SharkWerks/EVO 3.8L GT800: Spring Refresh
#21
02-10-2008, 01:36 AM
I second this! Shark where are these dynos . I mean seriously 730awhp is alot for 21psi and a bit hard to believe. I know these turbos have a bunch of creep what did u end up with at high rpm's 23-24 psi? believe its the creep that is giving his these hi peak numbers. 730rwhp is easily believeable but AWHP thats alot. I would really like to see this on a graph compared to your old gt800. thanks
regards,
Suman
regards,
Suman
There's actually nothing "too" crazy about it and it's basically an OTS kit as you guys call it. Not that many have done the 800 but the ones that did in summer of last year did so with the 3.8.you guys are all taking it to the next level so i'll be wathing... One more week right?
Last edited by sharky; 02-10-2008 at 02:27 AM.
#22
02-10-2008, 09:57 AM
Yeah i was just curious to ask because I know for a fact you cant make that power at 21psi. I think 23.6 is about right. Plus I think u had th straight pipes when you did that which is also a world of a differnece. All that back pressure cant help you now with the fabspeed Gen 3. I am also going to run cats. My turbos are only slightly bigger then yours so Im getting a decent Idea of whre I am going to be. I will try to shoot for Scott's Numbers but I will not have the RPM he has(me 7400). So I hope all in all I can get in the 950-1000 crank mark. If I recall it only took 1.41 bar for scott to make 830rwhp so at 1.8 bar if there is no knock I want to be in the 800 awhp range. Scott was 3.6 with his numbers I am 3.8/ Cross your fingers. Also he was running a .82 A/r turbine. I am rinning the .63 for quicker spool and more TQ. Heres a teaser pic. Sorry to jump on your thread shark though tyou might want to see.
S
S
#23
02-10-2008, 10:11 AM
With 18% drive train loss? Not 900... a smidge above 820 or so. I don't have electronic versions of it. Feel free to ask EVO since that's who dynod it. 23.6psi is NOT low boost. That's a lot of boost on largish turbos. Dynos that aren't engine dynos are pretty meaningless numbers to me other than to show the difference of one particular car before/after and monitoring AFRs/timing during tuning. You guys know I used to go to the track and you could always extrapolate from that... Probably bringing the turbo down to the HRE event in socal late this month so i'll probably redyno and see how she's doing health-wise at GIAC nearby.
Eddie Bellos projects were pretty crazy.
Eddie Bellos projects were pretty crazy.
As far as Eddie's car goes it is just insane, each time I drove it I had a devilish grin on my face
The car is faster than ever 
#24
02-10-2008, 11:38 AM
Yeah i was just curious to ask because I know for a fact you cant make that power at 21psi. I think 23.6 is about right. Plus I think u had th straight pipes when you did that which is also a world of a differnece. All that back pressure cant help you now with the fabspeed Gen 3. I am also going to run cats. My turbos are only slightly bigger then yours so Im getting a decent Idea of whre I am going to be. I will try to shoot for Scott's Numbers but I will not have the RPM he has(me 7400). So I hope all in all I can get in the 950-1000 crank mark. If I recall it only took 1.41 bar for scott to make 830rwhp so at 1.8 bar if there is no knock I want to be in the 800 awhp range. Scott was 3.6 with his numbers I am 3.8/ Cross your fingers. Also he was running a .82 A/r turbine. I am rinning the .63 for quicker spool and more TQ. Heres a teaser pic. Sorry to jump on your thread shark though tyou might want to see.
S
S
Also that was with straights. Big difference.... It does add back about 3psi of back pressure. Sounds like you will be in the 850 range even? Good choice on the .63...
#25
02-10-2008, 11:39 AM
Biiiig difference. Plus that was with straights...Eddie is one of the OGs!
