Correction factors work well in a moderate range of circumstances. Like anything else, when the equations are pushed the results start to become less accurate.
Correction factors work well in a moderate range of circumstances. Like anything else, when the equations are pushed the results start to become less accurate.
That dyno might as well be a picture of dogs playing poker. Without any of the pertinent contextual details it means nothing. Not to mention the 30º difference in AOT... Regardless, don't bother because it's irrelevant...
The fact of the matter is a fixed multiplier simply cannot accurately derive even close to a real number due to the litany of variables. On to more facts, there isn't a 76mm that can support the airflow at "27psi" on a 3.0L to produce the stated numbers, and definitely not with that type of delivery. And before you say nitrous, the comp ratio and whatever combination of fairy dust contributed, remember that the turbine still has to evacuate that flow (and through a 3" downpipe..). So again, what are the details on this turbo?
The 1033 number is simply not real, not at any altitude, and you know this; otherwise you're not as smart as you let on to be. Go trap mid 150's + and prove me wrong. Until then, with the correction applied it's all bullshit.
Temp doesn't have an effect on turbo power output like some believe. The hp difference in 50 degrees is like 10hp. Its the density.. Take the track conditions at Bandimere Raceway Colorado at 2pm . They are pretty close to the conditions on the dyno pull. 24in/hg, within 10 degrees of dyno weather and very similar humidity. The air density is 77%. That means the dynojet SAE correction factor will be 1.23.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans@GZP
Density Altitude Forecast for Bandimere Speedway
Now look at the track conditions in Kent Washington Pacific Raceway. They are nearly identical to the pull #2 which was at English Racing in WA. 50 degrees, 85% humidity with 29in/hg. The air density is 98%. That means the dynojet SAE correction factor is 1.02.
Density Altitude Forecast for Pacific Raceway
You stand to gain 21% more horsepower from the air density increase alone. Temp plays a very small part but it's primarily the density. That's what Turbochargers and engines compress..
I can't come up with a bunch of engineering to prove why it is, but if you think of it like this you can see how corrected numbers may be a lot higher than it really makes a low altitude.
Let's say you are flowing 800 HP worth of CFM at high altitude. Now you go down to a lower altitude or DA. You can't instantly flow 1000 HP worth of CFM because you have reached the choke flow of the compressor and/or turbine and/or the housings.
This is even simplifying things because as you know the compressor map can have a huge impact on how the turbos perform at different altitudes because the PR and flow is going to be different at different turbo inlet pressures.
I believe built 3.0 2JZ Supras are putting down 900-950whp on low 30's psi on 76mm turbo's and C-16 racegas so what's there not to believe? His compression ratio is 3+ points higher, he's using meth which has atleast 20points higher octane than racegas which means he can run max timing plus he's spraying it. Seems pretty legit.Quote:
Originally Posted by HellBringer
I suppose if it were a Supra on the rollers your bias would go the other way...
I'd have to agree with you. If you don't have turbo's that can hit the numbers and run out of flow than it's not realistic. I think a 76mm is capable of flowing about 1000hp worth of air with simply boost only. I think where everything is getting jumbled up is the chemistry. The boost, I get that and it makes sense. When I drive down to sea level at 30psi I make 750whp and when I come back home at 30psi I make 600whp. I can understand that and have proven the CF is actually valid. What I have never seen before is increasing the charge density chemically with 3 different fuels. What appears to be taking place is he's basically recreating the relative air density of sea level in the combustion chamber by mixing all those fuels. When he drives down to sea level he will be able to combound the added 20% of air density BUT, he will have to have the fuel to support the extra air.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest Gump
That was the kicker on the high altitude dyno vs sea level experiment posted. The SAE numbers, were almost an exact trace of eachother. The uncorrected power output was infact increased almost excactly to the SAE CF numbers seen at elevation. At the same boost at elevation vs sea level it was necessary to add 20% more fuel in (give or take) to offest the air increase.
So yes, there are some added variables like having a fuel system that can pump 20% more fuel in, and a turbo that can flow the air, and an engine that can stay together given 20% higher output, but if you've got that covered than it's certainly possible.
My only "bias" is for truth. Only the new billet/CEA 7675's are making those numbers. They're certainly not hitting 1k at 5400RPM. The older cast PTE 76GTS is good for an honest all-boost mid/low 900's all-in with all of the supporting mods; the Turbonetics 76's had a hard time touching 900 period.
The nitrous is also going to greatly skew things, further invalidating the correction factor. If you remove the 20% correction then the numbers are realistic.
For comparison's sake, here is a 7675 on a 3.4L, 10:1, E85. Boost was 38-39psi:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ie/1134std.jpg
A t76 flows 93lbs/min according to Garrett. That's good for mid 900's on an all out, fully optimized setup, squeezing every pound of boost its good for into a built engine, through excellent heads, and huge cams.
You can do what you want with fuel, it's air that makes the power. Different fuels let you take advantage of the air to a higher degree than others. It's a general rule that at best, 10lbs/min is good for 100whp on a very good setup.
Personally I don't let a dyno graph weigh in to much on how much real power a car makes. Post a weight, and trap speed. That's where the proof is.
.....[/thread]Quote:
Originally Posted by donniekak
Wholly crap, I step out for a minute and it goes nuts in here, I don't even know where to start.....
First off, the turbo. T76 is good for 9xx? Even the nay-sayer's in here agree with that right? Well cool, it only made 894 off the bottle so we all agree then that's possible. If you can't grasp that concept, go read a book.
Next, the nitrous. Yes, it adds power, it is a oxidizer, so there's my oxygen, it cools the charge which is denser so there's more oxygen, compound all this with the methanol which is aprox 50% oxygen by mass.....I have oxygen! . Now as I'm pretty sure I stated before there is a slight cheat here because technically the CF should NOT apply to the nitrous, as NO2 is really the only thing that's not truly effected by altitude. However there is no true way for the Dyno to separate this out and determine which is which, so we're left with a slightly skewed number. But if you really want the math ((1033-894)/1.2)+894= 1009hp K, good talk.
Next, ForestGump, you're wrong bud. I understand what you're saying, but you're infact saying it wrong. You are correct in a sense, the CFM never changes. That is a cubic foot is a max limited flow. This is like saying the moving man can move "x" boxes per minute. However you forget what's in the boxes. The density of the box at lower altitude simply has more air. You're still moving the same box of air, the same "cubic foot", just the density of that cubic foot is more to begin with. A few things to look at here. 1. Compressor maps generally aren't stated in CFM anymore, they're rated in LB/Min, as it tends to be more accurate and take into consideration density. 2. Compressor maps aren't rated in PSI or BAR on the Y axis, they're rated in P1 vs P2, that is the RATIO of pressure going in vs whats coming out. Because the pressure of what's going in plays a BIG roll in what's coming out. 3. This is the WHOLE principal behind a compound setup, I know because I made "Triple Charged", which was inherently a compound setup. The power of the system as a whole is determined by the first pump in the system. That is, the first turbo in a compound setup, the second turbo is always smaller. So how can the CFM of the first turbo flow through the second smaller turbo? Because it's more dense when it does.
If you still don't get it, look at it like this. The turbo is a pump, our engines are pumps. That being said they're the same. Now a 3.0L engine simply does not flow enough CFM to make 5XXhp right? No, it really doesn't. But if you boost it, the engine is still consuming the same CFM of air (measured at the TB) as it was before, it's still the same displacement. However the air is denser to begin with when it consumes it, so it does...
The dyno: This shit just gets old, you can't accomplish something so my equipment must be faulty right? This isn't rocket science kids. Hellbringer, let's look at your dyno. So using a 76mm turbo they cracked off 1135hp (yea, I rounded up the .6) at 38psi huh? Ok so why it it hard to believe that with 11psi less I was missing 241 hp? Would you expect it to be that I should be missing more? Because if you factor in that I'm 1 full comp raito higher, MUCH colder IAT's, AND have the added oxygen of methanol, AND have the ability to max out my timing..... 241hp for 11psi doesn't sound too bad, in fact it sounds like if I took a bit more time I could do better! Now you mention the "By 5400" I'm sure you're looking at the "with nitrous" map, which is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the off nitrous map. Turbos multiply what you feed them, hence the fact there is a non-linear exponential graph that follows the boost curve....I fed it ALOT of extra at the beging which prespools the turbo and compounds into alot more power (sooner), but notice not as much of a peak to peak gain.
I got so sick of hearing "This dyno reads high", "that dyno reads low" crap that I put them to the test. I PUT UP THE MONEY, I had the testing done! And guess what, they all pretty much read the same (except one, but they just don't know how to operate a dyno). There was an article written on this:
Dyno Comparison Challenge Results
What We Did
We went around to all the local dyno facilities to gather data and see what and how big the differences are between them. Do all the dynos really tell a different story? Though lengthy, this is just a summary of the results found. We'll expand on this with a full-length version in the near future.
I'm sure we've all been there. Someone asks how much power you make, and when you tell them the results of your hard work, the response is "Yea, but on what dyno?" It's as if all your accomplishments are reduced to nothing more than a faulty piece of equipment spewing lies. Well, now there's concrete evidence to back up or deflate your response.
How We Did It
We chose one car, a turbocharged Honda Civic with an H22 making ~600WHP. We chose it because with such high horsepower, variances in readings show up more easily and with more detail. The car's owner built and tuned it himself, which means he had no ties to any one shop. The theory is since he has no ties, we'll get honest readings that any general customer off the street should expect to get. (We didn't want anyone purposely messing with numbers!) We tried to dyno the car at as many places as possible, on the same day when possible, to eliminate as many variables as possible. Because we were the ones hosting the testing, we decided to go first, to eliminate our messing with our numbers to match/raise/lower the results.
Results Summary
Generally, this is a subject that's very controversial, with loads of speculation coming from both sides of the aisle. But really, should there be speculation? After all, a dyno is nothing more than a tool for measuring. You never seem to hear Stanley and Craftsman arguing over who has the most accurate tape measure, so why does the automotive world argue? Well, this should end the debate. A dyno is a tool that uses a series of mathematical calculations to produce an end number. That is, measure how fast a given known mass is accelerated (inertia) or by measuring the strain (torque) during acceleration with a resistance applied (or both). They really should all read the same. And for the most part, they do!
We measured five different dynos and came up with numbers varying from 487 to 617HP. In order to throw out the odd-ball highs and lows, we decided to use the median average from all the tests as our documented standard and came up with 598HP. This gives us an even measuring point as to how far each dyno is from what would be the "average" power measured.
Improper Correction Factor?
As this chart shows, if we assume the car has the median measured 598HP, all of the dynos are within +/-2 percent, or a maximum variance of 3.9 percent. Pretty close, even considering the one with the biggest difference (-2.07 percent) was documented to have tire slippage, slightly skewing the results. And all of these are right in par with the dyno this car did in Virginia (at sea level) with a measurement of 603HP. That is, of course, except for dyno number 5, but as the notes column states, a "different" correction factor was used (for whatever reason), so let's take a look at that.
Correction Factors
A correction factor (CF) is probably one of the most misunderstood properties of dyno testing on cars. It's commonly seen as "Correcting for sea level" or "The power it would make if it were at sea level." Well, it's not!
In order to understand the CF, you must first understand why you're using a dyno in the first place. The dyno prints a number on a piece of paper, which is a measurement. But what good is a measurement if you have nothing to compare it to? The whole premise behind a dyno is to compare numbers of one car to another (or to itself after changes). Therefore, you must compare on an equal playing field. If you measure a distance in yards and another in centimeters, the two measurements are useless without some sort of conversion factor (for the dyno the correction factor) to make them comparable.
Simply stated, that's all a CF is: a calculation taking into account known variables to equalize the comparables. If you dyno your car on a hot day, then take it home, add a header, and re-dyno it on a cold day, the power numbers measured will change. But are they changing because you added a header or because the temperature was colder on the second dyno day? A proper CF takes this into account.
A CF simply calculates the changes for known variables: temperature, pressure, and humidity and calculates the measured horsepower into corrected power. The SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) has come up with predefined constants for these (77degF, 29.234inHg, 0% humidity). Now that we have constants, we can adjust accordingly. These adjustments are made all over the U.S. on every dyno (usually automatically by the dyno software). This now makes a level playing field where you can compare your numbers from a dyno at 6000 feet in Colorado on a 32-degree day, to someone at 0 feet in Florida on a 102-degree day.
This, however, does not mean that if you take your car to sea level, these are the numbers you will produce. If, for example, you max out your injectors at 6000 feet, when you travel to sea level, the air density changes, and you have to use more fuel, fuel that's not available. Therefore, your car will not produce the corrected power numbers. (In fact, it will probably run lean and explode!) It's simply a way for people to fairly compare different setups during different conditions.
Changing the CF (half CF)
The claim is that on boosted (super/turbocharged) cars, the CF should be only half of what it is for naturally aspirated cars. This is about the most ridiculous thing you can do! Not only is it incorrect, but it creates numbers that are absurd that cannot be compared with any other dyno (oftentimes not even with itself!), and back to the basics, isn't that why you're using the dyno in the first place – to compare? Think about it, if we're correcting for humidity because the water molecules in the air are displacing the oxygen molecules, does that mean that on boosted applications half the water is simply going to "leave the air" before being sucked into the intake? No! So why are we only correcting for half of it? There are some applications where SAE J1349 states not to use a CF. (We will address this issue in the full review but even then, it's not some made up number of half!)
Uncorrected Numbers
Again, these numbers are not correct(ed)! Many people like to brag using "uncorrected" numbers. Well, were those numbers measured on a hot day or a cold day? One car on a hot day may show less power than another on a cold day, even though the actual results are different. The only thing an uncorrected number is good for is to show what that specific car would run at that specific time, temperature, altitude, humidity, and pressure if you were trying to calculate what it should run in the ¼ mile right then. Tomorrow, if the conditions change, the results will also change.
So Why the Differences?
As you can see from the chart, all of the dynos read within +/- 2 percent of each other except one, but why? If four out of five agree, you really have to start questioning the 5th one. Is it possible that it's just a poor dyno? No, not likely. If some company produced a dyno that consistently created numbers out in left field, the general public would eventually catch on, and the company probably wouldn't sell very many dynos.
Chances are it's probably the dyno operator. Whether he mis-calibrated the dyno, is untrained in exactly how to use it, or is just downright shady, one can only speculate. But if you take a moment to look at the numbers, and listen to what the dyno operator is saying, you can often pick up some clues! Dyno #5's operator used a trap speed calculator with this car since it has been known to trap 130mph in the ¼. Based on that and the weight, he comes up with a number of 488HP, pretty close to the numbers he already has from the dyno. Convenient? No, not really, it's pretty simple math here. What the dyno operator does not realize is that the trap speeds are based on the uncorrected numbers, not the corrected numbers! Why? Because that's what your car is actually outputting to the ground, at that exact given moment, and that's exactly how it will perform. But mind you, we're still at 6000 feet, so those numbers would do no good to compare with anyone else's. What this seems to equate to is though the dyno operator claims a correction factor of 1.15, it appears there really is no correction factor being used! Either he mis-calibrated the dyno itself, or he's an untrained user of the software. Either way, clearly the numbers are wrong!
How Can We Adjust for This
In this case, it seems really quite simple. Though the dyno operator claims to be using a CF of 1.15, it appears there is, in fact, no correction factor at all being used (based on our analysis of the trap speed calculation). It's really as simple as multiplying in a proper CF. If you measure the temp, pressure, and humidity at the dyno facility (we did!), there are plenty of online automated calculators you can use. In this case with the measured readings we took (66degF, 10 percent Humidity, 24.21inHg) we came up with a CF of 1.23 (or 123 percent). So, if we multiply the 489HP (Dyno #5's average) by 1.23 we come up with 601HP! Now that sounds a bit closer to what it should be, now doesn't it?
Let's for a second entertain the theory that dyno #5's operator was in fact using a correction factor of 1.15. If that was the case, then by dividing the result, 489HP by 1.15, you get an uncorrected result of 425HP. Now, let's multiply that by the accurate correction factor for that specific moment in time of 1.23, and you're left with 522HP. This is still a significant variation from the other four dynos. In statistical mathematics, we call this anomaly an outlier. And what do we do with outliers? We throw the data away because clearly there was either human or mechanical error in the calculation.
If you want the original with all the charts and graphs go here: https://www.facebook.com/UPPCOS/app_203351739677351
Now those of you bitching about the CF factor, honestly there is no perfect CF factor for the boosted world. Unfortunately it's just not that simple. If you again go back to the compressor chart and look at P1vsP2, you can see that by increasing or decreasing the altitude and changing the value of P1, you're changing the ratio of P1 vs P2, and therefor effecting the efficiency of the turbo. And what's worse is altitude can make it go up or down! And it changes with every turbo. So no, it's not completely "perfect", but nothing ever will be. However it is close, and ireguardless of what people think, altitude does play a big roll, even on FI cars.
However that being said, we all pretty much use the same CF period, because it's all we have to go by. Backing up what JFast said earlier, comparing cars up here to down there, and it is pretty close. The car used in the dyno comp testing was dyno'd down close to sea level before he was transferred here, and the results are pretty close to all the tests that were preformed here. (I would be happy to post the graphs of them if you'd like?)
I still for the life of me can't grasp this, why is this so hard to believe? I can build a compound twin turbo/supercharged setup...no problem. I can build a fully custom single setup......no problem. I can tune AEM to run 12 injectors (with only 10 drivers mind you!...yea figure that one out!) with two completely different fuels with seamless transition, nitrous, intercooler water sprayer, high/low boost, anti-lag, rolling anti-lag, NLTS, and decel antilag.... No problem..... But the second I say that I broke 4 digits (even while admitting to using nitrous!), you all freak the fuck out! Amazing....
Go trap over 150mph.
Jason
^Right......I forgot one of the requirements for posting on this board was to impress you......I'll get right on that.
Wasn't to impress me but to irrefutably legitimize your numbers.
Jason
I did legitimize my numbers....on a dyno....and then legitimized the dyno by comparing it with all the other dynos in the area..... Quite honestly I don't care whether you or anyone else believes me, I didn't build the car for you! I built it for me, I know what I did, and I'm satisfied. If for some reason this doesn't satisfy you, well I'm sorry....maybe you should stop reading this thread? I'm not even the OP of this thread. Someone else posted then invited me in to answer questions and give input.
And what happens when I post a vid of a 150mph run, then what? We all gonna be friends, hold hands and sing Kumbaya? Am I going to gain "respect" like in the Fast and Furious? Are all the haters going to have a sudden epiphany and understand physics?
......No, you'll just accuse me of making a fake vid....maybe some CGI? Maybe trickery of the timing lights?
If you actually took the time to read the pages above, the data is there. The math supports it, even when based off the claims of the haters (1135hp dyno graph). So either you don't understand physics and basic math, or you're choosing to personally attack me, when you don't really even know who I am nor my abilities. So which is it?
LOL, I don't think your validation matters. If it was Ray or Matt doing it you'd be swinging on their nuts about it and hummin and haa-in.Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonY
Here's some better questions to answer instead of your own impugn. Why don't you need a compression rod fix at an unarguable number of atleast 800hp? Why isn't the metal from the block or heads warping a that power level? Why are the ARP bolts that 3sTech's said are inferior to OEM bolts keeping the HG clamped? Why isn't the deck compressing? How did he add the extra injector drivers on an AEM V1 box? What is the fuel consumption for each phase and total fuel consumption for a pull?
I think he has some results and explanations for those that might contradict popular belief. A good rhetorical situation is more important than pushing away progress by acting like jackasses.
A slip would be cool, but it doesn't matter. I'm cool with the results and soo is Erron. We actually talked about it for about a 1/2 hour on the phone and came to the conclusion it's just damn brilliant and amazing. There's lots of variables in play and what if's.
Hey CK, can you anwer any of the questions posed?
Why don't you need a compression rod fix at an unarguable number of atleast 800hp?
Why isn't the deck compressing?
Why isn't the metal from the block or heads warping a that power level?
Why are the ARP bolts that 3sTech's said are inferior to OEM bolts keeping the HG clamped?
How did you add the extra injector drivers on an AEM V1 box?
What is the total mass of fuel being consumed for each phase and total fuel consumption for a pull?
What does yourtiming map landscape and injector pulse map in AEM look like?
Thanks for your time and contributions to the platform ahead of time.
Why don't you need a compression rod fix at an unarguable number of atleast 800hp?
Because you don't! Not saying it's going to last forever or anything. I remember the days when people said you can't run more than 8psi on a NA car that's been boosted with stock internals. I ran 28psi on the stock 3S N/A block, just trying to see what it would handle....it never blew up!
Why isn't the deck compressing?
Why would it? I'd assume the deck of the cast iron block is pretty sound. We push those weak aluminum honda blocks pretty far, even past this HP/L when sleeved, and even still I would assume they're weaker than our blocks. You'd be surprised what you can do if you can prevent detonation. I think the sudden spikes in cyl pressure from detonation could be a contributing factor.
Why isn't the metal from the block or heads warping a that power level?
I doubt the block will. But the heads? Maybe? I took out the head gasket on the last setup with the stock N/A bottom end running less boost, but it was old and may have been overheated a time or two. I guess only time will tell. Same with the fact that my trans/t-case/rearend/axles haven't exploded, I'm sure it's just a matter of time!
Why are the ARP bolts that 3sTech's said are inferior to OEM bolts keeping the HG clamped?
I was not aware they're "inferior"? I haven't read any studies, and I'm honestly not a metallurgist, so I can't answer with indefinite reasoning. But as a "consumer", ARP knows their stuff, it's all they do. I've never had an issue to date with any of their products, which is good enough for me. Occasionally on some of the aluminum blocks we'll pull the studs clean out of the block, and go to larger diameter with more surface area studs. But that's more a failure of the block than it is an ARP failure. Mitsubishi builds alot of things, engines, cars, TV's....ARP makes bolts, that's it just bolts. ARP knows bolts. ARP is known for bolts. So when asked if I want a bolt from Mitsubishi (that may not have even been made by mitsubishi), or one from a company that makes bolts.....I'll choose ARP.
How did you add the extra injector drivers on an AEM V1 box?
Since the airflow when the secondaries is high, we batch fire them, run in series. This actually only uses 2 extra drivers and achieves the resistance value without a resistor box.
What is the total mass of fuel being consumed for each phase and total fuel consumption for a pull?
I dunno? Alot! LOL. Over the 2 days of initial tuning we used 3x fills on the 12gal fuel cell (36gal), and aprox 7gal of Meth. Comparative we generally use 1/4-1/2 a tank of fuel doing a normal tune, generally taking 1/2-3/4 days. I would have to look at the logs to get the actual math, but I believe we're ~70%IDC with a 50/50 split on 850cc/1600cc combo.
What does yourtiming map landscape and injector pulse map in AEM look like?
Ign map looks like a normal flowing one, nothing special. But the nitrous map is used to correct the secondary injector math flaws, which pretty much ramps it all in past 3K when meth is active.
Fuel, again looks like a normal map. But the nitrous map is F***ed up! For whatever reason the math on the secondary inj calculator is off, so we used the NO2 map to correct. Low RPM, low load we add fuel (+20% when meth is active), high RPM/high load we subtract fuel (-30% when meth is active).
Some other questions that I over looked:
Yes the down pipe is 3", but only for as short of a period as I possibly could (till the bottom rear of the engine), then it becomes 4". The full 3" exhaust proved to be restrictive, but we tested the 2nd half of the DP to where it is now with the 3" while we still had it on the dyno and it proved fine. May seem restrictive but remember the output of the turbo right at the turbine is only ~2.5", so even 3" is an expansion from that.
The turbo is a 76/102 with a 74/64 turbine. We started with the T72 .81AR, but were seeing WG issues which I assumed were due to the A/R being too small. So when we jumped to the T76 we opted for the .96A/R, which it didn't hardly spool. Making a 3rd gear pass it was still climbing in boost at red-line, and would never go past 25psi. So I double checked on the turbo matrix and figured out that we're on the wrong end of the spectrum, and needed to be ~.68 A/R, which is what we are at now. The WG issues turned out to be solenoid related. So now it spools way faster (than even the T72) with more top end, and past the 25psi mark.
CK
Tell ya what, I got a better idea. Why don't you cram that $300 in your gas tank and drive your happy ass up here to altitude and run your car, since apparently you don't understand how pressure loss works! You shouldn't need any sort of CF for your car, and you should run the same as you do down there right?Quote:
Originally Posted by HellBringer
CK
As long as you keep the Tq in check you can have the engine to last longer. It's the Tq that kills rods not hp.
I read a post somewhere about the ARP head studs/bolts. The manual states to torque to 90lbs IIRC but ARP recommend torquing to 100. And stated that if they are not torqued to the recommended amount they will be no better than stock.
Here is the heart of the matter. The car made a mechanically measured amount of horsepower. It was calculated that by changing atmospheric conditions only, it would make 20-25% more power. It's not that easy, at those power levels, and with the correction factor equation stretched that far. The correction factor equations were designed to work pretty good, with changes in da of a couplel thousand feet. Not almost 2 miles.
Watch an nhra event with blown, high octane fueled engines. The trap speeds changes by far less than the correction factor equations would indicate when they go to high elevation tracks.
I think some people are looking at this, like it is a Nelson hype thread.... The OP posted a very unique and interesting setup for big power. The owner was kind enough to join in and tell us the details and even admit that nitrous cheats the dyno, and has been able to (in mass detail) explain how he has been able to achieve those #s on a DYNO, using standard correction factors. He did not start a 1000 HP 9 sec club thread...
That being said, trying to to call someone out for proof and act like a badass waving cash around to make someone take their car to the track because you "think" you know what a setup can do, wreaks of douchebaggery.
This is obviously not a race car, and I don't blame him for not wanting to risk his life or his drivetrain for your approval and $300.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPPCOS
You've posted a lot of words without a lot of tangible substance, and clearly you don't understand all of what you're saying -- particularly on the turbo tech. Now that you've provided the turbo specifics that I asked for in my first post, I'm going to make this very simple.. A 76mm P-trim with a .68ar (turbo tech from the 70's) will never flow the kind of numbers you're reporting at any elevation, any compression ratio, fuel, etc... PERIOD! This is a fact. While the 76 compressor is capable of moving ~900WHP of airflow completely tapped out, that teeny tiny turbine absolutely will NOT - regardless of AR. And to claim it through a .68 is even more laughable, and at only 27psi is making my sides hurt...! That turbo is better suited for a lower-revving, less efficient setup like for GN's, SyTy, etc... It is terrible mismatch for a DOHC 3.0L.... This also easily explains why your curve drops like a rock after 6000RPM.
Very simply, your corrected numbers are complete and total bullshit; there's no other way around it. You will not make 1xxx at sea level no matter how many times you click your heals together. That turbo is simply not capable of those numbers on any setup and your thoughts and opinions cannot alter physics. All say it again -- if you remove the correction factor you're in the mid-800WHP range which is realistic for the setup; though as already stated your turbo selection is horrendously mismatched, so your power delivery is pretty worthless.
The 7675 dyno that I posted is a new-tech billet (or in PTE nomenclature CEA) unit. The only similarity between it and your turbo is the compressor inducer measures 76mm. Beyond that it's apples to moon pies...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 75blackray
Do you only "think" 1+1 = 2..?
I'll break this down very simply: A car is strapped to the dyno and produces an actual ~860WHP. The owner then multiplies that number by 1.2 for altitude correction and claims that to be the 'real' number. The setup is simply not capable of producing the corrected number, in the same way that 1+1 will never = 3. Hilarity ensues and the uninformed are bullshitted into believing this setup can or has produced 1xxxWHP. Who's the douchebag now..? Why was the correction factor not disclosed along with the graph? Because 1xxx is more 'impressive' than 8xxx, maybe..?
Dyno numbers can be manipulated, trap speeds cannot. The track is the true lie detector, and as others have also stated, it validates the claim - it's PROOF. You can walk the car out of the hole and row through the gears without risking life or your drivetrain and still produce a MPH representative of the setup - that's why I stated ET does not matter.
The owner was not bragging that he made 1k HP. The dyno gave him the correction factor that any other car in that altitude would get, is it dead on accurate, no but neither is any other dyno even at sea level, but using that tool, it measured those #'s. And from my perspective he has explained where the additional O2 came from, much better than your insistence that it can't be true bc of what you know about that turbo, but I'm just another dumb and poor 3s guy, so what do I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by HellBringer
My main point being, it is pretty low class to come into a thread where someone is doing nothing but explaining their setup (of which a lot could be learned from), and yelling *insertfarmanimal*shit, insulting their integrity, and throwing money out there to try to make him prove himself. I don't care how you get to 150mph, it is a risk, especially on stock drive train (ever seen a car front flip from a broken drive shaft/yoke?). He is not bench racing, nor did he start a pissing contest w/ you.
I normally would keep my mouth shut, but I feel like this platform rarely gets new ideas, and when it does some ass with a superiority complex (factory equipped by Toyota) runs those people off.
I disagree with you. The drag cars your refering to are what, top fuel? You know the difference between a 6000whp top fuel drag car at sea level and one that makes 5000whp due to an 80% relative air densidy altitude? 1 mph and a couple of tenths. The CF can actually be legitimized with all engines reliant on oxygen for combustion. If you want to run the same drag time at elevation you have to bring in your own oxygen into the combustion chamber with a pill. The CF numbers aren't a bunch of bull. I think I proved that with the dyno chart I posted. 600whp uncorrected at a 75% air density, and 750whp uncorrected at damn near 100% air density. So physics and chemistry doesnt work now or something? Why would the results be any different if the turbo used on the setup was GT45 at 35psi? Would I not see 1000 here and then 1200 there? By your reckoning I wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by donniekak
I don't think you get it.. The dyno records an actual number and then applies a multiplier to give a corrected number. The ACTUAL (uncorrected number) is pretty well inline with what the sum of all parts is capable of -- I never disputed that. When you apply the absurd correction factor and then try to assert that it is accurate, or that the setup is otherwise truly capable of that number in different atmospheric conditions is when the shit gets deep.
Had the ACTUAL numbers been displayed I probably wouldn't have even chimed in here; however, posting grossly unrealistic inflated numbers for sake of calling it "1000+ awhp" is what rubbed me the wrong way. It's frankly a disservice to the community...
I also think it has something to do with the original thread starter and the attitude that will inevitably be brought to the conversation.....
All right dipshit...
Yea, I know nothing about turbos.....again my previous statement, you don't know who I am, nor what my abilities are. It's only what I do for a living. So let me break it down for you. Please try to follow along and drop your "I know everything because I own a supra attitude".
First why don't you stop trying to bend numbers to better suit you. You keep saying 1000hp, but you're talking about the turbo. Which if you weren't so illiterate has been posted in here multiple times 894. Take the Nitrous out of the equation if we're going to turbo talk. Now hop on google and pull up the turbo matrix from Turbonetics. If you look in the 900 column for a 3.0l what does it say? T76 with a .68A/R. Now do you think that turbonetics would suggest a turbo that's completely maxed out, or one that would run efficiently for the application? Well you've already proved you don't know shit so let me answer that for you to make sure you get it right... the turbo is running efficiently, not maxed out. Next let's look at the A/R....oh shit it says to use a .68A/R too. Yea, can you believe that? Contrary to what you THINK you know, the company that manufactures turbos say different. You probably better call them out on that, let them know they don't know what the hell they're doing. You know just tell them you "own a supra", they'll understand! I know first hand. Why? BECAUSE I FUCKING TESTED IT! .96/.81/.68, ALL OF THEM! Now before you try to jump on the "P" trim, yes, I choose that over the Q. Yes I sacrifice top end flow, but I did this for spooling. Since I'm running stock cams and I cannot efficiently rev them to the moon, I don't have the revs to wait for boost and use it later. So is the P trim the most efficient setup, no probably not if I was going for max #'s, but since I care somewhat on how the car drives, I kinda want it to spool.
Next, incase your illiterate ass wasn't following along, or simply just choose to ignore, I already stated that there was a CF used, and it IS in the 1.2x. Because that's what it SHOULD be! Again as it's been stated before, there is no perfect CF for boost simply because there are too many variables. However there is still a substantial difference in measured power with altitude. Again, I can post the dyno graphs of the study car we did. Both here and at sea level if you'd like. It too was boosted, it to was high 20's psi, and it too showed comparable numbers. But you haven't asked for that, because you don't want facts or cold hard numbers. You want what you "think" you know. Now SAE created and implemented the use of the correction factor, ON ALL CARS. Yes there are some exceptions where barometric pressure is ignored like if you're running a correcting psia boost control methodology, however this isn't the case. So again, maybe you should call up SAE and let them know they're doing it wrong, you know since you've provided such a better way?
Contrary to what you may believe, barometric pressure plays a big roll in turbo cars. It's the exact same concept as compounding turbos. The density of the air entering the turbo (the second in compounding) plays a significant roll in the outcome of the density after the turbo. If you start with less to begin with, you end up with less, period.
Now it's also clear that not only do you not understand turbos, you don't understand methanol and the effects it has. It's 1/2 oxygen by weight, so to some degree it supplies its own oxygen! This in itself adds power. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp? Why do you think there's entire N/A classes that run on methanol? It's not because they need the octane, it's because methanol makes more power, period! Even without doing anything else, just the use of methanol makes more power. It cools better, it provides more oxygen to the burn cycle, and with the added quench effect you have the ability to lean out the mixture for more power. Why is this hard to understand?
I honestly don't get what the fuck your problem is, nor where you come off. You try to inflate my numbers saying a T76 can't make 1000, when I never claimed it did, I claimed 894, which is well within reason of even what you are claiming. I've provided facts, data, etc, and brought to the table. You bring no evidence to the table, NOTHING. You simply state that "it can't be done", because that's how you FEEL. And that you need more evidence and I should prove it to you by running my car 150+mph passes. You have ZERO that you are going on, only what you THINK you know. I've done it, I've lived it. You don't THINK the turbo can flow that much, even though even the mfg states that its recommended for the application. So where's your evidence? Where's your proof? Why don't you bring something to the table besides, "it can't"? Same with the dyno CF argument, I've done extensive testing on dynos, I've got graphs to back up my claims. It's the same CF that SAE uses, even on their turbo cars, even at this altitude! So where's your evidence that this CF is wrong? Where's your tangible proof? There is none, because you're just a keyboard cowboy who thinks he knows his shit! Again prove me wrong! Cram the $300 in your fuel tank and drive out here! You prove it to me champ! I notice you expect me to jump on the 150mph demand, but you completely ignored mine for you to come out here!
No, I don't think YOU get it. A car will inherently make less power up here at elevation, period! The only way for us to adjust for this and compare numbers is by having some sort of base like to correct to. Hence when you even out the P/T/H, the 3 major factors effected by the change, the numbers start to become more inline. What makes you think that the less air density up here plays no roll in how our cars preform? Again, you should probably call up SAE and let them know they're doing it wrong.....Quote:
Originally Posted by HellBringer
Well I was not the OP, but yes, I will inevitably have an attitude. I bust my ass with this car, everything from testing turbos, to twin charging the setup, to pushing a stock N/A block, to multi-fuels An the second that I accomplish anything, even something that's been determined within reason, there's some jackass that has to come out and flame because he "doesn't think" it's possible. Like all my efforts have been reduced to I'm a liar! Yea....that'll piss me off, who wouldn't be?Quote:
Originally Posted by familyMAN
Quote: If you look in the 900 column for a 3.0l what does it say? T76 with a .68A/R. Now do you think that turbonetics would suggest a turbo that's completely maxed out, or one that would run efficiently for the application? /quote
Is that matrix for crank or whp?
I was talking about the OP not you.....although you lost the cool head you had been bringing to the thread. The problem the folks down in the land of easy breathing have with dyno's posted in the clouds is that they are never qualified with the correction factor. There really is no guarantee that the car could produce the corrected numbers down at sea level because the turbo or fuel could be tapped out or even the engine can't handle the actual sea level torque. Not saying that is the case with your car, but I'm sure you understand the argument. Correction factor should be for a basis of comparison of your own car, so that you know if the changes you made, truly make a difference and not just weather related.Quote:
Originally Posted by UPPCOS
894awhp may or may not happen at sea level with your car, but by my math, you did make somewhere around 7-750awhp uncorrected, all turbo at altitude. That is something to be proud of and acknowledged. That is the "real" hp, as us sea level guys say, and what the trap speeds would indicate if you ran at a track at the same altitude. Hope that brings some clarification to the chest pounding.
This is hilarious. I know nothing about turbos, yet you're the one that compared your dinosaur T76 to a 7675 because they both have a 76mm inducer, and then you cite the Turbonetics matrix as gospel...? So you purposely picked the P-trim over the Q-trim because that's what the matrix told you to do? Honestly your turbo selection is severely off base for your goals altogether; neither of those is complimentary to the setup. Maybe the altitude is affecting your judgement, or maybe you don't know all that you claim....
Even still. They're not going to recommend a turbo that's maxed out. So maybe I took it past the efficiency range. 900whp isn't not outside the realm of reality.
And now we're past the "what can the turbo do" and on to what CF should be used. Since most all dyno's everywhere use the same CF..... And with the studies I've done proving that what was measured at sea level is comparable to what's measured here, and because it is an industry standard that SAE (and every vehicle mfg) uses on boosted cars.....that's what we use. Now again, if you'd like to prove me wrong, PLEASE drive your car up here. Hell I'll even run you on the dyno for free, just in the interest of science! Baseline your car at sea level with a data log, bring it here, and we'll compare!
But to sit back and just say "it simply isn't so" when you have no grounds to stand on, even when the entire rest of the world uses the same thing, is absurd. SAE is common knowledge, if you think it's incorrect,prove it! You insist that even though I follow industry wide procedure, some how my numbers are wrong is absolute bullshit.
You're absolutely right. One of the biggest misconceptions about the CF is that "this is what the car would do at sea level", which is not necessarily true. What it is a better comparison of is "if your car made similar numbers at sea level, and you brought it here it would preform comparably." Because if I maxed out the injectors, they would not make more down there. (Infact I'm pretty positive that this is stated as exactly this in the dyno comparison I posted). However maxing out the turbo which is breathing less dense air up here, would flow the same CFM with denser air down at sea level, which would equate to more power.Quote:
Originally Posted by familyMAN
And yes I lose my cool. I'm human just like anyone else, and when clueless people start sounding off it rubs me wrong.
Lest we not forget that the Dynocom is also the highest reading of all mainstream dynos on the market. They typically read at least 5-7% higher than a Dynojet in the same conditions.
So let me level set again... Clearly when I'm speaking of the 1xxx number I'm referring to the nitrous plot; nitrous does not remove the turbo (or more specifically the turbine/hotside) from the equation. My point is - again - that you will not reproduce that number at sea level at 27psi (or likely any boost level). So... With the correction applied it is a bullshit number. Your all-boost number of 894 may be reproducible but no way in hell is it happening at 27psi, and look at that the curve - it's worthless. You could shift the whole powerband to the left and carry power longer with a more appropriate turbine/hotside. Even an old school 76GTS would spool faster and make more power longer, but obviously the handy-dandy Turbonetics matrix won't tell you that. How do I know this...? Because it's been done countless times on 3.0L 6cyl engines countless times.
So......I don't see a lick of evidence in that statement....another useless post?Quote:
Originally Posted by HellBringer
My turbo selection is off? But you don't provide actual evidence why.... The turbo "won't make that power", but you don't provide evidence why.... The CF factor is wrong, but you don't provide evidence why.....
Really starting to see a similarity here between all your posts.
Abram isnt clueless, its not the numbers that are off, its the correction of it that just seems grossly misleading. Your actual uncorrected numbers line up well, especially since the all boost, all gas limit in the stock cams is in the mid 600's, so add the methanol + spray + the turbo the high 700's or w/e it was lines up pretty well, along with the stock cams and small turbine a/r and hell, small ass turbine wheel(cant safely make 500rwp on a rotary) for the collapsing power after 5k.
Your numbers make perfect sense and is more than 90% of the cars in this community, the correction on them is what seems unnecessary since if your car was at sea level, it wouldnt make the corrected numbers regardless of your current altitude/air density. The turbo and cams dont allow it, period.
Jason
Oh, so now Dynocom reads high? Again, where's your evidence to back this up? NONE AGAIN!Quote:
Originally Posted by HellBringer
Oh but incase you missed it, I did a full comparison with ALL of the dynos in the area here, and again, they prove you WRONG!
But hell, why listen to reasoning, facts, or sound evidence, just spout off some more shit you think you know. People like you are what ruin forums.
I'm out.