| timmyb21 | 07-15-2005 03:32 PM |
If the proposed SP rules change happens...
�
�
What kind of HP can we expect to see out of a stock turbo ej20? A competitive ESP WRX looks feasible now. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I searched, I think this is too broad of a question to search accurately.
Tim (dancing banana) :banana:
Tim (dancing banana) :banana:
| leecea | 07-15-2005 03:55 PM |
There's a thread in Power Bragging titled "EJ20 18g with 340 hp / 297 tq on race fuel". They list their mods but I can't tell if they're all ESP legal.
| Impala SS AutoXer | 07-15-2005 04:00 PM |
Decent guess in ESP legal trim (stock motor/turbo, bigger injectors, bigger top mount intercooler, header, catless turboback, lightweight flywheel/clutch, crank pulley, dyno tuning with timing/fuel/boost being touched at 100 octane) is around 300ish at the flywheel.
| timmyb21 | 07-15-2005 04:07 PM |
I think Tom Hoppe was making close to 300 flywheel hp in STX legal trim, wasn't he? Tom?
| angryfist | 07-15-2005 04:15 PM |
on stock turbo i'd say 240-260 whp before the turbo runs out of steam, depending on dyno. wrx should be fun in esp form with lightweight flywheel/clutch and good differentials.
| PhilC | 07-15-2005 10:48 PM |
Biggly's car (Tom's old car) made 242 at TopSpeed, we made 243 on the same dyno in STX trim. Sorry Biggly, still like to brag about that and I'm pretty sure Tom took it personally enough to go find a few more HP after that. Tom also had a run done with no limits on wastegate duty cycle and boost and gained quite a noticeable amount especially in the torque curve, I'm sure you can find the thread back by searching because I don't remember what it was.
Lose the last cat, and run some other tweaks like water injection and I personally think you MAY see 275WHP out of an future state ESP legal WRX but obviously I'm not a tuner and I've never actually looked at what the WRX can do with stock turbo. It's something very few people do at all as most people who are going to that level aren't keeping the stock turbo.
Definitely agree with Jason though, a WRX with flywheel, clutch and heck even just a front diff would be a heck of a lot of fun. It might be a lot of fun to make a go of it in a new style ESP where boost is unlimited and the Evo and STi are in BSP.
Lose the last cat, and run some other tweaks like water injection and I personally think you MAY see 275WHP out of an future state ESP legal WRX but obviously I'm not a tuner and I've never actually looked at what the WRX can do with stock turbo. It's something very few people do at all as most people who are going to that level aren't keeping the stock turbo.
Definitely agree with Jason though, a WRX with flywheel, clutch and heck even just a front diff would be a heck of a lot of fun. It might be a lot of fun to make a go of it in a new style ESP where boost is unlimited and the Evo and STi are in BSP.
| MrDestructo | 07-16-2005 02:13 PM |
Remember also that now the '06 WRX is getting the 2.5L, so that will help with the power gains w/o cat and such. Also, if the gearing in the '06 turns out to be sucky for AutoX you could back date to an earlier setup.
| trhoppe | 07-16-2005 02:34 PM |
242.[b]43[/b] dammit! :lol:
Once we played with boost, on stock injectors, no water injection, a cat and stock IC and pump gas we made 253 and 271 torque. I believe a ESP prepped WRX to the limit on C16 would make ~300whp/300wtq, weight 2700lbs, have kickass diffs and destroy a "non rally car" ESP. Give it the 2.5L and I think 300whp/320wtq is more like it.
[img]http://www.tomhoppe.com/misc%20pics/stx-sm.jpg[/img]
-Tom
Once we played with boost, on stock injectors, no water injection, a cat and stock IC and pump gas we made 253 and 271 torque. I believe a ESP prepped WRX to the limit on C16 would make ~300whp/300wtq, weight 2700lbs, have kickass diffs and destroy a "non rally car" ESP. Give it the 2.5L and I think 300whp/320wtq is more like it.
[img]http://www.tomhoppe.com/misc%20pics/stx-sm.jpg[/img]
-Tom
| PhilC | 07-16-2005 09:22 PM |
Tom, I don't know where our duty cycles actually were on the STX run but I suspect that we were up near the limit on the stock injectors. You and TopSpeed have actually done the testing so can answer the question better. That dyno says 20 lb-ft at 3000 RPM which would help autocross immensely. I think we all agree that a front diff alone and R-compunds would make the car WAY more fun but I'm not sure that would make us keep up with the top pony cars.
Future state picture: STi and Evo move to BSP with unlimited boost, WRX stays in ESP with unlimited boost. Presumably the new 06 WRX with a 2.5 would go where??? If in ESP then I've got to get a 2.5 to be competitive point blank, if in BSP with the STi it doesn't stand a chance presuming they have different turbos.
Do you really think that an ESP unlimited boost WRX is going to be dominate over say Strano's car even given an unlimited budget for tires and diffs?
Future state picture: STi and Evo move to BSP with unlimited boost, WRX stays in ESP with unlimited boost. Presumably the new 06 WRX with a 2.5 would go where??? If in ESP then I've got to get a 2.5 to be competitive point blank, if in BSP with the STi it doesn't stand a chance presuming they have different turbos.
Do you really think that an ESP unlimited boost WRX is going to be dominate over say Strano's car even given an unlimited budget for tires and diffs?
| Jsortor | 07-16-2005 10:12 PM |
[QUOTE=PhilC]
Do you really think that an ESP unlimited boost WRX is going to be dominate over say Strano's car even given an unlimited budget for tires and diffs?[/QUOTE]
I think it would be very competitive, not necessarily an overdog. I have been told by un-named national champs that I am incorrect though and the car will not have a chance. Hopefully the 2.5L WRX goes to BSP, otherwise it will drag the 02-05 WRX with it to BSP as I seriously doubt the STAC would let a "detuned" STI (read-06 WRX) go into ESP after finally deciding to move the STEVO's to BSP. Would be nothing but more years of controversy like the last two....
Do you really think that an ESP unlimited boost WRX is going to be dominate over say Strano's car even given an unlimited budget for tires and diffs?[/QUOTE]
I think it would be very competitive, not necessarily an overdog. I have been told by un-named national champs that I am incorrect though and the car will not have a chance. Hopefully the 2.5L WRX goes to BSP, otherwise it will drag the 02-05 WRX with it to BSP as I seriously doubt the STAC would let a "detuned" STI (read-06 WRX) go into ESP after finally deciding to move the STEVO's to BSP. Would be nothing but more years of controversy like the last two....
| Jsortor | 07-16-2005 10:14 PM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]242.[b]43[/b] dammit! :lol:
I believe a ESP prepped WRX to the limit on C16 would make ~300whp/300wtq, weight 2700lbs, have kickass diffs and destroy a "non rally car" ESP. Give it the 2.5L and I think 300whp/320wtq is more like it.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
So what do you think this equates to on a DynoDynamics? 30 less?
I believe a ESP prepped WRX to the limit on C16 would make ~300whp/300wtq, weight 2700lbs, have kickass diffs and destroy a "non rally car" ESP. Give it the 2.5L and I think 300whp/320wtq is more like it.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
So what do you think this equates to on a DynoDynamics? 30 less?
| Butt Dyno | 07-17-2005 11:34 AM |
Could you legally put in an FMIC? Overkill most likely.. but there are one or two that are advertised as virtually no cutting, or no cutting (the Injen requires a little bit of trimming of the bumper, maybe, but not the beam).
And what about the Cusco "Tarmac" 35/65 differential? [url]http://z1auto.com/prodmore.asp?model=wrx&cat=driveline&prodid=1152[/url]
Haven't seen very many people install it, but it seems like it could really transform the car.
Juz throwin out ideas.
And what about the Cusco "Tarmac" 35/65 differential? [url]http://z1auto.com/prodmore.asp?model=wrx&cat=driveline&prodid=1152[/url]
Haven't seen very many people install it, but it seems like it could really transform the car.
Juz throwin out ideas.
| trhoppe | 07-17-2005 02:16 PM |
[quote]Do you really think that an ESP unlimited boost WRX is going to be dominate over say Strano's car even given an unlimited budget for tires and diffs?[/quote] Yes I think it will win handiliy.
That dyno was also on pump has, C16 would have made more power
[quote]So what do you think this equates to on a DynoDynamics? 30 less?[/quote] Yup.
[quote]Could you legally put in an FMIC? [/quote] Yup, as well as a custom sheetmetal reverse intake manifold and tumbler deletes. Talk about 20whp right there.
[quote]And what about the Cusco "Tarmac" 35/65 differential?[/quote] Yup as well.
It will not be cheap and the current STis are about 50% done. Think about that :)
-Tom
That dyno was also on pump has, C16 would have made more power
[quote]So what do you think this equates to on a DynoDynamics? 30 less?[/quote] Yup.
[quote]Could you legally put in an FMIC? [/quote] Yup, as well as a custom sheetmetal reverse intake manifold and tumbler deletes. Talk about 20whp right there.
[quote]And what about the Cusco "Tarmac" 35/65 differential?[/quote] Yup as well.
It will not be cheap and the current STis are about 50% done. Think about that :)
-Tom
| Jsortor | 07-17-2005 05:03 PM |
Better take this thread off the forum. Some V8 runners could have this printed up and on the STAC's desk sometime before December.... ;)
Just autox'ed an STI for the first time today... 35/65 is guuuuuud. :banana:
A must-have in my mind.
Just autox'ed an STI for the first time today... 35/65 is guuuuuud. :banana:
A must-have in my mind.
| DrBiggly | 07-18-2005 09:20 AM |
Funny that this thread should come up as I was talking to a friend the other day about this very thing. My power guess is right along with Tom's:
-FMIC
-Unlimited boost on stock turbo
-No cats exhaust (including headers of course)
-intake, pulleys
-Lighter flywheel
I'm thinking 275whp is definitely attainable.
Add big sticky tires: Mo' fun.
Add the diffs like the Cusco 35/65 and a front diff, and you have a drivetrain with a 2nd gear that works great for most courses, a touch less weight than an STi, and the diffs of an STi. Basically if someone spent the money on the diffs it would really really show up and do well. That's the only thing that keeps the WRX from rotating and pulling around like an STi honestly. The biggest drawback is the taller gearing a bit more lag. But if one was large stickies, really the corner exit speed should be higher and easier to get back on the gas with the diffs. Lighter flywheel would help a touch too.
I remember reading about Gary Sheehan's setup issues on his WRX and how they could never get it to quit pushing. I believe the item that finally solved all of their problems was the center diff.
As long as the '06 2.5L WRX isn't in the same class, this would be a killer setup. :)
-Biggly
-FMIC
-Unlimited boost on stock turbo
-No cats exhaust (including headers of course)
-intake, pulleys
-Lighter flywheel
I'm thinking 275whp is definitely attainable.
Add big sticky tires: Mo' fun.
Add the diffs like the Cusco 35/65 and a front diff, and you have a drivetrain with a 2nd gear that works great for most courses, a touch less weight than an STi, and the diffs of an STi. Basically if someone spent the money on the diffs it would really really show up and do well. That's the only thing that keeps the WRX from rotating and pulling around like an STi honestly. The biggest drawback is the taller gearing a bit more lag. But if one was large stickies, really the corner exit speed should be higher and easier to get back on the gas with the diffs. Lighter flywheel would help a touch too.
I remember reading about Gary Sheehan's setup issues on his WRX and how they could never get it to quit pushing. I believe the item that finally solved all of their problems was the center diff.
As long as the '06 2.5L WRX isn't in the same class, this would be a killer setup. :)
-Biggly
| AUTOwrXER | 07-18-2005 09:44 AM |
Tom - 50% done? I think I'm more than a little past that. What would you include in the other 50%?
Also, where would the additional weight savings come from to get to 2700 lbs? Sure, you lose some with the cat delete, but you add weight with the diffs, FMIC, WI, etc. Just curious how you come up with 2700 for a WRX in ESP trim...
Also, where would the additional weight savings come from to get to 2700 lbs? Sure, you lose some with the cat delete, but you add weight with the diffs, FMIC, WI, etc. Just curious how you come up with 2700 for a WRX in ESP trim...
| dwx | 07-18-2005 09:57 AM |
My SM WRX last year weighed in at around 2920 lbs, with a 6MT STI trans. I think I could have gotten that car legally down to around 2800 lbs with a 5MT, but not 2700. At least not being 100% legal. I've weighed pretty much every component on a Subaru, so I know what everything weighs.
Gary actually used the Cusco diff and went back to just a better viscous one. With more power to the rear you may find yourself buying new R160-sized rear diffs pretty often. It's also not a LSD so if you are lifting your inside wheel, you better have a good rear LSD or else your car is going to be a one-wheel wonder that doesn't accelerate.
I think an ESP WRX could certainly be competitive with the boost control changes. A WRX with a boost controller doesn't have the same lag/lack of throttle response that a WRX with stock boost control has.
Gary actually used the Cusco diff and went back to just a better viscous one. With more power to the rear you may find yourself buying new R160-sized rear diffs pretty often. It's also not a LSD so if you are lifting your inside wheel, you better have a good rear LSD or else your car is going to be a one-wheel wonder that doesn't accelerate.
I think an ESP WRX could certainly be competitive with the boost control changes. A WRX with a boost controller doesn't have the same lag/lack of throttle response that a WRX with stock boost control has.
| PhilC | 07-18-2005 10:35 AM |
Biggly you need to stop giving Jen any ideas. She just aimed me with "Biggly and I have been talking about ESP". Just not going to be practical for us. Now if we had access to a dyno and a shop with a lift to do most of the work at my opinion might change. !Cough! Jason !Cough!
| DrBiggly | 07-18-2005 11:16 AM |
Phil....sorry! :lol: I just think someone should go for it. I also think that the springrates could be lowered a bit on an ESP WRX and it would still rotate as needed so it would actually make for a more fun daily driver. Raise the rideheight up a touch if necessary depending on the coilover design, etc etc.
I dunno where Tom got the 2700lbs from either. Special scales perhaps? :lol:
I dunno where Tom got the 2700lbs from either. Special scales perhaps? :lol:
| trhoppe | 07-18-2005 11:41 AM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]Tom - 50% done? I think I'm more than a little past that. What would you include in the other 50%?
Also, where would the additional weight savings come from to get to 2700 lbs? Sure, you lose some with the cat delete, but you add weight with the diffs, FMIC, WI, etc. Just curious how you come up with 2700 for a WRX in ESP trim...[/QUOTE]
I meant that as a compliment ;) 50% sorted I guess, meaning that you will still go that much faster and whoop that much more ass :)
As far as the weight goes. An STX WRX to da max weighs 2780. I would assume pulling the radio, airbag wheel and AC would lose another 80ish lbs? Also the intake manifold would be way lighter, hell make a plastic one, in DSP Rankins lost like 20lbs with the plastic intake manifold. Also you can run a 5 pound pass seat instead of the 15lb STX seat.
-Tom
Also, where would the additional weight savings come from to get to 2700 lbs? Sure, you lose some with the cat delete, but you add weight with the diffs, FMIC, WI, etc. Just curious how you come up with 2700 for a WRX in ESP trim...[/QUOTE]
I meant that as a compliment ;) 50% sorted I guess, meaning that you will still go that much faster and whoop that much more ass :)
As far as the weight goes. An STX WRX to da max weighs 2780. I would assume pulling the radio, airbag wheel and AC would lose another 80ish lbs? Also the intake manifold would be way lighter, hell make a plastic one, in DSP Rankins lost like 20lbs with the plastic intake manifold. Also you can run a 5 pound pass seat instead of the 15lb STX seat.
-Tom
| AUTOwrXER | 07-18-2005 11:54 AM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]I meant that as a compliment ;) 50% sorted I guess, meaning that you will still go that much faster and whoop that much more ass :)
-Tom[/QUOTE]
There are some incremental gains to be made still, but at this point we're talking about thousands, maybe tenths, left in the setup. Most of the work I will do to the car from here is related to the boost changes that may come for 2006. If that happens, injectors/fuel rails and an intercooler are a must.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
There are some incremental gains to be made still, but at this point we're talking about thousands, maybe tenths, left in the setup. Most of the work I will do to the car from here is related to the boost changes that may come for 2006. If that happens, injectors/fuel rails and an intercooler are a must.
| Jsortor | 07-18-2005 12:12 PM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]I meant that as a compliment ;) 50% sorted I guess, meaning that you will still go that much faster and whoop that much more ass :)
As far as the weight goes. An STX WRX to da max weighs 2780. I would assume pulling the radio, airbag wheel and AC would lose another 80ish lbs? Also the intake manifold would be way lighter, hell make a plastic one, in DSP Rankins lost like 20lbs with the plastic intake manifold. Also you can run a 5 pound pass seat instead of the 15lb STX seat.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
You sure thats not 2880? I don't know what your car was at nats last year but the lowest one I saw was MK's at 2900 w/ac. Mine was 2940. I had trouble figuring where he was getting the extra 40 lbs, let alone the extra 160lbs your talking about... :confused: :confused:
As far as the weight goes. An STX WRX to da max weighs 2780. I would assume pulling the radio, airbag wheel and AC would lose another 80ish lbs? Also the intake manifold would be way lighter, hell make a plastic one, in DSP Rankins lost like 20lbs with the plastic intake manifold. Also you can run a 5 pound pass seat instead of the 15lb STX seat.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
You sure thats not 2880? I don't know what your car was at nats last year but the lowest one I saw was MK's at 2900 w/ac. Mine was 2940. I had trouble figuring where he was getting the extra 40 lbs, let alone the extra 160lbs your talking about... :confused: :confused:
| Dussander | 07-18-2005 12:24 PM |
I'm curious to how you would keep the tranny together in an ESP WRX with unlimited boost.
| Jsortor | 07-18-2005 12:33 PM |
[QUOTE=Dussander]I'm curious to how you would keep the tranny together in an ESP WRX with unlimited boost.[/QUOTE]
Don't let Hoppe co-drive with you... duh...
Don't let Hoppe co-drive with you... duh...
| trhoppe | 07-18-2005 12:35 PM |
[QUOTE=Jsortor]You sure thats not 2880? I don't know what your car was at nats last year but the lowest one I saw was MK's at 2900 w/ac. Mine was 2940. I had trouble figuring where he was getting the extra 40 lbs, let alone the extra 160lbs your talking about... :confused: :confused:[/QUOTE]
Yea I'm pretty sure that Mike K. was in the 2700s. Dammit, now I'm second guessing. I know that my old car at the last pro was ~2900 and that was with both stock seats, the 18lb wheels and falkens and gas in the car.
-Tom
Yea I'm pretty sure that Mike K. was in the 2700s. Dammit, now I'm second guessing. I know that my old car at the last pro was ~2900 and that was with both stock seats, the 18lb wheels and falkens and gas in the car.
-Tom
| Jsortor | 07-18-2005 01:03 PM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]Yea I'm pretty sure that Mike K. was in the 2700s. Dammit, now I'm second guessing. I know that my old car at the last pro was ~2900 and that was with both stock seats, the 18lb wheels and falkens and gas in the car.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately for us, I think you are all alone thinking 2700lbs...... :)
-Tom[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately for us, I think you are all alone thinking 2700lbs...... :)
| PhilC | 07-18-2005 01:14 PM |
Before the seats and battery we were at 2980ish at Peru last year. With seats and battery maybe down to 2940 or so but we haven't weighed this year. If Mike got his down to 2900 with the AC still installed I'd love to know how. Maybe it was those blinging Volks he had at Nationals.
How about you Josh? Going to make a run at ESP next year if unlimited boost goes through?
How about you Josh? Going to make a run at ESP next year if unlimited boost goes through?
| trhoppe | 07-18-2005 01:22 PM |
Phil, with the stock seats and heavy wheels with azenis I was 2920something in atlanta. Thats easily 2880ish if not 2850ish with the light wheels/tires and 15lb seats.
I dunno, mike would have to answer for the "sure" answer.
-Tom
I dunno, mike would have to answer for the "sure" answer.
-Tom
| PhilC | 07-18-2005 01:50 PM |
Maybe we're all just hitting the inacuracy of the scales more than any real information. The SCCA scales aren't setup on level ground which can affect readings quite a bit and moving them around all day long can easily knock off calibrations as well.
| Jsortor | 07-18-2005 02:19 PM |
[QUOTE=PhilC]Before the seats and battery we were at 2980ish at Peru last year. With seats and battery maybe down to 2940 or so but we haven't weighed this year. If Mike got his down to 2900 with the AC still installed I'd love to know how. Maybe it was those blinging Volks he had at Nationals.
How about you Josh? Going to make a run at ESP next year if unlimited boost goes through?[/QUOTE]
If I finish well this year and get some "starter money". I was actually planning to go even if boost doesn't happen, as long as the STEVO is out. It's gonna be 5000-6000 just to get the important stuff on the car, let alone the fine tuning parts and pieces.....
Problem is, I am not going to start wheeling and dealing until everything is in stone, which is December. I hate to waste a season "work-in-progress" style (ProSolo) but may have to.
How about you Josh? Going to make a run at ESP next year if unlimited boost goes through?[/QUOTE]
If I finish well this year and get some "starter money". I was actually planning to go even if boost doesn't happen, as long as the STEVO is out. It's gonna be 5000-6000 just to get the important stuff on the car, let alone the fine tuning parts and pieces.....
Problem is, I am not going to start wheeling and dealing until everything is in stone, which is December. I hate to waste a season "work-in-progress" style (ProSolo) but may have to.
| jmott | 07-18-2005 02:28 PM |
how is an ESP wrx going to avoid getting destroyed by an STI?
are you assuming the STI would move out of ESP while the WRX would stay?
are the WRX and STI on the same line, such that you can update backdate anything you want?
[QUOTE=timmyb21]What kind of HP can we expect to see out of a stock turbo ej20? A competitive ESP WRX looks feasible now. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I searched, I think this is too broad of a question to search accurately.
Tim (dancing banana) :banana:[/QUOTE]
are you assuming the STI would move out of ESP while the WRX would stay?
are the WRX and STI on the same line, such that you can update backdate anything you want?
[QUOTE=timmyb21]What kind of HP can we expect to see out of a stock turbo ej20? A competitive ESP WRX looks feasible now. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I searched, I think this is too broad of a question to search accurately.
Tim (dancing banana) :banana:[/QUOTE]
| dwx | 07-18-2005 02:35 PM |
[QUOTE=jmott]how is an ESP wrx going to avoid getting destroyed by an STI?
are you assuming the STI would move out of ESP while the WRX would stay?
are the WRX and STI on the same line, such that you can update backdate anything you want?[/QUOTE]
Yes everyone is assuming the EVO/STI will get moved to BSP. I think that's almost a given at this point if the boost thing gets enough positive feedback to become a rule change.
The WRX/STI are not on the same line currently anyways. With the 2.5L WRX coming it'd be better/cheaper to just buy one of those new anyways, rather than swap the 2.5L into a 2L WRX.
are you assuming the STI would move out of ESP while the WRX would stay?
are the WRX and STI on the same line, such that you can update backdate anything you want?[/QUOTE]
Yes everyone is assuming the EVO/STI will get moved to BSP. I think that's almost a given at this point if the boost thing gets enough positive feedback to become a rule change.
The WRX/STI are not on the same line currently anyways. With the 2.5L WRX coming it'd be better/cheaper to just buy one of those new anyways, rather than swap the 2.5L into a 2L WRX.
| AUTOwrXER | 07-18-2005 04:28 PM |
I seriously doubt that the 2.0L WRX and the 2.5L WRX would be in a different SP class...
I also think that the tranny would be compromised in ESP with de-regulated boost. The car could win, but I would budget for one or more trannies per year.
I also think that the tranny would be compromised in ESP with de-regulated boost. The car could win, but I would budget for one or more trannies per year.
| Jsortor | 07-18-2005 05:11 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]I seriously doubt that the 2.0L WRX and the 2.5L WRX would be in a different SP class...
I also think that the tranny would be compromised in ESP with de-regulated boost. The car could win, but I would budget for one or more trannies per year.[/QUOTE]
Just have to be nice to it...... ;)
I also think that the tranny would be compromised in ESP with de-regulated boost. The car could win, but I would budget for one or more trannies per year.[/QUOTE]
Just have to be nice to it...... ;)
| Jsortor | 07-18-2005 05:20 PM |
Is a FMIC actually going to help you in AX? More air to compress = more lag. Wheres the benefit? A little more airflow?
| trhoppe | 07-18-2005 05:57 PM |
[QUOTE=Jsortor]Is a FMIC actually going to help you in AX? More air to compress = more lag. Wheres the benefit? A little more airflow?[/QUOTE]
FMIC + reverse intake manifold = a very small amount of piping increase + cooler spot + bigger core + better airflow
-Tom
who wouldn't put a FMIC on an autox suby w/o a reverse intake manifold.
FMIC + reverse intake manifold = a very small amount of piping increase + cooler spot + bigger core + better airflow
-Tom
who wouldn't put a FMIC on an autox suby w/o a reverse intake manifold.
| Jsortor | 07-18-2005 06:07 PM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]FMIC + reverse intake manifold = a very small amount of piping increase + cooler spot + bigger core + better airflow
-Tom
who wouldn't put a FMIC on an autox suby w/o a reverse intake manifold.[/QUOTE]
;) gotcha
-Tom
who wouldn't put a FMIC on an autox suby w/o a reverse intake manifold.[/QUOTE]
;) gotcha
| dwx | 07-18-2005 06:18 PM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]FMIC + reverse intake manifold = a very small amount of piping increase + cooler spot + bigger core + better airflow
-Tom
who wouldn't put a FMIC on an autox suby w/o a reverse intake manifold.[/QUOTE]
You would need to change the orientation of the turbo as well to gain much when flipping the manifold. Going FMIC and flipped manifold is a waste of time and money imho, for very little gain in autocross. For rally or track applications sure, but not solely for autocross. I'd look at a small efficient air/water setup. ;)
-Tom
who wouldn't put a FMIC on an autox suby w/o a reverse intake manifold.[/QUOTE]
You would need to change the orientation of the turbo as well to gain much when flipping the manifold. Going FMIC and flipped manifold is a waste of time and money imho, for very little gain in autocross. For rally or track applications sure, but not solely for autocross. I'd look at a small efficient air/water setup. ;)
| trhoppe | 07-18-2005 06:21 PM |
[QUOTE=dwx]You would need to change the orientation of the turbo as well to gain much when flipping the manifold. Going FMIC and flipped manifold is a waste of time and money imho, for very little gain in autocross. For rally or track applications sure, but not solely for autocross. I'd look at a small efficient air/water setup. ;)[/QUOTE]
I think the STi IC is plenty, while I think that the WRX IC leaves much to be desired.
Also, SP rules prohibit air/water ICs :( Which would have been the #1 choice.
-Tom
I think the STi IC is plenty, while I think that the WRX IC leaves much to be desired.
Also, SP rules prohibit air/water ICs :( Which would have been the #1 choice.
-Tom
| dwx | 07-18-2005 06:36 PM |
Not that I've ever read, intercoolers are unrestricted. The only thing you can't do is cool an air/air IC OR air/water heat exchanger (radiator) with chilled liquids/etc. You can add ice to a resevoir as part of a air/water system, you just can't externally cool something that is normally cooled by only air. I'm looking at the rulebook here and it doesn't say anything about keeping the original configuration on the car. There are a number of cars that use air/water ICs stock, including the 03-04 supercharged Cobra.
| Jsortor | 07-18-2005 06:46 PM |
The stock STI intercooler seems to use thicker cast endtanks than the WRX. spraying it down repeatedly in grid only made it "warm" while my WRX sprayed equally would have been "cool". I think an STI sized IC with thin end tanks = good.
| trhoppe | 07-18-2005 06:49 PM |
"As utilized only on engines originally equipped with forced induction, air to air heat exchangers (intercoolers) must be cooled only by atmosphere.
The use of chilled liquids etc etc etc is prohibited"
Any other interpretation of that? I would love to be wrong.
-Tom
The use of chilled liquids etc etc etc is prohibited"
Any other interpretation of that? I would love to be wrong.
-Tom
| fliz | 07-18-2005 07:04 PM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]"As utilized only on engines originally equipped with forced induction, air to air heat exchangers (intercoolers) must be cooled only by atmosphere.
The use of chilled liquids etc etc etc is prohibited"
Any other interpretation of that? I would love to be wrong.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
It specifically states "intercoolers are unrestricted" and then mentions air-to-water intercooler radiators.
If the combination of the "intercoolers are unrestricted" and the bolded portion doesn't allow for air-to-water intercoolers...I don't know what would.
[quote=15.10.C]Carburetors, fuel injection, intercoolers and intake manifolds are
unrestricted. ...As utilized only on engines originally
equipped with forced induction, air-to-air heat exchangers (known
as �intercoolers�), and [b]radiators which are part of air-to-liquid
charge coolers[/b], must be cooled only by the atmosphere.
The use of chilled liquids, ice, dry ice, refrigeration systems,
vaporized compressed gases, etc. is prohibited.[/quote]
The use of chilled liquids etc etc etc is prohibited"
Any other interpretation of that? I would love to be wrong.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
It specifically states "intercoolers are unrestricted" and then mentions air-to-water intercooler radiators.
If the combination of the "intercoolers are unrestricted" and the bolded portion doesn't allow for air-to-water intercoolers...I don't know what would.
[quote=15.10.C]Carburetors, fuel injection, intercoolers and intake manifolds are
unrestricted. ...As utilized only on engines originally
equipped with forced induction, air-to-air heat exchangers (known
as �intercoolers�), and [b]radiators which are part of air-to-liquid
charge coolers[/b], must be cooled only by the atmosphere.
The use of chilled liquids, ice, dry ice, refrigeration systems,
vaporized compressed gases, etc. is prohibited.[/quote]
| Butt Dyno | 07-18-2005 07:51 PM |
Would any of the FMIC's be legal other than the Injen?
AFAIK that's the only one that doesn't require cutting or gutting stuff.
AFAIK that's the only one that doesn't require cutting or gutting stuff.
| crystalhelix | 07-18-2005 08:38 PM |
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]Would any of the FMIC's be legal other than the Injen?
AFAIK that's the only one that doesn't require cutting or gutting stuff.[/QUOTE]
Custom Fabricated $$$ ;)
AFAIK that's the only one that doesn't require cutting or gutting stuff.[/QUOTE]
Custom Fabricated $$$ ;)
| PhilC | 07-18-2005 09:21 PM |
Tom, my interpretation agrees with Josh here. You can't use an intercooler sprayer on an air-to-air or load up the resevoir on your air-to-water with dry ice between runs but you could switch it to air-to-water as long as the radiator on the water system was only air cooled. But then again I've not looked extensively at SP rules until the last week or so. Might be an interesting option, the air-to-water adding extra weight but offering better charge cooling for 3 runs.
| Jsortor | 07-18-2005 09:37 PM |
The rule is real dis-jointed. What is any particular sentence refering to?
1)Intercoolers are unrestricted(type or size/placement)
2)A to A Intercoolers and A to W Intercooler radiators must be cooled by air.(does it have to be same type as O.E.)
The kicker is the 3rd sentence really, No chilled liquids etc etc.
So does that mean no initially "cold water" in the A to W intercoolers? or is it relating to the air part of the system refered to in sentence 2?
Better write Doug Gill
1)Intercoolers are unrestricted(type or size/placement)
2)A to A Intercoolers and A to W Intercooler radiators must be cooled by air.(does it have to be same type as O.E.)
The kicker is the 3rd sentence really, No chilled liquids etc etc.
So does that mean no initially "cold water" in the A to W intercoolers? or is it relating to the air part of the system refered to in sentence 2?
Better write Doug Gill
| dwx | 07-18-2005 10:17 PM |
The August FasTrack has the changed induction rule which breaks things up a little bit. It reads:
15.10.C.1 - unrestricted intake manifolds...
15.10.C.2 - Except for standard parts as defined
in these rules, the external use while on
course of liquids, ice, dry ice, refrigeration
systems, vaporized compressed gases, etc.
to reduce the temperature of the intake air
charge is prohibited.
15.10.C.3 - As utilized only on engines originally
equipped with forced induction, induction
charge heat exchangers (known as
"intercoolers" or "charge air coolers
(CACs)") are unrestricted in size and configuration.
Air-to-air CACs and radiators
for air-to-liquid CACs must be cooled only
by the atmosphere, except for standard
parts. Body panels, fascias, or structural
members may not be cut or altered to facilitate
CAC installation.
I don't think either versions of the rule are that ambiguous. Notice that .2 says "external". This at least gives a little clearer idea what they mean by the current rule.
15.10.C.1 - unrestricted intake manifolds...
15.10.C.2 - Except for standard parts as defined
in these rules, the external use while on
course of liquids, ice, dry ice, refrigeration
systems, vaporized compressed gases, etc.
to reduce the temperature of the intake air
charge is prohibited.
15.10.C.3 - As utilized only on engines originally
equipped with forced induction, induction
charge heat exchangers (known as
"intercoolers" or "charge air coolers
(CACs)") are unrestricted in size and configuration.
Air-to-air CACs and radiators
for air-to-liquid CACs must be cooled only
by the atmosphere, except for standard
parts. Body panels, fascias, or structural
members may not be cut or altered to facilitate
CAC installation.
I don't think either versions of the rule are that ambiguous. Notice that .2 says "external". This at least gives a little clearer idea what they mean by the current rule.
| PhilC | 07-18-2005 11:02 PM |
I'd personally read that as allowing a conversion to air-to-water (that being a configuration in my mind but then again maybe I'm too literal). Anyone else want to make an interpretation? My guess is that IF the rule on boost goes through that part will need to be clarified either before it goes into effect or by follow up after. I'm not so knowledgeable about the whole thing but wouldn't there be some advantages to an air-to-water system?
| TheWRX | 07-18-2005 11:27 PM |
[QUOTE=PhilC]I'd personally read that as allowing a conversion to air-to-water (that being a configuration in my mind but then again maybe I'm too literal). Anyone else want to make an interpretation?[/QUOTE]
I agree. The way I read them, both the current version and the proposed new version allow that. As long as the cooling of the whole system comes from the atmosphere, it's fine. The exclusions are to stop people from spraying liquids that will mess up the course, or from getting too creative with crazy stuff like liquid nitrogen. :eek:
I agree. The way I read them, both the current version and the proposed new version allow that. As long as the cooling of the whole system comes from the atmosphere, it's fine. The exclusions are to stop people from spraying liquids that will mess up the course, or from getting too creative with crazy stuff like liquid nitrogen. :eek:
| AUTOwrXER | 07-19-2005 04:41 PM |
IMO an A to W intercooler would not be a benefit in an autocross situation. Given that the vehicle travels at relatively slow speeds while in motion, then sits still for at least 5 minutes, a heat soak like a large intercooler core or a water reservoir is not a good thing. This is why I have used the STi intercooler so far. The only thing that would make me change is if we start running high enough boost that the air from the turbocharger is very hot (i.e. the upper range of the turbo efficiency curve). In that case I'll look at larger front-mount intercoolers, which hopefully will get less heat soak in grid than a large top-mount.
| dwx | 07-19-2005 04:56 PM |
Water won't heat soak just sitting there. You need to pump a lot of heat through the setup (like air from the turbo) to get it to heat soak. Plus the resevoir is usually not in the engine bay, or even if it is its not sitting on top of the engine like our TMICs. The IC core itself doesn't hold much water.
Almost all high horsepower turbo drag setups use air/water intercoolers, because it's simply more efficient than air/air, unless you are running the car for an extended period of time at full tilt.
Is it going to be the difference on an autocross course? Probably not. When you are talking 400hp to begin with, 425 isn't going to make a difference. It's a power adder just like anything else.
Almost all high horsepower turbo drag setups use air/water intercoolers, because it's simply more efficient than air/air, unless you are running the car for an extended period of time at full tilt.
Is it going to be the difference on an autocross course? Probably not. When you are talking 400hp to begin with, 425 isn't going to make a difference. It's a power adder just like anything else.
| fliz | 07-19-2005 05:28 PM |
[QUOTE=dwx]Is it going to be the difference on an autocross course? Probably not. [/QUOTE]
So says the man with the air-to-water setup... :p
So says the man with the air-to-water setup... :p
| angryfist | 07-20-2005 09:10 AM |
btw. over the weekend billy ran my car with toyo RA1's and was still 3 seconds back from marcus merdith. i dont know how much more time would be made up on hoosiers/kumhos but its going to take lots of development to get catch up to the top ESP cars.
| angryfist | 07-20-2005 09:18 AM |
and going back to the horsepower stuff (i'm missed a couple days of this thread) i dont know if any of you have seen many wrx's with different setups on dynos but from what i've seen from many many wrxs is that the stock turbo runs out of steam once aproaching those 260whp numbers. its jsut too inefficient. c16 and water injection might help a tad but i cant see it being 300whp.
| AUTOwrXER | 07-20-2005 11:11 AM |
[QUOTE=dwx]Water won't heat soak just sitting there. You need to pump a lot of heat through the setup (like air from the turbo) to get it to heat soak. Plus the resevoir is usually not in the engine bay, or even if it is its not sitting on top of the engine like our TMICs. The IC core itself doesn't hold much water.
Almost all high horsepower turbo drag setups use air/water intercoolers, because it's simply more efficient than air/air, unless you are running the car for an extended period of time at full tilt.
Is it going to be the difference on an autocross course? Probably not. When you are talking 400hp to begin with, 425 isn't going to make a difference. It's a power adder just like anything else.[/QUOTE]
But water also won't cool off just sitting there. My point is that you are never passing enough air through the radiator to cool the water, therefore the intercooler is becoming more and more inefficient with each run. If you had 30 minutes to sit in grid between runs, then it would cool off, but with 5 minutes between relatively high-stress low-speed runs, I'm not sure the water setup does much for you...
Almost all high horsepower turbo drag setups use air/water intercoolers, because it's simply more efficient than air/air, unless you are running the car for an extended period of time at full tilt.
Is it going to be the difference on an autocross course? Probably not. When you are talking 400hp to begin with, 425 isn't going to make a difference. It's a power adder just like anything else.[/QUOTE]
But water also won't cool off just sitting there. My point is that you are never passing enough air through the radiator to cool the water, therefore the intercooler is becoming more and more inefficient with each run. If you had 30 minutes to sit in grid between runs, then it would cool off, but with 5 minutes between relatively high-stress low-speed runs, I'm not sure the water setup does much for you...
| crystalhelix | 07-20-2005 11:26 AM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]But water also won't cool off just sitting there. My point is that you are never passing enough air through the radiator to cool the water, therefore the intercooler is becoming more and more inefficient with each run. If you had 30 minutes to sit in grid between runs, then it would cool off, but with 5 minutes between relatively high-stress low-speed runs, I'm not sure the water setup does much for you...[/QUOTE]
Are you allowed to make a fan switch and run your fans the whole run? There is a local WS6 TA that does this in ESP and it doesn't bother me. But at nationals would it be a protestable item.
Also when talking about AWHP in the 02-05 gen Subarus could we hypothesize something. Driver aside because I know the nut behind the wheel is a big issue, what correlation would HP play into overall times. Honestly from where I stand I race against that WS6 TA and he has 320 rwhp and is running 315 victoracers. Should he be able to pound me because I only have 270 awhp, because I win typically. So for the subys all weighing about the same is there any way to say something like 10awhp=0.3 less seconds on a 45 second course? I am just wondering how much hp/tq plays into it. Cause to keep up with the upper echelon of ESP/BSP STi's I would need to find 60+hp for next year if I have a chance of competing car-wise at a national event.
Sorry, end rant, just wondering, since some "serious" minds are on the topic, lol.
Thanks,
Justin
Are you allowed to make a fan switch and run your fans the whole run? There is a local WS6 TA that does this in ESP and it doesn't bother me. But at nationals would it be a protestable item.
Also when talking about AWHP in the 02-05 gen Subarus could we hypothesize something. Driver aside because I know the nut behind the wheel is a big issue, what correlation would HP play into overall times. Honestly from where I stand I race against that WS6 TA and he has 320 rwhp and is running 315 victoracers. Should he be able to pound me because I only have 270 awhp, because I win typically. So for the subys all weighing about the same is there any way to say something like 10awhp=0.3 less seconds on a 45 second course? I am just wondering how much hp/tq plays into it. Cause to keep up with the upper echelon of ESP/BSP STi's I would need to find 60+hp for next year if I have a chance of competing car-wise at a national event.
Sorry, end rant, just wondering, since some "serious" minds are on the topic, lol.
Thanks,
Justin
| Got Pink? | 07-20-2005 12:50 PM |
More power will definently help more on some courses than others. Also where does it make more power and more torque. I think its really not important if you just max out for the class and then don't worry about it. Otherwise its hard to say how much a difference hp makes since its hard to feel small gains on a already relatively fast car. Also unless you are a really consistent driver there is no quantifable way to tell how much time more hp buys you.
So Joel what do you think is the max hp you can make in a BSP STi with no boost limits?
So Joel what do you think is the max hp you can make in a BSP STi with no boost limits?
| crystalhelix | 07-20-2005 01:44 PM |
[QUOTE=Got Pink?]
So Joel what do you think is the max hp you can make in a BSP STi with no boost limits?[/QUOTE]
seconded, we need goals to shoot for, lol. :devil: :lol:
Me thinks I will need a new clutch for sure, lol.
So Joel what do you think is the max hp you can make in a BSP STi with no boost limits?[/QUOTE]
seconded, we need goals to shoot for, lol. :devil: :lol:
Me thinks I will need a new clutch for sure, lol.
| AUTOwrXER | 07-20-2005 05:57 PM |
It's hard to say how much time an additional amount of power is good for. I honestly think it's worth very little time on our cars in an autocross. What I do know is, extra power is never a bad thing. It's one of a very few things which makes you faster always (like lower weight and more grip).
I think 370 whp is where we will wind up in BSP with boost de-regulated. Perhaps a bit more than that, but not 400 whp like the anti-boost de-reg camp is claiming. Even if it was 400 whp, I think the current compeition in BSP will still be a challenge.
I think 370 whp is where we will wind up in BSP with boost de-regulated. Perhaps a bit more than that, but not 400 whp like the anti-boost de-reg camp is claiming. Even if it was 400 whp, I think the current compeition in BSP will still be a challenge.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét