump fuel map at 1.25 bar on the road ran 300 BHP on the same rollers although it was only running 1.1 bar on the rollers the numbers are lower than expected on other rolling roads). 350+ ATW on accelerometer testing would support this. Star have halved their run length now to 15 seconds, so we'll need other cars for comparison.Yes of course I remapped the ECU
550 cc injectors running high 3.9 bar differential. APS induction, MRT inlet, 20G, APS FMIC, Revolution 3", ported standard headers, Optimax and NF.Don't really want to run cast pistons without NF at this level of boost.
For the new engine thinking of a manifold and water injection so can use pump fuel, plus the considerably better breathing heads - I hope I can get my 450/400 at 1.5 bar but we'll see. Emphasis is on torque, reliability and driveability. I want 400 lbft by 4000 RPM so that I get negligible lag on booting it anywhere above 4500 RPM as rev limiter will be at 7500 on the stroker... We'll have to see
[Edited by john banks - 5/22/2003 11:32:13 PM]
22 May 2003, 11:31 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greece, previously Syd Australia
Posts: 2,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear! We're not going to find out how long a stock engine can last with this sort of power.
John,
Can't you wait installing the new engine till, (and that's if), the stock engine blows?
Would be good to wait, but what if it never blows, ay. You'd be hanging for the extra power and if you were to wait, maybe you'd never get the new engine installed. 
Cheers,
George.
John,
Can't you wait installing the new engine till, (and that's if), the stock engine blows?
Would be good to wait, but what if it never blows, ay. You'd be hanging for the extra power and if you were to wait, maybe you'd never get the new engine installed.
Cheers,
George.
22 May 2003, 11:36 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Whilst I would never dream of mapping anyone else's engine like this in case of kaboom, I suspect it would last rather well. Cast pistons are rumoured to be just as strong as many forged items if you don't let them detonate and control the temps. I don't know if this is true or not. Conrod loadings from compression are nothing like those from tension - I suspect you shorten their life more just by using a 500 RPM higher rev limiter than I am doing. Interestingly this turbo on Andy F's car with a manifold and albeit at only 1.2-1.4 bar runs less exhaust back pressure than boost pressure. This is incredibly engine friendly.
Oh, I am still on the standard clutch which is the bit that makes me laugh the most Not a hint of slip!
Oh, I am still on the standard clutch which is the bit that makes me laugh the most
Not a hint of slip!
23 May 2003, 12:04 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greece, previously Syd Australia
Posts: 2,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from JB
Smooth driving, with good balanced power delivery, sqeeze the pedal like an orange, nice smooth gear changes and smooth takeoffs with some slip of the clutch is what's making that clutch last.
Cheers,
George
Oh, I am still on the standard clutch which is the bit that makes me laugh the most Not a hint of slip!
Cheers,
George
23 May 2003, 12:53 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
Fantastic result. Out of curiosity, how much NF were you running ?
Mark.
Fantastic result. Out of curiosity, how much NF were you running ?
Mark.
..... once again congrats on the results, your boost control must be pretty amazing
Carlos H.
[Edited by carlos_hiraoka - 5/23/2003 12:54:39 AM]
[Edited by carlos_hiraoka - 5/23/2003 12:55:24 AM]
23 May 2003, 09:34 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Full bottle of NF per full tank. But hopefully that would not be required if I have water injection from what I hear. But I wasn't going to risk the det without it. The shorter run time plus the NF gave a wide safety buffer and allowed us to try different boost levels with lower risk of the engine popping.
Who knows what the figures mean - take the rough with the smooth and I take it with a pinch of salt. No one believes you until you can produce it from a dyno even though most of us agree they are dubious tools at best. Useful for the pub only. I suspect the real figure lies within +-10%.
Excuses time: I only have a graph for a 398.5 BHP run as that was the only one of the 10 or so that was saved, also had a MAP sesnor feed that had blown off which was confusing what boost I was running (surprisingly it didn't det with the MAP sensor reading 0.93 bar absolute), and to be honest it is all over the place, the torque delivery is completely different to the road. I'm not going to put up the graph of the run because it isn't very useful. The main exercise was to sort the run length on the rollers and my secondary gain was to get a figure for the pub.
It is the rather admittedly dubious tactic of setting up the rollers to get the number you want, but this will always be the case. We believe them if we want to believe them, but based on Andy's figures and comparitive accelerometer readings I was hoping for 430 BHP so there is still a twinge of disappointment. Oh well
Who knows what the figures mean - take the rough with the smooth and I take it with a pinch of salt. No one believes you until you can produce it from a dyno even though most of us agree they are dubious tools at best. Useful for the pub only. I suspect the real figure lies within +-10%.
Excuses time: I only have a graph for a 398.5 BHP run as that was the only one of the 10 or so that was saved, also had a MAP sesnor feed that had blown off which was confusing what boost I was running (surprisingly it didn't det with the MAP sensor reading 0.93 bar absolute), and to be honest it is all over the place, the torque delivery is completely different to the road. I'm not going to put up the graph of the run because it isn't very useful. The main exercise was to sort the run length on the rollers and my secondary gain was to get a figure for the pub.
It is the rather admittedly dubious tactic of setting up the rollers to get the number you want, but this will always be the case. We believe them if we want to believe them, but based on Andy's figures and comparitive accelerometer readings I was hoping for 430 BHP so there is still a twinge of disappointment. Oh well
23 May 2003, 09:42 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John
I take it you used the AP22 as well as Star's rollers for comparison?
What weighting did you use for the car on the AP22 and what were the differences in "at wheels" figures between AP22 and rolling road?
Alan
I take it you used the AP22 as well as Star's rollers for comparison?
What weighting did you use for the car on the AP22 and what were the differences in "at wheels" figures between AP22 and rolling road?
Alan
23 May 2003, 10:01 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Scoobysport, Basildon, UK
Posts: 4,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantastic results John
The piston thing is purely rpm related, as far as I can tell. A forged piston is a lot lighter than a cast one, so the load on the rods and bearings is much less when changing its direction of travel.
The piston thing is purely rpm related, as far as I can tell. A forged piston is a lot lighter than a cast one, so the load on the rods and bearings is much less when changing its direction of travel.
23 May 2003, 10:02 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think the at wheels figure was just over 300 BHP at best on the rollers which the accelerometers said I had ages ago Which is again confusing. Plus the air intake temperature was 47C on the one that was printed, which boosts the flywheel figure, but a lot of previous Star runs have been like this. Jim asked me what I was expecting and I said 400 BHP because I didn't want to look a prat when it only did 350 something like last time. But really I wanted to say 430 BHP. Who is right? Are other rollers optimistic? Is one set of rollers reliable to itself, but more importantly are the results valid. The other problem is comparing on road accelerometer with the dyno because of getting the boost the same. It is possible to pick a hundred holes in the figures as always, I am doing so myself. Pinch of salt. But good fun. Most importantly I am happy with how the car goes on the road. However, I am very disappointed that a car with an MD304/FMIC etc only got 300 BHP on the same day with the same settings - it was running only 1.1 bar on the rollers but even so still seems low - on the road it ran 1.25 bar and was quite impressive for this boost level as the MD304 usually is. Very difficult to know how to measure these things. The owner is happy with his, I am happy with mine. I think that is what is most important, but the curiosity of being able to get a really good measurement setup is still there for me.
[Edited by john banks - 5/23/2003 10:09:51 AM]
Which is again confusing. Plus the air intake temperature was 47C on the one that was printed, which boosts the flywheel figure, but a lot of previous Star runs have been like this. Jim asked me what I was expecting and I said 400 BHP because I didn't want to look a prat when it only did 350 something like last time. But really I wanted to say 430 BHP. Who is right? Are other rollers optimistic? Is one set of rollers reliable to itself, but more importantly are the results valid. The other problem is comparing on road accelerometer with the dyno because of getting the boost the same. It is possible to pick a hundred holes in the figures as always, I am doing so myself. Pinch of salt. But good fun. Most importantly I am happy with how the car goes on the road. However, I am very disappointed that a car with an MD304/FMIC etc only got 300 BHP on the same day with the same settings - it was running only 1.1 bar on the rollers but even so still seems low - on the road it ran 1.25 bar and was quite impressive for this boost level as the MD304 usually is. Very difficult to know how to measure these things. The owner is happy with his, I am happy with mine. I think that is what is most important, but the curiosity of being able to get a really good measurement setup is still there for me.[Edited by john banks - 5/23/2003 10:09:51 AM]
23 May 2003, 10:56 AM
#29
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
"It is possible to pick a hundred holes in the figures as always, I am doing so myself. Pinch of salt. But good fun. Most importantly I am happy with how the car goes on the road. "
"However, I am very disappointed that a car with an MD304/FMIC etc only got 300 BHP on the same day with the same settings - it was running only 1.1 bar on the rollers but even so still seems low - on the road it ran 1.25 bar and was quite impressive for this boost level as the MD304 usually is."
" Very difficult to know how to measure these things. The owner is happy with his, I am happy with mine. I think that is what is most important, but the curiosity of being able to get a really good measurement setup is still there for me."
Was this another "snipe" at an IHI being inferior to your pet MHI turbo, or was it a comment about the measurement setup? I hope it was the later, as so far, IMHO, your posts don't "sound" quite like a broken record.
Moray
"It is possible to pick a hundred holes in the figures as always, I am doing so myself. Pinch of salt. But good fun. Most importantly I am happy with how the car goes on the road. "
"However, I am very disappointed that a car with an MD304/FMIC etc only got 300 BHP on the same day with the same settings - it was running only 1.1 bar on the rollers but even so still seems low - on the road it ran 1.25 bar and was quite impressive for this boost level as the MD304 usually is."
" Very difficult to know how to measure these things. The owner is happy with his, I am happy with mine. I think that is what is most important, but the curiosity of being able to get a really good measurement setup is still there for me."
Was this another "snipe" at an IHI being inferior to your pet MHI turbo, or was it a comment about the measurement setup? I hope it was the later, as so far, IMHO, your posts don't "sound" quite like a broken record.
Moray