Anyone know much about these turbos i think there a direct swap for a vf34. The pe1818f is supposed to be good for 410-420bhp. Any info or input would be good. 
Still on that high EMAP:MAP VF turbine wheel though and not cheap, and the 400+ quotes are highly optimistic.
On a Slowbaru an 1818 did about 354 BHP on an optimistic dyno http://dyno.scoobynet.co.uk/uk/andrew_tang2.htm. I've experienced various clones with P18 and P20 housings and vastly preferred the TD05H-20G, but it can surge on a 2.0, 18G might be better.
Plain old TD05-16G will do a 12.0-12.1 at 114-116 mph quarter on road tyres in a 1235kg Scooby, 11.8 on a lighter RA. MD304 Turbo Dynamics hybrid has also managed 12.1-12.2 region with a little more lag, this has a P18 and I think is probably quite similar to the 1818.
On a Slowbaru an 1818 did about 354 BHP on an optimistic dyno http://dyno.scoobynet.co.uk/uk/andrew_tang2.htm. I've experienced various clones with P18 and P20 housings and vastly preferred the TD05H-20G, but it can surge on a 2.0, 18G might be better.
Plain old TD05-16G will do a 12.0-12.1 at 114-116 mph quarter on road tyres in a 1235kg Scooby, 11.8 on a lighter RA. MD304 Turbo Dynamics hybrid has also managed 12.1-12.2 region with a little more lag, this has a P18 and I think is probably quite similar to the 1818.
I think the Pe1820f will be my next turbo aiming for a true 400bhp on even on the hardest of dynos. Do you think the Pe1820f can do it John?. That scoobys running pretty low boost dont you think John.?.
Last edited:
The 1818 style turbos (or a TD05 which flows similar) seem to make best power on a 2.0 Subaru on Optimax at about 340 BHP and 1.25 bar on the more sensible dynos, and this is with tubular headers. When I've pushed them harder at least on the Subaru engines they start to lose power as you end up with really high exhaust manifold pressures, high EGTs, retarded timing and a wastegate blowing open (and it is usually not scratching where it is itching to use a stronger spring to keep it closed, think airflow not pressure). To then increase this to 400 BHP you'll need more airflow, (400/340*(1.25+1))-1 = 1.65 bar - and that is if you keep the same VE the same which is very unlikely with the same turbine wheel, and you'll have to run that at peak power RPM, and you'll have to be able to ward off detonation without excessive EGTs on your chosen fuel, and also that you can achieve similar charge temperature, or make even more boost to compensate... and you are in the spiral of asking ever too much from small turbos. The P20 will help you a little bit, but you are trying to bridge a big gap, another 60+ BHP at this level is going to cost you big time in lag or it just won't happen if you stay too small.
The 1.8T probably is a bit more efficient so if might be compared to the EJ20 despite the capacity disadvantage, but I think you are aiming way too small to get an easy 400 BHP. Dig out some turbine wheel sizes and compressor maps and you'll see what I mean. Ignore the US dyno plots of course as they said for my terminal on the quarter I needed 440 WHP when I really had 350 WHP. I think you can virtually take their WHP figures as equivalent to our flywheel figures on Subarus!
Why not just leave it as it is?
Put it this way, I was following a 340 BHP Scooby (driven by a superior driver who also had better suspension) in the wet the other day, and he got away from me in 2nd and 3rd gear because he had traction and I didn't despite his approx 140 BHP and 0.5 litre deficit, and this is with four wheel drive on tyres that are decent in the wet. And then even with the capacity advantage, because the rotating assembly on my turbo is so much larger, it is silly speeds before the apparently large advantage is actually seen, feels far more dramatic, but the ground covering abiliity is not dramatically different.
You are, IMHO, in real danger of working harder and breaking stuff to actually go slower?
I know I'm always the voice of cynicism, but if you had a ride in the cars you would realise why, BTW you are welcome if you are ever up here to do so.
The 1.8T probably is a bit more efficient so if might be compared to the EJ20 despite the capacity disadvantage, but I think you are aiming way too small to get an easy 400 BHP. Dig out some turbine wheel sizes and compressor maps and you'll see what I mean. Ignore the US dyno plots of course as they said for my terminal on the quarter I needed 440 WHP when I really had 350 WHP. I think you can virtually take their WHP figures as equivalent to our flywheel figures on Subarus!
Why not just leave it as it is?
Put it this way, I was following a 340 BHP Scooby (driven by a superior driver who also had better suspension) in the wet the other day, and he got away from me in 2nd and 3rd gear because he had traction and I didn't despite his approx 140 BHP and 0.5 litre deficit, and this is with four wheel drive on tyres that are decent in the wet. And then even with the capacity advantage, because the rotating assembly on my turbo is so much larger, it is silly speeds before the apparently large advantage is actually seen, feels far more dramatic, but the ground covering abiliity is not dramatically different.
You are, IMHO, in real danger of working harder and breaking stuff to actually go slower?
I know I'm always the voice of cynicism, but if you had a ride in the cars you would realise why, BTW you are welcome if you are ever up here to do so.
Good info thanks John. I no your not a fan of the vf34 but it seems a nice setup, it seems to spool well on the 1.8t and go hard to the redline. cheers
The only other thing i can think of doing is fitting rods, s3 pistons, 1 piece valves, and gas flowing the head and fitting a .20 housing.
The only other thing i can think of doing is fitting rods, s3 pistons, 1 piece valves, and gas flowing the head and fitting a .20 housing.
Last edited:
381.5 here http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=390016 but as you can read in the thread few believe it and there is a bit of an IHI Ibiza discussion with some of your logs in it IIRC.
20% less on the most conservative dynos. I think overall they are probably the same as the 1.8T.
I don't dislike the VF34, I just particularly like the Mitusubishi TD05 based hybrids that spool up similarly, make more power and are rebuildable.
20% less on the most conservative dynos. I think overall they are probably the same as the 1.8T.
I don't dislike the VF34, I just particularly like the Mitusubishi TD05 based hybrids that spool up similarly, make more power and are rebuildable.
so who is RR on there then..?
entertaining read on there... LMAO..
for ref the posted times (of mine!) on there were in original spec.. 325bhp and the posted JBS graphs were at the wheels figures only. (had a sequential 6spd in it then, so no coastdown)
entertaining read on there... LMAO..
for ref the posted times (of mine!) on there were in original spec.. 325bhp
and the posted JBS graphs were at the wheels figures only. (had a sequential 6spd in it then, so no coastdown)
Last edited:
get it on a race track FFS... timeslips... 
the ONLY place you can let rip.
if only the roads were straight... LOL
Curborough: 28secs
Kames: 92secs
Combe: 1m17s
the ONLY place you can let rip. if only the roads were straight... LOL
Curborough: 28secs
Kames: 92secs
Combe: 1m17s
No time slips John it was not that kind of encounter. Tracking the car on a regular basis would be fun but 2 things spring to mind.
1. I aint that good a driver
2. Tracks seem to eat car parts.
Theres always a compromise, big turbo, more lag. I use a lot of search functions on a lot of forums looking for info about suitable turbo upgrades. I'll see how Bill fares and go from there. Its soon to be diif/clutch time. So i have time to make a good decission.
1. I aint that good a driver
2. Tracks seem to eat car parts.
Theres always a compromise, big turbo, more lag. I use a lot of search functions on a lot of forums looking for info about suitable turbo upgrades. I'll see how Bill fares and go from there. Its soon to be diif/clutch time. So i have time to make a good decission.
ibizacupra said:get it on a race track FFS... timeslips...
Straight lines are for girls. 
REAL drivers do it around corners (even if they're not that good)
Always bemused by folk with FWD who take the 1/4 dead seriously - talk about handicapping yourself.
My interest in Gary's timeslips (or lack thereof) is merely to do with his kill stories
Nothing wrong with drag racing or circuit work, I like both, but insurance is difficult when you start timing laps for your road car. On a drag strip you are less likely to crash and it is safer than doing it on the road. Trouble is for both you are often comparing more the drivers rather than the cars.
Nothing wrong with drag racing or circuit work, I like both, but insurance is difficult when you start timing laps for your road car. On a drag strip you are less likely to crash and it is safer than doing it on the road. Trouble is for both you are often comparing more the drivers rather than the cars.
john banks said:My interest in Gary's timeslips (or lack thereof) is merely to do with his kill stories
Nothing wrong with drag racing or circuit work, I like both, but insurance is difficult when you start timing laps for your road car. On a drag strip you are less likely to crash and it is safer than doing it on the road. Trouble is for both you are often comparing more the drivers rather than the cars.
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426294&highlight=ibiza
Andy F remapped Classic prob running 280-300bhp so P1 speed if not a little quicker John. And i will throw in the fq300 who's arse i kicked for free at the same time. I actually pulled away from both a nice gap with a engine light on with a maf failure, this included turning the ignition on/off and turning it down to low boost. The initial run with the scoob resulted in a easy pass, plenty was left in the old girl.
Not sure what turbo the scoobs running prob a td04 maxxed out.
Similar threads
