<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by integraboosted &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ain't the .95ar GT4094R will make more power than the 1.06ar GT4088R? due to its bigger wheel so theres a possibilty that .95ar GT4094R might hit 9's but not exactly sure I might be wrong.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I thought it was obvious that i was kidding about only going 10.1 with a .95.

That being said, you guys need to get out of thinking bigger compressor side and keep the exhaust side small. It doesn't work that way, what goes in the motor, must come out! A 4094 with a .95 exhaust side is a terrible combination.

Look at the clutchmasters car, it's the exact opposite of the 4094. The 4094 is for the most part a 42r compressor wheel (slightly smaller), and 40r housings and turbine wheel/housing. The clutch masters car is running a 42R turbine wheel and housing, 42R compressor cover, and the smaller 4094 compressor wheel that meets the rules for the class.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by a1320addict &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

i'd like to see that </TD></TR></TABLE>

id like to see a cam test with these large turbos @ high boost(40 +)

a turbine housing test would be cool too

 

I'll be testing some Skunk2 Pro 1 cams against ITR cams here pretty soon on my car.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'll be testing some Skunk2 Pro 1 cams against ITR cams here pretty soon on my car.</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

I'm in the midle of getting everything together right now on the build:

summary :
2.0L Justice Racing bottom end
ProPort Race Head
4094r on a FR divided-manifold

I'm going to try out a set of ITR's and see what happens, may be throwing a set of Skunk2's on as well for comparison, maybe for good. Should have a thread up in a week or so.

Tony, please post up those test results, saves me some time

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

It'll only go 10.1 with a .95 housing.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Ive proved you wrong tony itll go 10.07@148
84x87
4094r .95ar
fullrace divided topmount
420hp-13-14lbs
500hp-20lbs
607hp-30lbs
619hp-35lbs

 

What chasis and weight?

Who's got speculation on the 1.19 housing?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GodFather of Boost &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Ive proved you wrong tony itll go 10.07@148
84x87
4094r .95ar
fullrace divided topmount
420hp-13-14lbs
500hp-20lbs
607hp-30lbs
619hp-35lbs </TD></TR></TABLE>

damn that sucks.. my t3/67h.o. did better than that.. although the boost response is probably alot better on the 4094R

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by fullracegsr &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

damn that sucks.. my t3/67h.o. did better than that.. although the boost response is probably alot better on the 4094R</TD></TR></TABLE>

how do you get that? your sig says 10.8 at only 140mph?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GodFather of Boost &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Ive proved you wrong tony itll go 10.07@148
84x87
4094r .95ar
fullrace divided topmount
420hp-13-14lbs
500hp-20lbs
607hp-30lbs
619hp-35lbs </TD></TR></TABLE>

619hp on 35lbs. of boost only? I thought this turbos are rated to almost mid 700hp on around 35lbs+ of boost

 

2450-2500lbs eg hatch
nothing wrong with the turbo. Exhaust housing to small.

 

I don't get it, I've seen other dyno's on this site long time ago with a typical 4088r with .95 housing dynoed over 700hp on 35lbsof boost. Even an 4067r could better numbers than that, theres either something wrong with the engine or the tuning is not efficient or you guys using a different type of dyno? sorry to say.

 

I would go with 4067r from what I've seen and using just regular 4067 on my car.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by integraboosted &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't get it, I've seen other dyno's on this site long time ago with a typical 4088r with .95 housing dynoed over 700hp on 35lbsof boost. Even an 4067r could better numbers than that, theres either something wrong with the engine or the tuning is not efficient or you guys using a different type of dyno? sorry to say.</TD></TR></TABLE>


Don't believe everything you see on here. I made 650whp at 32psi on a 4088R, with a 1.06 a/r, and the car went 152mph. Don't believe most of the BS dyno numbers you see on here.

 

How can Geoff's 801whp be explained? Full-Race magic

 

Dynopack...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Don't believe everything you see on here. I made 650whp at 32psi on a 4088R, with a 1.06 a/r, and the car went 152mph. Don't believe most of the BS dyno numbers you see on here. </TD></TR></TABLE>



I almost want to put that in my sig

 

it was actually 792, but fwiw, that wasnt the impressive part of my civic.

the car will be on the track soon enough, proving the #s. just to put any doubters at ease

 

No question that your car made a lot of power. But, in my opinion, there's no question that at those kinds of power levels, the dynopack and dynojet will read significantly different. At that kind of power level it takes a very sticky tire, a lot of strapping, and low tire pressure to not spin on a dynojet. All that stuff increases drag and sucks up power. There's no way your car would put down 790whp on a dynojet.

 

Not a doubt that the car made the power, it's obviously not a bunch of parts thrown together and fingers crossed. I could have sworn it was you that did 801 but that might have been Andrea's/Jeff's car that did 801 on a 4088.

 

If you look at all the 700+whp 4088R dynos, they all have 1 thing in common, dynopack

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you look at all the 700+whp 4088R dynos, they all have 1 thing in common, dynopack</TD></TR></TABLE>

I remember you saying that exact same thing in another thread, but I can't find it right now...lol...oh well.

 

Would you say this is because the dynopack is easier to accelerate as opposed to a dynojet?

Seems to me that the rolling resistance and overall diameter of wheel + tire on the drum of a dynojet would:

a) require more twisting force to accelerate than simply the hub mated to the dynopack unit

and

b) be limited by traction, especially in case of sudden onset of power... to a far greater extent than a car on a dynopack.

This is not to say traction problems are non-existent on a dynopack because I did hear of a BBC Nova launching off of a dynopack at the Car Craft show some years back, but the power transition on most setups is certainly not sudden enough to break traction on a hub-mount dyno.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Axle &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
This is not to say traction problems are non-existent on a dynopack because I did hear of a BBC Nova launching off of a dynopack at the Car Craft show some years back, but the power transition on most setups is certainly not sudden enough to break traction on a hub-mount dyno.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Dynopack = the dyno that bolts to the hubs. That's as non existent as you can get when it comes to traction problems. Only way to "loose traction" on a dynopack is to shear all your lug studs off.

Ever push a car with sticky tires with 12psi in them? Ever push a car with spare tires on it and 40psi in them? The rolling resistance difference is huge. Hell, even putting 10psi more air in the tires makes a huge difference. Now picture 4-8 straps pulling the car down too.

I don't have any facts other than there are numerous 700+whp GT40R cars on dynopacks, and none that i've seen on a dynojet. Look at any big power dynopack car and the numbers are higher than "normal". Dynojet being "normal" since it's so much more common.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Dynopack = the dyno that bolts to the hubs. That's as non existent as you can get when it comes to traction problems. Only way to "loose traction" on a dynopack is to shear all your lug studs off.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I only heard that it happened, I didn't actually see it. If the car really did launch off the dynopack, it's probably because of mechanical failure such as what you're suggesting with the lug studs getting sheared off. It apparently doesn't take much to break those lugs because I've seen even almost-stock Fox bodies do it at the track.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Ever push a car with sticky tires with 12psi in them? Ever push a car with spare tires on it and 40psi in them? The rolling resistance difference is huge. Hell, even putting 10psi more air in the tires makes a huge difference. Now picture 4-8 straps pulling the car down too.

I don't have any facts other than there are numerous 700+whp GT40R cars on dynopacks, and none that i've seen on a dynojet. Look at any big power dynopack car and the numbers are higher than "normal". Dynojet being "normal" since it's so much more common.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Do you mention only the 'big power' cars because horsepower loss is measured on a ratio scale (percent) and 1% of 800hp is a lot more significant than 1% of 175hp?

I would think the drivetrain loss would not be as significant at higher speeds on slicks (especially on low-displacement high-rev big turbo setups) because as I'm sure you know... softwall tires grow quite a bit with speed.