Angus Turbo Roll Call

[Cozmo]

I figured we needed a thread for all of the Angus Turbo Kit owners to post up their graphs, opinions, etc. I'll go first.

I went and had my car tuned by C-Speed today. Here's the results.

This is at 9psi

In 4th gear I was hitting 5 psi or so at 4000rpm and full boost at 4700 or so. For those of you with this same kit does this sound about right for what your car does? I have short gears so I don't know if that makes a difference. I think I'm just not used to properly driving a turbo car since this is the only one I've ever had.

I got some video clips of these pulls so I'm going to put them into my Angus Turbo The Movie. :biggrin:

Here's both the corrected and uncorrected graph for the same run..

as you can see this was run #28 so the car was heat soaked and there was no fan on the intercooler. I'm still pretty happy with the results.

 

[scorp965]

Do you have a graph of the boost curve? I have a different setup, but full boost is under 3000rpm.

It's difficult to read into turbo response w/o a graph from the map sensor.

 

[Cozmo]

Unfortunately I don't. The shop I was at doesn't have the boost thing for their dynojet. I was surprised. :frown:
I need to get a log with my FIC so I can have an exact number.

 

[stuntman]

What size turbo?

The whole "full boost by X" as well as "lag" is not clearly defined. You can artificially lower the point where you get full boost by left-foot-braking to load the motor when you start your pull, or to put a lot of load on it with a dynapack load-bearing dyno.


Billy

 

[angus]

The turbo is a small t67 - it spools just fast enough to keep the power curve similar to stock while producing great results at high and low boost.

 

[GRNSX]

Just received my kit from Angus. Preparing to get it installed next week. Very interested in hearing feedback from others who have purchased and installed the Angus turbo kit. Those of you who have had the kit over an extended period of time, are you still happy with your purchase? Would you do it again? Angus has been great to work with but the real test is the experience of real world drivers with the kit. I will be reading this thread with great interest.

 

[Cozmo]

I have Cantrell headers if that helps. I imagine I'd be able to tell instantly if I tried driving another turbo NSX whether it was the same as mine or not.

I never said it was slow. :biggrin: That is certainly not the case!

It would be interesting to see my graph overlayed with someone else's with the same kit. If i'm boosting way later than other people it should be pretty obvious in the chart right?

 

[Brooklynzson]

Still waiting for that video Cozmo...

 

[stuntman]

What size/model turbo are you running?

 

[doc_tai]

I'm happy with angus turbo kit. I'm only run 5.5 psi, it put down 380 whp. No problem not all after one year 6000 miles. Still waiting to burn out the stock clutch before I turn the boost up to 9 psi with meth

 

[Cozmo]

What size/model turbo are you running?

Whatever comes with Angus' kit. I believe it is a t67 with a 1.0x A/R housing.

Still waiting for that video Cozmo...

I'm working on it. :biggrin: I got the dyno part of the video edited last night now I just need to get someone to come filming with me to get the other bits done.

 

[C-speed]

The whole "full boost by X" as well as "lag" is not clearly defined. You can artificially lower the point where you get full boost by left-foot-braking to load the motor when you start your pull, or to put a lot of load on it with a dynapack load-bearing dyno.

^ What he said. "Lag" is a completely relative term. The runs I made with Cozmo's car weren't artificially altered by any means (ie: no left foot braking, no load control on the Dynojet). The runs simply started at 3k rpms at which time I went WOT. IT appeared to make full boost (9psi) around 47-4800rpm.

Lag can be affected from tons of factors including tire size (rotational mass), going up or down a hill, what gear you're in, overall weight of the vehicle, etc etc.

Cozmo: You can determine lag if you graphed the HP/TQ over time, rather than RPM. I showed you this I think at the dyno. If someone else has the same setup/kit, you can overlay the graphs and see which one spools quicker even if you don't have the print outs over time. The slower spooling turbo will have its hp/tq graph shifted to the right, and vice versa.

Also, specifically speaking to Cozmo's dyno numbers, I'm confident that there is probably 20-30whp in it still at 9psi. The engine was heat soaked and we didn't have time to let it cool off completely to make a final 'cool' run. I believe the intercooler was around 125F on the cold side. Dropping just the charged air temps by 30-40F would have made a HUGE difference.

:biggrin:

 

[Cozmo]

Here's an AEM Log. The roads are wet here so these aren't perfect as I was fighting to keep my car pointed straight and the tires stuck to the road. :wink:

In a 3rd gear run from a roll it looks like I hit full boost at about 5200rpm (did it twice, almost identical, see attached AEMLog).

Taking off in 1st gear i don't hit full boost at all (barely hitting about 7psi), but traction might be to blame for that. I tried 3 times and the results were almost identical.

Another interesting thing I see is in 2nd gear the graph shows my throttle position stuck at 95% both times, but it was 100% in 1st gear only moments before. That happened in both logs that I captured taking off and running through 2nd gear.

 

[angus]

^ What he said. "Lag" is a completely relative term. The runs I made with Cozmo's car weren't artificially altered by any means (ie: no left foot braking, no load control on the Dynojet). The runs simply started at 3k rpms at which time I went WOT. IT appeared to make full boost (9psi) around 47-4800rpm.

Lag can be affected from tons of factors including tire size (rotational mass), going up or down a hill, what gear you're in, overall weight of the vehicle, etc etc.

Cozmo: You can determine lag if you graphed the HP/TQ over time, rather than RPM. I showed you this I think at the dyno. If someone else has the same setup/kit, you can overlay the graphs and see which one spools quicker even if you don't have the print outs over time. The slower spooling turbo will have its hp/tq graph shifted to the right, and vice versa.

Also, specifically speaking to Cozmo's dyno numbers, I'm confident that there is probably 20-30whp in it still at 9psi. The engine was heat soaked and we didn't have time to let it cool off completely to make a final 'cool' run. I believe the intercooler was around 125F on the cold side. Dropping just the charged air temps by 30-40F would have made a HUGE difference.

:biggrin:

If you had used a fan on the intercooler the intake temps would be way lower , I think after 25 or so dyno pulls without air to the intercooler 125F is not actually too bad -

I don't know if I would push the stock motor much more over 400whp , even though you could get that 20-30hp more , is it worth the risk? I think lowering the boost to 6-7 and then tuning to maybe 380-390 would be safer on the stock motor with 19 year old composite headgaskets .

Not saying that it is necessary but just wanted to add that methanol injection would add a big margin of safety and also require less boost to accomplish the same HP , I have more than one person running this kit at 5-6 psi and making 400WHP with methanol AND at 10PSI with meth they usually make in the neighborhood of 475, I have so far had VERY consistent results with this kit , I am not quite sure what to make of cozmo's boost curve.

 

[C-speed]

If you had used a fan on the intercooler the intake temps would be way lower , I think after 25 or so dyno pulls without air to the intercooler 125F is not actually too bad -

Well obviously

I don't know if I would push the stock motor much more over 400whp , even though you could get that 20-30hp more , is it worth the risk? I think lowering the boost to 6-7 and then tuning to maybe 380-390 would be safer on the stock motor with 19 year old composite headgaskets .

I wouldn't call it "pushing it". Simply lowering the intake temps would create a denser and more efficient burn, thus increasing the power output.

Otherwise, any poorly tuned/heat soaked engine making less power is safer than one that is properly tuned and not heat soaked?

Not saying that it is necessary but just wanted to add that methanol injection would add a big margin of safety and also require less boost to accomplish the same HP ,

Agreed.

I have more than one person running this kit at 5-6 psi and making 400WHP with methanol AND at 10PSI with meth they usually make in the neighborhood of 475,

What happened to keeping it around 400whp to be safe? j/k

I have so far had VERY consistent results with this kit , I am not quite sure what to make of cozmo's boost curve.

There's nothing wrong with the boost curve. IMHO, it's his driving, and what he 'expects' the turbo to do when he steps on the throttle.

 

[Cozmo]

I'm still waiting for other people with this kit to chime in and tell me when their boost starts.

I captured that log hoping it would eliminate my driving as being the problem. :biggrin: The throttle is at 100% and I don't hit full boost until 5200. I don't see how that would've been any different with someone else's foot on the pedal. :wink:

I'd be perfectly happy with 6 or 7 psi if I got it 1000rpm sooner.

 

[C-speed]

I'd be perfectly happy with 6 or 7 psi if I got it 1000rpm sooner.

1k rpms is a lot. You're not going to achieve that by "lowering the boost". You'll have to change out the hot side of the turbo.

Again, I think you're expectations of a turbo setup are just not in line with what is reality Any mildly aggressive turbo that is going to make decent top end power will have the same characteristics that you are experiencing now. (notice I didn't say "lag")

If you are expecting instant boost (or instant max boost), then you will sacrifice top end power for low end response/torque.

A factory turbocharged and unmodified Eclipse GSX or WRX (not sti) is a perfect example of this. Pretty much in ANY gear, just floor it and with a second or so, you have max boost. But big deal? What does "max boost" mean? Nothing really... the turbo's are soo small, they make 7-10psi instantly, but have no volume... you get instant response and torque, but lack the top end power - but you do get the 'instant full boost' you're after.

You can't have the best of both worlds.. but you can get close. If you want to drop the coin, a ball-bearing center cartridge will reduce lag significantly, but it'll hurt you in the pocket book

Lowering the exhaust side A/R will also aid the spool times, but again, at a sacrifice of the top end power. However this is kind of a blanket statement at this point in the game... You can probably get away with a .7 or .8 range A/R and still make the same peak power. Anything lower than that, you'll most likely start sacrificing the top end significantly.

You need ask yourself one simple question... do you want low/mid range power and response? Or do you want top end/holy sh!t that's fast, power?

You can't be a marathon runner and a body builder at the same time

 

[C-speed]

One more thing... if you suspect that there is something wrong that may be creating the 'lag', it is most likely an exhaust leak pre-turbo. Usually, it's the wastegate itself...

ie: the wastegate isn't fully closed or is prematurely opening.

I didn't hear it prematurely opening, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't fully closed prior to peak boost.

One way to test this is to disconnect the vacuum line to the wastegate and plug it off so you don't have a vacuum leak (the line, not the wastegate nipple).

Make a run in like 4th gear and see if spools up any quicker. Be careful not to OVER BOOST! One way is to log it with the FI/C and compare it with a previous run where the WG was connected and see if boost is coming on faster.

If it's spooling quicker, you'll notice it immediately... Otherwise, the wastegate is functioning properly.

You can also perform the same test with the BOV... if it's leaking, the boost will take longer to build. It's easier to test this on the dyno as someone can just stand there with their hand on the BOV and feel for any air coming out of it. Harder when on the road as you'd probably need to make a gasket that blocks off the hole on the IC piping.

Good luck.

 

[Cozmo]

One way to test this is to disconnect the vacuum line to the wastegate and plug it off so you don't have a vacuum leak (the line, not the wastegate nipple).

Make a run in like 4th gear and see if spools up any quicker. Be careful not to OVER BOOST! One way is to log it with the FI/C and compare it with a previous run where the WG was connected and see if boost is coming on faster.

I actually tried this already as we suspected the exact same thing you said. I disconnected it and couldn't even tell the difference. The diaphram on the WG turned out to be messed up (leaking) so we replaced the WG. However I haven't tried this with the new one.

 

[angus]

OK , heres a couple shots of the dyno charts for my car and a local car with my kit at 6psi (with meth).

As we can see the Curve is very linear and resembles the stock powerband only with more power.

 

[angus]

1k rpms is a lot. You're not going to achieve that by "lowering the boost". You'll have to change out the hot side of the turbo.

Again, I think you're expectations of a turbo setup are just not in line with what is reality Any mildly aggressive turbo that is going to make decent top end power will have the same characteristics that you are experiencing now. (notice I didn't say "lag")

If you are expecting instant boost (or instant max boost), then you will sacrifice top end power for low end response/torque.

A factory turbocharged and unmodified Eclipse GSX or WRX (not sti) is a perfect example of this. Pretty much in ANY gear, just floor it and with a second or so, you have max boost. But big deal? What does "max boost" mean? Nothing really... the turbo's are soo small, they make 7-10psi instantly, but have no volume... you get instant response and torque, but lack the top end power - but you do get the 'instant full boost' you're after.

You can't have the best of both worlds.. but you can get close. If you want to drop the coin, a ball-bearing center cartridge will reduce lag significantly, but it'll hurt you in the pocket book

Lowering the exhaust side A/R will also aid the spool times, but again, at a sacrifice of the top end power. However this is kind of a blanket statement at this point in the game... You can probably get away with a .7 or .8 range A/R and still make the same peak power. Anything lower than that, you'll most likely start sacrificing the top end significantly.

You need ask yourself one simple question... do you want low/mid range power and response? Or do you want top end/holy sh!t that's fast, power?

You can't be a marathon runner and a body builder at the same time

I couldn't have said it better myself, however I have tested ball bearing cartridges on this kit and the difference was not as significant as on other cars .

 

[angus]

There's nothing wrong with the boost curve. IMHO, it's his driving, and what he 'expects' the turbo to do when he steps on the throttle.

I agree.

 

[Cozmo]

If that's true then that's fine, I just want other people to step up and say "yeah I don't hit full boost until 5200rpm either". I gathered those logs specifically so people could look at it and decide whether it is normal or not. It shouldn't have anything to do with me. :tongue: All I care about is making sure my car is working the way it is supposed to.

For example in one of my 3rd gear rolling logs I floored it starting at 3500 RPM.
I didn't hit 1 psi of boost until .8 seconds later when the engine was at 4019 RPM. I hit 5psi at 4700rpm. I hit full boost at 5300rpm, 2.5 seconds after going to WOT. It was 1.7 seconds to go from 1psi to full boost.

In my other 3rd gear log it was similar, hitting full boost 2.3 seconds later at 5200 rpm.

If you guys have any suggestions of a better way to test this let me know. 4th gear on the freeway seems to build boost faster but I don't have logs of it.

I crawled under the car with it running a while back and didn't notice any exhaust leaks but that doesn't mean there aren't any. I also tried to do a boost leak check but was having trouble getting a good seal on my filler end of the pipe. I have a proper leak tester now so I should be able to do that. In my previous attempt to test for leaks I did manage to blow the PVC cap off the other end of my piping with an air compressor and less than 4 psi so if it is leaking it probably isn't a very big one.

 

[NSXGeek!]

Thank you for posting your dyno charts, it's a good source for comparison. Have there been any issues for these kit's owners from having to use a scavenge pump? Any concern about long term reliability from heat or dry running of relying on this pump? Do any OEM's use this approach?

 

[godfather05]

I've had angus's kit for the last two years and I've put close to 10kmi's on it. I haven't watched to see specifically at what RPM I hit peak boost but my dyno chart seems very similar to yours with the exception of the higher A/F ratio you have compared to mine. At one point however since I dyno'd my car I did change my exhaust to a larger one and had better boost response.