[Ice water. Anyone who has a A2W uses Ice.


He has a '99 Camaro LS1 which is factory rated at 305hp. 325hp if it was a SS but only from air intake and better flowing exhaust but motor is the same.

He brought it up 1 time. One.

 

[QUOTE=vettewreck;18840880][
Ice water. Anyone who has a A2W uses Ice.


That would do it. I would not say anyone, maybe a race car, but most street cars, like the LSA's use a LTR cooled by ambient air.

 

[QUOTE=Jwooky;18840919]True, but most all street cars using a turbo, don't use a A2W.

 

You just can't wrap you head around the fact that any engine operating over 100% VE will gain more than your math allows. There is literally a list of cars that have proven dyno and track performance that exceeds your "math" and you are just ignore it. I've given up on this with you.




Can you read?



What do you think I am lying about? I have nothing to gain by lying. I'd be happy to sell my motor to someone who wanted to verify anything.

And yes, the torque peak is late, and that was 100% intentional and done by design. If you took a minute to go though my build thread, you'd see I wanted to torque to be a little and as late as possible to keep the motor together. So, its doing exactly as I intended, so thanks!

As for lag, again in that thread there are several videos on the car on street and on track, and I would say its not laggy at all, but "laggy" by nature is a very relative term.

 

I can’t wrap my head around it because it’s a giant load of BS. You have zero proof because it isn’t possible. A list of more false dynojet numbers doesn’t prove anything! None of those guys have pre/post engine dyno numbers to back up the results. Look at any factory engine dyno NA VS Boosted. Magazines have published tons. NONE of them are going to more than double the HP at 1 bar. You’re not a special acception to the rule and neither are any of the SBE “dyno” lists. Read any performance turbo book and they will agree with what I am saying.

Yes, I can read quite well. I asked why the dyno operator used STD CF instead of SAE. Your reply was unclear as it said “he never does”. Then you say you printed out every CF? But I don’t see an SAE sheet? And your reason for picking a known false high reading dyno sheet was because you felt like it? Give me a break… Same reason you decided not to Data Log a dyno tuning session or track runs right? What kind of “Tooner” doesn’t log everything? The fact that you didn’t just proves what an inexperienced amateur you are.

Your car traps about like all the other sub 3000lb LS turbo setups out there. (no way in hell that car weighs 3400lbs) I trapped 150.9 @ 19lbs with a 4.8, single 76, small wheel t4, and a very similar weight through an auto. No way in hell I was making 800+whp. You and anyone that believes those dyno numbers are delusional.

 

I agree, OP is full of crap.

 

LOL, there is only no proof because you continually avoid acknowlegement of it! It does not work that way chief.

Please-explain this one. You can have any better "proof" than this. Same day, same dyno.
Made 227whp on motor. 735@17psi. 941@24psi
Went 8.9@160+
Dyno numbers BS?

And another randomly pulled from the list

ScreamingL 1053whp LY6@24 psi ona Dynojet with SAE correction
He went 8.65@163.9 LY6@24 psi 3400llbs.
Dyno numbers BS?

Neither of those cars, and most others if you do back to back tests, fit your mythical equation. Why is that?







You are useless. He has 1000's of customers on this board. I can guarantee none of them have STD corrected sheets. He did not "use" that correction-that's not how it works. You make a pull, STD, SAE, and Uncorrected numbers are all the. I, and in me, physically went into the program, and printed all 3. What is so god damn hard to understand about that? And you have SEEN the SAE sheet int he other thread!! But since I have to spoon feed the retard, here it is again, with a correction factor of 1.00 LOL









Again, per the usual, you have to make **** to make your math work. My car was no where near 3k race weight that day. I have stated my TII is exceptionally heavy and has near zero weight reduction. The passes were made with 400+lbs of human and a full tank of gas.

And I made the passes on a 90+ Deg. High Humidity day @8psi, ramping up to 15psi and losing all boost in 5th (I now know why-due to short shifting since I didn't have a working Tach).

You are comparing that to 21-22psi dyno pulls on a perfect night for making horsepower.....and I'm delusional?

 

Waiting for the 160mph trap to back the numbers. I see 650whp right now

 

Updated the list while we wait on some new track numbers to back up dyno sheets (new excuses in Red).

Just curious why you drove all the way to the track (which you mentioned was quite the drive, probably needed gas to get back home) and then filled up full of gas BEFORE racing? I'm assuming it was so you could use it as an excuse as to why the car wasn't as fast as it SHOULD HAVE BEEN based on the dyno numbers? Another classic case of "It was the Dyno Queen thing to do".

Yep, I'm enjoying this new thread.

 

I actually have to scroll to view the full excuse list

 

FWIW I have no experience with turbo ls1's, but know its possible to get more than 100% VE on a NA engine, and that doubling map, doesn't have to = double hp.

 

Anyone have any popcorn to share?

 

Avoid acknowledgement of what? Dynojets are not an accurate representation of true power. You think using more dyno jet examples is a valid counter point? That is not “proof” of anything. Show me 1 example of a “Bone stock” engine dyno before and after turbo charging that more than doubles the HP per bar. Without a highly efficient race engine, artificial intercooling, and backpressure numbers less than 1:1 it’s not possible. Your POS ls1 and cobbled together china turbo system could never accomplish it. To make 950 CHP you’d have to be making 29-30hp per pound of boost. That isn’t possible with a “bone stock” Ls1! Even with twin 88’s, IT’S NOT POSSIBLE! You’d be lucky to make 21 per lb.

The equation I’m using isn’t mythical. Look at any recognized book on turbo charging and it will tell you the same. I don’t believe you are making anything up… you’re just too ignorant to understand your results aren’t physically possible. I own all of the books below. Every one of them tell me you’re results aren’t possible. I choose to believe them over an Internet Dyno Jet fan boy.

Jay k miller –Real world high performance turbo charging
Jeff Hartman- turbocvharging performance handbook
Corky bell-Maximum boost
A.Bell-Forced induction tuning
J.R Crosby-how to turbocharge and tune your engine
Richard Holdener-Dyno proven small block ford performance

Correct! Same day, Same Dyno, Same BS DYnojet results.


We’ve been through this as well. Most of the cars come MUCH closer than you using the “Correct” equation I’m using. ScreamingL for example is using a much higher output engine with an aftermarket cam, intake, etc… They are not using a STOCK LS1! None of them are! AN LY6 is 360hp out of the box per GM’s website! Then ScreamingL added a nice aftermarket intake and cam. He is well over 400hp NA to start with! Making his track results very possible. Even if the dyno numbers are inflated a bit.

What difference does it make how many customers he has? You posted the sheet as a record holding accomplishment using this “known tuner’s” tune/dyno on a STD CF sheet. That makes him look bad. You’re an idiot for doing so in the first place. Then you call me a retard because I don’t know all the specifics that you decide to add in along the way?

I ran 19..no 20..no 21..no 22lbs of boost.(when actually you glanced at the gauge and guessed)
I used the falsely corrected dyno sheet…because I felt like it.
I didn’t log any of my runs…
I had a fat kid in my car…
It was hot out…
I lost boost…
I short shifted….
I didn’t have a tach…
My gas tank was full...
I didn’t want to die…

You’re an excuse making machine and you have ZERO valid points. Make some points using real math and physics and not examples of others BS dyno runs. A link to a site explaining VE is also not a valid point. As you don’t even understand VE or how it applies to your engine. Lets hear in your own words how you think your BS numbers are possible.

From the start I said I wasn’t a dyno tuner/operator/designer and I don’t know all there is to know about them. Not knowing how many sheets they print out doesn’t make me a retard IMO. I also don’t understand if the SAE CF for TEMP is 77* and you Dynoed “uncorrected” at 58* why the SAE corrected sheet is higher than the “uncorrected”. I’m assuming the BARO CF has a lot more weight on the final output…


What exactly am I making up to make my math work? All I’m saying here is I’ve owned 3 FC’s and NONE of them weighed what you claim yours does. Yet all of them had iron blocks/heads and automatic transmissions. They also all had full interior roll cages, solid rear ends, exh, OEM tanks…etc All were full option GXL models. Electric windows/sunroof etc. How you managed to get an Alum block/headed engine/manual trans Rx7 to weigh in anywhere near 3000lbs without passengers is beyond me.

You are delusional because you think the numbers that Dynojets spit out are real… You’re an idiot because you are too stubborn to read a little and figure it out why for yourself. Stop looking at dyno numbers and open a book.

 

Yes it is possible to go slightly over 100VE NA. Do you understand why that is possible? Or why there’s no way in hell a “bone stock” LS1 could do it? Also understand we aren’t talking like 103% VE could make the OP’s results possible. We are talking about 200+hp worth of inflated numbers here.

No one said that doubling the MAP value doubles HP. I used a perfect world example to make my point that even in ideal nonexistent circumstances the results were still impossible.

 

Forcefed 86...

I'm getting to like you more and more...

 

I enjoy this thread. lol

 

I know right. Just from this thread and the old thread, I have learned alot.

 

I'm sorry, but if a tool built to measure horsepower (this industry standard mind you) says I made XXX horsepower, then that's what it made. That is a fact of what the output was that day.

I have not, and may never run the car at the track under those conditions, ever, and that's 100% fine by me. I have driven the car almost 1500 HARD miles this year, and had a ton of fun for less than most have just in there long block. You can keep complaining about it from behind the keyboard in your postage stamp house, I will keep thoroughly enjoying my car everyday, and every weekend I drive it.

I can see now why you where nearly ran out of Yellow bullet


Come put my motor in your chassis and see what it does then!

Honest question-do you think your motor in my M6, shifting into 5th with no boost available on a 90 degree day, would trap 160mph?


Considering I was at a max of 15psi for less than 1/2 of my pass on a 90 degree day, that may be about right. 8psi=500ish whp on the first 1/8th, 15psi=740 for the last 8th....average of 650hp for the run? Sure, you math works for me.

 

If that is indeed the case, then your dyno numbers will forever be questioned. As long as you're okay with that, then you should probably quit defending your numbers until the car actually backs them up with some track times.

You're correct in that the tool measured what it measured. Does that make the number it calculated and printed out on paper a fact? Not by a long shot.

If it does mean it's fact, then I'd like my (thank you google images) dyno sheet recorded as a new record breaker.



And no, I'll never race it with the condition the car was in when this was made because the car might take flight. It's awesome really. Because I couldn't spend the money on safety equipment, I have to keep my 200 pound friend in the passenger seat to keep it from flying away when I race. I have been thinking of just shifting into 5th gear, but then I'm not sure if my tach is working or not, so I don't know where one gear ends and one begins.

You're making all of these excuses when in the end... you have options and ways to eliminate the excuses... you just choose to do the "Dyno Queen Thing" and not eliminate them. Thus the reason we'll likely never see times that back up your bogus sheets. What a shame.

 

Lolz^^^^^


And my chassis is junk the last time I went to the track. Don't see me making excuses.



And yeah if I had a t56 I'd mph better no question