SixStarCars' 818S Build Thread

[CptTripps]

I was planning on going the MR2 route. Mechie, can you specify which MR2 shifter would and would not work and why? Thanks

The Spyder shifters are plastic and a higher profile. The older ones are metal and very low profile.

Here are a few links to what you want...

MR2 Shifter 1

MR2 Shifter 2

I've bought my last 2-3 on eBay for under $50. There are deals out there if you are patient. The rust always cleans up with a scrub-brush and a fresh coat of paint. Easy to work on. You DO NOT need one of the short-shift kits. Those are likely for the Spyder shifters to make them feel more like the gen-1 shifter I'm talking about.

[Mechie3]

I was planning on going the MR2 route. Mechie, can you specify which MR2 shifter would and would not work and why? Thanks

The stock Subaru lever has a bottom pivot with the linkage attached at the middle. Pushing forward pushes the linkage forward.
The FFR lever has a middle pivot and a bottom attached cable. Pushing forward (on the lever) pulls the cable backwards (opposite).
The early MR2 metal shifter has the same bottom pivot and center mounted cable.

[SixStar]

Great news! The new engine is installed and running amazing. I was able to take her for a short spin and then strap it down to our Dyno Dynamics chassis dyno for some break in miles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWUM...ature=youtu.be

P7021690.JPG
P7021691.JPG
P7021692.JPG
P7021693.JPG

And of course after it's been tested, broken in, inspected, inspected again, there's only one thing to do...... a pull!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4vD...ature=youtu.be

Made about 211whp and 210tqs
P7021695.JPG

[Frank818]

16 up to 4k and then 14.5? You ran a WOT with that?

Besides, great build. But tell me, on your driving vid, when you first hit a little more on it in I think 1st, did it spin? I can hardly hear the engine on the video.

[Scargo]

...Made about 211whp and 210tqs...

That's a Subaru motor? That's 9.5:1 P/W ratio at best. Barely "sporty". Yawn.

[SixStar]

.............

[SixStar]

That's a Subaru motor? That's 9.5:1 P/W ratio at best. Barely "sporty". Yawn.

Agreed. It's super boring to drive.

My WRX makes about this much power and weighs twice as much, way more fun!

[Frank818]

Do you have more than one exhaust configuration to test and you'll take the one you like most?

[Frank818]

Ran into a slight issue with the 2.5RS clutch master, it will not work on the 818.

Here you can see that with the RS resi the cap comes into direct contact with the frame before you ever bolt it on
Attachment 26768

You can see the differance between the WRX and RS resi
Attachment 26769

Easy fix, just use a WRX resi with your RS donor and move forward!
Attachment 26770

Just so people know when they read the thread, the same prob exists with 2003 2.5TS donor. In fact, all the models with that reservoir will hit the frame.
I ended up buying a WRX master cylinder, yes.

[SixStar]

Do you have more than one exhaust configuration to test and you'll take the one you like most?

No, we have the V-band aluminum and stainless 3" we built for the R, I just REALLY want to hear it! Oh and see if it makes more power too (it will).

I'm hoping to take some more video of this car so the client can decide if he would like us to make a muffled system or if he will be happy with the sound. Personally I think it sounds glorious, but I also run 3" TBE on my WRX that dumps before the rear wheels!

Also, good catch on the TS. Pretty much any NA master won't fit AFAIK.

[RM1SepEx]

211 and 210 stock in RWD with FFR exhaust, no tuning yet.

I'm thinking with my Cobb, a 3 inch exhaust and stage 2 tune I'll be in great shape!

[Scargo]

Agreed. It's super boring to drive.

My WRX makes about this much power and weighs twice as much, way more fun!

It's just that my STi is 7.5 and heading to 7. Do you have a goal for the street version?

[SixStar]

It's just that my STi is 7.5 and heading to 7. Do you have a goal for the street version?

This is a customer car. This is the goal.

It needs to run smooth and preform predictably. No point in building a 450whp monster that can't be driven. 212 is MORE than enough IMO. He will be very happy.

[char]

Customer here. My original request was to keep the performance around stock levels, I'm hoping I can avoid blowing the engine or transmission up before I learn how to fix it. I've got a big list of things that I would like to do with this car when I have it, more power and torques on the list. On the muffler point, while I do like the sound of the engine without muffler, I suspect that it would get old on long trips.

[sponaugle]

16 up to 4k and then 14.5? You ran a WOT with that?

Besides, great build. But tell me, on your driving vid, when you first hit a little more on it in I think 1st, did it spin? I can hardly hear the engine on the video.

I was thinking the exact same thing! Something is wrong or off on that graph. A stock WRX tune would be the exact opposite of that.. very very rich with AFRs in the mid to high 10s under boost. 14:1 AFR under boost would be a ticking time bomb, especially in a WRX where the knock correction turns off at high rpm. What was the DAM at the start of the pull (16?) Did you extend the knock correction range to redline? Without that on the first gen WRX ecus active knock correction will turn off even mid knock once you pass that threshold. Those WRX rods will bend very very quickly with knock.

Graph scaled incorrectly?

Jeff

[SixStar]

...

[Frank818]

What you're saying is that many people add more air but don't add more of its counterpart (fuel)?

[SixStar]

What you're saying is that many people add more air but don't add more of its counterpart (fuel)?

Seems simple enough doesn't it?

The biggest issue is that all intakes (aside from the COBB) aren't tuned the same as the factory box. This causes the MAF values to be off which means the tune is off.

[metalmaker12]

Seems simple enough doesn't it?

The biggest issue is that all intakes (aside from the COBB) aren't tuned the same as the factory box. This causes the MAF values to be off which means the tune is off.

Yeah the Cobb seems to work correctly from my travels, although I have seen spt intakes work ok with some extra tuning. I use a cobb

[Scargo]

I wouldn't mind some educating if one of you know something I don't. I leapt straight into the AP and Cobb CAI and Cobb down-pipe without passing GO. I found that it was very rich, which my tuner EFI Logics, said was typical. My impression, or understanding if you will, is that a free-flow air filter and CAIs would be within the car's ECM range of handling and that with knock sensors and all, it would degrade the timing to compensate. Am I wrong? I know it can only do so much, especially if you want to run crap gas.

[SixStar]

.....

[Brando]

honestly IMO anything over 300 in these cars is dangerous.

I'm at 284 WHP on R6's and it feels rock solid. I honestly wouldn't mind a few more ponies. On the right tires my guess is mid to upper 300's before the car becomes unmanageable.

[Frank818]

heavy and hard late RPM boost in a MR car is dangerous, honestly IMO anything over 300 in these cars is dangerous.

The Agera One:1 with 1360hp for 1360kg (huge drool on the floor) is dangerous? As well as the superb Hennessey Venom GT? Or a GTM with 450hp? Or do you mean "specifically" on the 818 over 300 is dangerous?
What I mean by that, is are you saying on any MR car over... oh wait, I got it, you meant that "heavy and hard late RPM boost" on any MR is bad and for the 818, you think heavy-hard-late at 300+ is dangerous. Did I understand correctly?

So then, can you define "heavy", "hard" and "late". Sorry to ask this, I'd just like some more precisions as I want to know where I stand in that definition. It's a very interesting subject for me.

[Scargo]

...What I mean by that, is are you saying on any MR car over... oh wait, I got it, you meant that "heavy and hard late RPM boost" on any MR is bad and for the 818, you think heavy-hard-late at 300+ is dangerous. Did I understand correctly?

So then, can you define "heavy", "hard" and "late". ...

I have to ask what "MR" stands for?
Mid-engined cars abound with 5 to 6 P/Wt ratios. I'm sure you would be getting into some big tires that require fender flares, but so what?
By "heavy and hard late RPM boost" I think he means the point at which torque "come on" and how aggressively that ramp-up in torque occurs. For example, I was told about a first-hand experience with a racing STi which had an inappropriately big turbo in it and when boost finally came up it was sudden and capable of breaking loose all four wheels. You don't want that surprise when you are exiting a turn and trying to put some power down.

And to Six-Ster, I guess I expect everyone to know that I race an STi and haven't started my R build yet. It just sits there while I complete a bunch of mods to the STi, like close-ratio gears, OS Giken LSDs and big, twin-scroll turbo. I am crossing my fingers that the BW 8374 won't come on heavy, hard and late. It is twin-scroll (a plus) and I am running the small, .92 A/R turbine housing. I'm going to limit it to 100 octane and 25 PSI boost. From MatchBot it appears I can have 400 FPT by 3,800 and then between 3,800 and 4,000 RPM it could jump as much as 100 FPT, which sounds like a possible Oh shi..! moment. So I will taper back the boost for a few hundred RPM so it is more incremental in its rise to 521 FPT @ 4,500 as shown in these MatchBot forms.
Low RPM range
High RPM range

[Frank818]

I have to ask what "MR" stands for?

Mid-Engined, Rear-Wheel drive.

By "heavy and hard late RPM boost" I think he means the point at which torque "come on" and how aggressively that ramp-up in torque occurs.

Absolutely. I am just curious as to what definition he had in mind in terms of numbers. For example, gaining 1bar of boost in 100rpm, between 4000 and 4100rpm.

[SixStar]

....

[metalmaker12]

Agreed 250-350 whp max

[SixStar]

Didn't want to start a new thread and I'm sure there are more than enough discussions about it but please remember to level the engine before checking engine and transmission oil on your cars!!!

For me the front end of the car had to be quite a bit higher, I used a level on the crank pulley to make sure the engine was level. Without doing this the levels are quite a bit off. Just an FYI that I hope disseminates out there among 818 owners.

[SixStar]

After an interesting night on the alignment rack we've decided to go forward with ARP studs in the rear. This will allow the customer to install spacers to get matching track widths front to rear and make the wheels look better in the rear while being able to run a square setup regarding wheel and tire size.

P7081712.JPG
P7081713.JPG

Also fabricated up a nice simple exhaust brace using the factory mount on the transmission and the supplied mount along with some 18G 1/2" square tubing.

P7081714.JPG

[metalmaker12]

Alignment is interesting for sure.

[sponaugle]

This was a baseline pull. Nothing was changed. This is a bone stock map with a shorty intake.
Here are the three baseline pulls we did.
Attachment 30870
Boost is on the left in PSI, AFRs on the right.
I changed the scaling a bit to make it easier to read. You can see without properly scaling the MAF with any aftermarket intake (other than the Cobb) the stock map make the car run very lean. Run continuously this will cause huge problems and eventually burn a valve, typically on #3.
Exhibits A and B, one from a 255 with an SPT intake another from a WRX also with an SPT intake. Both cars had no tune.
Attachment 30871

A couple of notes.. and I'll try to be brief as to not overwhelm your build thread with something potentially a bit off topic. ( However I do want to provide some input as other people less familiar with the intricacies of the Subaru ECM eco system may be reading and taking direction)

(1) As a calibrator, I would never have done that 2nd and 3rd pull with the AFRs as they show in that graph. In fact I would have lifted as soon as I went full throttle and AFRs were 16:1. I would consider you very lucky that you didn't break a ring landing or bend a rod. Did you log DAM during the pull? Injector DCs? Any logs at all you could share?

(2) That boost curve is very odd, even given the altitude variable. It is almost 2000 rpm late in spoolup.

(3) I assume you have DA corrections turned on in the dyno? (SAE or STD?)

Here is a typical stock 2002-2003 WRX dyno graph (sea level). I think this is an older car with 82k miles on it, and sure enough it is a bit leaner then the car was stock which is typical of an aging MAF sensor.



Your graph shows full boost around 4500 RPM, which is very very late even given the altitude corrections. Something must be wrong with that turbo, or perhaps with the catalytic converter if still installed.

Here is a graph from Cobb of a stock 2004 WRX ( same engine of course, and CPU is very similar)



This is more typical of what I would expect in terms of AFR. Once boost onset occurs, AFRs are in the 10.9-11.1 range.

Seems simple enough doesn't it?
The biggest issue is that all intakes (aside from the COBB) aren't tuned the same as the factory box. This causes the MAF values to be off which means the tune is off.

While it is generally true that most of the WRX aftermarket intakes have different flow patterns from the stock one, that is somewhat to be expected. In most cases a stock WRX will have a rich mixture at high load (usually 10.9-11.0), and the slight MAF offset from an intake will move that AFR up a bit. A second side effect of this slightly lower reading MAF is a small increase in ignition timing as a result of lower calculated load. Both of these things conspire together to give the resulting increase on power, even though most of that power gain could be created with just some tuning adjustments. It is not correct to say that in all cases the lower restriction does not help out from a turbocharger pressure ratio perspective. It is also important to differentiate intakes that have much larger tubing sizes on purpose (BigMAFs). Those intakes will make an extreme difference in AFR if not calibrated correctly.


Take a look at these excellent results from Lance at Cobb:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2643088

It clearly shows the reduction in intake restriction ( a decrease in negative pressure at the turbocharger intake).

Regardless of that mod I'll let you know something we've discovered from literally hundreds and hundreds of pulls, keep in mind this is at elevation, if you're a coaster specifically east none of this applies. Every single car that has been on the dyno at Revolutions that has an aftermarket intake that's NOT Cobb runs lean. From the factory a bone stock WRX runs lean. Guess how much power an intake on a WRX makes.... zero. Always. They never flow better than stock. They SPOOL better than stock, so you will increase low end power and reach peak boost faster but top end gains are nonexistent. It's true the 2002+ ECUs do learn around mods, hell they learn so well they will override tunes if you don't do it right. This is all from experience and I'm sure there are a million threads on Nabisco from some bro tune that made a million bananas, that's just not what I've experienced.

This is an interesting perspective. While I would agree that the claims made my intake manufacturers are inflated, there are often measurable gains as a result of the change in both AFR and calculated load. I am surprised that you say a stock WRX runs leans, as it is reasonably well documented that the stock maps are relatively rich. If ALL WRXs on you dyno in stock form run 16:1 - 14:1, I would consider that there is some problem with your wideband calibration. Even the lean offset due to running behind a catalytic converter would not make a WRX that lean.

Consider the stock WRX fuel map:



Keep in mind these are open loop targets, but as you can see the called for AFR is very rich, especially at higher rpm and load. This is typical of Subaru tuning philosophy especially in the USDM models. Obviously MAF calibrations make a huge difference especially in an open loop target like this.

As a curiosity I consulted with a few other calibrators, and all agreed that something is amiss. Many suggested that an old MAF sensor might be the culprit, and some thought perhaps the AFR sensor was bad or miscalibrated. Either way I would not do any full throttle runs until those AFRs are fixed.

[Frank818]

Consider the stock WRX fuel map:



Keep in mind these are open loop targets

For tuners out there, read carefully this map. The X axis is a volume of air (grams of air per rev) entering the cylinder. This is a different perspective than air pressure (PSI, kPa, etc.) and cannot be used if you don't use a MAF sensor or something calculating the volume of air. What I mean is that at 20psi 3k rpm you could have 2 g/rev but if your turbo/IC gets more efficient, it could be 2.5 g/rev for still the same pressure (20) at the same RPM (3k).

I think we should move this conversation to a dedicated thread, I love the fuel/timing tuning and also think all this should be moved.

[sponaugle]

For tuners out there, read carefully this map. The X axis is a volume of air (grams of air per rev) entering the cylinder. This is a different perspective than air pressure (PSI, kPa, etc.) and cannot be used if you don't use a MAF sensor or something calculating the volume of air. What I mean is that at 20psi 3k rpm you could have 2 g/rev but if your turbo/IC gets more efficient, it could be 2.5 g/rev for still the same pressure (20) at the same RPM (3k).

I think we should move this conversation to a dedicated thread, I love the fuel/timing tuning and also think all this should be moved.

Indeed most of the maps in the Subaru ECU are load based.. but load based maps are not limited to MAF based car of course. You can use Speed Density and the map is the same. The only difference is the load is calculated differently. It is certainly true ( and good of you to point our Frank ) that these maps are not based on manifold pressure, so the traversal across the map tends to look like a torque curve on it's side. In the case of the WRX you would really never get to those bottom right most cells without a very unusual boost curve.

Agree that I don't want to take over SixStars thread. I'll continue the discussion here: http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showt...ation-Question

Jeff

[SixStar]

Alignment is interesting for sure.

Did your car show the rear to be narrower than the front? We're using all WRX sedan arms and there was almost an inch difference. I can fix that but I'm curious if others experienced the same.

[metalmaker12]

It would have with the same width rims , but I have 7x8F +35 and 18x9 +35 rear

[SixStar]

Ok cool. Wanted to make sure my guy didn't botch the rear arms somehow. We're shooting for a square setup with spacers. 10mm per side and another 2.5mm or so of adjustment. Should be pretty close.

Thanks!

[SixStar]

Forums are a blessing and a curse. You have lots of smart people that know lots of things about lots of things from all over the world. And while I know the general discourse was pleasant and polite I feel it was unnecessary and unwarranted. I took it as a personal afont to my experience as a Subaru tech and a tuner. I'm a pretty smart guy, I know that 16 is bad and 12 is good. It's simple stuff. That said there is no logical way that car A can be compared to car B over thousands of miles under a myriad of conditions on different measuring tools.

This thread is here to document the trials and tribulations of building Factory Five Racing 818S Kit #80 for our client. I will no longer be sharing anecdotal advice and evidence, it will be factual and straight forward. Part A fit like this. Part B is installed.

If anyone has questions or concerns regarding Six Star Cars, Six Star Tuning, or my personal experience as a technician, racer, tuner please direct them through the web site or PM.

Thanks!

[Mechie3]

I like anecdotal stuff.... It's how I learned half of what I learned.

[SixStar]

I like anecdotal stuff.... It's how I learned half of what I learned.

Just not in this build thread. We can muck up the Who we are and What we do thread. I'll start....

[sponaugle]

I will no longer be sharing anecdotal advice and evidence, it will be factual and straight forward. Part A fit like this. Part B is installed.
If anyone has questions or concerns regarding Six Star Cars, Six Star Tuning, or my personal experience as a technician, racer, tuner please direct them through the web site or PM.
Thanks!

Please don't change any of your behaviours as a result of anything I have said. I have great respect for the forum system, and the etiquette is clear. This thread is your thread for documenting your build and sharing your experience. The rest of us are guest and should treat it accordingly.

Cheers,

Jeff