01 WS6 vs Modded Mach 1
01-04-2004, 10:09 AM
#81
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brentwood, NH
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
03AV8R....holy cow man, you worked on the America? LOL. That's neat - that was my best tour, and I was quite fond of that ship (didn't hurt that I earned my commission there). I was sad to see it go.
What do you do now? And you are right about too many coinidences....we're a week apart in age.
What do you do now? And you are right about too many coinidences....we're a week apart in age.
01-04-2004, 10:14 AM
#82
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BigBronco
Just wondering bob, but if your car came straight out of the factory and made 40 rwhp more than any other cobra of your year model. would you think it was a freak? i think it would. but oh well just my two cents.
Originally Posted by BigBronco
sorry for such a long and useless post.
01-04-2004, 01:52 PM
#84
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
I don't like to assume either, and I don't agree with the 15% moniker. Rather, I have seen testing back-to-back from an engine dyno to a chassis dyno (NMRA Factory Stock racer friend of mine) that showed a Tremec-equipped 380 flywheel HP engine made 335 RWHP (all SAE corrected, of course). As such, I'd say he is in the ballpark - certainly within the varience you'll see from dyno to dyno and from car to car.
Please....if you have any different testing evidence to offer to the contrary, by all means post it. Have you had your engine on both a chassis and engine dyno? While I disagree with a set percentage, 15% is quite commonly used by even reputable shops and dyno operators. Does that make them "morons" too?
Hmmm...if what he said is "worthless", what does that make your post? Double worthless?
See statement above. At least his input was lucid, constructive, and factually-based.
.
01-04-2004, 03:26 PM
#86
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xphantomws6x
...I'm glad you agree with me that assuming a 15% drivetrain loss is idiotic
I for one, like to use actual facts instead of randomly guessing.
I never claimed to have tested my engine on a chassis and engine dyno, now did I?
I personally believe that anyone who randomly assumes doesn't know what they are talking about, on that particular subject (or else they would know it and therefore would not have to assume) ... so I answer yes to your question, since most of the well reputable shops you are refering to have actually engine/chassis dyno'd a few cars and KNOW the actual drivetrain losses involved.
And just for the record, I also said anyone who assumes is a "retard" ... not a "moron" ... there's a difference.
If you say so ... but that would also make your post Triple Worthless then, wouldn't it?
It was? The only somewhat factual thing out of his mouth was the dyno numbers ... the rest was all garbage.
Originally Posted by xphantomws6x
I'm pretty sure it is safe to say that those mods have dropped a half second ET off of that car, I mean gears or DR's alone will usually produce a 2-3 tenths drop. So this would put that car, stock, around low 13's.
Originally Posted by xphantomws6x
Assumption is the mother of all **** ups. "Assuming" you have a 15% drivetrain loss means you are in fact a retard. Go figure out the actual number, then get back to us.
Originally Posted by xphantomws6x
So the question I pose to you, sir Angus ... Do you just suck at driving, or did you get a factory reject?
Next...
And how about yourself? Have you provided any factual information to this arguement, or have you just been randomly throwing your 2 cents in much as I am?
You have a wonderful evening. I am.
01-04-2004, 03:41 PM
#87
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brentwood, NH
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xphantomws6x
It was? The only somewhat factual thing out of his mouth was the dyno numbers ... the rest was all garbage. .
1.) the 10.1 compression Ratio.. Thats important especially if your concidering boost adders..
2
the 3.55 rear gear.. Important if the car is seeing real track duty.. needs to be changed
01-04-2004, 03:55 PM
#88
Staging Lane
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xphantomws6x
Assumption is the mother of all **** ups. "Assuming" you have a 15% drivetrain loss means you are in fact a retard. Go figure out the actual number, then get back to us.
(Funny that you try & place all the blame of this concept on me, when I most certainly did not initiate or spread this idea to the automotive world...
)Anyways, 15% driveline loss for a manual transmission rwd car is a generally accepted correction - even among LS1 owners.
How do you think all the thousands of LS1 owners came to the conclusion that they're getting more hp than they've paid for? Did they all yank their engines after doing a chassis dyno & then test them again on the engine stand?
NO, they do the exact same thing I did - they take a rwhp dyno figure & divid that number by a correction factor (if they do it right that is..
). I used .85, as my car is a manual trans.(Generally accepted loss value for automatic trans cars is 20 - 25%, depending on whom you're speaking with.)
This - in theory - will provide accurate hp/tq numbers at the crank.
Some use a higher loss figure for manual trans cars - up to 18% - but I chose the low end of the scale, just to be fair.
Truth is - unless the car is dynoed & then the engine is removed & placed on an engine dyno - any standard calculation is bound to be off in one direction or another, as a "standard" correction can never take into account all the possible parts variances in every driveline in every car.
Seriously though - who is going to take the time & expense to take their engine out just to verify the crank hp/tq???
I'm fairly certain that someone did at some point (top fuel or other big-money racers perhaps???),
and the correction factor may have come from that source.
More likely, someone (or a few someone's) just dynoed their car(s), and reverse-calculated a loss factor based on their factory rated crank hp/tq & transmission type.
As more folks did this, a pattern most likely appeared & a driveline loss "range" was born.
Maybe someday, someone (with way more money & time than you or I) will take 100 NEW rwd cars of the same model/engine/options/transmission & dyno them on the same chassis dyno.
Then, they will yank the engines of all 100 cars & run them again on the stand.
This should yield a fairly accurate driveline loss correction factor for that model/engine/trans/options.
I'd personally LOVE to see someone do this, but doubt it will ever come to pass - just too damn expensive.
It would be funny though, if it were found that the LS1 F-bodies simply had amazingly efficient drivelines (maybe 5% loss) & instead of being under-rated, LS1 owners have been getting exactly the advertised hp/tq they paid for all along - no more, no less...
Lastly, I'm not going to yank my motor & dyno it on a stand just to prove you're wrong on the subject.
Why don't you go pull an engine out of one of your cars (that's never been out or need to be taken out) just to see the driveline loss?
Then YOU can report back to ME what the results were?
Originally Posted by xphantomws6x
Obviously ford is going to say that, you jackass, they manufactured the car. RadioShack also says their products work ... do you believe that too? And I am so glad you decided to throw another USELESS piece of information into another of your posts .... just gives me more to abuse you with.
I never said the shaker produced an extra 20 rwhp, or that it reduced 1/4 mile times by .4 seconds.
But to completely disregard the positive effects of a decent ram-air set-up is just not logical.
Hell, I can - and have - picked-up 1+ mph and dropped .1 - .2 consistently just by pulling out my passenger-side headlight.
(I have PLENTY of timeslips that show this too (for those that are interested), as I ran my '01 Cobra down the track ~ 95 times this past season.)
The shaker "should" be worth .05 - .1 or so, as I can clearly see a pattern of dirt from incoming air hitting the filter right at the shaker inlet, just as it's producing the same pattern on the filter at the fenderwell inlet.
Sure does seem as if there's incoming air of a significant velocity there to me...
How 'bout I go to the track, make a few runs with the shaker functioning properly.
Then I'll disconnect the shaker inlet & install a stock GT airbox at the track (it's the same box without the shaker inlet hole), just to see the difference?
Sounds like fun to me...
Originally Posted by xphantomws6x
Wow dude, you really added alot of Rock hard evidence to the REAL stats that were given to us previously .... however, I think you forgot the "uhh I think it feels faster then a GT ... " factoid.
Hows this for a quote:
"The Mach 1 is the most softly sprung of the three cars here, with good weight transfer to plant the rear tires and no danger of wheelspin from the live axle. As Chris put it, "This was the fastest of the three to launch. I could dial in as little or as much wheelspin as I wanted with my big toe."
01-04-2004, 04:06 PM
#89
TECH Senior Member
Holy ****, what's going on???
I always just say that all Mustangs are gay and slow. While untrue, it saves me from getting into huge detailed arguments like this.
I always just say that all Mustangs are gay and slow. While untrue, it saves me from getting into huge detailed arguments like this.
01-04-2004, 04:31 PM
#90
STF Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're all slow.
Doc brown could outrun you in the delorian. Using the flux capacitor, he can run the 0.001second quartermile.
Well, that's assuming that 4banger can actually get up to 88mph by the end of the strip, I doubt it, I don't think he had the turbo model.
Doc brown could outrun you in the delorian. Using the flux capacitor, he can run the 0.001second quartermile.
Well, that's assuming that 4banger can actually get up to 88mph by the end of the strip, I doubt it, I don't think he had the turbo model.
01-04-2004, 04:37 PM
#91
Originally Posted by Angus66
Interesting point you bring up - it seems to be a big bone of contention lately among car enthusiasts looking for the most "correct" possible calculation.
(Funny that you try & place all the blame of this concept on me, when I most certainly did not initiate or spread this idea to the automotive world... )
Anyways, 15% driveline loss for a manual transmission rwd car is a generally accepted correction - even among LS1 owners.
How do you think all the thousands of LS1 owners came to the conclusion that they're getting more hp than they've paid for? Did they all yank their engines after doing a chassis dyno & then test them again on the engine stand?
....
Truth is - unless the car is dynoed & then the engine is removed & placed on an engine dyno - any standard calculation is bound to be off in one direction or another, as a "standard" correction can never take into account all the possible parts variances in every driveline in every car.
Seriously though - who is going to take the time & expense to take their engine out just to verify the crank hp/tq???
I'm fairly certain that someone did at some point (top fuel or other big-money racers perhaps???),
and the correction factor may have come from that source.
(Funny that you try & place all the blame of this concept on me, when I most certainly did not initiate or spread this idea to the automotive world...
)Anyways, 15% driveline loss for a manual transmission rwd car is a generally accepted correction - even among LS1 owners.
How do you think all the thousands of LS1 owners came to the conclusion that they're getting more hp than they've paid for? Did they all yank their engines after doing a chassis dyno & then test them again on the engine stand?
....
Truth is - unless the car is dynoed & then the engine is removed & placed on an engine dyno - any standard calculation is bound to be off in one direction or another, as a "standard" correction can never take into account all the possible parts variances in every driveline in every car.
Seriously though - who is going to take the time & expense to take their engine out just to verify the crank hp/tq???
I'm fairly certain that someone did at some point (top fuel or other big-money racers perhaps???),
and the correction factor may have come from that source.
Now that you have gone through all of this, telling us how you are just using the "accepted" value, and for all you know the drivetrain loss could be 5% instead of 15% blablabla .... don't you agree with me that using a number that has not been verified is pointless?
It would be funny though, if it were found that the LS1 F-bodies simply had amazingly efficient drivelines (maybe 5% loss) & instead of being under-rated, LS1 owners have been getting exactly the advertised hp/tq they paid for all along - no more, no less...
Lastly, I'm not going to yank my motor & dyno it on a stand just to prove you're wrong on the subject.
Why don't you go pull an engine out of one of your cars (that's never been out or need to be taken out) just to see the driveline loss?
Then YOU can report back to ME what the results were?
Why don't you go pull an engine out of one of your cars (that's never been out or need to be taken out) just to see the driveline loss?
Then YOU can report back to ME what the results were?
I can assume you have a metallic purple car .... which may as well be correct .... but without actually seeing your car, and seeing that it is/isn't metallic purple, I would not sit here and tell other people it is.
I never said the shaker produced an extra 20 rwhp, or that it reduced 1/4 mile times by .4 seconds.
But to completely disregard the positive effects of a decent ram-air set-up is just not logical.
Hell, I can - and have - picked-up 1+ mph and dropped .1 - .2 consistently just by pulling out my passenger-side headlight.
But to completely disregard the positive effects of a decent ram-air set-up is just not logical.
Hell, I can - and have - picked-up 1+ mph and dropped .1 - .2 consistently just by pulling out my passenger-side headlight.
Oh btw ... All mustangs are slow. hehe
01-04-2004, 08:37 PM
#92
On The Tree
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
everyone that's posting about Venkmans dyno numbers being possibly skewed or posting about his dyno numbers not being worth much has obviously overlooked his 114 trap speed with just a few small bolt-ons
Oh wait, my bad you own a Ford. Nevermind.
01-06-2004, 05:28 PM
#97
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Not Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
Ok. Venkman, your car is not a factory freak.
How's that? BTW...was this before or after the "new" motor?
You can have or you can be anything you want on the internet. A "stock" car might not be stock at all. Additionally, it is stupidely easy to make a dyno read significantly higher (or lower) than it should - including SAE or STD corrected numbers.
I'm sorry - and believe what you wish - but I do not believe in "freaks".
Again - if one wishes to believe in "freaks", hey, that's up to you. I however do not. To each their own.
How's that? BTW...was this before or after the "new" motor?
You can have or you can be anything you want on the internet. A "stock" car might not be stock at all. Additionally, it is stupidely easy to make a dyno read significantly higher (or lower) than it should - including SAE or STD corrected numbers.
I'm sorry - and believe what you wish - but I do not believe in "freaks".
Again - if one wishes to believe in "freaks", hey, that's up to you. I however do not. To each their own.
2)Care to talk to another member here whos car dynoed 315 with lid and catback right after mine?
3)Care to talk to another member here whos trapping the same MPH as me and he has a 230/224 cam?
4)Care to talk to a modded 03 cobra I ******* bitchslapped from a stoplight in a LS1 that still has stock headers and cats along with no spray, heads, or lope?
5)Care to talk to a friend of mine whos Z28 went 12.7 @ 113 with a MAF and catback and is still on a factory lid?
Just because you dont believe in it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. And for the record, a factory (warranty) replacement motor went in my car. Stock LS1 heads and block.
01-06-2004, 05:43 PM
#98
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with the factory freak hting i've got a 99 trans-am with nothign more than a cat-back exhaust and i've beat a supercharged 92 5.0, 2 2001 camaro ss, 2 99 z28's, and modded 5.0s. Also ran a 13.30 at 109 with passenger and **** for traction. It was using a gtech pro and i'm not real sure how well they work but they're supposed to be within .01 of a second
01-06-2004, 05:57 PM
#99
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good evening.
Sure - post away.
Care to see a dyno of my bone stock 99 Cobra dyno that shows it makes 312 RWHP? Do you believe that? If I show you a dyno would you believe that? If I got the dyno operator to come on here and vouch for it, would you believe that? I mean after all, I've gone 115 mph with that HP - surely something isn't right. Know what I mean, Vern?
Sure. Does it matter?
Sure. Does that matter either? How about a guy with 3.42 gears and only bolt-ons that is going 121 mph? Is his car a "freak" too? Know who I'm talking about? I bet you do.
Eeewww....there you go big man. Now THAT got my attention! You "******* bitchslapped" a "modded" 03 Cobra! You the man!
Please. Spare me. Anything can happen on the street - and even more can happen on an internet message forum.
Pssst....I went quite a bit faster than you with stock headers, cats, no spray, heads, or lope. I'm sorry - you don't impress me. Fortunately, I don't care if I impress you or not. Then again, I never claimed to have a "freak" (but I might after this reply!)
No, why would I want to? Is his car a freak too? "git_sum" says he's got a freak (look just above my response). I talked to Evan Smith (do you know him?) right after he went 12.89 in a 100% stock 98 Z28 back in early 1999. Was that car a "freak"? Gettin a lot of "freaks" around here, aren't we?
Further, see comment just above this one about the internet. Thanks.
Ok. I still think you're full of milk, but if you wish to believe you've got some "wonder-motor" on your hands, then good for you. We'll all clap and give you a hearty slap on the back.
Ya.
Ah, so it wasn't a freak before the "factory replacement motor", but is a freak after? Please tell - I wish to make sure I have it correct.
Further, please tell me what it is that makes your car a freak. Did the factory port the heads? Perhaps the factory slid in an ultra-secret cam? Maybe your heads are milled for compression? Perhaps they installed some domed pistons? What is it? What makes your car this "freak" that makes the same power as a 01 LS6?
Wait! Don't tell me.....you don't know? It just "is".
Things that make you go hmmmmmm.
I wish you a pleasant evening.
Originally Posted by Venkman
1)Care to see my SAE DynoJet graph of my run?
Care to see a dyno of my bone stock 99 Cobra dyno that shows it makes 312 RWHP? Do you believe that? If I show you a dyno would you believe that? If I got the dyno operator to come on here and vouch for it, would you believe that? I mean after all, I've gone 115 mph with that HP - surely something isn't right. Know what I mean, Vern?
Originally Posted by Venkman
2)Care to talk to another member here whos car dynoed 315 with lid and catback right after mine?
Originally Posted by Venkman
3)Care to talk to another member here whos trapping the same MPH as me and he has a 230/224 cam?
Originally Posted by Venkman
4)Care to talk to a modded 03 cobra I ******* bitchslapped from a stoplight in a LS1 that still has stock headers and cats along with no spray, heads, or lope?
Please. Spare me. Anything can happen on the street - and even more can happen on an internet message forum.
Pssst....I went quite a bit faster than you with stock headers, cats, no spray, heads, or lope. I'm sorry - you don't impress me. Fortunately, I don't care if I impress you or not. Then again, I never claimed to have a "freak" (but I might after this reply!)
Originally Posted by Venkman
5)Care to talk to a friend of mine whos Z28 went 12.7 @ 113 with a MAF and catback and is still on a factory lid?
Further, see comment just above this one about the internet. Thanks.
Originally Posted by Venkman
Just because you dont believe in it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Ya.
Originally Posted by Venkman
And for the record, a factory (warranty) replacement motor went in my car. Stock LS1 heads and block.
Further, please tell me what it is that makes your car a freak. Did the factory port the heads? Perhaps the factory slid in an ultra-secret cam? Maybe your heads are milled for compression? Perhaps they installed some domed pistons? What is it? What makes your car this "freak" that makes the same power as a 01 LS6?
Wait! Don't tell me.....you don't know? It just "is".
Things that make you go hmmmmmm.
I wish you a pleasant evening.
01-06-2004, 06:14 PM
#100
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not saying that there are factory freaks that come out of the factory with 50 more horses than other cars because i believe thats bullshit but some cars do run better out of the factory than others, and i'm sure anyone would agree with me on that.