dandan

One Walbro 341 or 342 arguably has enough flow (at up to 1.4bar of boost - something like 60psi of fuel pressure) for about 600bhp at the flywheel. This is with uprated lines filter and rail (not necessarily the case with the kind of back pressures that may be generated by the stock lines/rail to get 60psi and the required flow for that power level).

Say no more. It's a damn shame that quite a few members' cars seem to have been completely fcuked up by these guys. I don't know both sides of any of the stories but what's flying around on the forums right now makes for very unpleasant reading.

I am very very happy with mine. I tend to sway back and forth but that's not really to do with the car - more losing interest in slightly impractical cars and thinking about something like a diesel astra. Then a little burn up with a bike or a supercar of some sort makes me see sense again! Got some BPU+++ tuning planned to get a bit more poke and need to tidy my FMIC ducting and I think I'll be happy. Editted: Jake what have you spent £20k on!!!!

Do you know (and can you say) who did the previous work Michel?

I don't think you were alone Matt.

I think a thread where everyone posted up this info in a strict format would be a great idea. Comparing car to car to car by going through garages would be a little cumbersome for people wanting a quick comparison. What's the downside?

I agree it doesn't want to be too complicated or else the quck flick comparison is lost. I'm looking forward to seeing what people post up.... Should make for some very useful info.

Arguably the following could be included: Thermostat (if not stock) Exhaust from DP back Ignition amplifier Mapper Water/methanol injection RLTC

I think the minimum list to make a useful comparison to be would be: Turbo Exhaust Housing A/R Bearing type (DBB or journal) Compressor intake diameter Antisurge compressor housing Downpipe diameter Stock or forged pistons Capacity and compression ratio (if not stock) Cams and cam gear timing (if not stock) Head and valve details (if not stock) vvti or non vvti Transmission type Clutch or TC Intercooler Intake and plenum (if not stock) ECU Injector size Engine mileage Electronic boost controller fitted? What rpm does the turbo transition into positive boost on a flat road in 5th gear (3rd auto) What rpm does the turbo make 1.0bar on a flat road in 5th gear (3rd auto) Max torque (at what rpm and what boost) Max power (at what rpm and what boost) Editted to change gear and add vvti, mileage and the positive boost crossover rpm. Note this and the 1.0 bar point will be a little subjective owing to boost gauge and rev counter inaccuracies but we'll a least have an idea.

What a bitch - I hope you get it sorted mate. Have you got a different pump in there now to the dodgy Toyoto one?

I think it can - I believe Wez and Tony License both had the AEM running their seq turbos in the past...

I never knew that about the no points offence for no MOT. Does that apply if your old one lapsed by up to a couple of months or if you didn't have one for let's say 2 years Genuine question by the way..

I believe Chris Webley had this on his didn't he or was it just the corners where the splitter part was scraping the floor??

Who did the engine build Wayne and did it include a new oil pump and front main seal?

I know Jake's is a vvti but I don't really see that as a big power adder and not the spool lifesaver people profess it to be either. If you compare Terry's and Wez's dyno Wez has more low end torque and that's even with his non dbb turbo, cast mani, 3"DP, non vvti, stock cams. I suspect the forged pistons are a plus for sure. Given Jake's is running more boost, larger turbine housing and a non stock exhaust cam I'd expect hime to make more power. I got the wrong impression from the cooments (I thought your specs were the same but some how Jake's was making more power). Anyway - best of luck with it Jake, it sounds like you shafted a plug at high boost. LEt us know if/when you get some RR numbers!

What's different on Jake's car Ryan to yours? You're both running the same turbo aren't you? I suppose you do have the advantage of a set of good forged pistons Jake - nice! How does she compare to running on he old turbo now?

My dad had one at about 125 on the rear left - no problems at all. Stayed nice and straight and slowed nice steadily to hard shoulder. Maybe if someone paanicked or over reacted it would be a different story. However this was with 265 30 19's so the "drop" in ride height when it let go wasn't huge albeit it was a big bang!

So do we know if he's running stock pressure?

OK that's cool. I have some that look the same but are 650's - I'm headed out to garage later tonight so I'll see what's on those and then pm you.

Are you sure they are 720's? Can you get an ID no of any sort off them as I may be interested.

Only if he hasn't increased the fuel pressure.

John - that's my point. It's arguably a very poor indicator. The wear already existing in the used motor could well mean that the subsequent wear rate is higher than on a freshly built motor. That alone could explain why the paper element seemed to permit less wear as suggested by the leakdown percentage. I have never done any back to back testing on oiled vs paper elements and I never will - I have neither the time or the interest. My engines (excl the Supra) come apart fairly regular (because I can't stop fiddling/improving/changing things) to the point where worrying about an extra 1 or 2% leakdown is never an issue as honing and re-ringing (or even re-boring) is no big deal if required. I can't comment accurately on the filtration properties nor the apparent subsequent effect on leakdown figures so I am not going to advocate any manufacturer in particluar - I have no evidence to support any opinion. I merely wanted to point out that your figures are potentially flawed and misleading, although no doubt nice to see in a world of speculation and internet heroes. Thankfully I've moved away from this sort of thing (work wise) and now have a far more intersting life. If I absolutely wanted or HAD to know then I would do this. I'm really not that interested though as life is too short.

John please correct me if I've made any wrong assumptions...the accelerated wear you seem to have experienced when running the K+N was not on a fresh motor (new rings and honed bores). The relatively low drop in leakdown percentage with the paper filters was on a fresh motor. Surely there's nothing to say that you may have already had some particle ingress/wear/bore wash/ring seal issues just starting to happen when you changed to the K+N. The fact you're not comparing like for like doesn't make it a fair test in my eyes. Now don't get me wrong - I realise you weren't conducting air filter tests and this is just the way things panned out with engine build/filter choice and you've drawn some conclusions your leak down figures since then. However the leakdown %'s could have increased exactly as they did with the "K+N test" if you had a paper filter on that same used engine. Equally the figures may have held just as steady on the fresh motor if you had the K+N fitted and not the paper filter.

Sounds to me like you fited it ok. I agree with Wez - do the reset as it sounds like the idle valve is open way too far. Stupid question - have you looked for air leaks into the plenum/runners and is your throttle butterfly closing fully?

Anyone else got one, seen one, read about one?