what trim is the turbo?

 

Great numbers. I would trust the HIGHER number only because you would want the error in your favor when pushing the issue like that.

Nice work man, great sleeper.

 

The turbo is the standard .63/.70 on the full-race.com website

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by servion &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The turbo is the standard .63/.70 on the full-race.com website</TD></TR></TABLE>

damn, that's good to know since i just ordered that same turbo last week keep us posted when u redyno at higher boost numbers..

 

very nice numbers j. now lets see some timeslips. last i saw, you ran a 12.01 on the old setup. lets see some 11's.

 

Gotta love the sickening power of the T3/T67, eh? It's a different feeling than other turbos where you can feel em level out, it feels like your car would pull forever if you didn't have a rev limiter with the 67

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by servion &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">my AEM logs show 10.9:1 AFR... the dynojet AFR read 12.4:1... I don't know which one to trust</TD></TR></TABLE>

WHere was the dynojet 02 sniffing? tailpipe? Where's the AEM sniffing? Wouldn't an 02 in the tailpipe read as more lean?

 

OMFG!! I'm beginning to really hate you guys!! why can't i make that amount of power on low boost? LOL. it's all good though...with time and money...and full race....maybe one day

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by servion &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
You're right about the a/f.... the problem I had was, I've got the AEM gauge uego... and with the o2 gain setup properly, my AEM logs show 10.9:1 AFR... the dynojet AFR read 12.4:1... I don't know which one to trust</TD></TR></TABLE>


did you calibrate your UEGO wideband after the dyno? if you haven't already i would definately recommend that you do so asap for the most accurate readings.

 

he only made 325HP..

he's a mile high up in altitude... look at the correction factor-- 24%!

325HP isn't bad, but let's not confuse 'low boost' and '400+HP', since he didn't make 400..

just adding some clarification..

 

Great numbers. Do you have any recent pics of the car.

 

The uego is approx. 18" from the turbo, in the DP. The dynojet meter was in the tailpipe. Before the dyno, I had properly configured the UEGO.

I have yet to configure it since I've been to the dyno... how would it be different?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by devoid &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">he only made 325HP..

he's a mile high up in altitude... look at the correction factor-- 24%!

325HP isn't bad, but let's not confuse 'low boost' and '400+HP', since he didn't make 400..

just adding some clarification..
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Man, I already have a hater!

Its called a "corrected" number for a reason. (Ben teaches about this in the EFI class, BTW). The standard thing to do is dyno with a corrected number... why? So the playing field is even for EVERYONE. Even you sea-level people dyno corrected... why? Because of differences in humidity and barometric pressure (which encapsulates altitude, BTW).

If my car was at sea level, I still will have the same dyno numbers. Why? Because its corrected! My car would make 403.xx WHP at the exact same boost pressure at sea level.

The only difference between the power my car makes here in the mountains and the power my car makes at sea level is that the car will feel faster at sea level... but the dyno # will still be the same.

 

devoid. you just got owned

 

Yeap I would have to agree with Mase on this one.

 

Nice dyno #'s, hope to be up there with you in about a week or 2.

 

LOLLLLLL

Owned???

he made -325- HP.. 75 HP LESS than the corrected #s.. People here are wondering how he made '400' on 13psi, etc.. the fact is- he did NOT make 400HP on 13psi. Give me a break.

He *may* pick up 75 at sea level, he may not, but the simple fact is, he made -325- NOT 400. Forced Induction cars typically do NOT pickup the amount of HP that SAE #s give, ESPECIALLY @ 4000+ ft altitude, which in this case, is actually above 5000. NA cars usually pickup what the SAE #s give, on the other hand. There are way too many factors involved WHY FI cars do not gain all that HP when they go to sea level.

Why is that so hard for people to understand? I'm not trying to 'hate' on this guy or anything, I'm trying to CLARIFY for the people that think he actually made 400HP on -13- psi. MANY people at high altitude use SAE #s and people freak out thinking-- WOW, how did this guy make 500HP on X psi with only a XYZ small turbo on small injectors, etc..?? Well, he didn't, but the correction factor sometimes is 25% around 5k feet, so 400 + 25% = 500.

So, let's not turn this into a pissing match, because that's not what I'm trying to do- and let's not provoke him-- mase and forsefed

 

you have to be kidding me.


if you follow your same reasoning, i guess i should change all my dyno charts on my website of all the HP cars ive tuned. they will all be much higher uncorrected. great idea

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mase &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you have to be kidding me.


if you follow your same reasoning, i guess i should change all my dyno charts on my website of all the HP cars ive tuned. they will all be much higher uncorrected. great idea
</TD></TR></TABLE>

That kinda backfired on him.....

Correction numbers are not 100%, but when there are several other people making similar numbers on the same kind of boost numbers that he made. How about ITR206 who is in Reading, PA at an altitude of 360 feet above sea level who made 440 @ 15 psi? I guess his numbers must be messed up or something, because he's so close to sea level that SAE is going to skew the numbers massively, right?

 

IF you noticed, i said HIGH altitude. Obviously, a few hundred feet above sea level does not make a difference. Unless you LIVE at high altitude, and TUNE at high altitude, let's not make assumptions, ok?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by devoid &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">IF you noticed, i said HIGH altitude. Obviously, a few hundred feet above sea level does not make a difference. Unless you LIVE at high altitude, and TUNE at high altitude, let's not make assumptions, ok?</TD></TR></TABLE>

It's called sarcasm. I know low altitude doesn't make much of a difference, and high altitude doesn't either. What I was trying to say is there are several people on this board with the same turbo on similar motor setups running similar amounts of boost at all different altitides and they're making very similar numbers, so I think it's safe to say that if you put this car in a test cell at exactly SAE conditions he would make very close to what he put down SAE on the dyno. His numbers are only 20 WHP off from Full-Race Geoff's, and Geoff is running an LS/VTEC at 13 psi. Boosted-Hybrid did 354 @ 11 psi on a bone stock low compression GSR motor.

 

and one of the cars i tuned made 432 at around 12-13 psi on a little 60-1 so his numbers shouldnt be questioned. so before you think you know everything when you come to HT, try being a little more humble


oh btw, who cars about peak numbers, that doesnt tell you **** about the power curve.

 

Sure, with a big enough turbo, enough fuel, NEW tuning, etc., it's possible, but most people, especially at high altitude when you're trying your damndest to squeeze out every last possible HP, are running on the ragged edge- then they go down to sea level or close to it, and end up blowing up or something and they have no idea why since they're supposed to run 'xyz' HP SAE.

Another issue with SAE #s at high altitude is that 90% of the time the end user has NO idea what SAE means, nor do they realize they're making 20-25% LESS HP than what the dynosheet says. They then go to the track, expecting to run xyz 1/4 mile based on their big HP #, but end up MUCH slower, and then they get pissed, discouraged, spend more $ to the tuner, etc., trying to figure out why their 1/4 mile traps indicate a LOT less HP.

 

But Mase, you DIDN'T tune this guy's car and, more importantly, are you going to tune it for him when he goes to sea level, since he'll need a retune big time dropping 5000 feet.. hehe if you did, that's a whole other story

 

Mase,

perhaps you should read this article before you are so sure. The SAE correction factor in dynojet software does not take into account manifold pressure. it assumes the engine is running at a manifodl pressure that is equivalent to the pressure read on the baro. press. sensor in the weather station. but that does not occur on a FI application. also one might say...but yes then there is just he same pressure drop in the resultant boost made by the turbo? no...remember all our boost gauges/MAP sensors are calibrated to 0 psi Gauge relative to 0 elevation (0 = 29.92 in hg). that is 13 psi in the manifold at 5000ft is the same as 13 psi in the manifold at 0 ft. the only difference is that the compressor is actually compressing the air 2.5 psi more than what is required at sea level to achieve 13 psi manifold. because the inlet air to the compressor is only at 24.80 in hg on his runs. so there is more to this debate. all we need is better pic of his graph so that we can better see the details of the run conditions better. temperature, humidity, baro press.

then plug them into here...and read the article to learn some too!!


http://home.austin.rr.com/turb...c.htm


Enjoy foolios!

 

and for the day of August 1 2004

here is the weather data for Loveland CO. closest reporting station to fort collins.

http://www.weather.com/weather...80104


now somehting seems off. his graph looks liek it says baro pressure 24.8 that report clearly says 30.x in hg for the better part of the day.