AMS Tuned Evo

Jakey · 04-24-2005

http://www.srvidz.com/chrisevo.wmv

A//// Guy · 04-24-2005

Awesome kills, I love how that V8 sounds but just doesnt make it in the end haha.

**Halon** · 04-24-2005

Ya that guy lives right by my best friend Barry from Yuma. Barry just sent me that video yesterday. He was there for that race and said that car is just nuts. I'd love to ride in a car with that kind of power. To this day the fastest car I have still ever ridden in is RnR's Evo when it was making somewhere in the 500hp range.

Matt D. · 04-25-2005

Any idea what that Evo is putting down? God damn turbo lag is cool.

**JET** · 04-25-2005

Did you watch the video? It says 601 whp.

Matt D. · 04-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by JET

Did you watch the video? It says 601 whp.

I'm a fucking idiot. I was too mesmerized by the car to see the text.

My question is how they got 600AWHP out of a turbo that hardly flows 65lbs/min at that amount of boost?

**JET** · 04-25-2005

It usually comes out to ~10hp / lb of flow.

slowHonduh · 04-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt D.

My question is how they got 600AWHP out of a turbo that hardly flows 65lbs/min at that amount of boost?

Because it's on 2.3L running 35lbs of boost.

santa · 04-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by 93BoostedAcclude

Because it's on 2.3L running 35lbs of boost.

its accually running according to the vid. 30psi.... I know a guy thats on here that made 550 whp on the gt35r too.. but that was a different engine.

kevin

Matt D. · 04-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by 93BoostedAcclude

Because it's on 2.3L running 35lbs of boost.

And that's the only reason?

**Halon** · 04-25-2005

My buddy Barry told me that they got 650 out of it with a lil more boost. I don't remember the exact psi or HP, but it was something around 650. I'll ask him next time I see him.

slowHonduh · 04-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt D.

And that's the only reason?

I guess i assumed you knew what that turbo is capable of. You should know how it performs on a 2.0L AND on a 2.4L? I wasn't suprised at the numbers when the turbo is rated to 650hp.

So why are you confused?

Jakey · 04-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by me612

Ya that guy lives right by my best friend Barry from Yuma. Barry just sent me that video yesterday. He was there for that race and said that car is just nuts. I'd love to ride in a car with that kind of power. To this day the fastest car I have still ever ridden in is RnR's Evo when it was making somewhere in the 500hp range.

I thought the owner was from Florida??
http://www.racingpensacola.com/forum...er=asc&start=0

Alpine TSi · 04-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by 93BoostedAcclude

Because it's on 2.3L running 35lbs of boost.

Since when does the 2.3 mean more power? I was always under the assumption that you are only gaining more torque and spoolup time. The 2.3 is only taller, not more bore which would mean more power. Or am I completely wrong?

Matt D. · 04-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by 93BoostedAcclude

I guess i assumed you knew what that turbo is capable of. You should know how it performs on a 2.0L AND on a 2.4L? I wasn't suprised at the numbers when the turbo is rated to 650hp.

So why are you confused?

And that's why Brent Rau is still using a 2.0, right? Engine size doesn't mean squat when the entire system can't flow what it's being fed.

Bode · 04-25-2005

Holy shit!

**Shane@DBPerformance** · 04-25-2005

More displacement means more HP at the same boost level/RPM, look at how much more power a 3.0l MKIV Supra can make at the same boost level on the same turbo, even with a less efficient motor. Going from a 2.0l to a 2.4l nets around 50whp on a decent sized turbo. The 2.0l is able to equal or outflow the 2.4l in higher RPMs where the 2.4l is limited to running around 8500RPMs max. So if you are building a crazy race motor and have radical cams and a tranny that work at 10,000RPMs then a 2.0l might be a better option, like for Brent.

A 2.3 has more stroke, a 2.4 has more bore, stroke and deck height. My 2.4 is really only a 2.35l also.

Jacek · 04-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakey

I thought the owner was from Florida??
http://www.racingpensacola.com/forum...er=asc&start=0

Look at the license plate.

slowHonduh · 04-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecoli

More displacement means more HP at the same boost level/RPM, look at how much more power a 3.0l MKIV Supra can make at the same boost level on the same turbo, even with a less efficient motor. Going from a 2.0l to a 2.4l nets around 50whp on a decent sized turbo. The 2.0l is able to equal or outflow the 2.4l in higher RPMs where the 2.4l is limited to running around 8500RPMs max. So if you are building a crazy race motor and have radical cams and a tranny that work at 10,000RPMs then a 2.0l might be a better option, like for Brent.

A 2.3 has more stroke, a 2.4 has more bore, stroke and deck height. My 2.4 is really only a 2.35l also.

I was going to refer to a v6 motor aswell, but shane's explanation pretty much sums it up. It Doesn't matter how big the damn turbo is, there will never be a replacement for displacement.

**Halon** · 04-25-2005

You're right, I'm just full of shit... Actually not, I guess I have to explain the entire story to you. My friend Barry now lives in Pensacola, FL. It's where they train all of our Marine ATC Radar Technicians, it's where I went to school, and he is now an instructor there. In the military you don't stay at one base your whole career. He left for Pensacola a little while before I left Yuma. He has been in Pensacola for about 1 1/2 years now, stationed at NAS Pensacola under the NATTC command. His name on that Pensacola Racing site is BPClements. You can double check all that too if ya want.
But this isn't about him. I was just saying my friend knows that guy personally, and supposidely it's making a little bit more power then what they showed.