come on in monstar.

[MonstarMotorsports]

Reading threw some chitchat above, just an FYI. Automatics will hold every bit as much if not more power than subarus 5 speeds. your only weak link will be the torque converter after 300+ hp.
and a properly tuned turbo car will net more MPG at 300+ hp than a N/A motor will. (driven appropriately of course)

But love the baja, I've got an 05 Turbo 5 speed my self. My favorite car i've ever owned. Street bikes, banshee's, and 90% of a wrx (everything except the shell and wheels) will fit in the bed!! it hauls far more than you might expect lol. Good luck with it!

[lord flashheart]

Reading threw some chitchat above, just an FYI. Automatics will hold every bit as much if not more power than subarus 5 speeds. your only weak link will be the torque converter after 300+ hp.
and a properly tuned turbo car will net more MPG at 300+ hp than a N/A motor will. (driven appropriately of course)

But love the baja, I've got an 05 Turbo 5 speed my self. My favorite car i've ever owned. Street bikes, banshee's, and 90% of a wrx (everything except the shell and wheels) will fit in the bed!! it hauls far more than you might expect lol. Good luck with it!

the reason the autos hold as much power is because automatics arnt subject to the phonomina known as shockloading nearly as much as the manuals. but i agree with you,

how ever
turbo cars will get worse fuel economy. becasue the BSFC of a turbo car is about .65 where as a N/A car is like .45 what that means is
if you have a turbo car that makes 200hp and a N/A car that makes 200hp, the n/a car should get better fuel economy thru the whole RPM range and at any throttle position. also at free ways speed, you are tippically at about 15-20% Throttle. which you are only at like 13% efficency. at low throttle turbo cars are even less effiecent. because the computer hast to dump more fuel in just to keep the cylinder pressure up. due to the lower compression.

[MonstarMotorsports]

you show me a n/a 2.5 thats pulling 29 mpg consistantly on the freeway at stock HP, and i'll be impressed. Let alone one thats making 300+ whp.

i can show you several 300+ whp turbo 2.5's that can net high 27-29 daily. and im not talking about with a bunk little low boost "fuel mileage map"

[lord flashheart]

dude im glade you brought it up. i want to share my personal experiment with you and make a couple points. first, i have a 2006 outback XT with a 2.5 liter turbocharged engine with an automatic. my wife drives it daily and roughly gets 19mpgs, my parents, have a 2006 outback, with a 2.5 liter single over head cam with out a turbo, my parents let my wife borrow their car for about 3 months while i put a engine in her car. she averaged 26 mpgs, also if you are basing your fuel economy on the little dash thingy, i can tell you its usually wrong. the only proper way to do it is to fill up your tank, write down your milage, then drive it, fill it, calculate how many miles to the gallon you get based on the gallons used and miles driven.

my second point is, that the EPA states that the
2006 impreza SOHC 2.5 N/A with a 5MT gets................22 MPG average
2006 impreza WRX with a 2.5 turbo and 5MT gets..........20 MPG average
2006 impreza WRX STI 2.5 turbo and a 6MT gets..........18 MPG average.

also looked up outbacks...
outback n/a 165hp...... 22mpg
outback XT 265hp...... 19mpg
outback 30R, 250hp.... 20mpg

http://www.fueleconomy.gov

also

its a SCIENTIFIC FACT. turbo cars require more fuel per horsepower.
here are some REAL PROVEN NUMBER.

Engine @ 1,000 @ Peak @ Peak
RPM Torque Hp
4-stroke (low compression, carburetor) 0.62 0.47 0.52
4-stroke (high compression, carburetor) 0.60 0.42 0.47
4-stroke (high compression, closed loop) 0.52 0.35 0.42
4-stroke (supercharged, carburetor) 0.75 0.50 0.55
4-stroke (turbocharged, closed loop) 0.57 0.45 0.50
2-stroke (low compression, carburetor) 0.85 0.55 0.60
2-stroke (high compression, carburetor) 0.80 0.50 0.55
Diesel 4-stroke 0.35 0.25 0.30
Diesel 2-stroke 0.40 0.29 0.34
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_spec ... onsumption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption)
http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tech-t ... g_bsfc.htm (http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tech-talk/using_bsfc.htm)
http://www.witchhunter.com/injectorcalc1.php4


we can go back and forth on this all you want, but here is the fact, i have extensive personal experience, AND science to back me up.
i dont make shit up.
i dont read shit on nasioc and think that ' its on nasioc must me law'
i dont listen to dudes claiming "yea i get 26mpg on my STI with a GT35R" with out proof
i dont listen to people when they argue and have nothing supporting their theory.

i really really try to only argue what i know to be true.

[MonstarMotorsports]

Lord, you told him a turbo would destroy a automatic transmission twice.... and then backed tracked and agreed with me when i said it wouldnt. not trying to start anything but i'd be questioning anything you said at this point, lol no offence. and while a lot of the scientific info you posted is correct, your missing a huge point. that your science is leaving out.
also Im sure you know every turbo subaru (except STi) comes in automatic form. i dont see any of them having problems caused from boost. and your absolutely right, the fact they receive much less abuse from the drivers way of shifting, is why they hold up far longer, and at higher power levels.. im just confused why you told him twice now a turbo was going to destroy one. It simply wont... ever. unless he's making some crazy amount of power. and since he's using the 251 heads... i dont see high power goals out of this baja at all. maybe barely over factory specs would be my guess.

You also have a lot to learn about tuning. SVO, this info is more for you, than him.
And i dont get my info from wikipedia, nor do i EVER browse nasioc (thats the worst forum in the world)
My info comes from bloody knuckles and busted fingers.

The baja turbo is a Killer example. In stock form it makes less than 185 whp. yet it uses the same motor/turbo as the 06/07 wrx which makes right around 200whp. yet they both get about the same real word (not fake epa numbers) mpg.. 19-22mpg freeway if driven nicely. My baja would net 21.9/22 consistently when it was stock. (note, the more powerful wrx is still hitting the same mpg's...)

I just finally bit the bullet and had my baja tuned last week now that its finally about to come out of daily driver status. Only thing i changed was the downpipe, panel filter, and had it protuned. 230whp and 262wtq on 92 pump. Know what my mpg average was on the 2 hour trip home after that? 26.X... needless to say i wasnt a total baby with it on the way home either. and i dont have a little computer that tells me that on my dash (those things are never accurate). i have a brain that knows how to divide the 110 miles i just drove by the gallons of fuel i just put in when i got home. So not only did i go up over 45 whp, im able to get an extra 5mpg now if i really try hard. my 98 outback rally car with the 2.5 NA nets 26mpg on the dot like clock work, but obviously its about half as fast... its also gutted, loud, and obnoxious, and not fun to drive down the freeway for long trips lol.

Turbo motors have a TON of potential (unlike the na motors), and as i said, when properly tuned, and driven of course, can still yield great gas mileage over a factory NA.
and i have a hard time calling a subaru turbo motor unreliable. sure you got one more part (the turbo its self) thats going to be a part that needs replaced about as often as the head gaskets, water pump, and timing belt you already have on every motor. So one more small expense for a lot more fun. seems worth it in my book. but everyones different.

Dont let anyone get you down about the route your going. (except for maybe on those heads lol) and dont be afraid to boost it for any reason. other than your scared of paying more money for 92 oct fuel and possibly getting a couple speeding tickets.
Your NA trans, is the same trans they put in the turbo model. Your not going to shred it. I'd bet my baja on it. <- you have it in writing lol. If your honestly worried about mpg (which i doubt) you shouldnt be, its not going to be any challenge at all to keep the same mpg as a NA, if not get more. yes it takes more fuel to make more power, but your not always driving with "more power" cruising down the freeway your using the same power, the same amount of throttle, but with a better air/fuel ratio. thats why your going to net better mpg's in the long run.

Your doing everything right, (even if i dont agree with your heads) so just keep pluggin along and keep us updated. and you'lll probably get 2 or 3 answers to every question, but you'll get threw it lol.

[lord flashheart]

lets not thread jack. i want to argue and hear your oposition.
but first lets review...



Reading threw some chitchat above, just an FYI. Automatics will hold every bit as much if not more power than subarus 5 speeds. your only weak link will be the torque converter after 300+ hp.
and a properly tuned turbo car will net more MPG at 300+ hp than a N/A motor will. (driven appropriately of course)

But love the baja, I've got an 05 Turbo 5 speed my self. My favorite car i've ever owned. Street bikes, banshee's, and 90% of a wrx (everything except the shell and wheels) will fit in the bed!! it hauls far more than you might expect lol. Good luck with it!

the reason the autos hold as much power is because automatics arnt subject to the phonomina known as shockloading nearly as much as the manuals. but i agree with you,

how ever
turbo cars will get worse fuel economy. becasue the BSFC of a turbo car is about .65 where as a N/A car is like .45 what that means is
if you have a turbo car that makes 200hp and a N/A car that makes 200hp, the n/a car should get better fuel economy thru the whole RPM range and at any throttle position. also at free ways speed, you are tippically at about 15-20% Throttle. which you are only at like 13% efficency. at low throttle turbo cars are even less effiecent. because the computer hast to dump more fuel in just to keep the cylinder pressure up. due to the lower compression.


you show me a n/a 2.5 thats pulling 29 mpg consistantly on the freeway at stock HP, and i'll be impressed. Let alone one thats making 300+ whp.

i can show you several 300+ whp turbo 2.5's that can net high 27-29 daily. and im not talking about with a bunk little low boost "fuel mileage map"

(again.. power output is completely irrelivant.


dude im glade you brought it up. i want to share my personal experiment with you and make a couple points. first, i have a 2006 outback XT with a 2.5 liter turbocharged engine with an automatic. my wife drives it daily and roughly gets 19mpgs, my parents, have a 2006 outback, with a 2.5 liter single over head cam with out a turbo, my parents let my wife borrow their car for about 3 months while i put a engine in her car. she averaged 26 mpgs, also if you are basing your fuel economy on the little dash thingy, i can tell you its usually wrong. the only proper way to do it is to fill up your tank, write down your milage, then drive it, fill it, calculate how many miles to the gallon you get based on the gallons used and miles driven.

my second point is, that the EPA states that the
2006 impreza SOHC 2.5 N/A with a 5MT gets................22 MPG average
2006 impreza WRX with a 2.5 turbo and 5MT gets..........20 MPG average
2006 impreza WRX STI 2.5 turbo and a 6MT gets..........18 MPG average.

also looked up outbacks...
outback n/a 165hp...... 22mpg
outback XT 265hp...... 19mpg
outback 30R, 250hp.... 20mpg

http://www.fueleconomy.gov

also

its a SCIENTIFIC FACT. turbo cars require more fuel per horsepower.
here are some REAL PROVEN NUMBER.

Engine @ 1,000 @ Peak @ Peak
RPM Torque Hp
4-stroke (low compression, carburetor) 0.62 0.47 0.52
4-stroke (high compression, carburetor) 0.60 0.42 0.47
4-stroke (high compression, closed loop) 0.52 0.35 0.42
4-stroke (supercharged, carburetor) 0.75 0.50 0.55
4-stroke (turbocharged, closed loop) 0.57 0.45 0.50
2-stroke (low compression, carburetor) 0.85 0.55 0.60
2-stroke (high compression, carburetor) 0.80 0.50 0.55
Diesel 4-stroke 0.35 0.25 0.30
Diesel 2-stroke 0.40 0.29 0.34
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_spec ... onsumption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption)
http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tech-t ... g_bsfc.htm (http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tech-talk/using_bsfc.htm)
http://www.witchhunter.com/injectorcalc1.php4


we can go back and forth on this all you want, but here is the fact, i have extensive personal experience, AND science to back me up.
i dont make shit up.
i dont read shit on nasioc and think that ' its on nasioc must me law'
i dont listen to dudes claiming "yea i get 26mpg on my STI with a GT35R" with out proof
i dont listen to people when they argue and have nothing supporting their theory.

i really really try to only argue what i know to be true.



Lord, you told him a turbo would destroy a automatic transmission twice.... and then backed tracked and agreed with me when i said it wouldnt. not trying to start anything but i'd be questioning anything you said at this point, lol no offence. and while a lot of the scientific info you posted is correct, your missing a huge point. that your science is leaving out.
also Im sure you know every turbo subaru (except STi) comes in automatic form. i dont see any of them having problems caused from boost. and your absolutely right, the fact they receive much less abuse from the drivers way of shifting, is why they hold up far longer, and at higher power levels.. im just confused why you told him twice now a turbo was going to destroy one. It simply wont... ever. unless he's making some crazy amount of power. and since he's using the 251 heads... i dont see high power goals out of this baja at all. maybe barely over factory specs would be my guess.

You also have a lot to learn about tuning. SVO, this info is more for you, than him.
And i dont get my info from wikipedia, nor do i EVER browse nasioc (thats the worst forum in the world)
My info comes from bloody knuckles and busted fingers.

The baja turbo is a Killer example. In stock form it makes less than 185 whp. yet it uses the same motor/turbo as the 06/07 wrx which makes right around 200whp. yet they both get about the same real word (not fake epa numbers) mpg.. 19-22mpg freeway if driven nicely. My baja would net 21.9/22 consistently when it was stock. (note, the more powerful wrx is still hitting the same mpg's...)

I just finally bit the bullet and had my baja tuned last week now that its finally about to come out of daily driver status. Only thing i changed was the downpipe, panel filter, and had it protuned. 230whp and 262wtq on 92 pump. Know what my mpg average was on the 2 hour trip home after that? 26.X... needless to say i wasnt a total baby with it on the way home either. and i dont have a little computer that tells me that on my dash (those things are never accurate). i have a brain that knows how to divide the 110 miles i just drove by the gallons of fuel i just put in when i got home. So not only did i go up over 45 whp, im able to get an extra 5mpg now if i really try hard. my 98 outback rally car with the 2.5 NA nets 26mpg on the dot like clock work, but obviously its about half as fast... its also gutted, loud, and obnoxious, and not fun to drive down the freeway for long trips lol.

Turbo motors have a TON of potential (unlike the na motors), and as i said, when properly tuned, and driven of course, can still yield great gas mileage over a factory NA.
and i have a hard time calling a subaru turbo motor unreliable. sure you got one more part (the turbo its self) thats going to be a part that needs replaced about as often as the head gaskets, water pump, and timing belt you already have on every motor. So one more small expense for a lot more fun. seems worth it in my book. but everyones different.

Dont let anyone get you down about the route your going. (except for maybe on those heads lol) and dont be afraid to boost it for any reason. other than your scared of paying more money for 92 oct fuel and possibly getting a couple speeding tickets.
Your NA trans, is the same trans they put in the turbo model. Your not going to shred it. I'd bet my baja on it. <- you have it in writing lol. If your honestly worried about mpg (which i doubt) you shouldnt be, its not going to be any challenge at all to keep the same mpg as a NA, if not get more. yes it takes more fuel to make more power, but your not always driving with "more power" cruising down the freeway your using the same power, the same amount of throttle, but with a better air/fuel ratio. thats why your going to net better mpg's in the long run.

Your doing everything right, (even if i dont agree with your heads) so just keep pluggin along and keep us updated. and you'lll probably get 2 or 3 answers to every question, but you'll get threw it lol.

1) a subaru transmission will be torn to bits with any real power out puts, but as a general rule of thumb, automatics can be built to handle way more. when i agreed with you i was refering to autos in general. not just subarus. subaru automatics suck ive seen a 5MT handle over 500whp. i have yet to see an subaru auto handle over 380whp. also the turbo auto and the non turbo trans are completely different. but im sure you already knew that. and honestly i really dont give two shits about automatic vs manual. i know you dont have any proof of this, i really dont care enough to argue so if you say i "back tracked" super.

2) idk where the heads play into BSFC, but the EJ251 flow more that the EJ25D heads. i personally have seen them top 500HP, multible times (which i can prove... again with science). not really sure where the hell your going with that... but whatever.


3) the point im arguing is about fuel economy. i have a physics formula, the EPA, real world experience, and countless cases proving me right. so if im missing a huge point..... PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME. the science i posted has nothing to do with transmissions or shifting. so drop the trans thing. that was done on a engine dyno. this is known fact in the automotive world. you can sit here and tell me "oh ive done this, and ive seen this, and i have that bla bla bla bla," but to be honest you havent posted any proof. any evidence to support your theory other than what you think. seriously i want to hear somekind of arguement on your part, becasue really your arguing that a law of physics is wrong.

ill break this down. one more time.
horse power is torque mulitiplied by 5250 and devided by the RPM.
so torque is more relivent. to make torque you need X amount of air. now that means you need fuel to mix with that air. BSFC is the ratio of how much fuel is required to make 1 horse power on a particular engine. it just so happens that non turbo cars ARE LESS EFFICIENT THAN NON TURBO CARS. this has NOTHING TO DO WITH TOTAL POWER OUTPUTS. its a ratio. how much fuel per horsepower. thousands of people, incuding racing teams have tested this.
again im going to refer to real world numbers. (sorry these arnt from the epa)
the first number is WOT at 1000 RPM,
the second is PEAK tq
the third is PEAK hp

4-stroke (low compression, carburetor) 0.62 0.47 0.52
4-stroke (high compression, carburetor) 0.60 0.42 0.47
4-stroke (high compression, closed loop) 0.52 0.35 0.42
4-stroke (supercharged, carburetor) 0.75 0.50 0.55
4-stroke (turbocharged, closed loop) 0.57 0.45 0.50
2-stroke (low compression, carburetor) 0.85 0.55 0.60
2-stroke (high compression, carburetor) 0.80 0.50 0.55
Diesel 4-stroke 0.35 0.25 0.30
Diesel 2-stroke 0.40 0.29 0.34

high numbers mean its less effiecent.

POWER OUTPUT IS ERRELIVANT.

notice at peak torque, the only thing that has a higher BSFC is the carburated, supercharged engine and a low compression carburated engine?

turbo engine require more fuel per horsepower.
i am well aware that the potential of power is higher. but max power potential has nothing to do with this.
this formula works with 8hp engines and 8000hp engines. its a ratio. of howmuch fuel to make a HP.
you can have a 800FTlb engine that is .35 bsfc and a 3ftlb engine that is .60 bsfc

honestly i want you to come up with some legit info, cuz rightnow its like discussing algebra with a 5 year old. you keep dancing around and saying what you have seen/done/heard. which in my book is hearsay.
if you honestly believe that turbo cars (particularly subarus) are reliable, or economic then you know less about engines than i thought..i work for a pretty prestigous subaru machineshop, and i can tell you that turbo subaru engines are piles of shit. trust me, people think they are amazing. the evo engine is better, the VW engine is better, there are some honda engines that are better. sorry man, i love subarus they are my engine of choice but there are much better engines. thats a tough pill to swallow for subaru guys but it is what it is.

[Bookem]

FYI I have been getting 29 in my 2.5 na outback I'm sure it'll go down when it gets cold out though.

[Yamazaki]

At the approval of SVO1, I pulled the posts from his thread into this one so there is a little repetition of material here.
I'd also like to change the thread title to something a little more meaningful for others to read, but don't really know what to title it as...

[lord flashheart]

I don't really care. I'm pretty much over it. I never said its not possible to get 26 mpgs on an STi but I also have never seen any sort of proof. Again the arguement at hand is if a turbo car is more or less fuel efficient than a non turbo car. I post legitimate evidence suporting my argument and the only information he has is stuff he pulls out of his head.

[MonstarMotorsports]

this is so pathetic.... im not here on this forum to argue points or have a dick slinging contest. i could careless about someone else opinion. Thats all it is, an opinion and everyone has their own.
you and your science can go have fun with whatever your trying to accomplish here. personally i dont understand much of any of that crap. I'll keep turning wrenchs on subarus every day like i do every day.


I just thought it stupid trying to scare the guy away from a turbo, with two completely false arguments. One being your MPG are going to go to shit with a turbo, and 2 being a turbo will destroy an automatic trans. its simply untrue, and there was no reason to say it. Im curious as to how many 300hp turbo subys you've owned and how they were put together.

Im not disagreeing your science talk about being less efficient. i mean fuck go look at a god damn prius. Your right. thats not hard to figure out...
What im saying is.. The SUBARU 2.5L NA motor on average pulls anywhere from 22-27 mpg in my experience. (EPA numbers can go fuck them selves, they have no play in this) I've heard a couple claims of 28/29... but i havnet seen it yet. But for arugments sake. Lets say they get 29.

Now take a EJ257 with Full exhaust and intake and a protune, drive it like a normal human being, and tell me what kind of mpg your getting.
In my experience again, its going to be any where from 24-28. again ive heard claims of 29/31.. but never seen it.

So again lets take the "turbo gets better mpg arugment" out, and say they get the same mpg. in the long run, my point was still right. putting a turbo on it, isnt going to kill the mpg... you do things right a turbo isnt going to have any negative effects. and me personally I'd rather have twice the horsepower.

[MonstarMotorsports]

and how would you like me to prove my mpg.. i mean seriously? lol you want me to video tape me driving to the gas station, pluging in X miles into my calculator and dividing it by X gallons?

[lord flashheart]

Lol this isn't a dick slinging contest, its not an opinion. And you just admited you don't understand it. What I'm trying to do is GET PEOPLE TO STOP POSTING BAD INFORMATION. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE REASON THERE IS SO MUCH MIS INFORMATION.

And yet again you say what you have heard. Not what you can prove.
I never said video it, I was just saying that the dash is about as in acurate as you guessing. Honestly your deposition is shit. I just want you posted how many gallons you use and milage driven so we can see what you are getting.

[Dead91silvia]

LOL!

You guys are funny!

Ok... a turbo car, regardless of man or auto, generally gets worse MPG. It's kinda goes with the driver. Auto's are generally stronger then a manual, again, depends on driver...

I have an N/A 2.5 that gets a normal 20-23 mpg... road trips 24-29 has been seen...

As for Autos getting better MPG, I need to see reapeted math on this. Mind you this is without including the newer cars such as the 5th gen cars...

My 94 Toyota truck can pull 30 MPG with a 5 speed. Most get about 20-24, even more so with auto's.

Another sample is my old Silvia.. With my N/A KA24DE I got up to 31 MPG hwy, and 19-23 in town. I had an auto car and it got 22-24... With my SR20DET I got 29 hwy and 18-22 in town...

Loadflash heart is right when saying if you add a ton of power to an auto (like a GT turbo motor to a L trans) it's not going to last long if it's used as more then a commuter. Same goes for 5 speeds for non turbo cars. If you use drag racing as a reference for straight, they dont use them for that, they use them for their times. They win with consistency, not speed...

And 90% of the time, an auto will gets less mpg then a manual. There are some that are different, but that is RARE! And this is from owning over 80 cars in my life time and comparing the same models, man and auto...

Thats my .10 cents....

So both of you... take a deep breath... and relax...

[Dead91silvia]

oh, I forgot...

A customer of mine has an 05 XT Outback... gets 25-28 MPG with his 5 speed... and thats doing the mpg old school...

Food for thought...

[lord flashheart]

Well the argument isn't about transmisson at all or how you drive. its the engine itself it is a fact that turbo cars need more fuel to make the same amour of power. Also the main reason I'm pushing this issue isn't for the sake of not putting out information unless you know it to be true. I want the subaru community to understand engines. And that its more than just bolt on this or that and turn up the boost. I want subie guys to understand why and how engines work. I talk to the camaro and mustang guys and its nice to talk to people who understand volumetric effiency, thermal expansion, bsfc, exhaust scavanging, etc. If you are a performance guy these are things you should be familiar with. Because there is a right way and a wrong way to make horsepower. It's nice talking talking with you cuz I know you know alot. This is my battle on ignorance. Now I'm just ranting.

[MonstarMotorsports]

i filled up at the gas station right across the street from my tuner. i drove 110 miles back home, and filled up at the gas station right off the offramp to see what it was pulling. 4.1 gallons. So be my guest. do the math since i dont know what im talking about.

and im not saying a turbo is more fuel efficient than a non turbo. but food for thought... go ask the engineers at ford and chevy why their turbo eco cars are getting more mpgs.... they must know something we dont. i purely said, putting on a turbo will NOT kill the mpg if TUNED properly and DRIVEN properly. Anything else your ranting about your putting words in my mouth.

[Dead91silvia]

haha... Got it...

Generally, turbo cars use more fuel, with a spooled turbo... Not spooled, at least with Nissan's, you can get better MPG using less fuel... At least this is what I learned from a guy that build Skyline swapped Nissan's and LS swapped Nissan's and tunes then on a dyno...


ask the engineers at ford and chevy why their turbo eco cars are getting more mpgs.... they must know something we dont.

Fisrt thing I would ask them is why they build shit cars that are a PITA to work on... Oh they have much repressed tech also...

Sorry, I have the big three with the passion of a 1000 suns... even though I own a GMC and a Chevy, they are still crap. That was purly a rant! LOL

[lord flashheart]

and im not saying a turbo is more fuel efficient than a non turbo. but food for thought... go ask the engineers at ford and chevy why their turbo eco cars are getting more mpgs.... they must know something we dont. i purely said, putting on a turbo will NOT kill the mpg if TUNED properly and DRIVEN properly. Anything else your ranting about your putting words in my mouth.

now your getting into dual valve timing control systems. and im glad u brought it up, because they use valve timing to control the effective compression ratio, for ideal cylider pressure. but the same trick works on the new NON turbo cars. notice: the FA20 boxer engine, has a 12:1 static but they use avcs to control the effective compression ratio, so that the cylinder pressure is more ideal across the RPM range. this is for fuel economy, emissions, and performance. because as a general rule of thumb, higher compression engines have a a better BSFC.. you keep bringing up consepts that you know nothing of.
you said it yourself, you dont understand these consepts.. well i do. and believe it or not, i have talked to an engineer. this is where i learned about BSFC. my boss has a degree in mechanical engineering and has multible pantents on fuel and engine consepts, and design.s

[lord flashheart]

also i want to point out on a side note, that it seems like ford doenst do much of there own engineering.. the ford hybrid system is the toyota 2nd generation of hybrid system, licensed by ford. toyota is on the 3rd generation.

[Bookem]

Maybe we are beating a dead horse hear but.........copied right from RC's website. I'll take the word from the pros, the rest of this is just to confuse people :grin:

Selecting the Proper Injector Size



In order to select the correct size injector for your application, you might wish to use one of the following formulas.



In most cases a naturally aspirated engine will have a B.S.F.C of .50. This means that the engine will use .50 lbs. of fuel per hour for each horsepower it produces. Turbocharged engines will want to be at .60 lbs. per hour or higher.



Using these numbers as a guideline, you can select the approximate injector size in the following formula for a four cylinder, naturally aspirated engine at 200 bhp.



Most injectors will max out at 80% duty cycle and this is the accepted industry standard.



B.S.F.C is brake specific fuel consumption - How much fuel you are using per horsepower per hour


The proper injector for this application would be 31 lbs. / hr. or 330 cc / min
(Use the "Fuel Injector Worksheet" to perform these calculations for you.)


Find HP Value of Selected Injectors

To find the HP value of the of the above mentioned injectors use this formula:





Find Fuel Flow After Pressure Change (see worksheet below)

To find the new FUEL FLOW rate after a fuel pressure change:



Fuel Flow After Pressure Change Worksheet

Old Pressure: PSI
New Pressure: PSI
Old Flow Rate: cc/min
New Flow Rates: cc/min or lbs/hr
Example 1:
A 240 CC injector tested at 43.5 PSI is run at 50 PSI.


Example 2:

The horsepower value of this injector would increase by the same rate
(X 1.0721), if all other engine management systems remain unchanged.

Flow rate at old pressure
240 cc/Min divided by 10.5 = 22.86 Lb/Hr

Flow rate at new pressure
257 cc/Min divided by 10.5 = 24.48 Lb/Hr



So, the resultant change in pressure would yield the following:
240 cc/Min X 1.0721 = 257 cc/Min
22.86 Lb/Hr X 1.0721 = 24.51 Lb/Hr
36.58 Hp X 1.0721 = 39.22 Hp


Conversion Formulas

To convert cc / min to lbs. / hr. - Divide by 10.5
To convert lbs. / hr to gal. / hr. - Divide by 6
To convert cc / min to gal. / hr. - Multiply by .015873




Fuel Injector Worksheet



B.H.P.






* See note below.




Warning: Duty cycle should not exceed 80% (0.80) for these calculations.





PSIG


Lbs/Hr CC/Min



* Brake specific should be .45 to .50 for naturally aspirated engines,
.55 TO .60 for supercharged engines,
and .60 to .65 for turbocharged engines.

[MonstarMotorsports]

ask the engineers at ford and chevy why their turbo eco cars are getting more mpgs.... they must know something we dont.

Fisrt thing I would ask them is why they build shit cars that are a PITA to work on... Oh they have much repressed tech also...

Sorry, I have the big three with the passion of a 1000 suns... even though I own a GMC and a Chevy, they are still crap. That was purly a rant! LOL

lmao. hey they are making improvements. but from about the 80's-2010 ive gotta ask. where the fuck were you going? lol
I love my 67 camaro with a passion, and i would never trade the dodge diesel for any other truck in the entire world. But other wise... im pretty loyal to my subarus. theres very few other cars that pull my attention, lol


But anyways, back to beating this dead horse. im not going to sit her and argue fuel efficiency. Personally IDGAF! i drive a car that gets 9 mpg... you really think i care about fuel mileage? lol I've never gave a prius a second glace.

Point is, what i said was 100% correct. I dont care if you disagree.. its still right. A automatic trans can handle a turbo just as well as a 5 speed. and a properly tuned and driven EJ255 can get just as good of fuel mileage, if not better as a EJ25D. Key words are PROPERLY TUNED, AND DRIVEN. never in a million years did i say slap a turbo on it and instantly get better MPG! any idiot should know thats not true.

If you need proof. Go call Perrin or Rallitek (both local shops to me and famous across the us.) If anyone knows their subarus, its them. and i've only shaken jeff's hand more times than my brain can count.

[lord flashheart]

I know you dont care about fuel econ, neither do i.
but you keep putting out false information.
also dont tell me to call someone else becasue you cant make a valid argument.

you show me a n/a 2.5 thats pulling 29 mpg consistantly on the freeway at stock HP, and i'll be impressed. Let alone one thats making 300+ whp.

i can show you several 300+ whp turbo 2.5's that can net high 27-29 daily. and im not talking about with a bunk little low boost "fuel mileage map"






Now take a EJ257 with Full exhaust and intake and a protune, drive it like a normal human being, and tell me what kind of mpg your getting.
In my experience again, its going to be any where from 24-28. again ive heard claims of 29/31.. but never seen it.
.


FYI I have been getting 29 in my 2.5 na outback I'm sure it'll go down when it gets cold out though.

i can tell your making this shit up. none of your numbers are consistant. you say i can show you tons of 300whp cars that pull down 29, then turn around and tell me youve only heard of people saying 29. second off, i never said that its not possible to do 29 to the gallon on a turbo car. i have a hard time believing it. all i was saying is that HP for HP, NA CARS USE LESS FUEL that is fact.

and you can say "oh i work on subarus every day so i know"
but if it comes down to how much you work on cars, i go to work at 7 am and build engines, i am a PROFESSIONAL engine machinist. then when i get off at 530, i go to my second job, where we do engine swaps and anything hi-performance.. everything we do is hi-performance. i do that till about 1 am. ive read a 350 page book about exhaust science... just exhaust.. i spent a year at colledge learning engineering. i promise when it comes to cars i know this shit.

[MonstarMotorsports]

alright you win!

I'll just go back to my shop that grossed 220k in a year because i know nothings!

because showing you a picture of a car i know makes 340whp and averaged 28 mpg on our memorial cruise isnt going to prove anything to you. so we'll be going round and round. Thats why i told you to call someone else. I'd love you to call Jeff a liar lol

[phi11]

:smt021

[Dead91silvia]

:smt021

Word...

:smt014

How about the both of you agree to disagree and when you do give info, say "this is what I know"... F***ing ay...

:wav:

[MonstarMotorsports]

here noobys.
Call these guys liars, and tell them they dont know what they are talking about lol.
These are all my local subaru group. and a few of the people chiming in here, are a few of the cars i was referring to in my post.
Admit defeat now before grant tears you a new one lol.
and calling bobby out, is about as smart as calling jeff perrin out lol.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/300387_311607212271310_405206853_n.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/377199_311607238937974_864627206_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/539108_311607265604638_856885352_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/555743_311607292271302_819994400_n.jpg

[CPLKloewer]

Ok, I didn't even bother to read the endless litany of bullshit that is flying around this rediculous post but... I personally own two WRX STI's, one is a 2006 pushing 420awhp/380tq@22psi making 26mpg while being weighed down by 1100lbs of stereo equipment. The second is a 2005 pushing 538awhp/424tq@30psi making 28mpg. Neither of these numbers are highway driving, they are a mixture of freeway city and spirited driving. I use about 5 gallons of methanol a month in each car. Needless to say, my "normal" driving is probably similar to the way most of you would drive "all out" on a track. Those of you who are not aware of what methanol is and how it benifits a turboed car, kill yourselves. No offence. And still I'm able to get 260-280miles to every ten gallons at a fillup. And before you start spouting off about the gas guage calculator on my cars, both are AEM V2 standalone. No milage calculator, just my odometer the ammount of gas I use and a calculator. Please, don't respond with employances to read your prior postings. The first two or three I read were filled with google and wiki copy and paste drivel. You are NOT going to tell me how my cars run. So, accept that you have been moderately idiotic, learn from someone with first hand experience and, move on having bettered your knowledge base. :)

[MonstarMotorsports]

Oh but grant. where the proof? Telling them what in ur brain isn't good enough lol.

[Dead91silvia]

https://sl-i.net/FORUM/images/imported/2012/08/MilitaryExplosion20799-1.jpg

Thats how I see this thread... So to all of you involved... Take this to PM's!

[lord flashheart]

Ok, I didn't even bother to read the endless litany of bullshit that is flying around this rediculous post

did your really spend the time to join a forum then not read the argument you were joining?? wow


monstar, lets come to some resolution here. please take the time to read this fully and carefully.

we have been arguing to seperate subjects.

your basic argument was: wrxs can get 29 mpgs.

what i thought your argument was: putting a turbo on your car will increase fuel economy.

my argument was: turbo engines use more fuel per horse power.

what you thought my argument was: naturally aspirated cars get better gas milage.

do you see the mis-understanding?
no where in any of my posts did i say that a wrx or sti cant get 29mpgs. i had a hard time believing that, but you have proved that it can. so if it makes you happy ill say you are right. but at the same time my point was acurate as true as well. fair enough?

now

on the transmission. im going to quote someone else.
LOL!








Loadflash heart is right when saying if you add a ton of power to an auto (like a GT turbo motor to a L trans) it's not going to last long if it's used as more then a commuter. Same goes for 5 speeds for non turbo cars. If you use drag racing as a reference for straight, they dont use them for that, they use them for their times. They win with consistency, not speed...
[/quote]


this is exactly what i was trying to say. if you really want we can keep going back and forth all you want. but honestly whats the point? you said you dont understand my point, and we have establish yours is correct as well

[MonstarMotorsports]

well you 99% hit the nail on the head. I'll agree with that. my only argument was a turbo will not kill MPG and it can still compete hand in hand with a NA. 29 is a bit of a stretch honestly. I'll admit that. although possible. but 25+ is very achievable for pretty much any protuned car from 250 clear up to obviously grants 500+ whp on pump gas. so turbo killing mpg was just false is all i was trying to point out. i never disagreed it takes more fuel to make more power, or that a low hp na is less efficient.... thats all true.

and on the transmission, you put enough power to any part of the car and its going to break obviously.
But putting a turbo on a automatic isnt going to destroy it like you told him twice, that just irritated me. tellin him 450+ hp would destroy it is another story...

but when you break down a subaru transmission, they are 98% identicle. (im not even going to try to tell you how many ive split apart, or how many swaps/replacements ive done) i fucking HATE subaru transmissions now for that sole reason lol. Advil's made a million bucks off me from those stupid things.

Doesnt matter if its from a 96 impreza or a 06 WRX, those 5 speeds strengths are nearly identicle. Honestly, the only differences between the TY's is clutch types, open/viscious diffs, wiring, and gear ratios. but every single one will bolt into any subaru EJ motor, and every single one will hold up about the same. The automatics are basically the same way. The difference between turbo and non turbo is minor if any thing at all (depending on MY) your torque converter is the only weak link untill your hitting some serious numbers. I can recall a 04 i saw in a mag a few years back running 800+ HP on the 4eat. Not sure how built it was, but at that level of power, any trans needs to be built, even the 6 speed cant handle 800 for to long.

I still brag about the 1.8L 5 speed. That thing took twice the beating i've ever seen a wrx trans take in my buddys STi swap. It was a freak of a transmission lol.

But other wise, we're on the same page now. you follow my thread, and if you watch over time you'll learn my subaru knowledge is massive, and i dont speak on what i dont know 100% for a fact. Bout the same with you and your motor building, you've built the shit out of some motors and hybrids. I haven't even tried to dip my hands into that type of machine work, and i'd never question you on anything you said about it lol. I've just got my hands to full with everything else.