I'm not questioning the fact that he made more power. I think that's going to be a given when you switch to a turbo. I think the problem is that the power comes on far too late as is reflected in his times at the strip. I realize the car was/is far from finished but I don't see his bottom end coming too much more alive. Right now a stage 2 car could probably walk it from stoplight to stoplight. Once the pistons are replaced and the boost is cranked up I'm sure he'll have a top end beast but he's gonna need at least a half mile of open road to make the power. Just not my cup o'tea but I think that a twinscrew is still the most viable and cost effective option for us to make more power.
We have a few tweaks up our sleeves for when he comes back to Pittsburgh that will improve the low end, a two step being one of them.
We have a few tweaks up our sleeves for when he comes back to Pittsburgh that will improve the low end, a two step being one of them.
I'll definitely be watching. I'm not interested in a turbo swap but I'm certainly interested to see just how far a big turbo RL can go. Good luck to you guys
__________________
2005 Red Ion [-]
K&N CAI
GMPP Stage 2
Smoothflow 2.9 pulley
GMPP Extrude Honed Exhaust Manifold
Cobra H/E in custom cradle
Comp Pack Boost gauge/Ladder Tach
exactly, for some reason, both of ours cut out at 6500. Odd.
Well i think that has something to do with the drive ratio of 3rd. I think the RPM on the graph is the roller RPM and if 3rd is not 1:1 ratio then there could be an RPM difference between engine RPM and roller RPM.
__________________ 06 Black Redline
- Bwoody Rear Strut Bar
1/4 mile: 14.485 @ 99.56mph
"We drive, to leave the past and clear the mind." - Blue October.
Well, my dynojet numbers were 320 whp and they went down to 307 whp after my SAE correction. And the smoothing factor != sae correction factor.
Just don't look down your nose at dynojets, and don't call me names. It's the dyno operators that jack up the numbers to make there customer more happy, not the dyno manufacture.
I dyno'd 202 whp stock, I have seen some dynos with 226 whp stock, both dynojet numbers. I am sure the same thing can happen on a mustang dyno.
I don't look down at dynojets, in fact its quite the opposite!
I'd rather have access to one of them so my numbers would be DIRECTLY comparable to 90% of the others out there.
smoothing and correction factors are not the same....
smoothing is....well its exactly what is sounds like...takes all the peaks and drops and makes a more agreeable average between them.
true SAE correction is a number that the dyno use's to try and make all engine on the same playing field by averaging load from various attached.components.
and i never called you any names,.........
as for your numbers going down and such thats all fine and dandy, the effect the smothing factors have on numbers is directly related to "how much" they apply....i can say that i have never seen numbers go down from applying any type of smoothing or correction factors, i've seen number not change, and go up but thats it......
granted i havent seen 34674587768567 dyno runs but i have seen a decent number of them in my time.
and i do agree that the operator plays the bigist role in your numbers, that one of the few "constants" you can count while on a dyno.
__________________
1995 TSi AWD - probably faster then your car.
2005 Cobalt SS/TC - definitively faster then your car.
Well i think that has something to do with the drive ratio of 3rd. I think the RPM on the graph is the roller RPM and if 3rd is not 1:1 ratio then there could be an RPM difference between engine RPM and roller RPM.
we got things figured out, as you can see on Dans graph it goes alllllll the way!!
Well, my dynojet numbers were 320 whp and they went down to 307 whp after my SAE correction. And the smoothing factor != sae correction factor.
Just don't look down your nose at dynojets, and don't call me names. It's the dyno operators that jack up the numbers to make there customer more happy, not the dyno manufacture.
I dyno'd 202 whp stock, I have seen some dynos with 226 whp stock, both dynojet numbers. I am sure the same thing can happen on a mustang dyno.
I don't think saying "easy killer" can be classified as calling you names. I think it was a reference to the hostile tone of your post.
Anyway, that aside i don't think anyone "looks down their nose" at dynojet dynos. You could put my very stock car on 5 different dyno all of the same brand and get 5 different numbers. Hell you can see the difference in just 5 pulls on the same one. A dyno is not something anyone should look as the end all be all determination of your HP. There are far to many variables involved. You should expect some variance in the numbers.
The only reason people make comparisons between mustang and dynojet is because of the history. Most people you ask that know anything about cars will tell you a dynojet will put out higher numbers. It's just accepted that way. If you want to compare cars and HP and have any type of ground to stand on in terms of who is putting out the most HP, then you both need to be on the same dyno on the same night. Then and only then would anyone have any type of bragging rights. If you want to compare your car before and after mod, then put it on the same dyno, otherwise you're probably getting inaccurate numbers.
We have a few tweaks up our sleeves for when he comes back to Pittsburgh that will improve the low end, a two step being one of them.
lol crazy dan talks about said things all the time!
i still attest that he needs to get that dam valve train in the car to prevent RPM drop out of the spool points of the turbo. and that it still needs a SHIT TON of tuning, mainly focus on the fuel side of things, spark is easy!
I thought we got the drive ratios in there but i had a feeling something else was wrong with that there. It's always a learning process.
Oh, and why am i not surprised to hear that DSM tried to break the dyno too.
Yea, I think something was amiss, so accoring to your graph, if you were to take your TQ at 6500, but apply it at 700 where it should have cut off, you would have made about 220whp on that mustang.
Granted I wouldnt go bragging about it with out the dyno itself calculating it, but I am pretty sure that's the nuber you would see if it was done again, and the right RPM was recorded.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
I think that a twinscrew is still the most viable and cost effective option for us to make more power.
Linear Mode
