[JayHass]

Originally Posted by TurboXS_Nathan

You appear to agree with me then that a slightly larger turbocharger will be easier to drive in a road race situation with a little milder boost response. The additional benefit is that I should be able to make the same or better power on a lower boost setting all with less ignition timing required to light off the mixture. I am not building my car to feel like a viper or Vette. I intend to build it in such a way that enhances the track and street performance without overly changing the character of the car.

On a FWD car that makes over 300whp, you HAVE to have a laggy turbo or you end up plowing like a truck through the turns and it makes for a miserable and overall slower lap time than the guy with the NA car going 10/10ths with only 160whp.

That's more or less what I was getting at.

Here's a video of what I was getting at.

http://www.hassturbo.com/video/se-r/joes_car.mpg (This was at "light" boost BTW. )

I owned an identical car to this one that I built and let me tell you - the car is all over the place at 110mph + grabbing for traction and can out run a Yamaho R1 from 50mph past 150mph. (The owner of this car actually owns an R1 and lost to his car on his own bike. ROFL) I was a MESS up at Limerock trying to muscle around the track and slower than the NA cars. LOL

As for the GT35’ed evo. It’s sort of a “fad” turbocharger. It’s not bad, but I prefer a 67mm/p-trim combo. That’s where the money is at (until you jump into the GT42 compressor wheel). Call me old school.

Well...I wasn't talking about the EVO. We were doing the 35R on DSM's back wheneverone was on the "Frank" and "color" turbos. It's recently become a "fad" because it's a NASTY turbo that can push out over 600whp and be very streetable. I will be putting a 30R with the .82 housing on my EVO as I'm not looking for those kind of crazy numbers.

I don’t think your turbo selection is so much “wrong” as it’s expected, in the box, what the market wants thinking. There’s nothing wrong with making your customers happy by giving them a turbo that spools wicked fast. I just think it’s the wrong choice for me personally. I don’t want wicked fast spool. I want linear (if increasing) torque with a much broader overall shape then stock.

Understood, thanks for clearing that up.

As for the 2zz low cam comments, have you ever tried a different manifold arrangement? There is value in your current setup as it gets the heat to the turbo ASAP, but I wonder if you are sacrificing exhaust flow and seriously harming VE in the process.

Not at these power levels. We take the time to makes the logs flow as best they can while taking advantage of the extra heat going to the turbo for a fat powerband. Our primaries are 1 5/8" and we do our best to place the flange so two ports have direct access to the turbine inlet and the other two are not fighting each other to get there. I.E. Putting the flange on the end of the log inline with the last port.

We've tried different set ups including a tight tubular unit and saw no real gain on the dyno at these power levels, sad to say.

I don’t think anyone can tell you that the 2zz heads don’t flow reasonably well.

Agreed, but I think the issues with the 2Z go beyond head flow.

Take a look at this dyno chart:



I was on throttle from the sample time starting and you can see it's building a little boost by 3500rpm with about 6psi by 4000rpm and then going into full swing at about 4700rpm. The turbo was building boost down low, but the engine simply was not responding very well to that boost until it was past 5K rpm.

That's the scenario you were talking about using a large turbo with light early boost onset and I hope you don't see the same results. That was with the GT2871R BTW. Just passing along some info - not trying to discourage you at all.