Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Don't know how I missed this thread before, but I'm glad it got bumped...it's been a great read.

Right now I'm in deep contemplation of single turbo for my 2.75L stroker (if you want to call it that).

I took the liberty of finding some dynos from both Joey and Simon's cars early on at lower boost levels. Albeit both on E85, they are both still at around 20 psi. Joey stated that his 8375 was pretty much out of breath on top and I used the dyno that is missing the 24psi midrange in this comparison (for fairness). I assumed his was standard cast wheel and I also found that his was the .91 housing and I saw where Geoff at full race recommended 1.00 for more power. For the money, I just don't think this turbo can be beat for a nice powerband and while Simon has made STUPID big numbers I think on a 2.6L and for $600 US, this is looking like a strong candidate for a pumpgas turbo. Of course I am not taking the EFR 8374 ($$$$$$$) into comparison yet.

Anyway hope this helps put things into perspective for others looking for information. If anyone finds a dyno of a low boost stroker build with the 8375 (cast) or 6266, let me know...I'd love to add them.

Patrick

post-136202-0-51390000-1428798994_thumb.png

Edited by HarrisRacing

Thanks for the post Patrick.

Your right the 83/75 is one of if not the best bang for buck turbo on the market. As you would have seen on my graph it did nose over a bit. My comments in your previous thread were as a comparison to my own results

My new set up improvements consists of

2.9 stroker

Raised compression to 9.1

Cleaned up head

260 cams with 11mm lift with a very aggressive fast opening lobe

Ferrea valve train with duel valve springs to eliminate any possibility of valve float (a much better set up the the previous tomei gear I had, old springs had only 60 pound of seat pressure)

Ceramic coated exhuast side.

This combination will be a large improvement to response, but I'm also looking to really get the most out of this turbo by pushing it past 450rwkw

Fingers crossed

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...