New Stock ECU RECORD on 20G-LT
nice
Oct 18, 2007 | 08:14 AM
#35
Thanks Trev, it was just a good weekend all the way around. New friends and good results. The Procomm is used as a terminal emulator for my Unix system. I created a database for OKIX's results, so I add each run so it can be evaluated later. The figures at the bottom of the screen are incremental averages, as I 'arrow down' through the records. Note the highlight on the last record to give the average of each important column.
Oct 24, 2007 | 08:50 AM
#37
Fully interior, fully optioned RS. Basic changes, wheels, brakes + rear mustache bar. Also has 5 point Roll bar. Car weighs about 3150.
94Aawdcoupe, were still running the 26X9.50X15 Hoosiers. Our final run 60's were the best of nearly all the eliminator class and the stock appearing class. We're leaving the car for Buschur to freshen up and change out the Evo IX 4th gear to the Evo VIII 4th. After that, the final ratio changes enough to go to your 24.5X 15's. Today, we we're bumping the revlimiter in 4th using the 25.7 Nitto's during the earlier competition. At that time, the limiter was set on 8300. No way to go any shorter with the IX gear. Now, I'll be ordering the shorter tires, since we'll have a taller 4th. To date, he has about 6 1.5x 60's at 127-128mph on the 26.1's.
94Aawdcoupe, were still running the 26X9.50X15 Hoosiers. Our final run 60's were the best of nearly all the eliminator class and the stock appearing class. We're leaving the car for Buschur to freshen up and change out the Evo IX 4th gear to the Evo VIII 4th. After that, the final ratio changes enough to go to your 24.5X 15's. Today, we we're bumping the revlimiter in 4th using the 25.7 Nitto's during the earlier competition. At that time, the limiter was set on 8300. No way to go any shorter with the IX gear. Now, I'll be ordering the shorter tires, since we'll have a taller 4th. To date, he has about 6 1.5x 60's at 127-128mph on the 26.1's.
Im not questioning Db, just wanted to know what you thought. From what i hear the DB dyno reads 18% less than a dynojet, from there its another 18% (conservative) from drivetrain losses. From those calculations the OKIX car would be at roughly 578 HP. Whats your take?
Oct 24, 2007 | 09:23 AM
#38
Evolving Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
From: OKC
Great car and awesome tuning 9sec9! Now if your car went 128 and weighs in at 3150 with driver, you would need at least 510 HP at the crank by my calculations to reach that MPH. So in light of that how do you think Mustang dynos read? From this instance it doesnt seem to read as low as DB says Im not questioning Db, just wanted to know what you thought. From what i hear the DB dyno reads 18% less than a dynojet, from there its another 18% (conservative) from drivetrain losses. From those calculations the OKIX car would be at roughly 578 HP. Whats your take?
Im not questioning Db, just wanted to know what you thought. From what i hear the DB dyno reads 18% less than a dynojet, from there its another 18% (conservative) from drivetrain losses. From those calculations the OKIX car would be at roughly 578 HP. Whats your take?
Oct 24, 2007 | 09:51 AM
#41
warp9, by using dragsource.com, the horsepower is calculated to be between 484 (using 10.87 et) and 513 (using 127.8mph trap). If we use the trap speed of 127.8 mph and it's corresponding 513 horsepower (assuming crank hp), then reduce it by 17% loss you arrive at 425 WHEEL horsepower. Exactly what the Buschur Dyno shows. The other method of looking at it would be that the Dynojet numbers were meant to be crank horsepower, so you would not reduce the number by 18% twice. As horsepower goes up, the drivetrain losss does not stay linear. While not constant, the drivetrain loss is thought to only incrementally go up, due to increased friction. I stand to be corrected on that however. The way to prove the et/mph/mustang/dynojet theory is to show me another 425 whp car (as measured on a dynojet) that runs 10.87. None. What DYNOJET MEASURED whp is required to run 10.87. I'm not sure, but it's probably in the neighborhood of 525whp+. My take on the Mustang dyno measurements is that I only use it to determine if I am making more, or less whp/wtq than I did before or after a change in tuning or a change in parts. That's all that's important to me. I have seen 30whp differences on the same dyno, same tune, different days but same car. I can't imagine trying to compare different cars, different dynos, different days and different tunes. It just doesn't make sense. By using the dragsource methods, it seems to be pretty accurate. I would only say that maybe the Dynojets are either inflated, or they should be taken as crank hp, which is exactly what an article I've read indicates. They were originally intended to indicate CRANK HP, not whp. That's why the 18% difference has to be accounted for. Now, the correction factors and all of that is thrown in the mix, but simply stating numbers really means nothing. It's the ET and MPH that will tell the true story, when compared to identical cars. Gears and weight play an integral roll in even that.
Oct 24, 2007 | 10:07 AM
#42
OKIX and his BUZZ! After each run, I ask him how it felt leaving. I mean is it immediately spinning or out a little ways. All I hear is related to his BUZZ factor. The sad part is, I'm beginning to set tire pressures based on the amount of Buzz Factor.
Oct 24, 2007 | 10:51 AM
#43
warp9, by using dragsource.com, the horsepower is calculated to be between 484 (using 10.87 et) and 513 (using 127.8mph trap). If we use the trap speed of 127.8 mph and it's corresponding 513 horsepower (assuming crank hp), then reduce it by 17% loss you arrive at 425 WHEEL horsepower. Exactly what the Buschur Dyno shows. The other method of looking at it would be that the Dynojet numbers were meant to be crank horsepower, so you would not reduce the number by 18% twice. As horsepower goes up, the drivetrain losss does not stay linear. While not constant, the drivetrain loss is thought to only incrementally go up, due to increased friction. I stand to be corrected on that however. The way to prove the et/mph/mustang/dynojet theory is to show me another 425 whp car (as measured on a dynojet) that runs 10.87. None. What DYNOJET MEASURED whp is required to run 10.87. I'm not sure, but it's probably in the neighborhood of 525whp+. My take on the Mustang dyno measurements is that I only use it to determine if I am making more, or less whp/wtq than I did before or after a change in tuning or a change in parts. That's all that's important to me. I have seen 30whp differences on the same dyno, same tune, different days but same car. I can't imagine trying to compare different cars, different dynos, different days and different tunes. It just doesn't make sense. By using the dragsource methods, it seems to be pretty accurate. I would only say that maybe the Dynojets are either inflated, or they should be taken as crank hp, which is exactly what an article I've read indicates. They were originally intended to indicate CRANK HP, not whp. That's why the 18% difference has to be accounted for. Now, the correction factors and all of that is thrown in the mix, but simply stating numbers really means nothing. It's the ET and MPH that will tell the true story, when compared to identical cars. Gears and weight play an integral roll in even that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
9sec9
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain
242
Oct 22, 2008 01:49 PM
9sec9
Vendor Service / Parts / Tuning Review
71
Nov 27, 2007 08:18 AM
