Tekhombre

Here are Joel's new dyno numbers. This is with our LS6 Stage 2-X heads, 224-224 custom ground cam, lid, LS6 intake, new A4, 3.73 gears, open cut-out, MAC headers, short belt, UD pulley, LS1-edit dyno tune.

441.5 RWHP and 401.0 RWTQ SAE corrected, here is a link to the dyno graph.

Joel's new dyno numbers


Julio

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

That is incredible.. Do you ever go to sleep?

Nickn20

holy crap, you spun that car to 7300 <img src="gr_eek2.gif" border="0"> it still made good power too.

ChrisB

Congratulations, that's some great power! Out of curiosity what valvesprings are you using on there, and are you using the comp pro magnum lifters?


Chris

BIGBOS

WoW <img src="gr_eek2.gif" border="0">

Trevor @ Texas Speed & Perf.

iTrader: (3)

DAMN! An A4 heads/cam with 440+ RWHP! <img src="gr_eek2.gif" border="0"> It's gonna take some 7k+ shift points on a stock bottom-end, though. Congrats on the new setup. Now get Joel's *** in that car and to the track!

Orange Krush

EXCELLENT numbers! <img src="graemlins/fluffy.gif" border="0" alt="[Fluffy]" /> Now for the really important stuff. How much to put that setup on my Z, soup to nuts? <img src="gr_grin.gif" border="0"> Also when will we be seeing some 1320 slips on this combo? <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

Jason99T/A

iTrader: (21)

Nice numbers! What is the compression ratio?

ONEBADWS6

iTrader: (22)

Why does cartech always dyno with a short belt. Do they feel it is nessicery to cheat. What, there work can't speak for itself? <img src="graemlins/gr_bs.gif" border="0" alt="[bullshit]" /> Even without them cheating the car would be impressive so why bother.

Paul F

iTrader: (2)

[quote]Originally posted by ONEBADWS6:
<strong>Why does cartech always dyno with a short belt. Do they feel it is nessicery to cheat. What, there work can't speak for itself? <img src="graemlins/gr_bs.gif" border="0" alt="[bullshit]" /> Even without them cheating the car would be impressive so why bother.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I don't think it's cheating if they tell you up front that's the way they dynoed it. If that's the way it runs at the track then that's the way they should dyno it. Just my opinion though. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

Ragtop 99

iTrader: (7)

Very interesting to compare the GTP/TR and Cartek's setups. Both use 224 cams and show similar peak HP numbers.

The TR/GTP combo has better torque below 4000 rpm but also it runs out of steam earlier on the top end than the Cartek set-up. Assuming there are no dyno issues with MPH/RPM being off, a few possible theories emerge:

1) The TR/GTP combo uses a 112 LSA cam and maybe the Cartek cam is on a 114 LSA causing the powerband on the high and low ends to shift by about 300 rpm.

2) The Cartek LS6 heads port better for top end HP and GTP truck heads maintain better velocity at lower rpms.

3) Ghanns add more midrange torque while MACs shine at higher rpms.

Some combo of the above??

BTW, for the benefit of both shops, I'm posting this in both threads and would like to hear their thoughts.

JS

iTrader: (4)

I forget what my cam is on but I know its not on a 114.Just ask Julio...


FWIW....
Thunder Racing is a great shop with great products.I'm sure either of our setups will shine at the track.Geoff,Paul and Angie have helped my Boss and Me out in the past and there setup is awesome for sure.

I'm just sooo happy with my CARTEK setup putting these numbers out THREW AN AUTOMATIC.Thats impressive IMO.

JS

Y2YDT

Nice #'s Julio!!! I'm waiting for a quote from Dave, you will see my car soon!!! Cartek is awesome!!!!

Dan

Phil99TA

Awesome. I'm really curious to see what the Dynotechs will do

CHRISPY

Good numbers!!
Cant wait to see it run!
I think the MAC's are awesome for the $$$
Chris

ToplessTexan

[quote]Originally posted by Tekhombre:
<strong>441.5 RWHP and 401.0 RWTQ SAE corrected, here is a link to the dyno graph.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Julio, any chance you could post a link to the data in tabular form? Also, what is the LSA on this setup? Thanks!

Max@Cartek

[quote] A locked up automatic is just as good as a stick. What do you make unlocked? Also what was the correction factor?
<hr></blockquote>

No it's not as good as a stick. And what good does seeing what a car makes unlocked have to do with anything. Everyone else locks there a4's when dynoing. That even's the playing field from one car to the next because then you eliminate the factor of different stall speeds. It also allows the individual tuners to see gains on there own setups more accurately, from one car to the next.
You(terry burger) can't see anyone make more power than you. You reach out hopelessly for any reason that that car should make less power than which is stated. you try to bring them down to your numbers. Just face it...your just not the fastest. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0"> Later - Max

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

[quote]
3) Ghanns add more midrange torque while MACs shine at higher rpms.
<hr></blockquote>

There is probably some truth to that statement, its also possible that Cartech is running a very large LS (say 116), or the cam us larger than 224 duration. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

[quote]
I'm just sooo happy with my CARTEK setup putting these numbers out THREW AN AUTOMATIC.Thats impressive IMO.
<hr></blockquote>

A locked up automatic is just as good as a stick. <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0"> What do you make unlocked? Also what was the correction factor?

Colonel

It's certainly debatable whether a locked converter is equal to a manual on the dyno. Personnally, I think that IF the converter is very lightweight that it can actually show better numbers locked than an M6. Do I have proof of this? No, just what I gather from talking to dyno operators and it makes sense to me (rotating mass.) At the very least I'm pretty confident that there isn't very much difference either way.

Ya'll please try not to turn yet another dyno reporting thread into a Terry v/s the world pissing match. Thanks! <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Colonel ]</p>

Joe Prince

Good numbers guy's! I have a question though, would it be a fair assumtion that the 10 hp and the 18 tq difference from 431 383? to 441 401 could that have been missing from the first package on the dyno too? because from what your saying it looks like the trans/converter has been bad? and If so, I believe thats why it ran faster at the track with the 224 the first couple passes but didn't reflect a good dyno figure? That would lead me to believe the trans/verter began to go away long ago. It's obviously laying down the correct numbers now with the addition of the new trans and converter and did make better numbers.
Good luck.