Hard to say for sure. It would have a lot to do with the weight of the car. I would put it closer to 115 in your normal run of the mill miata.

 

Heres today's work.


Only Trackspeeds best. Everything is milled and gasket free.


Getting the water and oil lines sorted, its has oil lines that are 2 layer, with the outside being a heat resistant silicone, then it has heat wrap that is the fibreglass on the inside, some super high temp polymer on the outside kind.


Heres just a bunch of pics of the completed setup.




Built a wastegate bracket from stainless, I was going to weld alloy bosses onto the turbo but got lazy.




Just a couple to show just how tucked up that exhaust actually is.



So anyways, I gave it back to him this arvo.

It starts, it runs, its goes, Zoooooo-TUTUTUTUTUTUTUTooo when you rev it. All the good stuff you know.

Im very happy with how the water lines, the brace and the oil feed interact.
not sure how it translates into photos but in person its very neat.

Couple of bits to do still, TPS for MS2's EBC, fix the bov /IWG vacuum tubes etc, but it should hit the dyno this week or next.

Dann

 

looks really really well done. Nice work.

 

First off awesome job Dann, I'm very interested to see the result on the 2560, I'm also interested to see how they compare to the EFR, I suspect the difference won't be as big as some expect.

I find it interesting that people talk about how dyno's vary and can't be used as a comparison but e.t. and trap speed tell the real story, like every car will run the same e.t. and trap speed at every track in the country every day of the year, regardless of altitude, temp, humidity and traction....

Jimj

 

I won't even bother picking apart how retarded this post is.

I'll just quote it.

 

 

Why would you think that? Because FM told you so?

 

funny.

 

FM doesn't sell EFR kits bro. Therefore they suck

 

LOL, yup.

 

Ok 18psi, please enlighten me.

I have personally witnessed a 1/4 mile e.t. increase by as much as .25 sec on the same track on the same day, same driver, etc. etc. 60ft times were within .01 sec so reaction time and traction were not factors. The difference was one pass made mid afternoon on a hot day the next pass made after dark once ambient temps/humidity had changed.

My point was, and remains that you cannot say that e.t. and trap speed are proof positive of what an engine is putting out. Just like with dyno's there are just too many variables. dyno's results are just as valuable for comparison as drag results for casual discussion.

Ultimately the only true test would be to run the 1/4 back to back or side by side (depending on whether you are comparing two cars or changes to one car) or back to back dyno pulls. Even then if you are comparing a stripped race car to a fully equipped street car's et and trap speeds the results do not accurately reflect the power output of the two cars. Are they running the same gearing, what about tire size? Is one cars top speed gear limited and the others hp limited?


Dann, on m.net there is a dyno of an FM stroker motor running a gt2560 making 335hp on a dynapack dyno. In that post Emilio suggests that's roughly equivalent to 307 on a dynojet so the 2560 seems to be capable of the numbers your looking for.

Jimj

 

I think the point here is that obviously different conditions such as temperature, humidity, altitude, etc. are going to change the horsepower output of the car, thus changing the trap speeds and 1/4 mile times. This is exactly WHY a trap speed is a better comparison between two cars than a dyno.

 

Jimj - Notice how you are primarily referencing ET and the other posters were primarily referencing a range of MPH? They are not saying "the car must trap greater than 114.99 MPH or it definitely is not 300+ WHP."

All of the other stuff is understood among the posters in this discussion (DA, track conditions, 1320' vs 400M, etc). If the car traps 105 MPH on a clean run down the 1320' at reasonable DA, it's going to be considered a failure vis a vis the stated power goal by most of the posters in this threa.

 

No, because I have yet to see anything that conclusively shows otherwise. The only threads I've seen on various forums shows at best slight spool improvement over a 2560, and then they break. I don't doubt the EFR will make way more horsepower, it's the spool that I'm questioning.

Jimj

 

I think you may mean boost threshold (units = rpm) as opposed to spool (units = milliseconds). Theres just no way a 2560 can spool as quickly when it has so much more rotational inertia than the efr.

 

Jack, in the example I gave I don't recall the trap speeds or I would have included them, I do know the trap speed on the faster run was higher. My point was that the car picked up horsepower due to to the cooler air. So for comparison, which run do you use to determine how much power the engine is making? My point is that without knowing all of the variables, comparing trap speeds, e.t.'s or dyno results is open to interpretation.

Also there's been no mention of how gearing and tire size can affect trap speed, if my tire/wheel combo results in my car seeing red line 2/3 of the way down the track my speed won't increase from that point on, obviously my speed is gear limited, not necessarily horsepower limited, so how do you determine how much horsepower I'm making from trap speed alone? If my car doesn't red line until further down the track, and I have enough power to pull red line with the gearing I'm running the car will continue to accelerate and see a higher trap speed.

Jimj

 

For this to be possible in a miata he would have to trap over 140mph. In that case the point would be moot because he would obviously have broken the record he is attempting to break.

Your point is invalid for the purposes of this discussion.

 

lol dan... you got a new number to beat. 335 fm setting the bar high.

 

The difference in MPH given a delta of 0.25 sec was probably on the order of 1-2 MPH.


Jimj - You are approaching this topic in a totally different perspective than the people that brought up trap speeds. They are not talking about it from a purely scientific approach in order to make precision judgments.

Yes, there are approximately one metric* ****-ton of variables that can affect drag racing trap speeds. Yes, that is understood by the people who brought up trap speeds as a confirming statistic.


nitrodann - Sorry for contributing to the side-tracking.


*The Aussies stopped using Imperial ****-tons sometime between 1970 and 1988.

 

Umm, I said it was an FM stroker motor, not an FM dyno or fm hardware. According to the info posted by the cars owner it was running a BEGI manifold and DP with a custom 3" exhaust system..

It's interesting that you assume the info is laughable because you mistakenly assumed it was running an fm turbo.

ScrappyJack, the only reason I posted anything about dyno's vs et/trap speed is because it was stated that some people wouldn't believe a dyno sheet showing he made 3xx hp, but a time slip showing a trap speed >115mph would be proof, I'm saying that it's quite possible for Dann to make over 300 hp and trap under that speed, what if he has wheel spin for the first 200'? All I'm getting at is that there are variables all the way around and that a time slip is no more proof of making a given hp than a dyno, clearly both have their place and both provide meaningful results but some context is required in both cases. Personally I'm anxious to see what the results are regardless of how it's backed up.

Jimj