Fiat 124 Spider Forum banner

81 - 100 of 136 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,070 Posts
Anything is possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,368 Posts
Still waiting for his video
He is pretty slow on videos and John is absolutely swamped with work. My revised tune due to the new Fiat engine calibration will take 5-6 weeks total wait time :cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,070 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,368 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter #88
I know I haven't been very active on here for a while...life definitely knows how to throw curve balls.

Anyways, I'm going to post this hear since I think I started 2 or 3 turbo related discussions on the past.
I'm debating between EC's 1446, NGEN's 1446 (the 6 wheel one that GWR is using) and a 1752 with port/polishing.

Setup on the car will be GWR's high flow cat(looking to change the outlet to 2.5) with 2.5 inch straight pipe from there. EC's intercooler and Madness maxflow intake. Will like to stick to recirc BOV(even with a 1752 I'd like to route back into the intake). Will also be utilizing NGEN's ported manifold. Custom heat shielding will be done on the downpipe, manifold and hot side of the turbo. Engine internals untouched at this time.

So what I've been reading so far is that EC's turbo spools a tiny bit later than stock(maybe same with the ported manifold), the 6 blade NGEN spools the same(but maybe attributed to ported manifold), and the 1752 definitely spools later but have read not first hand accounts of how it performs with a port/polish, high flow cat, or ported manifold. I'd be fine with the amount of lag the 1752 is said to have but not anything more.

Personally, I think I've pretty much decided on the 1752 for my build. BUT I know EC's turbo has a bigger compressor/turbine wheel and I'm assuming so does NGEN's. So does this mean the stuffed turbo options will perform just as well on the top end? What are the benefits of the stuffed options besides cost and complexity of install?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
I know I haven't been very active on here for a while...life definitely knows how to throw curve balls.

Anyways, I'm going to post this hear since I think I started 2 or 3 turbo related discussions on the past.
I'm debating between EC's 1446, NGEN's 1446 (the 6 wheel one that GWR is using) and a 1752 with port/polishing.

Setup on the car will be GWR's high flow cat(looking to change the outlet to 2.5) with 2.5 inch straight pipe from there. EC's intercooler and Madness maxflow intake. Will like to stick to recirc BOV(even with a 1752 I'd like to route back into the intake). Will also be utilizing NGEN's ported manifold. Custom heat shielding will be done on the downpipe, manifold and hot side of the turbo. Engine internals untouched at this time.

So what I've been reading so far is that EC's turbo spools a tiny bit later than stock(maybe same with the ported manifold), the 6 blade NGEN spools the same(but maybe attributed to ported manifold), and the 1752 definitely spools later but have read not first hand accounts of how it performs with a port/polish, high flow cat, or ported manifold. I'd be fine with the amount of lag the 1752 is said to have but not anything more.

Personally, I think I've pretty much decided on the 1752 for my build. BUT I know EC's turbo has a bigger compressor/turbine wheel and I'm assuming so does NGEN's. So does this mean the stuffed turbo options will perform just as well on the top end? What are the benefits of the stuffed options besides cost and complexity of install?
I have the EC1446 with straight pipe cat , stock cross / mid pipe & Goodwin roadster sport muffler . Whatever lag in spool is discussed is not anything noticeable and your cat will help with this . The power is fantastic on the top end . We were just on fiat on the snake event and I pulled back and went behind the tork dyno tuned 500 and as he accelerated I did the same behind him to see the power difference since there was a big splash online about him going and being dyno tuned with the 1752 turbo and making a lot more power . I also went in front and did more of the same to get a good feel of his power . I expected him to be faster and pull away on the top end . I was surprised that we pretty much pulled the same until I reached 4th gear top end it felt like I started to both gain / pull away when I was in front . Yes I’m also aware of the gearing diffence in the two cars , I’m speaking strictly when accelerating ( I can see when he shifts ). So that may be the best tune that exists on the 1752 turbo and it was not faster then my 1446. happy I went with the stuffed turbo from EC , it’s quite fast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,987 Posts
I know I haven't been very active on here for a while...life definitely knows how to throw curve balls.

Anyways, I'm going to post this hear since I think I started 2 or 3 turbo related discussions on the past.
I'm debating between EC's 1446, NGEN's 1446 (the 6 wheel one that GWR is using) and a 1752 with port/polishing.

Setup on the car will be GWR's high flow cat(looking to change the outlet to 2.5) with 2.5 inch straight pipe from there. EC's intercooler and Madness maxflow intake. Will like to stick to recirc BOV(even with a 1752 I'd like to route back into the intake). Will also be utilizing NGEN's ported manifold. Custom heat shielding will be done on the downpipe, manifold and hot side of the turbo. Engine internals untouched at this time.

So what I've been reading so far is that EC's turbo spools a tiny bit later than stock(maybe same with the ported manifold), the 6 blade NGEN spools the same(but maybe attributed to ported manifold), and the 1752 definitely spools later but have read not first hand accounts of how it performs with a port/polish, high flow cat, or ported manifold. I'd be fine with the amount of lag the 1752 is said to have but not anything more.

Personally, I think I've pretty much decided on the 1752 for my build. BUT I know EC's turbo has a bigger compressor/turbine wheel and I'm assuming so does NGEN's. So does this mean the stuffed turbo options will perform just as well on the top end? What are the benefits of the stuffed options besides cost and complexity of install?
I'd like to know for certain but it looks like the EC and NGEN 6 blade turbos are the same, as is the port and polished manifold they both sell. If you are considering the 1752 maybe take a look at the NGEN 11 blade turbo. The 1752 isn't plug and play but seems easy enough to make work. It would be the better turbo for top end stuff but I'd rather have a better daily driver, which I think would be accomplished with the stuffed turbos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter #91
I have the EC1446 with straight pipe cat , stock cross / mid pipe & Goodwin roadster sport muffler . Whatever lag in spool is discussed is not anything noticeable and your cat will help with this . The power is fantastic on the top end . We were just on fiat on the snake event and I pulled back and went behind the tork dyno tuned 500 and as he accelerated I did the same behind him to see the power difference since there was a big splash online about him going and being dyno tuned with the 1752 turbo and making a lot more power . I also went in front and did more of the same to get a good feel of his power . I expected him to be faster and pull away on the top end . I was surprised that we pretty much pulled the same until I reached 4th gear top end it felt like I started to both gain / pull away when I was in front . Yes I’m also aware of the gearing diffence in the two cars , I’m speaking strictly when accelerating ( I can see when he shifts ). So that may be the best tune that exists on the 1752 turbo and it was not faster then my 1446. happy I went with the stuffed turbo from EC , it’s quite fast.
Oh wow, didn't realize you still had the stock cross and mid pipe! That really does sound promising then. So assuming the 1752 would perform about the same, do you think it would produce less heat than the EC 1446? My thinking is that slightly bigger turbo doesn't have to work as hard thus producing less heat, or is that totally wrong? lol

I'd like to know for certain but it looks like the EC and NGEN 6 blade turbos are the same, as is the port and polished manifold they both sell. If you are considering the 1752 maybe take a look at the NGEN 11 blade turbo. The 1752 isn't plug and play but seems easy enough to make work. It would be the better turbo for top end stuff but I'd rather have a better daily driver, which I think would be accomplished with the stuffed turbos.
Yeah, a confirmation on that would be nice if I decide on a stuffed 1446. But the port/polished manifold most likely is the same.
I think the 11 blade might be geared even more so towards the top end. The 1752 is still a 6 blade after all.
@NGEN could you shed any light on this? I know the NGEN Abarth 500 had the 11 blade gtx wheel, how does it compare to the 1752 and 6 blade?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,070 Posts
I’ve got the EC turbo, the GWR downpipe, the complete GWR RoadsterSport exhaust, and the EC Phase 3 tune on 91 octane. I retained the stock exhaust manifold, and my crosspipe is 2.25” because I have an auto. The turbo spools up very quick, enough that I have to say it does just as fast as the stock turbo with the same components. What I’m not hearing above and is definitely true is that the boost threshold is higher with the EC turbo than the stock one with the same setup, I’d say by as much as 500 rpm. With the stock turbo, I would have almost instant spool starting at around 2500, now it’s around 3000. However, after the EC turbo is spooled the car becomes a whole different animal. Upgrading the turbo was almost like getting a different car, and it’s awesome.

I’m also still using the DV+ and it is working just fine. I see no need to upgrade to the Forge unit and I’m glad I don’t have the added complexity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
Read the fine print for the EC and NGEN turbos. They come from the same address. They are GPOP turbos.
Seth, GPOP makes stuffed 1752 turbos too, I think.
I really wish I had access to a Borg Warner EFR 6258 and try to see if it could be made to fit. I could get a downpipe made, I just worry about the turbo being too long with just an adapter on the stock exhaust manifold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I’ve got the EC turbo, the GWR downpipe, the complete GWR RoadsterSport exhaust, and the EC Phase 3 tune on 91 octane. I retained the stock exhaust manifold, and my crosspipe is 2.25” because I have an auto. The turbo spools up very quick, enough that I have to say it does just as fast as the stock turbo with the same components. What I’m not hearing above and is definitely true is that the boost threshold is higher with the EC turbo than the stock one with the same setup, I’d say by as much as 500 rpm. With the stock turbo, I would have almost instant spool starting at around 2500, now it’s around 3000. However, after the EC turbo is spooled the car becomes a whole different animal. Upgrading the turbo was almost like getting a different car, and it’s awesome.

I’m also still using the DV+ and it is working just fine. I see no need to upgrade to the Forge unit and I’m glad I don’t have the added complexity.
Shark, your configuration is very interesting, P3 with a large 1446 turbo, I'm evaluating it seriously. Do you have any performance data? maybe 70-150 (in 4 gear) so to understand the benefits?

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,987 Posts
I’ve got the EC turbo, the GWR downpipe, the complete GWR RoadsterSport exhaust, and the EC Phase 3 tune on 91 octane. I retained the stock exhaust manifold, and my crosspipe is 2.25” because I have an auto. The turbo spools up very quick, enough that I have to say it does just as fast as the stock turbo with the same components. What I’m not hearing above and is definitely true is that the boost threshold is higher with the EC turbo than the stock one with the same setup, I’d say by as much as 500 rpm. With the stock turbo, I would have almost instant spool starting at around 2500, now it’s around 3000. However, after the EC turbo is spooled the car becomes a whole different animal. Upgrading the turbo was almost like getting a different car, and it’s awesome.

I’m also still using the DV+ and it is working just fine. I see no need to upgrade to the Forge unit and I’m glad I don’t have the added complexity.
I still look at the below dyno chart and shake my head. Almost 30% power loss at redline from peak at 4500 RPMs. Does the big turbo solve or least limit this loss?

73481
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter #96
The stuffed turbo options are sounding great from what I'm hearing. Thanks for sharing your experiences guys!
The only thing keeping me from just getting a stuffed turbo now is hearing how different it feels from a 1752.
Yeah there was Eddie's car...but I don't recall a dyno run without E85 or a comparison where the only big variable was the turbo.

@Greg On the 500 platform, what differences have you seen between customers running the 1752 vs EC' stuffed turbo? any dyno info you can share for comparison? I'm assuming EC has seen a few 500's with both the 1752 and stuffed turbo by now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,987 Posts
The stuffed turbo options are sounding great from what I'm hearing. Thanks for sharing your experiences guys!
The only thing keeping me from just getting a stuffed turbo now is hearing how different it feels from a 1752.
Yeah there was Eddie's car...but I don't recall a dyno run without E85 or a comparison where the only big variable was the turbo.

@Greg On the 500 platform, what differences have you seen between customers running the 1752 vs EC' stuffed turbo? any dyno info you can share for comparison? I'm assuming EC has seen a few 500's with both the 1752 and stuffed turbo by now.
Eddie did a 1/4 mile run with the 1752 before he went E85. Based on his time and trap speed I'd estimate he was making around 205 WHP at that time. I believe he might have commented he was running a mild tune also. The EC stuffed turbos have shown to make at least that much if not a little more on 91 octane. For me, my money is on the stuffed turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Eddie did a 1/4 mile run with the 1752 before he went E85. Based on his time and trap speed I'd estimate he was making around 205 WHP at that time. I believe he might have commented he was running a mild tune also. The EC stuffed turbos have shown to make at least that much if not a little more on 91 octane. For me, my money is on the stuffed turbo.
I don't understand, over 15sec for 1/4 miles?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
I still look at the below dyno chart and shake my head. Almost 30% power loss at redline from peak at 4500 RPMs. Does the big turbo solve or least limit this loss?

View attachment 73481
My stuffed EC turbo made slightly more power at 5750-6k rpm then it did at 4500 :eek: Then tapered off from 221 wheel @6k to 187 wheel @7k. That’s a 50+ wheel gain to redline from the chart below. Also The car was backfiring and acting up on the dyno ( 2 wheel & we had just flashed it ) it’s even faster now that it’s adapted And all the learning curves are gone . The power to redline is solid
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,070 Posts
I'm not going to knock anyone's choices. It doesn't matter to me whether you go EC, or Tork, or NGEN, or something else. I just want to see everyone get a big turbo because it's the shit.

It sounds like @klikai got the Speedmotive 1700s and is working with Tork. @klikai, keep us posted on how it is going for you!

 
81 - 100 of 136 Posts
Top