Minimal supporting mods for Hybrid turbo

[Sakel]

If I remember correctly, that's the same final drive ratio used in the euro ST200

 

[Dpro]

If I remember correctly, that's the same final drive ratio used in the euro ST200

I do not think so. Everything I read said the ST200 had a 4.06 Final drive not 4.36 I personally would like the 4.06 because then my car which is a 2018 would basically be a U.S. ST200 as they also got the bigger front swaybar that came in U.S. 17 and up and the stiffer rear twist beam. Plus the ST200 had the overboost feature raising their hp number equal to ours, as the ST180 did not have the overboost feature.

 

[theblue]

This is absolutely false. The stock turbo makes 215hp/290tq on e30. Add a Whoosh Hybrid or S280 to the stock fuel system and you make 290hp/290tq with a much flatter torque curve.

My claim is that once you put the hybrid turbo on. Any other mod won't matter because fuel is the limiting factor. ex. more exhaust won't help.

Also you'll get a dyno run maxing out fuel around 300, but on track etc you don't want to be at 100% and more fuel will likely give a fatter powerband because tuners won't have to dance around fuel being always at the limit.

 

[haste]

I do not think so. Everything I read said the ST200 had a 4.06 Final drive not 4.36 I personally would like the 4.06 because then my car which is a 2018 would basically be a U.S. ST200 as they also got the bigger front swaybar that came in U.S. 17 and up and the stiffer rear twist beam. Plus the ST200 had the overboost feature raising their hp number equal to ours, as the ST180 did not have the overboost feature.

That's right. The ST200 ratio isn't quite as extreme as the 4.35 that I will be using.

 

[Mikey456]

I feel like it's gonna be super short gearing wise. The Ratios are short to begin with. But I understand the reasoning behind it. Get to 100mph much faster without needing more power. It's one of the first thing Honda Owners do regardless of model year. Except maybe 8th gen Si that already came with 4.76 even then they'd bump up to 5.20 in some instances.

I agree the gearing is pretty short in our cars already. I have traction issues getting out of turns in second gear if I am not careful with the throttle and I’m running a stock car. I do wish my second gear was a little longer. (I could go with taller tires)

I understand the Honda guys doing it because their (last model) NA cars make their power at high revs and they don’t make the torque that our turbo cars make.

 

[M-Sport fan]

But if you are running a big turbo setup in this car, with a very 'soft' lower rev torque and power band, the steeper ratio final drives will enable you to get into boost that much quicker.
But yeah, something you may not want on a factory turbo, or a lower rev power band hybrid.

 

[DoomsdayMelody]

I agree the gearing is pretty short in our cars already. I have traction issues getting out of turns in second gear if I am not careful with the throttle and I’m running a stock car. I do wish my second gear was a little longer. (I could go with taller tires)

I understand the Honda guys doing it because their (last model) NA cars make their power at high revs and they don’t make the torque that our turbo cars make.

This is absolutely accurate. That’s why most race cars have engines tuned for top end power, you can simulate torque via gearing, you cannot make up for lost horsepower on the top end with gearing without completely negating your torque advantage.


Not that I have the money to do it, but even on the stock turbo I think our cars would be much better served with a less aggressive ratio like a 3.5X rather than the 3.8 that it comes with from the factory. Since we have more than enough torque and develop it low in the rev range this would in effect make the car faster, although it would feel less urgent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dpro]

This is absolutely accurate. That’s why most race cars have engines tuned for top end power, you can simulate torque via gearing, you cannot make up for lost horsepower on the top end with gearing without completely negating your torque advantage.


Not that I have the money to do it, but even on the stock turbo I think our cars would be much better served with a less aggressive ratio like a 3.5X rather than the 3.8 that it comes with from the factory. Since we have more than enough torque and develop it low in the rev range this would in effect make the car faster, although it would feel less urgent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes Torque is more important in a street driven car . Track cars carry momentum so they need the HP more than the TQ. Street machines though need to get off the line , same as drag cars. Except drag cars want TQ and HP.
Trucks want TQ to so they can pull loads.
Torque gets one going and gives you that push back in the seat. HP keeps you rolling.
Thats why I always used to say Honda put track engines in their cars and then would use extra low gearing to get them off the line. Or as we used to say in the Nissan community Honda’s torque less wonders.

 

[Mikey456]

Yes Torque is more important in a street driven car . Track cars carry momentum so they need the HP more than the TQ. Street machines though need to get off the line , same as drag cars. Except drag cars want TQ and HP.
Trucks want TQ to so they can pull loads.
Torque gets one going and gives you that push back in the seat. HP keeps you rolling.
Thats why I always used to say Honda put track engines in their cars and then would use extra low gearing to get them off the line. Or as we used to say in the Nissan community Honda’s torque less wonders.

Talking about Honda’s... before I purchased my FiST i was researching Honda S2k and how to lower VTEC engagements levels from 6k RPM to a more easily manageable 4.5 RPM with a tune. The car did not make much of its 220 hp under 6k in stock form. It’s ok on a racetrack but for around town...not so much.


2017 Ford Fiesta ST, Shadow Black, Recaro seats, Mountune RMM, Swift springs, 5mm rear spacers, Falken 615+ tires

 

[DoomsdayMelody]

Yes Torque is more important in a street driven car . Track cars carry momentum so they need the HP more than the TQ. Street machines though need to get off the line , same as drag cars. Except drag cars want TQ and HP.
Trucks want TQ to so they can pull loads.
Torque gets one going and gives you that push back in the seat. HP keeps you rolling.
Thats why I always used to say Honda put track engines in their cars and then would use extra low gearing to get them off the line. Or as we used to say in the Nissan community Honda’s torque less wonders.

HP is just torque measure over a period of time, kind of just a more useful number than torque which tells you how much twist your generating. It’s like throwing a ball, saying you can throw 25 feet is... kinda ok? Saying you can throw 25 feet in one tenth of a second (approx 170mph) is suddenly much more impressive and quantifiable..

I understand the importance of torque but as you mentioned is possible to make up for a torque deficit with gearing, you can’t really make up for a horsepower deficit though.

While I’m glad ford made the Fiesta ST, part of me is wondering about the decisions their engineering team made, generally you want torque-y engines in heavier cars to help them hide their weight. Something that’s 2700lbs is classically much better served with a high horsepower engine since you don’t have all of the weight resisting motion in a small car, so you can get similar perception of thrust with less torque. Then again, maybe that’s exactly why their engineers chose the 1.6, because it’s a torque monster (for its size) and it feels like a goddamn rocketship even though it’s actually not terribly quick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dpro]

HP is just torque measure over a period of time, kind of just a more useful number than torque which tells you how much twist your generating. It’s like throwing a ball, saying you can throw 25 feet is... kinda ok? Saying you can throw 25 feet in one tenth of a second (approx 170mph) is suddenly much more impressive and quantifiable..

I understand the importance of torque but as you mentioned is possible to make up for a torque deficit with gearing, you can’t really make up for a horsepower deficit though.

While I’m glad ford made the Fiesta ST, part of me is wondering about the decisions their engineering team made, generally you want torque-y engines in heavier cars to help them hide their weight. Something that’s 2700lbs is classically much better served with a high horsepower engine since you don’t have all of the weight resisting motion in a small car, so you can get similar perception of thrust with less torque. Then again, maybe that’s exactly why their engineers chose the 1.6, because it’s a torque monster (for its size) and it feels like a goddamn rocketship even though it’s actually not terribly quick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It sounds like you just answered your own question Thing is no matter how low geared Honda made their cars our 240sx’s which were TQ monsters stock ate them off the line and all the way up to about 80 mph then VTec took over on the Honda‘s.

So that brings us right back to my point that you want some TQ for street cars lol. Oh and the 240sx weighs in at 2750lbs hmm same weight as a FiST. Plus with the Sr20DET in it hmmm sounds like my friends comment calling my FiST a FWD S13. lol
But ya they put the engine they did in the FiST for this very reason. Only the crazy Honda guys stick torque less wonders in their cars. For the most part all pretty much all manufacturers put engines in with a decent amount of TQ .
TQ helps coming out of low speed corners as well.

 

[M-Sport fan]

While I’m glad ford made the Fiesta ST, part of me is wondering about the decisions their engineering team made, generally you want torque-y engines in heavier cars to help them hide their weight. Something that’s 2700lbs is classically much better served with a high horsepower engine since you don’t have all of the weight resisting motion in a small car, so you can get similar perception of thrust with less torque.

True, but one must consider that those engineers also had to consider fuel mileage as well, yup, even in a 'performance car' due to C.A.F.E. and EPA standards/requirements, as even a ONE MPG decrease makes a difference in those averages (and a bigger turbo probably would have had to drop the mileage even more than that!).

Hence they might have been limited/prohibited in using an even slightly bigger turbo to get that said desired horsepower increase, regardless of whatever torque curve they were seeking for this car.

 

[Dpro]

True, but one must consider that those engineers also had to consider fuel mileage as well, yup, even in a 'performance car' due to C.A.F.E. and EPA standards/requirements, as even a ONE MPG decrease makes a difference in those averages (and a bigger turbo probably would have had to drop the mileage even more than that!).

Hence they might have been limited/prohibited in using an even slightly bigger turbo to get that said desired horsepower increase, regardless of whatever torque curve they were seeking for this car.

Interesting thing is the stock hp suits our cars decently and while the GT86/ BRZ has the same amount their dip in TQ is really what killed the car performance feel wise. I know the car.
This all goes back to the point that TQ on a street driven car really serves it well as TQ is what pushes you back in the seat gives you that seemingly fast but really quick acceleration feel. Had Ford wanted more power in the car the easier thing they would have done was drop the 2 liter in it. Bam there you go 250hp on stock Turbo. But yes its the mileage issue aka Cafe standards did probably play a huge role as this car is a sub compact. With the 1.6 they could easily keep it in the fuel mileage range.
Plus with the small turbo they played it safe on keeping the engine from blowing up.
I remember telling my Fleet manager what Ford left on the table Torque and HP wise with just a tune and he was shocked. The fact that you could pull 219hp and 260ft lbs of torque out of the stock turbo and engine with just a tune . Ford definitely played it safe with the car tune wise.

 

[M-Sport fan]

Plus with the small turbo they played it safe on keeping the engine from blowing up.
I remember telling my Fleet manager what Ford left on the table Torque and HP wise with just a tune and he was shocked. The fact that you could pull 219hp and 260ft lbs of torque out of the stock turbo and engine with just a tune . Ford definitely played it safe with the car tune wise.

Yes, THIS^^^ as well.

I did not mention it as then everyone would have jumped in stating that once one gets a close to the edge/max tunes the factory snail, or over-spins it, the resultant heat/stress makes it itself (but not so much the rest of the engine internals) much LESS 'reliable' than a larger turbo spun slower, with housings/bearings that will handle more heat and stress, even with a close to maxed-out tune.

 

[EnthusiaST]

Whoosh V3 FMIC
Whoosh Hybrid
Spark plugs
Drop in filter
Rear motor mount
Cobb AP w/ Custom Tune

You don’t need a downpipe just keep the factory one. Expect 250-270 on 93 octane. Enjoy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SirThomas88]

Jason from Dizzy Tuning created this super useful guide for minimal mods needed.

https://dizzytuning.com/blogs/technical-documents/the-ultimate-guide-to-modding-your-fiesta-st

The complication when asking what are "minimum supporting mods" is there are some mods which aren't technically "required" but if you don't upgrade them, they may fail on you later (such as the bypass valve, symposer delete). And then there are other parts which aren't needed but that are recommended (improved safety/longevity/increased power) and you SHOULD do at the same time while you've got the turbo out (high flow catted downpipe). I tried to go the minimum supporting mods route when i installed my X47 turbo and ended up upgrading more after the fact and ended up wasting some time/money because of it. Better to do it right the first time.

For strictly the bare minimum, EnthusiaST's comment is pretty much it. However for peace of mind and longevity, I'd also recommend:

High-flow catted downpipe (Whoosh catted downpipe)
Aftermarket Blow off Valve or Bypass Valve (GFB DV+, Turbosmart, etc.)

 

[DoomsdayMelody]

True, but one must consider that those engineers also had to consider fuel mileage as well, yup, even in a 'performance car' due to C.A.F.E. and EPA standards/requirements, as even a ONE MPG decrease makes a difference in those averages (and a bigger turbo probably would have had to drop the mileage even more than that!).

Hence they might have been limited/prohibited in using an even slightly bigger turbo to get that said desired horsepower increase, regardless of whatever torque curve they were seeking for this car.

I respectfully disagree with this line of logic. Fuel economy is a function of engine load, meaning that the only time you use more fuel is when you put the engine under higher than usual loads. Look at it this way: if you need to move 2700lbs around at a given speed it is going to take the same amount of work whether you had a 1.6 Ecoboost or a 2.0 Ecoboost. This is why our cars can see 40 mpg, even with our short gearing, when driven carefully. This is also exhibited if you pay attention to your fuel consumption when you start traveling at speeds where aerodynamic drag becomes significant (around 70 mph) and you can see that the drag really starts to increase the amount of work the engine has to do to keep the car moving at that speed.

In theory you could put a hellcat (with the same gear ratios) in a fiesta and see relatively similar fuel economy. The only difference there would be when you decided to use all of your power your fuel consumption would go up accordingly.

I honestly feel like it was dictated more by Ford’s bean counters, can’t argue that most people would scoff at paying $22k for a subcompact car regardless of how good it was because you can buy a lot more (physically more) car for that price and on top of that you don’t want to poach sales from the Focus ST... although I have to say I’m pretty pleased with the product even with their accountants’ meddling.

But, back on topic:

Jason from Dizzy Tuning created this super useful guide for minimal mods needed.

https://dizzytuning.com/blogs/technical-documents/the-ultimate-guide-to-modding-your-fiesta-st

The complication when asking what are "minimum supporting mods" is there are some mods which aren't technically "required" but if you don't upgrade them, they may fail on you later (such as the bypass valve, symposer delete). And then there are other parts which aren't needed but that are recommended (improved safety/longevity/increased power) and you SHOULD do at the same time while you've got the turbo out (high flow catted downpipe). I tried to go the minimum supporting mods route when i installed my X47 turbo and ended up upgrading more after the fact and ended up wasting some time/money because of it. Better to do it right the first time.

For strictly the bare minimum, EnthusiaST's comment is pretty much it. However for peace of mind and longevity, I'd also recommend:

High-flow catted downpipe (Whoosh catted downpipe)
Aftermarket Blow off Valve or Bypass Valve (GFB DV+, Turbosmart, etc.)

Is there a reason why the stock cat wouldn’t cut it for a
big turbo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SirThomas88]

But, back on topic:

Is there a reason why the stock cat wouldn’t cut it for a
big turbo?

Well as i understand it the OEM downpipe and cat are the single most restrictive part of the stock exhaust and if I'm not mistaken, opening that downpipe up can help not only with power delivery but also longevity of the turbo.

No doubt that others here can speak much better to the benefits of a high flow downpipe than me.

 

[Dpro]

Well as i understand it the OEM downpipe and cat are the single most restrictive part of the stock exhaust and if I'm not mistaken, opening that downpipe up can help not only with power delivery but also longevity of the turbo.

No doubt that others here can speak much better to the benefits of a high flow downpipe than me.

If I am not mistaken Russ at DHM made 375hp on the stock downpipe and exhaust nothing more than a bigger turbo and intercooler with a tune. Though yes the stock downpipe is restrictive compared to the rest of the system and honestly one can only benefit from going to aftermarket catted downpipe.

As far as the engine size argument goes indeed the 1.6 will get better gas mileage than a two liter because it can’t move as much volume period! lol Which means it can’t consume as much lol.
Thats just a fact and always has been which is why you see smaller engines in Europe because gas mileage has always been an issue over there due to how expensive it is compared to the U.S.
That is also why Ford had a 1.6 liter in the car rather than a 2.0 liter as it was designed by Ford of GERMANY! For the European market initially. Ford U.S.A. decided to start selling it here again because of Allan Mullaly and the One Ford program. Which Hackett quickly moved to break apart after Mullaly left.
That is why the car has a 1.6 turbo. Its also why the MK8 ST has a 1.5 liter 3 cylinder turbo that puts out slightly more HP than ours does stock and can be tuned stock to deliver 250hp easily.
Too bad we did not get it. lol

 

[M-Sport fan]

I respectfully disagree with this line of logic. Fuel economy is a function of engine load, meaning that the only time you use more fuel is when you put the engine under higher than usual loads. Look at it this way: if you need to move 2700lbs around at a given speed it is going to take the same amount of work whether you had a 1.6 Ecoboost or a 2.0 Ecoboost. This is why our cars can see 40 mpg, even with our short gearing, when driven carefully. This is also exhibited if you pay attention to your fuel consumption when you start traveling at speeds where aerodynamic drag becomes significant (around 70 mph) and you can see that the drag really starts to increase the amount of work the engine has to do to keep the car moving at that speed.

In theory you could put a hellcat (with the same gear ratios) in a fiesta and see relatively similar fuel economy. The only difference there would be when you decided to use all of your power your fuel consumption would go up accordingly.

I honestly feel like it was dictated more by Ford’s bean counters, can’t argue that most people would scoff at paying $22k for a subcompact car regardless of how good it was because you can buy a lot more (physically more) car for that price and on top of that you don’t want to poach sales from the Focus ST... although I have to say I’m pretty pleased with the product even with their accountants’ meddling.

Agreed with the 'bean counters' ultimate rationale/'say', but I was mainly stating WHY the engineers were limited within the bounds of the C.A.F.E./EPA limits/parameters, to put an even slightly larger turbo on this engine.

Since it absolutely would have required more fueling (even if just through a bigger fuel trim tune using our current injectors), and a resultant lower mileage number.

Otherwise, what's the use of even installing a larger snail?!?
(The CAFE/EPA test cycles are not only done at a highway 'steady state' cruising engine speed, but also take into account acceleration, including WOT to merge onto highways.)