no2 to spool turbo

[Alky V6]

That was me. I was saying your rwhp was in the 800's based on your current (lack of) performance numbers. I will be at the West Coast Nationals. If you come, I'll split the cost for you to slap it on Jan's dyno. No more sliderules, sims, or calculators.

Isn't a chassis dyno just another big fancy calculator?

I've heard it's possible to have different results from one chassis dyno to another. So even chassis dyno results can be questioned when it comes to peak performance numbers.

A chassis dyno is just another way to measure hp. Not so much different than using a sim based on good math, or using incremental data off of a time slip, or... using fuel consumption. :biggrin:

Thanks for the offer, Cal. I have a chassis dyno available to me right across the way in my industrial complex. I have used the service occasionally for customer's cars. The operator is just as anxious to get my car on his dyno as you are, and at no cost to me.
Isn't it true that the tune up changes from engine dyno, to chassis dyno, to the actual track? I don't use any correction in my fuel map and if the tuneup needs to be even just a little different for a dyno pull, I would rather not go through the bother of having to play with the fuel map for that. Not to mention the aux fueling transition timing that is completely dependant on the rpm and map rise rate for the transition to occur without a problem. I can't stress that point enough. If those rates are different on a chassis dyno, due to a different loading than what I get on the track, it could result in a catastrophic disaster. If that point is not clear to you, please let me know and I'll explain it to you. It's the one main point that has kept me from testing the car on a chassis dyno.
I would rather blow the engine on the track, than on a chassis dyno.

 

[Alky V6]

Don, are these your actual head flow numbers, or what you put in the SIM? I gotta get a set of these on mine they kick azz....

Where does the 210 number come in at?

The 210 number was the number given to me by the head porter. He flowed the heads when he finished porting the heads and this is the flow number he came up with.

The 310 number is what I had to input into the sim to get the sim to better mirror real world performance numbers.

 

[Alky V6]

I think the big lesson here that relates to the dispute about how much horsepower my engine produces is, I should have listed my horsepower figures as BRAKE HORSEPOWER, and others should have listed their guesses as REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER.

BIG difference between the two.

So, I'm saying that my bhp is 1,130 hp. Others are saying my rwhp can't possibly be over 800 rwhp.

What is the calculated drivetrain loss between the two?

Does anyone remember what I said about what the chassis dyno operator told me about drivetrain loss ranges? He told me 25% or greater with an automatic and a racing TC.

 

[S2V6RACER]

The 210 number was the number given to me by the head porter. He flowed the heads when he finished porting the heads and this is the flow number he came up with.

The 310 number is what I had to input into the sim to get the sim to better mirror real world performance numbers.

My heads flowed 252 CFM at .600 and we ran 168+ and 137.5 in the 660'.

I know they were not holding me back at that point, so my point is your flow numbers could be on the low side because I consider my flow numbers on the low side (or reality??) as claims have been made over 300+cfm at .600 by other head porters and since we are on top of the field mine must either flow better, or they are more real world numbers, but as you can see they are just numbers that don't mean squat when the numbers look good on the racetrack. The big question is where and what happened to these big bad azz heads so we can see if our performance is being held back with our low flow numbers.


If we both sent our heads out the the same flow bench the record flowing stock type heads were put on and they showed 300+ then what do we go with?? The bigger or lower numbers???

I get a kick out of telling people what my heads flow and the puzzled look on their face...

 

[Alky V6]

My heads flowed 252 CFM at .600 and we ran 168+ and 137.5 in the 660'.

I know they were not holding me back at that point, so my point is your flow numbers could be on the low side because I consider my flow numbers on the low side (or reality??) as claims have been made over 300+cfm at .600 by other head porters and since we are on top of the field mine must either flow better, or they are more real world numbers, but as you can see they are just numbers that don't mean squat when the numbers look good on the racetrack. The big question is where and what happened to these big bad azz heads so we can see if our performance is being held back with our low flow numbers.


If we both sent our heads out the the same flow bench the record flowing stock type heads were put on and they showed 300+ then what do we go with?? The bigger or lower numbers???

I get a kick out of telling people what my heads flow and the puzzled look on their face...

I understand.
That's why I've tried to double check and compare as many methods as possible to calculate a realistic bhp performance number. When several different methods begin to point at one particular number,... good bet it's pretty close.

As you've mentioned, head flow numbers can be deceiving, that's one reason I don't put complete faith in them. My situation pretty much taught me that one.

I have to add, that though my heads are acting as if they flow at comparatively good numbers at the particular performance level I'm at now, I'm pretty sure the short comings of the heads are going to really show up as I try to push them further with the tune. That's just my guess at this point.
It's hard to defy the laws of physics where it comes to the mach number through the intake port.

 

[Alky V6]

I need to try to make one more point as clear as I can.
People that use simple calculators to come up with a PEAK hp figure for a person's engiine, or even just a rwhp figure have absolutely no clue about how so many factors in coming up with that one number changes throughout every inch of that quarter mile run.
For instance, in my case, the engine really isn't completely at full power for the boost level that I'm presently using until the last 2 seconds of an 1/8 mile pass. How can you possibly judge a rwhp figure from just a quick snap shot of that kind of pass?
Tony's car is a little different. He's at full power much, much sooner in the pass, so a simple calculation of rwhp will tend to be closer to accurate in his instance.
I hope this makes sense.

 

[Alky V6]

There may be those now that take a glance at the drag sim I use and try to quickly come up with some accurate results.

GOOD LUCK.

I've been playing with the sim for too many years to keep track of now and have only recently, within the last 8 months, come up with a method to get it to somewhat accurately mimic real world results for a turbocharged car where full power is normally reserved for the later part of the run. Let alone, my crazy nitrous setup.

Tony's analysis turned out to be rather easy compared to mine. His took an evening to figure out. Mine took literally years.

 

[Alky V6]

Now imagine this if you can.

I took a head that flowed 210 on the bench, but acts like 310 on the engine. I'm only guessing that a large part of that is the cam and manifolding. Resonance or pressure pulse tuning.

What if you started out with a head that flowed 310 on the bench and tuned the cam and manifolding for pressure pulse tuning?

 

[Dusty Bradford]

Now imagine this if you can.

I took a head that flowed 210 on the bench, but acts like 310 on the engine. I'm only guessing that a large part of that is the cam and manifolding. Resonance or pressure pulse tuning.

What if you started out with a head that flowed 310 on the bench and tuned the cam and manifolding for pressure pulse tuning?

OR, the sim just can't accurately predict turbo engine function as evidenced by your need to fudge the #'s. If your having to lie to the sim and adjust the a/r size and other important pieces of the engine puzzle to get it to match real world results, that seems to show you can't rely on some of the things it spits out......such as head flow.

You mention being limited by head flow compared to the TSM and TSO cars. If you have done something to make the engine think it has heads that flow more than a GN1R head, how can you feel like your limited???

 

[Alky V6]

OR, the sim just can't accurately predict turbo engine function as evidenced by your need to fudge the #'s. If your having to lie to the sim and adjust the a/r size and other important pieces of the engine puzzle to get it to match real world results, that seems to show you can't rely on some of the things it spits out......such as head flow.

You mention being limited by head flow compared to the TSM and TSO cars. If you have done something to make the engine think it has heads that flow more than a GN1R head, how can you feel like your limited???

To easily dismiss the sim would be easy to to do if it weren't for,
#1 The incredible success others have had in matching the sim to real world results.
#2 The fact that every time the sim did err, it erred on the low side. I love getting surprises. :biggrin:

 

[baadgn]

I need to try to make one more point as clear as I can.
People that use simple calculators to come up with a PEAK hp figure for a person's engiine, or even just a rwhp figure have absolutely no clue about how so many factors in coming up with that one number changes throughout every inch of that quarter mile run.
For instance, in my case, the engine really isn't completely at full power for the boost level that I'm presently using until the last 2 seconds of an 1/8 mile pass. How can you possibly judge a rwhp figure from just a quick snap shot of that kind of pass?
Tony's car is a little different. He's at full power much, much sooner in the pass, so a simple calculation of rwhp will tend to be closer to accurate in his instance.
I hope this makes sense.

Well on one pass i picked up 130 mph on the back half of course I was only going 10 mph at the 660 mark. What do you think the hp level would be on that pass using the back half as a measurement hopefully you get my point.
you using a certain part of your pass to figure your Hp is like saying I took the hottest chick in high school to the prom.................................. because her boyfriend didnt have a car

If you were making the hp your claiming then your car should run 135 mph or more in the 1/8 so why up grade the fuel system your still down 9 mph ? why not hit it earlier like "WE" do. You stated that my car makes 350 more hp than you, and were on radials so LET IT EAT

 

[baadgn]

YouTube - TSO FINAL NORWALK, OHIO 2009

This is a vid from last year TSO finals, I post this just to show what can be achieved when the right parts are used in conjunction with each other
Dave F and Ted A cars are the same way. Listen at 59 sec mark its when Dave sets his stage bulb and I drop the hammer

 

[Alky V6]

You mention being limited by head flow compared to the TSM and TSO cars. If you have done something to make the engine think it has heads that flow more than a GN1R head, how can you feel like your limited???

Com'on. Really? I'm not as naive as you might think.

When was the last time you heard of someone pumping out 1600 hp with 1.835" intake valves? Even I know that if a sim told me I might achieve 1600 hp with 1.835" valves, it would be a gross error. Do you seriously believe it's possible, Dusty. Seriously? I thought you knew your stuff.

 

[Alky V6]

Well on one pass i picked up 130 mph on the back half of course I was only going 10 mph at the 660 mark. What do you think the hp level would be on that pass using the back half as a measurement hopefully you get my point.
you using a certain part of your pass to figure your Hp is like saying I took the hottest chick in high school to the prom.................................. because her boyfriend didnt have a car

If you were making the hp your claiming then your car should run 135 mph or more in the 1/8 so why up grade the fuel system your still down 9 mph ? why not hit it earlier like "WE" do. You stated that my car makes 350 more hp than you, and were on radials so LET IT EAT

Tell ya what, Tony. Why don't you give me some tips that I can use on my chassis setup that will help me get through the 1-2 shift without having to hold back the boost rate of climb, and I'll let her eat. What do ya say? Why don't you contribute something to a thread for a change, instead of interrupting here and there for a quick pounding of your chest. That's what I'd really like to see. :biggrin:

 

[Alky V6]

Tony. You were one of the fellas relentlessly asking for my fuel consumption figures. Did you miss the fact that I posted them? If you caught it that I did post the numbers, did you do the math? If you were able to do the math correctly, what did you think of the answers? :biggrin:

You probably just think there must be something wrong with the universe, right?

 

[Alky V6]

I don't understand why some of you are so against using sims.
There is a long list of very respected names that use the same sim as I. Many report of very good results. The few times I used the sim to provide feedback for jobs we did for customers resulted in very accurate results. So far, only my unique configuration has thrown it for a loop. There are other engine builders that turbocharge that I know have used the sim and they only praise the sim. Am I supposed to ignore that?
Obviously, the math in the sims is well accepted.

So,... I go and use the sim, and it's wrong. :frown:
I produced more power than the sim said I would. :frown: Can you just feel how sad I am? :frown: I'm so sad. :frown:
I'm getting used to this sad feeling. :frown: I'm getting so used to this sad feeling that I think I might keep using this sim so that I can keep feeling very sad. :frown:

 

[HighPSI]

So, I'm saying that my bhp is 1,130 hp. Others are saying my rwhp can't possibly be over 800 rwhp.

I'm sure the sim will come up with a higher number, but to me 1130/224=5.04

One thing that you may (or may not) find interesting is Don's TSM combo. It runs slightly quicker in the 1/8th with a much worse 60' . It weighs 365# more than your car and has dynoed a tick over 800 hp. It has a 70mm turbo rated at 880hp. I only mention this since the 2 cars are very close in performance and a race would be fun to watch.

 

[baadgn]

Tony. You were one of the fellas relentlessly asking for my fuel consumption figures. Did you miss the fact that I posted them? If you caught it that I did post the numbers, did you do the math? If you were able to do the math correctly, what did you think of the answers? :biggrin:

You probably just think there must be something wrong with the universe, right?

Universe is fine but you........

Your fuel numbers mean nothing to me now, after I and the whole board witnessed what you did to the head flow numbers in your sim program "to make it work" how can we belive anything you tell us if your going to "adjust" numbers to make it work for you.

 

[baadgn]

I don't understand why some of you are so against using sims.
There is a long list of very respected names that use the same sim as I. Many report of very good results. The few times I used the sim to provide feedback for jobs we did for customers resulted in very accurate results. So far, only my unique configuration has thrown it for a loop. There are other engine builders that turbocharge that I know have used the sim and they only praise the sim. Am I supposed to ignore that?
Obviously, the math in the sims is well accepted.

So,... I go and use the sim, and it's wrong. :frown:
I produced more power than the sim said I would. :frown: Can you just feel how sad I am? :frown: I'm so sad. :frown:
I'm getting used to this sad feeling. :frown: I'm getting so used to this sad feeling that I think I might keep using this sim so that I can keep feeling very sad. :frown:

Well Cry me a river.... your "unique config has thrown it for a loop" your words not mine and yet you want us to belive the numbers and when we dont you insult us me/Cal with the nitrous accusation and now Dusty with I thought you knew your stuff, How old are you ?

 

[Alky V6]

I'm sure the sim will come up with a higher number, but to me 1130/224=5.04

One thing that you may (or may not) find interesting is Don's TSM combo. It runs slightly quicker in the 1/8th with a much worse 60' . It weighs 365# more than your car and has dynoed a tick over 800 hp. It has a 70mm turbo rated at 880hp. I only mention this since the 2 cars are very close in performance and a race would be fun to watch.

The new bhp figure in my sig was produced using more recent results with the car. I used to post 5.04 just a little while back. As the car keeps coming up with bests, I'll keep updating the sig.

Do you believe that I think my car would dyno out at more than 800 or something close to that on a chassis dyno?