Highest HP Stock Turbo
Jan 12, 2010, 04:07 PM
#31
Account Disabled
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: on the street
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jan 12, 2010, 04:20 PM
#33
Account Disabled
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: on the street
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jan 12, 2010, 04:22 PM
#34
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ma
Posts: 1,589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never heard of an Evo III big 16g. It's been quite a few years since I have been on the DSMLink boards, but when members were upgrading to the EvoIII 16g, it was a compressor that flowed about the same as the current Evo8 16g does. And my compressor maps appear to be the same map as well.
39lb/min sounds like the normal 'big 16g', which was a popular upgrade for DSMs back in the day.
39lb/min sounds like the normal 'big 16g', which was a popular upgrade for DSMs back in the day.
. As you said the maps are not labled.
Jan 12, 2010, 05:31 PM
#36
400whp on the stock turbo is pretty easy. 500whp...maybe in the absolute perfect case, with perfect mods in cold weather. JohnBradley's post for example, is running E98, extremely modded and running 11:1 aluminum rod engine.
You're still limited by the fact that the turbo can flow around 43 lb/min max. I'm maxing it out right now on E85 as are many others. I'm nowhere close to 500whp (about 400wtq/400whp for now on VDR) although I don't have the biggest cams, IM, ported head, nor an aggressive timing curve (about 0-16 IIRC).
From what I remember, the EvoIII 16g flows the same amount. So, even if the efficiency is slightly better (if this is in fact true...we need to see both compressor maps), the max numbers shouldn't be too much different.
You're still limited by the fact that the turbo can flow around 43 lb/min max. I'm maxing it out right now on E85 as are many others. I'm nowhere close to 500whp (about 400wtq/400whp for now on VDR) although I don't have the biggest cams, IM, ported head, nor an aggressive timing curve (about 0-16 IIRC).
From what I remember, the EvoIII 16g flows the same amount. So, even if the efficiency is slightly better (if this is in fact true...we need to see both compressor maps), the max numbers shouldn't be too much different.
I agree completely.
When it says 522whp it really means 522whp (522/495 to be precise). We tried several combinations of spraying meth pre turbo and post turbo, then one or the other independent. Took the powersteering belt off. It did 522whp 2 times despite the mods to reduce parasitic loss and bump air mass going in the motor. An 11:1 motor exceeding the max airflow of the turbo was only making power because of the rest of the combo...thusly why I use the term "boost assisted all-motor" because in that incarnation thats what it was. To make anymore on a stock turbo is going require even more compression...or the bottle. For the record those runs were at 58* in the dyno cell and 60% humidity.
The "average" build seems to net 440whp max on a dynojet on E85 and IX turbos. I have tested both O2 dump and recirc'd WG, header and no header, and it ends up about there. There is a chance that a car on our dyno made more but I dont think it had a stock turbo on it despite the owners claims.
The "average" build on straight 92 octane is 380-400whp with a big spike (28psi) and always using SD and IX turbos. We have had one car do 416whp at both 29psi and a 35psi spike on an M10 meth jet and SD. It might make more with different cams but its not on a stock turbo anymore so thats kind of hard to test.
Scott- I noticed both points in that post. Judging by his name I'd reckon it was probably also FWD.
Cliffs- High horsepower on a stock turbo is harder on parts than a 600whp GT35 setup.
Jan 12, 2010, 05:47 PM
#37
Maybe the MAP website is referring to the big 16g and not the turbo I am referring to. But, anyway. No use arguing with you.
Edit: Just to satisfy my own curiosity and to prove that I'm not wrong (by your assessment, which means nothing)...I looked it up via several sources. The EvoIII 16G that I am referring to is the same compressor wheel as the Evo4-8 16g, but in reverse rotation. It's a td05hr-16g6...exactly the flow rating that I have been telling you.
A link for you, if you want to read it. In the DSM world, there was definitely a difference between a small 16g, big 16g, and EvoIII 16g. Like I said, I was involved in DSMs like 10 years ago before I got my Evo, so I was going off of memory. Many DSMLink members posted lb/min logs with these EvoIII16g flowing around 43 lb/min, IIRC, when maxed out. That correlates exactly with the compressor map as well.
Here is another link, just to reconfirm...td05hr-16g6 in the evo3 and evo8. Wow, isn't that what I said before (same maps)...wow, I must be crazy or something.
Last edited by l2r99gst; Jan 12, 2010 at 07:08 PM.
Jan 12, 2010, 05:51 PM
#38
Well maybe only a few of us here remember the old rule on lbs/min. 10whp per lb on a DJ is the rough estimate at full tilt. 39=390, 43=430, I have quite a few 430whp E85 stock turbo AND Evo3 cars running around these days.
Here is an Evo3, stock rod 6 bolt with 2G pistons, HKS 272s, FP race manifold, stock intake manifold, 3" ETS street intercooler. So mind, this is an 8.5:1 car freeboosting but it makes 431@31psi.
Here is an Evo3, stock rod 6 bolt with 2G pistons, HKS 272s, FP race manifold, stock intake manifold, 3" ETS street intercooler. So mind, this is an 8.5:1 car freeboosting but it makes 431@31psi.
Last edited by JohnBradley; Jan 12, 2010 at 05:56 PM.
Jan 12, 2010, 05:52 PM
#39
Account Disabled
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hayward
Posts: 3,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lucas has done 522whp:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-ix-turbo.html
There were actually multiple runs at 522 as well.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-ix-turbo.html
There were actually multiple runs at 522 as well.
We had a Evo 9 at full weight that made 464 whp (not stock turbo) on our mustang dyno trap 126 with factory 6 speed on street tires. At 482 it trapped 128.
On our Mustang Dyno with all bolt ons and decent cams, the stock IX turbo will usually put down around 390-400whp on E85. One of our customers with 403whp with the stock IX turbo, at full weight, with street tires and stock IX 5 speed trapped 120mph.
10.5 hotside Evo 8 turbo has put down around 380whp on E85 on our dyno a couple times on various setup Evo 8's.
I've tuned probably 3 dozen stock turbo Evo's on E85 and as long as they are setup right, they all produce around the same ballpark numbers, and I've found MBT on every single one of them, the beauty of E85.
126 is hauling for a full weight Evo on a stock turbo, even with that motor, Lucas kicking some ****.
- Bryan
Jan 12, 2010, 05:59 PM
#40
Actually Lucas had a best of 128.1 and his wife has a 127.8 in it. It weighed 3450 with him in it and the 2 baby seats which were the only weight added back in. It is an SSL and has a few other things that were adding weight (5" intercooler, 3" IC piping, etc.) but otherwise no intentional weight gain.
Jan 12, 2010, 06:06 PM
#41
Account Disabled
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hayward
Posts: 3,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Lucas had a best of 128.1 and his wife has a 127.8 in it. It weighed 3450 with him in it and the 2 baby seats which were the only weight added back in. It is an SSL and has a few other things that were adding weight (5" intercooler, 3" IC piping, etc.) but otherwise no intentional weight gain.
So about 8% difference between our dynos at that level. Still sounds about right.
- Bryan
Jan 12, 2010, 06:14 PM
#43
lol.Come up here man and I will take you to some spots where we can get some beer
