Tuning my 07 sti (manual) 0-100?

[Robbks]

Lol ok... If that were the true, Looking forward to seeing some 12 sec TD04 Foresters then.

making a car do 0-100 is far different from making it to flat 12's
power band requirements are totally different.
auto's are probably faster at 0-100 simply as they're not doing gear changes costing .2 of a second, they are staying at full torque when doing so.

[<GB>]

Lol ok... If that were the true, Looking forward to seeing some 12 sec TD04 Foresters then.

making a car do 0-100 is far different from making it to flat 12's
power band requirements are totally different.
auto's are probably faster at 0-100 simply as they're not doing gear changes costing .2 of a second, they are staying at full torque when doing so.

and you can stall them on the line with maybe a small amount of boost

[Robbks]

and you can stall them on the line with maybe a small amount of boost

Small....
My legacy would see 12-13psi and 2900rpm on the brake.

[dazzz168]

I don't agree with that. 0-100 sprints still use the same rev range as u would when going down the 1/4 mile with the exception of the extra gears used beyond 100kmp/h. So it's the rev range from above 4000rpm that count... If you have no power there, your times would suck regardless of how much power and torque u have under 4000rpm.

[dr20t]

I don't agree with that. 0-100 sprints still use the same rev range as u would when going down the 1/4 mile with the exception of the extra gears used beyond 100kmp/h. So it's the rev range from above 4000rpm that count... If you have no power there, your times would suck regardless of how much power and torque u have under 4000rpm.

Daz in my auto, my car stays in first to about 85kmh.

Brake boosting (my old setup) I would see 12-14psi

[<GB>]

and you can stall them on the line with maybe a small amount of boost

Small....
My legacy would see 12-13psi and 2900rpm on the brake.

I don't own an auto and don't have a small turbo so thought it would be small amount but thats pretty good boost from stall

[KiDo_Tuning]

I don't agree with that. 0-100 sprints still use the same rev range as u would when going down the 1/4 mile with the exception of the extra gears used beyond 100kmp/h. So it's the rev range from above 4000rpm that count... If you have no power there, your times would suck regardless of how much power and torque u have under 4000rpm.

0-100kph has the full engine rpm sweep in 1st, then wind out 2nd. Gear ratios dictate 1st say changes at 65kph and drops to 3600rpm in 2nd then wind it out, 2nd to 3rd shift is closer to 4400 when 3rd engages and THAT is what affects 1/4 mile times. A TD04 pulling hard at the top of 4th is harder due to lack of torque, big turbo filling the engines lungs and it will pull to rev limiter etc. This is why a TD04 can sprint off the line so much quicker and is why MY FXT's turbo choice was based on torque across the whole rpm range.

More area of torque under the curve whilst in gear = acceleration and in gear torque multiplication is the winner here for sprinting off the line.

VF46 again is a great sprinter and is capable of good top end too.

[Robbks]

Thanks for elaborating on my thoughts Matt.

Have seen a number of guys change things from say a TD05-16G to a 20G. or VF34 to a VF34P20
Dyno says 20KW more power, but the car is slower to half-track, and by the end has higher MPH but higher or no change in ET.

Dazza, More than half the time for 0-100 is going to be getting the thing up to 40km/h.
my 3RB is slow from 0-100 (6 speed requires it be in 3rd gear so i've wasted time changing gears an extra time) and also lacks the power for good 1/4 mile times.

but kick it in the guts in 3rd on the highway and 80-140 disappears very quickly.

[peadya100]

Matt & whoever else knows what theyre talking about, please have a look at my profile which on page 1 shows my vf46 vs my vf52 tune. To my untrained eyes it looks like the vf52 has more torque and power across the entire rev range... in 3rd gear anyway. So based on what you just said about torque shouldn't my vf52 tune be quicker than the vf46?

[Robbks]

problem is,
dyno charts starting at 3500rpm in a high gear don;t help you know how they actually behave on the road.
while you can launch at 5krpm and not dip below 3500, the engine load in 1st and 2nd is much different and as such is not enough to pull those bigger turbo's onto high boost (torque) as easily.
the same goes when you shift from 1-2, the dyno doesn't show the boost response from a closed throttle when changing gears

[dazzz168]

Robbks, I understand what u a saying and I agree... But I'm trying to compare apples for apples here, same gear box etc. If you believe a TD04 forester can do it in 4secs... Then lol.

I'm more than happy to share my logs of my vf52 vs TD04 runs. There's no way the td04 will keep up with a vf52 just like a vf46 vs vf52...

[peadya100]

problem is,
dyno charts starting at 3500rpm in a high gear don;t help you know how they actually behave on the road.
while you can launch at 5krpm and not dip below 3500, the engine load in 1st and 2nd is much different and as such is not enough to pull those bigger turbo's onto high boost (torque) as easily.
the same goes when you shift from 1-2, the dyno doesn't show the boost response from a closed throttle when changing gears

That makes sense. Its just hard for me to grasp that in the bum dyno stakes as my car feels MUCH MUCH faster to 100 now than it did with the previous turbo. Ill just have to take everyones word for it. Wish id done a 0-100 with the old turbo!

[Robbks]

Dazz,
Exactly what I was trying to convey.
Same car, same mods, just different turbo.
TD04 equipped will get away quicker than the vf52, and it'll pick up speed faster after a gear change too.

My old GT Fozz (TD04 and 3" TBE equipped) could not make 17psi in 1st gear on a flat road, with 4.44 ratio's the engine load wasn;t there to build the boost
the new 2.5's have the extra airflow to get them going much sooner, but i would expect the bigger VF's to be in the same boat and my old GT>

Anyone logged a decent 4krpm launch through to redline in a 2.5 + VF52 (or similar) combo.
I'd be interested to see how much boost you can actually build

That makes sense. Its just hard for me to grasp that in the bum dyno stakes as my car feels MUCH MUCH faster to 100 now than it did with the previous turbo. Ill just have to take everyones word for it. Wish id done a 0-100 with the old turbo!

Did you have an ECU tune with the same boost control strategy and DBW dynamics with the old turbo?
If not, there's no comparison. it most likely IS much faster.

[peadya100]

Short answer I dont know how it was tuned. But it was samr tuner both times just a different turbo the second time.
Just tested boost in my car. Doesnt start making boost until 4000rpm in 1st. Starts making it at 2800ish rpm in 2nd. Dont know about third. That feels like similar rev ranges to the last turbo though.

[dr20t]

Short answer I dont know how it was tuned. But it was samr tuner both times just a different turbo the second time.
Just tested boost in my car. Doesnt start making boost until 4000rpm in 1st. Starts making it at 2800ish rpm in 2nd. Dont know about third. That feels like similar rev ranges to the last turbo though.

When you say doesn't start making boost, do u mean full boost or any boost. Cos that doesn't seem right