WHICH CONTROLLER TELLS YOU MORE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WITH A TURBO IN THE REAL WORLD? THE MANUAL CONTROLLER OR THE ELECTRONIC CONTROLLER? WHAT IS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE? THE TUMBNAIL (IF I RECALL CORRECTLY) IS A 4G63 EVO MOTORTHAT WAS NEAR 1000 HP AT THE MAXTON MILE. YES…IT WENT FASTER THAN MY CHEVY SPRINT TURBO!
source
That was probably Mike Reichen's Mitsubishi evo 2. Couple video's of the car on here.
David Vizard said a flat tappet cam with less than 270°of advertised duration was better than an equivalent roller
Must underrated car show on YouTube, the wealth of knowledge and willingness to share said knowledge is hard to find on youtube. You can literally set a power goal, skim through all of his testing right down to the exact parts he ran and see exactly what your motor is capable of. I have a few cars and I have asked Richard rhetorical questions that I knew the absolute answer to that were really oddball questions that only someone who has either torn down that motor or has done testing on that motor would know about. He is very humble in his approach when telling someone they don't know what they're talking about or calling someone out for making an outlandish claim about a motor or something along those lines. We need more people like Richard in this world, people who truly love what they do but are willing to take their time out of the day to educate others and even people who ask him questions that you should know if you've ever worked on a car or a small garage or even watched YouTube videos about period people ask him nonsense questions that they could Google and easily find the answers to and I'm talking simple stuff because they're just asking to ask they're not asking because they actually need the information to work on a car or complete a build. I salute him for treating people like human beings when they treat him like he's the 19 yo cashier at your local O'Reilly's car part store.
a manual gives you more speed and control over the power of your engine but auto gives you better fuel millage.
Cool thumbnail picture.
Richard needs another 25k subscribers to hit 250k by the end of the year. Be sure to like, share, subscribe, ring the bell, do all that stuff. He'll keep testing
I think you get more data with a manual controller . You will know exactly at boost the turbo is done- boost starts to drop off in higher rpm. N electronic will manipulate it to hold that boost in higher rpm the best it can.
That said , my current is on ebcs because it has too much response , can make big boost at low rpm, I can adjust for it so I don’t break a rod – again
Neither one does anything until 7 pounds of boost.
An AWD Galant would have been known as a Galant VR4. They made a few in the late 80s and early 90s.
I was thinking about why modern cars often end up with electronic boost controllers. Some would shape the boost curve so that power delivery felt more linear. Factory turbocharged cars with complex ECUs do this. I used to have a 2002 VW Jetta 1.8T 180HP. When my dad drove it, he had no idea it was a turbo 4, he had a Lexus ES300 which was an NA V6, and things felt similar. It wasn't until I explained to him that the car was a turbo and had certain needs.
Not all modern turbo cars are made to behave exactly like that. A Mitsubishi Evo or WRX STi is made to be a beast.
I like how some of these new engine management computers include a boost controller. I think they could be programmed to shape the boost curve, much like a factory turbocharged car would have been.
17:54 Some cars limited boost for first gear mechanically. The early SAAB 900 turbo 8V did. They were trying to get 145HP and I'm not sure how much more Ft/Lb from a light FWD car that had skinny tires. Also, when they developed their weird backwards and sideways transaxle, engineers never originally planned for turbo power. That may have been another reason to lockout full boost in 1st gear.
23:29 The stuff people do to those VWs can be fascinating. VWvortex has great stories. Also, most people are doing that in Europe.
25:14 During the 1990s, Japan's version of the Subaru Legacy had an optional 2.0L sequential turbo engine. I think it was called "Levorg." Subaru never used sequential turbos after that. It sounds like a good idea. Many cars sold in Japan have 2.0L engines because there is a tax based on displacement. Getting 280HP from a single turbo 2.0L engine meant waiting for about 4000 RPM to reach full boost. I'm not sure how much more quickly a 2.0L engine could reach full boost, and still be capable of 280HP.
39:39 The Nissan 300ZXTT did have 2 BOVs. However, each bank had its own turbo and intercooler.
Sorry I missed it
I'm waiting for a shootout between BTRs Hotrod cam and Sloppy's BEST cam on a 6.0. I think it'll be close!
I always always always recognize an early 4g63 when I glance at one. Had to sell my 97 talon tsi during covid to change careers. Will own one again