SFR turbo system 640WHP @ 14psi
03-01-2007, 11:03 AM
#142
Vendor - Former Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Biochem7
the system for the stock motor? Do you guys offer a package including a fuel return system.
Yes.Pm me for details.
Tim
03-01-2007, 06:10 PM
#143
Sponsor
builtZmotors
builtZmotors
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like how the power continues on past 6500rpm!!!! let's see it go to 8k now!!!
looking good...
my only beef: the camera man is soooo lucky that the motor didn't let go and throw a rod through his forehead when he was standing adjacent to the engine bay while at 6000rpm and full boost... scary
out here, we hide when a car is being pushed on the dyno, heard some crazy stories... like a frickin grenade if it lets go...
looking good...
my only beef: the camera man is soooo lucky that the motor didn't let go and throw a rod through his forehead when he was standing adjacent to the engine bay while at 6000rpm and full boost... scary
out here, we hide when a car is being pushed on the dyno, heard some crazy stories... like a frickin grenade if it lets go...
03-01-2007, 06:37 PM
#144
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: IL
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TurboTim
Just to clarify, I think I said over 20K. Actually it is about 22K to be exact.But what the hell 22K, 25K, close enough
the kit has (2) T-60 turbo's (turbonetics single size). and those are prettty damn big....
Yes they are biggons.
03-01-2007, 08:07 PM
#145
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by TurboTim
We just got off the dyno with one of our project cars.I will post the dyno when I get a chance. It is the same build as Kevins except it is a Rev-up motor with 8.5 to 1 comression,doenst have AAM fuel system,doesnt have lightweight flywheel,doesnt have cams,doesnt have the re-flash but does have one of our intake manifolds.The car made 531WHP and 448ft/lbs at 12.8 psi of boost. This was on the Dyno Shops heart breaker Dynojet. We couldnt plot boost on the Dynojet but I could see we would hit a peak and then it would drop off slightly.We were having problems with the tires breaking loose on the dyno though.Originally we had it on the Dyno Dyamics but we couldnt strap it down since the rollers are in the ground and the car is lowered so we just kep burning the tires up when we hit boost.That is when we switched over to the Dynojet and still had the problem but not as bad.FYI,dont buy Bridestone Potenza if you want to hook-up.LOL.This was on 91 octane fuel and this was with the stock rev limiter kicking in on us.The Utec has a rev limiter that you can set but it appears as though the ECU is overiding it.I also tuned it pretty conservatively since we didnt want to have to give the car back to the customer in pieces.
To summarize..........This car with another psi or two of boost, a tad bit higher compression and some cams should make 600+WHP or so. I am pretty confident about it.So I think kevins numbers are alot more realistic then some people are saying in this thread.We will be testing our test car with the stock plenum in a few weeks and see what it does. So finally we can have some definitive before and after results with our twin plenum intake on a FI car.
To summarize..........This car with another psi or two of boost, a tad bit higher compression and some cams should make 600+WHP or so. I am pretty confident about it.So I think kevins numbers are alot more realistic then some people are saying in this thread.We will be testing our test car with the stock plenum in a few weeks and see what it does. So finally we can have some definitive before and after results with our twin plenum intake on a FI car.
Just admit the original numbers from Kevin's car are very optimistic and you won't look dumb.
03-01-2007, 10:20 PM
#146
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you know I was not going to say anything,but I think I need to now. I know I'm a noob here but I have been in the EVO and the STI scene since day one, and now I moved on to bigger and better things by buying a g35 and wana move from slow vq to fast vq. so I'm in the market to buy a twin turbo for my g. here are my points:
I think for a consumer to come here and brag about something and make inaccurate statements is some how acceptable because they are not professionals and maybe they don't know any better, and its just a matter of time before they get corrected, this is fine.
BUT for a shop and a professional to come here and make an inaccurate statement that's a different story. because us consumers some times we can be very gullible and really take it for face value, I used to see that all the time on the EVO and the STI forums and its very sad
some thing I noticed about this community witch I really appreciate a lot and I'm proud to be part of, is there are some really sharp people here and these guys are really hard core gear heads, so you can't blow smoke up there a$$. it is either say something intelligent or keep your mouth shut and read and learn.I really appreciate that gurgenpb had come back with a scientific right up and explained everything so well, now I will admit I had to read it I think 5 times for all of it to sink in, but after reading it made a lot of sense and we need these kind of people around here.
I don't think Tim deliberately was trying to miss lead us but to believe that the car made 640 WHP @ 14psi with 91 octane ( I think ALMOST everyone on this forum is smart to know that is just not possible, regardless of the turbos you are not going to make 640whp on 91 octane with such a mild build on the engine )he just did not really think of all the variables and probably did not question enough why there are exceptional results here that are unheard of. I think and I always believed this (when it is to good to be true it, it usually is) after all he's a great welder and fabricator and nobody can take that away .
what is making things worse for this thread is you guys are in denial and instead of seeing that there was a miscalculation made (in deliberately) you put your self in a defensive position and you want to argue with science (it is not making 640 WHP @14 PSI with 91 end of story ). which is ludicrous and it is making you look bad, and also taking away from your credibility. it was an innocent miscalculation admit it and people will respect you for it .
I'm still considering this turbo kit and I think this is the kit to go with a STROKER, I love the torque curve, this is undeniably good stuff, and has some great potential and no body can take that away. sorry if I stepped on any toes, it is only my 2 cents, you know how people are from Jersey
I think for a consumer to come here and brag about something and make inaccurate statements is some how acceptable because they are not professionals and maybe they don't know any better, and its just a matter of time before they get corrected, this is fine.
BUT for a shop and a professional to come here and make an inaccurate statement that's a different story. because us consumers some times we can be very gullible and really take it for face value, I used to see that all the time on the EVO and the STI forums and its very sad
some thing I noticed about this community witch I really appreciate a lot and I'm proud to be part of, is there are some really sharp people here and these guys are really hard core gear heads, so you can't blow smoke up there a$$. it is either say something intelligent or keep your mouth shut and read and learn.I really appreciate that gurgenpb had come back with a scientific right up and explained everything so well, now I will admit I had to read it I think 5 times for all of it to sink in, but after reading it made a lot of sense and we need these kind of people around here.
I don't think Tim deliberately was trying to miss lead us but to believe that the car made 640 WHP @ 14psi with 91 octane ( I think ALMOST everyone on this forum is smart to know that is just not possible, regardless of the turbos you are not going to make 640whp on 91 octane with such a mild build on the engine )he just did not really think of all the variables and probably did not question enough why there are exceptional results here that are unheard of. I think and I always believed this (when it is to good to be true it, it usually is) after all he's a great welder and fabricator and nobody can take that away .
what is making things worse for this thread is you guys are in denial and instead of seeing that there was a miscalculation made (in deliberately) you put your self in a defensive position and you want to argue with science (it is not making 640 WHP @14 PSI with 91 end of story ). which is ludicrous and it is making you look bad, and also taking away from your credibility. it was an innocent miscalculation admit it and people will respect you for it .
I'm still considering this turbo kit and I think this is the kit to go with a STROKER, I love the torque curve, this is undeniably good stuff, and has some great potential and no body can take that away. sorry if I stepped on any toes, it is only my 2 cents, you know how people are from Jersey
Last edited by VQ-TECH; 03-01-2007 at 10:26 PM.
03-02-2007, 05:04 AM
#147
Banned
iTrader: (28)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Spotswood NJ
Posts: 5,510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
Ricer math FTMFW!!!!!!
Just admit the original numbers from Kevin's car are very optimistic and you won't look dumb.
Just admit the original numbers from Kevin's car are very optimistic and you won't look dumb.
03-02-2007, 05:45 AM
#148
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by MRC Motorsports
Actually, Tim is one of the most knowledgable guys on these or any other forums when it comes to turbo charging engines..He is one of the most underrated "sleeper" dudes, on these boards..He knows his stuff, and his calculations are based on real world testing and experience, not fast and furious ricer math.Just a heads up..Turbo Tim is Tim from Speed Force Racing, he knows his stuff and welds like a robot!!!
03-02-2007, 06:11 AM
#149
Banned
iTrader: (28)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Spotswood NJ
Posts: 5,510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
I don't believe I was talking to you.
03-02-2007, 08:14 AM
#151
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by MRC Motorsports
Put me on your ignore list then...I was simply correcting innacurate information you posted about one of my friends/Business associates.
03-02-2007, 08:17 AM
#152
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by rocks
If SFR really did use only ricer math and lies i highly doubt they would have such a good reputation with porsche owners.
It's not that he "lies", it's the fact that he obviously doesn't understand dyno correction factors and how they apply to forced induction cars at elevation.
03-02-2007, 09:35 AM
#153
Vendor - Former Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
It's not that he "lies", it's the fact that he obviously doesn't understand dyno correction factors and how they apply to forced induction cars at elevation.
I posted up what was sent to me by a customer. That is it. I already admitted and if anyone would read through these posts again, that these numbers could be a tad bit inflated based on the correction factor but honestly........ who is too say what is a good correction to use and how can it be applied to the Dynojet? Now for the facts, we have a car that was just dynoed and it does not have the parts or compression ratio that Kevins does(and this is a fact) and it also has one of our experimental intake manifolds (this is a fact) and it didnt run as much boost (this is also a fact) and made 531WHP at 12.8 psi of boost, uncorrected on a Dynojet that typically reads lower then other Dynojets! So what this means and without any doubt, is that Gurgens calcualtions of Kevins car only making 519WHP at 14psi is completely off and there is no denying it! and if you look closely at this chart you will notice it doenst keep climbing in power till 6800 rpms since the car retarded about 5 degrees of timing right before it gets to the rev limiter. And no there was no knock. I think it has to do withthe factory rev limiter(since there is no reflash on this car) pulling timing.The Utec would not allow us to rev past the factory rev limiter.
Last edited by TurboTim; 03-02-2007 at 09:38 AM.
03-02-2007, 09:46 AM
#154
Vendor - Former Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SLOWVQ
I really appreciate that gurgenpb had come back with a scientific right up and explained everything so well, now I will admit I had to read it I think 5 times for all of it to sink in, but after reading it made a lot of sense and we need these kind of people around here.
what is making things worse for this thread is you guys are in denial and instead of seeing that there was a miscalculation made (in deliberately) you put your self in a defensive position and you want to argue with science (it is not making 640 WHP @14 PSI with 91 end of story ). which is ludicrous and it is making you look bad, and also taking away from your credibility. it was an innocent miscalculation admit it and people will respect you for it .
what is making things worse for this thread is you guys are in denial and instead of seeing that there was a miscalculation made (in deliberately) you put your self in a defensive position and you want to argue with science (it is not making 640 WHP @14 PSI with 91 end of story ). which is ludicrous and it is making you look bad, and also taking away from your credibility. it was an innocent miscalculation admit it and people will respect you for it .
If Gurgen is correct then how come our own results on a test car that doesnt have all of the performance parts, eclipsed what Gurgens prediciton was at less boost and at 750ft elevation? The chart is right there. So who is miscaluculating now? One last thing,everyone re-read my posts and I have been saying that the correction on Kevins cr might not be right but what is a realistic corrections. Any car at altitude should have some sort of correction, plain and simple!
Last edited by TurboTim; 03-02-2007 at 09:49 AM.
03-02-2007, 09:53 AM
#155
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by TurboTim
I posted up what was sent to me by a customer. That is it. I already admitted and if anyone would read through these posts again, that these numbers could be a tad bit inflated based on the correction factor but honestly........ who is too say what is a good correction to use and how can it be applied to the Dynojet? Now for the facts, we have a car that was just dynoed and it does not have the parts or compression ratio that Kevins does(and this is a fact) and it also has one of our experimental intake manifolds (this is a fact) and it didnt run as much boost (this is also a fact) and made 531WHP at 12.8 psi of boost, uncorrected on a Dynojet that typically reads lower then other Dynojets! So what this means and without any doubt, is that Gurgens calcualtions of Kevins car only making 519WHP at 14psi is completely off and there is no denying it! and if you look closely at this chart you will notice it doenst keep climbing in power till 6800 rpms since the car retarded about 5 degrees of timing right before it gets to the rev limiter. And no there was no knock. I think it has to do withthe factory rev limiter(since there is no reflash on this car) pulling timing.The Utec would not allow us to rev past the factory rev limiter.
PS - I have a problem with people making "predictions" of what might or should happen under a given set of circumstances. I see it all the time at the track. Guys talk about how their cars "should" run low 11s...and then they pull off some mid 12s. Tim, I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with the way you handled this whole charade.
Last edited by BriGuyMax; 03-02-2007 at 09:56 AM.
03-02-2007, 09:55 AM
#156
Vendor - Former Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
Ricer math FTMFW!!!!!!
Just admit the original numbers from Kevin's car are very optimistic and you won't look dumb.
Just admit the original numbers from Kevin's car are very optimistic and you won't look dumb.
Ricer math.hmmmmmm.lets see I just posted some new results on a car we did here that has alot less parts then Kevins and less boost and it looks like my ricer math could be alot closer then you are leading people to beleive!
Last edited by TurboTim; 03-02-2007 at 10:13 AM.
03-02-2007, 09:58 AM
#157
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by TurboTim
Ricer math.hmmmmmm.lets see I just powsted some new results on a car we did here tht asalot less parts then Kevins and less boost and it looks like my ricer math could be alot closer then you are leading people to beleive! I mean of all peopl to say that, Mr. 550WHP on a stock block with some cams and a turbo kit at 15 psi! LOL. And you the only one ever to do that!!!!!!!! Take a look at the mirror before you start making accusations because you are looking pretty dumb if you ask me
03-02-2007, 10:02 AM
#158
Vendor - Former Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
I think you're confusing me with BigBri...we are two different people. My stock motor setup made 430rwhp @ 9psi and I'm in the process of a motor build project as we speak.
My bad.I apolgize.I will edit that post.
03-02-2007, 10:10 AM
#159
Vendor - Former Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
I NEVER agreed with Gurgen's 519rwhp prediction. I simply said that 640rwhp is much more optimistic than you are leading people to believe. I think the dyno of this other vehicle supports that. 1lb of boost, some cams and a tiny bit more compression is NOT going to get you an extra 110whp on that second car. Not even under the BEST circumstances...
PS - I have a problem with people making "predictions" of what might or should happen under a given set of circumstances. I see it all the time at the track. Guys talk about how their cars "should" run low 11s...and then they pull off some mid 12s. Tim, I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with the way you handled this whole charade.
PS - I have a problem with people making "predictions" of what might or should happen under a given set of circumstances. I see it all the time at the track. Guys talk about how their cars "should" run low 11s...and then they pull off some mid 12s. Tim, I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with the way you handled this whole charade.
About 12% more compression to be more exact.Yes a little over 1 psi of boost.This is all correct and I will not deny this.The reflash helps because it doest let the ECU retard timing and I seen 5 degrees being pulled as we were coming up on the rev limiter.It also allows us to rev higher in the rpms range.More rpms=more power,typically. Then there is the cams. Then there is the upper plenum vs.our experimental plenum.There are alot of variables and honestly do I think these parts with all the extra BS and a psi of boost would allow our test car to make it to 640WHP. Probably not but I am certain it will be 600+WHP. I just dont know the exact amount beyond 600WHP that it could make.And this has been my point the whole time!
Last edited by TurboTim; 03-02-2007 at 10:12 AM.
03-02-2007, 10:33 AM
#160
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by TurboTim
About 12% more compression to be more exact.Yes a little over 1 psi of boost.This is all correct and I will not deny this.The reflash helps because it doest let the ECU retard timing and I seen 5 degrees being pulled as we were coming up on the rev limiter.It also allows us to rev higher in the rpms range.More rpms=more power,typically. Then there is the cams. Then there is the upper plenum vs.our experimental plenum.There are alot of variables and honestly do I think these parts with all the extra BS and a psi of boost would allow our test car to make it to 640WHP. Probably not but I am certain it will be 600+WHP. I just dont know the exact amount beyond 600WHP that it could make.And this has been my point the whole time!
Agree to disagree I guess...