I drove the TurboNetics Single Turbo 350z!
BOV
Originally posted by gq_626
There is a place for all of these kits....APS, GREDDY, JWT, TURBONETICS. So I tend to agree that you its not as simple as saying this kit is better than that kit.
If money is no object, then the BEST kit will be different from the person that is on a budget.
One thing I'd also recommend is to tally up ALL of the things you'll need with your F/I kits...not just the price of the kit. Some kits may appear less expensive on paper, until you add in all the other features that would make the kit better or more complete.
That is why, even though I have the Greddy kit...I've been advising people to get the APS kit instead...if they can afford it. At the end of the day, the APS kit is the most complete and best development F/I setup out there yet. But is is also the most expensive...so make sure to add up all your costs before taking the F/I plunge.
Good luck!
PS: Different types/manufactures of BOV's make different levels of blow off noise. Turbonetics make some really loud BOV's...cant remember the name..but something like a "Monster" or "godzilla" or something like that. Anyways, thats probably why their BOV sounds louder.
I will likely be upgrading my Greddy Type-S BOV to a Race version, to support the 15-20psi I plan on running with the built motor. I dont think the Greddy Type-S will adequately handle that much boost without leaking or surging.
There is a place for all of these kits....APS, GREDDY, JWT, TURBONETICS. So I tend to agree that you its not as simple as saying this kit is better than that kit.
If money is no object, then the BEST kit will be different from the person that is on a budget.
One thing I'd also recommend is to tally up ALL of the things you'll need with your F/I kits...not just the price of the kit. Some kits may appear less expensive on paper, until you add in all the other features that would make the kit better or more complete.
That is why, even though I have the Greddy kit...I've been advising people to get the APS kit instead...if they can afford it. At the end of the day, the APS kit is the most complete and best development F/I setup out there yet. But is is also the most expensive...so make sure to add up all your costs before taking the F/I plunge.
Good luck!
PS: Different types/manufactures of BOV's make different levels of blow off noise. Turbonetics make some really loud BOV's...cant remember the name..but something like a "Monster" or "godzilla"
or something like that. Anyways, thats probably why their BOV sounds louder.I will likely be upgrading my Greddy Type-S BOV to a Race version, to support the 15-20psi I plan on running with the built motor. I dont think the Greddy Type-S will adequately handle that much boost without leaking or surging.
The APS BOV is queter in general since it is a dual stage bypass / BOV. Part of the shoosh is vented back into the intake, hence quieter, than a 100% atmospheric "horn".
Thread Starter
New Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
From: San Fernando
Here is the dyno they released at the Mossy Meet.
The Torque curve is "all messed up".
I called over to turbonetics, I believe I spoke with Ryan (don't quote/kill me on the name).
I spoke with him at length, and he gave me the calculation for the TRQ based on the peak being at 5750RPM. So hopefully I didn't make a mistake, and hopefully he gave me the right info:
What he told me this calculated to was 328 ft_lb.
You know what is interesting about this?
This comes out to be the exactly the same as I ended up with 360/328 but on this dyno and this graph it's at 5750 vs 6350 on mine!
This dyno is a Dyna Pack, where the wheels are actually removed and attached directly to the dyno, so this should allow for even more accurate readings than on the DTS.
It's not fair to compare these dynos as they are different setups, also the dyno sheet/report itself is screwed up so I don't know what impact that mayhave, and the actual operating conditions are "unknown". Boost and Fuel setups would make a huge difference.
This is where the experts need to jump in.
The Torque curve is "all messed up".
I called over to turbonetics, I believe I spoke with Ryan (don't quote/kill me on the name).
I spoke with him at length, and he gave me the calculation for the TRQ based on the peak being at 5750RPM. So hopefully I didn't make a mistake, and hopefully he gave me the right info:
What he told me this calculated to was 328 ft_lb.
You know what is interesting about this?
This comes out to be the exactly the same as I ended up with 360/328 but on this dyno and this graph it's at 5750 vs 6350 on mine!
This dyno is a Dyna Pack, where the wheels are actually removed and attached directly to the dyno, so this should allow for even more accurate readings than on the DTS.
It's not fair to compare these dynos as they are different setups, also the dyno sheet/report itself is screwed up so I don't know what impact that mayhave, and the actual operating conditions are "unknown". Boost and Fuel setups would make a huge difference.
This is where the experts need to jump in.
Originally posted by alpine
Here is the dyno they released at the Mossy Meet.
The Torque curve is "all messed up".
I called over to turbonetics, I believe I spoke with Ryan (don't quote/kill me on the name).
I spoke with him at length, and he gave me the calculation for the TRQ based on the peak being at 5750RPM. So hopefully I didn't make a mistake, and hopefully he gave me the right info:
What he told me this calculated to was 328 ft_lb.
You know what is interesting about this?
This comes out to be the exactly the same as I ended up with 360/328 but on this dyno and this graph it's at 5750 vs 6350 on mine!
This dyno is a Dyna Pack, where the wheels are actually removed and attached directly to the dyno, so this should allow for even more accurate readings than on the DTS.
It's not fair to compare these dynos as they are different setups, also the dyno sheet/report itself is screwed up so I don't know what impact that mayhave, and the actual operating conditions are "unknown". Boost and Fuel setups would make a huge difference.
This is where the experts need to jump in.
Here is the dyno they released at the Mossy Meet.
The Torque curve is "all messed up".
I called over to turbonetics, I believe I spoke with Ryan (don't quote/kill me on the name).
I spoke with him at length, and he gave me the calculation for the TRQ based on the peak being at 5750RPM. So hopefully I didn't make a mistake, and hopefully he gave me the right info:
What he told me this calculated to was 328 ft_lb.
You know what is interesting about this?
This comes out to be the exactly the same as I ended up with 360/328 but on this dyno and this graph it's at 5750 vs 6350 on mine!
This dyno is a Dyna Pack, where the wheels are actually removed and attached directly to the dyno, so this should allow for even more accurate readings than on the DTS.
It's not fair to compare these dynos as they are different setups, also the dyno sheet/report itself is screwed up so I don't know what impact that mayhave, and the actual operating conditions are "unknown". Boost and Fuel setups would make a huge difference.
This is where the experts need to jump in.
Thread Starter
New Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
From: San Fernando
Originally posted by MIAPLAYA
Like I was telling you at the Mossy meet I think the scale of that dyno chart is way off. I plan to dyno mine on a standard dynojet when I get it back to compare to everyone else. Are you going to be doing a Dynojet dyno soon? If so where at?
Like I was telling you at the Mossy meet I think the scale of that dyno chart is way off. I plan to dyno mine on a standard dynojet when I get it back to compare to everyone else. Are you going to be doing a Dynojet dyno soon? If so where at?
What's your name again?
Your Mail Box is full, I was going to PM you this.
Originally posted by alpine
Were you the guy I was talking with over by my car, and then @ the turbonetics booth?
What's your name again?
Your Mail Box is full, I was going to PM you this.
Were you the guy I was talking with over by my car, and then @ the turbonetics booth?
What's your name again?
Your Mail Box is full, I was going to PM you this.
Thread Starter
New Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
From: San Fernando
Originally posted by MIAPLAYA
No I did not....
No I did not....
I had already mentioned this person to a few people a couple times, aside from Brad directly, which of course he found very interesting the someone was saying that.
These conversations came up fairly casually, and I assume this guy I was talking to was a "visitor" and not one of the "clubs" so when you said you were that guy I was talking to, I was concerned.
Again, glad that wasn't you as it seems that you are contributing quite a bit to the Turbonetics cause.
Joe
Last edited by alpine; Nov 15, 2004 at 03:31 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
From: USA
Originally posted by alpine
This was a casual test drive here people, I didn't really get a chance to take notes, so I don't want anyone taking this as "gospel".
Boost was appearing after 3k, exactly when did it get there, I have no idea. It pulled very well through all situations I was in.
I know I had more power, I know I got it sooner, because of the fact I have pushed mine through 6500, I know mine continues to pull hard.
I do NOT know this about the Turbonetics.
I was driving it up into the upper 5's but I didn't want to slam this car, or go near the rev limiter.
Driving someone elses car, specially under these conditions / circumstances, requires more care about the car and traffic than gauges/speedometer.
This is also something you pick up in track conditions. So sorry I am unable to "report" this accurately, this was not my goal to begin with as this was a courtesy.
That is why I am stating the experience is similar.
I have a dyno from the Mossy Meet, although I don't think it looks right, someone pointed out the scale seemed to be off.
More later
This was a casual test drive here people, I didn't really get a chance to take notes, so I don't want anyone taking this as "gospel".
Boost was appearing after 3k, exactly when did it get there, I have no idea. It pulled very well through all situations I was in.
I know I had more power, I know I got it sooner, because of the fact I have pushed mine through 6500, I know mine continues to pull hard.
I do NOT know this about the Turbonetics.
I was driving it up into the upper 5's but I didn't want to slam this car, or go near the rev limiter.
Driving someone elses car, specially under these conditions / circumstances, requires more care about the car and traffic than gauges/speedometer.
This is also something you pick up in track conditions. So sorry I am unable to "report" this accurately, this was not my goal to begin with as this was a courtesy.
That is why I am stating the experience is similar.
I have a dyno from the Mossy Meet, although I don't think it looks right, someone pointed out the scale seemed to be off.
More later
No I have never said I drove this car. I have always said I rode in this car and all the videos I have up are me as a passenger in it...Not sure who that was who said that. I did talk to you about the kit but I don't think it was for a very long time.
Thread Starter
New Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
From: San Fernando
Originally posted by MIAPLAYA
No I have never said I drove this car. I have always said I rode in this car and all the videos I have up are me as a passenger in it...Not sure who that was who said that. I did talk to you about the kit but I don't think it was for a very long time.
No I have never said I drove this car. I have always said I rode in this car and all the videos I have up are me as a passenger in it...Not sure who that was who said that. I did talk to you about the kit but I don't think it was for a very long time.
Thread Starter
New Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
From: San Fernando
Originally posted by S12 driver
Thanks for the reponse. If the turbo starts making boost at 3k, then the power band should be better than the dyno they posted. Maybe it's because more load in real driving giving it quicker spool than on a dyno.
Thanks for the reponse. If the turbo starts making boost at 3k, then the power band should be better than the dyno they posted. Maybe it's because more load in real driving giving it quicker spool than on a dyno.
This was dynod on a dynapack, I'd like to assume if they pull your wheels off, they must put a load on it.
Maybe we need some info on this dyno now.
Hmm I dont recall if that dyno loads its...Somehow I thought the only dynos that provide a reactive load depending on the car were Mustang Dynos. Then again I am not overly familiar with DynaPacks. Either way if you plan to run on a Dynojet in the near future I would be more than happy to meet you and we could dyno same day same dyno and compare....I should have my car done in about 3 weeks to a month...
Thread Starter
New Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
From: San Fernando
Originally posted by MIAPLAYA
Hmm I dont recall if that dyno loads its...Somehow I thought the only dynos that provide a reactive load depending on the car were Mustang Dynos. Then again I am not overly familiar with DynaPacks. Either way if you plan to run on a Dynojet in the near future I would be more than happy to meet you and we could dyno same day same dyno and compare....I should have my car done in about 3 weeks to a month...
Hmm I dont recall if that dyno loads its...Somehow I thought the only dynos that provide a reactive load depending on the car were Mustang Dynos. Then again I am not overly familiar with DynaPacks. Either way if you plan to run on a Dynojet in the near future I would be more than happy to meet you and we could dyno same day same dyno and compare....I should have my car done in about 3 weeks to a month...
Originally posted by alpine
Sounds good, keep in touch.
Sounds good, keep in touch.
Joe, yup...I think something is wrong with both of these dynos...both the APS and the Turbonetics.
Lets all just agree...for the sake of comparison...can everyone please get their dynos done on a dynojet??
With a dynojet, your wheels are rotating a known mass, meaning there is no calibration or other weird anomologies to throw off the numbers. The only "correction" is temp and baro....and even then...its negligable at sea level. In my opinion, that is the only way to accurately compare one kit to the other.
I realize that dynos...even a dynojet will vary between days, machines, etc....but overall, the dynojects will provide more consistent numbers, and allow for a better comparison...since you take the human element out of the calibration...since there is no calibration to speak of.
That said, load based dynos are typically much better for tuning.
Hth,
Sharif
Lets all just agree...for the sake of comparison...can everyone please get their dynos done on a dynojet??
With a dynojet, your wheels are rotating a known mass, meaning there is no calibration or other weird anomologies to throw off the numbers. The only "correction" is temp and baro....and even then...its negligable at sea level. In my opinion, that is the only way to accurately compare one kit to the other.
I realize that dynos...even a dynojet will vary between days, machines, etc....but overall, the dynojects will provide more consistent numbers, and allow for a better comparison...since you take the human element out of the calibration...since there is no calibration to speak of.
That said, load based dynos are typically much better for tuning.
Hth,
Sharif
gq - not true...you can totally play with a variety of values on a Dynojet too
there is no better or worse dyno...the only valid comparisons are runs between kits at the same place on the same day...anything else is a sheer and utter waste of time
adam
there is no better or worse dyno...the only valid comparisons are runs between kits at the same place on the same day...anything else is a sheer and utter waste of time
adam
Originally posted by gq_626
Joe, yup...I think something is wrong with both of these dynos...both the APS and the Turbonetics.
Lets all just agree...for the sake of comparison...can everyone please get their dynos done on a dynojet??
With a dynojet, your wheels are rotating a known mass, meaning there is no calibration or other weird anomologies to throw off the numbers. The only "correction" is temp and baro....and even then...its negligable at sea level. In my opinion, that is the only way to accurately compare one kit to the other.
I realize that dynos...even a dynojet will vary between days, machines, etc....but overall, the dynojects will provide more consistent numbers, and allow for a better comparison...since you take the human element out of the calibration...since there is no calibration to speak of.
That said, load based dynos are typically much better for tuning.
Hth,
Sharif
Joe, yup...I think something is wrong with both of these dynos...both the APS and the Turbonetics.
Lets all just agree...for the sake of comparison...can everyone please get their dynos done on a dynojet??
With a dynojet, your wheels are rotating a known mass, meaning there is no calibration or other weird anomologies to throw off the numbers. The only "correction" is temp and baro....and even then...its negligable at sea level. In my opinion, that is the only way to accurately compare one kit to the other.
I realize that dynos...even a dynojet will vary between days, machines, etc....but overall, the dynojects will provide more consistent numbers, and allow for a better comparison...since you take the human element out of the calibration...since there is no calibration to speak of.
That said, load based dynos are typically much better for tuning.
Hth,
Sharif
Originally posted by Z1 Performance
gq - not true...you can totally play with a variety of values on a Dynojet too
there is no better or worse dyno...the only valid comparisons are runs between kits at the same place on the same day...anything else is a sheer and utter waste of time
adam
gq - not true...you can totally play with a variety of values on a Dynojet too
there is no better or worse dyno...the only valid comparisons are runs between kits at the same place on the same day...anything else is a sheer and utter waste of time
adam
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 0
From: Puerto Rico
Originally posted by alpine
Here is the dyno they released at the Mossy Meet.
The Torque curve is "all messed up".
I called over to turbonetics, I believe I spoke with Ryan (don't quote/kill me on the name).
I spoke with him at length, and he gave me the calculation for the TRQ based on the peak being at 5750RPM. So hopefully I didn't make a mistake, and hopefully he gave me the right info:
What he told me this calculated to was 328 ft_lb.
You know what is interesting about this?
This comes out to be the exactly the same as I ended up with 360/328 but on this dyno and this graph it's at 5750 vs 6350 on mine!
This dyno is a Dyna Pack, where the wheels are actually removed and attached directly to the dyno, so this should allow for even more accurate readings than on the DTS.
It's not fair to compare these dynos as they are different setups, also the dyno sheet/report itself is screwed up so I don't know what impact that mayhave, and the actual operating conditions are "unknown". Boost and Fuel setups would make a huge difference.
This is where the experts need to jump in.
Here is the dyno they released at the Mossy Meet.
The Torque curve is "all messed up".
I called over to turbonetics, I believe I spoke with Ryan (don't quote/kill me on the name).
I spoke with him at length, and he gave me the calculation for the TRQ based on the peak being at 5750RPM. So hopefully I didn't make a mistake, and hopefully he gave me the right info:
What he told me this calculated to was 328 ft_lb.
You know what is interesting about this?
This comes out to be the exactly the same as I ended up with 360/328 but on this dyno and this graph it's at 5750 vs 6350 on mine!
This dyno is a Dyna Pack, where the wheels are actually removed and attached directly to the dyno, so this should allow for even more accurate readings than on the DTS.
It's not fair to compare these dynos as they are different setups, also the dyno sheet/report itself is screwed up so I don't know what impact that mayhave, and the actual operating conditions are "unknown". Boost and Fuel setups would make a huge difference.
This is where the experts need to jump in.
So you have your TQ at 6350 and this one is on 5750?
The HP here is 385 not 360... I ask because I'm a little confuse on your statemant... sorry!
