Because the MAP has no idea where you are...it does NOT need to know what the ambient is because it doesn't matter, all that matters is total amount of air in the manifold, MAP (manifold absolute pressure). Utec and MANY other devices use a MAP sensor for engine management, but as you know many will display NOT the total pressure, but pressure above or below 14.7psi, for easy user reference. The only way it would know the true pressure is if it registered it after you turn on ignition but BEFORE you start your car, where there is no throttle plate-induced vacuum. No EMS does this , because, as I said, for EMS the only thing that matters is MAP, not relative pressure. Relative pressure is only for easy user reference (i.e. how much boost you are running). Hence there is no throwing off of any calculations, all that matters is MAP!

You are mentioning gauge starting to measure from -0.7psi... that's what I am referencing above. Gauge pressure doesn't matter...the only time gauge pressure comes into the equation is turbo wastegate pressure control. Wastegate springs are controlled by gauge pressure....hence the true boost (over correct ambient) doesn;t change with elevation is you are relying on wastegate springs alone. Whatever the ambient pressure is, it just gives you X amount of boost (because remember the same ambient pressure is present on either side of the wastegate door itself, so the ambient is cancelled). the explanation can get more complicated than that, if you take into account EGR, specific exhaust backpressure, etc... So, to this end, MAP-derived relative pressure is NOT true gauge pressure, unless it has a "zeroing" algorithm built in. The only one that does is the Innovate! Motorsports LMA-3 ("AuxBox") MAP sensor. Again, all this gauge pressure doesn't matter for EMS, only for us when we talk about "boost".

Whether he uses an electronic boost controller or not, if you reference psi of absolute that's all you will need to compare car performances across the board.

 

I don't want to highjack the thread and take away from Kevin's car... Even at 600whp, it's an awesome setup.

Kevin, how did you come by the 18psi number...did you read it from your EMS?

 

Interesting enough. Props to the car, the kit is very sexy, and makes power up top! Run it at the 1/4 mile see how it does!

 

Thanks Gurgen, yes the 18 psi was logged through the Utec.
Kevin

 

The car is sick no matter what final numbers it puts down, great job

That being said I lived at roughly 2800ft elevation and was NA for a long while.....my track times were obviosly slower and the NHRA has an official correction factor for that

If you notice the "forced induction" corrections its much much smaller...they simply arent as effected by elevation....the turbos just work harder to make the same boost levels with less atmospheric pressure to work with at the begining

Once this beast hits Bandi and runs say 11.5...you can use the NHRA correction factor for Bandi and at least compare slips somewhat --- a much more accurate way to compare power vs DYnos....not perfect but at least better

Obviously at 740whp the car might even do 10's with traction so its all relative....the trap should be a good indicator of power levels with an accurate weigh in

The proof will be in the pudding and I wish him the best of luck!

 

There you go Kevin, so that means you were running about 32.7 psi (14.7+18) absolute, but your ambient being about 12, you were actually running 20.7lbs of boost. So, at sea level you would have run 18psi with that setup...so remember those numbers 20.7psi is 18 psi at sea level, if read from the Utec.

Good luck, awesome setup.... 600whp at 18lbs at sea level is about right...but your torque curve rocks.

 

Gurgen...thanks for the rundown...now I need not draft a response to tim's post.

 

Oh yes you do because Gurgen ducked and dodged around my response and then proceeded to call me an amature.Gurgen,you need to know who you are dealing with before you start calling me an amature. I have personally built and tuned over 100 cars with my own hands and there are at least 4 or 5, one thousand horsepower cars that I have built. If you want to see if I am an amature, I challenge you and Bri to a build off against me. We can build two cars here in my shop.You can have access to any tools,computers or machines that is required to build a motor and turbo system from scratch.Everything gets made from scratch(good luck designing a turbo system or maching your block and head,or even assemblying it for that matter).The motors get machined here and built here and the cars get tuned across the street on a Dyno Dynamics.If you two can beat me in any way shape of form,I will hand over my twin turbo Z to you guys.So dont ever call me an amature unless you want your *** embarrassed.And if you think you are better then me then put your money where your mouth is, dude!

14.7 psi is atmospheric pressure and any thing over that is your actual boost pressure.Or 100 KPA is the same as 14.7 atmospheric just so you know I am familiar with what you are saying. I prefer not to get to technical because nobody knows what the hell you are talking about when you do get that technical.Orignally you two sat there and said the correction doesnt apply to cars at elevation and then I posted links to two charts that were done at 950ft and at 5800ft and the outcomes was the same on a corrected Dynojet........... and now the debate is about how much boost the car is making.The car made 19.9 psi at alititude.So the car is (give or take 25 horsepower is what I figure the real correction should be) 740WHP at roughly 20 psi.I can accept that because according to my math that is what the car should make withthese turbos and the amount of boost he is running.Remember we dont have to contend with tremendous back pressure issues or excessivly high EGTs.We can make more power per psi of boost then any of the turbos that are in any of the turbo systems out there,period!

 

BS.Turismo just dynoed at 18 psi at Jotech and he made 640 WHP at
5800 rpms(which is not even where peak power is made on this turbo kit) before they had to shut down because of some problem with the boost falling off.

 

Alright, if you insist. You used that JWT car as an example and claimed that it made the same corrected power at SL and up at elevation, which is in fact NOT TRUE per the dyno sheet that Sam provided. It made more power at elevation with correction which invalidates your point completely. YOU now claim that we are exaggerating the difference that correction makes at altitude when before you were willing to bet me money that a car in question would make the same amount of power at SL as it did with correction at elevation. My point which you proved for me (thank you), was that SAE or STD correction factors DO NOT correctly determine what a boosted car makes power wise when preformed at elevation. A 26whp difference is not "nearly identical" on a car that only makes mid 300s and will be even more inflated on a powerful car. Not to mention the car was run with the cam sensors unattached during the runs at elevation and who knows how that actually affected the outcome.


Are you kidding?? Neither Gurgen or myself have any fabrication or engine building experience. Neither of which has anything to do with posessing a grasp of physics (which I do have experience with).

We don't want to sit here and listen to you brag about cars that you've built.

 

Alright, if you insist. You used that JWT car as an example and claimed that it made the same corrected power at SL and up at elevation, which is in fact NOT TRUE per the dyno sheet that Sam provided.


Oh its not.He post two charts.one right out of the box and it made 369 and on withthe final tune whichmade 344.the car dynoed at elevation and the charts shows 367.so how am I wrong?please explain further.


It made more power at elevation with correction which invalidates your point completely. YOU now claim that we are exaggerating the difference that correction makes at altitude when before you were willing to bet me money that a car in question would make the same amount of power at SL as it did with correction at elevation.


Kevins car will be within 25 horsepower at sea level is my prediction.


My point which you proved for me (thank you), was that SAE or STD correction factors DO NOT correctly determine what a boosted car makes power wise when preformed at elevation. A 26whp difference is not "nearly identical" on a car that only makes mid 300s and will be even more inflated on a powerful car.



The 26 horsepower was after a tune.You cannot discard the fact that the car made 369. I dont care about the tune from that standpoint just the numbers!


Not to mention the car was run with the cam sensors unattached during the runs at elevation and who knows how that actually affected the outcome.




Are you kidding?? Neither Gurgen or myself have any fabrication or engine building experience. Neither of which has anything to due with posessing a grasp of physics (which I do have experience with).

We don't want to sit here and listen to you brag about cars that you've built.[/QUOTE]


The dont read this thread dude! Hit ignore! Becuase frankly I am sick of both of you. I understand neither of you have fabricating or engine building experience but I do.I also have vast knowledge in tuning since I have tuned Haltech,Autronics, Electromotive, Power FC, Accel DFI, Utec, Motec,Microtech,Wolf and all sorts of other piggyback systems. If Gurgen wants to sit here and say I am an amature and you and him are both going at me from every which way, I will call you both out! Its that simple. I have been pushed around and discredited for the last time from you two. Gurgen had peviously stated that I would have a hard time figuring out how to make twin throttlebodies and twin MAFS work with the VQ ECU and low and behold the car is running.Take a look at the videos in the FI section, Gurgen..How did I do that? Did I defy the laws of physics and electronics as you know it?

One of my friends/customer has devised a way to increase gas mileage on any gasoline powered vehicle by 200%! Yes 200% with no emissions.Ford is interested. He took his 5.7L F-150 to their facilty and 6 different engineers called him a crackpot till they dynoed the car and then everyone sat around wondering where the fuel went because it wasnt being used! In fact a 5.7L V-8 is being run by only four very small injectors. He defied all of the laws of physics that they had learned in college. Just a normal average Joe and he had the engineers at Ford scratching their head! So you can close your book on physics as far as I am concerned.I understand and know what my limitations with turbcharging are and I will stick within those ranges.Good day.

 

Please quote properly and I'll have a response...

 

Please don't have a response.

I can't be the only one here tired of threads about Kevin's car getting jacked because you disagree with his statements about it's dyno results.

Mudd

 

I have said what I have to say. I am done. People can think what they want.There are more cars being finished with our parts and there will be more dyno charts with even better results then Kevins.

 

Tim, I for one am a big fan of your kit, if I was ever to make the switch, it's the one I would choose.

 

Let me call the wammmbulance for you. The FACT is SAE and STD corrections should NOT be applied to boosted cars dyno'd at elevation plain and simple. It's not about me disagreeing with anything, it's about misrepresentation of data.

 

Thats why I posted the UNCORRECTED results, to avoid this,
this same gd shi t has been said before, If we want to hear it again well "search" for it.

 

Tim,

This is all I am gonna say. When you say that no one understands when i get technical, that obviously includes you, and coming from a BUILDER that is pretty sad. You are an amateur, plain and simple. I am not a car builder, but i am definitely smarter than you, especially when it coems to physics and science in general. You saying what you said pretty much confirmed this.

I wasnt's gonna go here, but, I have seen your work up close. It is of very poor, amateur quality. I am not going ot go into specifics. You are an excellent fabricator, but not a turbo car builder, that's all.

This is on you, dude! I wasn't gonna get personal, but was just pointing out some issues with altitude corrections, etc... and you went and said these things, forcing me to say what i just did. The fact that you use splitsecond says it all.

 

GurgenPB, you need to stay out of a thread if all you are going to do is start a post by insulting the person that's building/representing a car, .... Especially since you bring Nothing to the table.

I hope and pray to God that you Never have anything to do with a design for something that is meant to be a life saving device, .. b/c your textbook reasoning will get someone Killed! Ask me how I know about such things, And I will give you my answer in person!

You say you've seen his work "in person" and it's of amatuer quality?? You must have some really gooood fat crack up there in LA..... No other way to explain an ignorant comment like that other than to say you are deliberately making personal attacks.

The POINT that Tim was originally "trying" to make is that you CAN NOT base ANYTHING off of one dyno chart to the next! At Elevation or NOT! The dynos are calibrated at different times, by different people, and in different ways. People should know this, but some don't. That is the point. And Again, to reference one particular dyno throughout a build would be the way to go (which Kevin has), and compare THOSE results to other boosted cars on the SAME dyno (which they have). His car puts down Much higher numbers than a 'standard' bolt on 400-500whp kit, ... on the same dyno, ... And those cars' numbers are Consistent with other people's (around the country) dyno's, of say a stock block Greddy TT car, etc.
That would be a point to make. All this "correction factor" bull **** looks great on paper, ... but that's not always how things work in REAL WORD environments, with real world variables. Period. So how do we make up for differences like that?? There's No way to have a standard correction, for any dyno (OR Device), Anywhere. A person has to adapt the equipment to what he/she feels best. And in this case, and others we've seen, a dyno with 'different' correction factors will show numbers fairly consistent with what any give dyno might see at sea level (You know, since we have soo many dyno at exactly sea level). Again, that's the point....

this has gone beyond ridiculous..... I WISH I could meet some of these people in person at track events, etc...... Speaking of which, ... Everybody come out to the Time Attack at Buttonwillow this weekend!! (28-29 Apr) You can find me with Factor X Engineering, ... you'll know the car, ... fastest NSX around, ... consistently winning it's class and overall class event after event....

 

Sure Gurgen.I know alot more then you think and I take a different approach non these boards.Spitting out all sorts of mathmatical equations generally is not understood by most peopl.they want someone in the real world to talk to them and explain things on a level they can understand. Another thing.........How come I have been on Split Second for two years on a stock motor that makes 476WHP and you have been through what 9 motors in that same amount of time? That really says it all. I can take a pile of crap SS, according to you and then run on it for two years and 22,000 miles.LOL! If all you think I can tune is split Second then you are not as smart as you make yourself think. There are people on these boards who have actually bought and installed our products and I know for a fact they have a much different opinion then you about our products and our builds. Otherwise,we would have went out of business 10 years ago.Yet, here we are, advancing in yet another market. And now that you are pissed, I wouldnt expect anything that comes out of your mouth about me or my company to be anything but negative.But I would like some clarifaction.......... you just said I am an excellent fabricator but our parts are amature qaulity? Make up your mind Gurgen because you are contradicting yourself. As far as being smarter then me? Maybe you are when it comes to math but when it comes to turbocharging,tuning and engine building you are not smarter then me.So if you think you got what it takes then come into my realm and PROVE YOURSELF. READ IT AGAIN-PROVE YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!As far as I am concerned,the only thing you have proved is that you know some math and how to grenade motors like they are going out of style. I mean come on dude, nine motors and your excuse is that every shop in the Z community screwed them up??????If you are so much smarter then me then you will learn how to tig weld,use lathes,mills,CNCs, boring machines,surfacers,learn how to build engines and engine harnesses from scratch and then put all the pieces together and tune them,on any vehicle which will prove to me and everyone else that you are as smart as you say you are.Otherwise get off of your pedestool and go back to doing what you do best............searching google and visiting websites, so you can post some more of your calculations, so you feel as though you are as smart as you keep telling everyone you are