Super Production build?

I would have to check what dyno make it was but we dynoed our 2.5l engine with higher compression (I think 10:1 or so) with stock heads, stock turbo, Hydra engine management and 110 octane fuel...Dyno read 389WTQ

Of course all depends on dyno make etc. but still, 450wtq i'd say is easily possible, we still didnt have any water injection, bigger turbo, better heads


One thing is for sure, there was no need for antilag on that thing, it just went from 2000rpm!!

When we build another motor before pines we'll build the same thing, it was relatively cheap, devastatingly quick and very reliable

john...that was probably on the "heart breaker" dyno too...reads pretty low!

---

Chris

im not sure I follow you Chris, but it was at Neetronics old shop, Iain at Planet tuned it there

David,
I meant is the sti intercooler/turbo better than the wrx. I'm sure there are better things out there, but are they legal to run in RA SP?

Also, what psi do the sti intercoolers blow up at?
Thanks,
Ted

---

Ted Mendham
www.rensport.net

Yes Ted - both are bigger/more efficient.

And I've never heard of an STi intercooler split.

Besides, they're so cheap - with so many aftermarket options and people wanting to ditch their stock STi ones - that it shouldn't matter. Easily have one as a spare.

John Vanos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> im not sure I follow you Chris, but it was at
> Neetronics old shop, Iain at Planet tuned it there


'Heart breaker' dynos are a generic term for low-reading dynos - usually the Mustang dynos. The ricers get all heartbroken when they go in with their tons of mods and pull less than the stock crank hp. hehe

haha, ohhhh i got ya

RE the intercooler, we split the STI (version 8, bigger than the USDM slightly) on the above noted engine...we were only pulling 18psi or so and it had been used for about 6 events. It took us a few minutes to realize it was the actual intercooler seams (they are bent to seal if you know what i mean, not welded) because its not something we thought would be a problem at that level of boost. But yes, they are better than wrx and can be had pretty cheap

John,

Neetronics old dyno, which was great for tuning, because you could stall the car out at WOT, was notorious for reading low....i know it "reads" lower than their new dyno which reads "spot on"


The only benefit to the STi intercoolers is they are larger, well ok they also have STi painted on them! BLING!! They are made the same, they are just a little bigger, and use a metal "y-pipe" and a short silicone elbow into the turbo.

I've had a WRX i/c split on me in the same way that john mentioned. It's not from high boost however. Mine split because i wasn't using the factory mounts to support the core, and it was really only supported by the end tanks and y-pipe, from the vibration it opened up the pinch seam.

All easily fixed with a pair of vice grips and about 3 minutes.

---

Chris

John Vanos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would have to check what dyno make it was but we
> dynoed our 2.5l engine with higher compression (I
> think 10:1 or so) with stock heads, stock turbo,
> Hydra engine management and 110 octane fuel...Dyno
> read 389WTQ


so, I've been told/researched that high compression engines are bad for boosting, yah? or is that possible because you're running 100% race gas?


and to the group, water/meth injection is against the rules, right?

---

Jon Burke - KI6LSW
Blog: http://psgrallywrx.blogspot.com/

Why water down the Meth?

---

Ted Mendham
www.rensport.net

Yes. No water or meth injection.

gilbrock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. No water or meth injection.


Where does it say no water injection? I know for certain it's allowed in Canada.

---

Gone fishing

I went back and checked the rulebook and couldn't find it. I must have dreamed it.

gilbrock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I went back and checked the rulebook and couldn't
> find it. I must have dreamed it.

ORLY? that's interesting.....

---

Jon Burke - KI6LSW
Blog: http://psgrallywrx.blogspot.com/

Jon Burke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Vanos Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I would have to check what dyno make it was
> but we
> > dynoed our 2.5l engine with higher
> compression (I
> > think 10:1 or so) with stock heads, stock
> turbo,
> > Hydra engine management and 110 octane
> fuel...Dyno
> > read 389WTQ
>
>
> so, I've been told/researched that high
> compression engines are bad for boosting, yah? or
> is that possible because you're running 100% race
> gas?
>
>
> and to the group, water/meth injection is against
> the rules, right?
>
>
>
>
> Jon Burke - KI6LSW
> Blog:
> 'Holy Shit!' @ 4:10


You gotta stop reading nasoic Jon!!! REAL race motors can use a combination of higher boost AND higher compression. Cause they run on REAL race gas. (In Canada we don't have the 103 oct requirement so we can use better fuel).

Also to comment on some of the dyno #'s posted. I just don't buy it. Maybe my dyno wasn't calibrated correctly but it DID make <that at 30 psi. So maybe it was off but not by that much. I've driven LOTS of cars in that power range and it certainly makes more torque than the 340 ft/lbs VSC is claiming. Mitsubishi claimed the old Diggins car was making over 500 ft/lbs.

And IIRC John Vano's old motor actually dyno'd at 498ft/lbs NOT 398!!!

---

Gone fishing