SFR turbo system 640WHP @ 14psi
02-24-2007, 06:15 PM
#101
lets throw out all the dyno numbers!!
trap speeds dont lie!!
sharif made some claims with his car then trapped 132, thats an AWESOME trap speed so his car is making some serious power. lets get more of these cars to the track. you cant use any corrections to get a higher trap speed
trap speeds dont lie!!
sharif made some claims with his car then trapped 132, thats an AWESOME trap speed so his car is making some serious power. lets get more of these cars to the track. you cant use any corrections to get a higher trap speed
02-24-2007, 07:19 PM
#102
Originally Posted by TurboTim
I think 519WHP is highly inaccurate and please let me explain why.My stock motor car with stock everything except for the turbos systemand 3" exhaust made 440WHP @ 8.5 psi, 456WHP @ 9.5 psi and 476WHP at 10.4psi on the Dynojet at 750ft elevation.With a very conservative tune I might add because 20+K miles later my car is still running strong. I made these numbers on a couple different occasions in front of some of these guys on the boards.From 8.5 to 9.5 psi my car made an additional 16WHP. From 9.5 toi 10.4 it made an addtional 20 WHP.Notice the horsepower is now increasing per psi of boost because the turbos are getting into their peak efficiency zone.With that being said, my car with an additonal 3.6 psi of boost would theoretically make 548WHP at 14 psi of boost.
So now we have Kevins car.It has a built motor which doesnt mean much except that it is stronger and possibly has less rotational mass. Compression ratio of 10.3 to 1 from the stock motor to his 9.6 to 1 is very minor. But he has a ligthweight flywheel and clutch. He has an upper plenum, He has cams,he has a Utec which gives you a much better ability to tune with then the SS box since you can actually advance timing instead of just being able to retard timing with the SS box.So with this being said,there is no way in hell his car would only make 40 more horsepower then my car with all the extra components which have been proven to make power on N/A and FI car and running almost 4 psi more boost.It is just impossible.
So now we have Kevins car.It has a built motor which doesnt mean much except that it is stronger and possibly has less rotational mass. Compression ratio of 10.3 to 1 from the stock motor to his 9.6 to 1 is very minor. But he has a ligthweight flywheel and clutch. He has an upper plenum, He has cams,he has a Utec which gives you a much better ability to tune with then the SS box since you can actually advance timing instead of just being able to retard timing with the SS box.So with this being said,there is no way in hell his car would only make 40 more horsepower then my car with all the extra components which have been proven to make power on N/A and FI car and running almost 4 psi more boost.It is just impossible.
Now that's what i call ricer math. You are discounting the fact taht there a lot of variables in tuning. A single degree of timing at those power levels will make 14-22 hp gain, depending on static compression. Who is to say that the timing was identical.
Again, if oyu had understood what i wrote (or read it), Kevin's car with 14 psi of boost at 5800' elevation is the same as you running about 11.2psi at 740' elevation (or 10.8 at sea level). So, if you made 476hp at 10.4 psi, do you not think that 519hp is as good an estimate as you can make for 11.2 psi, given all these other variables? You would definitely be there with another 1 degree of timing. Numbers make PERFECT sense at 519.
My whole reason for saying all these things is that IMO the vendors should be kept to a higher standard. Regardless of what i think of Tim personally, you cannot dispute me on the facts.
02-24-2007, 07:29 PM
#103
Originally Posted by Audible Mayhem
lets throw out all the dyno numbers!!
trap speeds dont lie!!
sharif made some claims with his car then trapped 132, thats an AWESOME trap speed so his car is making some serious power. lets get more of these cars to the track. you cant use any corrections to get a higher trap speed
trap speeds dont lie!!
sharif made some claims with his car then trapped 132, thats an AWESOME trap speed so his car is making some serious power. lets get more of these cars to the track. you cant use any corrections to get a higher trap speed
Agreed.....like the 1/4 mile or not, trap speeds don't lie! You can bench race dyno numbers are day long and get nowhere, but trap speeds are a fantastic indicator of Horsepower.
02-25-2007, 10:27 AM
#104
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
Now that's what i call ricer math. You are discounting the fact taht there a lot of variables in tuning. A single degree of timing at those power levels will make 14-22 hp gain, depending on static compression. Who is to say that the timing was identical.
Again, if oyu had understood what i wrote (or read it), Kevin's car with 14 psi of boost at 5800' elevation is the same as you running about 11.2psi at 740' elevation (or 10.8 at sea level). So, if you made 476hp at 10.4 psi, do you not think that 519hp is as good an estimate as you can make for 11.2 psi, given all these other variables? You would definitely be there with another 1 degree of timing. Numbers make PERFECT sense at 519.
My whole reason for saying all these things is that IMO the vendors should be kept to a higher standard. Regardless of what i think of Tim personally, you cannot dispute me on the facts.
Again, if oyu had understood what i wrote (or read it), Kevin's car with 14 psi of boost at 5800' elevation is the same as you running about 11.2psi at 740' elevation (or 10.8 at sea level). So, if you made 476hp at 10.4 psi, do you not think that 519hp is as good an estimate as you can make for 11.2 psi, given all these other variables? You would definitely be there with another 1 degree of timing. Numbers make PERFECT sense at 519.
My whole reason for saying all these things is that IMO the vendors should be kept to a higher standard. Regardless of what i think of Tim personally, you cannot dispute me on the facts.
02-25-2007, 10:29 AM
#105
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by QuadCam
Agreed.....like the 1/4 mile or not, trap speeds don't lie! You can bench race dyno numbers are day long and get nowhere, but trap speeds are a fantastic indicator of Horsepower.
, ... i dunno what the chances of that are right now/this time of year?? 
02-25-2007, 10:42 AM
#106
Registered User
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Evergreen, Colorado
Posts: 1,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NoLimit
it'd be nice to see if he could go to the track , ... i dunno what the chances of that are right now/this time of year??
, ... i dunno what the chances of that are right now/this time of year?? I would think the driver, traction, track conditions, and track altitude would be even more of a variable than dyno pissing matches. I don't spend every single weekend at the track chasing #s tho either!
90% of the strip drivers on the forum could run my car better than I could down the track.
IMHO, I don't think track times are a "factory standard" or even a rule of thumb for a cars motor performance?
but... what the hell do I know?
Kevin
02-25-2007, 11:18 AM
#107
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kevinapex
The local qt. mile track is closed until mid. April.
I would think the driver, traction, track conditions, and track altitude would be even more of a variable than dyno pissing matches. I don't spend every single weekend at the track chasing #s tho either!
90% of the strip drivers on the forum could run my car better than I could down the track.
IMHO, I don't think track times are a "factory standard" or even a rule of thumb for a cars motor performance?
but... what the hell do I know?
Kevin
I would think the driver, traction, track conditions, and track altitude would be even more of a variable than dyno pissing matches. I don't spend every single weekend at the track chasing #s tho either!
90% of the strip drivers on the forum could run my car better than I could down the track.
IMHO, I don't think track times are a "factory standard" or even a rule of thumb for a cars motor performance?
but... what the hell do I know?
Kevin
i wouldn't worry about it too much though, .. you've got a bad a$$ ride any way you look at it!!
02-25-2007, 11:37 AM
#108
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pueblo West, CO
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Coleman QUOTE.
Corrected numbers, on the other hand, can be suspect in certain cases as well. Turbocharged cars running at high altitude, for example, might be more accurately represented by uncorrected numbers. Say you are testing an FD3S RX-7 in Denver, where the elevation is approximately 5,000 feet. Shiv Pathak, master of our FD3S RX-7 project, reports that he always sees higher boost levels at high altitude. The reason is simple. The wastegate opens when boost is 12 psi higher than the normal sea-level reference air behind the wastegate actuator diaphragm (air that has been stuck in there ever since the diaphragm was sealed somewhere in Hiroshima). As the air density drops at high altitude, the actual pressure in the boosted intake manifold remains constant. The boost gauge, though, reads pounds of boost over ambient pressure. If the ambient air pressure in Hiroshima was 14.5 psi when that diaphragm was sealed, but it is only 13.5 psi when Shiv drives through the mountains, his boost gauge will read 1 psi higher than normal.
The SAE correction factor used by Dynojet assumes that lower air pressure at the sensor box means lower air pressure in the intake manifold, though, so at 5,000 feet the dyno is applying a 20-percent correction factor to compensate for a loss of air density that the engine never sees. This is fine if you are doing all your tests in Denver, but if you do one test in Denver and one test in New Orleans (the highest mountain in New Orleans is 12 feet above sea level) uncorrected numbers will be more accurate.
The SAE correction factors are only accurate over a relatively limited range, and the Dynojet software is smart enough to warn you when two runs with wildly different correction factors are being compared. The software in New Orleans can't check your glovebox for that last dyno printout from Denver, though, so you'll have to warn yourself.
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/ed..._technobabble/
Truth is probably more in the middle. If you could get the dyno correction factor to include the tempature correction but not the pressure correction you would be alot closer to the truth probably. I don't really care. I think the HP curve on his dyno is the best I have seen in a long time. Less low end torque and a smooth curve really helps low traction cars hook up. I have a friend with a big turbo on a FWD SR20 that traps @ 129mph (on street tires) but still maintains traction in 1st gear because his Big *** Turbo is not fully spooled in first gear. On a roadcourse revs are high enough to not be a issue. Of course too big is a sudden hit and thats a problem as well.
Corrected numbers, on the other hand, can be suspect in certain cases as well. Turbocharged cars running at high altitude, for example, might be more accurately represented by uncorrected numbers. Say you are testing an FD3S RX-7 in Denver, where the elevation is approximately 5,000 feet. Shiv Pathak, master of our FD3S RX-7 project, reports that he always sees higher boost levels at high altitude. The reason is simple. The wastegate opens when boost is 12 psi higher than the normal sea-level reference air behind the wastegate actuator diaphragm (air that has been stuck in there ever since the diaphragm was sealed somewhere in Hiroshima). As the air density drops at high altitude, the actual pressure in the boosted intake manifold remains constant. The boost gauge, though, reads pounds of boost over ambient pressure. If the ambient air pressure in Hiroshima was 14.5 psi when that diaphragm was sealed, but it is only 13.5 psi when Shiv drives through the mountains, his boost gauge will read 1 psi higher than normal.
The SAE correction factor used by Dynojet assumes that lower air pressure at the sensor box means lower air pressure in the intake manifold, though, so at 5,000 feet the dyno is applying a 20-percent correction factor to compensate for a loss of air density that the engine never sees. This is fine if you are doing all your tests in Denver, but if you do one test in Denver and one test in New Orleans (the highest mountain in New Orleans is 12 feet above sea level) uncorrected numbers will be more accurate.
The SAE correction factors are only accurate over a relatively limited range, and the Dynojet software is smart enough to warn you when two runs with wildly different correction factors are being compared. The software in New Orleans can't check your glovebox for that last dyno printout from Denver, though, so you'll have to warn yourself.
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/ed..._technobabble/
Truth is probably more in the middle. If you could get the dyno correction factor to include the tempature correction but not the pressure correction you would be alot closer to the truth probably. I don't really care. I think the HP curve on his dyno is the best I have seen in a long time. Less low end torque and a smooth curve really helps low traction cars hook up. I have a friend with a big turbo on a FWD SR20 that traps @ 129mph (on street tires) but still maintains traction in 1st gear because his Big *** Turbo is not fully spooled in first gear. On a roadcourse revs are high enough to not be a issue. Of course too big is a sudden hit and thats a problem as well.
Last edited by 98sr20ve; 02-25-2007 at 11:45 AM.
02-25-2007, 02:14 PM
#109
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by TurboTim
So what correction should be used then? The car did make this power or at least really close to this power and there is no disputing it.
No correction. Get the car near sea level and do some pulls and then you'll see what kind of power it REALLY makes.
The car DIDN'T make that power...it was CORRECTED. Do you even know what that means? Seems like you need to read Gurgens schooling of you on corrected dynos with turbo cars at elevation again.
And please lay off the ricer math of "I made this much power at this boost level...so he should make that much power at that boost level."
02-25-2007, 02:25 PM
#110
Originally Posted by NoLimit
Since you're the 'math wiz', .... what would 22psi 'be' at 1120 Ft above sea level??? I didn't see you take that into account on all the gtm threads...
Again, I still say that the best way to go is to use uncorrected numbers.
Now, if the software had a custom correction capability, one can devise (and in fact I have already) a percentage correction for the different PR (pressure ratio), namely, the chnage in compressor efficiency over a given PR delta.
That in this case would be about 4% or so, deoending on the turbo. A full compressor flow diagram analysis is needed for greater precision.
02-25-2007, 03:05 PM
#111
Registered User
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Evergreen, Colorado
Posts: 1,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
Well, I assume you are referring to GTM's dyno...that dyno is 940', and correction there is about 2.9%, NOT 23%like it is at 5800' above sea level.
Again, I still say that the best way to go is to use uncorrected numbers.
Now, if the software had a custom correction capability, one can devise (and in fact I have already) a percentage correction for the different PR (pressure ratio), namely, the chnage in compressor efficiency over a given PR delta.
That in this case would be about 4% or so, deoending on the turbo. A full compressor flow diagram analysis is needed for greater precision.
Again, I still say that the best way to go is to use uncorrected numbers.
Now, if the software had a custom correction capability, one can devise (and in fact I have already) a percentage correction for the different PR (pressure ratio), namely, the chnage in compressor efficiency over a given PR delta.
That in this case would be about 4% or so, deoending on the turbo. A full compressor flow diagram analysis is needed for greater precision.
Bro, I'm just being silly!
Kevin
02-25-2007, 03:18 PM
#112
Registered User
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
No correction. Get the car near sea level and do some pulls and then you'll see what kind of power it REALLY makes.
The car DIDN'T make that power...it was CORRECTED. Do you even know what that means? Seems like you need to read Gurgens schooling of you on corrected dynos with turbo cars at elevation again.
And please lay off the ricer math of "I made this much power at this boost level...so he should make that much power at that boost level."
The car DIDN'T make that power...it was CORRECTED. Do you even know what that means? Seems like you need to read Gurgens schooling of you on corrected dynos with turbo cars at elevation again.
And please lay off the ricer math of "I made this much power at this boost level...so he should make that much power at that boost level."
02-25-2007, 03:23 PM
#113
Originally Posted by kevinapex
I bet Gurgen is a real pain in the a ss when it comes time to divi up the bill and figuer the tip after dinner!!
Bro, I'm just being silly!
Kevin
Bro, I'm just being silly!
Kevin
Trust me that's not the case. We usually alternate paying the bill (in whole) anyway when we are among friends.
Kevin, I am not for taking away from a fellow FIer. I have learned a long time ago that the insane amount of misinformation on these forums can truly hurt people and their wallets (as far as FI implementation goes). I am here in part to keep things straight and honest that's all. Although at times my emotions (i.e. animosity for particular vendors) gets the better of me, given my track record of getting unknowingly involved with unscrupulous dealers/vendors. Hence, incompetence has gotten to be a pet peeve of mine. Hope everyone understands.
02-25-2007, 03:31 PM
#115
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
No correction. Get the car near sea level and do some pulls and then you'll see what kind of power it REALLY makes.
The car DIDN'T make that power...it was CORRECTED. Do you even know what that means? Seems like you need to read Gurgens schooling of you on corrected dynos with turbo cars at elevation again.
And please lay off the ricer math of "I made this much power at this boost level...so he should make that much power at that boost level."
The car DIDN'T make that power...it was CORRECTED. Do you even know what that means? Seems like you need to read Gurgens schooling of you on corrected dynos with turbo cars at elevation again.
And please lay off the ricer math of "I made this much power at this boost level...so he should make that much power at that boost level."
Exactly... I layed it out assimple as I can. But hte subject is a little complex, takes a little thinking.
Thanks for backing me up.
ATCs/pilots stick together...lol
02-25-2007, 03:38 PM
#116
Registered User
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
No he posted the STD correction, which is about the same as SAE.
02-25-2007, 07:15 PM
#119
dynojet has about 5 correction factors built in, the most popular is STD because it usually shows 1-2% higher numbers, SAE has been deemed the industry standard for comparison but it reads a bit lower.
uncorrected will be good on a cool day and bad on a hot day...
the other couple corrections arent ever used
uncorrected will be good on a cool day and bad on a hot day...
the other couple corrections arent ever used
02-25-2007, 07:54 PM
#120
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pueblo West, CO
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kevinapex
Almost not even worth going FI in Co, due to the dyno de-rating factor at this altitude, a turbo might give you less rwh than factory stock!
. If you come to Pueblo to run hit me up. I would like to go myself.