[issabmw]

Originally Posted by nimrod107

Have had both, but for me it came down to what a few others have said. Showing up to client meetings in an STI just wasn't cutting it. I love both cars and wouldn't mind either, but I wasn't getting much respect in the STI where it counted (paying the bills). In the end if you don't care about that or aren't in a position where it matters pick what you like. It's not like you're marrying the car, you can always get out of it a year later or less. actually come to think of it I think you can do that with a girl too. Good Luck with the decision!

Hit the nail on the head.

Unfortunately the market shapes the image, and the image is frowned upon amongst the business community.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by nimrod107

Have had both, but for me it came down to what a few others have said. Showing up to client meetings in an STI just wasn't cutting it. I love both cars and wouldn't mind either, but I wasn't getting much respect in the STI where it counted (paying the bills). In the end if you don't care about that or aren't in a position where it matters pick what you like. It's not like you're marrying the car, you can always get out of it a year later or less. actually come to think of it I think you can do that with a girl too. Good Luck with the decision!

i feel ya.

i traded in the STi for the SRT8 because taking clients and coworkers to lunch in a professional engineering field is better served in a roomy automatic 425hp V8 HEMI

and i chose my 335 over my beloved pullied and tuned 04 Cobra last December

i think i made the right choice - but i'm STILL locked in for a Cobra sometimes before Thanksgiving.

SRT8, 335 and Cobra should be a healthy stable.

[MKE_M3]

BMW 335i's are sports sedans, not sports cars. The STI is a sports car, that just so happens to be a sedan (or hatch) so it's a bit difficult to compare.

I've driven both (I prefer EVOs to STIs btw), and for a daily driver, the track, or a long road trip I'd take the 335i. I am a sucker for quality interior materials, a great stereo, classic looks, and fun to drive. They both are fun to drive, but BMW is superior, by a long shot, in the other areas. The thought of trading a 335i w/ 35k mi (barely broken in) AND $15-20k for a Subaru STI and a Warrenty is a bit crazy.

I just don't get it.

[MKE_M3]

...even as an even trade, I'd never do it

[plague]

to each his own. i just came from a b6 s4, which isnt remotely anything like the two vehicles being spoken off. the 335i is my first AWD car.. i think i prefer the handling of rwd actually.. its more direct, understeer is quite annoying. i did love my s4 though. but back on topic, i think you drive a sporty bmw as opposed to an evo, xrt, sti etc bc of the well... asthetics. the mentioned cars all have one thing in common. that boy racer, chincey, designed by 4 year olds look. uckk. so. but another may like that look which is fine. i think the sti is the best of them. i still dont think it will be as rewarding as your 07 335. you said 35000 miles i believe???? i think.. well. mileage is still low. you switching bc your warranty is up? thats a poop reason... go buy an extended for 3k then ....

[luca335i]

Find a nice 2010 335 with low mileage I would say. You can use your mods and have a fresh n54. Why downgrade? Forget speed, you can make any car fast. Having a fast BMW is better than having a fast anything else IMO. Parts are expensive for a n54,but at least it's a better , more well built car than any subie

[RedPorsche]

I have a 2004 Sti with 32,000 miles (its for sale). The motor is stock but the suspension is slightly modded. It has been a great car and it is a 4 door sports car. I have a 91 Porsche 964 that is primarily an AX car and has taken many FTDs at PCA events. The Sti is nearly as fast but I think Ive outgrown it. The road surface in the area you live makes a huge difference in the interior noise. Make sure you drive it on the typical road surface in the area you live. I love the car and Im sure I will miss it as it is a lot of fun to throw around which is something I doubt Ill do in a BMW as much. Ive just ordered a e90 335i with M package and im looking forward to a more comfortable car that will be good for trips. I dont think it is as fast as the Sti based on my test drives but it is very close and MUCH more comfortable, and it is possible to mod it a little and make it as fast. Heck maybe the 335 is as fast, I havent driven it enough yet to really know.
If I had some extra garage space I would keep the Sti.

Craig

[FVM3]

stay with 335i

[Graystone]

Thanks for the great advice all . Im very impressed with the civil manner that everyone approached such a possibly sensitive topic.
I think I will hold out, hope the market gets better in my area quickly so I can afford to stay in a BMW.
CHEERS!!

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Litos

to be honest with you, i miss my 05 STi more than anything and enjoyed every single moment driving it. the exhaust sound is the greatest sound you can ever be blessed with.

the 2011 STi sounds like a sick little car though. all it takes is a 3" ebay exhaust and a PROTuned Cobb and you'll have yourself a high 12 second car that appears as if it's riding on rails, 4 comfortable seats, 6 speed transmission that's built out of bits and pieces of the son and Chuck Norris' beard, a vehicle with less than 50 miles and a car with the same exact potential as an N54 without all the recalls and garbage fuel system parts.

you can't go wrong with any year STi, but PLEASE, do NOT get a WRX......

I've owned an '04 WRX and an '06 STI, both of which had full bolt-ons (bigger turbo + supporting mods on the WRX & full bolt-ons on E85 on the STI), full suspension mods ect, and both of which were tuned. I've also tuned a few other Subaru's over the years... and have driven the new STI (a couple '08 hatches as well as the new '11 sedan).... I was not impressed by the new STI, not at all. I have Mitsubishi, but if I was in the EVO/STI boat, there's no question, after pushing the EVO X & new STI to 10/10ths, hands down, the EVO is the better machine, by a long shot.

To say the EJ257 powered STI has the "same potential" as the N54 is a bit of a misnomer. Sure, you can squeeze more power out of an STI than you can the N54, but that is more a matter of it having a larger aftermarket rather than the potential of the motor. I've played with numerous turbo 4's over the years.... and comparatively to inlines, boxer motors are inherently fragile. Due to their configuration, they don't dissipate heat as well as an inline and as such typically need to be tuned a bit more conservatively (a bit richer in order to use the fuel to cool the heads/stave off detonation). Combine that with poor turbo location (right under the sub-par TMIC), unequal length headers, unequal length fuel rails/lines and cast pistons and you have yourself a recipe for a motor that is less than ideal to say the least.

Yes, these motors have problems with fuel pumps ect, but to say the STI is without issues is very misleading. Take a closer look on Nasioc and IWSTI and you'll see that in 2007 when Subaru had to improve emissions/fuel economy due to EPA regulations they started running those motors extremely lean under full load (I've seen stoich AFR's under full boost/load up to ~4500rpm, with knock sensors going crazy), and they're not inlines (not as inherently strong/durable) and they're not direct injection... the result? Do a quick search, and you'll find a TON of blown 2007+ motors, even in STOCK form. The typical diagnosis: cracked ringlands, occurring mostly on cylinder #4 since it has a shorter runner than other cylinders, combined with being the further away from the FPR and located close to the turbo (i.e. excess heat). Tapping all 4 cylinders on those cars (EGT) typically shows #4 running hotter than the rest, so it's usually the first to give out under detonation.

As a matter of fact, there was much talk of class action law suits for the 07+ STI's due to blown motors... but unlike BMW who extended HPFP warranties past the 100k mile mark, Subaru did not truly address the issue. So, yes, while the N54 has issues with the fuel pump, I would rather have a HPFP die that will be replaced by BMW than I would cracked ringlands due to an excessively lean factory tune. Subaru's have their own issues.

The problem when it comes to modding this motor is the amount of headroom you're limited to based on fuel (i.e. no aftermarket fuel pump available). It's not like a Subaru where you can run a Walbro 255lph pump (or two depending on how far you want to mod the car), have near limitless access to just about any size injectors you want, adjustable FPR's ect, ensuring you never run out of fuel as long as you have deep enough pockets.

However, make no mistake about it, the semi-closed deck, hypereutectic cast piston, 8.2:1 compression port injection boxer EJ257 does not have the same "potential" as the N54. It's down two cylinders, down on displacement, has less efficient cylinder head(s)/combustion chambers, has higher compression (Subaru needs drastically lower compression to avoid knock, even considerably lower then 4G63 & 4B11 powered EVO's), and lacks direct injection technology. It's (EJ-series motor) a 20 year old design that has been modified over the years to accept more power. It only has the same "potential" based on having a larger aftermarket (and being a lighter chassis doesn't hurt either haha!).

There is one HUGE advantage gained with the boxer engine design: it offers a low center of gravity, and it's dimensions allow it to be placed low and far back in the engine bay, helping with weight distribution on what should be an otherwise very nose-heavy car (although it's still very nose heavy, and understeers heavily from the factory when tracked/pushed). Unfortunately, it's engine placement has a negative effect as well, as it doesn't allow for a direct path for your steering rack, which is why those cars feel so numb in comparison to other performance oriented econoboxes (EVO>STI badly in this area). The fact that they only run about ~4-5 degrees of positive caster (GD chassis, the new GR has a bit more) from the factory adds to this (numb, floaty steering feel).

In truth, the GD chassis STI is a poor chassis with an amazing drivetrain. It has poor weight distribution, and runs inverted MacPhersons all around. It does however have an awesome drivetrain, 3 LSD's (awesome, but I couldn't stand the "popping" when making low speed turns, i.e. pulling into the garage haha), DCCD, ect. The recipe is nothing special though, like a lot of Japanese cars, they merely run fairly stiff spring rates from the factory with aggressive dampening. The chassis itself is not in the same league as the E90/E92... it's a $15k econobox with $20k worth of factory upgrades.

With all of that said, as mentioned above, I've driven a few GR chassis (2008+) STI's as well.... color me unimpressed. The old STI was a low-rent econobox that rattled and rode a bit rough, but at least it was a more focused driver's car (i.e. fun to play with). The new STI feels sloppy, vague/numb and completely uninspiring. It feels artificial. As a long time Subaru guy, I REALLY wanted to like that car.... hell, I even like hatches, and enjoyed the look of it (I know, not a popular opinion haha), but I just couldn't stand driving it. The brakes are HUGE, and I'm sure they have plenty of fade resistance on the track, but they offer little feedback/are difficult to modulate, the throttle response is poor, they bog horribly between shifts regardless of RPM or throttle position, it understeers like a pig, and I just never felt connected to the road.... and of course the straw that broke the camel's back: at my elevation, even compared to a bone stock 335xi (considerably heavier), it felt slow.

Of course there are always issues with heat soak (sub-par TMIC design) giving poor consistency on repeated pulls, but it really felt like a dog all around. On paper, upgrading the rear suspension to a proper double-wishbone should have helped control the rear end and made it more of a driver's car... but in real life application, I just couldn't ever bring myself to like that car, or feel connected with it.

By comparison, the EVO X is in a different league (I know, not a fair comparison, yada yada ect). That car has a cheap interior (Rubbermaid special), only 5 forward gears (in MT trim of course), a tiny trunk, smaller backseat ect... but damn does it drive well!! I've pushed both pretty hard, the the YAW control on that thing makes it dummy-proof to drive fast/push hard! You can actually feel the car adjusting power around while pushing it hard to avoid understeer... it handles like no ~3500 lbs, FWD-based/nose-heavy chassis should. Phenomenal pedal feedback (brakes & throttle, although the clutch take-up is garbage), ridiculous amount of steering feedback, very much a driver's car... but AWD with 4-doors (practical). The motor sounds like garbage and is very uninspiring in stock guise... but tune that thing.... even in stock form, the gains are HUGE for a turbo-4!! It may be similar in acceleration to the lighter STI in stock form, but tune them both, and the 4B11 (or old 4G63 for that matter) is going to show it's true potential; you're going to have to spend a decent amount of cash in the Subaru in order to catch up.

I know this is a thread about the new STI.... I'm a longtime former Subaru guy... I dislike Mitsubishi to say the least.... but if I was in that market, after driving several of them (stock and modified), I wouldn't take a second look at the STI. With that said, for a daily driver, I've already made my choice (335xi)... but if I just wanted a play-toy that could also serve as a daily, at this point I can't see giving my hard earned cash over to Subaru based on their current offerings.

Just my $.02, YMMV.

-Brandon

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Litos

you're only gonna see failures if you're running a rotated GT35R on 30psi without proper race fuel and/or meth. that's good for 440awhp.

engines are strong, but like all other enbgines, they will have problems if pushed waaaay outta there limits.

Buddy, I've seen plenty of engine failures with people running stock turbos (VF39/VF43 ect), and plenty more with people running slightly larger 20G's... I'm not sure what your local tuner told you, or what you might have read online, but I've seen enough compression tests and engine tear-downs (plenty of cracked ringlands to say the least) to know how misleading that statement is. The tune you're running is typically the determining factor for longevity, but I've seen plenty of blown motors (even some in STOCK form), and a quick search on either Nasion or IWSTI can be very revealing

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Litos

compare dyno graphs from an N54 and an STi - they're pretty much identical.

nasty loads of tq down low, by 5200rpms, it starts falling and that's where the hp kicks in.

not different on the street at all. hell, the STi weighs less too HAHA !!!!

Bwuhahahahaha!!!

I've dyno'd both personally.... that's another extremely misleading statement. Here's my old STI with full-boltons custom tuned by yours truly:


Here's several pulls with my 335xi (stock & JB4 autotuning & map 1), same dyno:



^^^Prior to 3500rpm, the Subaru gets murdered. In truth, that's not really even a fair comparison, as the Subaru had a full 3" TBE (among other bolt-ons), helping to hit peak boost earlier (less lag) than it would have if it still ran stock exhaust (like the 335xi was running). If we would have started each pull at ~1500rpm or so, it would have really showed the even bigger picture.

The old 04-06 STI's often gave them impression of having little lag, due to very short/aggressive gearing (gears got a little taller in 2007/ratios were changed), but let's not lie to ourselves here, the EJ257 with a 35 lb/min compressor (stock IHI VF turbos) will not match the N54 for lowend torque. It does great in the midrange, but down low (sub-3500rpm) it's a gutless wonder like most other turbo 4's.

[vase330]

Originally Posted by zzz04pt

I owned a brand new 2008 STi and I can assure you that the motors are junk. Mine went at 1,200 miles on a stock car that had not even been beat on yet. I traded it w/ 4,600 miles since I had no faith in it holding up long term. The newer piston design is simply garbage. The car handled great and I loved it when it ran right but it even had issues after the short block was replaced. The pic is at around 3,500 miles or so.



The older GD models seem far more reliable. Search for GR STi engine failures and read for yourself.

Here's some information you can use as well.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...d_test_wrap-up

Are you kidding about shit motors? I have had 5 BMWs, worst car I ever had just happens to be an E46 SMG M3 that was a dealer queen dumped it with 9K miles for an E46 330ci that was new, and proceded to have transmission failure at 90 miles!! Yeah I had that shit GM steptronic. My first automatic car too. But then the replacement unit also failed at 112K miles, and the replacement to that which I paid $6K for out of pocket started slipping at 128K miles. IDK, it just seems the newer BMWs are less and less reliable. My 335i has 27K and I am on my second set of Turbos, and on my 3rd HPFP and second set of injectors. I have also had the electronics gutted out and replaced at 18K miles couple years ago. I mean everything from CCC, to Idrive, Most Bus even Amplifier... I love the car, but lets be honest, the reliability is shiat for most of these cars. And a Subaru that had engine failure at 1,200K hardly that shocking considering there are known cases of 335i that failed way earlier still. One from an OP on here up in Canada at a mere 949 Km, bone stock, and another at some ridiculous low mileage in the US days after delivery. So yeah live in a glass house stop throwing stones. I wouldn't consider a Subaru, because I love the Luxury and prestige of my 335, but I'll be the first to admit. I have a Toyota in my garage that I trust 100% and BMW I trust about maybe 50%. I will also admit that I'd trust a Subaru STI over our 335. But, I'd still buy the 335 over the STI. And oh, and a tuned STI will kick my tuned 335's butt. Ask me how I know that.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

Bwuhahahahaha!!!

I've dyno'd both personally.... that's another extremely misleading statement. Here's my old STI with full-boltons custom tuned by yours truly:

that's a pretty gross torque curve.

why does it fall on it's face after it spikes up @ 3500rpms !?!?

i was Protuned AND OpenSource tuned and my tq never took a nose dive like that......

that's just a flat out ugly graph. look at all the other STi graphs and they just don't fall off the table like yours does.

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Litos

that's a pretty gross torque curve.

why does it fall on it's face after it spikes up @ 3500rpms !?!?

i was Protuned AND OpenSource tuned and my tq never took a nose dive like that......

that's just a flat out ugly graph. look at all the other STi graphs and they just don't fall off the table like yours does.

Actually the graph looks perfectly fine... that's what happens as a result of being at 5200 ft elevation (technically the dyno is at 6000 ft, not that it matters), and spinning the poor little VF39 to around ~20-21psi. The little bugger couldn't hold more than ~12psi up top. If I wanted to tune for a lower peak pressure I could have made a flatter looking torque curve at the expense of a massive amount of midrange torque. The dyno itself and scaling also play a role in what the graph shows as well.... but I would fundamentally disagree with you in that it looks "abnormal", as that is a fairly common result of spinning the "little turbo that could" to that output level at this elevation.

As a matter of fact, even at sea level, a quick Google image search for typical "stage 2" STI dynos reveals drastic drop-offs in torque (due to the tiny turbine not being able to sustain full boost) are very common on those cars, some much worse than my old STI (not nearly as smooth/linear, dropping much more abruptly), but again, that could be a product of the dyno(s) itself and the scaling:




Again, playing with WGDC's, you can make the torque curve flatter pretty easily (lower peak boost pressure to a more sustainable level), but you're going to lose a ton of mid-range torque doing it (and a bit of power up top as well). Call me crazy, but I like mid-range torque

I know you've never actually tuned a car yourself, but this is a pretty basic concept. If you still had your old STI, I would recommend spending sometime over on openecu.org, maybe taking an EFI101 course (well worth the cash if you're into tuning, IMO) and spending sometime on the dyno playing with cars yourself in order to help you gain a stronger understanding of why a torque curve would look a certain way. Just my $.02

[Litos]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

Actually the graph looks perfectly fine... that's what happens as a result of being at 5200 ft elevation (technically the dyno is at 6000 ft, not that it matters), and spinning the poor little VF39 to around ~20-21psi. The little bugger couldn't hold more than ~12psi up top.

on my OpenSource tune i was going 18 and falling to 15 in July 2007. the torque would spike up instantly, but it would hold it for a lot longer.

if i remember correctly, and by comparing to your dyno, i was probably holding @ 20-25ftlbs more than you @ 4500rpms, THEN it would gradually start dropping.

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

If I wanted to tune for a lower peak pressure I could have made a flatter looking torque curve at the expense of a massive amount of midrange torque. The dyno itself and scaling also play a role in what the graph shows as well.... but I would fundamentally disagree with you in that it looks "abnormal", as that is a fairly common result of spinning the "little turbo that could" to that output level at this elevation.

i'm assuming your statement would be completely different it you weren't at "your elevation"

all turbo'd cars here in Houston can spin wheels like there's no tomorrow.

i'd rather have less of an intitial spike and maintain a healthier tq curve than to spike it up and then letting it drop off the table.

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Litos

on my OpenSource tune i was going 18 and falling to 15 in July 2007. the torque would spike up instantly, but it would hold it for a lot longer.

if i remember correctly, and by comparing to your dyno, i was probably holding @ 20-25ftlbs more than you @ 4500rpms, THEN it would gradually start dropping.

Comparing dyno numbers on different dynos at different locations is 100% completely pointless. I've seen the same car, same tune ect go to a local Dynojet, put down ~320whp, turn around, head to a local Dyno Dynamics (same elevation, fuel ect) and put down ~260whp. One of these days maybe people will get that through their head.... utterly pointless. A dyno is a tool used for diagnosis and tuning/quantifying gains on the same machine, other than that, no point comparing dyno numbers.

With that said, ambient pressure is about 14.7psi at sea level.... it's closer to about ~12psi up here (around a ~3psi pressure loss, which is a huge percentage, close to ~20% air density/pressure loss). Turbos choke up here, they can't maintain the same level of boost pressure that they could at sea level.

Originally Posted by Litos

i'm assuming your statement would be completely different it you weren't at "your elevation"

all turbo'd cars here in Houston can spin wheels like there's no tomorrow.

i'd rather have less of an intitial spike and maintain a healthier tq curve than to spike it up and then letting it drop off the table.

My statement is true regardless of where you're tuning at. It's not hard to make a torque curve flatter by lowering peak boost to avoid boost tapering so much... OEM's do it all the time. I lived in Houston many years ago (close to Westheimer & Hwy 6) and was stationed at Ft. Hood when I was in the military years ago, so I'm pretty familiar with the increases in efficiency for a turbo car at sea level... but maybe you missed the screen shot? I suppose I could find 100 dynos over on IWSTI with curves that taper drastically, but I thought you would have been able to form your own conclusions based on popular search results

This stuff isn't rocket science... while IHI doesn't conveniently name their turbos to make it easy to decipher their size, most of the OEM Subaru turbos have about the equivalent of a TD05 7cm2 hotside (relatively small), they can't come close to maintaining higher boost pressures at redline... this problem is magnified the further you up the boost (i.e. sharper drop off).

Although from someone who has never tuned a car, I would LOVE to hear your definition of "healthy looking" torque curve haha!! Notice that graph, smoothing was set to 0.... that's as healthy as they come. No knock, considerably more consistent than stock, WAY smoother than any OTS map you're going to find on that dyno. If you don't like extra mid-range kick, well make sure you never buy a 335is as BMW built in this stupid little feature that allows for more mid-range boost/torque for limited bursts (funny, Porsche, VW ect build in a similar feature on many of their turbo motors...), for those idiots like me that seem to enjoy a kick in the pants in the mid-range

In truth, I also used to be a bit of a track junkie, and on an autoX course (have to run BSP if you up the boost) or tight road course, the mid-range torque is EXTREMELY helpful for pulling you hard out of corners (nice at an autoX where you spend most of your time in the mid-range). It's also nice on the street to not have to rev the car out as much to get up to speed... but maybe you don't care about things like that?!?

I would almost bet you money that without showing you the dyno graphs, if I tuned your old car to ~20psi up here, let you drive it... then retuned it to ~17psi to avoid it tapering as much, and let you drive it again, you might change your thoughts on this matter

Maybe not though...to each their own I suppose


Just FYI, here's a list of the fastest stock turbo STI's in the country:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1630157

Here's a dyno graph of the 2nd fastest stock turbo STI in the country:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1882977

^^^Holy shit, does that look like a familiar curve? Oh yeah... it's identical to the curve on my old STI.

Here's a thread talking about "Roly" who now holds the stock VF39 turbo record:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1685602
He eventually did this:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1698127

^^^Notice they mention at the time he was making around 300whp & 400wtq... do you know what that (peak torque 100ft-lbs higher than peak power) would look like on a graph? Exactly like my old car... and most of the rest of the fastest STI's in the country. If you do a search for most of the fastest stock turbo STI guys, almost all of them run Hallman MBC's (while not as fancy as an electronic BCS, MBC's are dead consistent), pushing 25+psi on the stock turbo, all of them tapering boost drastically, typically around ~7-9psi lower than peak at redline, just like my old car (I'm just at 5200 ft elevation, so no 25+psi for me as pushing above ~21psi yielded no increase in power for me as the increase in IAT's negated potential gains). By pushing the turbo to that extent, you create something that is just as, if not more important than peak power: area under the curve.

So I suppose if my curve wasn't "healthy", neither were the curves of the fastest STI's in the country haha!! FWIW, my old STI never drank oil, never smoked, the plugs always looked great, and a compression test showed near perfect/identical numbers on all cylinders shortly before selling the car... in other words, even spinning the "little turbo that could"/VF39 that hard up here, due to a solid tune and regular maintenance, the car was as healthy as they come, and still pulled like a bat out of hell

YMMV.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

Comparing dyno numbers on different dynos at different locations is 100% completely pointless. I've seen the same car, same tune ect go to a local Dynojet, put down ~320whp, turn around, head to a local Dyno Dynamics (same elevation, fuel ect) and put down ~260whp. One of these days maybe people will get that through their head.... utterly pointless. A dyno is a tool used for diagnosis and tuning/quantifying gains on the same machine, other than that, no point comparing dyno numbers.

With that said, ambient pressure is about 14.7psi at sea level.... it's closer to about ~12psi up here (around a ~3psi pressure loss, which is a huge percentage, close to ~20% air density/pressure loss). Turbos choke up here, they can't maintain the same level of boost pressure that they could at sea level.

eventhough i dropped some numbers in my post, i wasn't comparing dyno's from a numbers standpoint - i was trying to tell you that my tq didn't go down like a japanese bomber like yours did. i agree it's pointless to compare dyno numbers from people in 4 states away - i'm comparing the actual graph

the graph will tell you where and how you're making power.

yours looked like a mountain peak that dropped tq almost instantly after it peaked - mine was "fatter to the left" and looked like a rolling hill that kept making tq a lot longer than yours dide before it slowly dropped.

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Litos

eventhough i dropped some numbers in my post, i wasn't comparing dyno's from a numbers standpoint - i was trying to tell you that my tq didn't go down like a japanese bomber like yours did. i agree it's pointless to compare dyno numbers from people in 4 states away - i'm comparing the actual graph

the graph will tell you where and how you're making power.

yours looked like a mountain peak that dropped tq almost instantly after it peaked - mine was "fatter to the left" and looked like a rolling hill that kept making tq a lot longer than yours dide before it slowly dropped.

You're not getting the point.... I could have easily made my torque curve flatter (look more like you claim yours did), it's not difficult.... but why would I? I was running full bolt-ons and E85, which has a latent heat of about 310 BTU's/LB (vs about 110 for gasoline) and octane rating around 105 (although more knock resistant than 105 octane petrol/gasoline due to a significant cooling effect). In other words, it never knocked.... no matter how much boost or timing I threw at it (I love corn gas). Typically on most pump gas cars, your tune is limited when you start to reach the knock threshold... I was never able to reach it on E85. Instead, I stopped adding boost when power ceased to increase (due to high IAT's and the turbo's inability to sustain more boost at my elevation).

Making my curve look more like a Naturally Aspirated torque curve (what you claim to prefer... or at least experienced), would have only made the car slower without any increase in knock resistance.... in other words: pointless. Which is why the fastest stock turbo STI's in the country (and in my state as well) have torque curves that are identical to my old STI's torque curve.

What you fail to realize is that lowering peak boost in order to make the curve look more linear wouldn't have helped torque "hold longer". Tapering boost to the same level without the initial spike would have yielded similar peak HP (typically a bit lower without letting the turbo spin down low, but not too far off), but with far less area under the curve. Horsepower is a byproduct of torque/torque sustained. Realize that by making the curve "look flatter" in a case like mine where knock is not an issue, you're just giving up gobs of mid-range torque, with no advantage anywhere in the curve... you're giving the appearance of "torque sustained", but if you were to tune using both of these methods, overlaying the graphs, you would find there is no advantage to that method whatsoever when running a setup like I was (FBO's on E85).

The reason why a tuner would limit peak boost/avoid such a drastic taper would be to lower IAT's/cylinder pressures/temperatures, in order to help stave off detonation and avoid heat soak.... with my old setup on E85, this was irrelevant, as the car didn't knock regardless of conditions, and in-cylinder temps were drastically reduced via chemical cooling (i.e. cooling effect of E85, which has been shown to reduce EGT's drastically), allowing for significantly increased consistency. Making a curve look more "like yours" on a setup like mine would have been utterly pointless as my car would have been slower with no increases in safety or consistency.

When it comes to tuning or shaping a torque curve, you truly have no idea what you're talking about. Again, an EFI 101 course or spending sometime actually tuning a few cars yourself (preferably on pump gas, race gas, meth & E85 to gain a broader understanding of tuning strategies based on fuel) would be very enlightening for you I'm sure.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

Making a curve look more "like yours" on a setup like mine would have been utterly pointless as my car would have been slower with no increases in safety or consistency.

so you're comparing your E85 graph to a pump graph?

great job......of course it's going to be different......

i was comparing pump graphs to pump graphs on stock turbos for each car - not some fully bolted on graphs

you sacraficed low end tq in order to hit the "peak tq".

i don't know about you, but i like seeing massive tq @ 2000-2300 RPM and seeing it sustained to 4500 RPM - i don't wanna wait for it, then let it spike, and then crash into a field in Pennsylvania......

if you tuned your car that way to benefit you at the track, that's on you. but a car that consistently makes power everywhere is a much better car to drive daily......

this is all i'm saying - see below. my graph was fatter, earlier AND it held for a little longer. anyone can hit "peak" numbers and say "WHOA !!! i broke 400wtq.......but then i lost over 60ftlbs from 3500 - 5000 "

[roninsoldier83]

Originally Posted by Litos

so you're comparing your E85 graph to a pump graph?

great job......of course it's going to be different......

i was comparing pump graphs to pump graphs on stock turbos for each car - not some fully bolted on graphs

you sacraficed low end tq in order to hit the "peak tq".

i don't know about you, but i like seeing massive tq @ 2000-2300 RPM and seeing it sustained to 4500 RPM - i don't wanna wait for it, then let it spike, and then crash into a field in Pennsylvania......

if you tuned your car that way to benefit you at the track, that's on you. but a car that consistently makes power everywhere is a much better car to drive daily......

this is all i'm saying - see below. my graph was fatter, earlier AND it held for a little longer. anyone can hit "peak" numbers and say "WHOA !!! i broke 400wtq.......but then i lost over 60ftlbs from 3500 - 5000 "

Bwuhahahahaha!!! Basics on tuning>you.

You sir are well out of your realm. That fully bolted E85 tune spooled at the same rate (if not slightly quicker) than any pump gas map I ever tuned on that car... so yes, since I was comparing SPOOL TIME/LOWEND TORQUE from my old STI (which had a HUGE advantage over my 335xi since it was modified/tuned) to my N54 powered 335xi in order to prove a point: the EJ257 does NOT make near the amount of low-end torque as the N54, even with every advantage possible (full bolt-ons & a custom tune), at the same location/same conditions. I proved my point... if you're too dense to understand basic logic, that's your own prerogative

Remember saying the following :

Originally Posted by Litos

compare dyno graphs from an N54 and an STi - they're pretty much identical.

nasty loads of tq down low, by 5200rpms, it starts falling and that's where the hp kicks in.

not different on the street at all. hell, the STi weighs less too HAHA !!!!

^^^That's called being dead-ass wrong. You stated your subjective opinion as fact, and even with every advantage (FBO's & tuned), an STI cannot match an N54 for lowend torque under the same conditions. Period.

If you care to defend your former position, I encourage you, dyno your own 335i on the same dyno as your STI, starting at a similar RPM (preferably in a gear with similar ratio), and post graphs of both on your own to prove your original supposition.

There was no "sacrifice" of lowend torque in my tune ... you seriously have no idea how turbos work, do you? Or how boost-control solenoids work... no shit your car spooled faster, I'm at 5200 ft elevation.... a turbo charger cannot compress air as quickly at this elevation, it's common for turbocharged cars at this elevation to spool 300-500rpm later than they do at sea level (feel free to join awdpirates.net to compare high elevation turbo Subaru dynos to sea level dynos). Although I can easily make the car appear to have spooled faster by using a taller gear (increased load=less lag... I was in 4th BTW).

What "magical settings" do you think I'm going to play with in order to "give up lowend torque" in exchange for a higher peak torque number? Bwuhahaha!! From anyone who has ever tuned a car, that is the dumbest comment I think I have ever heard.... do you know how a wastegate works? I'll break it down for you:

-A wastegate is a small "hole" in the turbine housing that has the ability to open in order to direct exhaust flow away from the turbine wheel in order to limit turbine speeds (which in turn limit compressor speeds/boost pressure).
-A wastegate is a mechanical device connected by an arm to a wastegate actuator, which is a basically a pressure induced spring that determines the position of the wastegate itself.
-There is a line (typically simple vacuum) that runs from the compressor housing to the wastegate actuator.
-Between the compressor & wastegate actuator (in the middle of the line) there is typically a boost control solenoid (or MBC if that's the direction you seek to take).
-The boost control solenoid directs pressure away from the wastegate actuator in order to avoid opening the wastegate. In order words, if the wastegate actuator has a 7# spring in it (which is what most Subaru's use), and you're trying to target 15psi, you need to have the BCS direct ~8psi away from the WGA.
-You control how much pressure is vented away from the WGA in order to control boost pressure by modifying WGDC's (wastegate duty cycles).


^^^Do you understand that? Good. If so, you will understand that playing with WGDC's have 0 effect on the turbo's ability to spool. In order words, I can't "make" the car spool slower/give up low-end torque in order to hit a higher peak torque/boost pressure We're not swapping cams here, we're not trading a loss of torque at one RPM for an increase in torque at another RPM... we're not changing lift/duration when tuning, so maybe you're having some confusion based on swapping cams on previous cars or something to that effect.... ?!?

You can play with AVCS (valve timing), which can help a bit with spool in certain circumstances, but typically it's pretty well tuned from the factory on the 04-07's (08+ added AVCS to exhaust side as well, a bit more room to play). We're talking about manipulating AVCS to maybe gain ~100rpm earlier spool on average up here (if that). There was no additional spool time to be acquired under my conditions.

The speed the turbo(s) spools is going to be dependent on conditions (I'm at 5200 ft, it's painful) and modifications (breathing mods help the car spool faster as well as sustain boost). The ability of a turbo to hold boost is going to be dependent on conditions and mods as well (i.e. if your car was able to hold a bit more boost in the mid-range).... my WGDC's were very aggressive, the little VF39 just wouldn't hold anymore boost at my elevation(I might have been able to have made it hold more boost if I converted over to EWG or ran a more free-flowing exhaust, but I like my eardrums & avoiding attention).

Read a book. Take a class. Join openecu.org. Get some experience. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I encourage you to not be another bench racer that pays other people to make his car faster without understanding why it's faster and spews out misinformation based on subjective opinions rather than facts, experience or logic. It's a damn shame there aren't more competent gearheads on this forum to educate people....


With that said, I hope you at least tried to learn something. If not... well, there's nothing more I can do to help you understand. Have fun and happy modding.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

Bwuhahahahaha!!! Basics on tuning>you.

You sir are well out of your realm. That fully bolted E85 tune spooled at the same rate (if not slightly quicker) than any pump gas map I ever tuned on that car... so yes, since I was comparing SPOOL TIME/LOWEND TORQUE from my old STI (which had a HUGE advantage over my 335xi since it was modified/tuned) to my N54 powered 335xi in order to prove a point: the EJ257 does NOT make near the amount of low-end torque as the N54,

yes it does, just not yours because you like spikey numbers and mountain ranges as curves.

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

There was no "sacrifice" of lowend torque in my tune ...

yes there was, you can see it just by looking at the graph. if you can't make power to the left by tuning your car, i don't know what to tell you.

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

no shit your car spooled faster, I'm at 5200 ft elevation....

exactly - thanks for proving my point....

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

a turbo charger cannot compress air as quickly at this elevation, it's common for turbocharged cars at this elevation to spool 300-500rpm later than they do at sea level (feel free to join awdpirates.net to compare high elevation turbo Subaru dynos to sea level dynos).

that's all i'm saying - my STi made just as good of tq as my 335 does.....ESPECIALLY down low....in Houston....

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

Although I can easily make the car appear to have spooled faster by using a taller gear (increased load=less lag... I was in 4th BTW).

everyone dyno's STi's in 4th....nothing new there......

Originally Posted by roninsoldier83

What "magical settings" do you think I'm going to play with in order to "give up lowend torque" in exchange for a higher peak torque number? Bwuhahaha!! From anyone who has ever tuned a car, that is the dumbest comment I think I have ever heard....

2 answers for you:

1) i dunno, might wanna ask the guys that dyno tuned MY car how they were able to get a fatass tq curve earlier than yours. they may not have gotten "peak" numbers, but it made more power BEFORE and AFTER the peak than yours.....

2) might be the fact that you're at 5200 elevation and a turbo charger cannot compress air as quickly at this elevation