KN_TL

iTrader: (3)

It's going to be impossible to have VSA without DBW.
Traction control tweaks the throttle.

mzilvar

iTrader: (3)

OP said he had it working with the cabled setup by having the throttle actuator motor connected and feeding the ECM a TP signal.

Was just curious if he was using the stock APP sensor and module off the throttle body to do that or something else.

I understand the throttle is a part of the VSA system though and don't know how well it would work without being able to adjust the throttle position, I suppose in OPs setup in the early stages he at least still had it modulating the brakes as a part of the traction control.

flexer

Tony, Are you able to keep the A/F values in check enough that the stock ECU doesn't throw a check engine light on you?

yungone501

iTrader: (4)

Tony, it appears you've done some great work on this car. Props to you and job well done.

Be sure and check out my build thread that consists of a hybrid j37a1 pumped by a Precision 62 squirting with meth and being tuned with Hondata by myself. I plan on doing 12-15psi as I also did 15psi on my last stock j35a8.

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...873314&page=27

Acuraman101

I want it

BxTrini_TL

Thats a beast

cherplex

iTrader: (3)

Nice work, I've followed your work on supraforums on the Supra and I think you had a Camry thread there too. The HKS T51R is the best sounding turbo in the world ha ha.

yungone501

iTrader: (4)

Turbo Camry...haha, nice.

One of the wildest builds I've ever seen is a old Ford Falcon with an Indy 3.5L V10 with a running a huge 112mm turbo and detuned making 1000whp.

ATLS_666

canada eh

Undying Dreams

iTrader: (3)

Good Lord.

Tony_the_Tiger

During the earlier stages when I still had the dummy DBW motor setup, the ABS portion of the system still works. The vehicle stability still works and applies braking for some sort of traction assist.

The stock stuff doesn't quite work anymore with triple the factory power, so plans change and all the traction control or VSA is more of a annoyance instead. Most of the components are already gone as of currently.

The Haltech controls the fuel and timing, so you can target it to whatever the ECU wants to see but the car won't drive well with those values. At one point, I had a map that I quickly made up so the ECU was free of codes only for E-test.

Just checked your thread but had to quickly skim through it due to a lot of pages... I got to the turbo part and the quick test drive.. but anyway, nice thread, and best wishes on your build

You can also check out more on my Camry if you're looking for more V6 single turbo examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifv5F...ature=youtu.be

http://www.dynamotorsports.ca/tempfi..._Sept2013d.jpg

http://www.dynamotorsports.ca/tempfi..._Sept2013e.jpg

kingkong_dav

Tony will the s2k coil pack bolt right up. N what injectors r u using

Tony_the_Tiger

The electrical connectors are plug & play, but you will need to make a custom bracket to hold them in.

I don't have pics of it, but I have a bracket that groups all three coils together and bolts onto the spare threaded boss on the valve cover. It's pretty straight forward

kingkong_dav

Ic. What injectord r u using n eat octane gas

I hate cars

I've looked at the videos several times and I can't get over the turbo lag. When I've mentioned in the past about having to use nitrous to spool the turbo back in the '90s because it was so slow to spool, it looked like those videos. With a GT6567, a relatively tight 2800rpm converter, when boost hits on mine the needle slams from 1 or 2psi to 25psi or whatever it's set at in half a second or quicker. I know I have a bigger engine but the TL flows considerably more air than mine, making a lot more hp NA than mine.

Maybe it's the combo of short gears and a manual transmission causing the slow spool up. In my opinion you need more load while maintaining high enough rpm. Are you using any sort of tricks to help spool such as throttle position vs manifold pressure to retard timing during spool?

I hate cars

One more thing that has bothered me is the myth that's accepted as fact by most that a higher CR spools the turbo quicker or at a lower rpm. It's in fact the opposite. Lower compression will spool the turbo quicker though slightly. Higher static CR gives more power per lb of boost while lower CR gives a huge safety margin and substantially more boost before running into detonation or preignition. I'm trying to figure out why mine spools literally 2-3x as quick as the one in the video and at a much lower rpm. Any thoughts?

flexer

The answer is the size and length of his exhaust manifold, and the size and length of his intercooler piping. What we can't see IHC is how well his rally style anti-lag works on the dyno. On the street with the anti-lag set-up running he might outspool your butt. Also while he may spool late he has GREAT exhaust flow. Notice how the torque stays flat all the way to the end? Now part of that is because if you look closely in the video he raises boost to redline, but its also because of his long tube header. He has to have that long tube header to avoid exhaust reversion and fight off detonation on that high compression ratio. Mazda did this with their skyactive motor, that when equiped with a long tube header was 15:1, but when the header had to be made shorter for US cars, they also had to drop the compression to 14:1 to avoid detonation. Remember also your comment on running lower compression to avoid detonation is starting to go out the window. People are finding out that by managing flow, exhaust reversion, engine temps, engine control, blah blah blah, you can run 11:1 or 12:1 now, like we used to run 9:1 10 years ago.

james357

iTrader: (2)

class is in session

I hate cars

I was hoping to hear from the man making the big numbers, not you. I hope nothing I say comes off as asshole-ish toward the owner of the car because I mean nothing bad about his setup but you have this constant need to try and prove me wrong in anything having to do with turbocharging, bringing up things that might be new to you but are old news to a lot of people. You may be an engineer but how many turbo cars have you designed, built, tuned, and owned?


No shit diameter and length (volume) of the exhaust pre-turbo makes a big difference in spool. Exhaust enthalpy is reduced the farther the turbo gets from the head. Typically short but fairly large diameter primaries work well. I'm thinking part of the lag is also due to the higher compression. It just doesn't spool a turbo as quickly.

You're completely wrong about the intercooler plumbing making a significant difference in spool, again, due to your lack of hands on experience. I've taken a non intercooled car where the turbo blew straight into the intake manifold and added a total of 15' of 3" intercooler piping along with the volume of the intercooler itself and there was absolutely zero noticeable difference to spool. Now was there a difference, I'm sure there was. Was it noticeable to the driver, not at all. On the other hand, using less than optimal headers resulted in a very "unfun" car on the street.

Uh, ok. It has GREAT exhaust flow but against a similarly powered car it gets 5 cars put on it before it spools. Short but large diameter primaries..... It works for power and for spool. If the owner were here maybe he could explain it in more depth. Maybe he has traction issues already or something of that nature.
Yes, he has lag all the way to redline (If the owner of this car would like to correct me, maybe the lag is programmed in, please let me know). I would rather have that huge torque spike down low and while it may fall off (from that low end spike) toward redline it won't be any lower than it is with the lag until redline.
So why not lower the compression ratio to get rid of the long header to gain quicker spool and more power on a given octane. It sounds like a win-win to me unless you consider that 15hp naturally aspirated loss a downside.

For starters the Mazda is direct injected so let's not attempt to directly compare compression ratios or boost levels for a given octane to port injected engines. I understand what you're saying about reducing exhaust reversion, I ran into that when I went with a larger engine, "big" heads, and a big cam but with a tiny turbo while saving up for the "real" turbo. I never run over 8.5:1 CR and I could always run 15psi on pure 91octane when stock. With this tiny turbo and higher exhaust flow I was experiencing knock at as low as 9psi. This was before I figured out how to reduce exhaust backpressure to near zero.

However, this should be taken care of in the cam specs and in the turbo's AR ratio, not by making this super long header. Optimize the cam specs or lower the CR, shorten the header, make gains in every department.
Going out the window? Everything people are learning to run more boost at higher compression ratios can be applied to lower CR and the benefit is even greater.

Most of the high boost, high CR are direct injection. Sure, you can run 12:1 compression on a turbo car but you're missing out on a boat load of power unless it's a race gas or methanol or E85 only car. Any of those cars running decent boost on higher compression ratios can run even more boost on lower compression. Just a single point lower compression will results in 4-6psi more boost before pinging depending on the engine. I don't know why anyone would not go lower compression. So you lose 25 naturally aspirated hp but you get it back when the turbo spools a couple hundred rpm sooner with the lower compression and you make a ton more power for a given octane.

Let's not forget the low CR turbo cars are much more forgiving and easier to tune. They're gentler on parts when things go wrong and I can't think of a single drawback unless you're in a boost pressure or turbo size limited class.

Here's the big one.... Why do you think manufacturers are going to these super high compression ratios? In turbo form it most definitely isn't for the power because on the pump gas they're limited to they can make more power with a lower compression ratio and higher boost. It's for fuel economy first and foremost.

Power.... You gain only about 2% more power for each point the CR is raised. That's 5hp for a 12:1 bump on a stock TL. Is it really worth the detonation worries that are amplified when turbocharged? Don't get so caught up on what new car manufacturers are doing with high CRs because they have a different set of goals than someone trying to make 700hp. Are you trying to see how good of mpg you can get while racing a 700hp car?

About your comment on how he "might" outspool "my butt"? Give me a break. I run anti lag whenever I'm on slicks which is 99% of the time. It's my own design, I don't believe in shortening the life of the turbo by using the "pop bang" method on my street car plus as fun as it was for the month or so I used it, I got a ticket and scared the crap out of people since I have dual exhaust pointing toward the sides of the car. The people next to me weren't thrilled when I was doing testing but it was pretty funny. Plus I came up with a system that gives full boost at part throttle sitting at a stand still using existing components (it's all in the management but with an unconventional twist) that's easy(er) on the turbo. This is one of the few things I won't share here. The other.... and pay attention.... is a method I figured out about 10 years ago that reduces exhaust backpressure pre-turbo to as low as 2-3psi once fully spooled. Backpressure is only enough to keep the turbo at fulll boost. This is one way I get around the exhaust reversion you talk so highly about as if it's an in conquerable obstacle. The 1,200+hp car, yes, it uses the pop bang method but it makes so much power even off boost that traction on the street is a bigger problem than lag and although I do a lot of the work and R&D on it, my father owns it and is more traditional. My street car is purely limited by the stock bottom end otherwise the top end has another 200hp or so in it but it's more fun to tell people I've beaten it's on the stock bottom end. I've worked on spool for the past 15 years because I'm not going to lose a race to a less powerful car due to turbo lag and most races are won off of the starting line.

Last.... Tell me why you would go with a high compression port injected turbo engine over a low compression port injected turbo engine. I have to hear this.

bouncer07

I hope flexer isn't gaining knowledge through reading it on the internet.

flexer

Mainly. One day I will figure this stuff out.

flexer

IHC,

I don't troll and look to respond to your posts, but I do find that your one of the hand-full of other guys that posts actual information. It just sometimes happens to be information that I don't agree with. Thats ok right, that we dis-agree, or I dont get it.............bouncer07 I don't think likes that we dis-agree. From his post above he looks pretty offended.

I'll start with your first response. You say " no shit length and diameter effect spool"? Really. With that response I would have expected you to know why the car was so laggy. Why ask the question if you already knew the answer? Was the question rhetorical?

On my turbo S2k I was able to eliminate 8' of 2.75" of intercooler piping and resulted in a 250 rpm spool difference from the data logs. Sorry I'm an engineer. I don't go with "it felt the same", but support all my conclusions with data. By the way if your curious, the car actually did feel the same but the data said something else. Also he stated he has a duel pass intercooler. Do duel pass intercoolers have more pressure drop than a standard air to air intercooler that is just single pass? bouncer07, do a quick google search for us and learn from the internet cause I have never done any actual pressure testing on one.

Also your response that the mazda sky is direct injection so we should just throw all that out. Huh? I'm confused? In an interview with the head mazda engineer on the sky active team he was asked "Why the US version is only getting 14:1 while the euro version is getting 15:1", and he said because the us version had to have its exhaust manifold shortened considerably to pass US crash safety standards". So because the motor is direct injected I should throw this out as a reason to why Tony the Tiger made the exhaust manifold so long therefor making a laggy set-up on a 12.5:1 pump gas build?

Also on a turbo NSX I tuned we went to 10.5:1 compression and picked up spool. Now now now, before you go nuts on me, let me say that this goes down in my book as poo poo data, because at the same time I adjusted the cam gears for a few more degrees of overlap which is the real reason I thought the boost response was way better. But I will say we should have lost power down low by dialing in that overlap but we didn't. I think that is because we kept the compression up.

You really get to do great things when you have variable cam timing that you can do on like.....Evo X's. where I have some data logs showing we increased spool on the same turbo same motor by almost 400 rpm just in cam timing, but were able to still make big numbers up top by adjusting the cams on the fly.

So when we have this technology to adjust our dynamic compression on the fly do we still shy away from this and run low static compression numbers like old school? I mean the first porsche turbo was 7.5:1 compression and now its 10.5:1. OH HEY BOUNCER07, those dumb porsche engineers.

And look I get it. You could respond with : "flexer they did it for better emissions". Fine, but there are other reasons too.

I'm trying to have a discussion, lets not get butt hurt. IHC your the man. I love reading your posts so relax. Bouncer07, can we be friends?

bouncer07

Flexer, your guns are just as big as everyone here on the forums. We're all enthusiasts and we all share one common goal. My question was retorical and nothing offensive .

Im just trying to stay in topic with only the Acura V6 and it's turbo set up.

Also Europe and Japan uses high grade gasoline so that the compression will differ from our compression, which will be lower.

Most of my works were done on Mitsubishi engines back in the days with iron cast blocks. Now I'm just started on working on Honda engines and their good set ups. being that a good engine being balanced can withstand high rpm range like the S2k and the SI/RSX S. So with a turbo, these engines produce good power. As for the 6 cylinder segment, Porche, BMW, Toyota, etc has inline 6 that perfectly balanced engine that adding a turbo will result in good power.

A V configuration engine is, by design, a much smaller all-round engine. Because if its reduced length, it can easily be made to fit for FWD configurations, and because the stroke is at an angle, it can be made longer for increased torque without increasing the height of the engine above it's inline counterpart. With the same bore, but increased stroke, this means that larger displacement becomes practical, more torque means basically more power. (It should be noted, however, that few 6 cyl engines are larger than 4 litres in the automotive market. Diesel trucks don't count ) The V configuration lends itslef very well to twin turbocharging, although single turbos are still fairly common. V configuration engines lend themselves very well to belt-driven superchargers, and dual exhausts. They are also easier to keep intake pathes the same length from the throttle body, which makes intake design much simpler.

bouncer07

Depending on the maximum efficiency on the engine and what it likes. If a dual pass intercooler is efficiency to a standard air to air, then being cooler means more power. It all comes down to set ups and their budget. The size and fins all comes to what one intercooler pressure testing. Not all intercooler designs are made equal. When it comes to cooling, air to water intercooler is the best.

MyKL

Tony_the_Tiger,
Thank you for your work and information.
Pauter Rods - that is what I search for my next setup.

What do you think, is it possible to use j35a8 BLOCK CYLINDER and j32 HEAD?
And which rods, pistons have I use in that case?

I hate cars

One thing not mentioned is an intercooler must give a pressure drop since it cools the air. Boost will stay the same on a turbo car because the wastegate signal is taken at the intake manifold. The turbo will make more boost automatically pre intercooler to break even at the intake manifold.

Throw an intercooler on a roots or screw type supercharger and boost at the intake manifold will drop though power will not. The supercharger can't adjust because it will always deliver the same amount of air per revolution (engine or supercharger). A smaller supercharger pulley or larger crank pulley is the only way to make up the difference. From what I remember a very long time ago, the one guy I've ever seen intercool a supercharged TL used a HBP to bring boost up to where it was before.

When you compare the boost level you're able to run on a given octane between an undersized supercharger which probably approach 250F under full boost to a turbo you can see why the turbo setup can run more boost. At nearly 30psi boost my post intercooler temp charge air is around 120F on an 80F day. After the meth hits it pegs the other charge air gauge at 60F. I don't know how low it actually goes. I'm running 60lb injectors that are maxed out before full throttle so a lot of my fueling comes from straight meth. But it's still amazing that I can end up with below ambient charge temps at near 30psi which is a far cry from the supercharger at 5psi.

With that said there was some turbo pioneering going on in the 70s by Smokey I believe using super heated charge air to reduce detonation which goes against everything I said above but I've never seen it in production.

Also, if anyone wants to see something neat in regards to early turbocharging google Bill Standridge. I worked there for a while when I was much younger. He had a dragster that used two of the biggest turbos of the day hanging over each rear tire. The tech inspector said he had no idea what this thing is and it better be safe. It was a little 355 methanol engine, non intercooled and it still would ice down the intake during a run. The chassis could never handle the power and it never made a full pass. But that little engine on just methanol, no nitro came very, very close to making a 5 second pass back in the '80s. It would wrap up the tires and tripped the beams with the rear tires a couple times. I got to work with it years later when it went into a boat with some more modern turbos. It used a Merlin block that it cracked from the cam to the crank a couple times. I thought it was a neat setup that was way ahead of its time.

Standridge worked with Buddy Ingersoll on and off on the first and only V6 in Pro Stock. Between seasons other racers complained as the article says but it was Ford that really complained and got the car banned because word got out that they had pulled another 10-12mph out of it which would have made it untouchable. This was a mechanically fuel injected car so you had to change out jets for tuning, no laptops.

I was only 10yrs old when these guys were doing their thing but I had a huge fascination with turbocharging and the Buick V6 in particular. When I was old enough I got lucky enough to work for one of those guys. If you watch the video, the attitude of turbocharging was the same in the mid 90s when myself and my father began terrorizing the supercharged big blocks and just about every '60s legend there's ever been. It could never be that fun again if only because people were so ignorant about turbocharging small engines in the '90s.


http://www.gnttype.org/misc/ingersoll.html

ninjai

WOW very nice Tony the Tiger.. SOOOOO anyone know any performance shops here in Houston that would be able to do a project like that for me? lol

Hi speed

iTrader: (3)

If you buy a turbo kit from Excelerate, one of our parts vendors, most performance shops should be able to install it for you.

ninjai

ok thanks.. ill look into that. which leads to another question.. where r the performance shops that do quality work in houston?

bouncer07

I'd get involve in your region and make friends because they will most likely point you to that direction.

Hardparkin04TL

Damn that's sick

Cyanid3

Rare to have any car pushing those kinda numbers, let alone a TL. Man would I love to drive that thing for a day or two haha

Tony_the_Tiger

Spool, is defined by steady state, or by response time... In fact, spool is just a general saying for those referring to how soon the power comes in.

The way I Hate Cars speaks of, is by steady state.. He's a drag racer and only understands drag racing when the car needs lead time to build boost off the line. His type of cars, are great at the drag strip. The converter must flash, and hit stall, or he won't hit boost. That lag on his car is from his transmission, so he never has to worry about true turbo lag on a manual transmission car or a dual clutch car (like an R35 GTR).

Due to this nature, his automatic transmission can never respond instantaneously like a dual clutch car or a manual transmission car at the moment of hit. When he floors his pedal, he always has to wait for about half a sec or so before the car can generate enough baseline torque to flash the converter, then hit the intended RPM's, and then spool up the turbo, and then accelerate.

Higher compression ratio does not improve spool time... The nature of increasing combustion efficiency means there is more horsepower per given lbs/min of airflow, but lesser lbs/min of exhaust flow in return. If I Hate Cars understands this phenomenon, he should have actually said that higher compression ratio puts out less exhaust energy and you make boost later in terms of turbo dynamics.

The key is response... There is no exhaust gas driven turbo on this planet that can outspool the engine in terms of power delivery. The engine must first make its initial torque before the turbo can spool. The engine cannot breathe and make its natural responsive torque if the turbo is not spinning and choking the motor.

By increasing compression ratio, along with long exhaust runners and a pocket chamber between the manifold and the turbo, it gives room for the engine to naturally breathe so it can make its initial hit of power. The huge reduction of exhaust energy, also gives the same space inside the exhaust manifolds a higher ability to make more HP with the same bulk volume of exhaust gases being generated. If I had went with a typical 9.0:1 CR, the only way I can get that type of power off the line is to find a 700+ WHP capable turbo and have it spool up under 2000RPM with a 3.5L. Not happening.

It is the same concept as the new Borg Warner EFR turbos with their mixed flow turbine wheels (MFT), where it "bleeds" off lots of exhaust flow past the turbo at low turbine speeds, so a highly strung engine with huge overlap and high VE can behave responsively without being choked at its initial low RPM range. The engine will literally drive like an all-out N/A engine, no interuption of power and fully linear with throttle movement.

If you hang this TL at 5800-6000RPM at a rolling speed, the car will instantly leap and reach very close to the target power you see on the dyno at the moment you hammer the throttle. This is spool response based by time, which is very important for other forms of racing. Road racing, time attack as well as rally racing, needs this type of instaneous spool at higher engine RPM's. Closer gear spacing or more gears will compensate for late engine-RPM spool time. It is even better for a street car on a rolling race without the need to brake-boost.

What I Hate Cars speak of, is engine-RPM vs boost pressure with no regards to recovery time or response. He just needs to get spool as early as possible, so he can run a tighter automatic transmission, and won't have to rape the transbrake or go nuts on the pre-spool off the line to get it off the line There is no right or wrong, just a build for different purposes.

If the purpose of this build is too confusing, then I will make it straight forward. This car will scoot off the line and pull on a Porsche GT3RS right off the line from a 5 mph roll right at the hit, in your typical local street/downtown driving scenario. That was already done, on 225 tires. It already took a C63 AMG and an SLS AMG off the line too in the same fashion.

There is no other forms of way it can be done, except for making the engine achieve an N/A like down low response, and then have the turbo to fill it up once it gets to speed. It is the ONLY way to achieve N/A-like response off the line, but supercar power levels on the highway out of a 3.5L engine.

Sure I can swap in a Gallardo LP-560 V10 to get the same thing with 10-cylinders, which makes about the same torque right off the line as this Acura TL and with 560 HP... Bah, I like the TL's better, how's that

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

bouncer07

Kit in the works.

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

I hate cars

Whoa there. Most of what you said is based off of assumptions or you didn't understand what I said. I love how people think drag racers are the dumb rednecks that only think of going fast in a straight line and have no knowledge of transient response and overall street manners. You also have a gross misunderstanding of how the auto and boost work together. I assure you I'm at the full 620 lbs of torque the instant my foot comes off the brake at the track and I have power everywhere on the tach. This deserves more attention, more to come when I get home to my computer.

Also, I like how your TL can defy the laws of physics and out launch a rear engine Porsche or a C63 AMG on 225 tires. My stock TL will spin my 255 tires a little yet still get beat off the line by just about anyone with a heartbeat. Unless you're running drag radials the other drivers were sleeping or you jumped them before they knew they were in a race.

Don't tell me what I do and I don't know. I've worked with a road race team running a Mustang with a little carbureted 347 and a turbo where the back seat used to be with an intercooler between the tail lights and still got that monster to spool well and predictable which is kind of important in that sort of racing. Don't judge me and assume I only know drag racing because my daily driver was designed to go fast in a straight line. I've built a lot more than my mild mannered stock appearing stock bottom, and stock sounding daily.

I hate cars

Wrong on every count. I've done plenty of road racing events. My previous daily driver is a drag car because making lots of power in a straight line is fun for the drive to work whereas you can't safely exploit the handling limits on the daily drive to work.

There are converters made just for turbo cars. As luck would have it I just happen to own one. The converter doesn't flash in the traditional way. It's very loose right up to it's stall speed meaning I don't have to build boost to hit stall speed of "flash" the converter.

Even with a traditional 2,800rpm stall converter I could hit 15+psi in a second or two sitting at a dead stop. I'm not sure what this nonsense is about not hitting boost if the converter doesn't flash. If we're talking drag racing from a dead stop, on tire, I have zero lag, the car is at full boost when I let off the brake.
Are you kidding me? I have the drivetrain loaded up with 620lbs of torque AT A DEAD STOP. It's as instant as instant can be. Release the brake and you better have your head against the head rest.

An auto doesn't shift gears, you have uninterrupted power flow which also means you don't have to worry about turbo responsiveness but luckily it's extremely responsive.

From a roll the converter makes sure the engine is always in it's powerband regardless of gear. It provides the load the turbo needs to spool well as well as making sure rpms are never below 2,800rpm regardless of which gear it's in. It makes for a very nice power delivery. I don't understand how you can talk about my spool time when my car and GNs in particular are known for ultra quick spool times and fat powerbands whereas your videos show some of the worst lag I've ever seen. Boost is literally still building up to redline. You make some good peak hp numbers but what a shitty street car with a powerband like that. Those that have been in my car liken it more to a jet. It's a constant pull that once the turbo comes on line is steady until you lift off the pedal. It's always in it's power band and there's no lag once you floor it.
I fully understand, if you read my previous posts you would know that. I'm the one that said higher compression does not increase spool. In fact, it can hurt spool. I spoke of exhaust enthalpy if you go back and read.
Okaaaay. So the car is sometimes driven off boost, got it.
It's initial hit? Of what, 300hp? Who cares if it makes 300 or 320hp NA. Get the boost in as quickly as possible so it can make real power. A 2 point bump in compression is literally worth about 20hp. I would take the quicker spool and lower octane requirements any day over 20hp naturally aspirated hp. It's going to take about .5 seconds for the turbo to run over that 20 additional hp you might get from higher compression.

The huge reduction of exhaust energy, also gives the same space inside the exhaust manifolds a higher ability to make more HP with the same bulk volume of exhaust gases being generated. If I had went with a typical 9.0:1 CR, the only way I can get that type of power off the line is to find a 700+ WHP capable turbo and have it spool up under 2000RPM with a 3.5L. Not happening.[/QUOTE]

Wait, did you just say you're purposely reducing exhaust enthalpy in order to delay boost and make more naturally aspirated hp? You don't want "space" inside of the pre turbo exhaust. What can I say, if that's the way you do things, good for you, but some of us don't like turbo lag.

You're not getting off that easy with your numbers either. You're saying you would need a turbo to spool under 2,000rpm? You're saying that additional 1 point in compression is worth several lbs of boost? You might fool some of the guys that have never built a turbo car but don't insult me.

Manufacturers have gone with higher compression turbo cars these days for mpg. The mpg increase from higher compression is where the real benefit lies which probably doesn't apply to those with turbo TLs.
In other words, turbo lag.
So you sit there at 6,000rpm to get any respectable spool, floor it, and then shift gears. Sounds like a great setup. It still won't match a car that's powerbraking and sitting on boost.

So you think my "drag racing" setup that hits full boost at 2,800rpm will not spool instantly from a 6,000rpm hit? There's almost no perceivable lag from 3,000rpm. If I go from a roll and I'm worried about spool I'll powerbrake it and build boost at a steady state speed but that's rarely the case because traction is the bigger problem, not spool.
What exactly is a "tighter automatic transmission"?

I have no regard to recovery time or response? Look at your own video, spool is horrendous. It spools right before you have to shift. Mine spools well from a dead stop and is near instant from a roll and it IS instant if I powerbrake. Who are you to talk about what I know or don't know when you haven't gotten your own car figured out?

What's wrong with "prespool"?
No you didn't. I've raced the AWD 911s and the RWD 911s and they get off the line like many cars do on slicks. Maybe you hit the gas before they knew you were racing. Regardless, you were not lined up in a set up race with a starter or a red light to start you where both parties knew they were racing. I don't care if your TL makes 5,000hp you didn't beat a 911 off the line in your FWD TL on 225 tires.

I've driven plenty of the modded CL65 AMGs and the only way you beat one off the line is if the driver got carried away and the traction control which can be too aggressive kicked in.
Actually, there are ways it can be done where you can have your cake and eat it too.
No you don't. I love my TL as much as anyone but I would take a Gallardo over a TL any day of the week.

The bottom line is I was asking why it has the turbo lag it has. If you had not assumed you know me and you know how my car behaves and you know my knowledge level and goals we would be having a nice conversation. I noticed it basically lags all the way to redline. You've done a great job of explaining why. It makes great power and for that you did a great job.

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

damn, Matt....you scared the OP away LOL....

I bumped the thread hoping for updates

I hate cars

Yeah, I probably came on too strong and for that I apologize. We could use a resource like Tony and I hope he sticks around, honestly.

I totally see his way of thinking. My way of thinking is the exact opposite and both will work in different situations. The part that rubbed me the wrong way was saying I don't care about certain things and basically assuming a lot about me. I know a lot gets lost in the written word over the internet so I may have totally overreacted. Plus I usually don't like to talk about someone's setup unless my car is ready to back me up and my car is officially down awaiting the Indy setup which will take at least a year to complete.

I hope you get the updates you're looking for.