Cihan

While doing our best to keep out of the tit for tat - as both Scotty and Hypergear are Etuner customers - I can confirm that Scott did in fact bring the car back in for another dyno session to be able to demonstrate an apples to apples comparison between the turbos. 14th August : 8495S - 271awkw ; un-locked converter SS2 turbo 22psi 19th November : 9524S - 281awkw ; locked converter SS2 turbo, maxed out 24th November : 9546S - 303awkw ; locked converter new turbo, maxed out Both are no doubt very stellar results from a "bolt-on" turbo on an otherwise internally standard engine. Cihan @ Etuner

I keep LQ9 coils @ 3ms max @ 14v and 2.8ms @ any higher as they're a relatively fast charge coil (compared to yukon / D585 and LS1). Any more and a small spike in alternator output voltage can advance timing intermittently. Before using any GM coil without a 3D lookup table for coil charge time - log alternator output to certify it is operating within OE parameters hot and cold and up to redline - especially if combining with aftermarket alternators (ie. high output units that aren't underdriven).

Scott, we'd have to measure and then model the flow numbers to confirm before hacking up the front bar again, but it may be a worthy consideration depending on the IC's basic design. Generally it makes SFA difference, but at high boost where the compressor is forced to a higher pressure ratio for a given system flow rate, there can be significant change in actual density at the intake manifold - enough to warrant reconsidering your intercooler setup. The cams aren't really a concern, we can get them modified without any real headaches. At this stage i wouldn't be concerned with the engines base flow profile, i don't believe its an issue unless you go up a full turbo size (ie. GTX35). I think what saves the VQ series engines (and VG series) is the broad, well angled ports - fantastic potential for big flow numbers. Plenty of port volume and average ID. So, the heads do OK even with baby cams, which from an emissions point of view is exactly the reason Nissan would have stuck with the design. There's another IC you should consider, i'll have a chat to you about it next time i pop by. RE the SLD, its a quick install on the Toyota ECU, direct to the loom. Can't be that bad, we'll figure it out.

Hey guys, FYI i have a similar problem with the VVTI model Supra with e-throttle. The speed signal has to be intercepted differently, something that can't be adjusted with the EMU consistently. I've always used HKS SLD type limiter removal for the Toyota late model ECU's with success. The EMU also doesn't lift the RPM limiter correctly with the VQ25, so although its running 1000cc injectors and making smooth numbers - there's more potential in Scotts engine + turbo combination. Being a 56lb compressor i think we can expect a consistent 310-315 awkw with 500-600rpm more full throttle and a little more top end boost. This is a really good street / strip combination and i believe even with the 0.82 rear housing there would be enough exhaust side flow to deliver very similar power with less of a lag penalty. If you work out the basic numbers, comp flow in lb/min and exhaust flow at expected power level - the 0.8 turbine housing is great for a street driven 3071 or 3076, and the 1.06 the best fit for the 3076 if we keep the same in/ex mass flow ratio. The 3076 compressor should deliver a very close boost curve but happily make the 23-24psi the engine needs to crank 330-340 odd awkw consistently - a phenomenal number for what could easily be a completely standard engine bay.. I had a little peak at Scott's tear down engine, the standard camshafts are your generic JDM style small duration, reasonable ramp, low lift units. Otherwise the head and intake manifold is well designed and most definitely has the harmonics and effective flow needed for the engine perform very well when the factory choke points have been removed. I think Scott's little experiment shows we're not far off the mark.. If the compressor actually makes another 2-3psi at peak power efficiently - I think that'll be spot on, more than enough for a family barge.. At the moment i don't think that's going to happen, the graphs show comp efficiency falling. Maybe a bigger IC core will help reduce the comp P/R. -- Yes, my dynometer was re-calibrated since it went in. Each roller unit has a separate controller box, interface board, firmware and load recording device. From my understanding the front roller was running the incorrect firmware and needed to be updated.