Subject	No justification, just a goal I've had for 3 years.
Posted by	Lumpydonut on November 04, 2014 at 3:11 PM
	This message has been viewed 369 times.
In Reply To	I don't think the intercooler piping is a bottleneck posted by Zvil (FL) on November 04, 2014 at 02:24 PM
Message	My compression numbers are at the very bottom end of spec so I am more than happy with how it performs, if it was a healthy engine I believe I would've hit my goal. I know I am sacrificing a bit being on the smaller auto turbos but with 3" DP/TP I think it would have kept climbing for a few more rpms. However, I built this for spool, not top end power, which I think I have accomplished. Bigger exhaust will come eventually but it will be after E85 so it won't be apples to apples comparison. I would like to see what it would do with bigger injectors and more boost but that curiosity doesn't justify wasting money on bigger side feeds, I have ID1300s and a top feed rail begging to be installed.
Follow Ups	Recent Dyno Results - Lumpydonut 13:12:11 11/04/14 Pretty decent numbers with those mods (n/m) - s3trios 13:26:29 11/04/14 My Super Splits had me in the same position. Too much - TTZ2NV(EPTmotorsports) 13:27:01 11/04/14 What octane and boost? (n/m) - AddictedToBoost 13:37:43 11/04/14 91 and 14psi (n/m) - Lumpydonut 13:48:59 11/04/14 I don't think the intercooler piping is a bottleneck - Zvil (FL) 14:24:52 11/04/14 No justification, just a goal I've had for 3 years. - Lumpydonut 15:11:48 11/04/14 93 would have brought up boost levels and you'd be near - vorpalZ 16:35:38 11/04/14 I assume he has stock injectors - Zvil (FL) 16:55:40 11/04/14 Oklahoma = 91 :( - Lumpydonut 17:27:06 11/04/14 nasty :( (n/m) - vorpalZ 17:56:40 11/04/14 Re: 93 would have brought up boost levels and you'd be near - slick007l 13:56:17 11/06/14 If you have the file, it's easy to change mph to rpm - dogpile 14:30:27 11/04/14 Always STD to show higher WHP.... - NIVO88T 17:29:43 11/07/14
Post a Followup	You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.