td-05 mileage and driveability?

[93Leg-c]

Just wondering, for those who are running with the td-05 16g, what kind of gas mileage are you getting?

[morgie]

250km per 50l tank in city, but my feet is very heavy .. (almost always WOT when accelerating)

[dzx]

average of 250 miles for a tank

[93Leg-c]

So, morgie, you're getting about 12 mpg (if my calculations are correct)?

dzx, I get about 250-280 miles per tank, close to your mileage. But I've got a worn-out stock engine and youi've got a high-powered turbo engine! That makes me want to plan for a setup something like yours in the future.

[morgie]

yup, but i need to re-adjust my air/fuel map on the wideband.. i'm a bit on the rich side :\

[BAC5.2]

Avg between 15.5 and 17mpg mixed driving. My driving is usually conserved until I want to drive fast. Probably about 75% off-boost, 15% of on-boost acceleration merging and beating lights and whatnot. The rest is spent driving haulass backroads in 2nd and 3rd gear. This is with WRX sized tires (225/45/17's).

[93Leg-c]

So, how driveable are your cars compared to stock (other threads indicate that with the td-05 16g you have better driveability than with the stock turbo) -- but in what way?

Also other posts have indicated better gas mileage without getting into the turbo -- at what rpm does the turbo really kick in and can the turbo be adjusted to when it kicks in?

If these questions sound ignorant -- well, I am (about turbo functioning). Sorry if they are but I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks!

[BAC5.2]

I spool up at around 3300RPM (that's not adjustable really).

I have SIGNIFICANTLY better drivability with the TD05 than I did with the VF11, in EVERY aspect.

[93Leg-c]

I have SIGNIFICANTLY better drivability with the TD05 than I did with the VF11, in EVERY aspect.

So, would you say that you have more torque and power from idle to 3,300 rpm with the td-05 as compared to even a NA engine?

[BAC5.2]

Hard to say, really.

At WOT, 3300RPM comes up FAST in my car. If I take off in 1st, kiss anything and everything goodbye. Feels like a MONSTER Vtec cam kicking in after each shift. PULLLLL shift wait PULLLLLL.

In reality, I don't think an N/A stands anywhere near a chance against my car, at any point of the rev range, even in my current "winter mode" running wastegate boost.

The car is a LOT stronger with the 16G off-boost, than the VF-11 was off-boost.

I will hit the rollers in the spring, and get some concrete-ish numbers for everyone to drool over

[evolutionmovement]

I can actually add something of substance to this conversation driving a turbo engine with perpetual lag ... Granted I'm using an N/A exhaust, but the difference is probably minor. Below the rpm where the turbo would kick in this engine has little to no power loss to the N/A. The lower compression does not like to rev out much, and an N/A would kill starting around 3500-4000, but by then the turbo would have kicked in. The compression specs for the N/A vs. turbo engine actually overlap, with the lower range of the N/A being below the higher range of the turbo, so you could get the same power theoretically. In my case where I had a particularly strong N/A that slowed some after ~210k I would say that there was almost no loss of torque between the two, but definitely some loss of HP. I lost about a second 0-60 after the swap (though about 2 secs if I measured it against the original engine in its best days) and all that was lost at the top of the range. This new engine can pull pretty quick until about 3k, so it's not too bad below boost.

Steve

[impostor]

gas mileage 17-20 MPG

driveability: I noticed how the stock setup would hit its peak and then fall flat on its face. The td05 spools up around 3k RPM and keeps on going...and going....and going

Jim

[93Leg-c]

BAC and Steve: Funny, but I didn't get your posts until today.

Steve, I thought you had a NA engine with a turbo block or did you upgrade since then?

BAC, Steve, and Jim: So from your comments, it seems like the turbo setup has good driveability even in the off-boost rpm range or at least the same as a NA engine. Is that an accurate conclusion?

[evolutionmovement]

It's a turbo engine without the turbo, so thus, perpetual lag in a sense. It's not too bad when the timing isn't friggin' retarded.

Steve

[Warp3]

My 91SS has a TD05H-16G as its only mod (so far...but I'm working on that) and I've been averaging around 17-18 mpg (only got 16.5 on my last tank...ugh). I was really annoyed by this originally, but from this thread it looks like I'm actually on the higher end of the spectrum for Legacy Turbo gas mileage here.

Still disappointing, though, when my 2.5RS averages around 25 mpg over the same commute (and the RX's mileage is very similar to that of the 2.5RS also)...{sigh} I mean I expected lower gas mileage from a car that is a bit heavier, lower CR, turbo and automatic, but didn't quite expect that big of a hit (especially since the RX has two of those four (lower CR and turbo) and both are lower displacement than the 2.5RS).

Of course, now that I actually look it up (partway through writing this post... ), it looks like the EPA estimates are 18/24 for the 4EAT '91 Legacy Turbo (compared to 22/29 for the 5MT '99 2.5RS) so I guess I'm not really getting any worse mileage than I should be after all.

Oh well, at least gas prices have finally started dropping lately.