Subaru WRX Forum

Subaru WRX Forum (http://www.wrxtuners.com/forums/)
-   Bolt-on Tech (EJ255/EJ257 2.5L 2008+ WRX, STi, and GT) (http://www.wrxtuners.com/forums/f121/)
-   -   Sorry just bored, Paint= VF52 vs GT35R (http://www.wrxtuners.com/forums/f121/sorry-just-bored-paint-vf52-vs-gt35r-30529/)

synolimit 04-04-2011 10:40 PM

Sorry just bored, Paint= VF52 vs GT35R
 
08 sti gt35r vs 09 wrx VF52

sorry just bored and started laughing when i saw how slow a big turbo spools and the crazy gap till the gt35r hits about 4200 RPM, then its another crazy gap kicking my *^& above that. haha

[IMG]http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e174/synolimit/08_STI_35R_pump.jpg[/IMG]

basco 04-04-2011 10:50 PM

It's all a preference on where you want your power, because I see my car as a dedicated track car in the future living in the upper 3rd of the rev range I want all my power up there, and whoevers STi that is is a waste of a 35R if they're only making 400whp on a dynojet using the SAE CF and you can tell that tune is sh!t with such a choppy plot and smoothing turned all the way up

lk86fire 04-04-2011 11:32 PM

Eh, I got an 08, this sti has got more torque(250wtq, or close to it) at 3500 as mine does max(224ish?) so...this car would feel like a beast to me

synolimit 04-04-2011 11:33 PM

[quote=basco;259087]It's all a preference on where you want your power, because I see my car as a dedicated track car in the future living in the upper 3rd of the rev range I want all my power up there, and whoevers STi that is is a waste of a 35R if they're only making 400whp on a dynojet using the SAE CF and you can tell that tune is sh!t with such a choppy plot and smoothing turned all the way up[/quote]




i hear that. i still dont know what id want if upgrade turbos.

im not sure of the boost on that STI run though. the other tune was on 100 fuel and made 447hp 431tq. also at least SAE is the lower correction factor opposed to STD which reads higher. some dynojets read low or very well in my opinion. as for the choppy lines all dynojets look and read like that. they take a look at the front drum then rear, then front then rear. thats were the choppiness comes from unlike a mustang. only thing that could need smoothed out is that hump at 4300-4500rpm.

sleepr 04-05-2011 07:23 AM

@lk86fire - that's approx. 350 ft/lbs at the wheels, not 250 ft/lbs.

@basco - please correct me if I'm wrong but SAE smoothing factors run from 0 to 5 and that is a 3, so it is not "turned all the way up"


...don't overlook that the car is using CA 91 octane gas on that tune


Syno, where did you get that (original) picture? (just curious)

RcrsWetDream 04-05-2011 09:13 AM

^ GT35 car is at 250 lb-ft, VF52 is at 350 lb-ft at 3500 rpm's.

basco 04-05-2011 09:32 AM

[quote=synolimit;259094]i hear that. i still dont know what id want if upgrade turbos.

im not sure of the boost on that STI run though. the other tune was on 100 fuel and made 447hp 431tq. also at least SAE is the lower correction factor opposed to STD which reads higher. some dynojets read low or very well in my opinion. as for the choppy lines all dynojets look and read like that. they take a look at the front drum then rear, then front then rear. thats were the choppiness comes from unlike a mustang. only thing that could need smoothed out is that hump at 4300-4500rpm.[/quote]

thats still way too low imho especially for 100 oct, my car with a 2.2L makes 540 awhp on a very low reading dynojet in SAE on race fuel, he's got an extra .3L of displacement and dual AVCS

[quote=sleepr;259097]@lk86fire - that's approx. 350 ft/lbs at the wheels, not 250 ft/lbs.

@basco - please correct me if I'm wrong but SAE smoothing factors run from 0 to 5 and that is a 3, so it is not "turned all the way up"


...don't overlook that the car is using CA 91 octane gas on that tune


Syno, where did you get that (original) picture? (just curious)[/quote]

Sleepr your totally right I'm blind and thought that said 5

[quote=RcrsWetDream;259099]^ GT35 car is at 250 lb-ft, VF52 is at 350 lb-ft at 3500 rpm's.[/quote]

ROFL

lk86fire 04-05-2011 11:48 AM

[quote=RcrsWetDream;259099]^ GT35 car is at 250 lb-ft, VF52 is at 350 lb-ft at 3500 rpm's.[/quote]


Haha my bad Sleepr, this is what I meant, I should have been specific.

I'm on stock t-t-t-tiny td04, both the vf52 and the slow spooling(but still as much/more wtq than my car total has) GT35 would feel like they're steady raping me.

The vf52 just comes prematurely hahah.

The tq curve doesn't look too bad on this gt35 though. It'd be like the slowest part of the powerband you're still at my stock 08 max wtq.

And it only climbs from there

synolimit 04-05-2011 12:59 PM

[quote=sleepr;259097]
...don't overlook that the car is using CA 91 octane gas on that tune


Syno, where did you get that (original) picture? (just curious)[/quote]

o snap good catch Sleepr!

i got it actually from Basco, from a link he posted about a GT30 on a nother post.

[url=http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=tp&Product_Code=ATP-SUB-005&Category_Code=SUB]GT35R Turbo Kit for Subaru WRX/STI, stock location, INTERNALLY GATED : atpturbo.com[/url]

synolimit 04-05-2011 01:10 PM

[quote=lk86fire;259102]Haha my bad Sleepr, this is what I meant, I should have been specific.

I'm on stock t-t-t-tiny td04, both the vf52 and the slow spooling(but still as much/more wtq than my car total has) GT35 would feel like they're steady raping me.[/quote]

it maybe tiny but if you had all bolt on parts, that tiny turbo can build torque up faster than the VF52. the only diff is it will fall on its face like its jumping off a tall building. just image a line striaght up then straight down.

basco 04-05-2011 01:37 PM

I'm hoping they messed up and posted the chart from a 30R because that is really really low

RcrsWetDream 04-05-2011 02:57 PM

[quote=synolimit;259106]it maybe tiny but if you had all bolt on parts, that tiny turbo can build torque up faster than the VF52. the only diff is it will fall on its face like its jumping off a tall building. just image a line striaght up then straight down.[/quote]

Case in point, the 08 WRX at the track on Friday could easy shoot ahead of me, but then he was toast after the first 330'.

synolimit 04-05-2011 03:18 PM

[quote=RcrsWetDream;259109]Case in point, the 08 WRX at the track on Friday could easy shoot ahead of me, but then he was toast after the first 330'.[/quote]

time??

RcrsWetDream 04-05-2011 03:21 PM

8.43 in the 1/8 :(

Fast enough to need a helmet, but my 60' is terrible. Maybe with a better launch a stock turbo'd 08 would never jump ahead, I'm not sure. 2.1 60's suck though.

If I can work on the launch I can get her close to 7's.

synolimit 04-05-2011 05:20 PM

ouch. ya 1.7-1.8 can be had with a stock 09. temp was 50 degrees by 8pm though, thats not great for hook up.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8pl1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.