500rwhp 11psi stock motor
I can list the people who made 450+ on stock internals, and none of them, including me ever blew a motor, but all are in the process of building or have sold their cars. I will agree that tuning will be the ultimate key, but it appears that other issues such as the crank angle wire and tuning may be to blame for the piles of mangled motors.
I think all will agree that for longevity, safety and high boost applications, forged internals is the way to go, not to mention the whimpy rods, but I must give credit where it is due.....
Very ballsy... and GREAT NUMBERS!!!!
I think all will agree that for longevity, safety and high boost applications, forged internals is the way to go, not to mention the whimpy rods, but I must give credit where it is due.....
Very ballsy... and GREAT NUMBERS!!!!
Originally posted by t32gzz
I think all will agree that for longevity, safety and high boost applications, forged internals is the way to go, not to mention the whimpy rods, but I must give credit where it is due.....
I think all will agree that for longevity, safety and high boost applications, forged internals is the way to go, not to mention the whimpy rods, but I must give credit where it is due.....
holy christ on a stick.
that is awesome.
where are you at in the chicago area? i think i might have to journey to charles' shop if you get that bad boy on the dyno..
and yes, with proper tuning, engines can handle a lot more power..... and that is something i have said many times... $1000 on dyno time is much better than having to rebuild an engine. both for the performance aspect and the not having to rebuild
that is awesome.
where are you at in the chicago area? i think i might have to journey to charles' shop if you get that bad boy on the dyno..
and yes, with proper tuning, engines can handle a lot more power..... and that is something i have said many times... $1000 on dyno time is much better than having to rebuild an engine. both for the performance aspect and the not having to rebuild
Understand the difference in scales.. However, wherever they cross don't they have to be equal? (Hp must = Tq at that point) If not why not? If they have to be equal and they are not then the scale absolute values are suspect.. Thanks
Originally posted by ss350
The Hp scale on the left is different from the tq scale on the right. The explanation is as simple as that. There is nothing "suspect" about the graph. Get over it! If the hp and tq scales were the same then they would cross at 5XXX (w/e the # is).
The Hp scale on the left is different from the tq scale on the right. The explanation is as simple as that. There is nothing "suspect" about the graph. Get over it! If the hp and tq scales were the same then they would cross at 5XXX (w/e the # is).
Originally posted by jpc350z
Understand the difference in scales.. However, wherever they cross don't they have to be equal? (Hp must = Tq at that point) If not why not? If they have to be equal and they are not then the scale absolute values are suspect.. Thanks
Understand the difference in scales.. However, wherever they cross don't they have to be equal? (Hp must = Tq at that point) If not why not? If they have to be equal and they are not then the scale absolute values are suspect.. Thanks
Because the scale is different for the torque curve, it lays on top of the HP graph differently than it would if they both topped out at the same number.
Make sense?
Originally posted by kcobean
If you look at the graph, the top of the torque scale is 462.4, where the top of the HP graph is 509.8. If you take the Torque graph and "squash it" so that the top of the torque graph (462.4) is horizontally in line with the 462.4 mark on the HP graph, you would see that the lines intersect in the 52xx range.
Because the scale is different for the torque curve, it lays on top of the HP graph differently than it would if they both topped out at the same number.
Make sense?
If you look at the graph, the top of the torque scale is 462.4, where the top of the HP graph is 509.8. If you take the Torque graph and "squash it" so that the top of the torque graph (462.4) is horizontally in line with the 462.4 mark on the HP graph, you would see that the lines intersect in the 52xx range.
Because the scale is different for the torque curve, it lays on top of the HP graph differently than it would if they both topped out at the same number.
Make sense?
Originally posted by calimarc
Great explanation...I even "get it" now. Thanks for taking the time to clarify a question. These boards are meant for learning
Great explanation...I even "get it" now. Thanks for taking the time to clarify a question. These boards are meant for learning

(Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower
Originally posted by Enron Exec
Words are by nature arbitrary. Numbers are definate.
(Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower
Words are by nature arbitrary. Numbers are definate.

(Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower
Bring on the scientific formulas!
Last edited by calimarc; Jan 27, 2005 at 02:00 PM.
Originally posted by mofoz
awesome. chicago seems like the place to be for high hp 350z engines
awesome. chicago seems like the place to be for high hp 350z engines
Seems the F-con pro [ in the right hands ] is the ultimate tuning salution . There is a shop in town here , trying to get a dealership . If they do , even with my little SC ,Im going to try to get it .
I can make good power with the Split second piggyback . Thats not the problem . I live in Nebraska , extreme weather changes . Having to put in different maps for the weather isnt good and will never be the exact tune needed at that time . From what Ive read , the F-con pro is a tune it and forget it salution . It makes changes just as your cars stock ECU does for N/A cars . If Im wrong on this...some one correct me please !
Last edited by booger; Jan 27, 2005 at 05:20 PM.
Originally posted by booger
It makes changes just as your cars stock ECU does for N/A cars . If Im wrong on this...some one correct me please !
It makes changes just as your cars stock ECU does for N/A cars . If Im wrong on this...some one correct me please !
Peter
Last edited by APS; Jan 27, 2005 at 08:06 PM.



