Rennlist Top 10 HP/TQ
08-04-2005, 01:02 AM
#107
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by DFASTEST951
Then again, I'm curious about Vitesse now....Uh oh
I'm actually going to the dyno soon. Won't be anything worth while, but should be interesting to see what she puts down.
08-04-2005, 03:14 AM
#108
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Assonet, MA
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all for the kind words.
To answer a few questions...
In regard to boost pressure, that particular pull was made at 21 PSI. There were several runs made at higher boost levels (up to 24.5 PSI) which did produce more power, BUT what you see is how the car is run, so that is the data I have provided, no hype! Some might ask, "why not post the higher boost level pulls?" Well, the answer is simple - It is not my style to produce glory numbers just for the sake of providing bigger numbers.
The car is run at 21 PSI, so that is what you see here, no fluff, no excuses.
Did the car make more power at 24.5 PSI, sure did, BUT that information is not relevant as the car was not being developed to work there, so why post the hype? - Agree?
David eluded to the fact that this is not one of my bigger horsepower projects, and that is true, but for the sake of the thread I thought it fit nicely as this engine is not a complete one-off no expense spared engine. For that reason I felt it fit with the spirit of the thread.
For anyone wondering, yes, this is a true 2.5L stock displacement engine (actually 2479 cc) As with virtually all my projects, the turbo is one of my own true custom one-off turbos (not an off the shelf piece) which runs custom one-off compressor and turbine wheels. The cam is also proprietary. Head work (porting, flow matching) done by yours truly.
While there are many things that went into making the numbers happen, the biggest single factor is *knowing* where to put the money to make the biggest performance gains, and the knowledge and ability to provide spot-on tuning.
In regard to the correction factor, yes, the sheet was corrected to DIN specs rather than SAE, but as stated, that is a simple mathematical correction. To get a true picture of what this car made on the dyne that day, we could sight the uncorrected numbers as well which do not correct to a standardized temperature, altitude, or humidity, but rather represent what the car actually made at the temperature, altitude, and humidity at that given point. Which in this case was 492 HP and 402 TQ.
As NZ mentioned, the correction factor alone is not a definitive comparison (even from one DynoJet to another) as there are other factors that sway the absolute truly comparative results. Some worth mentioning; Different dyno types, user atmospheric condition inputs (i.e. Dyno Dynamics) vs. automatic atmospheric condition input (as with most DynoJets), wheel and tire variations, no wheel variations (as with the bolt-on DynoPac dyno), gear ratios (gear in which run was pulled), and so on.
To sum it up, runs that are pretty close (5-8 HP) can be taken with a grain of salt as you can get variations due to heat soak or a cool engine. However, regardless of the dyno, larger variations are likely valid regardless of the dyno used. Of course this assumes that that there has not been any user error inputting data (in dynos that require user input) and that all runs are done in the same gear and in *similar* but not identical conditions.
To be 100% valid, in Utopia, all vehicles would be run on the same dyno on the same day, in the same gear, yadda, yadda, yadda.
In addition, a turbo car will indicate more power on a load type dyne than on an inertia type dyno as the dyno imposes its load differently which causes the turbo car load then spool the turbo sooner which results in boost coming on sooner. There is a double edge advantage with the load type dyno as the dyno will also continue to impose that load throughout the RPM range (to redline) and will effectively allow the turbo to continue making more boost in the upper midrange and top end, versus the diminishing load as with a inertia type dyno. Ultimately the load type dyno yields higher numbers than an inertia type dyno. Ironically, a load type dyno produces slightly less power that an inertia type dyno in normally aspirated applications - It is often inaccurately stated that load type dynos produce *less* power overall. This misconception stems from the fact that they do, however, produce *lower* numbers in normally aspirated applications, therefore it is *assumed* that this phenomenon applies to turbo applications as well, which is, of course, false.
As I said earlier, overall, all the numbers posted should be considered valid and comparable overall. While there are variations, in the grand scheme of things they are relatively insignificant.
Thanks for reading.
(Getting late, sorry for any typos)
To answer a few questions...
In regard to boost pressure, that particular pull was made at 21 PSI. There were several runs made at higher boost levels (up to 24.5 PSI) which did produce more power, BUT what you see is how the car is run, so that is the data I have provided, no hype! Some might ask, "why not post the higher boost level pulls?" Well, the answer is simple - It is not my style to produce glory numbers just for the sake of providing bigger numbers.
The car is run at 21 PSI, so that is what you see here, no fluff, no excuses.
Did the car make more power at 24.5 PSI, sure did, BUT that information is not relevant as the car was not being developed to work there, so why post the hype? - Agree?
David eluded to the fact that this is not one of my bigger horsepower projects, and that is true, but for the sake of the thread I thought it fit nicely as this engine is not a complete one-off no expense spared engine. For that reason I felt it fit with the spirit of the thread.
For anyone wondering, yes, this is a true 2.5L stock displacement engine (actually 2479 cc) As with virtually all my projects, the turbo is one of my own true custom one-off turbos (not an off the shelf piece) which runs custom one-off compressor and turbine wheels. The cam is also proprietary. Head work (porting, flow matching) done by yours truly.
While there are many things that went into making the numbers happen, the biggest single factor is *knowing* where to put the money to make the biggest performance gains, and the knowledge and ability to provide spot-on tuning.
In regard to the correction factor, yes, the sheet was corrected to DIN specs rather than SAE, but as stated, that is a simple mathematical correction. To get a true picture of what this car made on the dyne that day, we could sight the uncorrected numbers as well which do not correct to a standardized temperature, altitude, or humidity, but rather represent what the car actually made at the temperature, altitude, and humidity at that given point. Which in this case was 492 HP and 402 TQ.
As NZ mentioned, the correction factor alone is not a definitive comparison (even from one DynoJet to another) as there are other factors that sway the absolute truly comparative results. Some worth mentioning; Different dyno types, user atmospheric condition inputs (i.e. Dyno Dynamics) vs. automatic atmospheric condition input (as with most DynoJets), wheel and tire variations, no wheel variations (as with the bolt-on DynoPac dyno), gear ratios (gear in which run was pulled), and so on.
To sum it up, runs that are pretty close (5-8 HP) can be taken with a grain of salt as you can get variations due to heat soak or a cool engine. However, regardless of the dyno, larger variations are likely valid regardless of the dyno used. Of course this assumes that that there has not been any user error inputting data (in dynos that require user input) and that all runs are done in the same gear and in *similar* but not identical conditions.
To be 100% valid, in Utopia, all vehicles would be run on the same dyno on the same day, in the same gear, yadda, yadda, yadda.
In addition, a turbo car will indicate more power on a load type dyne than on an inertia type dyno as the dyno imposes its load differently which causes the turbo car load then spool the turbo sooner which results in boost coming on sooner. There is a double edge advantage with the load type dyno as the dyno will also continue to impose that load throughout the RPM range (to redline) and will effectively allow the turbo to continue making more boost in the upper midrange and top end, versus the diminishing load as with a inertia type dyno. Ultimately the load type dyno yields higher numbers than an inertia type dyno. Ironically, a load type dyno produces slightly less power that an inertia type dyno in normally aspirated applications - It is often inaccurately stated that load type dynos produce *less* power overall. This misconception stems from the fact that they do, however, produce *lower* numbers in normally aspirated applications, therefore it is *assumed* that this phenomenon applies to turbo applications as well, which is, of course, false.
As I said earlier, overall, all the numbers posted should be considered valid and comparable overall. While there are variations, in the grand scheme of things they are relatively insignificant.
Thanks for reading.
(Getting late, sorry for any typos)
08-04-2005, 03:58 AM
#110
Race Director
Thread Starter
Joe, I know you love Powerhaus and all, and you have a very high HP car, but you have to think its slightly "underpowered" (if I can use that word with your car!) when you compare it to these 2.5 cars... I wonder if its worth throwing another 2k ish on a Vitesse turbo and matching chip / tune?
08-04-2005, 07:08 AM
#111
Rennlist Member
NZ, I think you are right. Powerhaus builds motors for reliability first, power second. So after you, tool, and a few others, I'd agree, it's underpowered. That said, I would like to push the envelope as their motors are some of the most reliable ones out there. I really don't think 2k ish is that much money. Nothing to scoff at but I LOVE hp. If I have to do another turbo though, I think I'd stick with My builder. Then again, it will probably cost me about 5k ish. So, I am in talks with them as they think there is more than 100whp to be had with my motor. Am I crazy? It's either that or I am seriously thinking of moving to the dark side (some form of 911) or sscautos.com. I have to see how much money my business brings in.
08-04-2005, 07:55 AM
#112
Dude - cut the crap - the load dyno reads MUCH, MUCH lower than an inexpensive accelerometer. Not letting you get away with that, kido.
COMMON knowledge.
And I'll make a point of it when I go to the dynojunk in the exact same configuration. I wonder who will be correct?
By the way - the kid at LRP was talking about me.
All kidding around aside, I am glad you showed respect to Rennlist and posted. Thanks.
COMMON knowledge.
And I'll make a point of it when I go to the dynojunk in the exact same configuration. I wonder who will be correct?
By the way - the kid at LRP was talking about me.
All kidding around aside, I am glad you showed respect to Rennlist and posted. Thanks.
Last edited by special tool; 08-04-2005 at 08:34 AM.
08-04-2005, 09:35 AM
#113
Race Car
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pueblo,CO
Posts: 3,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by special tool
Dude - cut the crap - the load dyno reads MUCH, MUCH lower than an inexpensive accelerometer. Not letting you get away with that, kido.
COMMON knowledge.
And I'll make a point of it when I go to the dynojunk in the exact same configuration. I wonder who will be correct?
By the way - the kid at LRP was talking about me.
All kidding around aside, I am glad you showed respect to Rennlist and posted. Thanks.
COMMON knowledge.
And I'll make a point of it when I go to the dynojunk in the exact same configuration. I wonder who will be correct?
By the way - the kid at LRP was talking about me.
All kidding around aside, I am glad you showed respect to Rennlist and posted. Thanks.
. Plus then you can put up a 500rwhp then to see if it is true about this theory 
08-04-2005, 11:16 AM
#115
Race Car
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pueblo,CO
Posts: 3,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by special tool
I am going. Maybe I'll go up to the pressure dynojet. 
08-04-2005, 11:27 AM
#116
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by Under Pressure Performance
Thanks to all for the kind words.
To answer a few questions...
In regard to boost pressure, that particular pull was made at 21 PSI. There were several runs made at higher boost levels (up to 24.5 PSI) which did produce more power, BUT what you see is how the car is run, so that is the data I have provided, no hype! Some might ask, "why not post the higher boost level pulls?" Well, the answer is simple - It is not my style to produce glory numbers just for the sake of providing bigger numbers.
The car is run at 21 PSI, so that is what you see here, no fluff, no excuses.
Did the car make more power at 24.5 PSI, sure did, BUT that information is not relevant as the car was not being developed to work there, so why post the hype? - Agree?
David eluded to the fact that this is not one of my bigger horsepower projects, and that is true, but for the sake of the thread I thought it fit nicely as this engine is not a complete one-off no expense spared engine. For that reason I felt it fit with the spirit of the thread.
For anyone wondering, yes, this is a true 2.5L stock displacement engine (actually 2479 cc) As with virtually all my projects, the turbo is one of my own true custom one-off turbos (not an off the shelf piece) which runs custom one-off compressor and turbine wheels. The cam is also proprietary. Head work (porting, flow matching) done by yours truly.
While there are many things that went into making the numbers happen, the biggest single factor is *knowing* where to put the money to make the biggest performance gains, and the knowledge and ability to provide spot-on tuning.
In regard to the correction factor, yes, the sheet was corrected to DIN specs rather than SAE, but as stated, that is a simple mathematical correction. To get a true picture of what this car made on the dyne that day, we could sight the uncorrected numbers as well which do not correct to a standardized temperature, altitude, or humidity, but rather represent what the car actually made at the temperature, altitude, and humidity at that given point. Which in this case was 492 HP and 402 TQ.
As NZ mentioned, the correction factor alone is not a definitive comparison (even from one DynoJet to another) as there are other factors that sway the absolute truly comparative results. Some worth mentioning; Different dyno types, user atmospheric condition inputs (i.e. Dyno Dynamics) vs. automatic atmospheric condition input (as with most DynoJets), wheel and tire variations, no wheel variations (as with the bolt-on DynoPac dyno), gear ratios (gear in which run was pulled), and so on.
To sum it up, runs that are pretty close (5-8 HP) can be taken with a grain of salt as you can get variations due to heat soak or a cool engine. However, regardless of the dyno, larger variations are likely valid regardless of the dyno used. Of course this assumes that that there has not been any user error inputting data (in dynos that require user input) and that all runs are done in the same gear and in *similar* but not identical conditions.
To be 100% valid, in Utopia, all vehicles would be run on the same dyno on the same day, in the same gear, yadda, yadda, yadda.
In addition, a turbo car will indicate more power on a load type dyne than on an inertia type dyno as the dyno imposes its load differently which causes the turbo car load then spool the turbo sooner which results in boost coming on sooner. There is a double edge advantage with the load type dyno as the dyno will also continue to impose that load throughout the RPM range (to redline) and will effectively allow the turbo to continue making more boost in the upper midrange and top end, versus the diminishing load as with a inertia type dyno. Ultimately the load type dyno yields higher numbers than an inertia type dyno. Ironically, a load type dyno produces slightly less power that an inertia type dyno in normally aspirated applications - It is often inaccurately stated that load type dynos produce *less* power overall. This misconception stems from the fact that they do, however, produce *lower* numbers in normally aspirated applications, therefore it is *assumed* that this phenomenon applies to turbo applications as well, which is, of course, false.
As I said earlier, overall, all the numbers posted should be considered valid and comparable overall. While there are variations, in the grand scheme of things they are relatively insignificant.
Thanks for reading.
(Getting late, sorry for any typos)
To answer a few questions...
In regard to boost pressure, that particular pull was made at 21 PSI. There were several runs made at higher boost levels (up to 24.5 PSI) which did produce more power, BUT what you see is how the car is run, so that is the data I have provided, no hype! Some might ask, "why not post the higher boost level pulls?" Well, the answer is simple - It is not my style to produce glory numbers just for the sake of providing bigger numbers.
The car is run at 21 PSI, so that is what you see here, no fluff, no excuses.
Did the car make more power at 24.5 PSI, sure did, BUT that information is not relevant as the car was not being developed to work there, so why post the hype? - Agree?
David eluded to the fact that this is not one of my bigger horsepower projects, and that is true, but for the sake of the thread I thought it fit nicely as this engine is not a complete one-off no expense spared engine. For that reason I felt it fit with the spirit of the thread.
For anyone wondering, yes, this is a true 2.5L stock displacement engine (actually 2479 cc) As with virtually all my projects, the turbo is one of my own true custom one-off turbos (not an off the shelf piece) which runs custom one-off compressor and turbine wheels. The cam is also proprietary. Head work (porting, flow matching) done by yours truly.
While there are many things that went into making the numbers happen, the biggest single factor is *knowing* where to put the money to make the biggest performance gains, and the knowledge and ability to provide spot-on tuning.
In regard to the correction factor, yes, the sheet was corrected to DIN specs rather than SAE, but as stated, that is a simple mathematical correction. To get a true picture of what this car made on the dyne that day, we could sight the uncorrected numbers as well which do not correct to a standardized temperature, altitude, or humidity, but rather represent what the car actually made at the temperature, altitude, and humidity at that given point. Which in this case was 492 HP and 402 TQ.
As NZ mentioned, the correction factor alone is not a definitive comparison (even from one DynoJet to another) as there are other factors that sway the absolute truly comparative results. Some worth mentioning; Different dyno types, user atmospheric condition inputs (i.e. Dyno Dynamics) vs. automatic atmospheric condition input (as with most DynoJets), wheel and tire variations, no wheel variations (as with the bolt-on DynoPac dyno), gear ratios (gear in which run was pulled), and so on.
To sum it up, runs that are pretty close (5-8 HP) can be taken with a grain of salt as you can get variations due to heat soak or a cool engine. However, regardless of the dyno, larger variations are likely valid regardless of the dyno used. Of course this assumes that that there has not been any user error inputting data (in dynos that require user input) and that all runs are done in the same gear and in *similar* but not identical conditions.
To be 100% valid, in Utopia, all vehicles would be run on the same dyno on the same day, in the same gear, yadda, yadda, yadda.
In addition, a turbo car will indicate more power on a load type dyne than on an inertia type dyno as the dyno imposes its load differently which causes the turbo car load then spool the turbo sooner which results in boost coming on sooner. There is a double edge advantage with the load type dyno as the dyno will also continue to impose that load throughout the RPM range (to redline) and will effectively allow the turbo to continue making more boost in the upper midrange and top end, versus the diminishing load as with a inertia type dyno. Ultimately the load type dyno yields higher numbers than an inertia type dyno. Ironically, a load type dyno produces slightly less power that an inertia type dyno in normally aspirated applications - It is often inaccurately stated that load type dynos produce *less* power overall. This misconception stems from the fact that they do, however, produce *lower* numbers in normally aspirated applications, therefore it is *assumed* that this phenomenon applies to turbo applications as well, which is, of course, false.
As I said earlier, overall, all the numbers posted should be considered valid and comparable overall. While there are variations, in the grand scheme of things they are relatively insignificant.
Thanks for reading.
(Getting late, sorry for any typos)
08-04-2005, 02:31 PM
#117
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joe you wrote "I am in talks with them as they think there is more than 100whp to be had with my motor."
Raines must be thinking about going to Garrett turbos!
Scott,
Thanks for the disertation, what you say seems to make sense and I know you've been around for a long time and are probably speaking from experience. I look forward to Special Tool's trip to the dynojet even more now to see how the numbers compare!
thanks,
Andy
Raines must be thinking about going to Garrett turbos!
Scott,
Thanks for the disertation, what you say seems to make sense and I know you've been around for a long time and are probably speaking from experience. I look forward to Special Tool's trip to the dynojet even more now to see how the numbers compare!
thanks,
Andy
08-04-2005, 04:06 PM
#118
Race Director
Thread Starter
I have had a request for the rage2 and david salama dyno charts to be posted... could you guys please post them or send them to me... cheers!
08-04-2005, 04:48 PM
#119
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Forgive me here, but maybe I'm missing something. Why am I lower than Rage2?
Overall (irrespective of displacement)
1. DFASTEST 480WHP / 470TQ (dynojet)
2. Under Pressure Performance 475WHP / 392TQ (dynojet)
3. Special Tool 472WHP/438TQ (mustang dyno)
4. Rage2 461WHP(6500) / 401WTQ(5700) (dynojet)
5. RolexNJ 461.4 WHP / 406TQ (dynoject)
I "technically" made 461.4 RWHP & 406 TQ, so, shouldn't I be # 4? (all validated by the dyno chart which Turbo X, the 17 yr. old dude, posted for me. Was this an oversight?)
Overall (irrespective of displacement)
1. DFASTEST 480WHP / 470TQ (dynojet)
2. Under Pressure Performance 475WHP / 392TQ (dynojet)
3. Special Tool 472WHP/438TQ (mustang dyno)
4. Rage2 461WHP(6500) / 401WTQ(5700) (dynojet)
5. RolexNJ 461.4 WHP / 406TQ (dynoject)
I "technically" made 461.4 RWHP & 406 TQ, so, shouldn't I be # 4? (all validated by the dyno chart which Turbo X, the 17 yr. old dude, posted for me. Was this an oversight?)