AFR 205's + 228/228 113* = 500 RWHP!!
10-13-2009, 10:02 AM
#41
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blu,
Im going to quote myself again assuming you blew over it convinced Dale's numbers are inflated.
Now your "inflated" dyno example above is obviously flawed IMO just looking at the peak torque above 450 RWTQ and especially looking at the torque output at 4K. It looks jacked up....someone knowledgeable like myself and others with alot of hands on dyno experience (especially concerning this type of Gen III package) would be able to pick up on that just like the examples I used above. This is physics to a point guys and some things are possible and some things aren't when you have an engine of "X" size with "X" compression ratio
Now you may have also wanted to raise the BS flag on my original 224/228 package that made 435-440 RWTQ and 475-481 RWHP (depending on the day and the dyno), especially four-five years ago when aggressive packages were having a hard time achieving that. Yet those results were confirmed on a half a dozen different dynos in two different States. Dale's curve looks VERY similar to mine but hangs the torque curve further out a little better as you would expect and I hoped for with a slightly larger cam and the deeper breathing heads. Its exactly what I would have drawn on a napkin if Dale and I were at a bar discussing what the most optimistic result of the work we were discussing could produce. We already had a proven recipe (my former package).....Dale just financed the newer slightly more aggressive version of it.
-Tony
PS....Also note the peak RWTQ is the same as my combination which isn't a coincidence. It should be similar with the same displacement, induction, exhaust, and most importantly the same compression. In fact the bulk of peak torque output is displacement and compression based (assuming similar flowing heads, induction, exhaust). Power is a completely different animal however and doesn't even require monster torque output to show well. In fact big cammed cars usually make less peak torque (unless they have alot of static compression), but much like Dale's curve hang it out there longer (bringing horsepower along with it as a mathematical function of RPM) due to simply holding the valves open longer. But as most of you already know, that's not a free lunch because of low speed power/torque penalties. We accomplished the same thing with a more refined approach where Dale invested more money than most with a professionally prepped set of cylinder heads (and intake manifold) which is the key to engine breathing 101 and shouldn't be discounted....and he invested time and money in the smaller details as well....all of which add to the bottom line come dyno day.
Im going to quote myself again assuming you blew over it convinced Dale's numbers are inflated.
Now your "inflated" dyno example above is obviously flawed IMO just looking at the peak torque above 450 RWTQ and especially looking at the torque output at 4K. It looks jacked up....someone knowledgeable like myself and others with alot of hands on dyno experience (especially concerning this type of Gen III package) would be able to pick up on that just like the examples I used above. This is physics to a point guys and some things are possible and some things aren't when you have an engine of "X" size with "X" compression ratio
Now you may have also wanted to raise the BS flag on my original 224/228 package that made 435-440 RWTQ and 475-481 RWHP (depending on the day and the dyno), especially four-five years ago when aggressive packages were having a hard time achieving that. Yet those results were confirmed on a half a dozen different dynos in two different States. Dale's curve looks VERY similar to mine but hangs the torque curve further out a little better as you would expect and I hoped for with a slightly larger cam and the deeper breathing heads. Its exactly what I would have drawn on a napkin if Dale and I were at a bar discussing what the most optimistic result of the work we were discussing could produce. We already had a proven recipe (my former package).....Dale just financed the newer slightly more aggressive version of it.
-Tony
PS....Also note the peak RWTQ is the same as my combination which isn't a coincidence. It should be similar with the same displacement, induction, exhaust, and most importantly the same compression. In fact the bulk of peak torque output is displacement and compression based (assuming similar flowing heads, induction, exhaust). Power is a completely different animal however and doesn't even require monster torque output to show well. In fact big cammed cars usually make less peak torque (unless they have alot of static compression), but much like Dale's curve hang it out there longer (bringing horsepower along with it as a mathematical function of RPM) due to simply holding the valves open longer. But as most of you already know, that's not a free lunch because of low speed power/torque penalties. We accomplished the same thing with a more refined approach where Dale invested more money than most with a professionally prepped set of cylinder heads (and intake manifold) which is the key to engine breathing 101 and shouldn't be discounted....and he invested time and money in the smaller details as well....all of which add to the bottom line come dyno day.
I have a lot of experience with a dyno dynamics dyno and obviously you don't if you think this combo would make 500rwhp on a dyno dynamics dyno without the correction factor being dialed up to try and read like another brand dyno.
That is the only problem I see in which I am stating the whole "inflated" numbers theory. If you are ok with a correction factor being 1.13-1.14 on the DD dyno at sea level when the SAE dynojet correction would probably be .98 in Canada in the air we are having now then thats all on you. I however don't find this sort of thing accurate nor can it be compared with similar combos on different dyno brands in which most will do and you are doing now.
10-13-2009, 10:44 AM
#42
Im with you on this one BLU. The correction factor has to be adjusted to read like a dyno jet to acheive this number. Nice Combo though. Should run great at the track with good traction.
10-13-2009, 11:33 AM
#43
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Denver International Airport, Colorado USA
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blu you obviously are making some good points, but to us average readers maybe this is the way to ask.
What would though OP have to do to convince you his numbers are solid, and is that fair for him to do?
Bottom line..Is it the dyno methodology or you are just not convinced his combination can do it? It is hard to 'prove' an unknown and in all reality we have to take a members word until it is proven otherwise. As an average reader on this board it appears that even Dynojet readings reduced to an SAE correction are doubted many times on this and other Tech boards.
I generally believe the 'Rules of the Road' are unless you can prove otherwise, just best to move on. Eventually the truth comes out and no one wants their shop or products to be discredited.
Again, I see your point..but how about just saying 'good job' to the OP and if he enjoys it and races eventually the Trap Speed will give a good ballpark of his success.
Thanks..
..WeathermanShawn..
What would though OP have to do to convince you his numbers are solid, and is that fair for him to do?
Bottom line..Is it the dyno methodology or you are just not convinced his combination can do it? It is hard to 'prove' an unknown and in all reality we have to take a members word until it is proven otherwise. As an average reader on this board it appears that even Dynojet readings reduced to an SAE correction are doubted many times on this and other Tech boards.
I generally believe the 'Rules of the Road' are unless you can prove otherwise, just best to move on. Eventually the truth comes out and no one wants their shop or products to be discredited.
Again, I see your point..but how about just saying 'good job' to the OP and if he enjoys it and races eventually the Trap Speed will give a good ballpark of his success.
Thanks..
..WeathermanShawn..
10-13-2009, 11:59 AM
#44
The best thing to do is get the car on another DYNO JET to compare #s, and back them up as legit.
I'm not AFR hater by ANY means, I like Tony and his work. But this pill is hard to swallow with a Corvette IRS drivetrain, 19" wheels, LS7 clutch which is notorious for robbing 10-15 "dyno" hp, and a 228 cam.
Lets see the car on a dyno jet.
I'm not AFR hater by ANY means, I like Tony and his work. But this pill is hard to swallow with a Corvette IRS drivetrain, 19" wheels, LS7 clutch which is notorious for robbing 10-15 "dyno" hp, and a 228 cam.
Lets see the car on a dyno jet.
10-14-2009, 10:28 AM
#46
CARTEK Racing
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: East Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, stop doubting the numbers, its only a dyno.
With this power, good driving and good air this car should go 130+mph. Lets stop making accusations until we see what the car does on the track.
If this car comes out and run 130 or so mph then clearly the numbers are legit. If this car traps 124 then we know something is a foot. Until then, lets congratulate the owner and Tony and wish them luck at the track.
With this power, good driving and good air this car should go 130+mph. Lets stop making accusations until we see what the car does on the track.
If this car comes out and run 130 or so mph then clearly the numbers are legit. If this car traps 124 then we know something is a foot. Until then, lets congratulate the owner and Tony and wish them luck at the track.
10-14-2009, 10:44 AM
#47
No doubting the numbers are here those numbers will be good for a dyno jet and the car should trap very well. Those numbers just are not accurate for a dyno dynamics dyno. We all agree that this combo is great and makes great power. To make 500hp on a dyno dynamics with no correction factor would equal over 600hp on a dyno jet. I think this is what blu was trying to get at. Unless I'm missing something here?. Good job on the setup!
10-14-2009, 11:11 AM
#48
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Denver International Airport, Colorado USA
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Blu is pointing out that the 'Dyno Dynamics' Correction Factor in his experience is arbitrary and not applied in the same manner as a properly calibrated DynoJet using accurate weather data (SAE).
It sounds like from previous threads the debate rages on. There does not appear to always be any realistic standard in dyno testing that everyone agrees on. Dyno's can be manipulated, track times can be determined by weight, air density, driving skill, etc.
If we take a dyno as a tuning tool, then I so not see the problem. Heck, at times I just use my tuning software, GPS, and G-Tech and live with the concept of 'net horsepower'..in the end that is what a Trap Speed is estimating.
For purposes of this thread, since many AFR Heads have produced 440HP+, it does not seem unreasonable that the OP made at least +30HP or more from everything else he added. I think Blu rasies some good points, but I also think it is likely the OP made at least 475HP+ and I accept his results until 'proven' otherwise.
Ultimately it matters more to the person claiming it, their reputation is always on the line. I think we agree a Trap Speed gives a good estimate. It is up to the owner.
To the OP, congrats on your build. Enjoy.
..WeathermanShawn..
It sounds like from previous threads the debate rages on. There does not appear to always be any realistic standard in dyno testing that everyone agrees on. Dyno's can be manipulated, track times can be determined by weight, air density, driving skill, etc.
If we take a dyno as a tuning tool, then I so not see the problem. Heck, at times I just use my tuning software, GPS, and G-Tech and live with the concept of 'net horsepower'..in the end that is what a Trap Speed is estimating.
For purposes of this thread, since many AFR Heads have produced 440HP+, it does not seem unreasonable that the OP made at least +30HP or more from everything else he added. I think Blu rasies some good points, but I also think it is likely the OP made at least 475HP+ and I accept his results until 'proven' otherwise.
Ultimately it matters more to the person claiming it, their reputation is always on the line. I think we agree a Trap Speed gives a good estimate. It is up to the owner.
To the OP, congrats on your build. Enjoy.
..WeathermanShawn..
10-14-2009, 07:16 PM
#49
TECH Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Its classified.
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm wanting to know what the expected life of this engine is turning 7000 plus on a stock assembly. I can foresee rod bolt elongation becoming an issue.
Last edited by LSWon00; 10-14-2009 at 10:20 PM.
10-14-2009, 07:34 PM
#50
No argument or justification on my part regarding dyno's. I fully agree this issue is beyond most & especially me to even begin to understand it.
What I have been able to do is break it down into what matters to me & my wallet.
I prefer the load bearing steady dyno, tuning & how the car runs under the curve is my goal. Also this DD dyno was able to repeat back to back runs within 1.5 rwhp, so when I made a MAF change or timing change & see a 3 or 4 rwhp change I'm satisfied that really happened. The losses & gains that's important.
When I compare similar C5 & C6 manuals, in this case a C6 Z06 & it is running 441 rwhp 3 runs in a row, all within the 1.5 rwhp. I can see it is comparable to other C6 Z06's on DJ's, that seems reasonable. More importantly to me I want to see consistency in the frictional loss of that dyno with similar drive lines to mine, again in this case 14.5% loss. So now it is easy to calculate back to approx crankshaft net hp. When I have that information I can make reasonable assumptions regarding power & feel comfortable whether or not I'm on the stingy Mustang or in this case a DD.
The purpose of this build was to better Tony's original build without sacrifice to driveabilty & low speed torque, I have no reason to despite the results.
My wounded wallet will probably heal over time, what I get to drive makes it worth while!
What I have been able to do is break it down into what matters to me & my wallet.
I prefer the load bearing steady dyno, tuning & how the car runs under the curve is my goal. Also this DD dyno was able to repeat back to back runs within 1.5 rwhp, so when I made a MAF change or timing change & see a 3 or 4 rwhp change I'm satisfied that really happened. The losses & gains that's important.
When I compare similar C5 & C6 manuals, in this case a C6 Z06 & it is running 441 rwhp 3 runs in a row, all within the 1.5 rwhp. I can see it is comparable to other C6 Z06's on DJ's, that seems reasonable. More importantly to me I want to see consistency in the frictional loss of that dyno with similar drive lines to mine, again in this case 14.5% loss. So now it is easy to calculate back to approx crankshaft net hp. When I have that information I can make reasonable assumptions regarding power & feel comfortable whether or not I'm on the stingy Mustang or in this case a DD.
The purpose of this build was to better Tony's original build without sacrifice to driveabilty & low speed torque, I have no reason to despite the results.
My wounded wallet will probably heal over time, what I get to drive makes it worth while!
Last edited by ctd; 10-14-2009 at 08:43 PM.
10-14-2009, 07:42 PM
#51
No argument or justification on my part regarding dyno's. I fully agree this issue is beyond most & especially me to even begin to understand it.
What I have been able to do is break it down into what matters to me & my wallet.
I prefer the load bearing steady dyno, tuning & how the car runs under the curve is my goal. Also this DD dyno was able to repeat back to back runs within 1.5 rwhp, so when I made a MAF change or timing changed & seen a 3 or 4 rwhp changed I'm satisfied that really happened. The losses & gains that's important.
When I compare similar C5 & C6 manuals, in this case a C6 Z06 & it is running 441 rwhp 3 runs in a row, all within the 1.5 rwhp. I can see that is comparable to other C6 Z06's on DJ's that seems reasonable. More importantly to me I want to see consistency in the frictional loss of that dyno with similar drive lines to mine, again in this case 14.5% loss. So now it is easy to calculate back to approx crankshaft net hp. When I have that information I can make reasonable assumptions regarding power & feel comfortable whether or not I'm on the stingy Mustang or in this case a DD.
The purpose of this build was to better Tony's original build without sacrifice to driveabilty & low speed torque, I have no reason to despite the results.
My wounded wallet will probably heal over time, what I get to drive makes it worth while!
What I have been able to do is break it down into what matters to me & my wallet.
I prefer the load bearing steady dyno, tuning & how the car runs under the curve is my goal. Also this DD dyno was able to repeat back to back runs within 1.5 rwhp, so when I made a MAF change or timing changed & seen a 3 or 4 rwhp changed I'm satisfied that really happened. The losses & gains that's important.
When I compare similar C5 & C6 manuals, in this case a C6 Z06 & it is running 441 rwhp 3 runs in a row, all within the 1.5 rwhp. I can see that is comparable to other C6 Z06's on DJ's that seems reasonable. More importantly to me I want to see consistency in the frictional loss of that dyno with similar drive lines to mine, again in this case 14.5% loss. So now it is easy to calculate back to approx crankshaft net hp. When I have that information I can make reasonable assumptions regarding power & feel comfortable whether or not I'm on the stingy Mustang or in this case a DD.
The purpose of this build was to better Tony's original build without sacrifice to driveabilty & low speed torque, I have no reason to despite the results.
My wounded wallet will probably heal over time, what I get to drive makes it worth while!
10-19-2009, 01:52 PM
#56
Im sure you would have predicted (guaranteed) my former package with the 224/228 cam wouldn't have cracked 460....and perhaps thats a generous guesstimate you may have offered.
At 460 RWHP, ultimately you would have missed by 15-20 RWHP depending on the day and which run you wanted to analyze.
Besides the heavier clutch assembly which I agree robs some horsepower, had I went to the dyno (in my previous set-up) with the bigger cam and the optimized (ported) heads I would have easily laid up 25 more ponies to the backwheel placing me solidly in the 505 range.
Once again....all of Dale's numbers across the lower and middle part of the curve are right in line with the best 346 packages most of us have looked over....right down to the shape of the curve which actually could have been a tad better in some areas. Dale's package just hangs on alot better than most (not by accident), and the fact the same day a stock C6Z plunked down 440's certainly adds to the credibility of Dale's results.
Sure....it would be nice to see some trap speeds to back the number and I hope at some point Dale has the opportunity to provide us with that, but even that isn't very scientific because someone with more driving experience could potentially shift faster resulting in higher MPH. I have no idea how much track time and speed shifting experience Dale has....nor am I making any excuses in advance, just stating that looking at track results is also a mixed bag unless D/A and the quality of the run is taken into consideration.
If anyone else wants to build a really fast car that still drives nice, I have the recipe if your willing to finance the project.....I bet the end results look very similar to Dale's and no charge for all the Internet drama and entertainment that ensues afterward.
-Tony
10-19-2009, 09:59 PM
#57
Seems reasonable to me. His Hp/TQ numbers look very similar to my dyno graph..up to 5250 Rpm's...
It is from 5250 Rpm's that by virtue of the Hp Formula: Hp=TQ X RPM/5252 that the '500' HP number is blowing people away. Any time you can hang on to a torque curve past 5250..the HP difference becomes exponential.
Somehow they got this thing to hang on, which is pretty impressive.
Based on Tony's logic and the fact that many of us have similar HP/TQ dyno numbers up to 5250 Rpm's..I do not see any reason to doubt it. I mean he has duplicated higher Rpm airflow before. That is what he does.
Congrats to the OP..
..WeathermanShawn..
It is from 5250 Rpm's that by virtue of the Hp Formula: Hp=TQ X RPM/5252 that the '500' HP number is blowing people away. Any time you can hang on to a torque curve past 5250..the HP difference becomes exponential.
Somehow they got this thing to hang on, which is pretty impressive.
Based on Tony's logic and the fact that many of us have similar HP/TQ dyno numbers up to 5250 Rpm's..I do not see any reason to doubt it. I mean he has duplicated higher Rpm airflow before. That is what he does.
Congrats to the OP..
..WeathermanShawn..
10-20-2009, 08:23 AM
#60
Sure....it would be nice to see some trap speeds to back the number and I hope at some point Dale has the opportunity to provide us with that, but even that isn't very scientific because someone with more driving experience could potentially shift faster resulting in higher MPH. I have no idea how much track time and speed shifting experience Dale has....nor am I making any excuses in advance, just stating that looking at track results is also a mixed bag unless D/A and the quality of the run is taken into consideration.
Many reasons including the the one Tony pointed above why this car will probably not see a 1/4 mile.
My rural location is 5 hours to the the closest track as was the 8.5 hr trip to the last dyno session. The dyno session was only about 1 hour as the installers of the clutch & gears caused problems that required a full day of trouble shooting rather than a full day of dyno work.
It was never a plan or my intention to 1/4 mile this car, if it was the setup would reflect that as well as "driver" training.
The mountain highways were I'm located as well the rural location allows me to enjoy the car in the way it was designed originally then modified to improve. The motor was last, suspension first, then brakes & wheels & tires. CCW's & PS'2 are not heavy as some posters have claimed.
I'm not an abusive driver (I don't like breaking things). I road tuned this car this summer & they way I tune the upper MAF & PE is by a third gear roll on. Steady @ 1500rpm in third, I have slight hill I do this on then smoothly push the throttle to WOT & run to just below fuel cut off. No Hi rpm launches, no smoke shows, no power shifting, no rowing gears blah blah blah sounds boring right? Well many decades ago I was the Western Canadian Corvette Council Auto X Champion...........so if you would like to come for a ride I promise you won't find my ride "boring"
The point I wish to make here is the clutch did not survive the 5 tanks of fuel I used to tune this car. In its current configuration any 1/4 mile time with tires that would work, many more parts would fail!
A bit of a wind bag I am.
Anyways no excuses or justification on my part just this is what it is & it is very good.
PS. Does a load bearing dyno show a power loss or a power gain with lower gears?
Many reasons including the the one Tony pointed above why this car will probably not see a 1/4 mile.
My rural location is 5 hours to the the closest track as was the 8.5 hr trip to the last dyno session. The dyno session was only about 1 hour as the installers of the clutch & gears caused problems that required a full day of trouble shooting rather than a full day of dyno work.
It was never a plan or my intention to 1/4 mile this car, if it was the setup would reflect that as well as "driver" training.
The mountain highways were I'm located as well the rural location allows me to enjoy the car in the way it was designed originally then modified to improve. The motor was last, suspension first, then brakes & wheels & tires. CCW's & PS'2 are not heavy as some posters have claimed.
I'm not an abusive driver (I don't like breaking things). I road tuned this car this summer & they way I tune the upper MAF & PE is by a third gear roll on. Steady @ 1500rpm in third, I have slight hill I do this on then smoothly push the throttle to WOT & run to just below fuel cut off. No Hi rpm launches, no smoke shows, no power shifting, no rowing gears blah blah blah sounds boring right? Well many decades ago I was the Western Canadian Corvette Council Auto X Champion...........so if you would like to come for a ride I promise you won't find my ride "boring"
The point I wish to make here is the clutch did not survive the 5 tanks of fuel I used to tune this car. In its current configuration any 1/4 mile time with tires that would work, many more parts would fail!
A bit of a wind bag I am.
Anyways no excuses or justification on my part just this is what it is & it is very good.
PS. Does a load bearing dyno show a power loss or a power gain with lower gears?
Last edited by ctd; 10-20-2009 at 11:26 AM.