cams and a new tune...

[steedman07]

When racing, the top 2K are the ONLY one used!! That is the GREAT part, and what makes centris and turbos BETTER for street! On a daily driver in the rain, 500ft/lbs at 2500 is insignificant!
When racing, and only using the top 2K, you guessed it.... those early rpm not used...

I hate to state the obvious, but... OBVIOUSLY I had to

LOL..thanks, you worded it better than I did..and one more bump for EFILOGICS tuning!! If your in the New York Conn. area, give Chris a call..best damned tuner around..

 

[91frppgt]

I'm not offended at all, and I seriously considered a twin screw for my car initially. Keep in mind that my Vortech V2 is not intercooled (it's a standard S-trim, not the HO version), so I'm running low boost and a very mild tune, accordingly. With Vortech's aftercooler, I would be able to bump boost and the tune way up. A buddy of mine has that setup (Vortech V2 S-trim HO with aftercooler) and is putting down 470 rwhp compared to my 351 rwhp, and he's got a mid-11 second ride to show for it (versus my 12.30's).

Also, why would a twin screw beat me in the short times at the track? I launch at 4,800 rpm's (stall converter), and the revs never fall below that for the whole track so I'm always making good boost for the whole track. My last run down the 1/4 mile yielded a 1.80 sixty foot time, 5.12 330' time, 7.89 @ 90+ 1/8 mile, 10.3 1000' time, and a 12.34 @ 111+ 1/4 mile. My short times are excellent for a heavy automatic car. I've beaten brand new '08 Vettes to the 1/8 mile, and was dead even at the 1/8 mile with a Z06 Vette this season, so I don't feel my launch or low speed acceleration is at all compromised by having a centrifugal blower vs a twin screw.

What I love about a twin screw is the instant torque so that you can incinerate tires on command on the street, but that's not particularly useful at the track when traction is key to winning races. So, a twin screw is fun, while my centrifugal is more focused on results.

not trying to bash, but you made 351 rwhp on a mustang dyno and your only trapping 111? I made 252 rwhp, basic bolt ons and i'm trapping 107.5-108.4. that is also on 20's and a full weight car. i'm sure altitude has a big part to play in this...

 

[chad9350]

252 rwhp (mustang dyno, after tune)

[email protected] (best trap 108.54) on 20's! 1.89 60'

Good to see some people 'getting it'... Why so many dyno sheets obviously a little 'sweetened' are posted and NO track times! And if the car will see the track, it'll be hard as hell to explain why your 330hp car cant get into the 12's or your 400 hp car cant get into the 11's.

Thats good stuff... 252hp car whipping most 320hp cars... LOVELY!!

btw, I know about the Mustang dyno thing, that still equals UNDER 290hp.

That's good stuff!

 

[NastyStang113]

We all know how low Mustang dynos read but that dyno has to be out of calibration.

 

[chad9350]

We all know how low Mustang dynos read but that dyno has to be out of calibration.

It may need to be zeroed, not calibrated


Dynos are tuning tools... the numbers are like your bathroom scale... if you set it, say 10 or 15lbs forward or back... weigh yourself and gain/loose a pound or 2, both readings will show...

A dyno is the same, may need to be zeroed... or maybe, MOST others may need to be zeroed!!!! Calibration is fine...


Car appears to be tuned very well, regardless of #'s... which is the reason for a custom dyno tune... noone goes to get a custom dyno #... or do they

 

[Five Oh Brian]

not trying to bash, but you made 351 rwhp on a mustang dyno and your only trapping 111? I made 252 rwhp, basic bolt ons and i'm trapping 107.5-108.4. that is also on 20's and a full weight car. i'm sure altitude has a big part to play in this...

My car is spot on for trap speed considering the rwhp & weight of my car. If you were to search the forums about a year ago when I was predicting what my car was going to run with the new blower, you'll find that based on weight and rwhp I was predicting the car would run 12.30's @ 111 mph, and that is right where I ended up once I finally got to our local dragstrips to verify.

My car (with me in it) weighs 3,650 lbs. Here is how much rwhp is required for a 3,650 lb car to hit various trap speeds, based on solid math.....

• 105 mph requires 290 rwhp
• 106 mph requires 300 rwhp
• 107 mph requires 308 rwhp
• 108 mph requires 317 rwhp
• 109 mph requires 325 rwhp
• 110 mph requires 334 rwhp
• 111 mph requires 344 rwhp
• 112 mph requires 353 rwhp
• 113 mph requires 362 rwhp
• 114 mph requires 372 rwhp
• 115 mph requires 382 rwhp

My car trapped just shy of 112 mph (111.93) and put down 351 rwhp on a Mustang Dyno, so I not only have the dyno sheet, but timeslips to back it up.

91frppgt, if your car makes truly makes just 252 rwhp and traps at 108 mph, then it would have to weigh just under 3,000 lbs. Or, the dyno you used grossly underestimated your car's rwhp (which is my gut feeling here). Or, as you mentioned, track altitude may have something to do with it. Our local track is 250' above sea level, but its Density Altitude is often 1000-2000' above sea level. Maybe your 108 mph trap speeds were done at sea level (or Density Altitudes well below sea level on a cold day with a high barometer reading).

 

[MikeysOTP]

We all know how low Mustang dynos read but that dyno has to be out of calibration.

It is a brand new dyno and was professionally installed, it's a pretty safe bet that it is accurate.

 

[NastyStang113]

So, who's dyno is it?

It may need to be zeroed, not calibrated


Dynos are tuning tools... the numbers are like your bathroom scale... if you set it, say 10 or 15lbs forward or back... weigh yourself and gain/loose a pound or 2, both readings will show...

A dyno is the same, may need to be zeroed... or maybe, MOST others may need to be zeroed!!!! Calibration is fine...


Car appears to be tuned very well, regardless of #'s... which is the reason for a custom dyno tune... noone goes to get a custom dyno #... or do they

I'd be willing to bet that I know more about tuning than you do. So don't play that with me. I don't play with words and I don't preach to the choir.

 

[91frppgt]

My car is spot on for trap speed considering the rwhp & weight of my car. If you were to search the forums about a year ago when I was predicting what my car was going to run with the new blower, you'll find that based on weight and rwhp I was predicting the car would run 12.30's @ 111 mph, and that is right where I ended up once I finally got to our local dragstrips to verify.

My car (with me in it) weighs 3,650 lbs. Here is how much rwhp is required for a 3,650 lb car to hit various trap speeds, based on solid math.....

• 105 mph requires 290 rwhp
• 106 mph requires 300 rwhp
• 107 mph requires 308 rwhp
• 108 mph requires 317 rwhp
• 109 mph requires 325 rwhp
• 110 mph requires 334 rwhp
• 111 mph requires 344 rwhp
• 112 mph requires 353 rwhp
• 113 mph requires 362 rwhp
• 114 mph requires 372 rwhp
• 115 mph requires 382 rwhp

My car trapped just shy of 112 mph (111.93) and put down 351 rwhp on a Mustang Dyno, so I not only have the dyno sheet, but timeslips to back it up.

91frppgt, if your car makes truly makes just 252 rwhp and traps at 108 mph, then it would have to weigh just under 3,000 lbs. Or, the dyno you used grossly underestimated your car's rwhp (which is my gut feeling here). Or, as you mentioned, track altitude may have something to do with it. Our local track is 250' above sea level, but its Density Altitude is often 1000-2000' above sea level. Maybe your 108 mph trap speeds were done at sea level (or Density Altitudes well below sea level on a cold day with a high barometer reading).

I don't agree with your mathematical equations, however i wasn't bashing anyones car. IMO, that power seems kinda weak. Hell theres a s197, auto that put down 316 A5 on the same dyno, full weight car (car had head work, cams/converter) and ran 11.8@114mph cutting a high 1.6 60. All i'm saying is if I had a vortech (which I wouldn't) I would expect more than 111mph from it.

 

[91frppgt]

252 rwhp (mustang dyno, after tune)

[email protected] (best trap 108.54) on 20's! 1.89 60'

Good to see some people 'getting it'... Why so many dyno sheets obviously a little 'sweetened' are posted and NO track times! And if the car will see the track, it'll be hard as hell to explain why your 330hp car cant get into the 12's or your 400 hp car cant get into the 11's.

Thats good stuff... 252hp car whipping most 320hp cars... LOVELY!!

btw, I know about the Mustang dyno thing, that still equals UNDER 290hp.



That's good stuff!

 

[91frppgt]

We all know how low Mustang dynos read but that dyno has to be out of calibration.

I highly doubt it, i'm not a fan of dyno jets....Besides I don't get my car tuned for numbers, I get it tuned for performance.

 

[NastyStang113]

I highly doubt it, i'm not a fan of dyno jets....Besides I don't get my car tuned for numbers, I get it tuned for performance.

That's fine, opinions are like *******s. I'd like to know why you don't like Dynojets though? I get my car tuned for performance, too. I'm glad we're on the same page there.

 

[Five Oh Brian]

I don't agree with your mathematical equations, however i wasn't bashing anyones car. IMO, that power seems kinda weak. Hell theres a s197, auto that put down 316 A5 on the same dyno, full weight car (car had head work, cams/converter) and ran 11.8@114mph cutting a high 1.6 60. All i'm saying is if I had a vortech (which I wouldn't) I would expect more than 111mph from it.

111 mph trap speeds is what I was expecting. 351 rwhp is about 111 rwhp better than stock (roughly 240 rwhp for a S197 GT automatic). 351 rwhp is about 440 flywheel hp, so about 140 flywheel hp improvement from stock. I got a nice improvement for the very small price I paid for my blower. I have the Vortech V2 S-trim blower, but it is the basic, standard model (non-intercooled) not the HO aftercooled version which supports a lot more boost and hp. Vortech rates the blower I have at 420 flywheel hp, so at 440 flywheel hp I'm getting more than my money's worth.

If you saw another S197 auto putting down just 316 rwhp on the same dyno you ran, and he's running 11.8's @ 114 mph, then now I really believe that the dyno you used is reading very, very low.

The math equations I use are based in physics, and are quite simply based on moving a known weight over a known distance in a known time. There's nothing mysterious or magical about solving for horsepower and/or torque with math. I took a lot of physics classes in high school and college, so I'm well versed in solving for any of the variables of power vs drag racing.

Ultimately, I don't really care what my dyno #'s are (or anyone else's for that matter). I had my car dyno-tuned solely because of the blower install. The only #'s I've ever cared about are timeslips at our local dragstrip which I've raced at every season since 1982.

 

[chad9350]

So, who's dyno is it?



I'd be willing to bet that I know more about tuning than you do. So don't play that with me. I don't play with words and I don't preach to the choir.

Just correcting your typing error.... Im sure you know... Just wanted all to know that you know what you are talking about...

I am a chemist, you dont know me or what I do or dont know...

What we all do know... is that you dont know the difference between zero...

which you state couldnt be true...

So... that means you dont appreciate others clearing up your 'tune' talk...

Either one... Ill let you pick

 

[NastyStang113]

Did it really matter? I just don't get caught up in words when the two essentially mean the same thing. Both are used in and out for "adjusting" a measuring device. I'm glad you got it off your chest though. I'd feel better, too.

 

[Five Oh Brian]

I don't agree with your mathematical equations, however i wasn't bashing anyones car. IMO, that power seems kinda weak. Hell theres a s197, auto that put down 316 A5 on the same dyno, full weight car (car had head work, cams/converter) and ran 11.8@114mph cutting a high 1.6 60. All i'm saying is if I had a vortech (which I wouldn't) I would expect more than 111mph from it.

Another thought. Assuming a 20% drivetrain loss for an automatic trans (fairly well accepted estimate), the my 351 rwhp is about 440 flywheel horsepower, so how does my 111-112 mph trap speeds compare to other "known" quantities....

* 2003/4 SVT Cobra, 390 flywheel hp, typically traps 108-109 mph.
* My 2007 GT automatic, 440 flywheel hp, typically traps 111-112 mph.
* 2007-9 GT500, 500 flywheel hp, typically traps 115-116 mph.

Yet another example of how my 111 (nearly 112) mph trap speeds make perfect sense for the power my GT is putting down.

Your 108 mph trap speeds make no sense with just 252 rwhp (roughly 315 flywheel hp), nor do the 114 mph trap speeds of that other S197 GT Auto you claim makes just 316 rwhp (roughly 395 flywheel hp). There is definitely something wrong about the dyno you both used, or you're both racing downhill with a strong gust of wind behind you at a track that's way below sea level.

 

[NastyStang113]

I have to agree with Brian. The 252rwhp number is so far off it's not even funny, especially claiming those 1/4 mile times. Let's see a dyno sheet or a timeslip.

 

[steedman07]

lets see some damned time slips huh? and what the hell happened to my thread? No one cares about my 32 whp gain from the cams? I guess this forum is a bunch of bench racers!!j/k Lets keep in on topic..I could give two ****z what my peak hp number is..I will judge this spring at the track based on my weight, 60 ft. times and trap speeds....period..The sole purpose of a dyno is for tuning properly, and seeing if all this damned $$ we are spending on mods is doing anything for our power curves and whp..I obviously dont get a whole lot of tech from this site, there is another forum for that..*cough* s197forum.com

 

[scupking]

I recently installed Comp Cams NSR stage 1 blower cam in the car. Got it dyno tuned again at EFILOGICS by ChrisSK the owner..Keep in mind I have an auto, so the gains would be more with a stick..And my MAF was about pegged after 6,200 rpm's.I will put a MAFIA on this spring when I install the after-cooler..

32 whp gain over the previous dyno run from the end of November..Im pretty happy with the result, would have been more with a 5-speed..

Dyno DB

WHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAATTTTTT.......you got cams now to. Man that thing already was a beast and now its just insane. I'm still waiting for Chris to email me back about my hitech stageII and LT header install. If you don't mind me asking how much did the install+ tune cost?

 

[Five Oh Brian]

lets see some damned time slips huh? and what the hell happened to my thread? No one cares about my 32 whp gain from the cams? I guess this forum is a bunch of bench racers!!j/k Lets keep in on topic..I could give two ****z what my peak hp number is..I will judge this spring at the track based on my weight, 60 ft. times and trap speeds....period..The sole purpose of a dyno is for tuning properly, and seeing if all this damned $$ we are spending on mods is doing anything for our power curves and whp..I obviously dont get a whole lot of tech from this site, there is another forum for that..*cough* s197forum.com

Sorry, steedman07, you're right. Back on topic, I've been eyeing blower cams for my car (likely NSR style), but am worried about smog testing (I live in a very urban area that tests religiously). 32 rwhp from your cams is very solid! With your supercharger, that's likely one quick car at the track! If you run 11's, I know cams will be my next mod.