709whp from Modern Automotive Performance!

[Shane@DBPerformance]

Did the turbo spool quicker with the load on the car at LSE. What was the torque like? I am guessing around 250ft-lbs per axle shouldn't be anything even close to spinning the tires on LSE's dyno.

[Shane@DBPerformance]

If this car made 542@LSE then it would take around 31% more to get to these numbers. It took about 18% to get from the 405awhp or Alex's car to his 479whp number at MAP. It's hard to compare though, unless nothing changed. Mara's car was about 21% from Elite to our dyno, but the dyno runs were a good 3 months apart. A few Evos that I have dynoed, that have also dyno on AWD Dynojets have taken about 18% more from our numbers to get to the Dynojet AWD numbers. The difference between Dynojet FWD and Dynojet AWD numbers seems to be very little.

[dumb_ricer]

Originally Posted by ecoli

If this car made 542@LSE then it would take around 31% more to get to these numbers. It took about 18% to get from the 405awhp or Alex's car to his 479whp number at MAP. It's hard to compare though, unless nothing changed. Mara's car was about 21% from Elite to our dyno, but the dyno runs were a good 3 months apart. A few Evos that I have dynoed, that have also dyno on AWD Dynojets have taken about 18% more from our numbers to get to the Dynojet AWD numbers. The difference between Dynojet FWD and Dynojet AWD numbers seems to be very little.

Kyle's car we really can't even compare. It wasn't running right, especially with the state of his tune above 7500RPM. We don't even know what it did up there. I don't have a dyno graph showing his Air/Fuel above 7700RPM, so we didn't tune for up to their, lol.

It actually took somewhere between 15 and 16 percent for Alex's car. 479*.85=407.2(15percent) and 479*.84=402.4(16percent). That is between FWD and AWD (10-15whp?) and Dynojet to Dyno Dynamics. I'm sure it gets different as power levels go up though. His boost wasn't changed, so the power is going to be pretty damn close. I don't think he added/removed more than 2 percent anywhere to stop the miss he was having. We found out that it may not have been a tuning issue at all though, and that there might be some EMI with the Vibrant Spark Plug cover we were using on both cars. As soon as he removed that, the miss went away, and we did NOT use the spark plug cover on our dyno for either cars. Kyle left his on at LSE, and Alex took his off to check plugs and never put it back on. Its all speculation at this point.

If either of you two shops with Dyno Dynamics are down, I could do a pull with my car (04 GTO, stockish) on our dyno and then drive up to one of your shops and we could do a pull up there to see what the difference is. I would disconnect the battery terminal before I dynoed here, and do the same up there. My PCM won't change the tune AT ALL for at least 10 minutes after I reset the PCM, so numbers would vary only by temperature pretty much.

And Kyles car looks like it was around 23 percent down on power.............709*.77=545. Either you two are doing math wrong or I am, haha.

[Shane@DBPerformance]

We already dynoed a good dozen cars on a 2WD Dynojet and then on our DD. Comparing AWDs is a whole different beast though. The AWD Dynojets have very inflated numbers though, the difference between 2WD cars is much less than the difference between AWD cars.

Yea, it's around 18% upward if you are starting with a DD number, or around 15% downward if you are starting with a DJ number. The percentages change depending on your reference point. Kinda like how 550cc injs are 22% bigger than 450cc injs, but 450cc injs are 19% smaller than 550cc.

[Swifty1638]

OMG the math! I can't do it! I guess that's why I just drive the car, and you all tune them!

-A. Swift

[dumb_ricer]

Originally Posted by Swifty1638

OMG the math! I can't do it! I guess that's why I just drive the car, and you all tune them!

I still won't tune someone else's car (non shop car). I don't feel right doing it yet. Hopefully soon enough I'll get some experience under my belt(EFI 101, EFI Advanced and an AEM shop car). Then I will feel comfortable tuning and start my learning curve to become a good tuner.


And I guess it depends which way you do the math on the numbers, haha. HUGE difference at big power numbers.

I would answer your spoolup question, but once again, I don't have Kyle's Dyno Graph here.

I'm starting to think that his low torque has everything to do with how much his head is ported. It is ported almost as much as Chris's was, and both of them made low torque and high power. They both have different Intake Manifolds too. I also wonder if the size of intercooler pipe is making a torque difference? They are/were both running 3.5" I do believe. How the turbo comes into boost could also do it. It's not violent, and boost seems to climb "slowly" but steadily, possibly resulting in less torque.

If either of those is the case, thank god for low torque and long powerbands! Maybe we won't break instantly at the track, haha.

[JET]

Low torque will come from very ported heads and big cams. Torque is about velocity and you won't have that with a big flow area on the intake side. The manifold can also have an effect on that depending on where the Heimholtz resonance is at.

[Shane@DBPerformance]

Why port the head that much if it is going to kill the torque/low end power and still take 38psi to reach 700whp with a huge turbo?

Originally Posted by dumb_ricer

Hopefully soon enough I'll get some experience under my belt(EFI 101, EFI Advanced and an AEM shop car). Then I will feel comfortable tuning and start my learning curve to become a good tuner.

Don't put too much faith in those classes, the tuning theory they teach works great for 1 cylinder engines or engines with a huge window between max power and detonation(like a normal compression all-motor engine), but isn't realistic for high strung boosted cars with 4+ cylinders.

[dumb_ricer]

Originally Posted by ecoli

Why port the head that much if it is going to kill the torque/low end power and still take 38psi to reach 700whp with a huge turbo?



Don't put too much faith in those classes, the tuning theory they teach works great for 1 cylinder engines or engines with a huge window between max power and detonation(like a normal compression all-motor engine), but isn't realistic for high strung boosted cars with 4+ cylinders.

Why port the head that much? No reason really. Trying something "new" for the most part. The fact that it holds power for so long I kind of like though! Maybe we'll do some tests in the future on our staged heads and see what the difference is. Until then, I think our goal is just going to be getting it to hook on the dyno, making a clean pull up to 8500, and then getting it to hook on the track, and hope for a 9.xx @ 14x.

As for putting faith in those classes, trust me, they will just be a first baby step into something I already know a lot about, but haven't actually done. I know fuel tuning extremely well, I understand combustion theory completely, and I like to think I understand timing under boost. My problems lie in things like base maps and low throttle tuning. I would have no problem setting up a base fuel map for an engine, but I don't think I would be comfortable with a base timing map. I know how the old carberated vehicles did it with vacuum advance and I see how the timing curve ramps up with RPM, but I don't know what a modern EFI with a much more efficient combustion chamber and high power should be doing. Time and experience will probably teach me pretty quickly, but until then I will stay away from any timing maps on turbocharged vehicles.

[Goat Blower]

I had a hogged out head on when I was making 39x whp at Elite years ago. My torque was pretty low as well. After a lot of reading I realized that head was killing my setup and switched to a head with mild clean up. Big difference in spool and driveability. I'd swap a stock head on there just for comparison, I bet the numbers are better.

[tim]

Originally Posted by dumb_ricer

Why port the head that much? No reason really. Trying something "new" for the most part. The fact that it holds power for so long I kind of like though! Maybe we'll do some tests in the future on our staged heads and see what the difference is. Until then, I think our goal is just going to be getting it to hook on the dyno, making a clean pull up to 8500, and then getting it to hook on the track, and hope for a 9.xx @ 14x.

No offense, but hooking on the dyno?? Who gives a shit how it hooks on the rollers. You have been hanging out on TCS too long.

Lets get that tq number up a bit and make it to a track outing. Lets see some real track numbers, if I wanted to see some bench racing I would look elsewhere.

Dont get me wrong, you need to figure out your 'stages' but why post about them when you havent figured them out yet?


Again, nice car and great numbers, lets just not jump the gun here.

[FattyBoomBatty]

Originally Posted by ecoli

Kinda like how 550cc injs are 22% bigger than 450cc injs, but 450cc injs are 19% smaller than 550cc.

Umm, what? Can you give a link to an explanation or send me a PM with that info or something? I fail to see how standing on the top of a building would give you a different height to the ground than if you were on the ground looking up, metaphorically speaking. Math isn't kind to metaphores though.

[JET]

450cc x 122% = 550cc
550cc / 119% = 450cc

In simple terms, 3 is 50% bigger than 2, but 2 is 33% less than 3.

[dumb_ricer]

It needs to hook on the rollers to get it to a good state of tune! We currently have no idea what the car is doing above 7700RPM as far as Air/Fuels are concerned.

Part of me likes the torque where it is at. It might actually hold up where it is at. Stock Evo3 transmission, stock axles, stock transfer case, and a twin disc might be able to do a clean pass.

I'm not really bench racing. I said we are hoping for, not we are going to run. The track is definitely in the near future, but we NEED a roll cage before we even street tune it. The car has NO seatbelts. I'll be damned if any of us are going to go out in a 700whp car and do street pulls without seat belts. The car was reckless enough at 530whp, I can't image 700plus.


As for you fattyboombatty, Shane is correct. Its all in how you look at it. Punch in the numbers. It's all about scaling.

450*1.22(22percent) = 550
550*.81(19percent) = 450

*Edit* I got super out holeshotted!

[turbotalon1g]

Alli can i say is, that i am really upset that i didn't get to see this car in person. But from what i was told, it sounds like an awesome car for MAP to have their name on. Good job guys.

[Pushit2.0]

I would think the clutch slip is a big issue also.

~John

[v8klla]

See that's the weird thing, we had no slippage on our dyno for the most part and it is a 4000+ lb roller. I also don't think that with such a light car that slipping will be an issue on the street...

Chris

[Goat Blower]

Originally Posted by Pushit2.0

I would think the clutch slip is a big issue also.

~John

A new twin disk on street tires, I doubt it.

[Pushit2.0]

Well the clutch was slipping bad on the dyno, so getting an accurate tune will be hard.

~John

[FattyBoomBatty]

4000 lbs is light?