Close

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 80
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    52
    Rep Points
    55.6
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ovitrix Click here to enlarge
    Gtx3576r with 1.04 is going to be much laggier than gtx3076r with .82. I just need something to get 600whp on e85 with more power band.
    600whp with a little head room is what I'm looking for. If the 3076 can get me there, great.

    what is the general consensus on internal vs. external waste gate on the smaller(3076 size) turbos?

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    3,854
    Rep Points
    2,407.7
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    25


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Depends on what boost psi you're planning to run and the skill level of tuner/builder. An IWG will be easier to setup and tune on this car. It'll prob only hold around 25psi reliably though. Anything over that and you'll need an EWG but that'll be much harder to setup and tune on this car. Overall an EWG is usually preferred.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by beakmoney Click here to enlarge
    600whp with a little head room is what I'm looking for. If the 3076 can get me there, great.

    what is the general consensus on internal vs. external waste gate on the smaller(3076 size) turbos?
    2011 335is DCT, JB4 + MHD BEF, stage 2 LPFP, e50 + 50/50 meth, FBO, MT ET Streets when needed


  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59
    Rep Points
    83.7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    I'm waiting to see what PTF brings to the table before I do anything.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,822
    Rep Points
    31,566.9
    Mentioned
    2065 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    This turned into a pretty good thread.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    moco, md
    Posts
    1,131
    Rep Points
    1,450.5
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Reputation: Yes | No
    The ptf setup is pretty interesting. awaiting the official release is the hardest part lol.
    2008 e92 335i: JB4 G5 ISO/BMS back end flash, fbo, e85, inlets, Rb turbos, level 10 valve body + converter, water/methanol.....and a lot more....

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    657
    Rep Points
    743.6
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by beakmoney Click here to enlarge
    600whp with a little head room is what I'm looking for. If the 3076 can get me there, great.

    what is the general consensus on internal vs. external waste gate on the smaller(3076 size) turbos?

    This is what im thinking also. 550whp ish on pump fuel and maybe a race tune ~600whp+ on race fuel... This would keep me plenty happy for awhile and keep the daily driving experience still fun. It would be tough to loose so much of the quick spool we are all used to on stock turbos.
    Click here to enlarge
    FBO's. Spec S2+. E85.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    52
    Rep Points
    55.6
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rdeterman Click here to enlarge
    This is what im thinking also. 550whp ish on pump fuel and maybe a race tune ~600whp+ on race fuel... This would keep me plenty happy for awhile and keep the daily driving experience still fun. It would be tough to loose so much of the quick spool we are all used to on stock turbos.
    600whp on 93 is the goal. I'm spraying meth but just to keep iat under control.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    657
    Rep Points
    743.6
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by beakmoney Click here to enlarge
    600whp on 93 is the goal. I'm spraying meth but just to keep iat under control.
    Im hoping to avoid meth but it may be unavoidable.
    Click here to enlarge
    FBO's. Spec S2+. E85.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59
    Rep Points
    83.7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by beakmoney Click here to enlarge
    600whp on 93 is the goal. I'm spraying meth but just to keep iat under control.
    Good luck getting 600whp on 93pump Click here to enlarge))

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hayward, CA
    Posts
    7,907
    Rep Points
    3,906.8
    Mentioned
    320 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ovitrix Click here to enlarge
    Good luck getting 600whp on 93pump Click here to enlarge))
    We made 573WHP over a year ago on the $#@!tiest of the $#@!ty almost better off pouring water in your tank ACN91 with basically no timing to keep things safe. Tuning has come a good ways since then and you are running 93, don't see why with the right turbo you can't see 600 on 93.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59
    Rep Points
    83.7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by VargasTurboTech Click here to enlarge
    We made 573WHP over a year ago on the $#@!tiest of the $#@!ty almost better off pouring water in your tank ACN91 with basically no timing to keep things safe. Tuning has come a good ways since then and you are running 93, don't see why with the right turbo you can't see 600 on 93.
    i would love to see 600whp on 93oct on a single turbo

  12. #62
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,930
    Rep Points
    921.6
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ovitrix Click here to enlarge
    i would love to see 600whp on 93oct on a single turbo
    Right now I don't think it will happen without meth just as a fuel supplement. It's just a matter of fuel and big enough turbo to hit that on 93, but honestly I'd rather have a quicker spooling turbo and hit it with meth.

    I'm still not sure whether or not I want to add race gas when I start tuning mine. I'm thinking start off with 93+meth and see how far that gets me then add in the race gas. That should provide some decent 93 numbers guys seem to keep asking for.
    2009 335i coupe back to stock...for now

    Click here to enlarge

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,557
    Rep Points
    2,535.1
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    26


    Reputation: Yes | No
    600 wheel on pump is not happening right now. Need more fuel and a big ole titties turbo.
    E88 N54 Alpinweiss/Coral Red/Motiv HTA 3586r Tial .82AR/Motiv Port Fuel/BMR 3.5" Exhaust/ER CP/Synapse/VRSF FMIC/Rob Beck PCV Valve + Cap/ST Coilovers/M3 FCA + Tension Rods/M3 Subframe Bushings/M3 FSB/AA Strutbrace/DINAN Camber Plates/Apex ARC-8/Project Kics/VAC Hubs/Rogue Transmission Mounts/Alpina TCU Flash/Icarbon/Kerscher/BMW Performance
    F30 335 X-Drive EBII....PPK otherwise Stock
    Click here to enlarge

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hayward, CA
    Posts
    7,907
    Rep Points
    3,906.8
    Mentioned
    320 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 135pats Click here to enlarge
    600 wheel on pump is not happening right now. Need more fuel and a big ole titties turbo.
    Im not sure how everyone is ignoring 573WHP on 91 over a year ago when big turbo tuning was just getting started, and the most conservative we had run as it was first time on the dyno. I have no doubt PTF can get 600WHP on 93 with a decent sized turbo right now, if they got 573WHP 13 months ago in their first attempt at tuning bigger turbos.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,557
    Rep Points
    2,535.1
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    26


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by VargasTurboTech Click here to enlarge
    Im not sure how everyone is ignoring 573WHP on 91 over a year ago when big turbo tuning was just getting started, and the most conservative we had run as it was first time on the dyno. I have no doubt PTF can get 600WHP on 93 with a decent sized turbo right now, if they got 573WHP 13 months ago in their first attempt at tuning bigger turbos.
    I don't doubt for a second your ability or PTF's. I'll believe it when I see it, and look forward to being proven wrong Click here to enlarge
    E88 N54 Alpinweiss/Coral Red/Motiv HTA 3586r Tial .82AR/Motiv Port Fuel/BMR 3.5" Exhaust/ER CP/Synapse/VRSF FMIC/Rob Beck PCV Valve + Cap/ST Coilovers/M3 FCA + Tension Rods/M3 Subframe Bushings/M3 FSB/AA Strutbrace/DINAN Camber Plates/Apex ARC-8/Project Kics/VAC Hubs/Rogue Transmission Mounts/Alpina TCU Flash/Icarbon/Kerscher/BMW Performance
    F30 335 X-Drive EBII....PPK otherwise Stock
    Click here to enlarge

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Points
    8,959.3
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by VargasTurboTech Click here to enlarge
    Im not sure how everyone is ignoring 573WHP on 91 over a year ago when big turbo tuning was just getting started, and the most conservative we had run as it was first time on the dyno. I have no doubt PTF can get 600WHP on 93 with a decent sized turbo right now, if they got 573WHP 13 months ago in their first attempt at tuning bigger turbos.
    No doubt the number can be hit, we did some 91 octane higher boost pulls on our E92, but the logs looked awful even with almost no advance. No way I'd operate the car on the road like that. Remember the dyno is only one small part of the story.

    Based on what I've seen so far for 93 octane I think 460whp is a reasonable limit for a 58 and 500whp for a 6466. You can push them higher but it will become less consistent.
    Burger Motorsports
    Home of the Worlds fastest N20s, N54s, N55s, N63s, S55s, and S63s!

    It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser and installer of any BMS part to employ the correct installation techniques required to ensure the proper operation of BMS parts, and BMS disclaims any and all liability for any part failure due to improper installation or use. It is the sole responsibility of the customer to verify that the use of their vehicle and items purchased comply with federal, state and local regulations. BMS claims no legal federal, state or local certification concerning pollution controlled motor vehicles or mandated emissions requirements. BMS products labeled for use only in competition racing vehicles may only be used on competition racing vehicles operated exclusively on a closed course in conjunction with a sanctioned racing event, in accordance with all federal and state laws, and may never be operated on public roads/highways. Please see http://www.burgertuning.com/emissions_info.html for more information on legal requirements related to use of BMS parts.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    657
    Rep Points
    743.6
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    No doubt the number can be hit, we did some 91 octane higher boost pulls on our E92, but the logs looked awful even with almost no advance. No way I'd operate the car on the road like that. Remember the dyno is only one small part of the story.

    Based on what I've seen so far for 93 octane I think 460whp is a reasonable limit for a 58 and 500whp for a 6466. You can push them higher but it will become less consistent.

    With more fuel (upgraded HPFP) do you think those safe numbers would go up?
    Click here to enlarge
    FBO's. Spec S2+. E85.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hayward, CA
    Posts
    7,907
    Rep Points
    3,906.8
    Mentioned
    320 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    No doubt the number can be hit, we did some 91 octane higher boost pulls on our E92, but the logs looked awful even with almost no advance. No way I'd operate the car on the road like that. Remember the dyno is only one small part of the story.

    Based on what I've seen so far for 93 octane I think 460whp is a reasonable limit for a 58 and 500whp for a 6466. You can push them higher but it will become less consistent.
    The 91 logs were perfect. D's #1 priority when tuning that kit was safety first, everything else second, including WHP numbers. Anytime he started seeing anything in a log he didn't like he backed it down until he was happy again. I will say, it seemed we were on the verge of a fueling crash at that point as HPFP was doing its normal dippy dance. This was before we modified the rail and the pump, after that we ended up with 67X no meth with some higher octane, and again logs that kept the most careful tuner I have ever worked with happy. The last thing we wanted was a hurt motor, we did at least 500 dyno pulls and another 500-1000 street pulls on that car at power levels varying from 550-725WHP, and he still daily drives the car 30 miles to work everyday without a hint of oil consumption. I have no doubt 600WHP can be had on 93 and the logs would be happy, this is just based on the experience we had tuning that first kit. I guess time will tell.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    3,854
    Rep Points
    2,407.7
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    25


    Reputation: Yes | No
    you guys are comparing single turbo numbers to twin turbo numbers though. I single turbo will have to run more boost, and create more heat thus be more prone to knocking on pump gas than a smaller set of twins will. It's really an apples to oranges comparison.
    2011 335is DCT, JB4 + MHD BEF, stage 2 LPFP, e50 + 50/50 meth, FBO, MT ET Streets when needed


  20. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59
    Rep Points
    83.7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bigdnno98 Click here to enlarge
    you guys are comparing single turbo numbers to twin turbo numbers though. I single turbo will have to run more boost, and create more heat thus be more prone to knocking on pump gas than a smaller set of twins will. It's really an apples to oranges comparison.
    +1

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59
    Rep Points
    83.7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mjmarovi Click here to enlarge
    Right now I don't think it will happen without meth just as a fuel supplement. It's just a matter of fuel and big enough turbo to hit that on 93, but honestly I'd rather have a quicker spooling turbo and hit it with meth.

    I'm still not sure whether or not I want to add race gas when I start tuning mine. I'm thinking start off with 93+meth and see how far that gets me then add in the race gas. That should provide some decent 93 numbers guys seem to keep asking for.
    I would be happy even with 480-500whp on 93, and e85 for some drag racing. A smaller turbo will be more fun on the street than a big turbo. It'll take a while for this platform to max out a 6466.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hayward, CA
    Posts
    7,907
    Rep Points
    3,906.8
    Mentioned
    320 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bigdnno98 Click here to enlarge
    you guys are comparing single turbo numbers to twin turbo numbers though. I single turbo will have to run more boost, and create more heat thus be more prone to knocking on pump gas than a smaller set of twins will. It's really an apples to oranges comparison.
    Big single, smaller twins, flow is flow. If you can move exhaust through the turbines and air through the motor more efficiently you will be able to make more power on less octane. BUT with that said, the twins will flow a little better than the single as far as getting exhaust out, so this helped for sure, you would have to go to a pretty big single to match the twins flow.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Points
    8,959.3
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by VargasTurboTech Click here to enlarge
    The 91 logs were perfect. D's #1 priority when tuning that kit was safety first, everything else second, including WHP numbers. Anytime he started seeing anything in a log he didn't like he backed it down until he was happy again. I will say, it seemed we were on the verge of a fueling crash at that point as HPFP was doing its normal dippy dance. This was before we modified the rail and the pump, after that we ended up with 67X no meth with some higher octane, and again logs that kept the most careful tuner I have ever worked with happy. The last thing we wanted was a hurt motor, we did at least 500 dyno pulls and another 500-1000 street pulls on that car at power levels varying from 550-725WHP, and he still daily drives the car 30 miles to work everyday without a hint of oil consumption. I have no doubt 600WHP can be had on 93 and the logs would be happy, this is just based on the experience we had tuning that first kit. I guess time will tell.
    No offense intended here, but I think logs speak for themselves, and when logs are not posted I think that also speaks for itself. I agree the 570rw on 91 octane number is doable, as is the 600rw on 91 octane Shiv claimed to make. I'm just saying based on the data I've seen now tuning maybe 10 single turbo cars I wouldn't run it that way myself.
    Burger Motorsports
    Home of the Worlds fastest N20s, N54s, N55s, N63s, S55s, and S63s!

    It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser and installer of any BMS part to employ the correct installation techniques required to ensure the proper operation of BMS parts, and BMS disclaims any and all liability for any part failure due to improper installation or use. It is the sole responsibility of the customer to verify that the use of their vehicle and items purchased comply with federal, state and local regulations. BMS claims no legal federal, state or local certification concerning pollution controlled motor vehicles or mandated emissions requirements. BMS products labeled for use only in competition racing vehicles may only be used on competition racing vehicles operated exclusively on a closed course in conjunction with a sanctioned racing event, in accordance with all federal and state laws, and may never be operated on public roads/highways. Please see http://www.burgertuning.com/emissions_info.html for more information on legal requirements related to use of BMS parts.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Points
    8,959.3
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rdeterman Click here to enlarge
    With more fuel (upgraded HPFP) do you think those safe numbers would go up?
    No it's not a fueling issue on pump gas. It's an effective compression ratio coupled with low octane issue. With lower CR pistons I think both numbers could go up 30-50whp. When a good fuel pump comes out allowing full E85 use then we could see huge numbers. I hope its sooner than later. Race gas is expensive. Click here to enlarge
    Burger Motorsports
    Home of the Worlds fastest N20s, N54s, N55s, N63s, S55s, and S63s!

    It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser and installer of any BMS part to employ the correct installation techniques required to ensure the proper operation of BMS parts, and BMS disclaims any and all liability for any part failure due to improper installation or use. It is the sole responsibility of the customer to verify that the use of their vehicle and items purchased comply with federal, state and local regulations. BMS claims no legal federal, state or local certification concerning pollution controlled motor vehicles or mandated emissions requirements. BMS products labeled for use only in competition racing vehicles may only be used on competition racing vehicles operated exclusively on a closed course in conjunction with a sanctioned racing event, in accordance with all federal and state laws, and may never be operated on public roads/highways. Please see http://www.burgertuning.com/emissions_info.html for more information on legal requirements related to use of BMS parts.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,006
    Rep Points
    8,959.3
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    90


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bigdnno98 Click here to enlarge
    you guys are comparing single turbo numbers to twin turbo numbers though. I single turbo will have to run more boost, and create more heat thus be more prone to knocking on pump gas than a smaller set of twins will. It's really an apples to oranges comparison.
    There is zero data on the twins to analyze but based on the twin turbo boost numbers I heard thrown around (700rw @ 29-30psi, etc) I'm not sure that is the case here. On this time will tell.

    Having driven both a 5858 bottom mount and 5862 top mount TS back to back, I will say the 5862 TS spools better and makes more power. The only drawbacks are cost and heat management due to the top mount configuration. It would be interesting to compare the 5862 TS to say the smallest of the twin options.
    Burger Motorsports
    Home of the Worlds fastest N20s, N54s, N55s, N63s, S55s, and S63s!

    It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser and installer of any BMS part to employ the correct installation techniques required to ensure the proper operation of BMS parts, and BMS disclaims any and all liability for any part failure due to improper installation or use. It is the sole responsibility of the customer to verify that the use of their vehicle and items purchased comply with federal, state and local regulations. BMS claims no legal federal, state or local certification concerning pollution controlled motor vehicles or mandated emissions requirements. BMS products labeled for use only in competition racing vehicles may only be used on competition racing vehicles operated exclusively on a closed course in conjunction with a sanctioned racing event, in accordance with all federal and state laws, and may never be operated on public roads/highways. Please see http://www.burgertuning.com/emissions_info.html for more information on legal requirements related to use of BMS parts.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •