ah, i meant because of fueling issues, it's at 450whp.
Right, but what I am saying is on *93 octane*, it shouldn't even be close to the stock fueling system constraints at that power level. I am running *E40* making more power with the stock fueling system.ah, i meant because of fueling issues, it's at 450whp.
i mentioned fuel because this is my other DAW reference: https://www.supramkv.com/threads/fp-green-a90-turbo.15315/post-271621
i'm sure you're familiar with the thread
edit: interesting. what we also have here are 2 port and 6 port results!
My first one blew at 25psi. Second one was fine.
Thanks man. I've seen your post elsewhere and was hoping the flow max would come to 2 port. Oh well..My first one blew at 25psi. Second one was fine.
New ones have upgraded internals.
Here is my dyno from the new 6-port Flow Max.
MS109 with port injection.
Was done on a hub dyno at AMS.
Tune is a bit unstable below 4k rpm
My friends first dyno run was 605/738 on stock trans. And has no issues. Tq was dialed back a bitMy first one blew at 25psi. Second one was fine.
New ones have upgraded internals.
Here is my dyno from the new 6-port Flow Max.
MS109 with port injection.
Was done on a hub dyno at AMS.
Tune is a bit unstable below 4k rpm
hi,
peak numbers aren't everything, just as 0-60 isn't everything.
the curve has the greatest importance here. spool time, power throughout powerband, is the hybrid turbo breathing passed 5500 rpms, etc.
we also don't know if this is a conservative tune or balls-out tune.
posting a dyno graph is more about a conversation rather than peak numbers. for example, maybe OP is experiencing fuel issues so the tuner had to be more on the conservative side?
I appreciate yalls concern. looking at the logs im seeing peak boost at like 22.3 with the latest tune revision. seems pretty conservative? too conservative even on DI? my beginning expectations was an aggressive tune for the steet. not dailying my car so i wanted something aggressive. i hate to talk trash about a tuner but there wasnt much detailed correspondence other than "log looks good". never really communicated any issues if there were any. this is my first time custom tuning so do yall think its fair to follow-up with my turner and ask if there were any issues and show him dyno graphs and see if theres any way he can improve the tune?
If those are your goals, I definitely would see if he can turn up boost / timing. If it doesn't make over 500-525whp I'd ask Shawn to see if you could replace it with the ultra flow r. Slightly more lag but great usable power. Unfortunately it seems like several others have ran into issues with this turbo so the ultra flow r might be DAWs only solution for the 2 port. The minimal info out there on this turbo points that direction.
I would not hesitate on the DAW flow max on the 6 port or ultra flow r if you are looking for decent power (ultra flow r is bigger). It just seems like the 2 port 1st version ultra flow (which OP has) just isn't it.
Hey yall. Just wanted to share some dyno numbers on the DAW Ultra Flow Turbo since theres not a lot of data for this turbo specifically for the supra. This is the original release of the ultra flow not the revised "r" model. 2020 supra 3.0 2 port. Dyno used was a Dynojet. Running stock intake, catless dp, tomei exhaust, 93 fuel. Final numbers are 458hp/496tq. Not that it would make a huge difference but the dyno tech forgot to turn AC all the way off in the car (i had it on before handing over the keys so its my fault haha). Not the best numbers comparing with other hybrid turbos on 93 but ill take it. Car feels pretty good so im happy. Just wanted to serve as a reference for prospective hybrid turbo buyers.
I've been told there was no original ultra flow for the 2 port and that all 2 port ultra flows are in fact the revised versions but are not stamped with a "R". I have one but have not installed it yet. I've also been told you can tell by the blades... If they are flat it is an original version but if they are curved it is the revised version this is what mine looks like.
