Whats the most hp ever made from a stock bottom end lt1 with power adder??
03-31-2013, 07:03 PM
#43
03-31-2013, 10:25 PM
#44
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 5280
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i hear ya, i try to keep mine clean, mine only has 11,000 original miles . . . .
very few turbo lt1's up here, only a hand full of fast ones, most of them dont show themselves anymore for some reason which kind of sucks. im trying to beat the fastest local lt1 pass this year, 10.24 is the best one so far. would love a 10.0x this year!
04-01-2013, 12:44 AM
#45
i hear ya, i try to keep mine clean, mine only has 11,000 original miles . . . .
very few turbo lt1's up here, only a hand full of fast ones, most of them dont show themselves anymore for some reason which kind of sucks. im trying to beat the fastest local lt1 pass this year, 10.24 is the best one so far. would love a 10.0x this year!
very few turbo lt1's up here, only a hand full of fast ones, most of them dont show themselves anymore for some reason which kind of sucks. im trying to beat the fastest local lt1 pass this year, 10.24 is the best one so far. would love a 10.0x this year!
Wow 11 k miles? That thing has barely been drove.
04-01-2013, 10:55 AM
#47
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 5280
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at our altitude uncorrected numbers are so inconsistent its not even funny.
i made 530rwhp uncorrected on 15 psi @ 2:00pm and then it made 588rwhp on the same boost an hour later when it started to get cooler outside.
our baro changes pretty rapidly within very short periods, so if you want me to start telling people my uncorrected numbers then fine i made 600rwhp at 2:00 when it was 68* but made 640rwhp.
Last edited by xrambbc; 04-01-2013 at 11:30 AM. Reason: Didn't want to sound mean
04-01-2013, 12:22 PM
#49
Wallan, it was a 1.19 (19%) correction . . . . and if thats the case then your 441 incher only made 499 rwhp and 478trq . . . .
enough of the correction factor bullshit, running around telling people your uncorrected numbers is the most retarded thing to do.
at our altitude uncorrected numbers are so inconsistent its not even funny.
i made 530rwhp uncorrected on 15 psi @ 2:00pm and then it made 588rwhp on the same boost an hour later when it started to get cooler outside.
our baro changes pretty rapidly within very short periods, so if you want me to start telling people my uncorrected numbers then fine i made 600rwhp at 2:00 when it was 68* but made 640rwhp at 5:00 when it was 55* . . . . . do you see how stupid this is?
if your taking dyno numbers serious then your wasting your time, i did this as a stunt to see what it makes, ill prove the numbers at the track.
enough of the correction factor bullshit, running around telling people your uncorrected numbers is the most retarded thing to do.
at our altitude uncorrected numbers are so inconsistent its not even funny.
i made 530rwhp uncorrected on 15 psi @ 2:00pm and then it made 588rwhp on the same boost an hour later when it started to get cooler outside.
our baro changes pretty rapidly within very short periods, so if you want me to start telling people my uncorrected numbers then fine i made 600rwhp at 2:00 when it was 68* but made 640rwhp at 5:00 when it was 55* . . . . . do you see how stupid this is?
if your taking dyno numbers serious then your wasting your time, i did this as a stunt to see what it makes, ill prove the numbers at the track.
For example lets just assume a stock LT1 can only handle 800whp at sea-level. At this elevation that number SAE corrected will be a lot higher like say 950whp due to the fact its not real. I understand it will not be consistent but this is just an example. Does that mean people at sea-level can crank it up to 950whp and everything will be fine???
and you are absolutely right. This correction factor stuff is not that simple and never consistent. I hate it and hate the fact that its even different between the different type of applications too (supercharger/turbo/nitrous/N/A) I always mention my uncorrected numbers and corrected numbers at the same time. Check all my dyno threads. same with compression. due to high elevation your compression is not the same as at sea-level
as far as the difference it make uncorrected in the same day, you will still see that corrected too. so when you made 600whp uncorrected at 2pm and made 640whp uncorrected at 5 there was still an increase in your SAE corrected number. maybe its not the same exact increase but check your dyno sheets and you will see it made more power SAE too.
I don't care too much about dyno numbers. If I did, I know where I can get a higher number than what my car is actually making. actually since you want to prove it with track times then its actually better to mention uncorrected numbers because your et/trap on your 784whp LT1 will be similar to one that is only making ~650whp at sea-level (just an example). unless you really think your car will et/trap like a real 784whp?? then thats a different story. I bet you will be running about ~.3sec slower (even more if it was N/A)
I had to deal with that a lot. people will come and say hey a 441ci Z06 bearly broke into the 10s when a bolt-on Z06 can do it?? how come!!!! they don't understan that 441 Z06 ran that in a 7000+DA while that bolt-on one had a nice 500DA or whatever lol
I am not against you here. Its just that I don't want people with stock LT1s at sea-level thinking just because you and 2 other guys made 900whp on a stock LT1 that they can make it too at sea-level...
Thats all!!
Edit: I just noticed your signature too. "Home to the record holding highest hp stock long block lt1" see that is not 100% true because again you didn't really make 784whp!! thats what I am trying to say in my first post so if there is a guy making 710 or 730whp at sea-level it will most likely run a better et/trap than your 784whp car at this elevation (assuming everything else is equal as in driver skills/track prep ..etc). when I was reading your post earlier I figured you didn't care about dyno numbers but your sign says otherwise. but I don't care. I shouldn't have posted here if I knew you will take it as an insult. sorry if you thought so because that wasn't my intention. I just wanted to show the facts. I don't own an LT1 and will never do so really it doesn't matter to me.
BTW: I dont know whats the real recored you might be even uncorrected I dont know
Last edited by walhan_qtr; 04-01-2013 at 12:38 PM.
04-01-2013, 12:52 PM
#50
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 5280
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No sorry its not bullshit. Actually running around telling people your SAE corrected numbers is bullshit especially in this case where you want to prove how much power a stock LT1 can handle.
For example lets just assume a stock LT1 can only handle 800whp at sea-level. At this elevation that number SAE corrected will be a lot higher like say 950whp due to the fact its not real. I understand it will not be consistent but this is just an example. Does that mean people at sea-level can crank it up to 950whp and everything will be fine???
and you are absolutely right. This correction factor stuff is not that simple and never consistent. I hate it and hate the fact that its even different between the different type of applications too (supercharger/turbo/nitrous/N/A) I always mention my uncorrected numbers and corrected numbers at the same time. Check all my dyno threads. same with compression. due to high elevation your compression is not the same as at sea-level
as far as the difference it make uncorrected in the same day, you will still see that corrected too. so when you made 600whp uncorrected at 2pm and made 640whp uncorrected at 5 there was still an increase in your SAE corrected number. maybe its not the same exact increase but check your dyno sheets and you will see it made more power SAE too.
I don't care too much about dyno numbers. If I did, I know where I can get a higher number than what my car is actually making. actually since you want to prove it with track times then its actually better to mention uncorrected numbers because your et/trap on your 784whp LT1 will be similar to one that is only making ~650whp at sea-level (just an example). unless you really think your car will et/trap like a real 784whp?? then thats a different story. I bet you will be running about ~.3sec slower (even more if it was N/A)
I had to deal with that a lot. people will come and say hey a 441ci Z06 bearly broke into the 10s when a bolt-on Z06 can do it?? how come!!!! they don't understan that 441 Z06 ran that in a 7000+DA while that bolt-on one had a nice 500DA or whatever lol
I am not against you here. Its just that I don't want people with stock LT1s at sea-level thinking just because you and 2 other guys made 900whp on a stock LT1 that they can make it too at sea-level...
Thats all!!
Edit: I just noticed your signature too. "Home to the record holding highest hp stock long block lt1" see that is not 100% true because again you didn't really make 784whp!! thats what I am trying to say in my first post so if there is a guy making 710 or 730whp at sea-level it will most likely run a better et/trap than your 784whp car at this elevation (assuming everything else is equal as in driver skills/track prep ..etc). when I was reading your post earlier I figured you didn't care about dyno numbers but your sign says otherwise. but I don't care. I shouldn't have posted here if I knew you will take it as an insult. sorry if you thought so because that wasn't my intention. I just wanted to show the facts. I don't own an LT1 and will never do so really it doesn't matter to me.
BTW: I dont know whats the real recored you might be even uncorrected I dont know
For example lets just assume a stock LT1 can only handle 800whp at sea-level. At this elevation that number SAE corrected will be a lot higher like say 950whp due to the fact its not real. I understand it will not be consistent but this is just an example. Does that mean people at sea-level can crank it up to 950whp and everything will be fine???
and you are absolutely right. This correction factor stuff is not that simple and never consistent. I hate it and hate the fact that its even different between the different type of applications too (supercharger/turbo/nitrous/N/A) I always mention my uncorrected numbers and corrected numbers at the same time. Check all my dyno threads. same with compression. due to high elevation your compression is not the same as at sea-level
as far as the difference it make uncorrected in the same day, you will still see that corrected too. so when you made 600whp uncorrected at 2pm and made 640whp uncorrected at 5 there was still an increase in your SAE corrected number. maybe its not the same exact increase but check your dyno sheets and you will see it made more power SAE too.
I don't care too much about dyno numbers. If I did, I know where I can get a higher number than what my car is actually making. actually since you want to prove it with track times then its actually better to mention uncorrected numbers because your et/trap on your 784whp LT1 will be similar to one that is only making ~650whp at sea-level (just an example). unless you really think your car will et/trap like a real 784whp?? then thats a different story. I bet you will be running about ~.3sec slower (even more if it was N/A)
I had to deal with that a lot. people will come and say hey a 441ci Z06 bearly broke into the 10s when a bolt-on Z06 can do it?? how come!!!! they don't understan that 441 Z06 ran that in a 7000+DA while that bolt-on one had a nice 500DA or whatever lol
I am not against you here. Its just that I don't want people with stock LT1s at sea-level thinking just because you and 2 other guys made 900whp on a stock LT1 that they can make it too at sea-level...
Thats all!!
Edit: I just noticed your signature too. "Home to the record holding highest hp stock long block lt1" see that is not 100% true because again you didn't really make 784whp!! thats what I am trying to say in my first post so if there is a guy making 710 or 730whp at sea-level it will most likely run a better et/trap than your 784whp car at this elevation (assuming everything else is equal as in driver skills/track prep ..etc). when I was reading your post earlier I figured you didn't care about dyno numbers but your sign says otherwise. but I don't care. I shouldn't have posted here if I knew you will take it as an insult. sorry if you thought so because that wasn't my intention. I just wanted to show the facts. I don't own an LT1 and will never do so really it doesn't matter to me.
BTW: I dont know whats the real recored you might be even uncorrected I dont know
valid points,
but if i wanted to go down to texas and dyno it, then my correction factor here should be within .02% power of what it will make down there. it may blow up down there on a true 784 wheel yes you could very well be right on that, thats the name of the game.
your example doesnt quite work, we dont know for sure what one of these motors can take so if it were to hit 950 here then who is to know if it will take that at sea level?
im not taking any of this to heart, just gets old hearing guys up here bitch about corrected numbers, i understand its not "real" but yet again it is.
if i went down to texas i would make the same power on about 2 to 3 psi more, now if it will take that i dont know . . . . we will just have to find out.
04-01-2013, 01:15 PM
#51
valid points,
but if i wanted to go down to texas and dyno it, then my correction factor here should be within .02% power of what it will make down there. it may blow up down there on a true 784 wheel yes you could very well be right on that, thats the name of the game.
your example doesnt quite work, we dont know for sure what one of these motors can take so if it were to hit 950 here then who is to know if it will take that at sea level?
im not taking any of this to heart, just gets old hearing guys up here bitch about corrected numbers, i understand its not "real" but yet again it is.
if i went down to texas i would make the same power on about 2 to 3 psi more, now if it will take that i dont know . . . . we will just have to find out.
but if i wanted to go down to texas and dyno it, then my correction factor here should be within .02% power of what it will make down there. it may blow up down there on a true 784 wheel yes you could very well be right on that, thats the name of the game.
your example doesnt quite work, we dont know for sure what one of these motors can take so if it were to hit 950 here then who is to know if it will take that at sea level?
im not taking any of this to heart, just gets old hearing guys up here bitch about corrected numbers, i understand its not "real" but yet again it is.
if i went down to texas i would make the same power on about 2 to 3 psi more, now if it will take that i dont know . . . . we will just have to find out.
I know I probably said one thing right and the rest is all wrong lol. I usually do. so please for anyone else that is reading all my BS, you better ask someone with more knowledge/experience. I am really new to this game and don't know ****.
and believe me I hate the correction **** just as much as you do. probably even more.
04-01-2013, 01:29 PM
#52
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 5280
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EXACTLY!!! glad we understand each other now. and yes I understand it is also not that simple even between two cars. tune/tuner, type of application and power curve/ ...etc etc etc. there might be a car that blows with only 500whp and another car will handle 600whp even if it had the exact same setup and same tuner. not simple. and peak numbers are just peak number. even my examples above wont work if two cars had different power curves or different setups. there might be a car with less power that trap/et faster than another with more power at the same track and same conditions because of the power curve, driver, suspension, even luck. but I know you understand all of this thats why I didn't even bother mentioning it.
I know I probably said one thing right and the rest is all wrong lol. I usually do. so please for anyone else that is reading all my BS, you better ask someone with more knowledge/experience. I am really new to this game and don't know ****.
and believe me I hate the correction **** just as much as you do. probably even more.
I know I probably said one thing right and the rest is all wrong lol. I usually do. so please for anyone else that is reading all my BS, you better ask someone with more knowledge/experience. I am really new to this game and don't know ****.
and believe me I hate the correction **** just as much as you do. probably even more.
Amen!! Lol I'm just happy it made good power! Can't wait for the track to open so I can put her to the real test. Will you be up there this year?? I want to see that vette make some nitrous passes!
You get the clutch fixed from the tx2k fiasco?? Lol
04-01-2013, 01:43 PM
#53
hopefully it will be ready in 2-3 weeks
can't wait!!!BTW this is a sick build. I really think its a nice accomplish. please don't take it otherwise.
04-04-2013, 01:46 AM
#54
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 5280
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heck yea. I will def be down there. I am waiting on my new clutch as I wont be dealing with the RPS anymore. I will just fix it under warranty (they are great at that from what I have heard) and sell it. that clutch doesn't like me for some reason. it worked great when it worked lol but there is always issues. and as you know changing the clutch on those vettes SUCKS!!
hopefully it will be ready in 2-3 weeks can't wait!!!
BTW this is a sick build. I really think its a nice accomplish. please don't take it otherwise.
hopefully it will be ready in 2-3 weeks
can't wait!!!BTW this is a sick build. I really think its a nice accomplish. please don't take it otherwise.
thanks! yea im very happy, i just put in an turbo 400 in today, 4200 stall, and all the other goodies to go with it. i want a 1030 or faster this year! i think its doable on a good 700rwhp (corrected) with a trans brake/2 step 15 psi launch.
04-09-2013, 06:23 PM
#56
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 5280
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
youll know when im worried cuz it will be a pile of parts
04-16-2013, 09:40 AM
#59
Staging Lane
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Always in front, Windsor, CO
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice dyno numbers for your setup.. I agree with Walhan as well on some points. I also dislike how some tuners go for that "number" then back it off for the street. So there, you're not going to run what your dyno number (corrected or uncorrected) showed.. I now run only on a loaded mustang dyno for closer real world results and we do not back off timing after we are done to make it "safer"..
Make it safe on the dyno by getting the tune spot on and not try to go for a number that you're not running around with on the street or track..
Looking forward to seeing some times at bandimere!
Make it safe on the dyno by getting the tune spot on and not try to go for a number that you're not running around with on the street or track..
Looking forward to seeing some times at bandimere!
