LSx Budget Dyno Queen. Ls1 Rx7+turbo(s)
#201
#202
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
Thats conservative too. Car would turn 7500 rpm and we cut it off at 6500. ( Needed new springs ) So I could of made even more, probably 475-480
Its not impossible.
#203
Walk me through the process of how you arrived at that number. What did you use for your atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity during these "uncorrected" pulls... Chief.
You changed a million variables, of course I need more information! I don't know a thing about that 240. The more variables you add, the harder it is to prove or disprove something. The engines you keep comparing yours to aren't "bone stock". Assuming your engine is 100% original we can use GM's rated crank HP to easily prove your full of $hit. It is a known fact that a stock LS1 engine can't more than double its NA HP per atmosphere! Mass in = Mass out. That "one-liner" alone ends this entire discussion. Your VE argument is ridiculous, but I'll get into that below.
If you think a coupler popping off an engine on the dyno constitutes an accurate NA HP run, you're the "Tard". The scenario described by the 240 owner is a nightmare. There is zero CONTROL in that scenario. Where did the coupler let loose? Did the engine have to suck through the intercooler? Could the coupler have blocked flow in anyway? What did the AFR do? Timing ? Again there are no CONSTANTS in any of your tests making them all unreliable and worthless. Unless the 240 owner stripped all his turbo crap off the car and tuned it "NA" to optimal power levels, it's another pointless comparison. What makes it worse is that your trying to use someone else's engine/dyno to prove a point about your engine/dyno? How does that work?
If inertia dynos are such an accurate representation of true engine HP, why will a 4.56 gear VS a 2.73 gear put out 2 completely different power levels on the same engine?
The statement above just proves you don't understand the concept of VE... Go back and read what was written. No one claimed you couldn't have higher than 100% VE. I said you can't have higher than 100%VE per added atmosphere. The more you speak the more ignorant you look. I tried to be nice and explain why you are wrong. I was young and dumb once too! While I'm only marginally better now, I know enough to tell your dyno readings aren't possible.
Step 1. Ignore the power numbers and stop getting butt-hurt.
Step 2. Step back and use common sense.
Let me try to bring it down to the most basic level possible...
What your trying to tell us is you can more than double the mass with each added atmosphere dependent on the size of the turbo. IE Displace more than 2 liters of mass, per revolution at 2 atmosphere...Which is impossible! Savvy?
If you think a coupler popping off an engine on the dyno constitutes an accurate NA HP run, you're the "Tard". The scenario described by the 240 owner is a nightmare. There is zero CONTROL in that scenario. Where did the coupler let loose? Did the engine have to suck through the intercooler? Could the coupler have blocked flow in anyway? What did the AFR do? Timing ? Again there are no CONSTANTS in any of your tests making them all unreliable and worthless. Unless the 240 owner stripped all his turbo crap off the car and tuned it "NA" to optimal power levels, it's another pointless comparison. What makes it worse is that your trying to use someone else's engine/dyno to prove a point about your engine/dyno? How does that work?
If inertia dynos are such an accurate representation of true engine HP, why will a 4.56 gear VS a 2.73 gear put out 2 completely different power levels on the same engine?
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.
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.
Step 1. Ignore the power numbers and stop getting butt-hurt.
Step 2. Step back and use common sense.
Let me try to bring it down to the most basic level possible...
We have a 1 liter air pump.
One revolution of this pump will displace exactly 1 liter of mass. This represents 100% VE at 1 atmosphere. (NA - @ sea level)
Now if we double the atmosphere on your 1 liter pump, one revolution will displace 2 liters of mass. This represents 200% VE (Turbo - @ Sea level at 1 bar with zero losses)
One revolution of this pump will displace exactly 1 liter of mass. This represents 100% VE at 1 atmosphere. (NA - @ sea level)
Now if we double the atmosphere on your 1 liter pump, one revolution will displace 2 liters of mass. This represents 200% VE (Turbo - @ Sea level at 1 bar with zero losses)
#205
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.
#208
There should be some pics in the thread, but its just a China regulator I have has good luck with in the past in the feel line before the rail-with the return going to the tank. If not, I can post more specific pics.
I will say I am 100% out of fuel at 21+psi. Really, I am at the limit of my entire fuel system, but I designed it that way intentionally. the fuel system compliments itself nicely IMO for the budget-I figured it would all be good for 850whp give or take, and I was right. I would say my main bottle neck is the used twin in tank 255's, but with stock fuel lines (3/8) the regulator which is pre-rail, 80 lbs', and the stock rail-Its all limiting for reliable 1000+whp use.
#210
Yes. but I am 100% out of fuel. Many told me the stock rails wont work past 600hp-well, they do! When I upgrade, I will have dual 044's feeding dual lines separately but I am a big "if it ain't broke don't fix it" kind of guy.
There should be some pics in the thread, but its just a China regulator I have has good luck with in the past in the feel line before the rail-with the return going to the tank. If not, I can post more specific pics.
I will say I am 100% out of fuel at 21+psi. Really, I am at the limit of my entire fuel system, but I designed it that way intentionally. the fuel system compliments itself nicely IMO for the budget-I figured it would all be good for 850whp give or take, and I was right. I would say my main bottle neck is the used twin in tank 255's, but with stock fuel lines (3/8) the regulator which is pre-rail, 80 lbs', and the stock rail-Its all limiting for reliable 1000+whp use.
There should be some pics in the thread, but its just a China regulator I have has good luck with in the past in the feel line before the rail-with the return going to the tank. If not, I can post more specific pics.
I will say I am 100% out of fuel at 21+psi. Really, I am at the limit of my entire fuel system, but I designed it that way intentionally. the fuel system compliments itself nicely IMO for the budget-I figured it would all be good for 850whp give or take, and I was right. I would say my main bottle neck is the used twin in tank 255's, but with stock fuel lines (3/8) the regulator which is pre-rail, 80 lbs', and the stock rail-Its all limiting for reliable 1000+whp use.
#211
#213
thanks boiric
Here ya go. Keep it simple
And for the people that said its impossible on a stock fuel rail....
The 2 sections of straight tube in the feel is for testing. One I slip out to change gas, and the other replace my $5 Autozone fuel filter that had come apart internally. We were very lean early-at 14-15psi. Figured it had to be the filer or the fuel socks because the pumps sounded great-and the tune was dead on. When I took off the filter, it sounded like it had loose change in it-never seen that happen before!
And for the people that said its impossible on a stock fuel rail....
The 2 sections of straight tube in the feel is for testing. One I slip out to change gas, and the other replace my $5 Autozone fuel filter that had come apart internally. We were very lean early-at 14-15psi. Figured it had to be the filer or the fuel socks because the pumps sounded great-and the tune was dead on. When I took off the filter, it sounded like it had loose change in it-never seen that happen before!
#216
This is #2, and we don't have any family help for Child care, so I took some time off to help Mom get acclimated to dealing with my savage of a 2 year old Son, and now her little girl. Literally every weekend we have a Wedding, Birthday, or Graduation party until August and I already have 3 weeks of PTO for Vacations we are taking this winter and one from earlier int he year, so I wont be calling off work during the week to get tot he track.
I plan on catching a rental or at worst a test and tune once "party season" is over.
#217
Later in the year. My latest edition to the stable is taking up all of my time. New as of 5/16
This is #2, and we don't have any family help for Child care, so I took some time off to help Mom get acclimated to dealing with my savage of a 2 year old Son, and now her little girl. Literally every weekend we have a Wedding, Birthday, or Graduation party until August and I already have 3 weeks of PTO for Vacations we are taking this winter and one from earlier int he year, so I wont be calling off work during the week to get tot he track.
I plan on catching a rental or at worst a test and tune once "party season" is over.
This is #2, and we don't have any family help for Child care, so I took some time off to help Mom get acclimated to dealing with my savage of a 2 year old Son, and now her little girl. Literally every weekend we have a Wedding, Birthday, or Graduation party until August and I already have 3 weeks of PTO for Vacations we are taking this winter and one from earlier int he year, so I wont be calling off work during the week to get tot he track.
I plan on catching a rental or at worst a test and tune once "party season" is over.
#218
Hard for me to believe my youngest of six is over twenty.
Seems like yesterday that I was bringing them home all bundled up like your little one.
The buggers grow up WAY to fast.
So...What's the "specs" on the latest one...?
#219
Basically, I used to get upset missing car events I looked forward to- the DSMshootout for example. Now, I recently missed an annual car show/dyno day I helped start 6 years ago, and I could care less. Getting old I suppose!
Melina Ann was 7lbs 10 oz 20 inches long. Healthy as can be.