EQT Prototype Turbo Results

[Nikolay1]

What I think is most important about these graphs is that they are all on the same dyno and same car I assume (the shop R?), but comparing anything other than the area under the curve is not a fair comparison to other cars, turbos, tunes, and dynos as far as peak numbers.

For example, these graphs showing WHP, 380whp out of a IS38 on 91 octane is right at the top of the heap for output on that turbo, and those numbers are closer to cars running better fuel, W/M, secret sauce, etc. (e.g. RJRacing who trapped 126mph on a maxed IS38)

This should be common knowledge for anyone looking at dyno graphs, but peak numbers don't translate between dynos for a variety of reasons. What does translate are 1/4 mile/trap numbers, 60-130mph sprints, etc. Things that can be timed and compared based on DA.

So using any dyno sheets from the EQT dyno on their car, or other cars on the same dyno will give you a repeatable proof of performance, show improvements due to tuning or setup changes. From 380whp on an IS38 to 500whp is a 120 whp gain with their turbo, upgraded fueling and some ethanol, and that's great. However, comparing just peak numbers to competitors in completely different circumstances just isn't helpful.

Completely agree with this. But 308whp on 91 stage1, and 380whp on 91 stage2 a little strange on same dyno. Of course ambient temperature can be different, but difference in hp is too high. . Maybe 308whp was measured in awd mode, then everything looks ok

 

[flipflp]

Completely agree with this. But 308whp on 91 stage1, and 380whp on 91 stage2 a little strange on same dyno. Of course ambient temperature can be different, but difference in hp is too high. . Maybe 308whp was measured in awd mode, then everything looks ok

The first page shows a ED tuned Stage 2 car at 380whp, the OPs car, and I'm pretty sure that is what is being compared on later graphs as well. If not, it's a really close graph. I can't find an APR Graph that shows only 308whp, their stage 2 high torque for example states 348whp and 387wtq on 91 octane if you want to match to the ED tuned car on the first page:

If you look at the curves they are similar, but EQTs dyno seems to be about 8-10% higher on WHP compared to APR, ALSO comparing 2 completely different cars, 2 different tunes, two different locations, etc. What I'm saying is they aren't comparable.

Consider the gains, not the peak numbers. There was also a comparison dyno for a Tomioka turbo early in the thread too that showed gains over a competitors turbo, same dyno:

What I'm getting from this thread is that with some fueling upgrades and the EQT turbo on 91 octane, I could expect a 70whp gain over an IS38 stage 2 running 91 octane. Thats a real number. If you compare that GAIN with the APR stage 2 graph above and their Stage 3+ setup dyno, you see there is a similar gain (80whp) for 3 times the money. Again, those are real numbers in GAIN.

 

[THEREALVRT]

i hate to say it but until someone runs this setup on another dyno ALL of these numbers are not accurate. Why do i say this? well since we are talking about is38 stg1 and 2....APR shows dyno results on 93 pump at stg 1 at 338whp and stg2 at 354whp. It is very unlikely that an is38 is making 380whp on shitty california 91 ( everywhere i read they say 91 cali gas is horsepiss).
Based on those numbers i think all the other #'s are off ( too high).

 

[Hoon]

I made 367whp SAE Dynojet on 93 octane.

It was on kill, wasn't going to make another HP.

 

[flipflp]

i hate to say it but until someone runs this setup on another dyno ALL of these numbers are not accurate. Why do i say this? well since we are talking about is38 stg1 and 2....APR shows dyno results on 93 pump at stg 1 at 338whp and stg2 at 354whp. It is very unlikely that an is38 is making 380whp on shitty california 91 ( everywhere i read they say 91 cali gas is horsepiss).
Based on those numbers i think all the other #'s are off ( too high).

Read my post, it's worthless to talk about peak numbers and compare other companies dynos, but there are comparison dynos from EQT that if we ignore peak numbers still show reasonable GAINS, and that's what is important.

 

[THEREALVRT]

Read my post, it's worthless to talk about peak numbers and compare other companies dynos, but there are comparison dynos from EQT that if we ignore peak numbers still show reasonable GAINS, and that's what is important.

maybe so, i know that i'd be disappointed if i bought a turbo and i made nowhere near the numbers that are being touted in this thread.
Is turbo turbo an upgrade over an is38. absolutely.

 

[Ed @ EQT]

What I think is most important about these graphs is that they are all on the same dyno and same car I assume (the shop R?), but comparing anything other than the area under the curve is not a fair comparison to other cars, turbos, tunes, and dynos as far as peak numbers.

For example, these graphs showing WHP, 380whp out of a IS38 on 91 octane is right at the top of the heap for output on that turbo, and those numbers are closer to cars running better fuel, W/M, secret sauce, etc. (e.g. RJRacing who trapped 126mph on a maxed IS38)

This should be common knowledge for anyone looking at dyno graphs, but peak numbers don't translate between dynos for a variety of reasons. What does translate are 1/4 mile/trap numbers, 60-130mph sprints, etc. Things that can be timed and compared based on DA.

So using any dyno sheets from the EQT dyno on their car, or other cars on the same dyno will give you a repeatable proof of performance, show improvements due to tuning or setup changes. From 380whp on an IS38 to 500whp is a 120 whp gain with their turbo, upgraded fueling and some ethanol, and that's great. However, comparing just peak numbers to competitors in completely different circumstances just isn't helpful.

This is 100% correct. Every dyno reads differently and can't honestly be compared to each other without a lot of data points. This is why I always try to show gains and comparisons on the same dyno and ideally the same car. Our dyno is a Dynocom brand chassis dyno and we have found it to read close to most Dynojets and Dynapak dynos. Some Mustang dynos will read 10-15% lower. Some Dynojets read lower than others, and those usually come in around 5% lower than our dyno.

The gains are always the important thing to note. The 380whp IS38 pull was on the same customers car with the same mods aside from the EQT Turbo and HPFP. The car was running an ED tune at the time and it was definitely on the aggressive side compared to other canned tunes I've seen. My own personal Golf R on an APR Stage 2 High Torque 91 map made 365whp. I could have used that chart as a comparison, but its a different car so I felt it was more fair to use the 380whp ED pull from the same car that was testing the turbo. FWIW, with custom tuning via Cobb, I was able to get my own car up to about 380-385whp on the IS38 on a good batch of 91 Octane.

Thanks
-- Ed

 

[Ed @ EQT]

This is strange, 380whp on 91 octane with is38, especially looks at graph by this link https://eqtuning.com/blogs/tunes/eqt-2016-golf-r-testing
where golf R with APR intake and APR Stage 1 91 Octane High Torque have 308whp (this is looks like real whp), or this graph was done in awd mode?

Please understand me right, I am not trying to demonstrate that you are wrong, I am just want to understand what real power can do this turbo, this is very interesting product.

Very interesting to see measurement from dragy with 500whp on E30 mix.

I can understand the confusion when looking at the chart on the blog. That chart was done at the beginning of 2017 when we were using a correction factor to artificially lower the numbers that the dyno put out. We were doing this back then to match up our numbers to a couple very low reading mustang dynos in the area. Back then our business was mostly local and mostly focused on Subaru. The Subaru market here was very used to the heatbreaker numbers, so we ran the correction factor to make our dyno read the same. This was good for the local market, but it presented challenges when we started expanding to other platforms and releasing products because our results were always compared to other Dynocom dynos around the world which of course read significantly higher. In 2018, we upgraded our dyno software and decided it was a good time to revert to the native Dynocom calibration so that our results were directly in line with all the other Dynocom dynos. So any charts posted after 2017 are using the 100% native calibration from Dynocom and can be compared directly to other Dynocom numbers. Over the last year, we've found the native Dynocom calibration reads very similar to Dynapak dynos, within 2-5% of most Dynojets, and 5-15% higher than most Mustang Dynos.

Hope this helps clear up any confusion.

Thanks
-- Ed

 

[Ed @ EQT]

maybe so, i know that i'd be disappointed if i bought a turbo and i made nowhere near the numbers that are being touted in this thread.
Is turbo turbo an upgrade over an is38. absolutely.

Unfortunately that's always the issue with comparing numbers from different dynos. Some read higher, some read lower. At the end of the day, gains and real world performance are the important parts. FWIW, my personal Golf R on the IS38 and E85 made about 440whp on my dyno. I ran it at the drag strip one night but was having major clutch slip and launch issues and the car still managed 11.7 @ 120mph with several cuts through the run due to clutch slip. The car was completely full weight with a kid seat still in place. Considering that overall power levels are very similar to the EQT Turbo on 91 octane, I think it would be safe to say that its capable of 120mph trap speeds on 91. And this is for a full weight Golf R... GTI's should be able to trap a bit higher. Of course for good runs on 91, conditions have to be pretty nice.

Thanks
-- Ed

 

[THEREALVRT]

Unfortunately that's always the issue with comparing numbers from different dynos. Some read higher, some read lower. At the end of the day, gains and real world performance are the important parts. FWIW, my personal Golf R on the IS38 and E85 made about 440whp on my dyno. I ran it at the drag strip one night but was having major clutch slip and launch issues and the car still managed 11.7 @ 120mph with several cuts through the run due to clutch slip. The car was completely full weight with a kid seat still in place. Considering that overall power levels are very similar to the EQT Turbo on 91 octane, I think it would be safe to say that its capable of 120mph trap speeds on 91. Of course for good runs on 91, conditions have to be pretty nice

-- Ed

DYNO numbers are a very poor indicator imo, my buddy made 450whp with his boss500 on eurodynes mustang dyno, everyone claims mustang dynos read low, i do NOT consider that 450whp he made to be a low number.

the 91 octane you ran that pass with was it california 91?

 

[flipflp]

maybe so, i know that i'd be disappointed if i bought a turbo and i made nowhere near the numbers that are being touted in this thread.
Is turbo turbo an upgrade over an is38. absolutely.

Then you need to stop comparing peak dyno graph numbers in your choice for purchasing turbos

 

[Ed @ EQT]

DYNO numbers are a very poor indicator imo, my buddy made 450whp with his boss500 on eurodynes mustang dyno, everyone claims mustang dynos read low, i do NOT consider that 450whp he made to be a low number.

the 91 octane you ran that pass with was it california 91?

You mean the 91 Octane dyno run with our turbo? If so, yes it was California 91. Although we have found certain brands are significantly worse than others out here and sometimes you can get very bad gas even from good brands. The gas we had was a good tank of 91 (as good as it gets out here).

Yes, some Mustang dynos read very low and others read just like dynojets. As I said, its pointless to compare numbers from different dynos.

Thanks
-- Ed

 

[tytus1994]

Ed what type of power are you seeing on 93? I'm looking to be at over 400hp.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[PacDawg]

DYNO numbers are a very poor indicator imo, my buddy made 450whp with his boss500 on eurodynes mustang dyno, everyone claims mustang dynos read low, i do NOT consider that 450whp he made to be a low number.

the 91 octane you ran that pass with was it california 91?

If you qre referring on to Ed's 1/4 pass im pretty sure it was on full e85 with the stock golf r turbo.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Ed @ EQT]

If you qre referring on to Ed's 1/4 pass im pretty sure it was on full e85 with the stock golf r turbo.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

That's correct. My 120mph trap was full weight golf R with stock turbo (IS38) on full E85. The car was making about 440whp on my dyno at the time.

Thanks
-- Ed