Predator Dynos
02-23-2006, 07:21 AM
#41
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 1,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albert you missed a few questions,
Originally Posted by 860 Performance
The strangest thing is the fact that the preditor nozzle gave 2 completely different graphs when jetted at the same 200hp level.
Look at the preditor jetted at 200hp when compared to a TNT nozzle it peaks at 80mph, then look at the same predator nozzle again jetted at 200hp when compared to the NX nozzle it now peaks at 65MPH??? And the curves look completely different.
Albert or Scott- why is this?
Look at the preditor jetted at 200hp when compared to a TNT nozzle it peaks at 80mph, then look at the same predator nozzle again jetted at 200hp when compared to the NX nozzle it now peaks at 65MPH??? And the curves look completely different.
Albert or Scott- why is this?
Originally Posted by frknlo
Thanks for the sheet, but it doesnt show what most skeptics want to see. So how much longer again? 
I also notice the same thing as 860 after he pointed it out. What is up with that?
I also notice the same thing as 860 after he pointed it out. What is up with that?
Originally Posted by FogleMotorsports
just by looking at say 60mph on the 200hp jets the predator made like 50 more hp with the same jets and same car. how can you do that?
at 65mph youve got 325hp and over 500hp. how do you make 175 more hp at the same speed with the same jets. am i reading it wrong albert?
at 65mph youve got 325hp and over 500hp. how do you make 175 more hp at the same speed with the same jets. am i reading it wrong albert?
Originally Posted by NXJeremy
Albert, were the graphs that are posted all from the same car? If so, is it an automatic? converter? Also, the pulls look like they were started at different points, which could contribute to what Vinny at 860 is referring to. Thanks in advance Albert.
02-23-2006, 07:43 AM
#42
Staging Lane
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tomball, Texas
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pulls were performed by the driver and he was operating the kit with a push button not a WOT. That probably caused what you are seeing. In a new test we will be more careful with our testing.
02-23-2006, 08:12 AM
#43
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 1,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the fast reply, that explains some.
So do you still feel, based on the tests you performed, that your nozzle makes 17.9more HP than NX nozzle and power 750 to 1000RPM's earlier?
So do you still feel, based on the tests you performed, that your nozzle makes 17.9more HP than NX nozzle and power 750 to 1000RPM's earlier?
02-23-2006, 09:29 AM
#44
Staging Lane
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tomball, Texas
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the information we have it is safe to say that the New Predator nozzle performs better. I personally would like to see track results. We have had rain 2-3 weekends in a row in houston and I know of atleast 3 guys that are going to the track with the new nozzle. One of the guys has already made a few hits on the street and was impressed but until I get a time slip in my hand I wont be happy.
02-23-2006, 10:12 AM
#45
FormerVendor
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wichita Falls,Tx
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Albert. I'm still wondering though, how the results would have looked had the pulls been consistent and started at the same point. In the graphs the Predator nozzle made over 500hp, under 500hp, and right at 500hp. Had the pulls been started at the same time I don't think it would have made the power that much earlier than the NX nozzle. Maybe I'm wrong though, I'm very interested in seeing the results from the next batch of tests. Keep us posted Albert.
02-23-2006, 11:08 AM
#46
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Woodlands, TX
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ALBERT@COLD FUSION
The pulls were performed by the driver and he was operating the kit with a push button not a WOT. That probably caused what you are seeing.
02-23-2006, 11:12 AM
#47
Originally Posted by Bad Habit Bird
Wouldn't it be hard for a driver to activate the kit at exactly the same rpm every pull?
02-23-2006, 11:24 AM
#48
FormerVendor
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wichita Falls,Tx
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why this kind of test would be far more accurate if performed on a computer controlled engine dyno, but as it has been stated already, there are far more chassis dynos than engine dynos that are easily accesible.
As far as the lean spiky issues, I believe that has more to do with fuel delivery. It's not a matter of wether the fuel is atomized or not, but rather a matter of not having enough fuel reaching the cylinders by the time the nitrous is at the cylinders. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here. Lean spikes could be another multi-page thread on it's own, lol.
As far as the lean spiky issues, I believe that has more to do with fuel delivery. It's not a matter of wether the fuel is atomized or not, but rather a matter of not having enough fuel reaching the cylinders by the time the nitrous is at the cylinders. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here. Lean spikes could be another multi-page thread on it's own, lol.
02-23-2006, 11:30 AM
#49
Ok we'll ignore that one then.
One problem I have is that everyone wants to test this stuff on a computer controlled something or other and all this crap, but really who races a NASA certifed dyno?? Doesn't what really matter is if joe blow consumer has better results with the product on his back woods 1/8 mile track that costs less than the dyno??
One problem I have is that everyone wants to test this stuff on a computer controlled something or other and all this crap, but really who races a NASA certifed dyno?? Doesn't what really matter is if joe blow consumer has better results with the product on his back woods 1/8 mile track that costs less than the dyno??
02-23-2006, 11:36 AM
#50
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Woodlands, TX
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe you are correct about the nitrous getting to the cylinders first, the fuel system has to be able to handle the amount of fuel needed. I know the NXL had issues on some cars where all of the fuel went to the nozzles and left the rails dry for a split second so the fuel was going through the nozzles instead of the injectors. It caused a little hesitation in my car when I was testing it out but I did not have access to a wideband at the time to see exactly what was happening.
02-23-2006, 11:41 AM
#51
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Woodlands, TX
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 95ttoplt1
Ok we'll ignore that one then.
One problem I have is that everyone wants to test this stuff on a computer controlled something or other and all this crap, but really who races a NASA certifed dyno?? Doesn't what really matter is if joe blow consumer has better results with the product on his back woods 1/8 mile track that costs less than the dyno??
One problem I have is that everyone wants to test this stuff on a computer controlled something or other and all this crap, but really who races a NASA certifed dyno?? Doesn't what really matter is if joe blow consumer has better results with the product on his back woods 1/8 mile track that costs less than the dyno??
I personally don't see anything wrong with someone wanting proof that an item can reproduce the claimed results.
02-23-2006, 11:44 AM
#52
Originally Posted by Bad Habit Bird
I think people are just wanting accurate test results to determine if they want to spend their hard earned money on a new product. It seems like the testing done thus far has left too many variables on the table to get completely accurate data.
I personally don't see anything wrong with someone wanting proof that an item can reproduce the claimed results.
I personally don't see anything wrong with someone wanting proof that an item can reproduce the claimed results.
02-23-2006, 12:08 PM
#54
FormerVendor
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wichita Falls,Tx
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
95ttoplt1- There's nothing wrong with how you want to test the new product. I personally prefer track results over dyno results. However in this situation everyone is wanting to see accurate results for hp/tq, and I think the only way to do that is to get rid of alot of the variables involved with a chassis dyno which means using a computer controlled engine dyno. It would get rid of human driver error, clutch/converter slippage, tire pressure (this will change hp/tq results on a chassis dyno), and even ambient weather changes. I agree with you though, I would rather just see some track testing and run whatever you feel is good and be happy with it.
02-24-2006, 09:44 AM
#56
From what I see. The graphs show nothing other than the fact it was tested completely wrong.... And hold no proof at all. Am I missing something????
I know that people seem to be missing the fact that airfuel is the most important thing during testing. So is accuaracy. These graphs show neither.
Dave
I know that people seem to be missing the fact that airfuel is the most important thing during testing. So is accuaracy. These graphs show neither.
Dave
02-24-2006, 09:50 AM
#58
Originally Posted by NitrousDirect
Yeah pretty sure you're missing alot
Thank you for not attacking me for posting a question. I have been reading this for days and I am still missing the most needed facts to back the claim posted. Please keep it professional and technical and explain it to me.
Thank You. I like it when we can almost have a grown up conversation
Dave
02-24-2006, 09:55 AM
#59
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I've had some aweome feedback from customers they are seeing differences. I have the data I originally posted from Colf Fusion, plus I'm standing by for the public tests to be done with a members car and hopefully at Hennesey, i like that idea since they are so big, well known, and won't face any consequences from their nitrous vendors etc. I like everypone else can't wait to see the 2nd set of dynos done. Makes sense to me that it flows more, and atomizes better.. <shrug>. But i am slightly baffled at your Tremendous interest because I'm sure no matter how good the nozzle is, you'd never actually purchase one or use it our of spite, so what is your motiviation, just curious.
I always prefer to be professional, and courteous Dave, I don't have the time for bickering and debates.. plus we'd both live alot longer if you just went about your business, and I did the same.
I always prefer to be professional, and courteous Dave, I don't have the time for bickering and debates.. plus we'd both live alot longer if you just went about your business, and I did the same.
02-24-2006, 10:06 AM
#60
Actually if the testing is done correctly this time and provides the needed info to back the statements originaly posted then I will be happy to say good job cold fusion. I always give credit where credit is due.
Since MIke from coldfusion is freinds with John Hennessy he should be able to get a good deal on the dyno time. Pluss they are right down the street from one another. This should make it more convenient.
AS far as me buying one. Well. I buy all kinds of things to tear apart and check out. So I wouldnt be suprised if I buy one of these and do my own testing myself. You would be amazed how many different brands of products we have spent money on to buy and tear apart. Then scrap.
I feel the only real way to know the trutch i sto do it yourself. Unfortintly not everyone has the knowledge to do so. THis is why I am as knowledgeable as I am about certain products...
I will step away now. Thanks you for the nice reply. I will be waiting for the new testing results.
Dave
Since MIke from coldfusion is freinds with John Hennessy he should be able to get a good deal on the dyno time. Pluss they are right down the street from one another. This should make it more convenient.
AS far as me buying one. Well. I buy all kinds of things to tear apart and check out. So I wouldnt be suprised if I buy one of these and do my own testing myself.
You would be amazed how many different brands of products we have spent money on to buy and tear apart. Then scrap. I feel the only real way to know the trutch i sto do it yourself. Unfortintly not everyone has the knowledge to do so. THis is why I am as knowledgeable as I am about certain products...
I will step away now. Thanks you for the nice reply. I will be waiting for the new testing results.
Dave