Rx7 TT "Dyno and discussion" thread.
Launching!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 234
Likes: 1
See below
I printed all 3 sheets when I was at the shop. Like I said, The uncorrected at 850 and SAE at 852 shows that there was basically no correction that day, because it was perfect horsepower weather the night we dynoed! Here are the charts and correction factors. the SAE correction is so little, it reads 1.00 as it does not have a thousand's digit
STD
SAE
As I said, it made what it made. I cant help that I created an efficient system.
I printed all 3 sheets when I was at the shop. Like I said, The uncorrected at 850 and SAE at 852 shows that there was basically no correction that day, because it was perfect horsepower weather the night we dynoed! Here are the charts and correction factors. the SAE correction is so little, it reads 1.00 as it does not have a thousand's digit
STD
SAE
As I said, it made what it made. I cant help that I created an efficient system.
Does not mean I believe them to be true representation of what the real hp is...
Sorry...
The track...As always will tell the true tell.
That being said...I still thing your car is bad ***...
Only thing I like better is a FB..
So how does the track tell the truth when everyone's runs are at different DA levels and some tracks prep a lot better than others? That's right I forgot traction, shift speed and the amount of shifts don't alter trap speed lol. Are we going to run corrected track times like the bracket guys, yuck. I'd just like the OP to weigh his car and run it on the dyno again, but have a stock ls1 car on it the same day to compare or at least find some recent runs they had on the dyno for examples. It's really the only way to see whats up, but I feel it's working just fine for a dynojet and that is the tool a lot of other "record" cars were using also. Either way it's a **** ton of power on a stock gen 3 5.7L. Look at the curve it's making peak torque right at 5200 and that's high which shows the turbos are a little on the large side for the combo which would help power up top for the number.
I don’t claim to be a dyno operator/calibrator. I don’t claim to know all there is to know about a dynojet or why your numbers are inflated. I also don’t need any sort of dyno background to prove the numbers aren’t possible.
The moderator didn’t move a lot of the information posted. So we need to relist the facts.
First the claim was an 872whp at 19lbs. Then you say it was actually 21lbs and 850whp “uncorrected”. So let’s use those numbers.
Part of the confusion lies around the “Bone Stock LS1”. What year was it? Where did it come from? LS1’s were rated from 305-325 Crank HP on the early F-bodies and up to 350 crank in some of the late model corvettes.
Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say you got lucky and landed a 350 CHP engine. (Lucky you!)
Let’s also say your turbo system is the most bestest in the world and is 100% efficient. (For reals!)
So under SAE perfect atmospheric conditions your 350hp engine makes 350HP per bar. Or 23.81hp per psi NA (350hp/14.7).
So with your magic 100% efficient turbo system that means 21psi is good for an additional 500hp. (23.81*21) + your 350 NA HP. That puts you at 850 CHP. Then you need to factor in drivetrain losses for a WHP figure. This is usually around 14-15%. Let’s give your setup the edge again and say your super lightweight parts are only zapping up 12%. That would be 102HP. So 850-102= 748WHP.
So giving you 100% efficient turbo system, a more powerful engine than you actually have, and a very modest 12% drivetrain loss your still 100+WHP off.
The 4.8/5.3 big bang examples are a great representation of why your claims aren’t possible. 4.8 and a 5.3 LS engines with nice aftermarket heads/cam/headers/intake manifold and A2W intercoolers aren’t able to more than double the NA HP per BAR of boost. Yet you claim your dyno results are an actual representation of engine power output? Why do you think your 66mm twin setup with an A2A IC is more efficient than twin 76’s with A2W IC? Your A2A IC doesn’t work very well at removing heat in a dyno environment, 20mm less compressor, less pressure drop across the core etc… etc…
5.3
http://www.trucktrend.com/how-to/eng...5-3l-big-bang/
4.8
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...g-bang-theory/
I do have a couple questions about Dynojets…
1.) Where is your IAT sensor reading? Thought even “weather station” Dynojets used these? What dyno jet was used? What gear was the car dyno’d in?
2.) Why was the dyno operator using STD CF in the first place when even Dynojet claims (right on their website) that STD CF is false and SAE CF should be used? SAE J1349 standard is 77°F, 0% humidity and 29.234 in-Hg (99 KPa) So if your dyno was done at 58* wouldn’t that mean if you added the correct SAE CF that your numbers would be lower than the uncorrected number, not higher?
3.) So the Baro, humidity, temp readings on the uncorrected sheet have zero effect on the indicated power output? So you should be able to put in any value in those fields and it would not change the uncorrected numbers?
The moderator didn’t move a lot of the information posted. So we need to relist the facts.
First the claim was an 872whp at 19lbs. Then you say it was actually 21lbs and 850whp “uncorrected”. So let’s use those numbers.
Part of the confusion lies around the “Bone Stock LS1”. What year was it? Where did it come from? LS1’s were rated from 305-325 Crank HP on the early F-bodies and up to 350 crank in some of the late model corvettes.
Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say you got lucky and landed a 350 CHP engine. (Lucky you!)
Let’s also say your turbo system is the most bestest in the world and is 100% efficient. (For reals!)
So under SAE perfect atmospheric conditions your 350hp engine makes 350HP per bar. Or 23.81hp per psi NA (350hp/14.7).
So with your magic 100% efficient turbo system that means 21psi is good for an additional 500hp. (23.81*21) + your 350 NA HP. That puts you at 850 CHP. Then you need to factor in drivetrain losses for a WHP figure. This is usually around 14-15%. Let’s give your setup the edge again and say your super lightweight parts are only zapping up 12%. That would be 102HP. So 850-102= 748WHP.
So giving you 100% efficient turbo system, a more powerful engine than you actually have, and a very modest 12% drivetrain loss your still 100+WHP off.
The 4.8/5.3 big bang examples are a great representation of why your claims aren’t possible. 4.8 and a 5.3 LS engines with nice aftermarket heads/cam/headers/intake manifold and A2W intercoolers aren’t able to more than double the NA HP per BAR of boost. Yet you claim your dyno results are an actual representation of engine power output? Why do you think your 66mm twin setup with an A2A IC is more efficient than twin 76’s with A2W IC? Your A2A IC doesn’t work very well at removing heat in a dyno environment, 20mm less compressor, less pressure drop across the core etc… etc…
5.3
http://www.trucktrend.com/how-to/eng...5-3l-big-bang/
4.8
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...g-bang-theory/
I do have a couple questions about Dynojets…
1.) Where is your IAT sensor reading? Thought even “weather station” Dynojets used these? What dyno jet was used? What gear was the car dyno’d in?
2.) Why was the dyno operator using STD CF in the first place when even Dynojet claims (right on their website) that STD CF is false and SAE CF should be used? SAE J1349 standard is 77°F, 0% humidity and 29.234 in-Hg (99 KPa) So if your dyno was done at 58* wouldn’t that mean if you added the correct SAE CF that your numbers would be lower than the uncorrected number, not higher?
3.) So the Baro, humidity, temp readings on the uncorrected sheet have zero effect on the indicated power output? So you should be able to put in any value in those fields and it would not change the uncorrected numbers?
Last edited by Forcefed86; Jun 10, 2015 at 10:38 AM.
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 16
From: Avon, Ohio
Very well may have been you had the "PERFECT STORM" of events happen to that particular dyno to give you those numbers...
Does not mean I believe them to be true representation of what the real hp is...
Sorry...
The track...As always will tell the true tell.
That being said...I still thing your car is bad ***...
Only thing I like better is a FB..
Does not mean I believe them to be true representation of what the real hp is...
Sorry...
The track...As always will tell the true tell.
That being said...I still thing your car is bad ***...
Only thing I like better is a FB..
Logic? There is no room for that here!! LOL
Exactly... no room at all... because the room is too damn crowded with excuses, remember?
When questioned why said Dyno Queen doesn't show up at the track with the same tune up as they arrived with on their "Queen Seat" (the dyno), their response is:
"Maybe because I dint want to ******* die? I have seen friends almost die when they lost a motor-oiled the tires and lost control. On track into a wall, and on the street into a tree. Oil on the tires leads to an instantly uncontrollable car. The car does not have a diaper-and it was my ride home."
Things you might say if you drive a dyno queen and track numbers fail to back up dyno numbers:
"When you are literally spinning though the 1/8th, you are losing time opportunity to accelerate, and losing mph."
"I need a lower gear. Also, if I could be in my power band more of the pass, it will get significantly faster with no change in power."
"I cant WAIT to see what she does when I can apply full power, and keep it in the power band longer with a better rear gear!"
"Also worth noting-this was also without a Tach. Still working on sorting that out, but I was guessing-to-shift...not fun when you have to make 4 of them. Looking back, I may have short sifted 5th and thats why it had a lazy recovery?"
"The car is a heavy pig of an RX7 around 3000lbs, and had 400lbs worth on people in it for that pass, so race weight that day was approximately 3400lbs"
"Auto RWD turbo cars defiantly run better on track-your putting the power down basically the whole pass while I am constantly shifting and falling out of boost...rise...repeat. I am 100% sure my car would TRAP and ET better with an auto"
"Either way, my car was 220 lbs heavier, and I was running 1 more PSI, and trapped almost 3mph faster, and assume the car was making 700-715whp that day. "
"The car fell right on its face in 5th, and didn't see full boost again until the trap. It almost acted like the gate was stuck open, it was that lazy."
"When you are literally spinning though the 1/8th, you are losing time opportunity to accelerate, and losing mph."
"I need a lower gear. Also, if I could be in my power band more of the pass, it will get significantly faster with no change in power."
"I cant WAIT to see what she does when I can apply full power, and keep it in the power band longer with a better rear gear!"
"Also worth noting-this was also without a Tach. Still working on sorting that out, but I was guessing-to-shift...not fun when you have to make 4 of them. Looking back, I may have short sifted 5th and thats why it had a lazy recovery?"
"The car is a heavy pig of an RX7 around 3000lbs, and had 400lbs worth on people in it for that pass, so race weight that day was approximately 3400lbs"
"Auto RWD turbo cars defiantly run better on track-your putting the power down basically the whole pass while I am constantly shifting and falling out of boost...rise...repeat. I am 100% sure my car would TRAP and ET better with an auto"
"Either way, my car was 220 lbs heavier, and I was running 1 more PSI, and trapped almost 3mph faster, and assume the car was making 700-715whp that day. "
"The car fell right on its face in 5th, and didn't see full boost again until the trap. It almost acted like the gate was stuck open, it was that lazy."
"Maybe because I dint want to ******* die? I have seen friends almost die when they lost a motor-oiled the tires and lost control. On track into a wall, and on the street into a tree. Oil on the tires leads to an instantly uncontrollable car. The car does not have a diaper-and it was my ride home."
I can tell we would argue this forever, but on the big bang 4.8l twin turbo engine it made 451 NA and over 900 (can't find an exact number at 2 bar they just say over 900) right? That example used different headers NA to turbo right? Using the shitty short turbo headers on that same engine NA would have decreased CHP by 10-15 over the nice long tubes would it not? That would put the example at double or slightly over double the power at 2 bar. All I'm saying is it's close and you probably can't split hairs on two different dynos, just like you can't at different tracks shifting gears.
If you can't make 340whp tuned on a full bolt on manual trans ls1 you have engine problems or suck at life. 320-330whp is very normal untuned and 340-350+whp is possible dialed in with better examples or happy dynos. Countless threads on this and other sites back this up with MPH also. Monster clutch has posted some back to back runs when switching to a lighter MOI clutch, gaining up to 10hp or so and that is still using a WAY heavier part than his tiny clutch. Lighter tires will gain 5 hp easy on the dynojet. In the end I just hope he finds time to provide us with more details or track runs in the car. One little mistake at this power level (or close to it LOL) will be the end of that small rod engine.
The tracks loads the car way more than the dyno will and people blow **** up way more off the dyno than on just saying. Dynos are different and can read different so comparing them is not really advised although Dynojets are about the best type to compare due to lack of human intervention. Any of you haters ever driven a high power manual car at the track? Did you get your best of the best pass that first day or first few passes? Did your combo require a shift to 5th due to gearing? Things always get better with seat time and the et/MPH will show up better also.
If you can't make 340whp tuned on a full bolt on manual trans ls1 you have engine problems or suck at life. 320-330whp is very normal untuned and 340-350+whp is possible dialed in with better examples or happy dynos. Countless threads on this and other sites back this up with MPH also. Monster clutch has posted some back to back runs when switching to a lighter MOI clutch, gaining up to 10hp or so and that is still using a WAY heavier part than his tiny clutch. Lighter tires will gain 5 hp easy on the dynojet. In the end I just hope he finds time to provide us with more details or track runs in the car. One little mistake at this power level (or close to it LOL) will be the end of that small rod engine.
The tracks loads the car way more than the dyno will and people blow **** up way more off the dyno than on just saying. Dynos are different and can read different so comparing them is not really advised although Dynojets are about the best type to compare due to lack of human intervention. Any of you haters ever driven a high power manual car at the track? Did you get your best of the best pass that first day or first few passes? Did your combo require a shift to 5th due to gearing? Things always get better with seat time and the et/MPH will show up better also.
Last edited by slowride; Jun 10, 2015 at 12:34 PM.
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 16
From: Avon, Ohio
Part of the confusion lies around the “Bone Stock LS1”. What year was it? Where did it come from? LS1’s were rated from 305-325 Crank HP on the early F-bodies and up to 350 crank in some of the late model corvettes.
Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say you got lucky and landed a 350 CHP engine. (Lucky you!)
Let’s also say your turbo system is the most bestest in the world and is 100% efficient. (For reals!)
Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say you got lucky and landed a 350 CHP engine. (Lucky you!)
Let’s also say your turbo system is the most bestest in the world and is 100% efficient. (For reals!)
1) Above 100% V/E is common with turbocharged engine. https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...an-ice.152096/
https://books.google.com/books?id=mJ...arging&f=false
2) A stock LS1 does not operate at atmospheric pressure during a WOT pull due to intake inefficiency. This is easy to see if you tap an intake runner, and a big reason why you see such large gains with just the introduction of an aftermarket intake and TB. A forced induction system makes up for this inefficiency, so consider what the motor would make with a true 1 BAR available in the manifold for every intake stoke in the manifold. That should be the base for your "equation"
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 16
From: Avon, Ohio
Forcefed86,
Simple question: Do you think an engine can operate above 100% VE? I know several people have sighted the reasoning and math behind it, but you always reference 100% as if that is all that is achievable. Just looking for clarification.
Simple question: Do you think an engine can operate above 100% VE? I know several people have sighted the reasoning and math behind it, but you always reference 100% as if that is all that is achievable. Just looking for clarification.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
Very good points forcefed!
Either way, enjoy it while it lasts. I will take my car that dynos probably high 600s through a bullet proof drivetrain and my 1.25 sixty foots over your dyno numbers any day. Guaranteed the track is going to find every weak spot in your drivetrain, and break it. lol
Either way, enjoy it while it lasts. I will take my car that dynos probably high 600s through a bullet proof drivetrain and my 1.25 sixty foots over your dyno numbers any day. Guaranteed the track is going to find every weak spot in your drivetrain, and break it. lol
I can tell we would argue this forever, but on the big bang 4.8l twin turbo engine it made 451 NA and over 900 (can't find an exact number at 2 bar they just say over 900) right? That example used different headers NA to turbo right? Using the shitty short turbo headers on that same engine NA would have decreased CHP by 10-15 over the nice long tubes would it not? That would put the example at double or slightly over double the power at 2 bar. All I'm saying is it's close and you probably can't split hairs on two different dynos, just like you can't at different tracks shifting gears.
If you can't make 340whp tuned on a full bolt on manual trans ls1 you have engine problems or suck at life. 320-330whp is very normal untuned and 340-350+whp is possible dialed in with better examples or happy dynos. Countless threads on this and other sites back this up with MPH also. Monster clutch has posted some back to back runs when switching to a lighter MOI clutch, gaining up to 10hp or so and that is still using a WAY heavier part than his tiny clutch. Lighter tires will gain 5 hp easy on the dynojet. In the end I just hope he finds time to provide us with more details or track runs in the car. One little mistake at this power level (or close to it LOL) will be the end of that small rod engine.
The tracks loads the car way more than the dyno will and people blow **** up way more off the dyno than on just saying. Dynos are different and can read different so comparing them is not really advised although Dynojets are about the best type to compare due to lack of human intervention. Any of you haters ever driven a high power manual car at the track? Did you get your best of the best pass that first day or first few passes? Did your combo require a shift to 5th due to gearing? Things always get better with seat time and the et/MPH will show up better also.
If you can't make 340whp tuned on a full bolt on manual trans ls1 you have engine problems or suck at life. 320-330whp is very normal untuned and 340-350+whp is possible dialed in with better examples or happy dynos. Countless threads on this and other sites back this up with MPH also. Monster clutch has posted some back to back runs when switching to a lighter MOI clutch, gaining up to 10hp or so and that is still using a WAY heavier part than his tiny clutch. Lighter tires will gain 5 hp easy on the dynojet. In the end I just hope he finds time to provide us with more details or track runs in the car. One little mistake at this power level (or close to it LOL) will be the end of that small rod engine.
The tracks loads the car way more than the dyno will and people blow **** up way more off the dyno than on just saying. Dynos are different and can read different so comparing them is not really advised although Dynojets are about the best type to compare due to lack of human intervention. Any of you haters ever driven a high power manual car at the track? Did you get your best of the best pass that first day or first few passes? Did your combo require a shift to 5th due to gearing? Things always get better with seat time and the et/MPH will show up better also.
The larger headers wouldn’t have made much difference at all. The turbo is the restriction, not the manifold tube diameter. Shorty VS long tube design isn’t going to do much on a turbo setup power wise. Also The “$hitty shorty” headers are a much better design than the factory logs the OP is using.
The other thing to consider about the big bang setups are the A2W IC’s. An A2W unit can cool air down well below ambient temps. So it can be more than 100% efficient at cooling the air charge. Even with the A2W advantage, more efficient engines, turbo system, etc… They still aren’t more than doubling the HP output per bar. Yes they are close… they are also running more efficient engines, turbos, & intercoolers.
What is this “Full bolt on” stuff your talking about? The OP is running a bone stock LS1. Original valve springs, log manifolds, intake etc. No way in hell it makes anywhere near 350whp in the non Dynojet world.
Tell you what. I have a 99 c5 corvette 6 speed. It has a cat back exhaust and cold air intake. Other than that it’s completely stock with 118k on it. You pay my dyno costs and If it makes over 340whp I’ll return your money +$100 (and give you a kiss.) If it doesn’t, you pay me $100… (You can keep the kiss!)
Again, I eyeball'd the gauge and it looked like a little under 20psi at redline. Looking at the log, it spiked to 22psi, settled around 21psi.
1) Above 100% V/E is common with turbocharged engine.
2) A stock LS1 does not operate at atmospheric pressure during a WOT pull due to intake inefficiency. This is easy to see if you tap an intake runner, and a big reason why you see such large gains with just the introduction of an aftermarket intake and TB. A forced induction system makes up for this inefficiency, so consider what the motor would make with a true 1 BAR available in the manifold for every intake stoke in the manifold. That should be the base for your "equation"
1) Above 100% V/E is common with turbocharged engine.
2) A stock LS1 does not operate at atmospheric pressure during a WOT pull due to intake inefficiency. This is easy to see if you tap an intake runner, and a big reason why you see such large gains with just the introduction of an aftermarket intake and TB. A forced induction system makes up for this inefficiency, so consider what the motor would make with a true 1 BAR available in the manifold for every intake stoke in the manifold. That should be the base for your "equation"
Glancing at a gauge is not a very accurate way to judge the amount of boost run. Why wouldn’t’ you have actual map sensor readings and logs of the dyno session?
Your intake manifold theory is way off base. If what you were saying about intake manifolds and “VE” was true, a 350hp LS1 (assuming normal 80% VE) would be making over 420+hp with less than 1psi in the manifold. As soon as the TB is opened 100% the manifold pressure and atmospheric pressure are VERY close to one and the same.
Your “proven facts” do not apply. VE is used to calculate airflow at a specific air density/RPM. VE is not the same as turbo system efficiency. All a turbo can do is change the density of the mass flowing through the engine, it cannot add more mass (aka make more power per atmosphere) Mass in = Mass out.
You can’t take and engine flowing 350hp worth of air, double the pressure/density, and expect more than a 350hp return. The turbo systems efficiency determines how much additional power you will make per PSI. Assuming a 100% efficient turbo system, a 350hp engine could only make 23.8 hp per lb of boost. Whether you run 10lbs or 100lbs of boost, this number would stay the same.
Since there are many mechanical/heat losses with a typical turbo system like yours, you won’t be anywhere near 100% efficient. Your gains per pound will get progressively worse with each additional pound run.
Very good points forcefed!
Either way, enjoy it while it lasts. I will take my car that dynos probably high 600s through a bullet proof drivetrain and my 1.25 sixty foots over your dyno numbers any day. Guaranteed the track is going to find every weak spot in your drivetrain, and break it. lol
Either way, enjoy it while it lasts. I will take my car that dynos probably high 600s through a bullet proof drivetrain and my 1.25 sixty foots over your dyno numbers any day. Guaranteed the track is going to find every weak spot in your drivetrain, and break it. lol
Good for you. I bet you drive the car around all the time (at the track) and get tons of enjoyment from it
I bet it still turns well and stops fast also with the drag setup? If I wanted a drag strip car I would have built one 20 years ago. Some people like to drive the cars a lot and don't want ones dedicated to drag racing. Why do you guys get offended if some stupid manual trans car that can't ET for **** can Dyno higher due to less loss or loose converters, but sucks from a dig and have to voice your opinion in why what you do is better STFU? I have lots of older friends that did all the drag racing and 10.5 class stuff only to sell everything and return to a real street car to enjoy it more often. The **** sits and rots in a ******* trailer 90% of the damn time and don't act like it doesn't.
Thread Starter
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 16
From: Avon, Ohio
Very good points forcefed!
Either way, enjoy it while it lasts. I will take my car that dynos probably high 600s through a bullet proof drivetrain and my 1.25 sixty foots over your dyno numbers any day. Guaranteed the track is going to find every weak spot in your drivetrain, and break it. lol
Either way, enjoy it while it lasts. I will take my car that dynos probably high 600s through a bullet proof drivetrain and my 1.25 sixty foots over your dyno numbers any day. Guaranteed the track is going to find every weak spot in your drivetrain, and break it. lol
Of course you can get over 100% VE by adding “X” boost level. Again, you don’t understand the concept of VE and how it applies your specific engine.
Your “proven facts” do not apply. VE is used to calculate airflow at a specific air density/RPM. VE is not the same as turbo system efficiency.
1.) Why was the dyno operator using STD CF in the first place when even Dynojet claims (right on their website) that STD CF is false and SAE CF should be used? SAE J1349 standard is 77°F, 0% humidity and 29.234 in-Hg (99 KPa) So if your dyno was done at 58* wouldn’t that mean if you added the correct SAE CF that your numbers would be lower than the uncorrected number, not higher?
2.) So the Baro, humidity, temp readings on the uncorrected sheet have zero effect on the indicated power output? So you should be able to put in any value in those fields and it would not change the uncorrected numbers?
1) He wasn't, and never does. I printed out all sheets and CF's from that run, and posted the best number. Why? Because I freakin felt like it! LOL
2) Correct. You can call dynojet to confirm because I am also not a dyno owner-operator. You can call Tech for Dynojet at 1-702-399-1423
Different stokes. Your engine alone cost more than 200% of may total build cost, including the car! My car is geared more towards 1/2 mile, Mile, road and street racing. I'm 100$ OK if it never cuts a 1.2 60 foot its whole life. The goal is 9's@150mph this year in full street trim, and lots of fun in Mexico. So far, it has done everything I have asked of it, so I am not complaining
So, if an engine stock has a 98% VE @ 6000rpm, and the same engine with turbocharger has 115% VE @ 6000rpm at a given PR, are you suggesting that will be irreverent to actual power output?
So, if an engine stock has a 98% VE @ 6000rpm, and the same engine with turbocharger has 115% VE @ 6000rpm at a given PR, are you suggesting that will be irreverent to actual power output?
You can’t change the engines base VE at sea level. That is a set static/mechanical value. So regardless of the turbo size or system you can’t more than double this number by doubling air density.
As you add boost you are raising the atmosphere/density. So the amount of work the engine can do at the new “artificially created turbo atmosphere” increases. The amount of work the engine can do per atmosphere did not change. You merely added air density. This is where the higher than 100% “artificial VE’s” come into play.
1) He wasn't, and never does. I printed out all sheets and CF's from that run, and posted the best number. Why? Because I freakin felt like it! LOL
2) Correct. You can call dynojet to confirm because I am also not a dyno owner-operator. You can call Tech for Dynojet at 1-702-399-1423
Interesting thread.
Guess the only thing I can contribute is that I could print out a graph of a car that made 1000 rwhp and claim anything I wanted to. About the only sure thing is that anybody who claims to set any sort of record is probably lying about something. Oh yeah and that dyno curve and lack of torque is terrible, looks laggy as all hell.
Guess the only thing I can contribute is that I could print out a graph of a car that made 1000 rwhp and claim anything I wanted to. About the only sure thing is that anybody who claims to set any sort of record is probably lying about something. Oh yeah and that dyno curve and lack of torque is terrible, looks laggy as all hell.
Man you are just so smart, I mean a factory rated NET 350 hp ls1 is what he has right? He has a stock paper filter, intake tube, stock size ex manifolds, downpipes, cats, full exhaust system, stock spark advance, factory rich fueling, pump gas, etc. on his turbo setup right? If you compare the hotrod NA engine optimized (no intake at all, long tubes, tuning, etc) to the hot rod turbo setup at 2 bar you have to compare his the same way. If you don't compare it the same way that will force the hot rod example over 2:1 gain at 2 bar on the same dyno the same day and that's not possible right? Stop claiming that his manifolds would hurt him NA when it doesn't matter on the hot rod example due to turbos being the restriction. You have so many holes in your comparison it's crazy. I take it you have never worked in a lab and don't understand controlling the environment around the test (that or eat paint chips)?
Why is it you keep bringing up your stockish corvette as an example it makes no sense? It has 50 miles of exhaust, cats, air intake tube, filter, full accessories and probably makes 320 SAE on a dynojet give or take. Remove your intake tube completely, free up the exhaust, run long tubes, tune it for fuel/spark, swap the clutch/wheels/tires to his light little stuff and see what happens on the dyno. If you can't see that this would make the comparison the same as to the hot rod example then you have your blinders on. The engine in his setup is a damn air pump that the factory made, but without all the rotating/intake/exhaust parasitic loss. Last time I checked valve springs don't make power on a engine with a stable valvetrain which his appears to be by how smooth the graph is. That also shows that backpressure is low and not causing exhaust valve float dumb dumb
If the boost isn't high causing crazy heat rise you are not going to see gains due to the A2W. Were they using ice water or just well water? How do you know his IAT's are way off what hot rod was getting? 50 degrees F is a damn cool room, his IC is huge and pulls are quick so the mass of a large A2A cooler can cover it for quick bursts not to mention he runs fuging race gas. The turbos are big and somewhat laggy for a 5.7, hello that's going to help it make the power up top(think supra dyno queen). Those turbos are what 70-80lbs of air each? 2 bar ain't **** to them at this point on this 5.7l they are in a very happy place.
Why is it you keep bringing up your stockish corvette as an example it makes no sense? It has 50 miles of exhaust, cats, air intake tube, filter, full accessories and probably makes 320 SAE on a dynojet give or take. Remove your intake tube completely, free up the exhaust, run long tubes, tune it for fuel/spark, swap the clutch/wheels/tires to his light little stuff and see what happens on the dyno. If you can't see that this would make the comparison the same as to the hot rod example then you have your blinders on. The engine in his setup is a damn air pump that the factory made, but without all the rotating/intake/exhaust parasitic loss. Last time I checked valve springs don't make power on a engine with a stable valvetrain which his appears to be by how smooth the graph is. That also shows that backpressure is low and not causing exhaust valve float dumb dumb
If the boost isn't high causing crazy heat rise you are not going to see gains due to the A2W. Were they using ice water or just well water? How do you know his IAT's are way off what hot rod was getting? 50 degrees F is a damn cool room, his IC is huge and pulls are quick so the mass of a large A2A cooler can cover it for quick bursts not to mention he runs fuging race gas. The turbos are big and somewhat laggy for a 5.7, hello that's going to help it make the power up top(think supra dyno queen). Those turbos are what 70-80lbs of air each? 2 bar ain't **** to them at this point on this 5.7l they are in a very happy place.
good for you. I bet you drive the car around all the time (at the track) and get tons of enjoyment from it I bet it still turns well and stops fast also with the drag setup? If i wanted a drag strip car i would have built one 20 years ago. Some people like to drive the cars a lot and don't want ones dedicated to drag racing. Why do you guys get offended if some stupid manual trans car that can't et for **** can dyno higher due to less loss or loose converters, but sucks from a dig and have to voice your opinion in why what you do is better stfu?
I have lots of older friends that did all the drag racing and 10.5 class stuff only to sell everything and return to a real street car to enjoy it more often. The **** sits and rots in a ******* trailer 90% of the damn time and don't act like it doesn't.
I bet it still turns well and stops fast also with the drag setup? If i wanted a drag strip car i would have built one 20 years ago. Some people like to drive the cars a lot and don't want ones dedicated to drag racing. Why do you guys get offended if some stupid manual trans car that can't et for **** can dyno higher due to less loss or loose converters, but sucks from a dig and have to voice your opinion in why what you do is better stfu? I have lots of older friends that did all the drag racing and 10.5 class stuff only to sell everything and return to a real street car to enjoy it more often. The **** sits and rots in a ******* trailer 90% of the damn time and don't act like it doesn't.
Man you are just so smart, I mean a factory rated NET 350 hp ls1 is what he has right? He has a stock paper filter, intake tube, stock size ex manifolds, downpipes, cats, full exhaust system, stock spark advance, factory rich fueling, pump gas, etc. on his turbo setup right? If you compare the hotrod NA engine optimized (no intake at all, long tubes, tuning, etc) to the hot rod turbo setup at 2 bar you have to compare his the same way. If you don't compare it the same way that will force the hot rod example over 2:1 gain at 2 bar on the same dyno the same day and that's not possible right? Stop claiming that his manifolds would hurt him NA when it doesn't matter on the hot rod example due to turbos being the restriction. You have so many holes in your comparison it's crazy. I take it you have never worked in a lab and don't understand controlling the environment around the test (that or eat paint chips)?
Why is it you keep bringing up your stockish corvette as an example it makes no sense? It has 50 miles of exhaust, cats, air intake tube, filter, full accessories and probably makes 320 SAE on a dynojet give or take. Remove your intake tube completely, free up the exhaust, run long tubes, tune it for fuel/spark, swap the clutch/wheels/tires to his light little stuff and see what happens on the dyno. If you can't see that this would make the comparison the same as to the hot rod example then you have your blinders on. The engine in his setup is a damn air pump that the factory made, but without all the rotating/intake/exhaust parasitic loss. Last time I checked valve springs don't make power on a engine with a stable valvetrain which his appears to be by how smooth the graph is. That also shows that backpressure is low and not causing exhaust valve float dumb dumb
If the boost isn't high causing crazy heat rise you are not going to see gains due to the A2W. Were they using ice water or just well water? How do you know his IAT's are way off what hot rod was getting? 50 degrees F is a damn cool room, his IC is huge and pulls are quick so the mass of a large A2A cooler can cover it for quick bursts not to mention he runs fuging race gas. The turbos are big and somewhat laggy for a 5.7, hello that's going to help it make the power up top(think supra dyno queen). Those turbos are what 70-80lbs of air each? 2 bar ain't **** to them at this point on this 5.7l they are in a very happy place.
Why is it you keep bringing up your stockish corvette as an example it makes no sense? It has 50 miles of exhaust, cats, air intake tube, filter, full accessories and probably makes 320 SAE on a dynojet give or take. Remove your intake tube completely, free up the exhaust, run long tubes, tune it for fuel/spark, swap the clutch/wheels/tires to his light little stuff and see what happens on the dyno. If you can't see that this would make the comparison the same as to the hot rod example then you have your blinders on. The engine in his setup is a damn air pump that the factory made, but without all the rotating/intake/exhaust parasitic loss. Last time I checked valve springs don't make power on a engine with a stable valvetrain which his appears to be by how smooth the graph is. That also shows that backpressure is low and not causing exhaust valve float dumb dumb
If the boost isn't high causing crazy heat rise you are not going to see gains due to the A2W. Were they using ice water or just well water? How do you know his IAT's are way off what hot rod was getting? 50 degrees F is a damn cool room, his IC is huge and pulls are quick so the mass of a large A2A cooler can cover it for quick bursts not to mention he runs fuging race gas. The turbos are big and somewhat laggy for a 5.7, hello that's going to help it make the power up top(think supra dyno queen). Those turbos are what 70-80lbs of air each? 2 bar ain't **** to them at this point on this 5.7l they are in a very happy place.
There are no holes in the points I've made. The fact that you don't understand them or know how to apply them to the topics discussed is not my problem. There were 3 separate arguments here.
1.) It's impossible to more than double the NA hp per bar of boost.
2.) How much Crank HP can a bone stock LS1 make?
3.) Why is the Dynojet spitting out inflated numbers?
1.) The amount of power either engine makes NA is not the point of this topic and is irrelevant. We are discussing the ability of the OP's turbo system to more than double the NA power per bar. Trying to argue against this point only makes you look more ignorant.
2.) We are talking about crank HP since this is the rating GM has giving us for a stock LS1 and also what the hotrod big bang example uses. All your light weight drivetrain BS doesn't apply. (and the OP still won't see less than 12% DT loss IMO) My example above proves the OP couldn't even make his claimed HP numbers at the crank...much less at the wheels. It also proves a more efficient engine (aka higher NA VE) without accessories, bigger turbos, smaller engine, better IC etc.. still can't more than double its power output per bar. I mention the OEM manifolds because it's relevant to how much power the OP's engine is capable of NA. This directly affects how much power can be made in boost.
The OP has a 99 Fbody LS1 engine with high miles. These were rated at 320 Crank HP new from GM. I mention my C5 because it is a good example of the typical power output of a tired LS1. I've owned several, and know what a stock LS1 engine is capable of. (NOT 360whp!
) A high mileage 99 F-body LS1 like the OP's would be lucky to make a true 290 at the wheels. I could care less if you don't agree with me. I drive one every day I know what they are and aren’t capable of. 3.) No idea honestly. But I'll take common sense over BS dyno readings any day.
Much like the rest of your points, your valve spring argument is moronic. The graph is smooth because they have the smoothing maxed out at 5 and he lifted at 5900! What do you think the waves at the end of the dyno run are? Things were getting "wavy" well before 5900. The fact that you don't believe stiffer (or new stock) valve springs with no other changes would make more power, just shows your lack of experience.
Your A2W theory is about as sound as your valve spring theory. The article doesn't mention what type of water was used, or intake temps. Do you think at 22lbs of boost the intake temps are going to be cool? It wasn't 50* it was 58*. At 22lbs the turbos are easily spitting out 240*+ pre-IC . Which type of IC do you think will work best in a static dyno cell environment? Which IC will have less of a pressure drop across the core? You say 66's are large for a 5.7? The big bang tests use 76's on 4.8 and 5.3 liters. Which do you think will produce a cooler air charge? Lastly you have NO idea what the OP's turbos flow. They are china products with no data.
Bottom line... You don't have a clue, it and it shows with every post.
Last edited by Forcefed86; Jun 11, 2015 at 11:37 AM.