Phoenix,

Actual #'s can be either higher or lower than SAE. The reason I wanted to know, is because I wanted to know the true potential of the car outside SAE correction. Basically what kind of power it put down on that particular day. So around 300 rwhp on the day you dynoed is damn good!!!!

 

will we in CA be able to run this setup on our stupid 91 octane?

 

The correction factor was very close to 1, if I remember correctly. Due to the cool air that day uncorrected would have been a little higher. When comparing dyno graphs you should always use SAE correction. Since we are always comparing, we always use it.

 

I still have to emphasize the fuel issue. I appreciate that Doug has done many pulls and times with his set-up, but maybe it still isn't enough...?

I say this because even though Greddy and so forth "presumably" put in hours of R&D, their still having issues.

I don't want to find out that after buying the crawford package, that eventually I will "blow" because of fuel issues.

I honestly think this is and should be a "MAJOR" concern to everyone who want to drive a N/A car with more power and wants it RELIABLE too. That's the whole point of going N/A.

If I were you, I would make ABSOLUTELY sure that you're product is safe with the stock fuel system.

Or at least offer an upgraded fuel system as an option for those who are concerned.

Thanks.

PS Not bashing you're product or testing, but realistically you can't everyone's driving habits, yet you want to have a product with as good safetly margin for those cases that drive more aggressively. Probs will occur, but you want to minimize it.

I'm just trying to make sure we get a reliable N/A product and maintain your image of quality products that are safe and reliable.

 

Where did you read this? I would like to read it. Now not having read it nor knowing the context that the whole 10 second rule was used that you guys are referring too, don’t take this the wrong way, but 10 seconds . . .come on.

Between dyno pulls, interstate pulls, State St. pulls, Road course sessions, Dragon (Hwy129) sessions, doughnuts, and back road goofing off, fuel has never given us issues or bothered us (unless it was getting close to "E").

There are many different reasons why the fuel system is not adequate for F/I but suits N/A just fine.

 

It was an article in Sport Z Magazine when they talked to a Grand-Am series team, they stressed the stock fuel system was inadequate for more than 10 seconds for over 300 crank horsepower. I might be able to take a picture of the article and post it later.

 

I have that . . .ok now I know what you are talking about and it does not exactly tell the whole story.

I will see if Doug wants to explain, as he is the expert.

 

how about a video of the car so we can see/hear it?

 

ya, i have heard lots of talk about this article and the "insufficient fuel system", and i'm looking forward to some other informed opinions that address this (issue?).

 

Interesting ...

I think most of the Crawford cars have been over 300 for quite sometime...

What about the straight before turn 8 at Roebling... that and then the main... is that full throttle for more than 10???????

I think that series team might be off on this one...

 

I don't believe that fuel theory at all for N/A applications. I know I have been over 300 crank HP for quite some time and have run multiple 1/4 mile runs with zero issues. FI is a whole different ball game as far as fuel delivery goes. Getting power in N/A form is more about maximizing airflow (increasing efficiency) whereas FI not only increases flow but it also significantly increases air volume. When increasing air volume, you need alot more fuel to maintain a proper A/F ratio.

 

Yeah, it's in the latest sport Z mag..

Looking forward to Doug clearing things up for us.

The mag. apparently interviewed a very reliable source, therefore the reason for mine (and others) concern.

For the record, I think that crawford products are excellent and I trust them because they have been working with the Z since about the time it came out.

They do their own R&D and make quality stuff.

Keep it goin' guys!

 

For anyone interested, the guy saying the fuel system is insufficient (in the Sport Z mag interview) is Jackson Stewart, owner of Unitech Racing and crew chief of the Performance Nissan racing team.

 

The nice thing about this plot is that the OEM torque curve is not comprimised. No mid-range loss for peak gains.

The new curve is about as perfect as one can get. A nice linear climb in HP, and a flat wide TQ band.

 

You guys took me the wrong way . . .for his application I have no doubt in my mind that what he explained was correct. There are so many things that are different between the way GA race cars are built and run when compared to our street cars.

Doug is working within the limits of the stock setup.

 

I was just stating what the magazine said. I know there are quite a few members on this board that are N/A and over that mark and having no fuel problems. I am beginning to think the guy meant F/I...

 

I'm still looking forward to an explanation from Doug. It really will help aleviate fears and sell your product better.

 

The Unitech team has also claimed 350hp (probably at crank). For sustained racing, I would guess they have a legitimate reason to say the stock fuel delivery system is inadequate. I would not expect crawford to deliver aftermarket components that could equal a GA car since they designed for street and the occasional track use.

If you drive your car in a sustained racing environment, yes, maybe you should be concerned about your fuel delivery system.

 

hey, what happens on the dyno below 3.2K rpm?

 

Good point.