709whp from Modern Automotive Performance!

[dumb_ricer]

Yeah, unfortunately we can't do any crazy strapping of the car.

Next time around I think we are going to pull it on, strap it down, spin it on the rollers to make sure its straight, and then deflate the tires and strap it tighter, then re fill the tires. I cant think of any other options outside of slicks.

I am kind of confused about the low torque numbers too, but with how well it holds torque all the way up to redline, I think it will still be insanely fast. The motor has pretty high compression.

Chris's car only made 537ft lb's, and that was a 2.4.

I think we might be able to get some more out of it as far as torque because we haven't even really touched timing in DSMLink yet.

Would having an overly ported head do it? That could explain the low torque numbers on both Chris's and Kyle's cars for what they were running. It looks like the upside to that though is that power holds forever with large cams, and keeps the powerband very broad.

Torque breaks shit anyways! lol

There is zero boost creep. It hit 38ish lb's and held steady.

[v8klla]

The best mine did was 707.7 whp and 602 ft-lbs. That was 33psi dropping to 31psi on C16. Mine would usually spin the tires a little on the first pull and then I would strap it down harder and it would be fine from there. With the above ground Dynojet though, we were able to do some interesting strapping from below the car straight down. Any idea why the torque is so low for a stroker running that much boost? Maybe just too laggy or boost creep? That car should be stupid fast though with the power and it's weight. 9s and 150+mph. I was on track to run about 142mph on my 10.4 pass before the tranny broke and that was at the 664whp power level in a still portly 2G.


We were wondering that as well, the T67 powered Spyder we have made 520+ ft/lbs and my old 2G made 537 at 686whp. However, earlier in the tuning process Kyle's car did make that same 537 ft/lbs but was only in the mid 600's in regards to HP. Any ideas?

Chris

[EclipseGST]

What turbo was used?

[dumb_ricer]

Pt71 Gtq

[v8klla]

My old PT71GTQ...

More possibilities: DSMlink? Larger primaries on the DNP manifold? Timing after 7k was very low as the stock ECU had no idea what it should be doing lol.

[Shane@DBPerformance]

Well, it's not like you want torque, since all it does is break shit. My T67 spooled fairly fast, which means more torque in turn.

Did you get any pulls where it didn't spin the tires? Spinning the tires can cause the numbers to do weird things. If it started spinning at 7500 in the pull above, you can see the HP, TQ, and A/F chart trends move up in a weird way after 7500.

I think I was running around 12-14 degrees of timing up top on my car.

[v8klla]

Well, it's not like you want torque, since all it does is break shit. My T67 spooled fairly fast, which means more torque in turn.

Did you get any pulls where it didn't spin the tires? Spinning the tires can cause the numbers to do weird things. If it started spinning at 7500 in the pull above, you can see the HP, TQ, and A/F chart trends move up in a weird way after 7500.

I think I was running around 12-14 degrees of timing up top on my car.

Very true lol. We only made two pulls over 700whp as it was like 4am, however check out the A/F in the dyno graph above 7500 it goes crazy as you said.

Chris

[dumb_ricer]

I just went back and looked at the runs. Pretty much every one of them over 635whp was spinning the tires between 7500 and 7800. DSMLink showed wheel speed and RPM up to 8500, but the dyno was cutting off every single one. I didn't even really notice. On our "low boost" 25 or so lb's pull that it didn't spin (first "full" pull) it looks like it made about 450ft lbs (had a spike that said it was at 540ish) and 577whp. Horsepower stayed identical between 6800 and 8200 (within 5hp).

Spinning was the name of the game on our dyno. we really need slicks.(for the dyno AND for the track) I think the car has 725-740whp in it at its current boost level. It sure as hell should be making that.

[niterydr]

I just went back and looked at the runs. Pretty much every one of them over 635whp was spinning the tires between 7500 and 7800. DSMLink showed wheel speed and RPM up to 8500, but the dyno was cutting off every single one. I didn't even really notice. On our "low boost" 25 or so lb's pull that it didn't spin (first "full" pull) it looks like it made about 450ft lbs (had a spike that said it was at 540ish) and 577whp. Horsepower stayed identical between 6800 and 8200 (within 5hp).

Spinning was the name of the game on our dyno. we really need slicks.(for the dyno AND for the track) I think the car has 725-740whp in it at its current boost level. It sure as hell should be making that.

And that is why the car ran like poo under load up here.

Need more boost!!! And apparently traction. It doesn't hook on our dyno, and it didn't hook all too well behind LSE either!

Slicks should be coming!

I guarantee you were NOT spinning tires, now the clutch/power of the motor, thats another story..but there was NO rubber left on the dyno. I am afraid to come to your place without MASSIVE slicks to try to hook.

With the power spread out between 4 axles versus 2, you will not have traction issues up here for quite some time.



On a side note:

Was that E-85 car running 100%?
If so, its looking like there is an 18% power difference between the 2 places. Obviously this is a 2wd dsm to a awd dsm from dynojet to dyno dynamics. That is just number crunching the other car that was run here, as kyle's was obviously having a tuning/load/clutch? issue(s).

I'd like to run a few more fwd dsm to awd dsm tests to make a more concrete comparison estimate.

Back on topic:

That being said that car is SIIIICK. The sound, the setup, you guys should be rocking the track hard once you get it all figured out.

[dumb_ricer]

And that is why the car ran like poo under load up here.



I guarantee you were NOT spinning tires, now the clutch/power of the motor, thats another story..but there was NO rubber left on the dyno. I am afraid to come to your place without MASSIVE slicks to try to hook.

With the power spread out between 4 axles versus 2, you will not have traction issues up here for quite some time.



On a side note:

Was that E-85 car running 100%?
If so, its looking like there is an 18% power difference between the 2 places. Obviously this is a 2wd dsm to a awd dsm from dynojet to dyno dynamics. That is just number crunching the other car that was run here, as kyle's was obviously having a tuning/load/clutch? issue(s).

I'd like to run a few more fwd dsm to awd dsm tests to make a more concrete comparison estimate.

Back on topic:

That being said that car is SIIIICK. The sound, the setup, you guys should be rocking the track hard once you get it all figured out.


Sorry for not being clear, but I was talking about when he launched behind the shop, lol. I know he's definitely not spinning his tires on your dyno. Even assuming 700whp, thats only 350whp per axle, not enough to spin. Our dyno is another story, haha.

You didn't print off the a/f on Alex's car, so I am unable to tell you if it was at 100percent. He did some street tuning before it went there, and I think he said he added some fuel, so it was probably between 90 and 100 percent of where it was on our dyno. If you want to look at his A/F's on that run, we could get a better indication of overall.

Kyles car was probably slightly more off, but assuming the 18 percent drivetrain loss, he should have made around 575 on your dyno.

I'm thinking its more of a 15 or 16 percent loss though. Alex's car made 480 on our dyno x .85 (15percent) drops it right to 405.


Looks like on your 720whp pull on your dyno you would be making somewhere in the neighborhood of 830 on our dyno! Not too shabby.