Lightspeed Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 I do not want to make a flame war but I think it has come to the point where I need to speak out about several things. First off a dyno is really only useful for measuring change. I have an expression I say around here all the time " a dyno number is as good as a penis extension makes you feel good about yourself right up until you go to use it" It is only in later years that everyone has become concerned with horsepower at the wheels in years prior most tuners always refferred to mph trap speed as an accurate measure of hp. Quarter mile times reflect on the driver of a car while mph reflects upon the power output of the car. I personally see it going back that way because there is so much variation in dynos maybe some do to unethical operators but mostly due to position power supply to your dyno and various other issues. When we first had our dyno set up we had insanely low numbers matter of fact 2003 Mustang 4.6's only putting down 171 hp. Now this presented a major problem for us. So to eliminate this problem we discovered that the older building we were in had a power supply problem and we worked with Mustang very closely for 5 days doing various test and procedures to come to this conclussion. What we ended up doing was borrowing a brand new Mustang from a local Ford dealer who I have an excellent relationship with. We quartered this car both on the dyno and on the street to verify the numbers using a HP calculator based upon exact weight of the car with the quarter mile trap speeds we calibrated this dyno till both numbers matched. We used the formula that Ray Hall turbos from Autstrailia uses to verify HP against. You can find these formulas at http://www.turbofast.com.au. These formulas are verified by Mustang Dynometers as they told me to go there to do the calibration. Now f we think our dyno is out we simply go and borrow another mustng from Ford. To date they vary in stock trim from 219-222 HP. Now with the disappearance of the older stangs I now borrow a 2005. The second thing that comes into variation between dyno operators is how they let the dyno interpet their measurements. Some operators do not SAE to correct to sea level. I do because I have such variation in weather. I use a standard that is known as J1349. This can see a correction factor ranging from 6 percent to as high as 12 percent. I have to do this as I live in Alberta and our weather fluctuation can vary hugely over a day of tuning. For example I see pressures ranging from 27.5 to 26.3 over a couple days of tuning. While in the morning in the dyno room we may be at 58 degrees and by afternoon we are well over 90 with humidity varying in on that also. It is the only way for me to accurately know if changes are making differrance. This brings to my last point by all the formulas that are out there relating to MPH and horsepower. These are proven formulas Kevin's car (aka Kevwood)is making 239 HP. 93.5 mph in the 1/4 equates to 239 HP at I believe the track is 2200 feet. I have seen the numbers some of your cars a posting and personally I think that your hp numbers are reading lower than the track numbers suggest. I can not tell you why this is but on certain cars the spread between the Mustang and the dynojet is very large. For example an RX7 that puts down 350hp on my dyno plutsdown over 460 on a dynojet. This is because the accelertion rate of an RX7 is absolutely wild and that is how a dynojet essentially measures HP. I put out as a theory possibly the dynojet is readin lower or your operators are not calibrating for SAE or whatever I do not know. Either way I put forth this at the last tuning session we brought the HP down to 250 but the torque up to 250. If you look at our mph it equates to 239 hp. So maybe we are 11 hp higher this is also possibly due to the fact the 1/4 mile race was done in the middle of the day and we tune very late at night mostly. The second thing I put forth is this I have no reason to skew dyno numbers to make a client (friend) happy because in my oppinion they mean nothing anyways and it is the trap speed that is the determining factor. That kind of accusation is the kind that would get someone a punch in the nose. This banter between what you can and can't make with this or that combination we will have nothing more with we will from now on let our trap speeds speak for ourselves. I hope this brings some clarification to thi issue. You also have to understand that we have taken nothing but crap over this issue so Kevin is a little testy especially with Arron. I myself choose to let trap times and elevation speak for themselves that way there will be no disputing dyno numbers Cheers Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGPilot Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 As you said in your thread...DRIVER has alot to do with 1/4 mile times. Perfect example is my TGP in the 1/4. If I shift in the torque curve (From 3000-3800 RPM) the clutch slips like crazy and will not pull. Now my times with a slipping clutch in the torque curve were .5-.9 seconds slower. The technique used to get the best time of the night was to shift close to redline which is FAR out of the HP/torque curve and the car is not putting down it's full potential. Not even close! So basing HP ratings on trap speeds I think is like trying to judge a motorcyle riders ability on the track by how well he rides a bicycle. If you have a perfect driver who can sense by the seat of his pants exactly when the motor stops pulling within +/- 5HP then fine base it on 1/4 mile traps. Out of curiosity...my car pulled a 15.2 in the 1/4 at 94 or 93 miles per hour at 5860' above sea-level. What is my HP/Torque rating based on your formula? It weighed in at 3490lbs with driver included. I am an Advanced-Expert driver. 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightspeed Posted October 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 You can all go to http://www.turbofast.com.au but by this formula your car is putting down. Based upon that formula you should be 222 HP at93.41 mph which means with traction and all other factors considered you should be able to do a 1/4 at 14.59 at sea level. Yes you are correct in what you say however MPH trap is definate indicator that you have at least that much HP. Not saying you don't have more but you definately have that. Cheers Cam Just for those who are asking the numbers I used on Kevins car are based upon the weight of 3750 lb with driver and fuel being taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightspeed Posted October 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 You can all go to http://www.turbofast.au.com and try this formula for your car. Based upon that formula you should be 222 HP at 93.41 mph which means with traction and all other factors considered you should be able to do a 1/4 at 14.59 at sea level. This means that you put down 222hp that day at that elevation. If you want to do an SAE correction to that number do a google search I am sure there is a calculator out there. Yes you are correct in what you say however MPH trap is definate indicator that you have at least that much HP. Not saying you don't have more but you definately have that and a good driver could show more possibly. The fact of the matter is there is no disputing that number. Dyno numbers can be disputed. Cheers Cam Just for those who are asking the numbers I used on Kevins car are based upon the weight of 3750 lb with driver and fuel being taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGPilot Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Just a minor correction...it is http://www.turbofast.com.au Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightspeed Posted October 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 My bad whups Thanx for noticing that I will edit my other posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSkoolGP Posted October 20, 2005 Report Share Posted October 20, 2005 Hi Cam, I'd just like to say that on behalf of the community, I don't think anyone reasonable ever questioned the numbers Kev's car put out. I, in fact, am one of his biggest supporters. We need more guys like Kev with the capital and the desire to push these cars and engines as far as they can go. Most of use here try to support each other and have fun, but like every community there are bad apples. Aaron is one of them on here, and other places. Don't take him too seriously. To true enthusiasts, he's an insignificant speck with an ax to grind. He's just upset that someone out there was able to beat his numbers, so like any good Bush cronie, he denies it and attacks those that would say differently. I'm not out to compete with anybody on a personal level, my dyno results came within 6 WHP of his, and he wasted no time in jumping all over my post about it and "putting me in my place." I chose not to resond to his BS then, but if it's gotten to this point that you felt the need to publicly make your position known, I'm gonna say something. I could rattle off a number of times he has been wrong about the motor he claims to know so much about, but that's not my place and everyone else is tired of hearing about it. I'm quite happy with the gains you guys have made. I just wish you lived a little closer to the majority of us so we could get some hands on ideas for our cars. Anyway, keep on doin the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightspeed Posted October 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Hey thanx I appreciate the encouragement. You get tired of being the center of an inferno all the time. Even when you know it doesn't really matter deep down it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWeb80 Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Thanks Lightspeed for clearing up the situation.....I never took aaron seriously and when I saw Kevwoods numbers, I never doubted them, I was happy that someone took the time to do this. Gongrats on the hard work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightspeed Posted October 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Hey TGPilot what exactly is a McLaren Grand Prix I have never heard of them but up in Canada we don't always see the models you guys see. Thanx Aweb80 btw that is a really sweet ride you sport in your signature. The rims totally support the lines. It is too bad Arron pushed Kev until he lost it and got himself banned. You know this isn't the only forum where people do that. I usually avoid forums just because there is this huge ego thing that goes on. It seems tho the problem is the really nice guys are so afraid of getting flamed they just lurk. The only ones that post anything are bold and that leads to too egos crashing. We just had this situation on another forum dealing with RX7's. One of my friends is one of the most repected rotary builders in North America and is responsible for many advances in the rotary engines. Matter of fact he has been the feature in one of the leading Rotary magazines 2 months in a row. This group of 4 guys from Calgary thought they could single handedly bash him and spread lies so that his local business would suffer. Their real motive was they were trying to start their own business and were using the forums to promote them selves. They basically offered free help to anyone who would not side with the builder in return for free work and advise. Finally after many talks with the forum owner one of the mods stepped forward and stopped it. As soon as it was stopped they claimed censorship and all left. We are looking forward to a nice pleasant forum now. The point is once everyone puts their penis extension away and zips up their pants these places are alot of fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 I guess I doubted his car gaining over 20 wheel horsepower over stock with a worthless exhaust, a CAI, and tuning that didn't need to be done. I guess I doubted his 257whp when he ran slower than a stock Z34. I guess I doubted all your work when you completely changed the power delivery of the motor with ported heads. You bumped up the max power over 1500rpm, yet still managed to make gracially more torque than stock. That isn't normal, especially with heads that already flow nearly 280/190 stock. He made 198whp with a bone stock 3.4 that normally makes 165-170. Does this dyno sound accurate to you? To put that in perspective, there has NEVER been a 3.4 that we know of to break 180whp stock. In addition, most don't break 170. But the 5-speed will allow for about 10whp higher. My bone stock 1992 Z34 5-speed has a BRAND NEW crate engine, and it runs perfect, in fact I have never felt a 3.4 that runs better. It made 178whp, and is the highest stock dyno yet. He made almost 20whp MORE, with a used motor. So it had a number of miles on it. 20whp is A LOT. There is quite simply no way a stock 3.4 can make more than 180whp, I want to say its nearly impossible. Secondly, the heads already flow so much that porting the shit out of them isn't going to do anything. The heads aren't the restriction, the intakes, exhaust manis, and cams are. Porting the exhaust portion of the head will have benefits, but not that much. Now if he had a custom intake, headers, and cams, then head work is the next step. But for stock everything, the heads are as good as they need to be. They already flow 280/190. These are damn respectable numbers, but the exhaust could use some help. Third, his curve did not look like anything from a 3.4. It had gracious low end power, and it kept pulling until redline. Factory, power drops HARD after 5500rpm. I'm sorry, but P/P heads alone are not going to totally change the curve. In addition, he also had good low end torque, much more than it would have gotten factory. Now how you add a lot of low end, and high end, and totally change the curve for the motor with just heads is beyond me. Let's look at his 1/4mi times, and compare them to mine. He ran a 14.95 at 92.98, and a 14.88 @ 93.24. For having 257whp, this sucks. 257whp should be a mid 13 second car. Ironically, I beat him. My mods were intake, exhaust, chip, and UD pulley. I'm guessing it was at 180-190whp max. I ran a 14.78 @ 92.68. His 60' times were both better than mine, WAY better. His were 2.2 and 2.3. My best 60' that day was a 2.388, so basically a 2.4. Now tell me, how can I be down 70whp, get beat off the line by 2 tenths (A LOT), and still manage to beat him through the 1/4mi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 And for the reference, I didn't make Kevwood call me all the names that he did and I certainly didn't make him tell me to kill myself. Rest assured I am not starting a performance business. This is my hobby. My business is fighting fires and writing tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightspeed Posted October 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Actually he had a 60 foot time of 2.1 something. Umm so you just proved Kevs very point. Kev fully admitted he is not the best driver and has alot to learn. His launch was good but we still had major traction issues. Maybe Kev will post his videos someday. The fact of the matter is you are totally proving every thing we are showing about our claims. Our trap times are faster and our 60 foots are faster yet you are a faster 1/4 mile. So you are a better driver and you win but we are making more power so we win proved by you. \ As for the documented stock motor claims with air intake and exhaust it was quite an interesting night because we dynod the car completely stock unmodified. Then we added an intake I made along time ago for Kev and saw I think it was 8-10hp then the exhaust which gave us a gain then the tuning. Thing about it we don't have videos pictures and sworn testimony of a nun from the local convent. So no way we could have pulled out 198 I believe it was. If I decide maybe I will post the complete gains we dynod over an evening showing each step of the way. I am shure tho these would have been made by photoshopping tho. You can claim my dyno reads high but how do you explain the same curve we origionally posted with the auto car. We also duplicated with this new standard the numbers were just higher. This time we have a complete video so you can see it is not a supercharged car as has been suggested in the past. I think maybe oneday Kev will post them. I am not going to get into my therory of this engine with you obviously you and I have different oppinions. The fact is you have just proved everything I said better than I could have ever explained so thanx for showing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THe_DeTAiL3R Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 He ran a 14.95 at 92.98, and a 14.88 @ 93.24. For having 257whp, this sucks. 257whp should be a mid 13 second car. Ironically, I beat him. My mods were intake, exhaust, chip, and UD pulley. I'm guessing it was at 180-190whp max. I ran a 14.78 @ 92.68. Even if he had horrible traction, how does this explain the low (welll similar) MPH compared to Aaron's car? Unless he let up on the throttle... :?: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightspeed Posted October 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 I am not going to get into this we are running considerably faster traps but slower 1/4 means one thing Arron is a good driver and is driving all he has. I believe I have already explained this in one of the posts above. You are right tho Arron Kev should not have called you names. People only get named other than their given names when they have acted in an action that deserved that name. Surely you wouldn't have acted in a manor deserving of such name calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Seriously. He beat me by 3 tenths by 60'. That proves he is a better driver, or has better traction. You say he had no traction, so he must be one helluva driver, much better than me. And for those of you who havn't been in a 5-speed 3.4 with me, I can drive one, Tony will attest to that. 3 TENTHS!!!! That is a lot! And for me to pass him, and him to only be able to match my MPH, wait, sorry, beat me by .56mph, is not impressive. Face it, your dyno gave some really amazing numbers, but when he took it to prove himself, he ran almost slower than stock, with 90 more horsepower. There is no way you will see 8-10whp from an intake. A true cold air intake does well on a 3.4, but not 8-10whp. Maybe 5-7 crank. The exhaust didn't do anything. I've installed over 10 exhausts on 3.4 vehicles, and have never seen it make a difference in power whatsoever. The factory is exhaust is plenty good enough. Your expert tuning is worthless, the factory A:F line is at 13:1 start to finish. And I have an accurate dyno showing this along with accurate numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 I am not going to get into this we are running considerably faster traps but slower 1/4 means one thing Arron is a good driver and is driving all he has. I believe I have already explained this in one of the posts above. I never realized "considerably faster" was .56mph, and .3 mph, respectively. So I am a good driver, yet Kevwood beat my by 3 tenths in 60 feet with "no traction?" Wait a second... Admins/moderators, please don't lock this. None of us are acting out of order yet, we are being respectful and trying to have a technical discussion. I think we are all mature enough to argue without breaking the rules, so please let us. I appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightspeed Posted October 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Arron how much does your car weigh real weight with fuel and you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Arron how much does your car weigh real weight with fuel and you. The same as Kevwood's....I would think that would be common sense. I weigh 185lbs, probably similiar to Kevwood. I had about a half tank in it at the time of that run. Sorry, but the amount of fuel in the tank isn't going to prove or disprove your argument. The cars are the same, there is no way the weight is more than 50lbs in either direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightspeed Posted October 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Considerably faster seeing how your ET was almost 2 tenths lower and our trap speed is way faster and our 60 foots is faster yea that is saying we have a little issue makin down the track isn't it. You and I both can agree that trap speed is a representative of HP correct. We also then agree that it takes a driver to use the HP correct. Now obviously we have more HP our trap is faster. Now obviously you are a better driver. It doesn't take much here to see the issues we have with putting our power down. I never said trap speed represented the total power of a car but it does defnately represent what HP you can guarantee you had at that time. Not saying there isn't more but you can definately guarantee what you had at that time. That is why trap times are important to me. Cheers Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfewtrail Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 It is too bad Arron pushed Kev until he lost it and got himself banned. You know this isn't the only forum where people do that. Kevwood's username doesn't show that he's "banned" at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 how your ET was almost 2 tenths lower and our trap speed is way faster and our 60 foots is faster yea that is saying we have a little issue makin down the track isn't it. You and I both can agree that trap speed is a representative of HP correct. We also then agree that it takes a driver to use the HP correct. Now obviously we have more HP our trap is faster. Now obviously you are a better driver. My ET was a single tenth lower, get your facts straight. Your trap speed is "way faster?" I'm sorry, but a half of a mile per hour isn't "way faster." Trap speed can be a representative of horsepower, yes. Your trap isn't faster, it is slower, by 1 tenth to be exact. Your trap speed was .56mph higher. How am I the better driver? If you have all the power you say you do, and no traction like you say you do, then the car should be hell off the line. I'd expect 2.6s. Yet you have 2.1s. It takes a GOOD driver to get 2.1s with a 3.4. You call me a good driver, yet I only managed high 2.3s, bordering 2.4s. Look, I'm not doubting his car is making more power than mine was, but 80hp doesn't equal .56mph and -1 tenth. And if he truly was lighting up his tries through 3rd gear, then how did he get a 2.1 60 foot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THe_DeTAiL3R Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Where are these "faster" trap speeds??? The ones posted are nearly identical! I'm on Aaron's side unless you got some times with faster MPH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightspeed Posted October 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 This is going nowhere and I have no desire to turn this into a 6 page rant by both of us. I will conclude that your car is faster rather it be driver or engineering. I have an idea tho I will continue to play with this car as now it has become somewhat of a issue. I already told Kev we are going to keep this thing NA until I have found every last ounce of HP hidden in her. Just as you said you are an excellent driver so am I as a tuner and engineer. Kev will get better with his driving and I will address some known issues we found with her this summer over the winter and at the end of next year we can compare our track times, 60 fts, trap speeds whatever anyone wants. Till then keep the rubber side down. Cheers Cam PS. The cams are still straight up and I am out of fuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Did I miss something here I think I did did you not say your car is putting out 218 hp. Where is this 80hp coming from. I am removing all doubt of a dyno number because that is something that is debateable I believe I said by the calculation of trap speed not ET that day I can guarantee that Kevs car was making at least 239 hp. For my own use tho Arron what does your car weigh with you in it. Please don't say the same because their are so many variables. Basically we are quibling over about 21 hp give or take a couple. Half a mph is way faster when you are running a faster 1/4. I told you once to get your facts straight. I do not have a quarter mile for the car that put down 218whp. I do back when it was pretty much stock, intake, exhaust, UD pulley, and a chip. 14.78 @ 92.68 at 1000ft altitude. I am guessing it was making about 180whp. 260-180=80. Kevwood's car was making 257whp, not 239, unless I can;t read dyno graphs. My car weighs in at what about what Kevwood's does. I didn've ANY weight reduction. I still had the full interior, full spare setup, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts