LSx Budget Dyno Queen. Ls1 Rx7+turbo(s)
05-04-2015, 07:41 PM
#181
If I had a built 8.8 or 9 inch with the proper gearing and could 330' the car worth a **** I would not be concerned.
But, would you expect your car to go 8.7@163 with a stock NA (yes, my Tii has an NA LSD in it) with a 4.10 Gear ratio? I mean, your not a dumb guy. You expect me to front half with that? Would you?
But, would you expect your car to go 8.7@163 with a stock NA (yes, my Tii has an NA LSD in it) with a 4.10 Gear ratio? I mean, your not a dumb guy. You expect me to front half with that? Would you?
zac's car is an absolute beast! hahaha
05-04-2015, 07:55 PM
#182
No beast it doesn't even have an engine in it lol
Who cares about et? 1/4 trap will be relevant to real world whp no matter how softly you launch,shift, pedal
Let me go find Bryan's slip
Who cares about et? 1/4 trap will be relevant to real world whp no matter how softly you launch,shift, pedal
Let me go find Bryan's slip
05-04-2015, 08:05 PM
#184
05-04-2015, 08:10 PM
#185
Stop the presses…..
So, you saying a car they Dyno’d N/A, the SAME DAY it dyno’s with boost, is BS??
I just want to make this crystal.
What in your opinion BS about this? (Link from above)
1000hp STOCK BOTTOM END 5.3 WITH LOTS OF BOOST! Turbo LS Nissan 240SX - YouTube
N/A 227 WHP
17psi 735 whp
26psi 1028whp
Please elaborate………. Be specific
So, you saying a car they Dyno’d N/A, the SAME DAY it dyno’s with boost, is BS??
I just want to make this crystal.
What in your opinion BS about this? (Link from above)
1000hp STOCK BOTTOM END 5.3 WITH LOTS OF BOOST! Turbo LS Nissan 240SX - YouTube
N/A 227 WHP
17psi 735 whp
26psi 1028whp
Please elaborate………. Be specific
First you would need to provide us with adequate information. Like elevation, temperature, correction factor used. (the whole list of junk above) Complete build specs etc. Then we would need to know the exact scenario that played out resulting in the 227WHP figure. Then I'd be happy to attempt to tell you why those numbers are incorrect.
What I don't understand is why you keep bring up other engines/dynos/people etc... I can respect that you think I'm crazy and your dyno numbers are 100% correct and incapable of error. So prove me wrong. Or agree to disagree and move on. Comparing your tired old factory stock LS1 to an LY6 with a bunch of "bolt-ons" is retarded.
05-04-2015, 08:13 PM
#186
Here you go this is Bryan's car. Ls1 on a single 7675 on pump gas, similar weight to you
Doesn't even make 800whp.... And he can do the softest leave known to man and granny shift it and guess what his 1/4 trap is exactly where it should be still
He could launch and shift the **** out of of it and his 1/8 mph/et and 1/4et would come in line, even a full second off but his 1/4 trap won't move much
Doesn't even make 800whp.... And he can do the softest leave known to man and granny shift it and guess what his 1/4 trap is exactly where it should be still
He could launch and shift the **** out of of it and his 1/8 mph/et and 1/4et would come in line, even a full second off but his 1/4 trap won't move much
05-04-2015, 08:49 PM
#187
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Are you sure you want me to be specific? I might have to involve a number or two... I wouldn't want to confuse the dyno queens.
First you would need to provide us with adequate information. Like elevation, temperature, correction factor used. (the whole list of junk above) Complete build specs etc. Then we would need to know the exact scenario that played out resulting in the 227WHP figure. Then I'd be happy to attempt to tell you why those numbers are incorrect.
.
First you would need to provide us with adequate information. Like elevation, temperature, correction factor used. (the whole list of junk above) Complete build specs etc. Then we would need to know the exact scenario that played out resulting in the 227WHP figure. Then I'd be happy to attempt to tell you why those numbers are incorrect.
.
This is the first time you have mentioned anything besides the "focefed magic equation".
Its funny how quickly you backpedaled from it when a car that could not be any better of a test bed for N/A to turbo power production and how it effects VE. Not sure if your stupid, or stubborn, but either way I give up.
05-04-2015, 08:54 PM
#188
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Here you go this is Bryan's car. Ls1 on a single 7675 on pump gas, similar weight to you
Doesn't even make 800whp.... And he can do the softest leave known to man and granny shift it and guess what his 1/4 trap is exactly where it should be still
He could launch and shift the **** out of of it and his 1/8 mph/et and 1/4et would come in line, even a full second off but his 1/4 trap won't move much
Doesn't even make 800whp.... And he can do the softest leave known to man and granny shift it and guess what his 1/4 trap is exactly where it should be still
He could launch and shift the **** out of of it and his 1/8 mph/et and 1/4et would come in line, even a full second off but his 1/4 trap won't move much
PS-you never answered my question.
Would you car go 8.7@163 with a stock rear end? Even with an auto could you get the power down with a 4.10 and your trans gearing?
05-04-2015, 10:41 PM
#190
well damn, lets all use stock ls1's and make almost 900whp on 19lbs.. we must all be doing it wrong 
im not a math major so im learning as i read this thread, im just curious to see more proof on how these #'s are actually possible.. OP, why dont you consider that even though your dyno read a #, maybe its wrong??
im not a math major so im learning as i read this thread, im just curious to see more proof on how these #'s are actually possible.. OP, why dont you consider that even though your dyno read a #, maybe its wrong??
05-05-2015, 01:42 AM
#191
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Grafton, Ohio
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My car was tuned by the same company using the same dyno.... Although it was several years ago my mild H/C LS1 made 427/392. Sounds pretty accurate to me.
When my car is done getting boosted, I will most likely have them tune my car again....
Highly doubt it's a dyno issue.
When my car is done getting boosted, I will most likely have them tune my car again....
Highly doubt it's a dyno issue.
05-05-2015, 07:59 AM
#192
I hope your right...LOL. That's a good measuring stick as I wont make full passes at anything more power wise without more fuel pump. Does he has any kind of variable boost by speed or gear control? Does he make a full pass at his target boost? What rear end is in the car?
PS-you never answered my question. Would you car go 8.7@163 with a stock rear end? Even with an auto could you get the power down with a 4.10 and your trans gearing?
PS-you never answered my question.
Would you car go 8.7@163 with a stock rear end? Even with an auto could you get the power down with a 4.10 and your trans gearing?My car did that on 900whp or a little more and over 3200lbs.
05-05-2015, 08:14 AM
#194
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-05-2015, 09:37 AM
#195
Mild head cam ls1 making 470?
Sounds pretty optimistic
I'm using cxracings versions of the same turbos
Mine is a 5.3 with ported 243s, ported intake manifold, ls6 cam, on e85 and my car probably makes 200 less hp
Trapped 137 at 18psi in a 4k lb car
Maybe the 20 cubic inches account for the massive horsepower difference
Sounds pretty optimistic
I'm using cxracings versions of the same turbos
Mine is a 5.3 with ported 243s, ported intake manifold, ls6 cam, on e85 and my car probably makes 200 less hp
Trapped 137 at 18psi in a 4k lb car
Maybe the 20 cubic inches account for the massive horsepower difference
05-05-2015, 09:38 AM
#196
That "dyno queen" trap'd mid 160's
This is the first time you have mentioned anything besides the "focefed magic equation". Its funny how quickly you backpedaled from it when a car that could not be any better of a test bed for N/A to turbo power production and how it effects VE. Not sure if your stupid, or stubborn, but either way I give up.
This is the first time you have mentioned anything besides the "focefed magic equation".
Its funny how quickly you backpedaled from it when a car that could not be any better of a test bed for N/A to turbo power production and how it effects VE. Not sure if your stupid, or stubborn, but either way I give up.You already admitted to using CF on your dyno runs. You will NEVER get an accurate HP rating that way with a turbo engine... that’s all there is to it.
The Dynojet CFs is meant to compensate for air temp/altitude on an NA engine where the intake pressure profile is linear to engine RPM. Turbo engines compensate for density changes in a non-linear fashion. Turbo RPM is independent of Engine RPM.
You then need to have the temperature/humidity probe used for your dynojets CF in the inlet of the engine measuring actual charge temps, not ambient air. Lastly you have to factor in intercooler efficiency, pumping losses, compressor efficiency, gearing...the list goes on and on... The more boost you run, the more inflation you get. This is why the turbo queens love inertia dynos and avoid load cell dynos like the plague.
Any tuner worth a damn doesn't use CF on a turbo engine. They will also tell you a dyno is just a tool and the numbers are to show percent of gain/loss. They are in no way an accurate representation of actual HP...as your dyno sheet proves.
05-05-2015, 10:10 AM
#197
I didn't mention "the equation" because you couldn't provide the numbers/facts/circumstances needed to use it correctly. Because he trapped "X" doesn't mean the numbers on the Dyno sheet at "Y" boost pressures are correct. Failing to see where I back pedaled? Are we talking about his car or yours? Again, comparing your car to another is worthless information. Why do you keep doing it?
You already admitted to using CF on your dyno runs. You will NEVER get an accurate HP rating that way with a turbo engine... that’s all there is to it.
The Dynojet CFs is meant to compensate for air temp/altitude on an NA engine where the intake pressure profile is linear to engine RPM. Turbo engines compensate for density changes in a non-linear fashion. Turbo RPM is independent of Engine RPM.
You then need to have the temperature/humidity probe used for your dynojets CF in the inlet of the engine measuring actual charge temps, not ambient air. Lastly you have to factor in intercooler efficiency, pumping losses, compressor efficiency, gearing...the list goes on and on... The more boost you run, the more inflation you get. This is why the turbo queens love inertia dynos and avoid load cell dynos like the plague.
Any tuner worth a damn doesn't use CF on a turbo engine. They will also tell you a dyno is just a tool and the numbers are to show percent of gain/loss. They are in no way an accurate representation of actual HP...as your dyno sheet proves.
You already admitted to using CF on your dyno runs. You will NEVER get an accurate HP rating that way with a turbo engine... that’s all there is to it.
The Dynojet CFs is meant to compensate for air temp/altitude on an NA engine where the intake pressure profile is linear to engine RPM. Turbo engines compensate for density changes in a non-linear fashion. Turbo RPM is independent of Engine RPM.
You then need to have the temperature/humidity probe used for your dynojets CF in the inlet of the engine measuring actual charge temps, not ambient air. Lastly you have to factor in intercooler efficiency, pumping losses, compressor efficiency, gearing...the list goes on and on... The more boost you run, the more inflation you get. This is why the turbo queens love inertia dynos and avoid load cell dynos like the plague.
Any tuner worth a damn doesn't use CF on a turbo engine. They will also tell you a dyno is just a tool and the numbers are to show percent of gain/loss. They are in no way an accurate representation of actual HP...as your dyno sheet proves.
Somehow I don't think joshypoobear or coltboostin will grasp any of it though...
05-05-2015, 12:16 PM
#198
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
well damn, lets all use stock ls1's and make almost 900whp on 19lbs.. we must all be doing it wrong
im not a math major so im learning as i read this thread, im just curious to see more proof on how these #'s are actually possible.. OP, why dont you consider that even though your dyno read a #, maybe its wrong??
im not a math major so im learning as i read this thread, im just curious to see more proof on how these #'s are actually possible.. OP, why dont you consider that even though your dyno read a #, maybe its wrong??
I have a pile of my personal cars that have made X, trapped Y, and 100% back up the accuracy of the dyno. thats why I dont question it.
Also as stated, my numbers are backed up by the entire dyno and ET list in this very froum! But, maybe they are all BS too?
Who ever said that? LOL. We are pulling numbers out of thin air now??
05-05-2015, 12:52 PM
#199
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
The car made 851 whp uncorrected. What now chief?
I didn't mention "the equation" because you couldn't provide the numbers/facts/circumstances needed to use it correctly. Because he trapped "X" doesn't mean the numbers on the Dyno sheet at "Y" boost pressures are correct. Failing to see where I back pedaled? Are we talking about his car or yours? Again, comparing your car to another is worthless information. Why do you keep doing it?
The basis of your whole argument was that the motor would have to have a MCHP of 375+ to achieve what it did at 21 psi biased on a best case scenario VE of 100% Anyone that can google and read at a 3rd grade level tried to explain to you that in a boosted application greater than 100% VE is not only possible, but expected in any turbo system design worth a ****. I cant help that you don't understand how VE and PSI differ, but I can help on the fact that your are GUESSING WHAT MY MCHP IS to make your hoaky math work. VE over 100% or not, your still just guessing. Read on.
Now, your crying about correction factors that have NO bearing on the example I have given where the MOTOR HP is KNOWN!! Why doesn't correction matter? Because correction factor was not changed for their entire dyno session. There is no factor you can input that will yield a lower than uncorrected HP number at X output, yet give a much higher than uncorrected number at Y output on the same day with the same correction, on the same car.
So, please-here is your end-all be all equation.
(motor MCHP/14.7xboost pressure)+MCHP.
Apply it to the first example you or I have provided that you have all of these factors known. Does it work? If not, why? Please.....do tell.
N/A 227 WHP
17psi 735 whp
26psi 1028whp
Same dyno, same day, same correction factors. GO! And unless your an NFL DB, please stop the backpedaling and just answer the question.
05-05-2015, 12:54 PM
#200
My car was tuned by the same company using the same dyno.... Although it was several years ago my mild H/C LS1 made 427/392. Sounds pretty accurate to me.
When my car is done getting boosted, I will most likely have them tune my car again....
Highly doubt it's a dyno issue.
When my car is done getting boosted, I will most likely have them tune my car again....
Highly doubt it's a dyno issue.
Right out of thin air