Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

With a big stall you can setup a tight power band and stay in the band, say 6000-7000rpm. With that kind of a setup who needs bottom end power?

Fenris Ulf

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BurnOut:
<strong>Fenris, are you going to make me go down to one of the local import performance shops and make scans of some dyno graphs?? You know and I know that a power curve like that on those cars is the exception rather than the rule.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure that would be great <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I assume I know alot more about the 2JZ platform than yourself, and I can tell you right now that a peaky supra setup would be from a high-lag turbo setup with aftermarket cams like the HKS 272s. The cams cause another 500-700 rpms of lag, but yield ~50 rwhp up top under boost. As any LS1 owner can tell you, installing a bigger cam necessitates raising the rev limiter to take advantage of the higher powerband. Many supra onwers don't take their cars past the stock 6800 rpm rev limit even after going single and installing larger intake and exhaust cams, but the ones that do show that the power curve is not very peaky at all. Case in point, SW's T72 supra: http://www.turboimports.com/swst88supra.html

Damian

iTrader: (89)

Fenris Ulf, do us ALL a favor and give the Supra arguments a rest. This is an LS1 discussion and we'd appreciate it if it stayed that way... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

BTW Tony, what was your highest trap with the 382? Wasn't it 125 or so? So you only gained ~1-1.5 mph from the bigger cam and the ls6 intake on a 382 motor?

josh

<small>[ October 14, 2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Damian ]</small>

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

Oh man no more big Supra threads this is an LS1 board, go to Supraforums to get your fill of that nonsense.

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Well, in Fenris defense.. He did not bring up the Supra thing.. Someone else did.. I would like to see a graph of NineBalls 382 All Bore setup next too one of Thunder Racings TR230 cam cars..

2000SILVERTA

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>With a big stall you can setup a tight power band and stay in the band, say 6000-7000rpm. With that kind of a setup who needs bottom end power?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> Thats what I aim to do myself.

Fenris Ulf

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Damian:
<strong>Fenris Ulf, do us ALL a favor and give the Supra arguments a rest. This is an LS1 discussion and we'd appreciate it if it stayed that way... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Josh, I am just trying to debunk stupid claims. Too many people read those offhand comments and take them as fact, then wonder what the hell hit them <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I love my LS1 and wouldn't trade it for a Supra, but I just don't want others to be misinformed. I also didn't even bring up the argument so you can sit back down. Thanks <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

Josh, I ran 11.19 @ 124 with the T1, the stock rearend with 3.73 gears, in cool weather. That was with the LS6 intake. With the LS1 intake, I ran 11.32 @ 122 or something like that.

The 11.08 @ 125 was with the T2 (232/232), Moser 12-bolt with 4.10s, in warmer weather. On the dynojet, the power was identical, but I lost about 5 ft-lbs with the 12-bolt/4.10s (dyno shmyno). So basically, the cam swap made up for the rwhp loss from the 12-bolt, nothing more.

Tony

RAGEman

iTrader: (4)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by BurnOut:
<strong>Fenris, are you going to make me go down to one of the local import performance shops and make scans of some dyno graphs?? You know and I know that a power curve like that on those cars is the exception rather than the rule.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure that would be great <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I assume I know alot more about the 2JZ platform than yourself, and I can tell you right now that a peaky supra setup would be from a high-lag turbo setup with aftermarket cams like the HKS 272s. The cams cause another 500-700 rpms of lag, but yield ~50 rwhp up top under boost. As any LS1 owner can tell you, installing a bigger cam necessitates raising the rev limiter to take advantage of the higher powerband. Many supra onwers don't take their cars past the stock 6800 rpm rev limit even after going single and installing larger intake and exhaust cams, but the ones that do show that the power curve is not very peaky at all. Case in point, SW's T72 supra: http://www.turboimports.com/swst88supra.html</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Assuming you know more than someone else is always fun!!! All he was saying is that "peaky Supra setups" are much easier to find than a true drag-racing Supra setup. Generally speaking, Supra's have lots and lots of high end power, but they're not drag cars. Thus the relatively slow ¼-mile times. And (again...generally speaking) this is true no matter how much you know about the 2JZ platform, and no matter how quick people are to believe offhand comments. I know about SW's car(s), his Supra in particular, and have even been beaten a few times at the track by Supra's. But in those few cases, they were always behind at the eighth-mile, but caught up on the top end. Don't read into my post and say that I said no Supra's can beat me to the eighth, either, cuz that's not what I said. But, 9 times out of 10 I beat Supra's to the 1320 (with my old stock-motor setup) even though, after talking to each owner, they have the same amount of peak horsepower, and sometimes 30-40 more. And no, I'm not including the regular N/A I6 Supra's. So, in my observation, his statement that the non-peaky Supra setups are the exception rather than the rule holds true. We are all very impressed by your vast, wide-ranging knowledge of automobiles, the 2JZ platform in particular, and there's no dobut that it exceeds mine, but it doesn't help you here. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

Bottom line: The guy was just pointing out that most Supra's don't run good ¼-mile times when compared with the amount of peak horsepower they make. What determines a good ¼-mile time is relative anyway. It depends on your viewpoint. Some people think if your LS1 isn't running 11's, it's slow, when even a 12-second slip is above average, if you look at the big picture. Like your buddy jmX always says, ¼-mile times are not all there is in life, anyway.

verbs

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong>For the dumbasses who think supras can't make lowend power too, here is a dyno of a 98 supra still running the same turbos toyota bolted on to his car from the factory:

<img src="http://www.boostaholic.com/supra/472rwhp.gif" alt=" - " />

As you can tell, he is making over 400 rwhp from 4200 rpms to 7000 rpms. Seems REAL peaky to me <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That car seems to be making a lot more power than most BPU+++ cars make. Would you care to elaborate on what mods he used to get there?

I just don't think an FMIC, upgraded ECU, boost controller, d/p, exhaust, intake, and cam gears would be enough to get one those power figures from buddies of mine with those mods.

Fenris Ulf

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RAGEman:
<strong> So, in my observation, his statement that the non-peaky Supra setups are the exception rather than the rule holds true. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, so here is what you are saying: You beat supras at the track with similar if not higher power level than you, that means their setups are peaky. I have pulled several LS1s in my RX7 R1 at the track(my 340 rwhp vs 420 rwhp H/C LS1), but I don't conclude "LS1s are peaky" because its simply not true and there are way more variables at play here. Now when my LS1 beats some Venom 500 at the track, I still don't conclude "oh, his setup must be peaky." What I am getting at is Supra supsension is much less optimal for blasts down the quarter mile, their drivers are often sub-par, and their cars weigh several hundred lbs more than mine. So no, the Bottom line is not that the supra, or any other car for that matter, runs poor quarter mile times because of its peaky setup.

Fenris Ulf

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RAGEman:
<strong> I'd say at least 8 out of every 10 cases, by judging the way the distance between the two cars changes during each of the Supra's gears (i.e. watching the way the Supra pulls), that the Supra is at least MORE "peaky" than a stock-motored LS1. I'll admit to you that I haven't seen a large number of Supra dyno sheets. But the majority of the ones I have seen do not look like the one you posted. Perchance one or more of your friend's basic performance upgrades enhanced the horsepower readings from 4200-6000 or so? Is that a possibility?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you can really interpolate the "jerk" of a car (that is the third derivate of distance with respect to time, or the change in acceleration with respect to time) with enough accuracy from within your own car which is not a constant frame of reference, congrats, because you are truly skilled LOL! That dyno was done on 22 psi with boost dropping to 18 psi by redline. The dyno shows such a nice fat powerband because those little turbos are huffing and puffing as much air as they can.

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

I cant believe this post has turned into a Supra vs Us post.. Yes Supras make crazy power. I am a witness to this myself, but I have also seen a buddy with less than 400rwhp in his 347 stroker spank a 700rwhp Supra with spray in the 1/4th. Both running DR's.. Supra was coming, but it was too late.. Supra weighed in at over 3800lbs and the Mustang weighed 3300lbs with driver.. I just had to add my 2cts.. I asked for a dyno comparison earlier.. Can we get back to the topic? I would like to see a dyno of a 382 all bore and a 455rwhp H/C 346ci.. I think this would shed some light on this situation.. We can take the Supra ordeal to the Street Racing section..

Quickin

I'll tell you why a stroker is MUCH MUCH better than ANY H/C car, IMO. And from what I've learned over the past year. These are the reasons I went with a stroker instead of a shake-my-teeth-out H/C car. Power adder ready, more reliability, better drivability, better idle, more power/tq.

There is NO H/C car on the planet and there never will be one that will idle as smooth (almost stock-like) as my ARE 436 stroker and still put out close to 500 RWHP/500 RWTQ.

H/C cars idle like ****.

And my cam is only a 244, I can go way bigger.

H/C cars are just closing in on the 450 hp range but the torque isn't close to 450 unless its an all out H/C car.

Mild strokers are better than full-on H/C motors for HP/TQ, idle, future upgrades, reliability, drivability.

Stronger bottom ends for N20, Turbos and blowers.

What H/C motor can take a 300 shot? My 436 can take it all day long, according to Nick and Wade anyway.

Seems pretty simple to me why a stroker is WAY better in every way except $$$.

<small>[ October 15, 2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Quickin ]</small>

RAGEman

iTrader: (4)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong>If you can really interpolate the "jerk" of a car (that is the third derivate of distance with respect to time, or the change in acceleration with respect to time) with enough accuracy from within your own car which is not a constant frame of reference, congrats, because you are truly skilled LOL!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Either that or you are UN-skilled. It's not really that hard. I'd just like to point out that the change in acceleration is the 2nd derivative of "distance with respect to time" or, in other words, velocity.

- distance
- change in distance/time (what you said) = velocity
- derivative of velocity = change in velocity/time = acceleration
- derivative of acceleration = change in acceleration/time = what you are so UN-skilled at judging

CLARIFICATIONAL NOTE: There is no "derivative" of distance by itself because distance is not an equation. Therefore, the derivative of distance is not velocity. There is a derivative of "distance with respect to time," but it isn't velocity, it's acceleration because "distance with respect to time" EQUALS velocity.

The fact that the change in acceleration is 3 times removed from distance in this string of equations does not mean it is any more complicated to judge by the human eye. In fact, as I stated before, it isn't really that hard.

That said, you are absolutely right that there are more factors that figure into our observations that Supra's (generally speaking) don't run stellar ¼-mile times. Suspension, driver skill, etc. Supra's (nor their owners), generally speaking, are not built for drag racing. THUS the addage, what do all 400, 500, and 600 RWHP Supras have in common? 12-second timeslips. You still have not come out and told us whether or not we're wrong to say that MOST Supra dyno graphs are more "peaky" than the one you showed us, and, therefore, that these non-"peaky" graphs are more the exception than the rule.

EDIT:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by me:
<strong>There is no "derivative" of distance by itself because distance is not an equation.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought about this some more, and I'm not 100% sure about this, so I prolly shouldn't have opened my big mouth, but it's too late now; I was just trying so hard to nail you on something!! Lemme know if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will). If I am, that makes you right about the change in accleration being the 3rd derivative of distance. Either way, I'm still right about the rest of it, so suck on that! DANG! Thinking back, it's UNBELIEVEABLE that it's been 5-6 years since I took physics. Unbelieveable. Oh well.

<small>[ October 15, 2002, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: RAGEman ]</small>

RAGEman

iTrader: (4)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Quickin:
<strong>I'll tell you why a stroker is MUCH MUCH better than ANY H/C car, IMO. And from what I've learned over the past year. These are the reasons I went with a stroker instead of a shake-my-teeth-out H/C car. Power adder ready, more reliability, better drivability, better idle, more power/tq.

There is NO H/C car on the planet and there never will be one that will idle as smooth (almost stock-like) as my ARE 436 stroker and still put out close to 500 RWHP/500 RWTQ.

H/C cars idle like ****.

And my cam is only a 244, I can go way bigger.

H/C cars are just closing in on the 450 hp range but the torque isn't close to 450 unless its an all out H/C car.

Mild strokers are better than full-on H/C motors for HP/TQ, idle, future upgrades, reliability, drivability.

Stronger bottom ends for N20, Turbos and blowers.

What H/C motor can take a 300 shot? My 436 can take it all day long, according to Nick and Wade anyway.

Seems pretty simple to me why a stroker is WAY better in every way except $$$.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ahh, dude, you're killing me! I think you summed it up in the last phrase, "except $$$."

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

P.S. I wouldn't call a stroker set up for N/A or even one built to handle large shots of N2O blower-ready. Changes would almost certainly have to be made to the compression ratio and perhaps camshaft, etc, etc. Definitely right about the motor (particularly the bottom end) being much stronger. And, not ALL H/C cars "idle like ****."

EuG

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">f I am, that makes you right about the change in accleration being the 3rd derivative of distance.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That’s right.
If distance is a function (not an equation <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) of time D = f(t),
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the first derivative of that function is - velocity</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the second derivative of that function is - acceleration</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the third derivative of that function is - a function of change of acceleration <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /></font></li>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BTW: I’m not so sure it’s easy to judge the change of acceleration by eye, think about.

Evil SS

There is no replacement for displacement.

No one said this yet??? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

RAGEman

iTrader: (4)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by EuG:
<strong>That’s right.
If distance is a function (not an equation <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) of time D = f(t),
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the first derivative of that function is - velocity</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the second derivative of that function is - acceleration</font></li>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the third derivative of that function is - a function of change of acceleration <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /></font></li>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BTW: I’m not so sure it’s easy to judge the change of acceleration by eye, think about.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Crap. Okay, I'm sitting back down now.
<img border="0" alt="[whiner]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cry.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[Banging Head]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_banghead.gif" />

But, I still disagree about judging the change in acceleration.

RAGEman

iTrader: (4)

That's not even what I said the bottom line was. Perhaps using the fact that the Supra's that have beaten me down the 1320 have done so by pulling past me in the last 660 was not the best illustration. I'll concede that. But, let me give you another scenario. I have done my fair share of street (on-the-roll) racing with Supra's as well. It seems to me that in nearly every case (whether they can pull me or not), I'd say at least 8 out of every 10 cases, by judging the way the distance between the two cars changes during each of the Supra's gears (i.e. watching the way the Supra pulls), that the Supra is at least MORE "peaky" than a stock-motored LS1. I'll admit to you that I haven't seen a large number of Supra dyno sheets. But the majority of the ones I have seen do not look like the one you posted. Perchance one or more of your friend's basic performance upgrades enhanced the horsepower readings from 4200-6000 or so? Is that a possibility?