Turbo Size
07-23-2005, 03:52 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbo Size
I have a 2001 GSR, and i plan on going boosted pretty soon. I plan on piecing togeather my own kit. So, I am trying to decide on which turbo i want. My goals are to be in the 280-300whp area, at around 8-9 psi. Turbo lag is not a huge deal to me, as I can live with waiting to 4.5k+ to hit full boost. I don't want to go into internals, other than a stronger timing belt,adjustable cam gear and maybe stronger head studs. My price range is from the cheapest i can find to 600ish.
I HAVE done some research of my own, and have been leaning toward a t3/t04e 60 trim, either .63 or .82 A/R. So, thats another question. My car is going to be a summer daily, so which A/R would you reccommend? I mean, since I am going to daily drive it, while still having some fun, would the peak number of the .82 A/R would be less important as the overall drivability?
Thanks
I HAVE done some research of my own, and have been leaning toward a t3/t04e 60 trim, either .63 or .82 A/R. So, thats another question. My car is going to be a summer daily, so which A/R would you reccommend? I mean, since I am going to daily drive it, while still having some fun, would the peak number of the .82 A/R would be less important as the overall drivability?
Thanks
07-23-2005, 03:58 PM
#2
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: work
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (01blackgsr)
You will have more fun with a smaller turbo that makes a bit less power with a lot more powerband.
http://forums.evans-tuning.com...=2102
That, with a .48 A/R 50-trim is going to be a lot more fun to drive on the street than a car with a .82 A/R 60-trim and 1000 RPM's more lag, even if it has 20 WHP more.
http://forums.evans-tuning.com...=2102
That, with a .48 A/R 50-trim is going to be a lot more fun to drive on the street than a car with a .82 A/R 60-trim and 1000 RPM's more lag, even if it has 20 WHP more.
07-23-2005, 05:09 PM
#3
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Skmotoring.com
Posts: 2,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (turboEGhatch)
.63 ar is good, if you are gonna stay under 300 hp then headstuds are a waste of time to put in, unless u wanna use a thicker headgasket, then use them but b series heads dont lift that much like d series.
07-23-2005, 06:24 PM
#5
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: work
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (Muckman)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Muckman »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">.63 AR is what you want without a doubt.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I had a .48 A/R 57-trim on my car and it held fine to redline, that car is making 280 WHP at only 10 psi on a 50-trim which is pretty darn good if you ask me, and the slight loss on the top end by the .48 is well worth it for the additional bottom/mid range power you gain, IMHO.
I had a .48 A/R 57-trim on my car and it held fine to redline, that car is making 280 WHP at only 10 psi on a 50-trim which is pretty darn good if you ask me, and the slight loss on the top end by the .48 is well worth it for the additional bottom/mid range power you gain, IMHO.
07-24-2005, 01:55 AM
#6
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern, CA, U.S.
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (turboEGhatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turboEGhatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I had a .48 A/R 57-trim on my car and it held fine to redline, that car is making 280 WHP at only 10 psi on a 50-trim which is pretty darn good if you ask me, and the slight loss on the top end by the .48 is well worth it for the additional bottom/mid range power you gain, IMHO.</TD></TR></TABLE>
YIKES, I would never put a .48 on a gsr WAAAAAAAY to small. always remember the golden honda rule: midrange + topend > lowend = don't ever put a .48 on anything bigger than a sohc!
YIKES, I would never put a .48 on a gsr WAAAAAAAY to small. always remember the golden honda rule: midrange + topend > lowend = don't ever put a .48 on anything bigger than a sohc!
07-24-2005, 08:35 AM
#7
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: work
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (used2baracer)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by used2baracer »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
YIKES, I would never put a .48 on a gsr WAAAAAAAY to small. always remember the golden honda rule: midrange + topend > lowend = don't ever put a .48 on anything bigger than a sohc!</TD></TR></TABLE>
YIKES, have you ever owned, or even driven a car with a .48 hot side?
http://forums.evans-tuning.com...=1040
Like he said, gains could be made with a .63 and bigger exhaust, but there's huge mid range with the .48 A/R.
http://forums.evans-tuning.com...=2102
Same one I posted before. Hits 180 ft-lbs at about 3700 RPM's and holds that to 8200 RPM's when they shut it down. That's 280 WHP @ 10 psi on a relatively small 50-trim. Tell me what he would gain from an additional 500 RPM's worth of lag from the bigger .63 housing? 10 WHP? Maybe 15 WHP best case scenario on the top end? I'll take the mid range, thanks.
If we were talking about a straight T3 turbo, I'd go no smaller than a .63 A/R. But for a T3/TO4E with big exhaust wheels when you're pushing them to half their capacity you arn't losing much, but gaining a lot, from a smaller hot side.
YIKES, I would never put a .48 on a gsr WAAAAAAAY to small. always remember the golden honda rule: midrange + topend > lowend = don't ever put a .48 on anything bigger than a sohc!</TD></TR></TABLE>
YIKES, have you ever owned, or even driven a car with a .48 hot side?
http://forums.evans-tuning.com...=1040
Like he said, gains could be made with a .63 and bigger exhaust, but there's huge mid range with the .48 A/R.
http://forums.evans-tuning.com...=2102
Same one I posted before. Hits 180 ft-lbs at about 3700 RPM's and holds that to 8200 RPM's when they shut it down. That's 280 WHP @ 10 psi on a relatively small 50-trim. Tell me what he would gain from an additional 500 RPM's worth of lag from the bigger .63 housing? 10 WHP? Maybe 15 WHP best case scenario on the top end? I'll take the mid range, thanks.
If we were talking about a straight T3 turbo, I'd go no smaller than a .63 A/R. But for a T3/TO4E with big exhaust wheels when you're pushing them to half their capacity you arn't losing much, but gaining a lot, from a smaller hot side.
Trending Topics
07-24-2005, 08:37 AM
#8
07-24-2005, 08:42 AM
#9
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (wantboost)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by wantboost »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">difference between .48 and .63 isnt 500rpm, more like 200-300 which you cant really tell via the butt-dyno.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Having driven my car, it felt like much closer to 500 than 200. I didn't have datalogging for Hondata, but it was a noticeable difference, as well as how quickly it came on with downshifting.
Having driven my car, it felt like much closer to 500 than 200. I didn't have datalogging for Hondata, but it was a noticeable difference, as well as how quickly it came on with downshifting.
07-24-2005, 10:20 AM
#10
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern, CA, U.S.
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (turboEGhatch)
[QUOTE=turboEGhatch]YIKES, have you ever owned, or even driven a car with a .48 hot side?
i sell and install turbo kits for a living. like i said, .48 is WAAAAAAAY too small for any Dohc motor
Here's an LS I finished installing/tuning yesterday. .63/.70 t3/t04b
Turbo spools when you step on it (basically no lag). I run a t3/t04e on my bone stock LS and I get full boost by 4300/start to spool around 33-3500rpm.
it does not make sense logically to put a .48 hotside on anything but a sohc. You won't notice a difference in spool up, unless you street race from light to light launching at 800rpms. what you will feel is power drop like a brick in midrange/hi rpms. go with the .63
i sell and install turbo kits for a living. like i said, .48 is WAAAAAAAY too small for any Dohc motor
Here's an LS I finished installing/tuning yesterday. .63/.70 t3/t04b
Turbo spools when you step on it (basically no lag). I run a t3/t04e on my bone stock LS and I get full boost by 4300/start to spool around 33-3500rpm.
it does not make sense logically to put a .48 hotside on anything but a sohc. You won't notice a difference in spool up, unless you street race from light to light launching at 800rpms. what you will feel is power drop like a brick in midrange/hi rpms. go with the .63
07-24-2005, 10:36 AM
#11
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: work
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (used2baracer)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by used2baracer »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i sell and install turbo kits for a living. like i said, .48 is WAAAAAAAY too small for any Dohc motor </TD></TR></TABLE>
Ok, show me some proof. You can be entitled to your thoughts, but show me something that proves a .48 A/R hot side is WAAAAAAAY too small for any dohc motor. How is 280 WHP on a .48 A/R hot side at 10 psi on a 50-trim with a stage 3 wheel on a GSR in any way bad? And I can tell you what, when you're autocrossing or somewhere like turn 10 at road atlanta you're glad for every little bit quicker spool you can get.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by used2baracer »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Here's an LS I finished installing/tuning yesterday.
Turbo spools when you step on it (basically no lag). I run a t3/t04e on my bone stock LS and I get full boost by 4300/start to spool around 33-3500rpm.
it does not make sense logically to put a .48 hotside on anything but a sohc. You won't notice a difference in spool up, unless you street race from light to light launching at 800rpms. what you will feel is power drop like a brick in midrange/hi rpms. go with the .63</TD></TR></TABLE>
Once again, show me proof that power is going to "Drop like a brick" in the mid range and high RPM's with the .48. There's that 280 WHP car at 10 psi, my car made 245 WHP @ 9 psi on a notoriously low mustang dyno with a T3/T04E 57-trim .48 A/R and I didn't experience this power dropping off like a brick, as you say.
I think the belief that .48 A/R = terrible .63 A/R = great will hopefully go away, like the big craze of high compression turbo cars that was floating around for the past while, because there's nothing wrong with .48 housing on any stock motor (Save for an H22 or a K24) for the best powerband possible. I don't really feel like going over this any more, because without any proof for either side nothing's going to get settled.
</TD></TR></TABLE>Ok, show me some proof. You can be entitled to your thoughts, but show me something that proves a .48 A/R hot side is WAAAAAAAY too small for any dohc motor. How is 280 WHP on a .48 A/R hot side at 10 psi on a 50-trim with a stage 3 wheel on a GSR in any way bad? And I can tell you what, when you're autocrossing or somewhere like turn 10 at road atlanta you're glad for every little bit quicker spool you can get.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by used2baracer »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Here's an LS I finished installing/tuning yesterday.
Turbo spools when you step on it (basically no lag). I run a t3/t04e on my bone stock LS and I get full boost by 4300/start to spool around 33-3500rpm.
it does not make sense logically to put a .48 hotside on anything but a sohc. You won't notice a difference in spool up, unless you street race from light to light launching at 800rpms. what you will feel is power drop like a brick in midrange/hi rpms. go with the .63</TD></TR></TABLE>
Once again, show me proof that power is going to "Drop like a brick" in the mid range and high RPM's with the .48. There's that 280 WHP car at 10 psi, my car made 245 WHP @ 9 psi on a notoriously low mustang dyno with a T3/T04E 57-trim .48 A/R and I didn't experience this power dropping off like a brick, as you say.
I think the belief that .48 A/R = terrible .63 A/R = great will hopefully go away, like the big craze of high compression turbo cars that was floating around for the past while, because there's nothing wrong with .48 housing on any stock motor (Save for an H22 or a K24) for the best powerband possible. I don't really feel like going over this any more, because without any proof for either side nothing's going to get settled.
07-24-2005, 11:32 AM
#12
Honda-Tech Member
Re: Turbo Size (turboEGhatch)
I have a T3/T04B with .63 ar on a F23 engine (Accord 98-02) and had a .48 ar hot side before. I can say the full boost comes 200-300 rpm later max on the .63ar but it pulls harder, you can feel it.
Basically, the bigger the motor the bigger the hot side should be.
Basically, the bigger the motor the bigger the hot side should be.
07-24-2005, 11:51 AM
#13
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern, CA, U.S.
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (turboEGhatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turboEGhatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ok, show me some proof. </TD></TR></TABLE>
-Your gsr made 245 @ 9 psi with your little turbo.
-My bone-stock ls w/ 150psi compression (standard is 185psi) across, a/c & p/s made 248 @ 8 psi w/ my .63 hotside. https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1253502
theres proof
-Your gsr made 245 @ 9 psi with your little turbo.
-My bone-stock ls w/ 150psi compression (standard is 185psi) across, a/c & p/s made 248 @ 8 psi w/ my .63 hotside. https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1253502
theres proof
07-24-2005, 01:00 PM
#15
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: work
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (used2baracer)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by used2baracer »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
-Your gsr made 245 @ 9 psi with your little turbo.
-My bone-stock ls w/ 150psi compression (standard is 185psi) across, a/c & p/s made 248 @ 8 psi w/ my .63 hotside. https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1253502
theres proof
</TD></TR></TABLE>
No, that isn't proof at all. Read what I said again. 245 @ 9 psi on a NOTORIOUSLY LOW mustang dyno. You made 248 @ 8 psi STD corrected on a dynojet. That is about as different as you can get. Keep in mind some MD's can read 20% low, we saw 330 on my Dad's old MKIV on one mustang dyno, and on the same settings and similar weather it put out just under 400 SAE on a dynojet. For someone who does this for a living you should know better than to try and compare two different cars, motors, dynos, and locations.
-Your gsr made 245 @ 9 psi with your little turbo.
-My bone-stock ls w/ 150psi compression (standard is 185psi) across, a/c & p/s made 248 @ 8 psi w/ my .63 hotside. https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1253502
theres proof
</TD></TR></TABLE>
No, that isn't proof at all. Read what I said again. 245 @ 9 psi on a NOTORIOUSLY LOW mustang dyno. You made 248 @ 8 psi STD corrected on a dynojet. That is about as different as you can get. Keep in mind some MD's can read 20% low, we saw 330 on my Dad's old MKIV on one mustang dyno, and on the same settings and similar weather it put out just under 400 SAE on a dynojet. For someone who does this for a living you should know better than to try and compare two different cars, motors, dynos, and locations.
07-24-2005, 01:01 PM
#16
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere in California
Posts: 4,408
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (turboEGhatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turboEGhatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
http://forums.evans-tuning.com...=1040
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Maybe you should have included this dyno chart to compare with that one you posted.
http://forums.evans-tuning.com...=1189
Pretty identical setup, 2.0L (close enough), same amount of boost, sounds like they are both log manifolds, both 2.5" DP and exhausts, both Hondata tuned by the same guy I assume. Only difference is this one is a 60 trim compressor with a 0.63 a/r hotside and yours was a 54 trim compressor and 0.48 a/r hotside.
5000 RPMS:
0.63 a/r = 235 HP / 245 TQ
0.48 a/r = 195 HP / 210 TQ
6000 RPMS:
0.63 a/r = 300 HP / 265 TQ
0.48 a/r = 265 HP / 235 TQ
7000 RPMS:
0.63 a/r = 330 HP / 250 TQ
0.48 a/r = 290 HP / 220 TQ
7400 RPMS PEAK
0.63 a/r = 350 HP / 265 TQ
7800 RPMS PEAK
0.48 a/r = 325 HP / 217 TQ
The numbers speak for themselves...The 0.63 a/r has more HP at it's peak and it also reaches it's peak earlier in the power band. At it's highest it has roughly 50 more TQ and throughout the rest of the RPM band on average it is 30 lb-ft higher then the smaller a/r.
http://forums.evans-tuning.com...=1040
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Maybe you should have included this dyno chart to compare with that one you posted.
http://forums.evans-tuning.com...=1189
Pretty identical setup, 2.0L (close enough), same amount of boost, sounds like they are both log manifolds, both 2.5" DP and exhausts, both Hondata tuned by the same guy I assume. Only difference is this one is a 60 trim compressor with a 0.63 a/r hotside and yours was a 54 trim compressor and 0.48 a/r hotside.
5000 RPMS:
0.63 a/r = 235 HP / 245 TQ
0.48 a/r = 195 HP / 210 TQ
6000 RPMS:
0.63 a/r = 300 HP / 265 TQ
0.48 a/r = 265 HP / 235 TQ
7000 RPMS:
0.63 a/r = 330 HP / 250 TQ
0.48 a/r = 290 HP / 220 TQ
7400 RPMS PEAK
0.63 a/r = 350 HP / 265 TQ
7800 RPMS PEAK
0.48 a/r = 325 HP / 217 TQ
The numbers speak for themselves...The 0.63 a/r has more HP at it's peak and it also reaches it's peak earlier in the power band. At it's highest it has roughly 50 more TQ and throughout the rest of the RPM band on average it is 30 lb-ft higher then the smaller a/r.
07-24-2005, 01:33 PM
#17
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: work
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (BlueShadow)
-A 60-trim is a ways off from a 54-trim (roughly 50 WHP potential difference)
-.48 A/R car had B16 cams vs. GSR cams, which are worth a ton of power (as per Here, you're looking at about 5% peak power and lots more midrange, which would bring the 30 WHP spread much closer
-Yes, the lower WHP car does have a VictorX intake, which I'm sure took away low/mid range and brought them a bit closer on the top.
I saw that one, but I didn't feel they were really close enough to compare.
Here's one I felt a bit more similar, although it still has its flaws. Prime differences being inlinepro vs. lovefab minime, the small turbine car has the same size downpipe (2.5) but a 3" exhaust, and the .48 A/R car has a victorX intake, which is responsible for the sharp drop in low end, as well as the mid range from what I have seen, driven, and built.
Green + Teal
Red + Purple
The .48 A/R car ran about a half a pound more boost. There is going to be a top end difference, sure. But the .48 isn't going to kill off 40 WHP (that's 12%!) compared to a .63 housing, it isn't that huge of a change. From what I've driven the .48 is a fine choice for a street car. You can argue till you're blue in the face, but untill someone tests a .48 housing then a .63 on the same car and dyno, you can't toss an actual number out there.
-.48 A/R car had B16 cams vs. GSR cams, which are worth a ton of power (as per Here, you're looking at about 5% peak power and lots more midrange, which would bring the 30 WHP spread much closer
-Yes, the lower WHP car does have a VictorX intake, which I'm sure took away low/mid range and brought them a bit closer on the top.
I saw that one, but I didn't feel they were really close enough to compare.
Here's one I felt a bit more similar, although it still has its flaws. Prime differences being inlinepro vs. lovefab minime, the small turbine car has the same size downpipe (2.5) but a 3" exhaust, and the .48 A/R car has a victorX intake, which is responsible for the sharp drop in low end, as well as the mid range from what I have seen, driven, and built.
Green + Teal
Red + Purple
The .48 A/R car ran about a half a pound more boost. There is going to be a top end difference, sure. But the .48 isn't going to kill off 40 WHP (that's 12%!) compared to a .63 housing, it isn't that huge of a change. From what I've driven the .48 is a fine choice for a street car. You can argue till you're blue in the face, but untill someone tests a .48 housing then a .63 on the same car and dyno, you can't toss an actual number out there.
07-24-2005, 04:26 PM
#18
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern, CA, U.S.
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (turboEGhatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turboEGhatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">No, that isn't proof at all. Read what I said again. 245 @ 9 psi on a NOTORIOUSLY LOW mustang dyno. You made 248 @ 8 psi STD corrected on a dynojet. That is about as different as you can get. Keep in mind some MD's can read 20% low, we saw 330 on my Dad's old MKIV on one mustang dyno, and on the same settings and similar weather it put out just under 400 SAE on a dynojet. For someone who does this for a living you should know better than to try and compare two different cars, motors, dynos, and locations.</TD></TR></TABLE>
bro, stop making excuses... my motor had NOTORIOUSLY LOW compression woopty doo. If you wanna run a 48 housing and you like it, thats great, but don't get on here and try to prove that it is better by comparing apples to oranges and misinforming everyone. The Fact IS, my LS made more power than ur gsr on less boost. I don't car if you dyno'd in iraq on a tank dyno, your printout said 245hp and mines said 248hp. so what your car spools 300-500rpm faster than mines - congratulations, you can probably smoke me out of the mcdonalds drive thru. why don't you go to a dyno that gives out accurate numbers instead of pretending ur car makes more power than your graph shows. i think tomorrow i'll take a stock civic down to a mustang dyno and tell everyone I think the car made 150hp because mustand dyno's read "NOTORIOUSLY LOW"
bro, stop making excuses... my motor had NOTORIOUSLY LOW compression woopty doo. If you wanna run a 48 housing and you like it, thats great, but don't get on here and try to prove that it is better by comparing apples to oranges and misinforming everyone. The Fact IS, my LS made more power than ur gsr on less boost. I don't car if you dyno'd in iraq on a tank dyno, your printout said 245hp and mines said 248hp. so what your car spools 300-500rpm faster than mines - congratulations, you can probably smoke me out of the mcdonalds drive thru. why don't you go to a dyno that gives out accurate numbers instead of pretending ur car makes more power than your graph shows. i think tomorrow i'll take a stock civic down to a mustang dyno and tell everyone I think the car made 150hp because mustand dyno's read "NOTORIOUSLY LOW"
07-24-2005, 04:54 PM
#20
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (flip1199)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by flip1199 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">01blackgsr,
What do u want? a nice powerband or just peak numbers?</TD></TR></TABLE>
A nice powerband, aka hit full boost, starting from around 4.5kish and holding to redline, 8k. Why I want to hit full boost by 4.5k has to do with my gearing. That would be my lowest drop point, shifting from 1st to 2nd. I mean when your racing, you don't need to have that low end power, and daily driving it, I don't want to really be in boost, as its not that slow
I mean i realize that peak numbers are far from everything, but the low end power is not a real concern with me.
What do u want? a nice powerband or just peak numbers?</TD></TR></TABLE>
A nice powerband, aka hit full boost, starting from around 4.5kish and holding to redline, 8k. Why I want to hit full boost by 4.5k has to do with my gearing. That would be my lowest drop point, shifting from 1st to 2nd. I mean when your racing, you don't need to have that low end power, and daily driving it, I don't want to really be in boost, as its not that slow
I mean i realize that peak numbers are far from everything, but the low end power is not a real concern with me.
07-25-2005, 11:44 AM
#21
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern, CA, U.S.
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Turbo Size (flip1199)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by flip1199 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Why is everyone so damn concerned about peak number?</TD></TR></TABLE>
has nothing to do with peak numbers, .63 will allow power to keep pulling a lot better to redline. If he wanted peak numbers, I would suggest a sc61, t3/t67, etc. A 57 or 60 trim .60/.63 t3/t04e is ideal for a gsr. has nothing to do with peak number - has everything to do with powerband. by running a .48 housing, your sacraficing your power band from 6000rpm to redline for 300-500 rpm quicker spool. What I always try to explain to my customers is that 300-500rpm is negligable. Unless you drive around at 40mph/2000rpm in 4th gear and try to do a pull, it won't make a difference. We have hondas, our powerbands are inherently "peaky".
what the guy who's arguing for the .48 doesn't understand is, jeff evans is one hell of a tuner, so when you post one of his dyno's, your gonna see some tricks (aka magic.) the average guy on the street with a fmu or a shady shop tuned hondata is gonna have a powerband that takes a major **** with that .48 housing.
has nothing to do with peak numbers, .63 will allow power to keep pulling a lot better to redline. If he wanted peak numbers, I would suggest a sc61, t3/t67, etc. A 57 or 60 trim .60/.63 t3/t04e is ideal for a gsr. has nothing to do with peak number - has everything to do with powerband. by running a .48 housing, your sacraficing your power band from 6000rpm to redline for 300-500 rpm quicker spool. What I always try to explain to my customers is that 300-500rpm is negligable. Unless you drive around at 40mph/2000rpm in 4th gear and try to do a pull, it won't make a difference. We have hondas, our powerbands are inherently "peaky".
what the guy who's arguing for the .48 doesn't understand is, jeff evans is one hell of a tuner, so when you post one of his dyno's, your gonna see some tricks (aka magic.) the average guy on the street with a fmu or a shady shop tuned hondata is gonna have a powerband that takes a major **** with that .48 housing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
iamthemouse
Forced Induction
1
08-18-2003 11:07 AM
