393.6 RWHP @ 13.0 PSI
05-19-2011, 07:00 PM
#1
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
393.6 RWHP @ 13.0 PSI
We had a boost leak that impaired the curve and it built boost at a slower rate because of that but when that's remedied it should be a ton of fun! The turbo was a John Milledge item that came off the engine with the carbon fibre intake on his website. I can't wait to get it on the track!
05-19-2011, 07:17 PM
#3
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a 2.5. When the boost leak was found we went back to the shop (Alpine Auto Werks, Calgary, 403-287-9114) to do the fix. There was no point doing any more dyno work with the leajk happening. It's anticipated we'll run the car around 15 PSI for the sake of longevity.
05-19-2011, 07:32 PM
#6
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Head work done by Lindsey and Alpine, Headers, LR Intake, Big fuel pump and injectors, baffled pan, lightened and knife edged crank, Mahle pistons, lightened flywheel, Milledge turbo, LR fuel rail and a bunch of other things that escape me for the time being, and a ton of hours, blood, sweat and tears by the guys (Marc, Mike & Matt (his sons), Uri and Dave at Alpine. Those guys really did a full court press on the car working nights, weekends, holidays and a near miss on the wedding anniversary of Marc the owner of Alpine. (It's possible his wife hates me and my race car, I don't ask.)
Trending Topics
05-19-2011, 07:37 PM
#8
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-19-2011, 08:41 PM
#12
Rennlist Junkie Forever
That dyno is screwy. The calibration is way off somewhere.
393RWHP which the dyno calculated to 423HP at the crank. That would make the driveline loss only 9%. That' way off.
Either the boost was reading wrong, or the dyno is off. But it's just not realistic for that 8V 2.5L engine combo is making just shy of 400RWHP at 13psi.
I'm very familiar with the Millage stuff as well as all the other parts on that setup. If the car runs good, great. But I'd run it on a different dyno with a boost plot to see what it's really doing.
TonyG
393RWHP which the dyno calculated to 423HP at the crank. That would make the driveline loss only 9%. That' way off.
Either the boost was reading wrong, or the dyno is off. But it's just not realistic for that 8V 2.5L engine combo is making just shy of 400RWHP at 13psi.
I'm very familiar with the Millage stuff as well as all the other parts on that setup. If the car runs good, great. But I'd run it on a different dyno with a boost plot to see what it's really doing.
TonyG
05-19-2011, 09:13 PM
#14
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: comeback trail
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That dyno is screwy. The calibration is way off somewhere.
393RWHP which the dyno calculated to 423HP at the crank. That would make the driveline loss only 9%. That' way off.
Either the boost was reading wrong, or the dyno is off. But it's just not realistic for that 8V 2.5L engine combo is making just shy of 400RWHP at 13psi.
I'm very familiar with the Millage stuff as well as all the other parts on that setup. If the car runs good, great. But I'd run it on a different dyno with a boost plot to see what it's really doing.
TonyG
393RWHP which the dyno calculated to 423HP at the crank. That would make the driveline loss only 9%. That' way off.
Either the boost was reading wrong, or the dyno is off. But it's just not realistic for that 8V 2.5L engine combo is making just shy of 400RWHP at 13psi.
I'm very familiar with the Millage stuff as well as all the other parts on that setup. If the car runs good, great. But I'd run it on a different dyno with a boost plot to see what it's really doing.
TonyG
The power curve here shows a huge turbo - that is what would be necessary to achieve 393 RWHP from a 2.5 2 valve.
Also - there is a power difference between runs 1 and 4 which will be a boost alteration of between 1 and 2 pounds.
So I don't know which was 13 and which was either 12 or 14?, but ONE is the case, take it from me.
It also looks like there is no wastegate-opening plateau, so a very fast datalogger would have been needed to plot boost - a human isn't calling this by eye on a machnical boost guage.
If it runs well at full throttle on your racetrack, that's great, but it won't accelerate like your AMG, and we both know it.
05-19-2011, 10:04 PM
#15
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree..
The power curve here shows a huge turbo - that is what would be necessary to achieve 393 RWHP from a 2.5 2 valve.
Also - there is a power difference between runs 1 and 4 which will be a boost alteration of between 1 and 2 pounds.
So I don't know which was 13 and which was either 12 or 14?, but ONE is the case, take it from me.
It also looks like there is no wastegate-opening plateau, so a very fast datalogger would have been needed to plot boost - a human isn't calling this by eye on a machnical boost guage.
If it runs well at full throttle on your racetrack, that's great, but it won't accelerate like your AMG, and we both know it.
The power curve here shows a huge turbo - that is what would be necessary to achieve 393 RWHP from a 2.5 2 valve.
Also - there is a power difference between runs 1 and 4 which will be a boost alteration of between 1 and 2 pounds.
So I don't know which was 13 and which was either 12 or 14?, but ONE is the case, take it from me.
It also looks like there is no wastegate-opening plateau, so a very fast datalogger would have been needed to plot boost - a human isn't calling this by eye on a machnical boost guage.
If it runs well at full throttle on your racetrack, that's great, but it won't accelerate like your AMG, and we both know it.