AgentSpeed

I can't believe people... Steve Kan has agreed to your claims. What more do these people want??? If people don't believe the sheet is for real then they're crazy!!! I wasn't there after the non-seq tuning started but I believe your numbers!

pluto

I think there're some misinterpretation on what is what here. The uncorrected (shown on the dyno chart) is Actual hp made on the roller. Corrected means that temperature, altitude, and hudmility were taken into consideration at the time of the pull to 75F, 0' altitude and 0% humidity. What that mean is that colder days yields higher REAL hp #'s than corrected, hotter days yields lower REAL hp#'s than corrected. I think David was trying to say that this is the ACTUAL hp made at the time of dyno. When corrected, it was around 415rwhp if I remembered correctly since Roy's car made 411rwhp (just a little shy of David's #) corrected.

Marshall

Thanks Steve, thats all I was asking. There have been several cars on here that have SAE corrected to 40hp less than what they dynoed and subsequently run times way too slow for the power. I'm glad this wasn't one of them

Tim Benton

iTrader: (1)

I'd say more of boost creep (if that since Steve's says otherwise) than spike since a spike does just that, causes a quick upward trend in both lines in a short rpm range, whereas his has a domed arch across a long rom range.

Tim


[/QUOTE]

Tim Benton

iTrader: (1)

JDtankersly, your posted sheet isn't SAE corrected, it states so on the sheet, so no one's doubting the actual hp made that night, just more or less wondering what SAE corrected numbers would have made. Like Stephen said, at most it might show a 8 rwhp and Like Steve pointed out. A correction factor of great than 1.05 or .95 shouldn't even be used since it' having to correct to much variation. Another thing is the smoothing, set at 0, it lets the line be more jagged, which can result in a peak being a little higher than one set at 3. But again, you might only be talking about 1 hp peak difference or less when comparing a smoothing of 0 to 3....nothing to even worry about.

Tim

BATMAN

Guys, remember that CYM in the living room?

The owner of that FD (who's not Sean Fanning, but knows of him) ran 387rwhp~ on stock twins with a mild street port, Greddy SMIC, stock intake box and the usual bolt ons at 15psi~.

Tuning was done by Excess Eng. in so cal and they told him that is probably the highest RWHP they have seen on stock twins.

Last I heard, he still has the Silver FD.

BATMAN

Nay-sayers are upset since they just tossed in $$$ on that single turbo conversion

BTW, have either of u removed ur warm-up butterflies and ported out the bridge between them?

Last I heard that mod added 20RWHP~

I think it was Robinetta (sp?)

TT_Rex_7

Not sure where you heard that claim from, but I know its not from his site. Theres no way in hell doing that adds about 20rwhp, more like a couple ponys at the motor. The car will be more responsive from doing that, but will not result in a 20rwhp gain!!

-Alex

jdtanksley

My conversion to non-sequential was done at the last minute, while sitting on the dyno, so all the sequential stuff is still there. Between cleaning that all up and fixing my fuel pressure dropping at top end, I expect to easily pass 450 on the dyno.

BATMAN

Hmmmm, I could have sworn that it freed up 1lb of boost which was roughly 20HP for someone.

WOuld make sense in the HP increase since that mod would reduce turbulence and port velocities.

No?

BATMAN

So ur Seq wastegate is still intact?

iceman4357

iTrader: (2)

So removing the butterflies and porting: is there any down sides??? Im about to go single, and if im going to do it, might as well get all i can outta it.

TT_Rex_7

It does reduce turbulence wich is why your car has better responce. I'd have to see a dyno sheet to justify 20rwhp though! It would take a car thats producing some serious power to make that kind of a gain from that mod. I'm in the middle of removing the bridge and 2 AWS butterfly valves on the UIM and merging the top 2 ports on the TB together and machining one butterfly valve for it and leaving the lower butterfly valve on the TB alone. I'm pretty sure no one has done this before so i'll try and get it on the dyno to see what kind of power it'll make by removing the bridge and merging the top two ports on the TB together creating a much larger port. I'm not really expecting huge gains from it though.

-Alex

FD3SR1

So any 1/4 mile times yet? if so what were the conditons and at what boost level?

TT_Rex_7

Wont let me edit my post but I ment to say the 2 double throttle butteryfly valves on the UIM, not the 2 AWS butterfly valves.

-Alex

BATMAN

TT_Rex_7

If your talking to me, yes, but I'm also taking out the "bridge" between the top 2 butterfly valves on the TB and machining one large butteryfly valve for it. That way the TB will match the UIM perfectly.

-Alex

HDP

iTrader: (2)

David, how do you like N.S.? Heath is trying to convert me, but I'm still not sure

BATMAN

Warm up butterflies are there for the Masses.

Basically, the average idiot doesn't know that u shouldn't go WOT with a car that hasn't been properly warmed up.

Otherwise there are no down side from this.

XSTransAm

I beg to differ, the down side is when your taking out the butterflys and every screw strips so you have to go through 3 drill bits to get them out.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Doesn't that also apply to the coolant that flows through the TB (it's there for the masses and isn't really necessary)? Cuz I took off my FIC and wired the flap thingy open on the TB (not sure what it's called). Yes, I can't make fine adjustments to my idle as well now w/o the FIC, but it's not that big of an issue. And since no coolant is flowing to the TB, I gotta make sure she's warmed up well be4 getting on it. But then again, you wanna make sure EVERYTHING'S warmed up (including the turbos) before getting on it...

BATMAN

Silly Wabbit, Trix are for kids.

jdtanksley

I ran with the BNRs sequentially for a little over 1000 miles after dropping them in with the new engine. Until I got there in Birmingham the other day, I had planned to keep them that way. The transition was so smooth that if it hadn’t been for the boost levels I was getting, I would have sworn that the second was never coming on.

The first day I was on the dyno, we found that I had a hose off under the intake, that had nothing to do with the turbos, but was sufficient enough of a problem to wait until I had it fixed before tuning. I did not get to start working on it till early the next morning, staying at the dyno while most everyone else when on. During that time, I had umpteen conversations with just about everyone there about the pros and cons of sequential versus parallel.

Evidently, I was a little to quick to put everything back together, compounded with having had too little sleep for several nights in a row, because once it was back on the dyno, I had the previous day’s hose problem fixed, but had introduced another that kept the secondary turbo from coming on, as was apparent from my boost levels. Rather than scrap yet another run on the dyno, it was obvious this was a good time to give non-sequential a shot.

To day the least, I was impressed by the results. I was expecting there to be significant lag compared to running sequentially, but I just did not see it. From what I have read, a number of other mods I have done have help nullify this problem. My engine breaths very well these days.

Anyway, taking it out on the road was the real test…again no perceivable lag, with the one obvious difference being that when the 2 come one together you are thrown back in your seat more than before. Of course, Steve’s tuning comes into play there too.

I have successfully run them both ways now and have gone back and forth several times about which way I want to leave them, and I have decided to do a full conversion to run parallel. First, I gain top end without the loss of much, if any on the low end. At the same time, I will be able to further simplify things under the hood, and after the last two years of struggling trying to get everything right under there, simplification sounds real good.

Whatever you decide to do, more power to you.

David

su_maverick

Just to let everyone know. I purchased a set of BNR III's last month from Bryan and am going to be running them seq. I have a stock reman (brand new), 1300cc secondaries, supra pump, pfc, greddy 2row fmic, hks rs intakes, sr motorsports dp, and greddy sp exhaust. I still have about 500 more miles of break in to do and to find someone to tune the car and then I can really pull it. But I need info first before this.
1.) what other mods am I going to need? (I am in a emissions strict environment)
2.) what am I going to need to do to get it to 16-17psi?
any helpful hints on getting her ready would be great.
Neal

su_maverick

btw I am not trying to get peak power, I am looking for a broad usable curve that can handle extended use. I am not a drag person. If I need to set the boost lower, so be it.