Tony's BHP

[Alky V6]

Nope.... we bust you because your making 700 hp less than the turbo is capable of and you want us to congradulate you on it meanwhile according to your calcs we make more hp then the turbo is rated at, and yet we dont go looking for a pat on the back. Are you clear about what we are "busting" you about now?

So, you're busting me because you know better. You have all the answers. Come to think of it, I don't recall you providing anything that even remotely resembled an answer on either of these threads.

In fact, why don't you do the math on my fuel consumption right here on this thread for everyone. Frankly, I don't think you can, but you did ask for my fuel consumption figures so, I figure you must be able to do something with the numbers. Com'on Tony. Let's see what you can do, other than belly ache about something you can't comprehend.

 

[Alky V6]

It's hard to dispute fuel consumption data, so here's your one chance Tony. If there was ever a golden chance, this one is it. Prove me wrong.

 

[John Wilde]

Guys,

There is a lot of information out there.
Let's not make these debates and information exchanges attacks.

Not that anyone asked me I think that Tony and Don
have different goals and approaches on how to get there.

-Tony wants to be the king in TSO. (CEO)
He has had a very successful run and works with some of the
best people in the community to achieve his goals.
I am excited to see what the chassis improvements can bring.

-Don sees his car as a science project. (Mad Scientist)
He wants to figure everything out himself to give himself a deeper
understanding of every aspect of the car.
He is only in competition with his own understandings and developments.

There is enough room in the community for each idea and one does not need to step on the other.

Who's car or accomplishments are more impressive should only matter to the perspective owners.

I would gladly spend the day with either and try to learn as much as possible.

 

[Otto J]

It's hard to dispute fuel consumption data, so here's your one chance Tony. If there was ever a golden chance, this one is it. Prove me wrong.

There is definetly some variance with fuel consumption.
For instance, if you are running your car rich it is using more fuel than needed for a certain amount of power and you are you using unburnt fuel to make a calcuation.
To be exact you will have to be on the cusp of perfect air/fuel.
for an example, the FAST makes a calculation of how many #s per hour of fuel you are using,if I have a car tuned rich it will show a higher number,as I lean it out the number goes down but i make more power as it is leaned out.

I am not judging your a/f ration here and i may be splitting hairs.

 

[cdsttype]

They bust me on my sig, why?
Because I'm not producing more than the 91mm is capable of supporting even though I'm using 1.835"/1.5" valves?
I'm not quite getting the point. So, are you saying that they believe I should be able to push this small headed motor to 1600 hp? Really? Do they really believe that? Is that really why they're busting me about my sig?

I don't think people think that.I think what that they see is you making
50 percent of your advertised potential power.

 

[S2V6RACER]

There is definetly some variance with fuel consumption.
For instance, if you are running your car rich it is using more fuel than needed for a certain amount of power and you are you using unburnt fuel to make a calcuation.
To be exact you will have to be on the cusp of perfect air/fuel.
for an example, the FAST makes a calculation of how many #s per hour of fuel you are using,if I have a car tuned rich it will show a higher number,as I lean it out the number goes down but i make more power as it is leaned out.

I am not judging your a/f ration here and i may be splitting hairs.

Right Otto, there is a variation. It seems no matter where we go with this, there is a question of what the real number is. For the record I'll go with the 888 RWHP the dyno said. I think I'll look back at the fuel calcs on that pull and post them up so we can see about how much the drivetrain was loosing.

 

[Alky V6]

There is definetly some variance with fuel consumption.
For instance, if you are running your car rich it is using more fuel than needed for a certain amount of power and you are you using unburnt fuel to make a calcuation.
To be exact you will have to be on the cusp of perfect air/fuel.
for an example, the FAST makes a calculation of how many #s per hour of fuel you are using,if I have a car tuned rich it will show a higher number,as I lean it out the number goes down but i make more power as it is leaned out.

I am not judging your a/f ration here and i may be splitting hairs.

That's true Otto. I'm not absolutely sure on the bsfc. Maybe someone can help me with that.
I'm recording 10.8 to 11.4 at the end of an 1/8 mile pass. My a/f meter reads out gasoline numbers. All someone needs to do is convert that to lambda, and then convert that to an a/f for methanol fuel.

Even if my bsfc was 1.3, which is on the rich side for methanol, what would that come out too? Heck! Use 1.35 bsfc. What's that?

 

[Alky V6]

I don't think people think that.I think what that they see is you making
50 percent of your advertised potential power.

How do you figure?

 

[S2V6RACER]

795 lbs/hr where the car made 888 RWHP. Works out to about 1325 BHP at .6 bsfc and 33% +- loss through the drivetrain, but yet good enough to run 8.29 @ 168+ Tune was within 2% of where it is at the track and A/F was the same as the figures used above. Dyno was a Mustang.

 

[Alky V6]

795 lbs/hr where the car made 888 RWHP. Works out to about 1325 BHP at .6 bsfc and 33% +- loss through the drivetrain, but yet good enough to run 8.29 @ 168+ Tune was within 2% of where it is at the track and A/F was the same as the figures used above. Dyno was a Mustang.

Interesting. What is the weight of the car? What trans and TC?

 

[John Wilde]

795 lbs/hr where the car made 888 RWHP. Works out to about 1325 BHP at .6 bsfc and 33% +- loss through the drivetrain, but yet good enough to run 8.29 @ 168+ Tune was within 2% of where it is at the track and A/F was the same as the figures used above. Dyno was a Mustang.

Thanks Ted, this is great real world information.

 

[turbobuick]

795 lbs/hr where the car made 888 RWHP. Works out to about 1325 BHP at .6 bsfc and 33% +- loss through the drivetrain, but yet good enough to run 8.29 @ 168+ Tune was within 2% of where it is at the track and A/F was the same as the figures used above. Dyno was a Mustang.

MD dyno's are overly stingy IMO and need to much attention to the setup than they are worth. FYI My car on a MD dyno made 697, next day at the track it went 8.50's@163, not exactly accurate but not a bad tuning method since you can load the car.

When I was talking about estimating HP from the amount of fuel I was thinking more in terms of measuring it with fuel flow meter. One on the feed and one on the return. You would then have a mass of fuel used, wieght, distance, MPH and time and could come up with a pretty accurate number as far as HP. Racepak makes them how about it Ted?

 

[S2V6RACER]

Interesting. What is the weight of the car? What trans and TC?

3410#, TH-400 and a Twisted 6 PTC converter.

 

[S2V6RACER]

Racepak makes them how about it Ted?

It would be interesting, and I'm sure with Racepak it's going to be $$$$

Check out the price for both!!!

http://racepak.rexharris.com/vconfig.htm

 

[Alky V6]

3410#, TH-400 and a Twisted 6 PTC converter.

So what do you think about all that? What's the chance you got a bad number some where?
I'm assuming that TC shouldn't be giving an answer like that.

 

[S2V6RACER]

So what do you think about all that? What's the chance you got a bad number some where?
I'm assuming that TC shouldn't be giving an answer like that.

Honestly, I feel if I was on the quest for a BIG dyno number I would keep going somewhere else and keep making pulls till I was happy with a big number and then I could brag about making more HP than anybody else in the world with a V6, but in reality there comes a time when you have to back it up at the track. I already had been 137+ (660') with the fresh engine so I knew better than to let that 888 RWHP number bother me (too much ).

I do not understand how the Mustang dyno computes RWHP, or have I put any effort into learning that at this point so I would have to think it's a matter of calibrations, ect, and absolutely nothing to do with the converter.

I was never a fan of dynos, I only went there to chase down a bad crank signal problem I was having, as I have found a pretty good way(s) to predict the fueling map up top with the limited experience I have and after seeing what the track proven tune looked like there on the dyno I would recommend to anybody hitting the dyno (Mustang) real quick with a un-tuned combo before going to the track, I am not familiar with Dynojets, I have heard many blowing up their engines because the tune is quite different at the track. I would recommend using Cal, or somebody who has a history of dyno tunes and then track performance to back it up.

 

[Alky V6]

Honestly, I feel if I was on the quest for a BIG dyno number I would keep going somewhere else and keep making pulls till I was happy with a big number and then I could brag about making more HP than anybody else in the world with a V6, but in reality there comes a time when you have to back it up at the track. I already had been 137+ (660') with the fresh engine so I knew better than to let that 888 RWHP number bother me (too much ).

I do not understand how the Mustang dyno computes RWHP, or have I put any effort into learning that at this point so I would have to think it's a matter of calibrations, ect, and absolutely nothing to do with the converter.

I was never a fan of dynos, I only went there to chase down a bad crank signal problem I was having, as I have found a pretty good way(s) to predict the fueling map up top with the limited experience I have and after seeing what the track proven tune looked like there on the dyno I would recommend to anybody hitting the dyno (Mustang) real quick with a un-tuned combo before going to the track, I am not familiar with Dynojets, I have heard many blowing up their engines because the tune is quite different at the track. I would recommend using Cal, or somebody who has a history of dyno tunes and then track performance to back it up.

Very good post.

 

[bison]

795 lbs/hr where the car made 888 RWHP. Works out to about 1325 BHP at .6 bsfc and 33% +- loss through the drivetrain, but yet good enough to run 8.29 @ 168+ Tune was within 2% of where it is at the track and A/F was the same as the figures used above. Dyno was a Mustang.

+1. It is used to dial in your specific car. For a comparison to another car on another dyno its useless and doesnt mean dick anyway. 137mph in the eighth. That says plenty.

 

[Dusty Bradford]

We did a couple converters for those dyno shootout cars a couple years ago. We put very tight 10" nitrous converters in them for the big dyno numbers but they won't fall out of a tree at the race track.

You see, when a car is dyno'd in 3rd gear and the car makes a ton of power. All it does is flash the converter because your loading it with a lot of torque and a trans ratio of 1.0. It's not like a stick car where you just mat it at 3k. A fast car on the track won't always show big hp #'s on the dyno unless the dyno operator is familiar with big power converter equipped cars.

 

[SGRIM]

. A fast car on the track won't always show big hp #'s on the dyno unless the dyno operator is familiar with big power converter equipped cars.

+1