[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by E90Company

What are you saying now dude, really? You think 25psi on GTX twins is going to produce unsafe EGT's? That's just stupid to be quite honest, and shows how little you know about any of this stuff. Those turbos can easily flow 30+ psi before EGT's are even a concern, especially on the bigger turbo options. Stop kidding yourself.

Vargas is unproven? They are in their tuning phase, of course. And you know what? They completely destroyed any pump gas N54 record with piss 91 their first time on the dyno. They are barely even tuned properly yet. Funny how an "unproven" turbo setup in its prototype stage can destroy that record, given the tuning time it had.

Nobody is saying what kit is better. Stop starting stuff. You annoy so many people with your little comments, it's not even funny anymore. Vargas is a hardware business, not a tuning business. We are waiting to see what happens, and so far it's looking good for Vargas. Considering all 3 major tunes can tune Stage 3 kits, we will see who can tune the best.

I think it is you who doesn't understand what was said. Take a breather and try to understand the relationship between effective compression ratio, octane, ignition advance and thermal efficiency. When you do, things will make more sense. There is a reason why experienced tuners don't run high boost on low octane fuel. It is not because they can't, it is because you are trading a whole lot of thermal efficiency for a little extra power. The "lost" power has to go somewhere. It does into the exhaust and cooling system in the form of heat. Ok for dyno. Not ok for actual driving/hard use.

Shiv

[E90Company]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I think it is you who doesn't understand what was said. Take a breather and try to understand the relationship between effective compression ratio, octane, ignition advance and thermal efficiency. When you do, things will make more sense. There is a reason why experienced tuners don't run high boost on low octane fuel. It is not because they can't, it is because you are trading a whole lot of thermal efficiency for a little extra power. The "lost" power has to go somewhere. It does into the exhaust and cooling system in the form of heat. Ok for dyno. Not ok for actual driving/hard use.

Shiv

With all due respect Shiv, I'm not comprehending the point you are trying to make. I was addressing Laguna's biased response. The way Vargas's kit was tuned on that dyno run is in a very preliminary stage of tuning. It's not permanent, and is far from being finalized.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by E90Company

With all due respect Shiv, I'm not comprehending the point you are trying to make. I was addressing Laguna's biased response.

What Laguna said wasn't biased and was perfectly true. Running 25psi of boost on 91oct requires very low ignition advance. Which will result in very high EGTs. This is fact.

Running 25psi of boost on a single 62mm or twin GTXs should make ~675whp on a well tuned engine. If you are making 100whp less at the same boost pressure, where do you think that all that extra combustion energy is going? It's not pushing the crown of the piston downwards (into kinetic energy). Instead, it escapes in the form of heat that is then passed into the cooling system and into the exhaust. And 100whp worth of heat A LOT. Engines don't like this. This is why experienced tuners carefully find the balancing point between thermal efficiency and power given a fixed octane restraint.

[Continue5]

Originally Posted by E90Company

With all due respect Shiv, I'm not comprehending the point you are trying to make. I was addressing Laguna's biased response. The way Vargas's kit was tuned on that dyno run is in a very preliminary stage of tuning. It's not permanent, and is far from being finalized.

So if they do follow Shiv's ideology, less boost more ignition advance, wouldn't they lose power? At least on 91oct? I'm not sure what the purpose of the record breaking numbers mean if it has to be de-tuned to be tuned right for street use.

[E90Company]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

What Laguna said wasn't biased and was perfectly true. Running 25psi of boost on 91oct requires very low ignition advance. Which will result in very high EGTs. This is fact.

Running 25psi of boost on a single 62mm or twin GTXs should make ~675whp on a well tuned engine. If you are making 100whp less at the same boost pressure, where do you think that all that extra combustion energy is going? It's not pushing the crown of the piston downwards (into kinetic energy). Instead, it escapes in the form of heat that is then passed into the cooling system and into the exhaust. And 100whp worth of heat A LOT. Engines don't like this. This is why experienced tuners carefully find the balancing point between thermal efficiency and power given a fixed octane restraint.

There was more to my post you quoted. They weren't on a finalized tune, they were only a week into preliminary tuning and broke the record for 91 pump gas on a just-for-fun dyno run. Once we see some finalized tuning and higher octane, i'm pretty confident the numbers will be greater than the single kits have currently put out.

We don't have any EGT data, so to say EGT's are at a dangerous level is fiction. Of course more boost=more heat, but that's not what was originally said.

[AK 335i]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Running 25psi of boost on a single 62mm or twin GTXs should make ~675whp on a well tuned engine. .

what do you think ill do with a good tune and just 15psi on the 6466.. ?

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by E90Company

There was more to my post you quoted. They weren't on a finalized tune, they were only a week into preliminary tuning and broke the record for 91 pump gas.

I'd say they also broke the record for high EGT. And if that car was run hard for any extended period of time, it would also likely break the record for shortest distanced traveled before turbo/engine failure. Unless I'm mistaken, the tuner also broke the record for how many turbos his personal car has gone through. Think about it.

Shiv

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Just playing devils advocate, how do you know it was 91 octane? haha

Without any EGT temps that is also hearsay if it's within reason or not as well.

Lot's of assumptions as usual. I can play both sides of the fence here but that's not my point. Looking in from the outside there are plenty of biases and I feel there are also plenty of assumptions and misconceptions and misunderstandings too.

Instead of people arguing , throw up data... or wait till you have it on your own car's to comment. My .02

I've never seen a community so insistent on destroying each other... you guys should help each other.

Attacking either vendor's turbo kits, taking it personal, or bashing the competition will never make this community better if you guys keep pushing hard working vendors out.... think about it.

It's no wonder very popular companies came into the community and left. IT's the responses and bickering like these threads that will push away the companies trying to make your car's faster.

You guys are on the same team... if you want options for your cars stop the BS, positive constructive criticism is all that is needed.

[E90Company]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I'd say they also broke the record for high EGT. And if that car was run hard for any extended period of time, it would also likely break the record for shortest distanced traveled before turbo/engine failure. Unless I'm mistaken, the tuner also broke the record for how many turbos his personal car has gone through. Think about it.

Shiv

I understand where you are coming from Shiv. Again there was more to my post than you quoted. It's hard to claim that they had the highest EGT's on that run because we have no hard data, just speculation.

Stock frame turbos will see much higher EGT's at higher boost than these twin GTX's however and you know this, no matter how it's tuned. The tuner that tuned the Stage 3 kit on that dyno run has gone through stock frame turbos correct?

[E90Company]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

Just playing devils advocate, how do you know it was 91 octane? haha

Without any EGT temps that is also hearsay if it's within reason or not as well.

Lot's of assumptions as usual. I can play both sides of the fencec here but that's not my point. Looking from the outside looking in there are plenty of biases and I feel there are also plenty of assumptions and misconceptions and misunderstandings too.

Instead of people aruging, throw up data... or wait till you have it on your own car's to comment. My .02

My point exactly. I don't like to speculate what the EGT's were on that dyno run as Laguna stated in his original post. To say EGT's were through the roof with no data to back it up is quite juvenile and misleading in my opinion.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by E90Company

Once we see some finalized tuning and higher octane, i'm pretty confident the numbers will be greater than the single kits have currently put out.

We don't have any EGT data, so to say EGT's are at a dangerous level is fiction. Of course more boost=more heat, but that's not what was originally said.

Not understanding much in the way of engine tuning/theory does help when it comes to being confident about engine tuning. Please re-read my previous post with regards to the relationship between thermal efficiency and EGT. In layman's terns: If an engine is running high boost and making relatively low power, it isn't running efficiently. Which means that it's generating a lot of heat. This is fact. I cannot change that.

[E90Company]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Not understanding much in the way of engine tuning/theory does help when it comes to being confident about engine tuning. Please re-read my previous post with regards to the relationship between thermal efficiency and EGT. In layman's terns: If an engine is running high boost and making relatively low power, it isn't running efficiently. Which means that it's generating a lot of heat. This is fact. I cannot change that.

Shiv, I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make. This information is common knowledge. My point is that speculating "EGT's being through the roof" is fiction without any hard data to back up his claim. We have no such data to make such a claim.

Another fact is that stock-frame turbos at higher boost generate much higher EGT's than the turbos Vargas is using in the Stage 3 dyno run at the boost that was ran, hence further making Laguna's claim pretty misleading.

Again, they are in just the beginning of the tuning phase, and things WILL change at a rapid pace.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by E90Company

My point exactly. I don't like to speculate what the EGT's were on that dyno run as Laguna stated in his original post. To say EGT's were through the roof with no data to back it up is quite juvenile and misleading in my opinion.

Yes but with all due respect, if you had tuning under your belt you could understand how Shiv came up with that conclusion. True or not is fine as their is no data, but any respected tuner from any platform can go over the theories Shiv mentioned and may find that he might be quite right, maybe.

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

I would much rather see nobody vouching anyone's turbo kit unti they have it on their car. That would be the most unbiased data and opinions one could have.

[E90Company]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

Yes but with all due respect, if you had tuning under your belt you could understand how Shiv came up with that conclusion. True or not is fine as their is no data, but any respected tuner from any platform can go over the theories Shiv mentioned and may find that he might be quite right, maybe.

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

I would much rather see nobody vouching anyone's turbo kit unti they have it on their car. That would be the most unbiased data and opinions one could have.

Laguna was the one that originally came up with the conclusion about EGT's being through the roof, not Shiv.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by E90Company

I understand where you are coming from Shiv. Again there was more to my post than you quoted. It's hard to claim that they had the highest EGT's on that run because we have no hard data, just speculation.

Stock frame turbos will see much higher EGT's at higher boost than these twin GTX's however and you know this, no matter how it's tuned. The tuner that tuned the Stage 3 kit on that dyno run has gone through stock frame turbos correct?

It's likely that the tuner that went through all those stock frame turbos did it because he doesn't/hasn't quite understand/understood the relationship between thermal efficiency and EGT. This has nothing to do with having stock or larger frame turbos (although larger frame turbos do have the benefit from seeing lower exhaust back-pressure levels all other things equal.) It's about knowing the medium-to-long term consequences/trade-offs of different tuning approaches. Some "work" on the dyno when subjected to 12 seconds of load at a time while still failing miserably during extended real world testing.

And let's be honest, no one is going to post EGT values at this stage of the game. But I will bent you pink slips that making 675whp (91oct+methanol, suitable ignition advance, 24-25psi of boost) generates MUCH lower EGTs than making just 575whp by running the same boost, on 91oct only, with insufficient ignition advance. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce this. All one needs is a very basic, but sound, understanding of engine theory.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by E90Company

Laguna was the one that originally came up with the conclusion about EGT's being through the roof, not Shiv.

Ok Laguna, Shiv Confirmed it.

Really the argument is moot. People will still bias against and for Shiv. Same goes for VTT.

If I was any customer genuinely interested in upgraded turbo kits, I would sit tight and see how the cards unfold. <---- That's all I'm saying.

[E90Company]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

It's likely that the tuner that went through all those stock frame turbos did it because he doesn't/hasn't quite understand the relationship between thermal efficiency and EGT. This has nothing to do with having stock or larger frame turbos. It's about knowing the medium-to-long term consequences of different tuning approaches. Some work on the dyno when subjected to 12 seconds of load at a time while failing miserably during extended real world testing.

And let's be honest, no one is going to post EGT values at this stage of the game. But I will bent you pink slips that making 675whp (91oct+methanol, suitable ignition advance, 24-25psi of boost) generates MUCH lower EGTs than making just 575whp by running the same boost, on 91oct only, with insufficient ignition advance. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce this. All you need is a very basic, but sound, understanding of engine theory.

To claim EGT's are through the roof as Laguna did in his original post is a very misleading and unfounded statement with no data to back it up. This is the point I am adressing, not the knowledge the tuner of the stage 3 kit has. I'm not sure why that is being brought into the equation here.

Again, you keep telling me about basic engine theory. This has nothing to do with what was originally said by Laguna, nor the point I am trying to make. I'm not understanding why you keep deviating from that. Of course EGT's are higher the more boost you run, but 25psi on the GTX's the stage 3 kit was using on that dyno run, EGT's shouldn't really be a concern at that boost level. I'm not the person to talk for the way that kit is/was being tuned, but during that run the turbos are way within their efficiency ranges.

I've made my point. I'm out of this thread.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by E90Company

To claim EGT's are through the roof as Laguna did in his original post is a very misleading and unfounded statement with no data to back it up. This is the point I am adressing, not the knowledge the tuner of the stage 3 kit has. I'm not sure why that is being brought into the equation here.

Again, you keep telling me about basic engine theory. This has nothing to do with what was originally said by Laguna, nor the point I am trying to make. I'm not understanding why you keep deviating from that. Of course EGT's are higher the more boost you run, but 25psi on the GTX's the stage 3 kit was using on that dyno run, EGT's shouldn't really be a concern at that boost level. I'm not the person to talk for the way that kit is/was being tuned, but during that run the turbos are way within their efficiency ranges.

I've made my point. I'm out of this thread.

No, your comment in bold is absolutely incorrect. And the rest of your post still shows that you are more interested in arguing than learning. So this has clearly become a waste of time for both of us. But for very different reasons.

[psmitty95]

Originally Posted by Envuks

Envuks wuz here.


This sounds like the kind of BBQ that takes place in Compton and ends with shots fired...

[M5Rlz]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Running 25psi of boost on 91oct requires very low ignition advance. Which will result in very high EGTs. This is fact.

I'm no expert, but I don't think they'd only ever run it on 91oct.. And if that isn't the case how would it then change in states where you can get easy access to 93+ e85?

[4doorbmwpower]

thanks for POLITELY chimming in shiv! always so much smack to be talked lol we just wanna see a race between two of our favorite tunners

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

During in-house testing, we have made well over 500whp on a mustang dyno with our single turbo cars on 91oct (no methanol). That's nearly 600whp on a Dynojet. The problem with running that much boost (24+psi) with such little ignition advance (2-6deg) is that exhaust gas temps get too hot for sustained racing conditions. Dyno glory runs are fine but we don't live on a dyno. These are some of the things you learn during the long term testing process because customers will put their car through things which are much more stressful than anything you can replicate on the dyno when trying to make glory numbers (hot lapping for instance). But if you are just after numbers to claim some sort of pump gas record, that's fine. But any experience tuner knows that you are just tuning poorly to impressed the uninformed masses. There is a reason why some beginner tuners go through turbos like rolls of toiler paper while others, with more experience (esp in motorsport) don't.

That said, we are always down for some friendly competition. But let's give the other team so more time to go through the testing/tuning phase. Because a lot will be learned in the process. And it will benefit everyone.



Really? Why? Not trying to be argumentative because everyone is entitled to his opinion. But would like to hear your reasoning.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

I'm no expert, but I don't think they'd only ever run it on 91oct.. And if that isn't the case how would it then change in states where you can get easy access to 93+ e85?

According to the tuner, they ran 24-25psi on 91oct for that disclosed dyno run. From my experience, EGTs get uncomfortably hot when tuning for more than 20-21psi (on suitably sized turbos) on 91oct. On 93, maybe 21-22psi. Running sufficient ignition advance at 24-25psi requires something along the lines of race gas (98 MON and up). Again, you can run higher boost on lower octane but things get ugly in the real world in such scenarios.