QMP Formula Update....780rwhp/850rwtq
03-24-2004, 10:02 PM
#1
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Charlestown, Indiana
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QMP Formula Update....780rwhp/850rwtq Got the new engine in finally and put it on the dyno.
Here are the specfics:
It's 8.7:1 compression and we were running 17lbs of boost on turbo blue (we tried using the same amount of Methanol as before, but it only took us from 767rwhp up to 780rwhp. So apparently with the lower compression motor, there wasn't as much to be gained.
The cam is a custom grind, which is actually pretty aggressive sounding. It has a definite "lope" to it that sounds like thunder through the new 3.5" stainless exhaust system. Opening the QTP cut-out only gained us about 20rwhp, as compared to the 67rwhp we gained when we had the Dynomax 3" exhaust on the car.
It now has a Moser 12 bolt with 3.42 gears and a steel driveshaft (weighing 21lbs). So I would assume from previous experience that those two things are costing us about 20rwhp from the stock shaft and rear.
We are using the FAST 90mm intake with an adpter plate to connect the stock TB to it for now. May be more HP there whenever FAST releases the 90mm TB to go with it.
We now have dual Walbro 340's in the tank, -10 feed line, billet rails, and a -6 return. Tuning is still being done with LS1Edit for now.
The turbo we are now using is the newest T76 GTQ with a 1.30 AR housing. Oddly enough, it didn't really change things much from the old T76 non-GTQ we were using before.
We made about 10 pulls before we lost a fuel pump, or in-tank feed line. Haven't had time to check it out yet, but the FP dropped from 60psi down to 40psi all of the sudden. Prior to that, the FP never dropped even 1lb during a dyno pull, and held a constant, flat AF ratio of 11.5:1 all the way to 6500.
I truly believe we are still basically out of turbo. I say that because I turned the boost up to 20lbs and gained nothing. I haven't played with timing yet, so there may be more power there (running 18 degrees right now).
For the record: same log manifold, same un-ported passenger cast manifold, same 2.25" crossover, same dented 3" downpipe, same intercooler and piping. And I think we are going to change back to the .96 AR exhaust housing. Spool-up is a little too slow for my taste with this lower compression motor.
I'm pretty happy considering....
Here are the specfics:
It's 8.7:1 compression and we were running 17lbs of boost on turbo blue (we tried using the same amount of Methanol as before, but it only took us from 767rwhp up to 780rwhp. So apparently with the lower compression motor, there wasn't as much to be gained.
The cam is a custom grind, which is actually pretty aggressive sounding. It has a definite "lope" to it that sounds like thunder through the new 3.5" stainless exhaust system. Opening the QTP cut-out only gained us about 20rwhp, as compared to the 67rwhp we gained when we had the Dynomax 3" exhaust on the car.
It now has a Moser 12 bolt with 3.42 gears and a steel driveshaft (weighing 21lbs). So I would assume from previous experience that those two things are costing us about 20rwhp from the stock shaft and rear.
We are using the FAST 90mm intake with an adpter plate to connect the stock TB to it for now. May be more HP there whenever FAST releases the 90mm TB to go with it.
We now have dual Walbro 340's in the tank, -10 feed line, billet rails, and a -6 return. Tuning is still being done with LS1Edit for now.
The turbo we are now using is the newest T76 GTQ with a 1.30 AR housing. Oddly enough, it didn't really change things much from the old T76 non-GTQ we were using before.
We made about 10 pulls before we lost a fuel pump, or in-tank feed line. Haven't had time to check it out yet, but the FP dropped from 60psi down to 40psi all of the sudden. Prior to that, the FP never dropped even 1lb during a dyno pull, and held a constant, flat AF ratio of 11.5:1 all the way to 6500.
I truly believe we are still basically out of turbo. I say that because I turned the boost up to 20lbs and gained nothing. I haven't played with timing yet, so there may be more power there (running 18 degrees right now).
For the record: same log manifold, same un-ported passenger cast manifold, same 2.25" crossover, same dented 3" downpipe, same intercooler and piping. And I think we are going to change back to the .96 AR exhaust housing. Spool-up is a little too slow for my taste with this lower compression motor.
I'm pretty happy considering....
Trending Topics
03-24-2004, 10:54 PM
#9
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Charlestown, Indiana
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jammer, O-ringed TEA heads with stock gaskets and ARP head studs.
Jordon, T88 won't fit our kit.
Ill post a lot of new pics and a video tomorrow night.
Jordon, T88 won't fit our kit.
Ill post a lot of new pics and a video tomorrow night.
03-24-2004, 11:17 PM
#11
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Charlestown, Indiana
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks! I just pass on the facts. 
Regarding the cam, can't really say much about it. Just that it's not what you would typically think of as a "turbo grind" cam. I had this cam ground to my specs based on some of the designs I've used in the past with other turbo cars. A lot of the cam design credit goes to Ken Duttweiler for helping me out over the years. This is just the first time I've tried it on a turbo'd LS1.
Regarding the cam, can't really say much about it. Just that it's not what you would typically think of as a "turbo grind" cam. I had this cam ground to my specs based on some of the designs I've used in the past with other turbo cars. A lot of the cam design credit goes to Ken Duttweiler for helping me out over the years. This is just the first time I've tried it on a turbo'd LS1.
03-24-2004, 11:19 PM
#12
NKAWTG...N
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 4,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
isn't there a t96? you need to get something big...something the supra guys haven't even had the ***** to try yet... 
and will you stop posting all your numbers! your making me want a kit more and more 
but i don't have the money yet 
and will you stop posting all your numbers! your making me want a kit more and more but i don't have the money yet 
03-25-2004, 06:09 AM
#17
Rob on my car i have the double walbro, and once the hose popped of one pump, and i didnt have ANY fuel pressure, the other one would pump all the pressure out the Tee. so if your still getting some fuel pressure it would seem like a fuel pump went bad, but was able to hold the pressure of the other pump.
So how is your spool up with the 1.3 AR in comparison with the .96. i know the lower CR will affect it also but when do you see boost with it? I dont think id want to switch to a larger AR unless i had a bigger inch motor.
So with 17psi vrs 14psi to make about the same horsepower with the lower CR.
I would have though with the ported heads and bigger exhaust boost per power would be closer.
so the 767 was with just TB, and the 780 was with the TB and methanol
Are you planning to do any pump gas dyno pulls?
Id like to see 93 or 94 with the methonal. since you lowered the CR it would seem like you need to raise the boost or lower the octane to take advantage of it.
So how is your spool up with the 1.3 AR in comparison with the .96. i know the lower CR will affect it also but when do you see boost with it? I dont think id want to switch to a larger AR unless i had a bigger inch motor.
So with 17psi vrs 14psi to make about the same horsepower with the lower CR.
I would have though with the ported heads and bigger exhaust boost per power would be closer.
so the 767 was with just TB, and the 780 was with the TB and methanol
Are you planning to do any pump gas dyno pulls?
Id like to see 93 or 94 with the methonal. since you lowered the CR it would seem like you need to raise the boost or lower the octane to take advantage of it.
03-25-2004, 09:50 AM
#19
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Richardson, TX, USA
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rob Raymer
It's 8.7:1 compression...17lbs of boost...767rwhp up to 780rwhp.
I didn't do a search, but is this a built 346 c.i. motor?
Mir
