Printable View
I think he's not worried about excessive boost. ;) 9b's are choking by 16psi anyways. if he's tuned it for 18psi...there's no way he's going to be damaging his setup without a BOV. they just can't push that kind of boost.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamVR4
You will be surprised how much they can make for such small
Ignore fueling.. I ran out of correction to lean off more ha ha
Ok... so IPD uses his BOV to regulate boost... That's cool. The rest of us use them to protect our turbos from surge when the throttle closes.Quote:
Originally Posted by IPD
*edit*
nevermind, i'm a dumbass. ...but you all think that about me already. what else is new? :p
^^
That post is on its way to being the most 'liked' post of 3sgto history...:D
haha...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOMIEZVR4
Ha ha sorry,
I guess I'm a little over zealous with the like button. It feels rude not too acknowledge any positive comments .
:)
Numbers look solid, congrats on the success. Quite deserving of a record indeed.
Thanks very much..although not everyone shares the same sentiment. I wont drag this forum down with all the BS on the otherside :sour:
This is a car related thread in a car related forum.
If you want to have a personality discussion make a thread in one of the off topic forums.
Congrats on the numbers. Just goes to show how higher compression helps power lol.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
That's why you don't post on the other site. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by fastbikes76
And Congrats again!
So just for a laugh I found this thread again...
I made it too the track eventually. The car was full weight at 3800lbs with driver and fuel.
2.04 60ft
5.52 330ft
91.63 1/8th mph
12.59 ET
114.95 MPH
There has been some changes to the setup but this is where the car is at this point. If people can tell me what sort of WHP roughly to make those numbers at 3800lbs I shall reveal what changes have been made and where the car is at now :peaceful::peaceful:
PS, NO this is not to start another war.. purely add some info and have a sensible discussion.
Regards
Elton
Well with those numbers there is about a 95hp difference when caculating using et vs mph.
Have the slip?
its because the 60FT is so soft. A reasonable 1.80 would get it down to 12.2 or so. Overall the car looks very strong for a 9b car to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoopKill
According to your post on the 'other' site... you're running 11b's now. You also said it weighed 3703lbs, so which is it? What it happened to dyno one day is completely irrelevant. We have weight and trap speeds, so that tells the "real" story.
Your trap speeds indicate around 360WHP, maybe 375WHP at the very most on the high end. If you have MR gearing, it's likely on the lower end. I've seen two different stock 360cc injector cars go 118 near-full-weight, and there is simply no way either car could have been more than 380ish WHP, so there's some real world results to compare to. The 13g car with 360's was consistent 114-115MPH, which is inline with the absolute max the 360's can reasonably support. Your 1/8 MPH is fairly strong, but it's laying down up top -- you should be trapping near 118 or better if power carried through to the 1/4. It could be due to insufficient octane and/or those 11b's are simply out of breath. You also stated you trapped 113.6 at 14psi (vs. 18), so I'd say the turbos are out of the breath. What was your 1/8 trap on 14?
Definitely work on your driving -- you have the power to run solid 11's. Even with that 1.89 you should be in the low 12's.
Indeed the spec has changed and that was no secret. I wanted an idea on what whp the time I ran above would roughly equate too before revealing where the car is at.Quote:
Originally Posted by HellBringer
The runs I made were on a very very cold day and traction was a huge issue for us. I have vids of our ATX lighting up all four on full slicks . The car is now on 11b's as you pointed out, The power level I ran on the day worked out at 420ish flywheel power which was around 308whp on our dyno. I dont have a graph for that power level as that was around 1.2 bar in comparison of the 1.6bar it usually ran. 1.6 bar on that setup gave me 453 flywheel power which was 357WHP but as I had recently killed a gearbox i opted to do two runs on soft launches at lower boost levels.
the 113.6 at 14psi was the wifes ATX..not my car (i have 3 actually hence the confusion on weight) ;)
So what I was eluding to is these runs were made with around 30 flywheel power more than the 9 b car made. Anyways as i stated this was purely for info purposes and i no longer give a toss about figures or records etc. I play with these cars because I love them. :encouragement::encouragement:
Sorry, just realised yes it was my car that ran the 113 at 14psi and not the wife's car. I took two cars for the day so getting confused lol.
Will dig out the 1/8th mph later but it wasn't far off from memory.
1st run at 14psi as this was literally the first time i drove the car on the S/h box i had just thrown in.
1.89 60ft
5.33 330ft
8.10 1/8th ET
91.03 1/8th mph
12.47 ET
113.62 mph
second run I felt a little braver and crept boost to what showed as 18psi peak
2.04 60ft
5.52 330ft
8.25 1/8th ET
91.63 1/8th mph
12.59 ET
114.95 mph
Hope that helps
:)
Your bump post here made no mention of 11bs. Until Hellbringer had to bring in info from another forum, I thought your runs were on 9bs. Probably just an oversight from you, but I had no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by fastbikes76
The bump was more too see what power was estimated at according to weight and trap recently supplied. That alone wouldn't matter what turbo's were fitted.
It would take someone far thicker than me to blatantly post I had 11b's fitted on another site most here still frequent.. And then Try deceive that 9b's were fitted lol
Sent from my dog n bone
Except that you posted in a "new record" 9b thread. Your post was deceiving, whether intentional or accidental. That's all.
And most regulars here don't frequent the other site because most posts over there make some of us want to gouge our eyes out and pour bleach in the sockets.
Its all in my reply.. probably just a miss interpretation :friendly_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by familyMAN
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastbikes76
This gives me hope. You have 11b's and trap 114? Im getting billet 13t's soon and would LOVE to hit 11's with my 4000 lb with passenger car.
dont forget the .95 lol !! Yes 11b's in a full weight car on a slightly uphill track (google Santa Pod UK) trapped at 114.95 on road tyres. My poor driving and being scared to break another box ment I babied it out the hole and granny shifted giving me a 12.47 ET at best out of two runs..having to shift into 4th didnt help either. There is a very very late 11 in the car with a decent driver I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by R/T93
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anyonebutme
Most regulars? The "regulars" are the same dozen or so people that still post here more than once a month. At least the other site still has some traffic, useful historical content and some ongoing technical discussion. Over here it's just the same small group 'thanking' each other's posts..
Quote:
Originally Posted by R/T93
You can easily run 11's with 11b's, mid 11's with 13g's, low 11's with 15g's or equivalent, etc.. It's all in the 60' and 330', and you can easily 60' these cars without being 'abusive' on a TD04 setup.
Oh the irony....:D
How is thinking that "some changes to setup" does not equate to a swap to larger turbos, a misinterpretation??Quote:
Originally Posted by fastbikes76
"Some changes to setup" would be a larger downpipe, swap from maf to speed density, etc. "Some changes" is not changing the MAJOR contributor to horsepower on a relatively small displacement TURBOCHARGED vehicle in a 9b record thread that you started.
/unsubscribe.
Lol there is a lot of butt hurt, complaining and unnecessary bullshit in this thread.
Interesting numbers and runs for the set up. Gives smaller turbo guys who are starting out a good look into it.