LSx Budget Dyno Queen. Ls1 Rx7+turbo(s)
04-29-2015, 08:19 PM
#143
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks for confirming my point of how accurate this dyno is!
Car made 619 on this samedyno. Air was 4 degrees cooler, same software. I have many, many more of these examples I could provide but really it a moot point. I am not doubting the car would trap 160 if I had the ***** to make a full pass at 20+psi (looking at the logs, it was 21psi spike) but I don't think I do, I still want to make my money off selling the motor at the end of the season!
Goal is 9's@150 in full street trim, and I think I will get there at 15psi. I just cant believe ForceFed is expecting the car to impress in the 1/8th, hell if I am getting any better than a 1.8 60 foot with my overly aggressive clutch I will probably leave the rear end at the line!!!
04-30-2015, 10:54 AM
#144
I don’t think you’ll do well ET wise in the 1/8th. But as said, MPH doesn't fluctuate much. Run a sticky tire and launch in 2nd. I'll give you a big kiss if you trap over 128 in the 1/8th at 19lbs... (no homo) 
You are trying to argue with math, not me. The colt or any other example that’s not a stock LS1 making 872whp at 1.3 bar isn't relevant to the discussion. Since you haven't had the car to the track, you have no argument. I'm not so much making claims against your dyno as the impossible power numbers the engine is making at "X" boost. The dyno being inaccurate is just the most logical explanation.
I pointed out Stock48's nova has never been on a dyno, so it’s not relevant to this discussion. Again, you're not making any valid points. Stock48’s 6.0 engines make enough power NA to crank out at least close to the numbers his dyno sheet/traps indicate. Your numbers don’t add up. Either your boost gauge is broken, the motors not "bone stock", or your dyno is off... (or you have magic powers.)
I think you'll be disappointed when get the car to the track, but I wish you the best of luck and hope you did get a magic engine.
You are trying to argue with math, not me. The colt or any other example that’s not a stock LS1 making 872whp at 1.3 bar isn't relevant to the discussion. Since you haven't had the car to the track, you have no argument. I'm not so much making claims against your dyno as the impossible power numbers the engine is making at "X" boost. The dyno being inaccurate is just the most logical explanation.
I pointed out Stock48's nova has never been on a dyno, so it’s not relevant to this discussion. Again, you're not making any valid points. Stock48’s 6.0 engines make enough power NA to crank out at least close to the numbers his dyno sheet/traps indicate. Your numbers don’t add up. Either your boost gauge is broken, the motors not "bone stock", or your dyno is off... (or you have magic powers.)
I think you'll be disappointed when get the car to the track, but I wish you the best of luck and hope you did get a magic engine.
04-30-2015, 12:10 PM
#145
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
And who was at 1.3 bar? I was at 21psi.
04-30-2015, 01:18 PM
#146
LOL-If I launch in 2nd with a slick, the rear end would explode like it was strapped with TNT. The clutch is a road race clutch rated for 850+ Ft lbs. Aggressive is an understatement. Its the worst on-off clutch I have driven. Part of the reason I got it so cheap is because the original owner hated it!! LOL
How is it not relevant? It proved the accuracy of the equipment used to test this vehicle. Its like putting a known 50 lbs weight on a scale, seeing 50.0 lbs, and knowing your scale is accurate. If I pull a pile of stuff on that scale and see 55lbs, I'd be stupid to question that weight.
You'd be stupid not to question a "weight" that is physically impossible. Instead of bringing up pointless comparisons, why not do a little research about forced induction for yourself. You would quickly see what your claiming is impossible. Again your trying to argue with hard facts, not me.
And who was at 1.3 bar? I was at 21psi.
04-30-2015, 05:17 PM
#147
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Sounds like more excuses to me... No one said drop the clutch at 7k, get a hydraulic slipper setup and quit yer bitch'n!
Did you dyno the colt on the same day in the exact same environment right after the Rx-7? Was the colt more than doubling the stock NA HP at 1 bar?
You'd be stupid not to question a "weight" that is physically impossible. Instead of bringing up pointless comparisons, why not do a little research about forced induction for yourself. You would quickly see what your claiming is impossible. Again your trying to argue with hard facts, not me.
You said you made 872whp with a "20psi spike, settled at 19" 19lbs... now it's 21... Make up your mind and quit back-pedaling.
Did you dyno the colt on the same day in the exact same environment right after the Rx-7? Was the colt more than doubling the stock NA HP at 1 bar?
You'd be stupid not to question a "weight" that is physically impossible. Instead of bringing up pointless comparisons, why not do a little research about forced induction for yourself. You would quickly see what your claiming is impossible. Again your trying to argue with hard facts, not me.
You said you made 872whp with a "20psi spike, settled at 19" 19lbs... now it's 21... Make up your mind and quit back-pedaling.
The Colt was dyno'd on the same dyno, with the same software. It was on a day that had 4% less humidity and 5 deg hotter out. Its a tool of measurement, a tool that is calibrated by the software it has. It has the same calibration it had the day I dyno'd the Colt.
I'm done here! There is literally no point in arguing this. It made it. Its a stock LS1. I trust the dyno. I have proven with other cars that its accurate. Zero ***** I give!
04-30-2015, 09:45 PM
#148
No one is back pedaling. I was sitting in the car and saw a Boost Gauge I pulled out of the trash read 20psi, and settle a little lower. Erik checked the Log and it was @21. Cry me a river!
The Colt was dyno'd on the same dyno, with the same software. It was on a day that had 4% less humidity and 5 deg hotter out. Its a tool of measurement, a tool that is calibrated by the software it has. It has the same calibration it had the day I dyno'd the Colt.
I'm done here! There is literally no point in arguing this. It made it. Its a stock LS1. I trust the dyno. I have proven with other cars that its accurate. Zero ***** I give!
The Colt was dyno'd on the same dyno, with the same software. It was on a day that had 4% less humidity and 5 deg hotter out. Its a tool of measurement, a tool that is calibrated by the software it has. It has the same calibration it had the day I dyno'd the Colt.
I'm done here! There is literally no point in arguing this. It made it. Its a stock LS1. I trust the dyno. I have proven with other cars that its accurate. Zero ***** I give!
04-30-2015, 11:23 PM
#149
TECH Regular
Guys didn't believe he could do it with a 4g63 either and they went down like bowling pins. People need to Completely get past is the idea of "boost". As a supercharged car with stock engine that suddenly looses "boost" when a better cam, heads, engine is put behind it at a given pulley RPM; a turbo car is the same. What shows on your boost gauge as boost is a restriction as far south as the exhaust tip. HP is the amount of air an engine is able to expel at a given A/F ratio.
Last edited by briannutter; 04-30-2015 at 11:31 PM.
05-01-2015, 12:33 AM
#150
No one is arguing the term "boost"
It's a measure of restriction
A stock ls1 will have nearly the same level of restriction any other stock ls1 will have
It's not possible to make more than double the power at double the atmosphere. It may be the most efficient budget turbo setup in the world but it doesn't defy physics.
It's a measure of restriction
A stock ls1 will have nearly the same level of restriction any other stock ls1 will have
It's not possible to make more than double the power at double the atmosphere. It may be the most efficient budget turbo setup in the world but it doesn't defy physics.
05-01-2015, 01:11 AM
#151
TECH Regular
No one is arguing the term "boost"
It's a measure of restriction
A stock ls1 will have nearly the same level of restriction any other stock ls1 will have
It's not possible to make more than double the power at double the atmosphere. It may be the most efficient budget turbo setup in the world but it doesn't defy physics.
It's a measure of restriction
A stock ls1 will have nearly the same level of restriction any other stock ls1 will have
It's not possible to make more than double the power at double the atmosphere. It may be the most efficient budget turbo setup in the world but it doesn't defy physics.
05-01-2015, 07:27 AM
#152
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Here, start reading. Thank me later
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...an-ice.152096/
And again, my numbers are in line (or lower) than all that have come before me on the top 10 SBE list, so I am a bit shocked this is still a debate. But, if a few people learn something today, it was all worth it.
05-01-2015, 08:02 AM
#153
TECH Resident
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought, and I don't mean to belabor anything that shouldn't be, but does anyone else think that this setup might be putting out relatively higher HP numbers than other comparable setups (with "smaller" turbos) because of the fact that this setup is so biased toward high end power? At least I think it is...? The torque curve certainly isn't very broad since the boost comes in sort of late I think. Although maybe that's just the impression I'm getting because he didn't really rev it very high (NOT JUDGING, just commenting!).
As most people on here know, you can dramatically alter the shape of the dyno curves by changing the characteristics of the turbo(s). Any time you alter the shape of the curve to bias toward the top end, you can increase the HP output by a tremendous amount without touching the base engine the turbos are bolted to. Look at the Honda boys for examples.
Just throwing it out there! Lol. From what I've seen, base engine output and boost really don't tell what kind of power you can get out of a forced induction engine setup. Maybe base engine output and boost can give you a good indication of what torque can be produced, but the same torque at a higher RPM is higher HP. If you have really big turbos relative to the size of the engine, the setup is tailor made to crank out big HP numbers on the dyno.
As most people on here know, you can dramatically alter the shape of the dyno curves by changing the characteristics of the turbo(s). Any time you alter the shape of the curve to bias toward the top end, you can increase the HP output by a tremendous amount without touching the base engine the turbos are bolted to. Look at the Honda boys for examples.
Just throwing it out there! Lol. From what I've seen, base engine output and boost really don't tell what kind of power you can get out of a forced induction engine setup. Maybe base engine output and boost can give you a good indication of what torque can be produced, but the same torque at a higher RPM is higher HP. If you have really big turbos relative to the size of the engine, the setup is tailor made to crank out big HP numbers on the dyno.
05-01-2015, 09:12 AM
#154
Mathematically, it is. The fact that you guys keep saying you cant make X power at Y boost, tells me you don't fully understand how forced induction works. Boost is basically irrelevant, and you missing many, many factors that go into what power output of a given forced induction motor can be.
Here, start reading. Thank me later
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...an-ice.152096/
And again, my numbers are in line (or lower) than all that have come before me on the top 10 SBE list, so I am a bit shocked this is still a debate. But, if a few people learn something today, it was all worth it.
Here, start reading. Thank me later
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...an-ice.152096/
And again, my numbers are in line (or lower) than all that have come before me on the top 10 SBE list, so I am a bit shocked this is still a debate. But, if a few people learn something today, it was all worth it.
First you need to look up the term" Volumetric Efficiency” because you obviously don’t understand it. VE in terms of physics (not some BS percentage table on your SD ECU Map)
Let's say peak VE at 1 atmosphere (NA) on an bone stock LS1 is 88%. At 88%VE you make 300 peak crank HP. Assuming a 100% efficient turbo system the VE of the engine would double at 14.7psi to 176% VE (88x2) or 600HP. You are claiming that boost somehow increases the mass flow through the engine. Making it possible to raise that base NA 300hp (88%ve) into 360-370 HP (higher than 88%VE) at 1 atmosphere. This is not possible.
To raise your base NA power (VE%) you need to alter the amount of mass flow moving through the engine. IE cam, ported heads, more RPM etc... The others on the “SBE List” have severely altered the factory output of their engines "base VE" (NA) by the addition of aftermarket cams, ported heads, intakes, additional RPM etc. You have not.
You also admitted to using the dyno correction factor. You can’t use CF on a turbo engine, period. This link explains why in detail.
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=873912
05-01-2015, 09:39 AM
#155
Just a thought, and I don't mean to belabor anything that shouldn't be, but does anyone else think that this setup might be putting out relatively higher HP numbers than other comparable setups (with "smaller" turbos) because of the fact that this setup is so biased toward high end power? At least I think it is...? The torque curve certainly isn't very broad since the boost comes in sort of late I think. Although maybe that's just the impression I'm getting because he didn't really rev it very high (NOT JUDGING, just commenting!).
As most people on here know, you can dramatically alter the shape of the dyno curves by changing the characteristics of the turbo(s). Any time you alter the shape of the curve to bias toward the top end, you can increase the HP output by a tremendous amount without touching the base engine the turbos are bolted to. Look at the Honda boys for examples.
Just throwing it out there! Lol. From what I've seen, base engine output and boost really don't tell what kind of power you can get out of a forced induction engine setup. Maybe base engine output and boost can give you a good indication of what torque can be produced, but the same torque at a higher RPM is higher HP. If you have really big turbos relative to the size of the engine, the setup is tailor made to crank out big HP numbers on the dyno.
As most people on here know, you can dramatically alter the shape of the dyno curves by changing the characteristics of the turbo(s). Any time you alter the shape of the curve to bias toward the top end, you can increase the HP output by a tremendous amount without touching the base engine the turbos are bolted to. Look at the Honda boys for examples.
Just throwing it out there! Lol. From what I've seen, base engine output and boost really don't tell what kind of power you can get out of a forced induction engine setup. Maybe base engine output and boost can give you a good indication of what torque can be produced, but the same torque at a higher RPM is higher HP. If you have really big turbos relative to the size of the engine, the setup is tailor made to crank out big HP numbers on the dyno.
05-01-2015, 10:45 AM
#156
There is an article on Banks website that says it is possible to more than double the power:
"Doubling the charge density of an engine more than doubles its power output, provided an optimal air/fuel ratio is maintained. Why does the power output more than double? The answer is that the parasitic losses of the engine, such as friction and pump drives, remains relatively constant, as does relative heat loss to the surrounding air and coolant, so additional power provided by increased charge density is almost totally available to do work."
http://www.bankspower.com/techarticl...o-making-power
Interesting statement regardless of what side of this argument you're on.
"Doubling the charge density of an engine more than doubles its power output, provided an optimal air/fuel ratio is maintained. Why does the power output more than double? The answer is that the parasitic losses of the engine, such as friction and pump drives, remains relatively constant, as does relative heat loss to the surrounding air and coolant, so additional power provided by increased charge density is almost totally available to do work."
http://www.bankspower.com/techarticl...o-making-power
Interesting statement regardless of what side of this argument you're on.
05-01-2015, 11:05 AM
#157
There is an article on Banks website that says it is possible to more than double the power:
"Doubling the charge density of an engine more than doubles its power output, provided an optimal air/fuel ratio is maintained. Why does the power output more than double? The answer is that the parasitic losses of the engine, such as friction and pump drives, remains relatively constant, as does relative heat loss to the surrounding air and coolant, so additional power provided by increased charge density is almost totally available to do work."
http://www.bankspower.com/techarticl...o-making-power
Interesting statement regardless of what side of this argument you're on.
"Doubling the charge density of an engine more than doubles its power output, provided an optimal air/fuel ratio is maintained. Why does the power output more than double? The answer is that the parasitic losses of the engine, such as friction and pump drives, remains relatively constant, as does relative heat loss to the surrounding air and coolant, so additional power provided by increased charge density is almost totally available to do work."
http://www.bankspower.com/techarticl...o-making-power
Interesting statement regardless of what side of this argument you're on.
05-04-2015, 09:31 AM
#158
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Here is the layman's math behind how greater than 100% VE is normal end expected with an efficient turbocharger system.
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...an-ice.152096/
Im out for now. Busy contacting everyone in the SBE game making more power than me (some with less boost) and asking them to send me some more fair dust.
05-04-2015, 10:26 AM
#159
Going though the SBE top 10 HP list, none of them fit your math, even the dyno and trap speed verified cars. How are they running so fast? Voodoo Magic?
Here is the layman's math behind how greater than 100% VE is normal end expected with an efficient turbocharger system.
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...an-ice.152096/
Im out for now. Busy contacting everyone in the SBE game making more power than me (some with less boost) and asking them to send me some more fair dust.
Here is the layman's math behind how greater than 100% VE is normal end expected with an efficient turbocharger system.
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...an-ice.152096/
Im out for now. Busy contacting everyone in the SBE game making more power than me (some with less boost) and asking them to send me some more fair dust.
A “Top 10 list” of random dyno numbers across the US is worthless information. It can’t be used to prove or disprove anything. There is no “control” in any of those dyno tests. To have a competition with no control is pointless.
You’re still missing the big picture. You need to remove “Boost” “HP” and “Drive train loss” figures to simplify things.
We can all agree a stock LS1 is nowhere near 100% Efficient (VE). 88% is a typical high value on a 2 valve v8. (tired old Ls1 is probably lower) We will use this VE% for basic math to get the point across. So your 5.7 at sea level & 60* is only able to process 5 liters of air per atmosphere. (88% of 5.7)
All added pressure from the turbo will do is compound this same “mass” per added atmosphere. So with zero heat/pumping losses at 14.7 psi your LS1 is now able to process 10 liters of mass. Yes, the VE will rise proportionally to the NA Mass flow. But you cannot exceed the NA mass flow per added atmosphere. Where would the extra HP come from? Mass in = Mass out.
WHP aside. If we take a bone stock LS1’s rated crank HP of 345. Divide 345 by 14.7 and you get the max power possible per PSI of boost (23.469 HP) Multiply that by 21lbs (492.8 + 345). The absolute most power you could make at the crank is 837 HP. Now factor in the drivetrain/heat/pumping losses…which would be 15% or more and your down to 712whp. Even at 21lbs, How is it possible to see 872 at the wheels?
Last edited by Forcefed86; 05-04-2015 at 10:38 AM.
