alpine003

^^^ less drivetrain loss too due to 2wd as well as lighter weight on the GT3.

jrgordonsenior

FWIW... Over the past 3+ years I've witness many dyno runs for compliance ona Dyno Dynamics machine. They historically produce anywhere from 5-10 % less than a DynoJet does. We (POC) are switching to Dyno Jets only this year and will have a portable one out this weekend at Chuckwalla for testing. It will be interesting to compare the results...

I've dyno'd 3 maybe 4- X51's with the highest reading being 309 rwhp on the Dyno Dynamics dyno. That car will be there this weekend so I can make a apples-to-apples comparison. Regular old 3.6's make 280-290 by comparison on that same dyno, a difference of only 20-30 rwhp (=/-). YMMV....

FWIW my motor, 3.6 bottom with 3.4 heads (lightly decked), OEM cams, & FVD cable TB hit 305 rwhp on that Dyno Dynamics dyno. It produced awesome TQ in that configuration but didn't much like it when I hit 8600 twice in a race. Boom.....

alpine003

Nice. Do you have a pic of the dyno somewhere? I would love to see the whole curve instead of just reading about peak figures.

onefastviking

JR, I guess the sea level air in Texas is better than the sea level air in Calif.
No one give me crap for the fuel curves, etc, the final tuned dyno was higher, tq moved some, and with better AF ratios. It is a 3.6 X51, race car, NOT a street car. Stock Porsche unopened block,heads, crank, although various add ons, "Special" tuning package, etc etc etc. Oh, and on a Dynojet.

Tbred911

nice flat torque curve from 4500rpm right to redline... wow! that thing must hussle

onefastviking

Thanks. It does ok for a stock block/heads/cams/valves motor.
Although I have been planning something new for even more tq and a better curve, hopefully it will all work out as I have planned.

jrgordonsenior

NASA adds 10% to the Dynodynamics readings so 309 + 10% gets me right up next to your dynojet results. I did however find a X51 at 315 on the Dynodynamics maching. +10% for that motor woudl be 346.5...

jrgordonsenior

alpine003

Thanks JR, those are some great numbers for your frankenstein setup.

In my experience, the Mustang style dyno's generally read a bit lower than the Dynojet roller dynos.

Seems like you got some decent broad powerband. It seems like you are gradually dropping off above 6.5k though. I wonder if the x-51 intake manifold allows the power to keep going as in Viking's graph above 6.5k?

Flat6 Innovations

I have tested them back to back, and yes the X51 will help, BUT not as much as the head work from the X51 does.

That said, we do everything possible to make peak power at 6.5K or below, else I have learned that we have to use our solid lifter/ solid tensioner package that requires valve adjustments. The factory X51 engines make power right up to the rev limiter, which is very hard on the factory hydraulic valve train. Not even my modified hydro lifters are able to hold up with constant redline operation as well as our solid arrangement.

The solids are a bitch to deal with, but to really turn it up we have learned what needs to be done..

alpine003

^^^ Thank you Jake for that wonderful piece of info.

So since the stock lifters are the weak point at high rpms, does one even need to worry about valve float since there would be no point in running high rpms, at least on a constant basis?

Also are you sure you're feeling ok?

I've only heard technical responses from you with no sales pitch whatsoever lately. It feels like I'm reading your older posts lately. I mean that in a great and refreshing way. Either way, thanks for the insight. Truly appreciated and what forums should be about.

Flat6 Innovations

The hydro issues we see aren't valve float as much as other issues that take a lot of service time to show up.

Actually I had oral Surgery today and am pretty much whacked out of it after having 5 teeth cut out, but trying to get a newsletter finished and etc.

I didn't think that I had changed anything in the way that I post. I have been posting less as I just don't have the time. I enjoy posting and helping most of the time, but other times its just another form of stress that I need to avoid.

alpine003

Redux pt2

Tbred911

on a stock 996 gearbox shifting @ 6500 will yield optimal acceleration and keep you in the thickest/highest part of the torque curve... the 996 gears are actually quite tall so you don't need to go to 7000 or beyond.... it's there if you need it as you approach a corner and don't want to shift and then downshift... going that high is tough on internals and don't really get you more speed... in fact shifting beyond redline may make you slower as you traverse the weaker part of the down-sloping torque curve...

in Viking's case... this doesn't apply as there is good solid top end power.... but the top end stress on the motor is still there and will materialize over time..

geetee

egas Tb is that much smaller than a nonegas? Regardless that's a nice size gain...