Dyno comparisons - JDM and UK
01 July 2008, 02:57 PM
#1
Dyno comparisons - JDM and UK
Prompted by this thread https://www.scoobynet.com/scoobynet-...ml#post7976583 ....
Has anyone got RR dyno plots of:
UK MY05 2.0 STi
UK MY05 2.0 STi + PPP
UK MY05 2.0 STi + remap (e.g. Bob Rawle, Powerstation etc)
UK 2.5 STi
UK 2.5 STi + PPP
UK 2.5 STi + remap (e.g. Bob Rawle, Powerstation etc)
JDM 2.0 STi
all with no or "basic" mods (exhaust and filter)?
I've just added the dyno plot to my profile of my JDM 2.0 after its remap.
I know that this will not be an exact comparison, but it might be interesting ? It will at the very least show the "static" differences between the models, and allow an interesting debate between the twin- and single-scrollers
Has anyone got RR dyno plots of:
UK MY05 2.0 STi
UK MY05 2.0 STi + PPP
UK MY05 2.0 STi + remap (e.g. Bob Rawle, Powerstation etc)
UK 2.5 STi
UK 2.5 STi + PPP
UK 2.5 STi + remap (e.g. Bob Rawle, Powerstation etc)
JDM 2.0 STi
all with no or "basic" mods (exhaust and filter)?
I've just added the dyno plot to my profile of my JDM 2.0 after its remap.
I know that this will not be an exact comparison, but it might be interesting ? It will at the very least show the "static" differences between the models, and allow an interesting debate between the twin- and single-scrollers
01 July 2008, 06:14 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2ltr JDM MY03 Spec C (panel filter and backbox, JDM map, v power and octane booster)
316bhp and over 320lbs of torque, off hand i cant remember but was good
Tony
316bhp and over 320lbs of torque, off hand i cant remember but was good
Tony
01 July 2008, 07:15 PM
#5
Here's an ecutek delta dash road dyno graph showing mine (STi 2.5) when std (green) and then remappped (see my profile). Figures are at the wheel.
Note the 2.5 - 3k rpm areas.
Remapped shows 280/290 lbft @ 2.5k rpm which jumps to 350/360 lbft @ 3k rpm - this would "stretch" a mapped 2 litre twin scroll.
Nick
Note the 2.5 - 3k rpm areas.
Remapped shows 280/290 lbft @ 2.5k rpm which jumps to 350/360 lbft @ 3k rpm - this would "stretch" a mapped 2 litre twin scroll.
Nick
01 July 2008, 07:34 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Here's an ecutek delta dash road dyno graph showing mine (STi 2.5) when std (green) and then remappped (see my profile). Figures are at the wheel.
Note the 2.5 - 3k rpm areas.
Remapped shows 280/290 lbft @ 2.5k rpm which jumps to 350/360 lbft @ 3k rpm - this would "stretch" a mapped 2 litre twin scroll.
Nick
Note the 2.5 - 3k rpm areas.
Remapped shows 280/290 lbft @ 2.5k rpm which jumps to 350/360 lbft @ 3k rpm - this would "stretch" a mapped 2 litre twin scroll.
Nick
Tony
by 3500 your looking at a nice 370lbs
02 July 2008, 08:15 AM
#9
I can't see this on graphs so far (linked thread to this and Webbys stage 1 graphs).
The extra 1/2 litre outweighs the twins scroll "early" torque.
If you have any other graphical info to suggest otherwise then please post it up - its the reason for this thread.
nick
The extra 1/2 litre outweighs the twins scroll "early" torque.
If you have any other graphical info to suggest otherwise then please post it up - its the reason for this thread.
nick
02 July 2008, 09:25 AM
#10
So graphs are easy to see (rather than having to look at my profile) here's my twinscroll remap results.
This clearly shows the boost tailing off (turbo or induction - if you believe Bob Rawle it is induction as he managed to map his twinscroll to maintain 1.4bar once he fitted an RCM induction kit); and it also shows I have >300 lbft from 3500-6000 rpm.
Last edited by TimH; 02 July 2008 at 09:28 AM.
02 July 2008, 09:51 AM
#11
And, for interest, here are plots from Surrey RR as per scoobytc's post above. After that RR day I discovered I had a split pipe to the 3 port BCS - once I fixed it, I lost a very noticeable amount of torgue at low rpm. In other words, the 1.7bar boost and 380lbft torque and not really representative...except they were adamant at SRR that my fuelling was spot on, so maybe a further rempa might allow that impressive torque figure after all
Of course, what it really does is, to a degree, support webby's view that comparing RR plots is pointless
Of course, what it really does is, to a degree, support webby's view that comparing RR plots is pointless
02 July 2008, 10:56 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The entire point is that the 2.5 doesnt outweigh the twin scroll's early torque, its .5 of a ltr down and produces more torque out of the box due to the headers being different plus the 2ltr is a stronger engine than the 2.5, uses less fuel yet produces the power of a bigger engine, you just have a bigger, thirstier engine, thats the difference
Tony
plus the 2ltr is a stronger engine than the 2.5, uses less fuel yet produces the power of a bigger engine, you just have a bigger, thirstier engine, thats the difference Tony
- please show me some graphical info that's easier for me to follow.
02 July 2008, 06:34 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I will see if i can add the graph of my old spec c (unmapped, just a panel filter and about 2k on the clock, basically shows you at 1k rpm producing 75lbs of torque, at 1500rpm 100lbs of torque, at 2k 125lbs, at 2.5k 175lbs, 3k 225lbs, 3.5k 275bs, 3.8k 312lbs where it peaked.
Thats on a tight engine and still running the JDM map (official figures for the car were 276bhp and 290lbs of torque, on this its 299bhp and 312lbs)
Your other place to look is subaru japan, the standard model now produces 300bhp and 310lbs (last of the hawkeyes) compared to the 290bhp/300lbs on the 2.5, but it is all in the headers
Tony
Thats on a tight engine and still running the JDM map (official figures for the car were 276bhp and 290lbs of torque, on this its 299bhp and 312lbs)
Your other place to look is subaru japan, the standard model now produces 300bhp and 310lbs (last of the hawkeyes) compared to the 290bhp/300lbs on the 2.5, but it is all in the headers
Tony
02 July 2008, 10:03 PM
#15
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wellingborough, Northamptonshire
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry tony, but here are some DynoDynamics (so a reasonably valid comparison) result snapshots from a 2.5 WRX with STI turbo on, exhaust and remap.
RPM--Torque(ftlb)
2000-180
2400-230
3200-360
4000-380
4800-380
5500-330
6400-270
Compared to the above graph for a twinsroll car flat out, it's way ahead 70ft-lb at 3200RPM.
Trying to compare your results from (I presume) Prosport's bosch rollers is somewhat flawed.
RPM--Torque(ftlb)
2000-180
2400-230
3200-360
4000-380
4800-380
5500-330
6400-270
Compared to the above graph for a twinsroll car flat out, it's way ahead 70ft-lb at 3200RPM.
Trying to compare your results from (I presume) Prosport's bosch rollers is somewhat flawed.
03 July 2008, 12:25 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Have you a comparison from a standard car?
Remember mine was never mapped, ran the standard exhaust and only a panel filter, comparing it with a remapped car is well, stupid really but also take into consideration mine only had 2k on the clock when those figures were done, and it pretty much ran the same figures every time (when run in) it went on those rollers, how many other rr's do that?
Tony
Remember mine was never mapped, ran the standard exhaust and only a panel filter, comparing it with a remapped car is well, stupid really
but also take into consideration mine only had 2k on the clock when those figures were done, and it pretty much ran the same figures every time (when run in) it went on those rollers, how many other rr's do that? Tony
03 July 2008, 12:34 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Tim, what mods does your car have btw
Zen, i know where your coming from, but considering a JDM is still a 2ltr (and higher revving) my point is that just because its bigger does not make it better
Tony
Zen, i know where your coming from, but considering a JDM is still a 2ltr (and higher revving) my point is that just because its bigger does not make it better
Tony
03 July 2008, 12:52 PM
#19
Twin scroll fan boy strikes again 
"Tight engines" - my ****
That output appears to be identical to a std 2.5 engine, so the starting blocks are similar.
Let's hope that others haven't lost the will over this thread and have some graphs can In some way be comparable.
"Tight engines" - my ****
That output appears to be identical to a std 2.5 engine, so the starting blocks are similar.
Let's hope that others haven't lost the will over this thread and have some graphs can In some way be comparable.
03 July 2008, 03:34 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
1st time on the rolling road my old car pulled 288bhp, added the panel filter and that went up to 299bhp, by the time she was loosened up (as of course engines are not tight when new 10k down the line) she was running 316bhp.
Remember its a 2ltr not a 2.5
Tony
PS, go have a look which way the turbo technology is going, see how many manufacturers are doing twin scroll engines now
10k down the line) she was running 316bhp.Remember its a 2ltr not a 2.5
Tony
PS, go have a look which way the turbo technology is going, see how many manufacturers are doing twin scroll engines now
03 July 2008, 03:46 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
though if they made that 2.5 a little bigger (engine size, not capacity) for a bit more strenght, they could be onto something Tim, im not sure, but its the way forward
Tony
03 July 2008, 04:31 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've only got an exhaust and a remap and I'm hitting almost 360lb/ft(not RR verified), also I think it's got a low 12 in it at it's current state of tune. I ran a 12.5@110 on my first ever attempt over the 1/4. I'm fitting a 3PBS and a Forge acutuator and going back to see AndyF on the 30th, so should maximise the torque from the turbo. Low down, mid range and top end this thing is very, very impressive, not bad for ~£1300 worth of mods.
03 July 2008, 04:38 PM
#25
I've only got an exhaust and a remap and I'm hitting almost 360lb/ft(not RR verified), also I think it's got a low 12 in it at it's current state of tune. I ran a 12.5@110 on my first ever attempt over the 1/4. I'm fitting a 3PBS and a Forge acutuator and going back to see AndyF on the 30th, so should maximise the torque from the turbo. Low down, mid range and top end this thing is very, very impressive, not bad for ~£1300 worth of mods.
Is your estimate of 360lb-ft based on Andy's software? Can he get you any plots?
03 July 2008, 04:41 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah that's estimating using Andy's software, which is give or take a few either way. I'm sure he could supply me with the plots, I'll ask when I see him at the end of the month. I prefer to do my comparisons on the 1/4 though, if I can do regular 12.1/2's then I know there's been an improvement.
Peak boost is 1.55.
Peak boost is 1.55.
03 July 2008, 04:58 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a similar mod to uprating your boost controller(solenoid), it should allow for a better/more accurate boost control. In theory it will allow me to run slightly more boost.
Check here - https://www.scoobynet.com/newage-imp...-part-2-a.html
Check here - https://www.scoobynet.com/newage-imp...-part-2-a.html
. Thanks for the link 
