Stroker Motor Guys: Compare the feeling of a 550(ish)rwhp to 400's!!
02-14-2007, 09:11 PM
#81
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Houston, TX
Posts: 10,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this thread went completly offtopic. Anyways, from what it sounds like, you should just do like me an invest in a 2pc timing cover. Im going with something thats pretty hefty on a 106LSA and the 2pc timing cover itll allow me to change the timing if need be, or just change the cam all together if I find its something thats a bit much.
02-14-2007, 09:13 PM
#82
Originally Posted by Forteen3GT
here is the dyno... notice how the power peaks at 6k rpm....not really taking advantage of a high rpm head!!! needs cubes and rpm to perform! Patrick... what do you think?
__________________
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2022 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 S&B CAI, Corsa catback.
2023 Corvette 3LT Z51 soon to be modified.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
2013 Corvette Grand Sport A6 LME forged 416, Greg Good ported TFS 255 LS3 heads, 222/242 .629"/.604" 121LSA Pat G blower cam, ARH 1 7/8" headers, ESC Novi 1500 Supercharger w/8 rib direct drive conversion, 747rwhp/709rwtq on 93 octane, 801rwhp/735rwtq on race fuel, 10.1 @ 147.25mph 1/4 mile, 174.7mph Half Mile.
2016 Corvette Z51 M7 Magnuson Heartbeat 2300 supercharger, TSP LT headers, Pat G tuned, 667rwhp, 662rwtq, 191mph TX Mile.
2009.5 Pontiac G8 GT 6.0L, A6, AFR 230v2 heads. 506rwhp/442rwtq. 11.413 @ 121.29mph 1/4 mile, 168.7mph TX Mile
2000 Pewter Ram Air Trans Am M6 heads/cam 508 rwhp/445 rwtq SAE, 183.092 TX Mile
2022 Cadillac Escalade 6.2L A10 S&B CAI, Corsa catback.
2023 Corvette 3LT Z51 soon to be modified.
Custom LSX tuning in person or via email press here.
02-14-2007, 09:23 PM
#83
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DONAIMIAN
So this thread went completly offtopic. Anyways, from what it sounds like, you should just do like me an invest in a 2pc timing cover. Im going with something thats pretty hefty on a 106LSA and the 2pc timing cover itll allow me to change the timing if need be, or just change the cam all together if I find its something thats a bit much.
good suggestion... where do I get one.... actually the topic was how a stroker motor compares to a heads cam car.... but I am gaining alot since I have started getting a L92 setup together.
Dont lock this one...... please.
02-14-2007, 10:05 PM
#84
Banned
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh!!!!!!!! Pa
Posts: 4,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i still want to knwo how the two sheets look the same but numbers are way off...
if im nto over 500rwhp ill be upset...his cam is similar to mine. i liekd the numbers he had at first
his first A/F is 12.8 but now 11.7? he should easily pick up power by leaning it out. also if he has restrictive exhaust fine but still should see numbers notless of a 100hp
on 6.0s ppl are seeing close to 500 with much smaller cams...a 403 should destroy those numbers and make closer to his first figures
if im nto over 500rwhp ill be upset...his cam is similar to mine. i liekd the numbers he had at first
his first A/F is 12.8 but now 11.7? he should easily pick up power by leaning it out. also if he has restrictive exhaust fine but still should see numbers notless of a 100hp
on 6.0s ppl are seeing close to 500 with much smaller cams...a 403 should destroy those numbers and make closer to his first figures
02-15-2007, 09:13 AM
#87
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Posts: 5,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by skipperbisket
if my 370 doesn't make over 500 WITH L92 heads I'll pull it out and drop it in Eagle Mtn. Lake....
02-15-2007, 09:14 AM
#88
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Posts: 5,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbo'd stang
First thing they need to do is fix that AFR. That will net another 40-50rwhp.
Why do they set their cars up so rich? That is the second car I have seen that way.
Why do they set their cars up so rich? That is the second car I have seen that way.
02-15-2007, 09:51 AM
#89
Banned
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh!!!!!!!! Pa
Posts: 4,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by V6 Bird
Why so much variance in A/F from dyno to dyno? Definitely is fishy. Whats new on the other site. PM if youd like
02-15-2007, 10:36 AM
#90
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Posts: 5,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Quik
thats what i was questioning... a difference of 1 full point is bad..
02-15-2007, 11:35 AM
#91
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure it is something else....... maybe the fella that sold em the dyno set em up wrong?? Someone else is to blame!!!!!! Sponsors never lie! 
02-15-2007, 11:44 AM
#94
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Posts: 5,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Forteen3GT
I am sure it is something else....... maybe the fella that sold em the dyno set em up wrong?? Someone else is to blame!!!!!! Sponsors never lie!
Hi Everyone,
I'm a curious person (just like the most of you), but I found it increasingly difficult to understand who's products makes how much power. But from all the posts and dyno plots, it seems that everyone had slightly different scenarios (so no apples-to-apples comparison). So I'd figure I'd try and help out our community by ponying up the $$$ and getting some real-world answers.
So what was the plan for the today? Let's take the exact same car and go to two different dynos to see the differences (keeping as many variables the same).
Who are the gineau pigs? ATP (Fremont, CA) using their in-ground Dynojet and Vishnu Performance Systems (Pleasanton, CA) using their DynoDynamics. They are approximately 20 miles from each other (25 minutes). And finally my car ... 2002 WRX (silver - its the fastest color) with 25,910 miles on it ... the mods are a full Vishnu Stage 2.
What was the test setup? Of course with my luck, the fan ATP used to cool the TMIC broke. Oh well, to be consistent NO fan was used to cool the TMIC at Vishnu's either. I've also seen some posts about the fans used to cool the radiators ... let me tell you that the one at Vishnu's was massively stronger that the one at ATP (so we pulled it a lot farther away that the one used at ATP). I don't think this makes too much of a difference, since the engine coolant temps stayed the same. For those **** people ... ATP was 60deg.F and Vishnu was 61deg.F and I don't think there is more than a 100' of elevation change. I did forget to measure the temperature of the intercoolers (but oh well). The car were driven to their each location, sat around for 20 minutes, driven onto the dyno, sat around for another 10 minutes and then first two runs were pulled and printed. That's all folks ... we don't want to make this more complicated that it needs to be.
The Results:
ATP (Dynojet) - 275.8whp and 232.2 torque
Vishnu (DynoDynamics) - 224.7whp and 192.2 torque
So depending on how you look at it ... Dynojet runs 22.74% higher than a DynoDynamic or DynoDynamic runs 18.53% lower than a Dynojet (with regards to whp). Check out these graphs ... (oops ... I can't figure out how to get multiple attachments with a single post)
Interesting observations ...
Setup on the Dynojet vs. DynoDynamics ... all I got to say is that it was a lot harder getting my car on the Dynojet ... first thing was that we didn't get the tracks pulled apart far enough until we rolled the car on to it (so we had to back off the car, stretch the dyno and put the car back on). The second thing, was that it was tough getting the car balanced on top of both rollers ... so about 20 minutes elapsed from getting into the garage to the first pull. The DynoDynamics was really simple ... drive car onto ramp and fall into the first set of rollers (in case you didn't know they have 8 rollers - two for each wheel) and use a simple control to slide the rear rollers into place, strap it down and you're ready to go (5-6 minutes tops). The other thing I noticed was that you had to bring the car to a complete stop on the Dynojet ... the DynoDynamics could run back-to-back pulls really quickly - you don't have to bring the car back to 1st gear.
The important thing I've learned is that when you want to know the differences between modifications, you need to have testing tools that repeatable (ie. stick to the same dyno and record the environments - so you have the same correction factors in play).
Conclusion
So what have I accomplished with all this ... nothing, my car still make the same power it did going to both dynos. So, I wanted to help put some of those concern people at ease ... I'm sure you're making the power you made (since you have dyno plots), just know there is a significant difference between dynos. All I'd like to see are vendors advertising the % differences they have measured (and world peace).
/getting off soap box/
Have a great and safe Christmas and New Years ...
Steve
02-15-2007, 12:01 PM
#95
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by V6 Bird
ANother fork in the road.
Hi Everyone,
I'm a curious person (just like the most of you), but I found it increasingly difficult to understand who's products makes how much power. But from all the posts and dyno plots, it seems that everyone had slightly different scenarios (so no apples-to-apples comparison). So I'd figure I'd try and help out our community by ponying up the $$$ and getting some real-world answers.
So what was the plan for the today? Let's take the exact same car and go to two different dynos to see the differences (keeping as many variables the same).
Who are the gineau pigs? ATP (Fremont, CA) using their in-ground Dynojet and Vishnu Performance Systems (Pleasanton, CA) using their DynoDynamics. They are approximately 20 miles from each other (25 minutes). And finally my car ... 2002 WRX (silver - its the fastest color) with 25,910 miles on it ... the mods are a full Vishnu Stage 2.
What was the test setup? Of course with my luck, the fan ATP used to cool the TMIC broke. Oh well, to be consistent NO fan was used to cool the TMIC at Vishnu's either. I've also seen some posts about the fans used to cool the radiators ... let me tell you that the one at Vishnu's was massively stronger that the one at ATP (so we pulled it a lot farther away that the one used at ATP). I don't think this makes too much of a difference, since the engine coolant temps stayed the same. For those **** people ... ATP was 60deg.F and Vishnu was 61deg.F and I don't think there is more than a 100' of elevation change. I did forget to measure the temperature of the intercoolers (but oh well). The car were driven to their each location, sat around for 20 minutes, driven onto the dyno, sat around for another 10 minutes and then first two runs were pulled and printed. That's all folks ... we don't want to make this more complicated that it needs to be.
The Results:
ATP (Dynojet) - 275.8whp and 232.2 torque
Vishnu (DynoDynamics) - 224.7whp and 192.2 torque
So depending on how you look at it ... Dynojet runs 22.74% higher than a DynoDynamic or DynoDynamic runs 18.53% lower than a Dynojet (with regards to whp). Check out these graphs ... (oops ... I can't figure out how to get multiple attachments with a single post)
Interesting observations ...
Setup on the Dynojet vs. DynoDynamics ... all I got to say is that it was a lot harder getting my car on the Dynojet ... first thing was that we didn't get the tracks pulled apart far enough until we rolled the car on to it (so we had to back off the car, stretch the dyno and put the car back on). The second thing, was that it was tough getting the car balanced on top of both rollers ... so about 20 minutes elapsed from getting into the garage to the first pull. The DynoDynamics was really simple ... drive car onto ramp and fall into the first set of rollers (in case you didn't know they have 8 rollers - two for each wheel) and use a simple control to slide the rear rollers into place, strap it down and you're ready to go (5-6 minutes tops). The other thing I noticed was that you had to bring the car to a complete stop on the Dynojet ... the DynoDynamics could run back-to-back pulls really quickly - you don't have to bring the car back to 1st gear.
The important thing I've learned is that when you want to know the differences between modifications, you need to have testing tools that repeatable (ie. stick to the same dyno and record the environments - so you have the same correction factors in play).
Conclusion
So what have I accomplished with all this ... nothing, my car still make the same power it did going to both dynos. So, I wanted to help put some of those concern people at ease ... I'm sure you're making the power you made (since you have dyno plots), just know there is a significant difference between dynos. All I'd like to see are vendors advertising the % differences they have measured (and world peace).
/getting off soap box/
Have a great and safe Christmas and New Years ...
Steve
Hi Everyone,
I'm a curious person (just like the most of you), but I found it increasingly difficult to understand who's products makes how much power. But from all the posts and dyno plots, it seems that everyone had slightly different scenarios (so no apples-to-apples comparison). So I'd figure I'd try and help out our community by ponying up the $$$ and getting some real-world answers.
So what was the plan for the today? Let's take the exact same car and go to two different dynos to see the differences (keeping as many variables the same).
Who are the gineau pigs? ATP (Fremont, CA) using their in-ground Dynojet and Vishnu Performance Systems (Pleasanton, CA) using their DynoDynamics. They are approximately 20 miles from each other (25 minutes). And finally my car ... 2002 WRX (silver - its the fastest color) with 25,910 miles on it ... the mods are a full Vishnu Stage 2.
What was the test setup? Of course with my luck, the fan ATP used to cool the TMIC broke. Oh well, to be consistent NO fan was used to cool the TMIC at Vishnu's either. I've also seen some posts about the fans used to cool the radiators ... let me tell you that the one at Vishnu's was massively stronger that the one at ATP (so we pulled it a lot farther away that the one used at ATP). I don't think this makes too much of a difference, since the engine coolant temps stayed the same. For those **** people ... ATP was 60deg.F and Vishnu was 61deg.F and I don't think there is more than a 100' of elevation change. I did forget to measure the temperature of the intercoolers (but oh well). The car were driven to their each location, sat around for 20 minutes, driven onto the dyno, sat around for another 10 minutes and then first two runs were pulled and printed. That's all folks ... we don't want to make this more complicated that it needs to be.
The Results:
ATP (Dynojet) - 275.8whp and 232.2 torque
Vishnu (DynoDynamics) - 224.7whp and 192.2 torque
So depending on how you look at it ... Dynojet runs 22.74% higher than a DynoDynamic or DynoDynamic runs 18.53% lower than a Dynojet (with regards to whp). Check out these graphs ... (oops ... I can't figure out how to get multiple attachments with a single post)
Interesting observations ...
Setup on the Dynojet vs. DynoDynamics ... all I got to say is that it was a lot harder getting my car on the Dynojet ... first thing was that we didn't get the tracks pulled apart far enough until we rolled the car on to it (so we had to back off the car, stretch the dyno and put the car back on). The second thing, was that it was tough getting the car balanced on top of both rollers ... so about 20 minutes elapsed from getting into the garage to the first pull. The DynoDynamics was really simple ... drive car onto ramp and fall into the first set of rollers (in case you didn't know they have 8 rollers - two for each wheel) and use a simple control to slide the rear rollers into place, strap it down and you're ready to go (5-6 minutes tops). The other thing I noticed was that you had to bring the car to a complete stop on the Dynojet ... the DynoDynamics could run back-to-back pulls really quickly - you don't have to bring the car back to 1st gear.
The important thing I've learned is that when you want to know the differences between modifications, you need to have testing tools that repeatable (ie. stick to the same dyno and record the environments - so you have the same correction factors in play).
Conclusion
So what have I accomplished with all this ... nothing, my car still make the same power it did going to both dynos. So, I wanted to help put some of those concern people at ease ... I'm sure you're making the power you made (since you have dyno plots), just know there is a significant difference between dynos. All I'd like to see are vendors advertising the % differences they have measured (and world peace).
/getting off soap box/
Have a great and safe Christmas and New Years ...
Steve
02-15-2007, 12:08 PM
#96
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Posts: 5,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Forteen3GT
so it made less on the dynamics.... similiar to the mustang dyno...... ouch... that hurts!
02-15-2007, 06:52 PM
#98
Banned
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh!!!!!!!! Pa
Posts: 4,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well if thats the case then who is making real numbers then the dynojet were it layed down 460 or the dynamic were it layed down 551...if the dynamic is lower shouldnt that of read close to 600 if it was setup right?
02-15-2007, 06:58 PM
#99
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Quik
well if thats the case then who is making real numbers then the dynojet were it layed down 460 or the dynamic were it layed down 551...if the dynamic is lower shouldnt that of read close to 600 if it was setup right?
Dynamics...... 551
Dynojet.........466
