I don't know what the likeliness about CARB is for any of these.

This was one of the positivies about this kit is that it's only 8/10 hours install.

Not too bad for return to stock.

I have no idea what I am going to do if APS doesn't get carb.

Trust me, I know the things that you "can" do, but there is no guarantee that will always work/be an option.

The odds are pretty high that if I have to yank my kit, it's not going back in.

 

That would be very helpfull in getting a close to final verdict for alot of potential FI buyers. Hope you guys can do a couple of runs and make a new thread. This is sooo very interesting.

 

There is no going on here. I'm happy , Mia should be happy , don't you wanna be happy too?

I got my kit re-tuned for cold weather road & track, I now have 377RWHP a little more power, a little sooner. This will be map #2, and then I will need a another map for 100 octane.

It's hard not to spin my current tires at the top of 1st, and the 2nd half of 2nd is almost as likely.

I have gotten a few more launches in, and it's just incredible.

 

As Joe mentioned earlier in this thread we drove each others cars. I have the opportunity to drive a couple other twin 350Z turbo systems on the market and I must say I was most impressed with his APS twin system. Drivability was good all the way through the RPM band, no hesitations, no bogging good turbine response. Overall a well put together system and my hat goes off to Peter and the boys at APS for a job well done.

If a twin turbo system is what your after this is certainly a good choice.
Brad

 

Cool Brad, really glad you enjoyed the drive of the APS TT car and thanks very much for your kind words.

I think some may have taken some of my previous engineering based comments out of context. As you know a I have a great deal of respect for Turbonectics and that we have a genuinely friendly relationship.

I wish you every success. The 350Z FI market is a very exciting place to be at the moment and we both know that there's plenty of opportunity for all of the good guys in the FI industry.

Regards

Peter

 

I'm certainly no expert, but what I see as wrong with the dyno numbers earlier is the equation I believe used to determine hp - namely:

hp == tq(rpm/5252)

See here and second to last link off that page, here.

One of the implications of the equation is that horsepower/torque curves always cross at 5252. You'll notice in the posted dyno's, that is not the case. As this is a rather fundamental problem with the charts, the only fair way to interpret them is to throw them out, and wait for others.

Of course, none of this takes into account the conversations going on about relavance of one dyno's results to the other. What I always interpreted the issue to be was peak hp/tq numbers being different. It never really occurred to me that the chart shapes would/could be different. It makes perfect sense given that the different dyno types use different methods to simulate loads, and they have their own 'profiles' to them, impacting what the chart looks like. I guess I just never really thought about that. However, given the formula above, all a dyno really is measuring is torque samples at intervals, and splicing that together into a torque curve chart. A little simple math (from formula above) generates corresponding hp figures for each torque data point. The point is, some kind of reference load must exist so that they put it on a dyno to ensure it is accurate across its 'rev' range. I don't understand why dynos should read differently - it seems should be a standard way of testing the dynos and documenting their accuracy. I can only assume the reality of physics throws a monkey wrench into what is obviously a simplification of the facts.

 

What i've always been told is that dynojet dyno's are the most accurate dyno's, mustang dyno's tend to rate lower on hp and tq, and dynapack's just depend, but they are usually off. So I would say if we want reliable numbers we are going to need a dynojet dyno comparison. BTW, I am very interested to see these kits compared, i've been waiting for a turbo kit shootout.

 

Didn't find the dynos quickly to see.. but typically you'll find on dynos posted where the lines do not cross at 52xx is because the scales of the hp and tq are different on the graph. When that is the case, they will not intersect at 52xx. Check the zero points and scale of hp and tq, if they are different.. that's your answer.

 

Alpine...my car should be done soon. When/where you want to meet for a dynojet comparison.

 

Mmmm. Not sure I agree. Maybe I'm not understanding properly, but follow my logic, and tell me where I derail So long as hp and tq are on the same chart, and the y-axis is RPM, even if the x-axis has different scales for hp or torque (essentially manipulating what the hp or tq curves look like by artificially compressing or expanding them), they should still cross at 5252 rpm. I don't think I've ever seen a dyno where the scales were different like this, but I can't think of what else you mean.

 

No, if the hp and tq #s are on different scales then they won't cross at 5252. Maybe Turbonetics could rescale the chart so that the hp and tq have they same scale, then they'll corss.

 

S12 - explain what you're saying. What difference does the scale differences of one axis make when the other is constant - it doesn't.

My example above is partly confusing - I should have used x-axis for RPM and y-axis for hp/tq, but it doesn't really matter (the point is the same either way). If the x-axis is RPM, regardless of what the y-axis does, a proper hp/tq curve is going to cross at 5252 rpm. If it doesn't something is either wrong, or worse.

ahm

 

You must have a dyno now, right? What was that dyno done on? Was it the same DynaPack that Brad/TurboNetics used?

I'd like to see that first so that we can take each other’s "proprietary" dyno results, before we go to a common/neutral one.

Also I had mentioned to Brad I'd like to run my car on the DynaPack for info also.

I didn't get a response on that, and as I know he is busy, I didn't press.

I missed a DynoJet run myself Saturday, My father went into the Hospital friday 1:00AM and we were there for 2 days. He's out now, waiting on results, and need to go back for further consultation.

After I get these items under control, I would love to get together.

Did you have any suggestions? Where are you located? I'm in San Fernando.

 

Nothing firm yet from here...Sorry to hear about your father. Hope all is well. I'll keep you posted on when I have my car back and when we can get together and run. As for my location I'm in the San Diego County area.

 

For example, the tq scale goes from 100-300, but the hp scale goes from 0-300, then the two lines (hp and tq) will not intersect at 5252, in this case, the hp will intersect at higher rpms. Sorry I don't have any dyno graph to show an example, maybe someone else could explain it better.

 

The X axis is the same for both values.. but the Y Axis is not.

Assume the intersection at 52xx is 200. 200 hq and 200 tq at the same RPM value.

If the HP scale goes from 0-200, this point is at the top of the chart for HP curve. If the TQ scale goes from 200-400, this point is at the bottom of the chart for the TQ curve. Both values being identical, but they do not interesect because the y axis for each line is different. That is what is meant by the scales of the axis being different. That's an extreme example to illustrate the point, but the concept is the same. if the Y axis are not the same, the two lines will not intersect at 52xx.

 

ahh. I think I see now. Stupid me.

Maybe I just never looked closely, but I don't think I've ever seen a dyno graph like that (not as extreme as your example, just where the scaling was different for hp/tq).

Sorry S12 - I just didn't 'see' it before. Now I do, and sit corrected

ahm