VINCE

iTrader: (1)

I was looking at our boosted list.. It seems kind of weird how we have such a range of ET's and MPH's.. IF SC'd cars essentially act like high horsepower H/C cars... Why do the turbo cars out MPH in most cases. I know, I know, TORQUE.. Even with that.. I would think a properly setup 500rwhp SC'd M6 car with some weight reduction to get it down to say 3550 or 3600lbs would put up 128mph to 130mph with 4.10's.. Add another 50 to 100rwhp to the equation I would expect to see 132 to 138mph traps.. Or do you think the car would have to be right at 3500lbs to accomplish this..? Now the A4 cars should make it to the low 10's with that kind of horsepower and 3.73's at that weight I would think. Now to turbo cars.. Lingenfelter has proven over and over that between 500 to 600rwhp can get you low 10's at 135mph plus in either A4 or M6.. Last thing.. How much horsepower would a SC'd car need to make to REALLY trap 135mph plus?

Rpm2800

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by VINCE:
Last thing.. How much horsepower would a SC'd car need to make to REALLY trap 135mph plus? [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know of a 10.5 second Lt1 camaro that had 633rwhp and ran 10.5 at 136 or 137. It was a full weight car. The engine was a 355 with a Vortech and aftercooler. It had a T56 trans.

smokinHawk

iTrader: (48)

On my 126 mph trap was on nittos with a 2.06 60'
I think i could get about 128's if i kept the throttle down through first as im milking it out of the hole. This year im hoping for 130's

I do think the torque has alot to do with it.

Black LS1 T/A

Doesn't it usualy mean when people have high trap speed but un-equivalent ET, that the power is there, but they are not hooking it up?

MIGHTYMOUSE

iTrader: (59)

thats true, smokin hawk would be 10's easy on a 1.6 or better 60'

they guy is just stating he notices turbo cars mph more than s/c cars... heres why.

turbo cars are at their peak boost level the entire length of the track where as supercharged cars are only at their peak boost level 2 or 3 times at peak rpm before each shift.

so over the length of the track, we are putting out more cheese.

<small>[ February 10, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: MIGHTYMOUSE ]</small>

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

W/out getting into another bad thread guys.. How about taking a look at the FI list and tell me if you have noticed the same weird pattern I have? Not one car is consistent with its power level except the top 2.. The others seem to be all over the place.. I am sure some of the cars are more setup for racing than others, but the mph on some of the cars should be higher.. Traction is a issue, but what if it was not?

chasgiv3

iTrader: (1)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MIGHTYMOUSE:
<strong> turbo cars are at their peak boost level the entire length of the track where as supercharged cars are only at their peak boost level 2 or 3 times at peak rpm before each ****.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ROTFLOL....what is it you have against SC'd cars?

before each ****! BWAHAHAHA Maybe they need more fiber?
ok ok ok....back to thread....

The problem with peak numbers is that they don't give the area under the curve as an average. In other words you need to figure on what RPM you actually use throughout your gears. Then take an average of the HP for all of that. That'll give you your usable HP number. Compare those and it should reflect the MPH numbers. Shouldn't it?

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Chas that makes sense.. Who has a SC'd dyno and a Turbo'd dyno they would like to share with us to compare.. It would have to be A4 for A4 and M6 for M6.. It would be nice to look at your track times as well..

MIGHTYMOUSE

iTrader: (59)

the area under the curve.. correct! thats the powerband, which is broader for a turbo car because they are at max boost for the entire poweband. sc'd are not, just like i said above, thats how it is..

being near peak boost and being at it you have to admit are different to the tune of 15-30hp/# boost. if you loose one pound here, one pound there.. then you are 20hp down from turbo cars at the beginning of 2nd and third gears.. and 20hp is 2mph.

IMO

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Thanks guys.. All makes sense.. It makes my decision easier..

JimmyKash

Just remember vince.....you have to look at things at all angles. Maybe blowers have an advantage that they aren't always making peak boost? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

i'm more of a turbo guy but i've made my decision. Just make sure you do too whatever you do <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

Black LS1 T/A

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MIGHTYMOUSE:
<strong> thats true, smoking hawk would be 10'e easy on a 1.6 or better 60'

they guy is just stating he notices turbo cars mph more than s/c cars... heres why.

turbo cars are at their peak boost level the entire length of the track where as supercharged cars are only at their peak boost level 2 or 3 times at peak rpm before each ****.

so over the length of the track, we are putting out more cheese. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Once my car got up to 6 grand, I rarely saw anything less than 5000 RPMs, so I was near peak boost the whole way down the track.

I think we are all making some assumptions based on theories that are not necessarily the case. At least sharing our experiences clears some of that up.

Black LS1 T/A

Here's my dyno from when I ran 10.98 @126 MPH with the Stock Internals 346, MAC Headers and SY3500:

<img src="http://www.blackls1ta.com/images/dyno_486_hp.jpg" alt=" - " />

Notice the A/F ratio... there was even more power sitting there. I didn't bother to change it, because I knew my tranny would not handle much more power... my rearend was already periodically breaking.

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

You had a lot more power to be had for sure.. Wow!! Your tq came on pretty quick and stayed up there.. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> Any M6 cars with similar dyno's?

MIGHTYMOUSE

iTrader: (59)

heres a manual: (turbo)
<img src="http://www.ls1motorsports.com/images/498HPDyno.jpg" alt=" - " />

this car also trapped 125mph with that graph

<small>[ February 11, 2003, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: MIGHTYMOUSE ]</small>

Speed

iTrader: (33)

My best trap speed was 128 with my stock Turbo LT1 with stock internals. That was an 11.9 run with a 2.2 60' time. I was on 245/50/16 nittos and bouncing the rev limiter before the end of the track unfortunately. Below is a dyno pull with a completely stock engine. Between then and the 128mph run, I added 30lb SVO injectors. Still have no programming done.

<img src="http://www.tulsafbody.com/drew/Dyno1.jpg" alt=" - " />

Notice the run was aborted at 4700 rpm. The boost spiked to 10psi so I got out of it. A/F went to 15:1 for a split second. Got luck there.

The chart below is on the same day but with the boost controller turned down to 7psi.

<img src="http://www.tulsafbody.com/drew/Dyno2.jpg" alt=" - " />

I've sinse swapped out the T56 and slipping new centerforce clutch infavor of a TH400 and a TCI Street Fighter. We'll see how that effects MPH (hoping it maintains MPH but et drops significantly)

richieg

iTrader: (1)

Turbos are fast super chargers are fast, personally i like superchargers; alot more hardware involved in turbos. But not to badger one or the other, but something you hear a turbo guy say that a super charged guy doesn't at a dead stop. "Hold on dude, Let me build up some boost before we take off first"

Speed

iTrader: (33)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by richieg:
<strong> Turbos are fast super chargers are fast, personally i like superchargers; alot more hardware involved in turbos. But not to badger one or the other, but something you hear a turbo guy say that a super charged guy doesn't at a dead stop. "Hold on dude, Let me build up some boost before we take off first" </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you really believe that?

I guess something you never hear a turbo guy say is, "Damn, I coulda had you if the supercharger wasn't robbing 40hp off the crank!"

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

dug

iTrader: (10)

From what I have seen people tend to under gear and under converter supercharged cars. Check out this dyno # from a MMS setup for a general example. http://www.mmsracing.com/display.cgi...e=template.htm

Look at the powerband, the engine is making peak torque around 5500rpms and the max hp is at 6500rpms and peaky. It would take a high stall with a lot of shift extension to utilize the hp in an automatic. With a stick car its gonna take a lot of gears with a good driver.

At over 500hp the 60ft time should be in the 1.4 range in order to get into low 10's. Then the supercharged cars will be right there with the turbo cars and h/c nitrous cars.

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

You guys are a trip.. I love this board.. The dynos do tell a lot and explain the mph difference.. I can see where a turbo would propel the car faster.. I would think traction would be an issue with the Tq coming on so fast on the street and might not be with a SC'd car.