Super70 on the Daytona today [Archive]

Stratman

09-02-2008, 12:25 AM

Hope you guys had a good Labor Day,
I got the urge to get the little stock turbo out and finally throw the Super70/.63 I had rebuilt a few months ago on the 89 2.2 5-speed today. After the many times I've pulled the head to change the turbo I decided I would do it different this time. It was a little pain to get to the bolts and wiggle the turbo out between the engine and the heater lines, but it took me about as long as if the head was pulled. I'm quite sure the hybrid would not have been so easy.
Ok...on to the Super 70. The car is incredibly smooth with the .63 on the 2.5" exhaust with cat/mufler. It doesn't feel as great on the Daytona as it did with the CSX, but the head on the CSX is wicked. The Daytona starts to build boost at around 3000-3200 RPM and seems to reach 20 psi by 4000-4200. There is good power down low and the way this turbo is setup the low end feels just as good as the stock turbo ever did, except it would hit a brick wall around 4200 RPM and now it pulls good MPH 5000-6000 RPM (need cam).
Have any of you tried both S60 and S70 w/.63 housings? Which one did you like?:)

Stratman

09-03-2008, 11:16 AM

cordes

09-03-2008, 11:23 AM

I haven't tried the turbos in questions, but I do pull my turbos the same way you did. I don't have trouble in an omni with a hybrid on there. If the turbo has been off at all recently, I say pull it with the head on. It is a good money saver.

ssheen

09-03-2008, 11:59 AM

I have the stage 1 .63 S70 on my 2.2 Daytona. I did not try a S60 before, just the stock TII turbo. When I first put it on spool was not that great. IE. 14ish around 3700, have to look at the data logs to see for sure. After tuning the cal some that improved it a lot, boost below 3500 now. A recent muffler change to a Spiral Turbo 3" baffle from the Hooker MaxFlow seems to have help some as well. No data logging yet to confirm though.

Stratman

09-03-2008, 03:09 PM

Hi Cordes and Scott!

Cordes...definately a good money saver for the fact I always use new bolts with a new gasket. I am also very anal with my gasket sufaces so it didn't have to spend the hours leaning over the car to scrape the deck.

Scott....More tuning is necessary. I only had less than an hour to tune that night and with the wideband back in the car I see plenty of areas to work on fuel alone. This particular engine was a magnet for untunable detonation (sound familiar:) ) with the stock turbo over 16 psi under a 3rd gear load running 93 octane. Now, 20 psi is quite friendly, full of power, and detonation really doesn't show up until 4th gear, but now it seems much easier to tune it out. It's been 4 years since my last stock turbo (sounds like an AA meeting,LOL). I guess I forgot how crappy it was.

moparzrule

09-03-2008, 03:44 PM

The super 70 on my old daytona spooled to 22 PSI by 3200 RPM. I had a G headed 2.2 with a TU cal. Ported manifolds, ported stock valve head, 2.5'' swingvalve and 3'' straight exhaust. I loved the power band, pulled hard to about 6700 RPM. It made peak HP at 6000 RPM, but was kinda flat until 6700.

Do you have ported manifolds and head? If not, that is definitely hurting you the most and also in which case makes installing an aftermarket cam a complete waste.
The super 60 WILL spool faster than the S70, hands down. The S70 is suppose to be for cars that are more modified, hence flowing more air spooling the turbo fast, definitely for an engine with a ported head and manifolds.

Stratman

09-03-2008, 09:27 PM

As we all know the ported head done correctly makes the biggest difference as far as spool goes...well...and big exhaust. I can't forget when I swapped the .48 housing to the .63 on the super70 and put the well ported head on the CSX, the S70 was instantly maxed out at that point. I'd like to throw a duplicate head on the Daytona, but I have to reframe since this is my DD.
The S70 really doesn't feel bad at all, I just have to grab a lower gear from now on ;).

moparzrule

09-03-2008, 09:28 PM

But what is done to the daytona as far as ported parts? You said the CSX has all ported stuff, what about the daytona?

Stratman

09-03-2008, 10:01 PM

But what is done to the daytona as far as ported parts? You said the CSX has all ported stuff, what about the daytona?

The Daytona has no ported mani and no ported head, just 1mm larger valves which feels tons better after getting the stocker off. I was really refering to the situation I had before with the CSX. The CSX had spooling issues with ported ex manifold, 3" exhaust, etc.. Without the head work the ported stuff showed to reduce spool and low end power, though, bad port work on that head could have contributed to all my problems.
I'm an A-413 junky, so maybe the 5-speed makes the Daytona feel so good with this turbo.

moparzrule

09-04-2008, 08:04 AM

Stratman

09-04-2008, 09:54 AM

Putting +1mm valves in a completely stock head would make flow worse. So that doesn't make sense.

With no porting done at all, you would be better off with a stock T2 rather than an S70. Your power band sucks, full boost at 4000 and shuts down at 6000 if that? A 2000 RPM power band is almost what a diesel engine has. Most of our cars usually have around a 3000 RPM power band, typically 3500-6500 for a modded 2.2 and 3000-6000 for a modded 2.5L (modded means ported everything). I happen to get lucky with my old 2.2, 3200-6700 so I had a huge 3500 RPM power band. It was nice.

Why are you being so opinionated on how my car runs?? You act like I'm a noob ... I started this thread so newer folks could read the options availible and outcomes, but you are telling me me I would be better off with a stock T2 without even knowing my car.
The car feels great.....a tad bit slow on the the spool up side, but no where near as slow as my CSX with a T3/T4 50 trim/F4 cam/3200 stall. This turbo allowed me to run more boost on pump gas more efficiently with less detonation so more power is in fact given after tuning the ecu. The power in the mid and upper RPM is the what I was looking for. The stock turbo with the .48 housing at 17 psi would flatten out so bad by 4200 RPM it felt and ran terrible.

moparzrule

09-04-2008, 02:17 PM

Why are you being so opinionated on how my car runs?? You act like I'm a noob ...

The S70 is not meant for all stock parts. Full boost at 4000 RPM is horrible if your engine tops out at 6000!

but you are telling me me I would be better off with a stock T2 without even knowing my car.
.
This is why I asked you a bunch of questions first! I didn't just come out and say it, I found out the details first!

This turbo allowed me to run more boost on pump gas more efficiently with less detonation so more power is in fact given after tuning the ecu. .

This makes absolutely NO sense. Boost is boost, it's the same PSI. You make more power because the turbo is flowing more CFM, and therefore needs more fuel to compensate. But at the same PSI you will need the same octane.

The stock turbo with the .48 housing at 17 psi would flatten out so bad by 4200 RPM it felt and ran terrible.
You said you had a bogus head on it before, that doesn't have anything to do with the turbo. A stock T2 turbo on a 2.2 with stock head/manifolds will have full boost at about 2600-2800 RPM or so, and should pull fine to about 5800-6000 RPM. Again if you notice, a 3000 RPM power band is consistant with these cars.

tryingbe

09-04-2008, 02:27 PM

This makes absolutely NO sense. Boost is boost, it's the same PSI. You make more power because the turbo is flowing more CFM, and therefore needs more fuel to compensate. But at the same PSI you will need the same octane.

You're forgetting the raise of temperature of the compressed air.

moparzrule

09-04-2008, 02:33 PM

You're forgetting the raise of temperature of the compressed air.

Stock T2 compressor is pretty efficient up to atleast 20 PSI boost. It doesn't start heating the air badly until over 20. So at best you are talking 1 psi.

Stratman

09-04-2008, 07:49 PM

Stock T2 compressor is pretty efficient up to atleast 20 PSI boost. It doesn't start heating the air badly until over 20. So at best you are talking 1 psi.

The stock turbo was not near as efficient on this engine as the S70 and did not have near the power from 4000-6000 (or even 3600-6000) and has fairly equal power down low. Whether it be compressor wheel out of spec, small exhaust housing, not enough volume for the larger FM IC, or possibly little higher compression ratio, I guarantee this stock turbo at 16-17 psi was causing me efficiency and cooling issues which was clearly supressed by less heat, more volume, and less constriction in the exhaust with the turbo I installed. I apologize, I never meant this to be a pi$$ing match of what works and doesn't work. Combinations on engines sometimes don't make sense, but work great. I have worked on and tuned this car for 3 years before I bought it from the previous owner and this turbo fixed all annoyances I've tried to get rid of in the past.
I guess it would be best to post all parts in the combination:
2.2 .020" over Venolia pistons
Swirl head/1mm larger valves, no port work/possible a little higher CR
Spearco 1080 CFM FM IC/2.25" intercooler pipe
Stock exhaust mani/not ported
2.5" exhaust w/cat & muffler
Super 70 comp wheel/dynamic seal/stock ex wheel/.63 housing

jckrieger

09-04-2008, 11:31 PM

I've run about every compressor/turbine combo and I have to say I was not impressed with either the S60 or S70 turbochargers I ran. I only tried the S60 with the stock turbine and .63 A/R turbine, but I tried the S70 with both a .48 and .63 housing. I've also run a 50 trim TO4E in a stock housing, 60 trim TO4E, a S50 trim TO4E, and of course the stock turbos. I have to say, if you're not running more than 16-18psi, stay with the stock turbo! If you want to make more power/run higher boost, just go with a full hybrid and skip the intermediate turbos. The difference in lag between a S60/.63 combo and a S50/Stage 3 .63 is marginal.

moparzrule

09-05-2008, 07:08 AM

and has fairly equal power down low.

I found that as well with the S70. When I swapped it, didn't loose any low end power (if anything it got better) and also gained some decent top end.
The only 2 things I can attribute that too I guess are the turbine is less restrictive, and the larger compressor wheel is throwing more CFM which means even though you see less boost on the gauge the turbo is putting more air into your engine. A larger compressor doesn't spin as high of RPM's, but does take longer to get there because it's heavier.

moparzrule

09-05-2008, 07:14 AM

The difference in lag between a S60/.63 combo and a S50/Stage 3 .63 is marginal.

Wow I don't know what setups you were testing these on but that statement is very interesting. Typically the S60 w/.63 you can barely tell a difference over a stock T2 turbo, they spool very fast. Most have full boost at like 2800 whereas stock T2 would have full boost around 2500. A S50 T04E with .63 stage 3 won't get full boost on a 2.2 until 3800-4000 RPM.
Now when I ran a 2.5L with the stage 3 I got full boost at 3300 RPM, but the same top end on a 2.2L (same head and manifolds) full boost wasn't achieved until about 3900 RPM. There is typically a 500-600 RPM difference between 2.2 and 2.5L. But basically all the 2.5 does is shift the power band to the left, because the 2.2 can rev 700-800 RPM higher. This is why I favor the 2.2, you get an extra 200-300 RPM power band out of it over a 2.5L.

jckrieger

09-05-2008, 10:48 AM

All of the testing was done on a 2.5L 8V motor with a ported exhaust manifold, lightly ported head, 3" exhaust, large intercooler, etc etc. There is a few hundred rpm difference between the turbos when running the .63 a/r turbine housing, but the difference is well worth the reduced backpressure. When running the stock turbo, the car would max out near 250whp around 18-19psi. Increasing boost past that level never provided a single mph at the track. I even ran the turbo in the same car on a 2.2L and 2.5L and the car ran exactly the same quarter mile mph.

With a larger turbine, power stays fairly linear with boost... which is a good thing :). I do agree, if you're running a 2.2L, you will notice a substantial increase in lag with the larger turbos. I guess "full boost" comes on later, but if you're comparing the engine torque output of the engine, the difference is smaller. Say the stock turbo is maxed out around 18psi and you're running a big hybrid at 30psi. The hybrid might not hit 18psi as quickly as the stock turbo, but you will also be making the same power at a lower boost level. I do agree, if you're not driving a car with a large turbo aggressively, it is going to feel laggy. If you give the car a little throttle in 1st gear, you'll be smiling all the way through 5th.

slasky

09-05-2008, 10:58 AM

No one has tried both on thier car??
I have a feeling the S60 may have probably been a better choice on the street and bit quicker to spool on this car with the .63, but I can't complain due to the cost of the revised S70 and the power when it comes on as opposed to the stocker. The only thing I know about this head is 1mm larger valves with no port work applied.

I had a stock t2, then a super 60, and now a super 70. I only have data logs on the s70 so I can't compare numbers. As far as feel, I really don't notice any difference between the two. However, I have a stock head and intake on my 2.5. So I am expecting a huge gain when I switch to my TU header, ported head, and custom intake.

Stratman

09-05-2008, 03:21 PM

I had a stock t2, then a super 60, and now a super 70. I only have data logs on the s70 so I can't compare numbers. As far as feel, I really don't notice any difference between the two. However, I have a stock head and intake on my 2.5. So I am expecting a huge gain when I switch to my TU header, ported head, and custom intake.

Hi Scott,
On my 2.2 CSX with A-413, great swirl head, large IC, ported exhaust manifold, and 3" swingvalve/3" exhaust the Super 70 was trying very hard to keep up with the engine. I remember very quick spool and around 280 HP 320+FTtorque 3800 RPM to the wheels (efficiently) at around 18-20 psi with the drive train loss. When I finally replaced the S70 with the T3/T4 50 trim/ stage 2/ .63 housing, the CSX woke up and went crazy at 20 psi with great spool (though automatic trans/3800 stall). That is when the S70 was not enough for the increase in flow, but it was still pretty fun.

slasky

09-05-2008, 04:01 PM

Hi Scott,
On my 2.2 CSX with A-413, great swirl head, large IC, ported exhaust manifold, and 3" swingvalve/3" exhaust the Super 70 was trying very hard to keep up with the engine. I remember very quick spool and around 280 HP 320+FTtorque 3800 RPM to the wheels (efficiently) at around 18-20 psi with the drive train loss.
I am at those numbers now to the wheels with my setup but a little higher up in the RPM range and with ~25 psi. I am pretty much stock except for s70, 3" swingvalve and exhaust, 2.5 piping with spearco intercooler. Head, intake, and exhaust are stock. I have just about reached my limit now. I am going to see what I can do with a custom intake, ported head, and TU header. I am hoping I could get up to 330 whp or better with it.

Stratman

09-05-2008, 05:01 PM

I am at those numbers now to the wheels with my setup but a little higher up in the RPM range and with ~25 psi. I am pretty much stock except for s70, 3" swingvalve and exhaust, 2.5 piping with spearco intercooler. Head, intake, and exhaust are stock. I have just about reached my limit now. I am going to see what I can do with a custom intake, ported head, and TU header. I am hoping I could get up to 330 whp or better with it.

I don't see any problem with reaching 330 peak. You will probably notice a higher average HP/TQ which is what you should see with good head work. The head work alone was resposible for 8 tenths in the 1/4 on street tires at the same 20 psi I ran with the old head.

moparzrule

09-05-2008, 10:56 PM

I was at 290 WHP at 22 PSI with my S70 with the G headed 2.2, everything ported but stock size valves.

STRATMAN- There's a huge difference in turbine flow going to a stage 2 wheel compared to the stocker, so it's hard to say how much of a difference the T4 compressor side alone made complared to the S70. But of course the compressor does flow decently better. The S60 flows 35ppm, the S70 flows 38ppm, but a 50 trim TO4E flows 47 PPM. Stock T2 turbo is around 30 or 32 PPM, can't remember at this time. The H trim T04B I'm running now is 53ppm :eek: With the stage 3 .63 turbine side it's a little laggy on the 2.2, about 4000 RPM full boost but I shift at 7000 with the stock cam.

Stratman

09-06-2008, 03:02 AM

STRATMAN- There's a huge difference in turbine flow going to a stage 2 wheel compared to the stocker, so it's hard to say how much of a difference the T4 compressor side alone made complared to the S70.

The post is stating the power increase and efficiency of the particular hybrid turbo as a whole compared to the Super70/.63/stock wheel on my 2.2 engine with great breathing capabilities using the inferior 8 valve head.

The S60 flows 35ppm, the S70 flows 38ppm, but a 50 trim TO4E flows 47 PPM. Stock T2 turbo is around 30 or 32 PPM, can't remember at this time.

Good info for the thread.

The H trim T04B I'm running now is 53ppm :eek: With the stage 3 .63 turbine side it's a little laggy on the 2.2, about 4000 RPM full boost but I shift at 7000 with the stock cam.

Would be groovy to see a dyno sheet on that set up. It reminds me of my buddy Blueball's Omni with the same turbo, except he was running the .499 lift cam a bit on the retarded side. Peak power was around 358 at 5800-6000 at 19 psi.

moparzrule

09-06-2008, 07:38 AM

I did try Simon's S60 roller cam for a couple days, only had a chance to try it straight up. I never got a chance to get really up there in the RPM's, it kept misfiring. I found out later that the head I have had the guides replaced once before with cheap aftermarket junky ones. I guess with 061 springs and .499 lift it didn't like it. The intake guides had about .022'' play by the time I realized it was the guides, so the valves were opening at an angle. At high RPM's the valve wouldn't seal back up, hence the misfire. It was also making my knock sensor go off because the valve was slapping the seat on the way back up. Took me a couple weeks for figure out what was going on, I only found out because I was getting blue smoke on startup and for the first few minutes of running it would make a big cloud. I thought a valve seal split or something, when I went to replace it thats when I found the guides were shot.
But when I first installed the cam I only lost 2'' vacuum at idle, the turbo only spooled about 200 RPM slower, and up to 6000 RPM it pulled harder for sure. I know this is only seat of the pants, never had a chance to get more than that.

Speedeuphoria

09-06-2008, 06:46 PM

But of course the compressor does flow decently better. The S60 flows 35ppm, the S70 flows 38ppm, but a 50 trim TO4E flows 47 PPM. Stock T2 turbo is around 30 or 32 PPM, can't remember at this time. The H trim T04B I'm running now is 53ppm
Its CFM(cubic feet per minute) not PPM(parts per million), lol.

The only 2 things I can attribute that too I guess are the turbine is less restrictive, and the larger compressor wheel is throwing more CFM which means even though you see less boost on the gauge the turbo is putting more air into your engine. A larger compressor doesn't spin as high of RPM's, but does take longer to get there because it's heavier.
Its all about the less restrictive exhaust side which means you get more CFM out of the motor at the same PSI. PSI is just a restriction or how poorly the engine flows. If you have a setup and only change the compressor side you will have basically the same CFM at the same psi with either one(with minimal changes from lower temp). You wont get more CFM even though the larger compressor says you should. You will be able to get more PSI b/c the larger one can flow more, the motor still does not flow any better.

turbovanman

09-06-2008, 07:22 PM

Another great thread guys, :nod:

moparzrule

09-06-2008, 09:11 PM

Its CFM(cubic feet per minute) not PPM(parts per million), lol.

PPM= Pounds per minute

I should have said lb/min but I was typing fast.

I don't know the CFM numbers, but they are a lot more than 35/38/etc ;)

Ondonti

09-08-2008, 06:31 AM

Stratman,

In the end, how the car feels and spools is up to you. You dont have to have the same spool/top end preference as other people and you shouldnt! I couldnt read all this because there is too much opinion going around as fact.

If you can stay in your powerband between shifts the rest is just personal preference!

If i built an 8valve I would never put a small turbo on there. I have no use for a 200hp 2000rpm tire roaster.

When someone tries to artificially increase the the powerband by running a small turbine, they hurt themselves in many ways.
More backpressure
leads to more reversion
leads to more detonation
which means less timing, less boost
leads to MUCH less hp on that octane of fuel
leads to more traction problems and less time improvements at the track.
etc etc etc.

There is nothing wrong with a 4000-6000 rpm powerband. Shifting a bit over 6000 will leave you easily in your powerband in every gear. cars with wider powerbands will lose to you if you can drive consistently. They will spin more and then when rpms pick up and traction is at a premium, they will be down on power as you put a few more cars on them. :(

If you think you can bang the gears and keep the motor happy in its powerband then everything else is blah blah blah.

moparzrule

09-08-2008, 07:33 AM

There is nothing wrong with a 4000-6000 rpm powerband. Shifting a bit over 6000 will leave you easily in your powerband in every gear. cars with wider powerbands will lose to you if you can drive consistently. They will spin more and then when rpms pick up and traction is at a premium, they will be down on power as you put a few more cars on them. :(
.

What? Umm, no. While you're busy shifting I'll be flying by you cuz I'm in my power band much longer, and then you can't catch back up ;)
If this was a drag only car, perhaps a 2000 RPM power band wouldn't be so bad because the car only has one purpose. But for a street car, a 2000 RPM power band plain sucks. That is fact.

Chris W

09-08-2008, 08:06 AM

Stratman,

Please confirm which compressor wheel you are using. From what I recall last time we spoke you purchased a local vendors version of a S70 which includes the less expensive T4 compressor wheel, not the smaller wheel we use for our S70. This info might change a few things for those using or considering using our S70

Thanks!

Chris-TU

Stratman

09-08-2008, 08:57 AM

Stratman,

In the end, how the car feels and spools is up to you.

Doesn't feel as good as the 11 sec CSX, but it feels great and has good power down low even out of boost.

If this was a drag only car, perhaps a 2000 RPM power band wouldn't be so bad because the car only has one purpose. But for a street car, a 2000 RPM power band plain sucks. That is fact.

LOL, This car feels much better as a street than a drag car. The powerband is great.

Stratman,

Please confirm which compressor wheel you are using. From what I recall last time we spoke you purchased a local vendors version of a S70 which includes the less expensive T4 compressor wheel, not the smaller wheel we use for our S70. This info might change a few things for those using or considering using our S70

Thanks!

Chris-TU

Hi Chris,
This one I bought from my buddy Blueball which was built by Ed Peters and if I remember right it is the same size wheel as the great S70 TU turbo I purchased from you, made the CSX run great, and sold prematurely (I knew I would need it again, LOL). The inducer is 49mm and exducer 70mm.

Chris W

09-08-2008, 09:16 AM

Hi Chris,
This one I bought from my buddy Blueball which was built by Ed Peters and if I remember right it is the same size wheel as the great S70 TU turbo I purchased from you, made the CSX run great, and sold prematurely (I knew I would need it again, LOL). The inducer is 49mm and exducer 70mm.

You are correct. Ed used the same year GN wheel we use for our S70. :thumb: Sorry, for some reason I thought you got that turbo from Majestic.

Chris-TU

Stratman

09-08-2008, 10:30 AM

You are correct. Ed used the same year GN wheel we use for our S70. :thumb: Sorry, for some reason I thought you got that turbo from Majestic.

Chris-TU

No apolgies needed.;) I only had Majestic install a new backplate/seal, machine the compressor housing to correct clearance, had the clipped turbine wheel replaced with one that wasn't, and balanced.
BTW: Really appreciate the .63 housing.:nod:

Ondonti

09-09-2008, 07:02 AM

What? Umm, no. While you're busy shifting I'll be flying by you cuz I'm in my power band much longer, and then you can't catch back up ;)
If this was a drag only car, perhaps a 2000 RPM power band wouldn't be so bad because the car only has one purpose. But for a street car, a 2000 RPM power band plain sucks. That is fact.

Do you have any idea what the gearing is on these cars?
When you shift around 6000 you wont drop below 4000.

Wide powerband wont help you in a race when you have the same exact gearing as the car you are racing and both of you never leave your powerband.

It doesnt matter if you are on the street or the track. Then the fact that you make less HP between 4000-6000 = loss.

moparzrule

09-09-2008, 07:13 AM

It doesnt matter if you are on the street or the track. Then the fact that you make less HP between 4000-6000 = loss.

Why exactly would I be making less HP between 4000-6000 RPM? Do you think the shorter the power band the more power you will make in that power band? Well thats not true.
The way I see it is we both have the same power from 4000-6000, while I have up to 7000 RPM until my shift point. So while you were busy back at 6000 RPM shifting, I was still accelerating....that extra 1000 RPM put me in front of you and now you cannot catch back up :nod:

Ondonti

09-09-2008, 07:25 AM

Why exactly would I be making less HP between 4000-6000 RPM? Do you think the shorter the power band the more power you will make in that power band? Well thats not true.
The way I see it is we both have the same power from 4000-6000, while I have up to 7000 RPM until my shift point. So while you were busy back at 6000 RPM shifting, I was still accelerating....that extra 1000 RPM put me in front of you and now you cannot catch back up :nod:

I don't think you understand the point of this thread. We aren't talking about your car. You don't see me talking about my car.

We are talking about a stock motor with large turbo vs smaller turbo. 7k is not part of the story here.

Yes, a larger turbo will make more power between 4000-6000 on the same stock motor setup and get better traction, and since it wont drop out of the powerband on shifts, it wins.

We aren't talking about a huge turbo, just a turbo that has a 4000-6000rpm powerband on a stock motor.

moparzrule

09-09-2008, 07:31 AM

Well I still don't understand why his engine only pulls to 6K with that turbo anyway. On the stock2.2 T1 engine in my 88' shadow, which has the mitsu turbo, with only mods being 3'' exhaust(stock downpipe though), stock T2 IC, and a 3 bar cal for 18 PSI boost I was shifting at about 5800-5900 RPM....with a MITSU!

Stratman

09-09-2008, 04:24 PM

Damm, I hate the stupid "Back" button on the mouse when you've already typed a full pargraph!

Well I still don't understand why his engine only pulls to 6K with that turbo anyway.

This is my daily driver which only gets into a couple rat races here and there for fun. The turbo change to the Super 70 was made to eliminate the annoying upper end wall it was hitting and is how I wanted the car to feel. Any of these cars I've owned with a stock cam will pull to 7000 RPM, but they are already well into the downfall in the powerband. When I raced my CSX with a stock cam and A-413 I would short shift to stay within the peak torque band which would lead to my fastest time. Can you post any dyno sheet or track run of a car you shift at 7000 RPM? I'm only curious as to how much power you have in that area with a stock cam.
I would like to digress. I stated in the first place that the Daytona doesn't reach full boost (20 psi) until 4000 RPM, this does not mean my power band starts at 4000 RPM, it only means my peak is closer to 4000 RPM.

moparzrule

09-09-2008, 06:17 PM

Damm, I hate the stupid "Back" button on the mouse when you've already typed a full pargraph!

This is my daily driver which only gets into a couple rat races here and there for fun. The turbo change to the Super 70 was made to eliminate the annoying upper end wall it was hitting and is how I wanted the car to feel. Any of these cars I've owned with a stock cam will pull to 7000 RPM, but they are already well into the downfall in the powerband. When I raced my CSX with a stock cam and A-413 I would short shift to stay within the peak torque band which would lead to my fastest time. Can you post any dyno sheet or track run of a car you shift at 7000 RPM? I'm only curious as to how much power you have in that area with a stock cam.
I would like to digress. I stated in the first place that the Daytona doesn't reach full boost (20 psi) until 4000 RPM, this does not mean my power band starts at 4000 RPM, it only means my peak is closer to 4000 RPM.

Ugg, I hate that too LOL.

I understand what you are saying as far as hitting the wall with the stock turbo.
I cannot seem to find my old dyno sheet of the engine that was in my daytona, which was a 2.2/G head with Super 70 combo. However, I am going to have a perfect example here in a few days. Last fall I went to the track in my shadow with a worked over G headed 2.5L. On saturday I plan on going to the track again, only thing that changed is I stuck a 2.2 shortblock underneath the exact same top end that was on the 2.5L. Same head, manifolds, turbo, exhaust system, tranny, clutch etc. So I will be able to compare a 2.5 VS a 2.2L. I fully expect the 2.2L to get faster ET AND MPH because of better traction and higher RPM's. I am taking slicks along with me this time, but I will run a pass or 2 with the same street tires I ran with last year.

I call the power band- when you reach full boost until you shift. My old 2.5 setup was 3300-5900, this 2.2 setup is 3900-6900 or so.

Ondonti

09-09-2008, 06:32 PM

Your definition of powerband is not powerband though. Its an approximation based on assumptions about a stockish 2.2/2.5 motor/cams so it only applies in a small segment of vehicles that are only found on these dodge sites.

Some cars can be in their powerband before full boost, some cars are not in their powerband when full boost hits.

moparzrule

09-09-2008, 06:42 PM

So what is your definition then?

Ondonti

09-09-2008, 08:50 PM

The breadth of rpms at which you have the least possible HP drop. Powerbands that are slightly linear (peaky) are not bad because that helps traction.

Basically any RPM that would be helpful on a road course. If it would slow you down to be there, then its not your powerband.

N/A cars have powerbands and no turbo, so you cant define powerband based on boost.

Like I said, you can have turbo cars who have powerbands starting before or after peak boost.
Powerbands are mostly just a cam etc issue and the turbo can move the powerband left, right, narrow, or broaden it. Too many variables to define by boost pressure alone.

And turbos might build all their boost in a few hundred RPMS, or take 1500+ rpms to build full boost. Those slow spooling cars likely have usable powerband before full boost hits unless they have wild cams which move the powerband to the right. In that case the car might not be in its powerband until 500 rpms after full boost.

My cars powerband is dominated by its heads/cams so even if I have 5psi around 3000 rpms, it doesnt tear @ 5psi until around 4000+
Stock heads/cams cars are probably doing to be quite fun even before they make full boost on a big turbo.

iTurbo

01-10-2009, 11:17 PM

I have a Super 70 on the way for a TIII motor...found this compressor map of the Super 70 (GN) wheel.

http://www.turbosedan.com/spirit/1986%201987%20Buick%20TBO348%20Compressor%20Map.jp g

turbovanman

01-11-2009, 02:20 AM

I thought you were going 60 trim? :confused:

iTurbo

01-11-2009, 01:38 PM

I am....for the SL and GLH conversions I'm working on.

This Super 70 turbo is the turbo that came on a white Spirit R/T I bought a year ago this month in Iowa. The turbo was blown when I bought the car and it had a "Nissan Motor" compressor housing machined to fit the larger wheel and a modified TIII turbine housing also modified to accept a larger wheel. I had it rebuilt at TU....should be here next week. I'll snap some pics of it, but there are some pre-rebuild pics of this turbo in the TIII section.

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23718&

turbovanman

01-11-2009, 01:46 PM

Ok, sounds good. You have too many cars, :wow1: lol!

iTurbo

01-11-2009, 01:48 PM

Yeah, up to five now:o

Stratman

01-13-2009, 10:20 PM

The turbine wheel of that Nissan style turbo looks as big as the stock turbine wheel from my 6 cylinder Supra engine. It should flow very well.....

iTurbo

01-21-2009, 11:23 PM

I got the "TIII/Nissan" turbo back from being rebuilt at TU. I measured the wheels with my digital caliper and sure enough the compressor wheel is the 50mm/70mm GN wheel. The turbine wheel measures in at just a hair smaller than a T3 stage II (not sure if I'm measuring right). Maybe it is really just a stock GN turbine wheel but don't have the measurements. At any rate it looks like this turbine wheel flows way more than a stock/stage I!