EA82T differences AUS to import kW

steptoe · Post by **steptoe** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

I am guessing some of the first to visit will be Gannon and Disco - hi to all others too

In the back of our minds is the kW difference between AUS delivered and elsewheres EA82T and where it comes from and do we get it out of the import motors when fitted. Adrian mentioned the other day that the cat converter may contribute to the power loss of AUS delivered. He has also noted slight cam difference. Anyone noticed that the TPS settings for Oz and otherwise? The TPS needs to switch on idle for 2 degrees +/- 0.5 degree off idle posion ( or fully closed). The AUS then needs to be in no-readout- span I suppose it is, for 45 degrees to then give WOT signal (or half to fully open reading) until fully open. The import TPS are set to read WOT 15degrees earlier than AUS at 30 degrees after the idle has gone off. If there is a mismatch between ours and theirs in TPS and we retain same ECU working with import TPS.

I wonder if simply an import TPS will make an AUS delivered EA82T give more sought after herbs ??

>> EDIT >> I forgot to mention I am looking at stuff on the 3 plug ECU flapper style AFM EA82T , maybe 4 plug TPS is different, giving variable resistance values Fredsub mentions. The diagrams I have depict the TPS simply as a switch with just two contacts , one for the 1.5 degrees movement at idle, the other for from 45degrees from the off idle position to fully open

fredsub · Post by **fredsub** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:06 am

Don't know if this answers your question, but the ea82t I had, I didn't use the tps idle switch. The microtech had a mode to calibrate the TPS variable resistor and used that for WOT.
Its an interesting question tho, is the ex-Japan engine itself built for more kW, or is this difference just a matter of tuning.
The Jap import does have a cat,and their emissions standards are higher than ours I think?

steptoe · Post by **steptoe** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:11 am

Uh oh, maybe it is not Jap spec with greater kW. It might just have been the Arab and or Swedes models

Storm · Post by **Storm** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:47 am

fredsub wrote:The Jap import does have a cat,and their emissions standards are higher than ours I think?

I worked in a business that did Grey Imports, to get certification for Australia we had to do a heap of things one of which was fit a Catalytic Convertor cause the Japnese cars didn't come out with them until after Australia did. That was back in the late 1990s and the majority of the Japanese cars were only 3-4 years old

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:48 pm

From what ive read, all 3 plug EA82T motors had 111Hp. It was the 4 plug ones that had varying horse power.

Australia and the USA and most other places got 115Hp
Europe got 130Hp and it makes sense that Japan did also.

The power difference most likely comes from better fuel, so chances are the extra horsepower comes from increased ignition timing. Ive never heard of EA82T's running anything other than 7psi boost. An interesting note though that the USA got a different turbo,.. a VF7 compared to our VF4.

Xtreme_RX · Post by **Xtreme_RX** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:23 pm

It has been rumoured that the Jap spec EA82T ran 7 to 9PSI. Where the Australian version ran 5 to 7PSI.....

My JDM motor was pulling 9PSI when I fitted it to my RX (3 Plug ECU & VF4)

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:38 pm

Xtreme_RX wrote:It has been rumoured that the Jap spec EA82T ran 7 to 9PSI. Where the Australian version ran 5 to 7PSI.....

My JDM motor was pulling 9PSI when I fitted it to my RX (3 Plug ECU & VF4)

Interesting....

That means that there are differences between wastegate articulators even on same model turbos.

EA82T's didnt have ECU controlled boost control. 4 plug engines had an ECU controlled wastegate solenoid, but it was only to raise the boost if the AFM detected not enough air flow for a required RPM/load range, basically just an altitude compensator.

Xtreme_RX · Post by **Xtreme_RX** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:58 pm

I was under the impression that all Australian EA82T motors were fitted with a VF2 Manual & Auto models.

JDM EA82T Motors had a VF4 Fitted to the manual & VF2 to the automatic.

????? Hmmmm....????

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:03 pm

From my expreience (somewhat limited)

VF2: Oil cooled turbo fitted to EA81T
VF4: Water & Oil cooled turbo fitted to AUDM EA82T
VF7: Water & Oil cooled turbo fitted to USDM EA82T

Xtreme_RX · Post by **Xtreme_RX** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:12 pm

Interesting...

I have 4 or 5 VF2's from Jap import EA82T Autos.....

I took them of the motors my self.....

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:53 pm

Are the water cooled?

Xtreme_RX · Post by **Xtreme_RX** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:41 am

Yes. All of them are.

steptoe · Post by **steptoe** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:03 am

got some figures from 3 plug factory manuals

EXCEPT Australia - 136 PS @5600, 196 N-m @3600

We got 113 PS @4800 181N-m @2800

I think for arguments sake PS is Japanese for HP, so I guess that a TPS giving WOT earlier does not change HP at 5600 revs - debunk that theory

phillatdarwin · Post by **phillatdarwin** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:17 pm

i have a in port ea82t and it has got a vf280505 can some one tell me if it is a stranded turbo for this engine or was it a add on over in japan that some one put on it and it has got 2port inlet heads on it as well not the same as my ea82 i have in my car now .

steptoe · Post by **steptoe** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:17 pm

VF2 is standard. Carb heads differ from efi heads, turbo is efi. you have spotted the difference.

nncoolg · Post by **nncoolg** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:59 pm

...I think you have answered the question right there :

"EXCEPT Australia - 136 PS @5600, 196 N-m @3600

We got 113 PS @4800 181N-m @2800"

My bet is that the engines are identical spec, just rated at different rpm's - just like how the japs get around their '206KW' limit - by rating the output way down in the power curve, at say 4800, just after something like an STI or GTR has spooled. At a totally blind guess, I would say there was some kind of sport car tax or something on our shores at the time, which saw FHI rate the EA82's at 113 PS (metric HP) which by the way is 111.5 Hp or 83.1 KW.

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:00 pm

Dont forget that our fuel at the time was inferior to Japanese fuel. 5 points of RON could make a moderate power difference in an engine that is not very detonation friendly.

The difference in rpm for the peak power and torque suggest that maybe there were a difference in the cams (which i think discospud was on the trail of at some stage)

nncoolg · Post by **nncoolg** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:41 pm

Just because the power is rated at a particular rpm doesnt mean that is the peak level. these things are not dirty old diesels, no way they peak at 4800. It's like talking about a record, if the disc rotation speed is taken from the outside it will be a lot slower than the center, it doesnt change the track speed though. Car manufacturers measure power outputs at all different rpms for all sorts of reasons, and my bet is that is what FHI did here. To get a real comparison, you will need a power spec rated at the same rpm.

discopotato03 · Post by **discopotato03** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:09 pm

I'm not so sure about that one , manufacturers are usually keen to crow about how much their engine makes and I don't think there is a std for a certain engine speed .
I really wish there was some std like a torque measurement at a set percentage of the engines usable rev range , that way everyone would concentrate on torque numbers which is what it's all about .
Power as in Kw or Hp is virtually a multiplier of torque and engine speed .
Mores law rules supreme which is why manufacturers of mostly petrol engined cars push the Kw thing .

To my way of thinking the things most likely to alter (improve) an EA82T's power potential are things that make them breathe in and out more easily - improve volumetric efficiency meaning cylinder charging and venting efficiency .

The things Subaru did to the better performing EA82T , the XT4 Vortex ones in some countries , was to use the better Spider Inlet manifold , the better cam profiles , the better header pipe , the slightly larger 15R turbine housing , and I believe there was a down pipe that didn't have a cat in it .

The spider inlet manifold speaks for itself , much more gentle curves in their legs and what looks like a better plenum chamber .

The best of the factory EA82T cam profiles had the slightly longer exhaust valve timing ie 16-60 (256 degrees) which the late NA MPFI engines have .
These NA's are the same on the inlet timing where the best turbo profile is 14-58 or 252 degrees .
Our or at least our Aus spec 87 Vortex XT4 turbo has 14-56 timing for inlet and exhaust meaning 252 degrees inlet and exhaust . But the rub is that while the durations are the same as the best turbo cams they've advance the inlet lobes up 2 degrees to get similar overlap timing as our spec Vortex turbo cams .
All this would have been aimed at making the exhausdt side breath a bit better with a few other enhancements further downstream .

Header pipes , people say that some Vortex headers have a slightly larger diameter up pipe section and considering that the usual RX Turbo ones are quite small this would not be a backwards step .
I happen to have an 87 Vortex header so I'll have to compare it to an RX-T one . I do know that the oxygen sensor hole is pre turbo on this header where the early ones (like my 86 RX-T) have the sensor plumbed into the downpipe .

The turbine housing , the rare 15R one would be the best one to have provided you also had the better flowing header cams and downpipe . When you remove inbuilt restrictions in an OEM turbo system volumetric efficiency climbs because the engine has less in the way of pumping losses - power lost by the pistons physically pushing the exhaust out rather than just its thermally driven expansion .
When turbine inlet pressure (pressure between the exhaust ports and the exhaust turbine) drops often the detonation threshold falls and the ignition timing can be advanced more towards BMT or best mean torque burning efficiency . The engine scavanges better as well .
The big plus is that all this can take place WITHOUT increasing boost pressure and the pay off is more torque with cleaner mixtures AND better throttle and boost response .

The downpipe not having a cat is pretty self explanatory with performance , any restriction removed downstream of a turbocharger is a positive .

The best of the local legal rally spec engines cranked out 190 fragile Hp with big cams and most of the best OEM facrory bits , they had to use an unmodified factory header pipe so you'd reckon they'd pick on the best std one and the 15R housing turbo .
The Spider manifold was out because it was never used as original equipment in an L Series .

As for the throttle switch in flap AFM cars , I'll have to look at my WSM stuff because I'm pretty sure MPFI turbo and NA had different open throttle contact positions .

A .

steptoe · Post by **steptoe** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:14 pm

and what Xtreme says, the extra few pounds boost on the non Oz version may have been all it was to get the extra herbs up higher.

I wonder if one had better longevity than the other, dependent of course on many factors like maintenance and observation of things gone wrong. I know my 87 had 188,000 on its dial when I got it. It was already on its second motor that someone cooked enough to have timing belt covers droop a bit. Currentlu running Lturbos old chugger and it sounds to have very slight gudgeon pin bush noise on light throttle. This donk is thought to have about 220,000 km on it with a re kit and heads done by Damo666 some years back. I gotta say i reckon a larger diameter hole on turbo base flange causes turbo lag. Might have to fit up a reducer ring underneath to get some low end go back.