Lithium

Alot of speculating or trying to justify doesn't change reality, which is that once you have the same turbine, a similar compressor etc it's not going to be night and day. If you think a 56t gt30r is too laggy, you shouldn't be looking at gt30 based turbos on a 2.5.... There are laggier factory modern factory turbo cars. The difference below 3000rpm is far from night and day like you seem to think, its more like having an extra passenger up to 3000 that then jumps out and rewards you with lower egt, emp, and more kw potential once you hit those rpm. Opinions aside, regardless of Mafias reasons for needing wmi ... Comparing something using it with a setup using straight pump gas is utter folly. Would love to see a.63 52t dyno plot, and even spool vid using pump gas. Until then you are just speculating.

Exactly, wmi has changed the game... You can't compare a setup running wmi with one running petrol for a start, and in this instance it's a bandaid. The result is a testament to wmi, not the .63

Beer Baron - Depends on the dyno you're reading at the treads at, some rolling roads (ie, Dynojets) often read the same if not higher than Dynapacks... depending on the setups of course. This is ~470kw @ hubs, I'd say if this is a genuine reading, then I'd think 380-400kw on a DD should be realistic. Its the EVO that needs that boost to make that power, though I'd still have gone the 9180 for an RB30 personally

I don't know what reasoning you have for that, but its not the best recommendation you've made imho - especially after having had both myself. The .82 only loses any noticeable amount of go below 3000rpm, where isn't a place RB25s are "about" anyway. Above there the .82a/r feels nicer, is nicer on the engine (Mafia needed WMI to suppress detonation, I and others have battled boost creep with .63s) and naturally is capable of more power. I never looked back from upgrading from the .63 to the .82 - though again the OP has obviously also experienced a "real" 56T with .82a/r hotside and knows how nice a setup they are to drive.

From this its hard not to consider the possibility that a TS EFR7064 on an RB25 with E85 = GT2835 (probably better) spool/response, T67-25G power....

I had that issue in NZ back when I was trying to get a GT3076R for my car, all the local outfits kept telling me either its pretty much the same or that it was actually the one I wanted - I had to order from the states to get what I wanted in the end. There is definitely a pretty noticeable difference between the two, using this version would be regrettable.

That would be one hell of a fast point to point car...

The tuner of the car with the EFR7670 posted above has taken the time to share thoughts and also address people's "Dyno generosity" related posts which naturally come up with this kind of result, so here go the facts:

I think it was all ts, not just the ig ones - the fact this result had emerged has to be a good sign

Its EG, and I have seen differences of over ten pc between some hub and roller dynos but it's all speculation. I am not sure whats up with the 8374 result but I think one way or another it's low. This result however is intense, if it's accurate it's 335kw by 4000rpm which is outright brutal. Need more results to flow through to start finding a trend

Whatever gear they ran it in it's obviously not 1:1, not sure if or how much it would effect the reading. The 8374 result is likely to be closer to 700hub hp or so

Nah power at the hubs, TCF field is used if flywheel power is going to be estimated... that value is 1.00 is this instance so subject to transmission losses. This car it's comfortably making over 700hp at the crank going by that dyno plot, it would be respectable power for a 35R on E85 on a hub dyno... it's a really good result imho

Have you looked at many 4G63 results? That particular dyno plot for the SSE is pretty average looking power delivery, for some reason. BTW, speaking of EVOs and EFR turbos - finally a twin scroll EFR7670 result, 2.3litre stroker EVO running 30psi on E85: I LIKE!!!

They are claiming it reads low even for a Mustang, hence me using the trap speeds to get an indicator of real world power. How much power would you expect a full weight EVO to need to go 143mph in the 1/4?

They had actually gone from a GT4088R to the EFR8374, and changed from 280deg cams to 272deg - which is probably on the small side for an EVO making that kind of power... they were trying to spread the torque out a bit, which looks like it has worked. Apparently that particular dyno reads really low, I'm not 100% sure what you'd expect from 630whp/470wkw though I'd have thought 143mph doesn't suggest a harsh dyno. Its definitely a 4G63, I've seen plenty of 4Gs rev that hard or harder - its how early it starts as well which is quite impressive. I'd not call that power really any more impressive than what a GT3582R would do given everything its got.

Dyno result from an EVO on E85 with a single scroll internally gated EFR8374: Apparently ~620whp on that particular dyno makes a late model EVO good for 9.8 @ 143mph, given they gave the thing a sh1ttonne of boost to make that power I'm not so blown away by the power (which is still well respectable) but the power delivery I think is pretty impressive. Not that the video is the most imformative, you can tell it starts pulling quite hard quite early within its relative powerband:

You mean you logged IDC with the Datalogit? If so, you aren't logging what the injectors are doing - you're logging what the PFC is telling them to do.

At that power level I am assuming normal 98 pump gas? Simon is getting away with it on an ethanol mix, petrol would probably be a bit much for the crap fuel we get in this part of the world +1 on compression test.

I'm on a neverending mission to improve my understanding of tuning, the behaviour of engines and the way the two relate but I can't get my head around how 45deg of cranking advance would be good. Without your statement, I'd expect the combustion to be fighting the cranking, if not actually inducing kick back. There is no way I'd try this myself just on the merit of an unexplained statement by a random on a forum, and in all honesty I've seen too much crap spun qualified by nothing more than the "I heard this from an all wise .... guru" to take it on board. I do however always keep an open mind (the more you know, the more you realise you don't...) and given you are 100% of this, please share the wisdom - what is advancing the timing that much at cranking doing to assist the start, and how is it not going to be bad?

Probably, but when we are tuning non-factory setups with non-factory ECUs we don't have the luxury of using whatever rules Nissan implemented - nor can we be assured that they are calibrated to perfectly match whatever deviation we have from what they designed in the first place. We can't even be sure that they had our best interests (ie, powah!!) at heart, I know of other manufacturers definitely making decisions on this kind of thing based partly on how "exciting" it feels (often at odds to the outright best performing), emmissions, fuel consumption as well.

Was it fully tuned with it both engaged and disengaged? Dynoing with VCT off in areas where the engine is tuned with it on - or vice-versa, means that the tune will be off for the current state which could give a misleading indication of where the curve intersection point should be in an ideal situation.

Peak power is more likely to be held back by your fuel system than your front pipe and pod. VCT can be turned off mid way through, so have it on until 5000rpm to boost your torque up to that point (you're definitely missing torque out down there), then turn it off to ensure that it maintains the same high rpm power you are currently seeing. The reason it feels like a stout kick up high is before its lacking the torque the motor could be making up until 5000rpm, the engine is designed to rely on VCT to have a good spread of torque - you're potentially missing out on ~10% of the torque you COULD be making at 4000rpm, which you'd definitely know about.

Nah, if its fine above 5000rpm then boosting the torque below 5000rpm is going to be no issue for the injectors - you can get away with longer pulses Perhaps VCT not being used?

He just linked the thumbnail Be interesting to see the boost curve, looks a little like it could be quite lazy

Their homo EVOs were destined for rally and were invariably going to be running antilag, transient response wasn't going to be as much of a problem as continously rebuilding turbos running expensive ball bearing cores would be had they gone that direction - ball bearing cores would probably be more suited to the clubsport folks