I was just reading the magazine "Turbo & High-Tech Performane". They tested a 2GNT with both a Star kit, and a HRC kit..

They said that the Star kit @ 5 psi, it makes 176.8 hp, delievered through the T04B/T3.
http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0210tur_bolton1/

They also said that the HRC kit @ 5 psi, makes 225.7 hp, through the Super 16G.
http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0210tur_bolton3/

Remember, both are Stage 1s, and both of the measurments are at the wheel, not at the crank.

So, why is there such a big difference between the two HP measurments? Both are running 5 psi, is it the size of the compressor housing? What is it?

~Tacoman

DAMN talk about a typo...
MSRP Stage 1 $2195, Stage 2 $279

Stage 2 HRC for only $279....hehehehehe

OOH! OOH! I found a typo too! I think it would be cool to get a "255Mph" fuel pump. I never understood "Gallons per hour" anyway!
I'm not a super techie here, but I'm thinking the Star kit comes with that sketchy "boost dependent fuel pressure regulator" thing whereas the HRC comes with a full time (albeit noisy to most) fuel system. Any of you big dogs out there agree? :7

What a bunch of crap. There's no way there's that much power difference with two equally tuned cars. Plus, the Star should be faster imo. Only a 36hp gain from 5psi out of THAT turbo? um no.

I doubt they took the time to scientifically dyno tune each setup, especially since they couldn't take 5 minutes and proofreed. (pun intended)

Anyways, this line cracks me up:
"The naturally aspirated 420A powerplant has proven to be a willing participant when it comes to boost. The key is to run premium fuel and avoid boosting past the manufacturer's recommended pressure."

Which is... um... what? About 0psi :P

With all things being equal, actually the Starr kit (T3/4) *should* outflow the S16G and produce a tad bit more power per pound of boost. I'll have to agree, these cars weren't tuned very well. 225HP for 5 psi of boost on the S16G???, AT the wheels? I dont think so. Lets look at this. Lets be VERY generous, and say the S16G makes 15 HP per pound of boost. Multiply that by 5, which equals 75 HP. Add that to stock 140 HP, and you get 215 HP at the CRANK! Figure a 15% drivetrain loss, and you get around 182 HP to the WHEELS. Either that car has lots more mods than a turbo, or i smell some you know what. Looks like someone there has some ties with HRC haaha :P The Starr kit's power sounds just about right on though, maybe a little low..

If they can't get the prices right, or the specs on the fuel pump for that matter, they probably can't even hook a car up to a dyno. They probably used a g-tech. :rolleyes

IMO, star sounds a little low and hrc sounds way high. i know a guy from dsmtuners who got his 99 gs oz edition with hrc stage 2 with fmic dynoed. @ 10 psi, he dynoed 218 hp@ the WHEELS. mind u he has stock exhaust. imma say another 8-10 at the wheels with a nice catback on there. but thats at 10 psi. i just dont see 225 WHP @ 5 psi non intercooled.

Hey..
Does anyone know about the wheel horsepower of both?

Thanks
~Tacoman

>Hey..
>Does anyone know about the wheel horsepower of both?
>
>Thanks
>~Tacoman


HRC kit:

5 PSI non IC'd - around 200 crank HP
8 PSI IC'd- around 250 crank HP

These numbers should be pretty close to what you would *normally see. More supporting mods can increase this number. You should see close to these numbers for a stock engine. For MTX trannies, figure a 15% drivetrain loss, and ATX trannies, figure a 20-25% power loss.

Dont really know about the Star kit #'s, but its a good guess to say about maybe 10-20 more HP to the crank over the HRC kit. I suppose thats some conservative numbers too.

it was measured to the wheels:)

That article is not new. In fact i first saw those numbers years ago, and it has been tossed back iand forth for a long time. Basically we all decided it was bullshit years ago - the article is riddled with typos. I don't rememebr the final verdict, but i seem to remember someone contacting the people that wrote that, at whatever rag it was, and having the mistake explained. Dunno - try a search. Might find something really old...

yeah dino, i remember that being around for a year or so too... and remember it being decided that the test was not performed correctly or maby even not at all, hehe....

A friend of mine, Skillionare on this board, had his 96 GS (auto) dyno'd with the Star Stage 2 kit. Running 7 psi, he placed a tad under 170 horses at the wheels. Besides the turbo, I believe all he had was a Greddy Exhaust. He even had the stock cat. on too.

Almost 170 horses at the wheels with an auto tranny is damn impressive!!

well i dynoed at 192.5 at the wheels at 8psi (not tuned) so the star #'s are probably right.. the HRC #'s well i think that is just wishful thinking....

>A friend of mine, Skillionare on this board, had his 96 GS
>(auto) dyno'd with the Star Stage 2 kit. Running 7 psi, he
>placed a tad under 170 horses at the wheels. Besides the
>turbo, I believe all he had was a Greddy Exhaust. He even had
>the stock cat. on too.
>
>Almost 170 horses at the wheels with an auto tranny is damn
>impressive!!


even that seems low :/. i have a hrc stage 2 on my 95 auto, and at 7 psi, it made 181whp/180lb-ft, and at 9psi made 203whp/202lb-ft. I was also in a horrible state of tune (a/f was very fat, like richer than 10:1 for most of the pull). Heck, that was even on a 97* day w/ 90% humidty and no fan on the dyno (1st time ive ever had a heat-soaked FMIC).

I woulda thought the star kit would have made more power relatively easy


about the numbers stated in the 1st post...sounds like a star stage 1 and a hrc stage 2 type numbers.

Yea, those articles are definately recycled. I was very upset when I saw it this year and it was WORD FOR WORD the same exact description as the one from last year.

Star should be making more power at the same PSI level.