So I've been contemplating going boost since the inception of buying my sedan especially since I've tuned and built many turbo builds...

But after seeing the numbers of many buds here and generally online.. im not impressed.

On a recent thread a individual made 517 @ 17psi using 93 octane and a full stand alone.

On a 93 SE-R sr20de-t we made 483 @ 18 psi using 93 octane tuning with a safc. Turbo was a 57trim with a .48 turbine. It's an entry level T3.

The math just doesn't add up....

517 / 6 cylinders = 86 hp per cylinder

483 / 4 cylinders = 121 hp per cylinder.


Either these setups on the vq's are really conservative or the engines just don't like boost and are inefficient.

Tuners how much timing are you guys pushing?


Oh ps the Sr20 was OEM not built either. We ultimately made 502 whp with the aide of a 50shot.

 

Wow, no tuners?

 

answer is simple...

low compression turbo motor made for boost

Vs

higher compression NA motor not built for boost

 

Powertrain loss, different dyno readings, a bunch of other factors arent accounted for. SR20 has been out forever as well so theres much more available support.

 

Most people that go for 500 whp seem to stay conservative with tuning as well. Its not til you see people go for 600+ that they really go for something more aggressive

 

The SR was a OEM low compression engine....

 

Remember I am comparing my experience with a certain SR20DET .... not a slap on Turbo kit on a n.a build.

 

Jackus, I think its what tollbooth has stated plays a big role. I think the tuners are just playing it safe. That's why I'd love to know how much timing are they running.

 

that's my point exactly, it's a low compression engine... boot friendly in stock form.

 

Yeah but car in comparison is a fully built engine designed to hold well over 900whp. (VQ)

 

Besides at 10:3.1 at 18psi... you'd have no motor.... only pieces of it. Higher comp engines can make more power with much less boost just require timing retaining and race gas or E85 tunes.?

 

yeah, more money to build a non-boost friendly engine that is already more expensive. what one do you think is cheaper to replace? there's no real comparison it's apples and oranges.

 

Well most builds in that range are going to be sleeved and costs just start getting higher and higher.

 

it's not ricer math, you can just say 3.5engineX + yboost > 2.0engineA + yboost

 

I can compare another non boost friendly Nissan motor with even better results than that of the SR...

But we are moving out of the scope. I'd love for someone who has actually tinkered with the Ecu to chime in and let us know how much degrees advanced they arepushing.