STi GT35 kit ... 420 whp on 91 octane! - Subaru Enthusiasts Car Club of the Sierras

MikeK · 2005-01-12, 05:05 PM

wow, just wow ... nasioc

Kevin M · 2005-01-12, 05:12 PM

So much for stock STi motors not holding 25+ psi.

Dean · 2005-01-12, 05:38 PM

Something is wonky wit those graphs... I'm not saying they are lying, but the curve changes from concave to convex, and I've never seen that in a dyno graph.

Also, where is the data below 3500 RPM. The trend of the graph would imply it alomst flattens out, but I don't blieve that. If I read it right, they say they did these pulls in 4th gear... Isn't that alos a bit strange. Isn't 4th gear at 7000 RPM like 100+ on an STI? That is some fast spinnin rubber in a shop.

And last but not least, it is a Dynojet...

MikeK · 2005-01-12, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean

Something is wonky wit those graphs... I'm not saying they are lying, but the curve changes from concave to convex, and I've never seen that in a dyno graph.

Also, where is the data below 3500 RPM. The trend of the graph would imply it alomst flattens out, but I don't blieve that. If I read it right, they say they did these pulls in 4th gear... Isn't that alos a bit strange. Isn't 4th gear at 7000 RPM like 100+ on an STI? That is some fast spinnin rubber in a shop.

And last but not least, it is a Dynojet...

I have read through most of the thread (and I got paid to do it!), and apparently the flattening of the torque curve is artificial. It was introduced through tuning to reduce the shock on the stock clutch when the turbo hits.

Yes it is a dynojet, the guy who did the tuning claims a stock STi does around 240, so I guess it is about 10% higher than Nate's dyno

Kevin M · 2005-01-12, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean

Something is wonky wit those graphs... I'm not saying they are lying, but the curve changes from concave to convex, and I've never seen that in a dyno graph.

Also, where is the data below 3500 RPM. The trend of the graph would imply it alomst flattens out, but I don't blieve that. If I read it right, they say they did these pulls in 4th gear... Isn't that alos a bit strange. Isn't 4th gear at 7000 RPM like 100+ on an STI? That is some fast spinnin rubber in a shop.

And last but not least, it is a Dynojet...

They're horizontally stretched. The far left border is almost 4k rpm. that makes every curve and peak look bigger. Plus it looks like they used a lower smoothing factor than most do.

4th in an STi=3rd in a WRX exactly. How fast does your car go in 3rd? Typically, those are the gears cars are dyno tuned on. Personally, I may opt for 4th/5th gear tuning depending on gearbox to see higher loads. And, you can go as fast as you want on a dyno. in fact, Mustangs are calibrating them by spinning to 150 mph :shock: and allowing them to coast down.

Dean · 2005-01-12, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeK

I have read through most of the thread (and I got paid to do it!), and apparently the flattening of the torque curve is artificial. It was introduced through tuning to reduce the shock on the stock clutch when the turbo hits.

Huh? What I'm saying is that it is making to much torque lower. At the rate the curve is changing at 3500RPMS, it is still going to be making 150Ft/lbs. of torque at 2500RPM. I don't think so Tim...

And to save the clutch, you would want the graph to be steeper at the left, not shallower.

Considering the blip in the graph, I don't think there is real data until about 4300-4400 RPM, but the stuff to the left still bothers me.

Somebody with a stock and/or moded STI scan and post you pulls from Nate's Mustang would you?

Kevin M · 2005-01-12, 06:06 PM

No, you'd want the boost coming on slowly (a shallow angle, to Mike and my own thinking) preventing a jolt when boost hits, like large-turbo cars tend to do. Maybe we're confusing each other over the definition of "shallow" and "steep."

The torque falls of faster than you think- like I said, that graph is a lot wider horizontally than any other tuner's I've seen. I doubt it makes 150 pounds at 2500 rpm, although remember, you're mostly looking at race gas maps, so it's possible.

Scott's dyno sheets for his GT30-10 will be posted soon for comparison, but that turbo almost spools like stock.

Dean · 2005-01-12, 07:26 PM

I'm only looking at the 91 octane map. I was more concerned with slipping at clutch engagement than slipping at boost...

I realize the scale of the graph, and extrapolating the torque curve puts it well over 100 Ft/lbs at 2500, and closer to 150 IMHO.

I'm just saying it is weird.

Kevin M · 2005-01-12, 08:18 PM

I just looked at MattR's dyno graphs. His car makes 150 lb./ft. at 2500 rpm, before and after reflash. On a Mustang dyno. Still think you wanna keep the WRX this year?

doubleurx · 2005-01-12, 08:29 PM

I know this may be spanish to many of you, but when does it become worthless hp? Practically speaking, for my location, I have more torque than is practical with the wet/snow/ice/sand roads. Half the time I am accelerating at an angle - never straight. Yes this is a blast, but heck add another 100 hp and then what.

Wait, what am I talking about, someone slap me and sign me up!

Dean · 2005-01-12, 08:30 PM

OK, but that graph is still wonky.

Kevin M · 2005-01-12, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean

OK, but that graph is still wonky.

Yes, as I noted, it's stretched horizontally to begin at a higher RPM. Use photoshop to slightly compress it and it will look normal.

Dean · 2005-01-12, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean

OK, but that graph is still wonky.

Yes, as I noted, it's stretched horizontally to begin at a higher RPM. Use photoshop to slightly compress it and it will look normal.

No it won't... So scan Matt's Dyno chart, and then I'll believe you...

Kevin M · 2005-01-12, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean

OK, but that graph is still wonky.

Yes, as I noted, it's stretched horizontally to begin at a higher RPM. Use photoshop to slightly compress it and it will look normal.

No it won't... So scan Matt's Dyno chart, and then I'll believe you...

We don't have an operable scanner. Have Nate show it to you next time you're at S-S. If you think I'd lie to you over something like this.

MikeSTI · 2005-01-13, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doubleurx

I know this may be spanish to many of you, but when does it become worthless hp? Practically speaking, for my location, I have more torque than is practical with the wet/snow/ice/sand roads. Half the time I am accelerating at an angle - never straight. Yes this is a blast, but heck add another 100 hp and then what.

Wait, what am I talking about, someone slap me and sign me up!

agreed!!!

doubleurx · 2005-01-13, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

Quote:

Originally Posted by doubleurx

I know this may be spanish to many of you, but when does it become worthless hp? Practically speaking, for my location, I have more torque than is practical with the wet/snow/ice/sand roads. Half the time I am accelerating at an angle - never straight. Yes this is a blast, but heck add another 100 hp and then what.

Wait, what am I talking about, someone slap me and sign me up!

agreed!!!

Yes, I am getting old. My concentration isn't quite what it used to be.

http://www.ibogleif.dk/uk/index.html

MikeSTI · 2005-01-13, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

So much for stock STi motors not holding 25+ psi.

ahh yah with C16 its not a problem

if you notice on 91 its only 22..........................

........if you want to go above 24 psi with 91 oct have a motor on standby

MattR · 2005-01-13, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeSTI

........if you want to go above 24 psi with 91 oct have a motor on standby

Hahaha!..No Doubt.

2005-01-12, 05:05 PM	#1
MikeK Captain Turbo Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Reno Posts: 3,318 Car: 05 STi	STi GT35 kit ... 420 whp on 91 octane! wow, just wow ... nasioc

2005-01-12, 05:12 PM	#2
Kevin M EJ22T Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Reno Posts: 9,445 Car: '93/'01 GF6, mostly red Class: 19 FP	So much for stock STi motors not holding 25+ psi. __________________ FWD is the new AWD

2005-01-12, 05:38 PM	#3
Dean Señor Cheap Bastarde Real Name: Dean Join Date: May 2003 Location: $99 Tire Store Posts: 9,294 Car: $.04 STI Class: Fast,Cheap & Reliable=STI Deal, did somebody say Deal? Oh, Dean, yeah that's me.	Something is wonky wit those graphs... I'm not saying they are lying, but the curve changes from concave to convex, and I've never seen that in a dyno graph. Also, where is the data below 3500 RPM. The trend of the graph would imply it alomst flattens out, but I don't blieve that. If I read it right, they say they did these pulls in 4th gear... Isn't that alos a bit strange. Isn't 4th gear at 7000 RPM like 100+ on an STI? That is some fast spinnin rubber in a shop. And last but not least, it is a Dynojet... __________________ I am a Commodore PET --- Now get off my lawn you kids...

2005-01-12, 06:06 PM	#7
Kevin M EJ22T Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Reno Posts: 9,445 Car: '93/'01 GF6, mostly red Class: 19 FP	No, you'd want the boost coming on slowly (a shallow angle, to Mike and my own thinking) preventing a jolt when boost hits, like large-turbo cars tend to do. Maybe we're confusing each other over the definition of "shallow" and "steep." The torque falls of faster than you think- like I said, that graph is a lot wider horizontally than any other tuner's I've seen. I doubt it makes 150 pounds at 2500 rpm, although remember, you're mostly looking at race gas maps, so it's possible. Scott's dyno sheets for his GT30-10 will be posted soon for comparison, but that turbo almost spools like stock. __________________ FWD is the new AWD

2005-01-12, 07:26 PM	#8
Dean Señor Cheap Bastarde Real Name: Dean Join Date: May 2003 Location: $99 Tire Store Posts: 9,294 Car: $.04 STI Class: Fast,Cheap & Reliable=STI Deal, did somebody say Deal? Oh, Dean, yeah that's me.	I'm only looking at the 91 octane map. I was more concerned with slipping at clutch engagement than slipping at boost... I realize the scale of the graph, and extrapolating the torque curve puts it well over 100 Ft/lbs at 2500, and closer to 150 IMHO. I'm just saying it is weird. __________________ I am a Commodore PET --- Now get off my lawn you kids...

2005-01-12, 08:18 PM	#9
Kevin M EJ22T Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Reno Posts: 9,445 Car: '93/'01 GF6, mostly red Class: 19 FP	I just looked at MattR's dyno graphs. His car makes 150 lb./ft. at 2500 rpm, before and after reflash. On a Mustang dyno. Still think you wanna keep the WRX this year? __________________ FWD is the new AWD

2005-01-12, 08:29 PM	#10
doubleurx EJ205 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Truckee Posts: 1,948	I know this may be spanish to many of you, but when does it become worthless hp? Practically speaking, for my location, I have more torque than is practical with the wet/snow/ice/sand roads. Half the time I am accelerating at an angle - never straight. Yes this is a blast, but heck add another 100 hp and then what. Wait, what am I talking about, someone slap me and sign me up!

2005-01-12, 08:30 PM	#11
Dean Señor Cheap Bastarde Real Name: Dean Join Date: May 2003 Location: $99 Tire Store Posts: 9,294 Car: $.04 STI Class: Fast,Cheap & Reliable=STI Deal, did somebody say Deal? Oh, Dean, yeah that's me.	OK, but that graph is still wonky. __________________ I am a Commodore PET --- Now get off my lawn you kids...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ongoing project thread: DoinkWRX	sperry	General Subaru Discussion & Club Chat	34	2016-09-13 10:53 PM
Solo events 3 & 4	dknv	Motorsports Chat	76	2006-05-16 12:45 PM
EVO VIII MR Vs '05 STi impressions thus far...	dustinr	General Subaru Discussion & Club Chat	32	2005-03-17 01:58 PM
Another STi turbo kit ... 20 psi by 3200 rpm	MikeK	Technical Chat	13	2005-02-07 01:22 PM
Body Kit Opinions	sperry	General Subaru Discussion & Club Chat	12	2003-01-05 04:47 PM