Numbers Don't Lie

[ray_sir_6]

I tried posting this at MT.net, and they didn't take it well.

Figured I would let ya'll look it over and give a rational discussion on it.

You should know Hustler if you have spent 10 sec on a Miata board. This is his car after he got it running.



10psi Begi Turbo Kit (S3?) 1.8l BP 8.6 or 8.7:1 CR on a Dynojet in Austin.

This is my car, which isn't as well known.



10psi Greddy Turbo Kit (no porting or mods to setup) 1.6l B6 Stock (ok, it has camgears) on a Dynojet in Arlington.



I spent alot of time getting those two dyno's to overlap. Different size pics and different read-outs (mph vs RPM) didn't make it very easy.

Before I get the same retarded answer as I got on MT.net, they are BOTH DYNOJETS. They are the same dyno! Dynojet is the standard cause the results are repeatable and consistent, no matter if the dyno is in Illinois or in Hawaii. If we took either car to the other shop's dyno, they would both read the same, within a .1whp. I know, cause ATS Racing has the same dyno, and my car dyno chart was IDENTICAL.

So now that I cleared that up, can we please have a LOGICAL discussion on this?

Thanks.

[SirHustlerEsq]

why do you keep posting a heinous tune that was so bad I immediately fixed it? That tune was so rich that my LC-1 pegged "lean"...as in raw fuel on the sensor, and injector duty was a true 100% (not 85%, but my log said 100% duty). It bucked and bogged when they returned it. So can we please let that dyno die?

Here is the more recent tune with a 2.5" restriction in the exhaust. We also used "speed density" for rpm so that's not accurate on the sheet.
Add 10% to my #'s because its a dynodynamics, not a dynojet...or don't I don't care.
this is 10psi after I fixed the fuel and spark tables:

here's 15psi


then, look at my compressor map...10psi at 220"crank" hp is outside efficiency

If you consider the difference in dyno #'s its even further out of efficiency at 10psi. So yes, a turbo on a smaller motor in prime efficiency will output more than a turbo outside prime efficiency. Also, imagine if a "real" professional tuned it instead of your's truly. I dynojet had eddy control, I'd use that. Also, I didn't build this car to dyno-queen, I built it to operate at low "duty" and last a long time with track action. If you want, I can just turn the knob and get a 20psi dyno on a dynojet and post shit well into 300whp.

[SirHustlerEsq]

btw, what's up with your obsession over this?

[POS Racing]

So if I am reading all this information correctly it looks like the equation should read.

mr brg > ray_sir_6

[SirHustlerEsq]

nathan,
we don't I give your shop some money for a new intercooler pipe and SS feed lines for my new turbo set-up and we tune it and you show me what I'm missing? I'll even let you talk shit about my crappy MS computer if its the right price.

[jeff_man]

So if I am reading all this information correctly it looks like the equation should read.

mr brg > ray_sir_6

no brg's car > all but all < mr. brg =D


i wish i could get a MSpnp for a 02, trey's charts show how much power there is just in a good tune. the Green car is a beast.

[Miatamaniac92]

I tried posting this at MT.net, and they didn't take it well.

Figured I would let ya'll look it over and give a rational discussion on it.

You should know Hustler if you have spent 10 sec on a Miata board. This is his car after he got it running.

......


I spent alot of time getting those two dyno's to overlap. Different size pics and different read-outs (mph vs RPM) didn't make it very easy.

Before I get the same retarded answer as I got on MT.net, they are BOTH DYNOJETS. They are the same dyno! Dynojet is the standard cause the results are repeatable and consistent, no matter if the dyno is in Illinois or in Hawaii. If we took either car to the other shop's dyno, they would both read the same, within a .1whp. I know, cause ATS Racing has the same dyno, and my car dyno chart was IDENTICAL.

So now that I cleared that up, can we please have a LOGICAL discussion on this?

Thanks.

What's your point?

How much does the AEM cost? If you're trying to sell them this isn't a very good tactic on either board.

What's it like on the track? Tuning for Dyno numbers to sell product aren't the same as driving it on the track, even if Trey hadn't disputed the dyno results you're trying to compare to.

+, you knew the response you'd get on MT.

Chris

[ray_sir_6]

Brainiac, being the level-headed super observant person he is, mentioned something. I was overlaying speed vs RPM and they don't work that way. This is RPM vs RPM overlay.



Mr BRG: I used what I had available to me. It was a dynojet, so it made for very easy comparision. That is a nice improvement with the tune. Much better tq numbers for sure! As far as Dyno-queen, my car is far from one, we tuned it to be safe for track abuse, and it's proved to be very reliable as one. We got over 236whp/223tq and then pulled it back to be safe in extreme heat like we are used to in Aug. It was tuned at 95.5F (I looked at the stats for the log) and we unhooked the fans and let it start overheating, and then tuned for zero knock. We ended up with 223whp/191tq. I think we did 5 pulls, 2 street, Then 3 dyno pulls - one at operating temp to check the street tune, and then 2 without the fans and running hot.

My car has a 2.5" DP, and then a 3" exhaust and resonator.....and we adjust the cam timing to spool the turbo later, or the whp would be almost on top of each other in the lower RPMs. The TQ would be about halfway between the two.

Why does this matter to me? Cause I am sick of the shit they spew over there when people ask a honest question.

"I have 2 1.6l blocks, and I want 300whp, can I use the 1.6l, or should I find a 1.8l instead?" Just like other's have said, a 1.8l is just a stretched 1.6l. So if already have a 1.6l, why tell him he needs a 1.8l? The difference is easily offset with meth kit, which is the same price, or less, than a 1.8l block (not to mention finding a 99 head). Why not just tell him both are capable and stop convincing him otherwise? I gave him the honest answer, "doesn't matter, both can make 300whp, so build what you got and save the spare block incase you put a window in the first one," and I got attacked for it. Same thing happened on the 6-spd thread.

Miatamaniac: I didn't even mention AEM. This isn't about that. But AEM is blowing out the EMS, so you can get one for around $1000-1200 right now. There is a guy on MT.net who had a MSPnP and now an AEM EMS, and he is saying the same thing I have been saying about the MS. You should go and read what he put.

Now there is some guy looking for a 1.8l block and 99 head just to get 300whp.

[ray_sir_6]

nathan,
we don't I give your shop some money for a new intercooler pipe and SS feed lines for my new turbo set-up and we tune it and you show me what I'm missing? I'll even let you talk shit about my crappy MS computer if its the right price.

What pipe do you need? We have plenty of it in stock, plus couplers and clamps. What type of fittings on the SS feed-lines?

I'm not in a position to hand out deals on the tuning, that I would have to discuss with the owner.

How about you give me what you consider a fair price and I'll run it by him.

[ray_sir_6]

What's it like on the track? Tuning for Dyno numbers to sell product aren't the same as driving it on the track, even if Trey hadn't disputed the dyno results you're trying to compare to.

Chris

[SirHustlerEsq]

stop comparing a bad tune. Its not a good tune, and it was almost undrivable. I told you it was so rich it wouldn't read, and the spark table is not adjusted...it the base-diy-autotune "safe map" but you keep comparing it. If you compared my good tune...the one that drives well and doesn't shoot fire through a catalytic converter, to your tune, you may have different results. Also, you comparison is wrong somehow because max torque hits at 4k, not 5500.

I need to make my turbo-outlet pipe with a 90 shorter since my turbo mounts 4" lower, and a pipe from the turbo to the air filter box. I don't know what fittings I need...I thought they were just the standard Garrett -4 lines...and I need 3 of them made roughly 12-14" long with 2 90* elbows on one end. I also need a begi water-pump inlet made 1" taller to clear my swaybar.

I will not leave the car over-night and I have to trailer it over there.

[juxt3r]

Maybe I'm really missing the point of this thread. Is this one specific car vs. another, or is this just 1.6 vs 1.8 in another form?

The MT.net thread on the displacement argument is plenty of info. I don't see the point of moving the thought over here.

...and if it really matters at all, I'm sticking with the venerable 1.6 simply because I happened to have a spare, and I rather like the powerband characteristics.

[ray_sir_6]

I had already made that overlay before I read your reply. I'll disregard it from now on. Everyone here was BAFFLED a GT28 would make such low power at 10psi...now we know why.

[SirHustlerEsq]

I had already made that overlay before I read your reply. I'll disregard it from now on. Everyone here was BAFFLED a GT28 would make such low power at 10psi...now we know why.

Yeah, and I paid money for that tune. Its going to get even better with the new set-up...I'm sticking with the .86 turbine housing.

[ray_sir_6]

Maybe I'm really missing the point of this thread. Is this one specific car vs. another, or is this just 1.6 vs 1.8 in another form?

The MT.net thread on the displacement argument is plenty of info. I don't see the point of moving the thought over here.

...and if it really matters at all, I'm sticking with the venerable 1.6 simply because I happened to have a spare, and I rather like the powerband characteristics.

I'm just trying to kill the idea that some people seem to have that a 1.6l isn't worth building.

The 1.6l is a good engine, and so is the 1.8l. Both can and will get you enough power to overwhelm the chassis. I am running the 1.6l cause it's what I have, and I also like it's powerband. I just don't see the point in wasting the time and money to do a 1.8l if you already have a 1.6l.

[Braineack]

This is the stupidest thread I've ever read and I'm the king at bench racing Dyno charts. Ray what the hell are you trying to prove? You spool faster than Hustler's miata? So what, 2 seconds later Trey will pass you and never see you again. He has a larger turbo with a setup that's built for the track and top-end.

If you are trying to prove the 1.6L is a good platform, post some dynos where the thing is acutally making power. 200rwhp miatas are a dime a dozen. I can post handful of 1.8T charts that make 1.6Ts look pathetic, including my own setup. Your setup looks just like every GReddy kit with a little work, I already posted a nearly identical dyno plot with a local greddy kit here. The only thing that makes your setup different is your unproven notion that you're doing the same at 3psi because of your god-like AEM.

A 1.6L is not worth building. It's a waste and everyone that builds one regrets it. I know three people with built 1.6Ls that wish they bought a 1.8L instead. I know one person that's going to pull his built 1.6L to replace it with a build 1.8L.

If you want to compare a 1.8L turbo setup to your 1.6L greddy setup making around 200rwhp, compare these two:




if you want to compare a 1.6L greddy setup to a bolt on Begi kit 1.8L making >240rwhp compare these two:




Man those 1.8L really suck, look at all that extra low-torque. If your goal is 300rwhp, it doesn't make sense to build a 1.6L. You're handicapping yourself for no reason. The amount of work you have to put into a 1.6L to make numbers no where close to a stock 1.8L is ridiculous. Case and point, compare pauls stock '01 GT2560R dynos to ANY other turbo setup 1.6, 1.8, or hell even 2.0L.

[ray_sir_6]

Long and informative.

How much can you get a 1.8l block for? $400?
How much for the 1.8l swap kit from FM - $194
How much to get a WI Kit? $400
How much to get custom 9.5:1 instead of stock Wiseco pistons? $100-200

Based on those prices, and knowing that someone already has a 1.6l block to build, how can you say it's worth it? A 9.5CR will make up ALOT of that low end torque, or you could get a WI kit and bump timing to make it up. You are still ahead in the wallet, and little to no difference in low end torque.

Oh, and how much for a 5.0l block? $250
So why bother with a 1.8l at all, you can do a 5.0l and get 300whp ALL MOTOR. If you really REALLY need that low end torque, you can't go wrong with a V8.

[Savington]

You are still ahead in the wallet, and little to no difference in low end torque.

Are you blind as well as retarded? Every single dyno chart you've posted arguing this retarded position has shown 1.8s to make significantly more low-end torque than 1.6s.

[ray_sir_6]

Are you blind as well as retarded? Every single dyno chart you've posted arguing this retarded position has shown 1.8s to make significantly more low-end torque than 1.6s.

I can ask you the same. Are you both blind AND retarded. I have my cam timing adjusted to make boost LATER, or the whp lines would have been almost identical and the torque curve would have been halfway between where it is now and the 1.8's line. That's an OB motor, so I should be calling it a 1.9l, but that would just cause confusion for most people. That's not grounds to go and dump a 1.6l that I already had to go and find a 1.8l to build. It shows exactly what I have been trying to say, that for 300whp, BOTH will make it, and BOTH will do it well. A 9.5:1 CR 1.6l and a Meth Kit would give you the low end torque of a 8.6-8.7:1 CR 1.8l (or MORE) if that's what you really crave. So for the price of a 1.8l, I could get the same power with a properly done 1.6l. There is a shop that is building a 1200whp 1.6l B6 in Texas. Why? Cause they are revving it to hell, and don't want the extra weight of the larger bore.

Even the re-tuned graph, given the 10% adjustment that was stated, only made 231whp/219tq. Maybe you think that's a good number fora GT2860R@10psi, but I'm willing to bet he can get alot more with a pro tuner (we got similar numbers on my Greddy 1.6l @ 10psi, remember?). Not knocking him on his tune, but he's a novice, and did well within his experience level. Hell, I wouldn't have been able to tune it AT ALL, cause it's not something I do, or am willing to do, unless it's an emergency.

"Different strokes for different folks" has a double meaning here.

Oh, and for a 99 head being the best flowing head, have you considered the potential for a 1.6l head running STD 1.8l vlaves? Not saying it would be better, but would have huge potential.

Intake Valve:
1.6l - 31mm
1.8l - 33mm
+2mm

Exhaust Valve:
1.6l - 26.2mm
1.8l - 28mm
+1.8mm

Been done before, and will be done again.

[ray_sir_6]

If you want to compare a 1.8L turbo setup to your 1.6L greddy setup making around 200rwhp, compare these two

I'd first like to state: Who the hell tuned these? 13:1 AF for a FI car? IDIOTS!

[/QUOTE]

First note: AF are very similar. Good comparision.

Second Note: 1.6l has a flatter torque curve. Torque doesn't peak and then drop off like on the 1.8l. Yes, it's less, but add Meth Inj (=+timing) and that wouldn't be the case.

Third Note: Why the hell is the 1.6l peak whp at 5800rpm? Mine, even with a POS Greddy actuator that would fall from 10psi to 7-8psi @ redline made peak whp at 7k rpm.

if you want to compare a 1.6L greddy setup to a bolt on Begi kit 1.8L making >240rwhp compare these two:

First note: Does the 1.6l have cam gears? Cause it has a similar low at the lower RPMs that mine has. More extreme, but who knows if he didn't overdo it slightly trying to get more up top.

Second Note: WHOA...was this a baseline after a new ECU installed? The 1.6l AF is AWFUL!!! 14:1 AF is great for a FI car. More than a full pt between their AF readings.

Third Note: Peak whp @ 6700rpm, that's more like it.

Fourth note: Same peak torque, and both hold a nice plateau. Difference is exaggerated by either cam gears being overly sex'd, the awful AF, or both.

Man those 1.8L really suck, look at all that extra low-torque. If your goal is 300rwhp, it doesn't make sense to build a 1.6L. You're handicapping yourself for no reason. The amount of work you have to put into a 1.6L to make numbers no where close to a stock 1.8L is ridiculous. Case and point, compare pauls stock '01 GT2560R dynos to ANY other turbo setup 1.6, 1.8, or hell even 2.0L.

I don't know who Paul is. Post up some comparos please.

Both dyno's show exactly what I have been saying, there isn't enough of a difference between a 1.6l and 1.8l to mandate that all 1.6s go in the trash and everyone go to a 1.8l. That small difference is a slightly higher CR and a meth kit away from being erased and possibly reversed. You know, about the same price as swapping to a 1.8l.

Obviously if you already have a 1.8l, there's no sense in going down to a 1.6l, unless you want to rev it crazy. I'm not against people running 1.8s, but if you have a 1.6, it's still a close enough setup that you don't need to throw it out.