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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by familyMAN

I also think it has something to do with the original thread starter and the attitude that will inevitably be brought to the conversation.....

---

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: 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UPPCOS

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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by familyMAN

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HellBringer

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....

---

So......I don't see a lick of evidence in that statement....another useless post?
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HellBringer

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.

---

Oh, so now Dynocom reads high? Again, where's your evidence to back this up? NONE AGAIN!

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.