David Floyd

This one ?

blitz951

Thanks Thom and refresh.
The cam I believe is the c 16 but i have to double check because its possibly the 8sr/s3 14.

thingo

This is with the HTAgt35 then? not the gtx35? That explains a lot of the curve here.

blitz951

Yes its the hta3582r.

Thom

Agreed - I heard that the GTX3582R was quite a bit laggier than both the standard GT3582R and the HTA3582R, so the shape of the curves were a surprise to me when it was mentioned earlier that it was the GTX3582R that was used here.

Would that be the 8SR/277-16 profile or something similar?

blitz951

Yes Thom or the b13.
Rod, the gtx is more for an evo in my opinion. Better for a higher reving car with high boost.

Chris White

Yes....I love that cam cover!

Chris White

Thom - I am not trying to be a massive pain in the butt on this - but with all the other mods your are doing, none of them cheap!, I don't understand why you do not want to go 16v.
I get it that the 16v is too pricey for most folks and I do not recommend it for many project - but it really fits your design goals.

I think we actually are thinking alike but different at the same time. My goal on any project is to get a flat torque curve for as close to 3k rpm as possible. you want to stretch the top end as much as possible and I want to make sure that the low end is as good as the top end. the main reason that I am pushing back on your direction is the oiling issues with running a 944 motor at high RPM (anything over 6200 - 6400 rpm) as well as the speed at which the 8v wears out valve guides when run over 6400 RPM. So if you are addressing those two issues then I can retract my stubborn reaction...

Chris White

Even NASCAR has gone to fuel injected motors now!

67King

I'm not so sure just throwing intakes on and off is the best approach. If it were my engine, I would determine valve size, then let that dictate the intake. In other words, if you are running the stock valve size, the stock intake is probably a good bet. I would personally be inclined to run bigger vales on a 3.0L, since you are trying to move that much more air. And in doing that, I would fully expect the stock intake to be too small. In other words, look at everything from plenum to valve seat as a system.

Turbo sizing. I have found that the 951 community sizes turbos not just a little, but a lot on the big side. I tend to like them small. I go with the smallest turbo that'll fit my airflow requirements. I think some folks look to make peak power in the dead smack middle of the compressor's efficiency map. I don't like that approach, I like using as much of the map as can. So I run though peak efficiency further down in the power band. So I'm surprised to see a GT35 of any flavor on here. I'd be looking at a GTX3071 or GTX3076.

blitz951

67king your right about the turbo but this hta is special. it responds like a small turbo but pulls like a big one. Again,the parts all work well together but that turbo is wondeful. The engineering behind the hta came from massive industrial turbos taking to long to spool so lots of time and effort was taken by a big engineering firm to make it work and was applied to cars by small engineering/tuners. This 35 works great. Chis has done this a while and agrees.

67King

blitz, I'm not familiar with that turbo, I was specifically comparing the GT's. That said, I'm still looking for a turbo that defies the laws of physics. Ceteris paribus, a smaller turbo WILL spool more quickly, and be less likely to surge. Now, there are other factors that come into play, and maybe this HTA thing has some. A good turbo builder like Charlie at Evergreen can make any turbo better. Simply a matter of taking a mass produced part, with clearances designed for production variation, and machining it to tighter tolerances. Also doing additional machining work to castings that aren't done in a production environment. Won't give away any of what he does (some of which I know, some I'm sure I don't). But I can't help but wonder if the HTA is somehow built more precisely than a GT series?

I'm definitely interested in learning more. I can't find any info on it other than forums. You have any specs, maps, or anything? Genuinely interested.

Thom

A 16V engine has never been a goal per se.

I initially set to build a 3.0 with "lots" of mid range to compensate for the miserable off boost/low rpm performance of the 2.5.
While hitting the initial goal was easy I developed a growing dislike of the mid range character of the 3.0 simply because I had thrust when I did not want any, namely when cruising around under vacuum, which is what the stock intake is good at, and I didn't have as much thrust as I knew I should have when I was pushing the revs, which is where the stock intake becomes out of propos.

The plan has never been to run the engine at sustained crazy speeds for hours, which it still really does not need to pull the car even half decently, and it was a happy turn out that this short runner intake freed some breathing ability up top and finally made the engine feel like all components worked together instead of against eachother.
With the stock intake I couldn't figure out peak torque rpm, it felt all flat from 4k to 6k and I was getting compressor surge. I can now drive around without having the car always trying to push me ouf of the road and finally get some proper power beyond 5k without hitting that wall at 6k. Again, the engine is not run at sustained speeds beyond 6k, and I'm not going to risk that with the stock wet sump, but I have a usable RPM band that suits the turbo perfectly.

Looking at Blitz's curves again (I mean the 20psi dyno graph) suggests to me the turbo and the short runners make a happy pairing in the same way as on my engine, but mid range might not be that great. I know how the 60mm GT30 turbine spools and it's not too bad, but Blitz here has the 68mm GT35 turbine wheel used with a 0.82 A/R, which is one size larger than my 0.82 A/R in terms of turbine flow. By looking at the 12psi dyno graph I can't help thinking that you generously advanced cam timing to compensate for an "excessively slow" spool. May not be quite yet in the real meat of the turbo and possibilities of the SFR intake...

67King

Not quoting myself just to quote myself, but there's a thread that was just posted up above that exemplifies this. So a 340hp kit uses a 61mm turbo? That's a 600 horsepower turbo, not a 340 horsepower one.

blitz951

Thom, the midrange is very strong. The car has no weak points in my opinion.
If chris comes on line he can state if he made timing adj. i dont think he did.
67king, charlie does great work and is a good guy. Does he still have the turbo mustang? He once made me a turbo.
I dont have more info on the turbo hta details but im sure Chris can give more input. He was so impressed he bought one.
This is the problem with the 951 lots of experimenting unlike other cars. Supra, mustang... bolt on parts and you know just whats going to happen. I wish i could give more info maybe Chris has pictures of the head... and give more details on the turbo. Thingo has an hta and was also impressed with it. Maybe he can post his impressions.