Front mounted gt4202 single turbo START UP VIDEO
07-08-2013, 01:27 AM
#41
http://www.autopartswarehouse.com/de...FbFAMgod724A7QJust putting a regular CTS bumper on, no big deal...
07-08-2013, 01:40 AM
#42
I don't think he cares. His car is already beyond goofy with the 113 octane tune, heat exchanger blocking the perpendicularly-mounted radiator, and those awful bolted side exhaust ports. And he removed the bumper, so the car is going bye bye during even a minor fender-bender.
I dont know of any Front mounted intercooler or heat exchanger that doesnt sit in front of the radiator, the vast majority of after market turbo cars run front mounts, not much new there. And FYI the LS's cooling sytems are extremely efficient, there are guys running little honda radiators on daily driven LS cars.
I like the raw look of the old wastegates dumped out the side, different tastes is all it is, clearly you prefer to make your car look pretty, and I am more into focusing on power. But the side dumps are getting patched up soon as the new wastegate is coming out the bumper.
The new setup is running an E85 fuel system capable of 1500 HP.. Just wait till the fully built Iron Block LQ9 434 goes in this winter
Last edited by B_ROCKS_IT; 07-08-2013 at 03:04 PM.
07-08-2013, 09:02 AM
#44
I hope u have some big plans for the rear 4 linkand tubs in the rear.
Mine makes 900 and is useless after about 750
Traction is hard to come by on these cars at the power level we are talking about
Mine makes 900 and is useless after about 750
Traction is hard to come by on these cars at the power level we are talking about
07-08-2013, 09:29 AM
#45
I'm thinking going out would be the better option. Trailing arms and etc on the inside =10" rim and a 305. Fender flares (easier IMO) and increased rim offset maybe get 345's? Either way at those power levels he is aiming for traction is never going to come with out full on large drag slicks. But with a 345 drag radial you have a whole lot more of a chance anyway. I drove a 1500 hp C6 ZO6 twin turbo with I believe 365 drags radials out back and I watched the thing smoke the tires on the dyno so....yeah. Driving that car at full boost (18psi) was impossible without expecting traction loss (period).
finally a front mount turbo build on a V!!!!!
07-08-2013, 03:08 PM
#47
Tire width is less of an issue than sidewall height, there are guys in the 8's on 245's... So unfortunately I may be swapping to a cts rear brake setup. With some 15 inch rims and 315's (if I can get my hands on a modified trailing arm) I should be doing a lot better.
But my car seems to be gifted, with the twin setup I was hooking up the 800ish WHP as long as I was hitting it above 40-50 MPH, which surprised the **** out of me.
07-08-2013, 08:40 PM
#49
07-08-2013, 09:33 PM
#50
A good rule of thumb (albeit a vaaaast oversimplification) is that you make an extra 15 horsepower per pound of additional pressure in a Gen III/IV LS-series engine. Assuming that you have everything else in your car upgraded as far as it'll go, you'll wind up with 450 RWHP range for the 364 CID LS2 (N/A). From there, 13 psi x 15 = 195 + 450 RWHP = 655 RWHP. 780 RWHP doesn't pass that sanity check. Not saying it's impossible, but rather, unlikely.
As a further sanity check, we can compare these predictions to S-Cam, who, if memory serves, is making about 775 RWHP with a great 416 CID LS3 motor (60 psi oil pressure hot idle, 85 psi cold idle), 10.5 static CR, meth, phenolic spacer, and a cog overdriven TVS2300 with 18.5 lbs of boost.
Since a nice 416 CID LS3 with good heads will make about 500 RWHP at 10.5 CR, we have 15*18 = 270 + 500 = 770 RWHP. Sanity check passed.
By the way, he went through seven revisions of his fueling system to get that monster working correctly--the final rev, I believe, involved a Walbro GSS 342 or Denso 950-0155 in-tank pump feeding a custom surge tank with twin Bosch 044s. 850cc injectors, -8/-6 AN fuel lines, etc. Fortunately for you, a turbo doesn't have that massive transient kick that a supercharger does, so you probably won't have to worry as much about leaning out your A/F. But you should have had problems a long time ago if you were actually making the power that your tuner is telling you you are.
As a further sanity check, we can compare these predictions to S-Cam, who, if memory serves, is making about 775 RWHP with a great 416 CID LS3 motor (60 psi oil pressure hot idle, 85 psi cold idle), 10.5 static CR, meth, phenolic spacer, and a cog overdriven TVS2300 with 18.5 lbs of boost.
Since a nice 416 CID LS3 with good heads will make about 500 RWHP at 10.5 CR, we have 15*18 = 270 + 500 = 770 RWHP. Sanity check passed.
By the way, he went through seven revisions of his fueling system to get that monster working correctly--the final rev, I believe, involved a Walbro GSS 342 or Denso 950-0155 in-tank pump feeding a custom surge tank with twin Bosch 044s. 850cc injectors, -8/-6 AN fuel lines, etc. Fortunately for you, a turbo doesn't have that massive transient kick that a supercharger does, so you probably won't have to worry as much about leaning out your A/F. But you should have had problems a long time ago if you were actually making the power that your tuner is telling you you are.
07-08-2013, 09:36 PM
#51
I agree with Fuzzy that makign 779 on 13psi through a stock headed ls2 is unheard of especially at the elevation your at. Further proof is the low trap speed you made at that power level.
Lets not get too off topic though im happy to see this type of build.
Lets not get too off topic though im happy to see this type of build.
07-08-2013, 10:39 PM
#52
Lets look at the dyno itself. (because many operators don't know how to use them)
Its simple, does this setup use a wastegate to control the boost in the manifold?
answer, yes.
THEREFORE you must ONLY use uncorrected values. No ifs and's or but's.
using ANY of the correction factors, and in this case, was 1.22. will add... 22% of 'fictitious' power. This was a classic maneuver done by a shop locally, until I called them out and had a VP at dynojet also tell them.
The car made 638rwhp and 607tq. End of story. This would make sense on fueling, idc's, track times.
I agree, this is off topic, but i see it time and time again, inflated dyno numbers based on ignorant operators.
If anyone would like an explanation as to why uncorrected should ONLY be used on a turbo / wastegate controlled engine, I will gladly explain.
I just like the fabbing work being done and the 'thinking', I dont care about numbers, but I will call out BS when i can.
Its simple, does this setup use a wastegate to control the boost in the manifold?
answer, yes.
THEREFORE you must ONLY use uncorrected values. No ifs and's or but's.
using ANY of the correction factors, and in this case, was 1.22. will add... 22% of 'fictitious' power. This was a classic maneuver done by a shop locally, until I called them out and had a VP at dynojet also tell them.
The car made 638rwhp and 607tq. End of story. This would make sense on fueling, idc's, track times.
I agree, this is off topic, but i see it time and time again, inflated dyno numbers based on ignorant operators.
If anyone would like an explanation as to why uncorrected should ONLY be used on a turbo / wastegate controlled engine, I will gladly explain.
I just like the fabbing work being done and the 'thinking', I dont care about numbers, but I will call out BS when i can.
Last edited by vmapper; 07-08-2013 at 10:45 PM.
07-08-2013, 11:02 PM
#54
How much do you want to bet that runsfromdacops has the same problem? 864 RWHP / 1.22 = 708 RWHP.
07-09-2013, 12:06 AM
#55
07-09-2013, 01:10 AM
#56
Yeah i guess its more reasonable to assune both the dynos just happened to be within 20whp of eachother. Your comparison of a supercharged engine vs a turbo engine done by different tuners is more accurate than theses silly dynamometer thingys.
Once you guys try launching a 700 + hp 4200 lb car on 245 all seasons with a stock differential, let me know how you're numbers are doing.
Once you guys try launching a 700 + hp 4200 lb car on 245 all seasons with a stock differential, let me know how you're numbers are doing.
07-09-2013, 01:16 AM
#57
Yeah i guess its more reasonable to assume both the dynos just happened to erroneously be within 20whp of eachother. Your comparison of a supercharged engine vs a turbo engine done by different tuners is more accurate than theses silly dynamometer thingys.
Once you guys try launching a 700 + hp 4200 lb car on 245 all seasons with a stock differential, let me know how you're numbers are doing.
Once you guys try launching a 700 + hp 4200 lb car on 245 all seasons with a stock differential, let me know how you're numbers are doing.
07-09-2013, 01:19 PM
#60
Turbo charged engines make significantly more power at high altitude than NA...
However, this does not in any way mean that they make anywhere close to as much power as the same turbo engine would a low altitude or sea level.
Turbos dont recognize PSI, they recognize pressure ratio. Sea level is 14.7psi ambient, if you want to produce 14.7psi boost, the turbo workload is 2.0 pressure ratio. Right now, in Denver CO, my altimeter is saying 12.01psi ambient. For the same turbo to produce 14.7psi boost, the turbo workload is 2.34 pressure ratio ((ambient+boost) / (ambient). It is working significantly harder to produce the same PSI.
The problem is that at altitude the turbo has to work much harder to produce the same PSI it normally would, this creates more heat, which reduces HP.
The altitude also reduces the actual compression ratio the pistons are achieving, which reduces horsepower.
Additionally the intercooler is significantly less efficient as it is surrounded by thinner air molecules and dissipates the already increased heat with less efficiency which reduces horsepower.
Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to not compensate for the altitude conditions that are unique to Denver, now would it?
So once this new setup is done, it will be corrected per what the professional tuner who tunes cars every day at high altitude thinks is proper.
I am more than happy to take that number vs uncorrected at the low altitude tune/dyno numbers I will get when I go to TX2k14 next year, and since you mentioned betting, hows a friendly wager that they will be within 50WHP of eachother sound?
Do you like apples?
However, this does not in any way mean that they make anywhere close to as much power as the same turbo engine would a low altitude or sea level.
Turbos dont recognize PSI, they recognize pressure ratio. Sea level is 14.7psi ambient, if you want to produce 14.7psi boost, the turbo workload is 2.0 pressure ratio. Right now, in Denver CO, my altimeter is saying 12.01psi ambient. For the same turbo to produce 14.7psi boost, the turbo workload is 2.34 pressure ratio ((ambient+boost) / (ambient). It is working significantly harder to produce the same PSI.
The problem is that at altitude the turbo has to work much harder to produce the same PSI it normally would, this creates more heat, which reduces HP.
The altitude also reduces the actual compression ratio the pistons are achieving, which reduces horsepower.
Additionally the intercooler is significantly less efficient as it is surrounded by thinner air molecules and dissipates the already increased heat with less efficiency which reduces horsepower.
Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to not compensate for the altitude conditions that are unique to Denver, now would it?
So once this new setup is done, it will be corrected per what the professional tuner who tunes cars every day at high altitude thinks is proper.
I am more than happy to take that number vs uncorrected at the low altitude tune/dyno numbers I will get when I go to TX2k14 next year, and since you mentioned betting, hows a friendly wager that they will be within 50WHP of eachother sound?
Do you like apples?
Last edited by B_ROCKS_IT; 07-09-2013 at 01:35 PM.