AWD-RWD racer

iTrader: (5)

i hear people talking about making 400 hp on stock ports on this or that turbo. are these hp claims on a dynojet or mustang dyno. one obviously shows less then the other. im currently at 324 on a mustang dyno on my twins. is it possible to make 400+rwhp on stock ports on a mustang dyno? (10-15% less hp then other dyno's)

also could this be done with out a turbo that takes a day and a half to spool?

sk8world

iTrader: (5)

lag is so over rated!

GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

People almost always talk dynojet.

I'd say no, you're not going to make 450+ dynojet rwhp on stock ports with acceptable spool, or at the least you'll have an ok drag car/no fun street car on your hands.

AWD-RWD racer

iTrader: (5)

so in theory, would it be worth going single and spend the 2000k+ bucks to gain 40-50 rwhp?

charlies7

iTrader: (4)

Depends, the single setup is alot less complicated and can give you the same horsepower working alot less. Tthere will be alot less heat and if your engine is tuned well I wouldnt be suprised if it was more reliable. The stock twins can only go so far. If your satisfied with the power keep it there, if not go single. However once you go single it becomes an addiction for some

AnthonyNYC

iTrader: (3)

It's not all about the HP. I've seen cars making 350-390HP on twins destroy cars making 450 on a single setup. If your goal is a HP number and you never run your car at the track, then that's easy. Bolt on a large turbo and make all the HP in the world, very easy. Now if you want to run the best times at the track then you have to start looking at recovery times between shifts and a whole bunch of other things. You can make 600HP but if your setup takes 1 sec between shifts to hit full boost again, what good is it.... What is your goal with your car?

Anthony

Zero R

iTrader: (1)

Exactly

crispeed

Dyno Queen!!!!

cewrx7r1

iTrader: (2)

Many of us have made around 350whp with the stock twins in seq and non-seq setup with proper mods and tunes with stock ports. But you will have to boost
14-15 psi to do it.

AWD-RWD racer

iTrader: (5)

my car right now is setup non-seq. i must say i really dont like it. i dont get full boost till like 4500rpm's (big turbo area) it was seq but the shop could not figure out why my turbo's were acting up so they just made it non seq. I dyno'd 324 on a mustang dyno. So i would imagine im at or above 350 rwhp on a dyno jet. my goal is to get more hp but i dont wanna spool any later then i currently do. I do a bunch of drag/street racin and just wanna hang wit the big boys but not kill my daily fun driving. i ran a 12.6 @ 117 with a 2.3 60' on street tires, hopping and spinning like crazy.

either way. the car is quick now, but i would like it to be faster, but have useful power.

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

Gt35r

GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

Yup, a 35R will get you much better response in the 3000-4500 rpm area on stock ports......

BoostCrzy

Precision 6776RSP


.....but i already told you that.....lol...

ErnieT

iTrader: (2)

Watch it, your on sacred ground pal!

djseven

iTrader: (56)

My perosonal oppinion is stick with the stock twins unless you are shooting for 450+whp. Its hard to find a single that will make 390rwhp and still have the resposiveness of the stock non-seq setup. Ive had the luxury of driving a whole lot of different setups, and anything in the 400rwhp range or less is really more fun and streetable with the stock/bnr twins.

Most fun car I have driven in a long time was a bnr stage II car making 390rwhp in non-seq. In terms of turbo rotaries I dont consider full boost at 3500rpm lag, but some people will never be as happy as they are with the stock seq. However, drive a couple 67+mm turbo rotaries and you will appreciate how nice the stock twins are and just how capable they really are. 120mph trap speeds are still no joke, it takes a whole lot more money to hit 130mph trap speeds .

AnthonyNYC

iTrader: (3)

Well said, I agree 100%

gracer7-rx7

iTrader: (16)

I'm a big fan of the twins for street driving. 10 PSI of sequential goodness at 2500 RPM on my car.

Very responsive and a total blast to drive on the street, autox and track.

Seq is great event though troubleshooting issues can be time consuming and a pita - but worthwhile.

slo

iTrader: (1)

I'm running FD sequential twins on a 13b-re in an FC off a haltech E8, ever since I took off the intercooler in favor of meth/water injection I am hitting like 16 PSI by 2500 rpm. As a temporary measure I went to the "poor mans" non sequential, to tune out the NS area's without having to troubleshoot the transition at the same time.

I can't understand how anybody likes the non sequential over sequential seriously.

Maybe with BNR's and a street port it might top out at 385 WHP (seq), but the low end performance is unmatchable by any turbo capable of making over 300.

GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

Keep in mind, there are lots of 'old style' BNRs floating around that just had upgraded comp wheels but kept the stock turbine wheels.

The 'new' Stage 3s are newer CHRAs with 20% larger comp/turbine wheels. Thus, in non-seq esp, you're going to get some lag compared to non-seq stock twins or non-seq old school BNRs.

I agree that *if* the seq system is operating properly, BNRs at 15 psi seq are a blast

crispeed

Can I repent.

AWD-RWD racer

iTrader: (5)

i agree 100% and i think i would be happier wit seq system again, but the shop i took it to *boostcrzy* cough cough* could not find the issue. so im stuck in non-seq land

jacobcartmill

iTrader: (6)

are you talking about stock twins or BNR twins?

i think you're giving the stock twins more credit than they're due.
people usually don't make over 360whp with the stock twins, even fully non-sequential, and there are plenty of turbo setups out there that flow enough air to make above 360whp safely on pumpgas.

and about the non-sequential power band; you said they hit full boost at 3500rpms? what's full boost, 15psi? in what gear, 4th? i find that hard to believe, as i personally have stock twins that i converted fully to non-sequential, and running a completely open exhaust (straight out of the 3" downpipe while tuning before a track day) i was hitting 14psi by about 3800rpms in 4th gear on the interstate. i have driven several non-sequential and single turbo setups as well and i've never seen the stock twins respond as quickly as you say they do in non-seq form.

a fully sequential setup would be a totally different story, as there's nothing out there that can spool up as quick as the primary turbo alone, hence why mazda used the sequential setup from the factory.

why even use the BNR twins if you're not going to use them sequentially? they flow the same amount of air as a good sized single turbo with the same or worse response...

GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

Primarily for cost and ease of install reasons, as well as ability to pass a visual inspection.

djseven

iTrader: (56)

I have personally seen 14lbs by 3500rpm on fresh rebuilt twins in non-seq mode. Either way you should get my drift about what I was saying. The stock twins are proven to trap 117-124mph but more common to see 117-120 or so around 16-17lbs. Look at the guys you see trapping 127-133mph with a single and see the extra amount of work in those cars to achieve that difference. Also note the times they put down, maybe a .5sec difference in most cases. Countless people have ran low 11s on the stock twins over the years. How many guys have you seen switch to a single only to bust out 10.7+? I know I have seen a lot.

My point was to say mazda did one hell of a job picking these turbos for this car. It takes a whole hell of a lot more money to go just a little bit faster. Singles are great, but I havent seen any yet that blow the stockers out of the water in all around performance.

One guy on the forum trapped 124 I believe on the stoc Sequential setup, he is an extreme case. However seeing 120mph traps isnt too uncommon with the stock twins. This is just my opinions on what I have seen over the years. There are extreme cases in both directions I guess.

Look at your car for example, stock fuel and IC with 115mph traps if I remember correctly. Imagine 3 more lbs and correct fuel. You arent far from the 120mph traps.

AnthonyNYC

iTrader: (3)

This holds true for a lot of FD's, mine included.