3.0L 11.1 Compression 1000+ awhp 3/S on stock cams at Altitude

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

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HellBringer

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donniekak

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 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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HellBringer

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...

---

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.....