ajrothm

So 550lbs tq at 3500 rpms is lazy? And 750lbs tq at 4000 is lazy? You can't be serious.

First off id like to compare that to a front mount/twin setup, I'd be willing to be there is not much difference in spool/power in that rpm range.

Secondly, who actually ever races below 4000rpms? If the rest of your **** is right, you'll never be below 4000 rpms in a race.

I think ZGlass' kit is very impressive....especially for only 17 psi.

ajrothm

FWIW.. Here is a TTIX, twin/front mount setup on a 346".. Compare the 4000 rpm numbers to ZGlass' rear mount single and tell me what you see..



And that's with a kit at 25 psi so the peak power is much more... Spool time/doesn't seem any better to me...less then 2000 rpm of range. Both making 17 psi by 4000... Pretty much identical down low I'd say...

If ZGlass cranked his to 25psi, I bet he'd break 900-950rwhp.. Pretty good numbers, decent spool... And not $12k to build/purchase.. I'd call that a win.

erickcastillo95

iTrader: (1)

nice fast car

audacious nick

Omg, comparing a single dyno graph and it applies for all twin turbo cars?
While his is better than most, I'm not buying the bs. Sorry.
And also, it's all about driving experience. Racing is one thing, but when you want to drive around and have some boost, which will lag more?

ZGLASS

iTrader: (11)

My car actually made that graph at 16 lbs on the scanner not almost 18. I have a gragh of a built c6z with twins making almost the same tq curve as mine. We debunked any myth of rear mounts. And that was the plan. Ps I see boost at 2200 rpms in 4th gear. Full boost well before 4k on a 5.3. So it spools instant on the street.

ZGLASS

iTrader: (11)

My car has no lag bet it spools faster then any car you have seen. Ps more boost next week!

audacious nick

Sweet, post results.

ZGLASS

iTrader: (11)

Spools way faster and harder on the street. Idk what lag he is talking about in the chart though. Spools faster then pretty much any kit on a 5.7 I have seen. Using a smaller motor.

ZGLASS

iTrader: (11)

Why don't you look at my build and see why its working so well before you just put down Results that are legit.

audacious nick

Because it is well-done. But it's still inferior to a front mount, for the exact reasons I listed.
No matter what you try to say, the laws of thermodynamics prove you wrong.

Deukalions14

Out of curiosity, how many of you are making statements based on personal experience VS what you read, saw, or presume to be accurate information?

I am personally going with a front mounted set up for my Camaro, but I wouldn't knock anyone's set up without either having a "superior" set up that has been compared to the said set up. This mess reminds me of EvoM back when I had an Evo that made 810whp and 699tq with 2.3 and 3586 on 47psi. Everyone doubted me until I took third at a dyno event and posted said numbers. Yeah, I'm a noob to the domestic world, but what makes QB posters think they can bust on a guy with a working set up? I guess things are no different wherever you go.

BTW, nice set up ZGLASS. I hope I make around 750-780whp with the PTE7675 set up I'm going with.

audacious nick

There is a difference between setting up something correctly and making power, and arguing the laws of thermodynamics because you can compare your results with some random Person's results and therefore your setup is equivalent to that of a front mount setup or mid-mount. We will just forget about heat loss, etc!

01MagredC5

iTrader: (1)

Sorry, I should have also thrown in there that I am speaking from direct experience. My old setup on my car was 793/679. I have a 99 FRC with a built MN12 tranny. I had no problem running down a stock liter bike. I want to reiterate that these are STOCK or very mildly modded liter bikes. Remember, it's not just about a dyno graph...but typically for a C5, it takes close to 800RWHP to do it within reason. What I mean by that is I am passing them at 135-140...not 160.

See above comment.

01MagredC5

iTrader: (1)

I would call audacious nick an idiot...but that is not what he is. He is simply mis-informed/ignorant on what a good power band is in a C5.

AJ, do you think he would bash Ricky's dyno graph? He probably would run his mouth about that one also until we told him Ricky ran a 9.16@152 through a 6-speed...lol.

ZGLASS

iTrader: (11)

This is a c6z built motor on a ttx kit. Tq curve looks pretty damn similair to mine. IDK 5.3 rear mount with a tq curve of a twin turbo 427 seems pretty legit to me?


built/ttx c6z



stock block 5.3/rear mount single turbo.

sw07gt

iTrader: (10)

I need to dig up my dyno sheet from my 5.3 with a 7675, you're car is close but it's still not as efficient as a front mount setup and never will be. Oh and if you guys are try to talk up rear mounts, Paul Majors rear mount C5 went well into the 6s. Of course he switched to a front mount setup and went faster but it's what ever.

stockz

What happen to car people? In the old days people would see a kickin car like Zglass and want to check it out run it, give props to the owner and enjoy a killer car, Love the American flag btw.

Now, especially on a GM board, people want to throw others under a bus or come up with, your stuff aint as good as mine/whom ever's stuff.???? (We expect that from FORD guys, lol) but geeezz, the young not real car people show up here in force!!

Go ZGLASS, GO Fast, Go Real Car People.

ajrothm

SO thermo dynamics wins races..... GOT IT....


01MagRedC5, Ricky's car does not meet the thermodynamic requirements for this thread.... So lets leave bottom bottom 9 sec stick cars with a 346" engines with stock heads/intakes/baby cams out of this.... His boost obviously comes in waaayyy too late for this thread.

islander033

2StepsAhead

Internet ruined the car scene around here, all everyone (by everyone I mean kids with 12 second and slower cars) does around here is compare your real world experience with record cars from the internet and tell you how you're doing it wrong. Ignoring their own under-performing cars of course.