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..
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
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.
252 rwhp (mustang dyno, after tune)
12.82@107.90 (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!
We all know how low Mustang dynos read but that dyno has to be out of calibration.
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...
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
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).
252 rwhp (mustang dyno, after tune)
12.82@107.90 (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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?