Mazda 3 2.5L w/ Phantom supercharger TUNED DYNO RESULTS!

[OrangeVirus]

This is a 2.5L (mods are intake, header, exhaust) with the Phantom Electronic Supercharger setup ~4-5psi down low about 1psi by redline.
http://www.phantomsuperchargers.com/


Custom Boost Tuned by me.

Here it is with the smaller of the 2 Electronic superchargers offered: Base (N/A) vs tuned S.C. (36WTQ gain)



and again with the slightly Larger S.C that they offer and tune. (awaiting graph from my customer) but the End numbers of 3 runs were 210WTQ and 178WHP. ( here is a pic of run 1)
a gain of : 55WTQ and 18WHP.

[D Walker]

no offense, but thats terrible. The 2.5 bone stock with decent tuning, I/H/E will make around 170whp, maybe 180. With high compression pistons (just 10.5/1)it will make 200, with pistons and cams it will make 230. With very little tuning it will make pretty close 200lbft of torque stock due to the 100mm stroke. Not sure how much the phantom supercharger costs, but your probably honestly better off with just conventional mods.

[OrangeVirus]

no offense, but thats terrible. The 2.5 bone stock with decent tuning, I/H/E will make around 170whp, maybe 180. With high compression pistons (just 10.5/1)it will make 200, with pistons and cams it will make 230. With very little tuning it will make pretty close 200lbft of torque stock due to the 100mm stroke. Not sure how much the phantom supercharger costs, but your probably honestly better off with just conventional mods.

First, this wasn't on an aggressive tune.

It's not "terrible" as you point out, It made +55wtq from this little supercharger, which is electric, you WON'T make that much additional Torque N/A stock engine at 3000 RPM.

180whp one a bone stock 2.5L is possible but a stretch, and you would need at least 91/93 octane.

I have tuned several of these engines, and I very highly doubt that you will see 200ftlbs to the wheels stock with just tuning.

It won't make 230 with just pistons and cams, you need the RPM too, which the stock connecting rods can't handle. I would say rods, pistons, cams, header, ec. Because the stock header is also a huge restriction.

This isn't my car btw.

[mOOsE]

interesting. I do disagree about Dwalker's post with Tq though... it's very hard to see NA torque increases like that. It's pretty impressive from a tq perspective even if HP isn't.

[D Walker]

My car makes 230whp with pistons, cams, intake, header, and exhaust, with a tick over 210lbft. Stock rods, bearings, crank, head, injectors and ECU.

Randy Hale dynoed a stock longblock motor with header (the Mazdaspeed Cup header, not the best) Mazdaspeed Intake (same as the off the shelf AEM intake) and Cup exhaust, made just under 180 (I think 176, but would have to check) with about the same torque.

With 10.5 comp pistons but no cams the same engine made 200whp and 190-ish torque. I have it on good authority that it actually made 213whp, but no proof, as racers are sometimes secretive.

With pistons and cams, these motors make 230whp and over 200lb/ft of torque. I wont give you my exact numbers, but these are healthy motors.

Now, as to WHY these motors make the torque, that has to do with the intake cam timing and its mapping, and the 100mm stroke and big bore. They need aggressive timing as well, as they are a large bore engine and so it needs more timing than the smaller bore engines, after all they are not 2.0/2.3 engines. They do need valve springs to run higher rpm with the big cams for any length of time but they are cheap and easily installed when the cams are.

[Learjet45]

People actually buy these electric supercharger things? From a company that uses ####ing weebly for their hosting and development?

Yeah, I'm going along with Don on this one. And anyone who endorses such a product, well they must be equally lacking in automotive knowledge.

[OrangeVirus]

People actually buy these electric supercharger things? From a company that uses ####ing weebly for their hosting and development?

Yeah, I'm going along with Don on this one. And anyone who endorses such a product, well they must be equally lacking in automotive knowledge.

Don isn't saying it doesn't work.


And the Dyno before and after PROVES it works. google it before throwing the dunce hat on.


BTW Don I have ran my 2.5L at 7500 RPM continous without any problems on stock valve springs. just not past that point. and not stock internals

The 2.5L is a great engine, by far the best MZR (in my opinion). but it does lack some features, The exhaust ports are small, the connecting rods are meh, and the cams are.

I know how much VVT can affect torque

Who tuned your engines Don? Dynotronics claims a 30+WHP gain on a 100% stock engine, but we really haven't seen proof from ANYONE, except for 1 dyno sheet by dynotronics

[GR-8]

Many years ago I pondered of using the motor of an inflatable mattress as a super charger. Never went through with it.

[D Walker]

Dynotronics will never touch an engine of mine again. Moto East tunes my engines at this time, and that because the danged software is too expensive. We turn our engine at 8000rpm. YOu will experince valve float and eventual spring failure using the OEM valve springs, but its easily cured by using the MS3 valve springs. The weak valve springs also affect sealing and power production.

The rods are OK, they are a forged rod with good bolts, so they are fine for the most part.

[mOOsE]

Many years ago I pondered of using the motor of an inflatable mattress as a super charger. Never went through with it.

I tried an RC electric ducted fan in my younger days lol. It was a bored summer day project. 4inch ducted fan unit, basically electric jet engine, mounted to short intake. Made all kinds of torque under 2k rpm. Was able to spin tires off idle but after 2-3k rpm the cfm of the NA intake simply surpassed the fans ability to positively pressure the tube. Was a fun test, never intended to leave it on. The good old days lol. Wish I still had that car... Was a 93 hatch and got 50+ mpg with its 1.5L