143.3 mph, stock ecu!!!
Nov 17, 2009, 04:47 AM
#151
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Near water
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jcalcultor is for "ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY" They also off a love calculator for proof of this. Disregard any information from these sites.
Added link: http://www.jcalculator.com/?c=love_calculator
Lets all see if we are compatable and spread love through the world....
Added link: http://www.jcalculator.com/?c=love_calculator
Lets all see if we are compatable and spread love through the world....
Last edited by CMB; Nov 17, 2009 at 05:30 AM.
Nov 17, 2009, 06:05 AM
#152
Jcalcultor is for "ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY" They also off a love calculator for proof of this. Disregard any information from these sites.
Added link: http://www.jcalculator.com/?c=love_calculator
Lets all see if we are compatable and spread love through the world....
Added link: http://www.jcalculator.com/?c=love_calculator
Lets all see if we are compatable and spread love through the world....
We are only 37% compatible
(no homo)TTP, sorry to say but this really throws a monkey wrench into trying to support your argument with online calculators. The only online calculator you can find that equals your numbers turns out to be a total fraud
Nov 17, 2009, 06:26 AM
#153
Evolved Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: M104
Posts: 815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What? You mean the "J Calculator" isn't the end-all source of track time predictions?
Well... hopefully we can still use TTP's Wikipedia page as a source of solid truth.
Well... hopefully we can still use TTP's Wikipedia page as a source of solid truth.
Nov 17, 2009, 06:33 AM
#154
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Near water
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say though that TTPs accomplishments are for real
Please, just dont use internet calculators to rectify a higher reading Mustang dyno, or a perfectly good attempt at the 9's...
Nov 17, 2009, 06:56 AM
#155
You cannot have your cake and eat it too...
I haven't seen the DB camp complain about this 1200cc powered 689whp/545tq HTA82 car complete with CATALYTIC CONVERTER and the same model dyno as TTP-Engineering?
For comparison's sake, we are using 1650cc injectors, twin modded pumps on HTA86 and 5" FMIC with 3" pipes. I am sure some can argue that 1200cc injectors could not sufficiently support 689whp but hey, enjoy the cake.
I haven't seen the DB camp complain about this 1200cc powered 689whp/545tq HTA82 car complete with CATALYTIC CONVERTER and the same model dyno as TTP-Engineering?
For comparison's sake, we are using 1650cc injectors, twin modded pumps on HTA86 and 5" FMIC with 3" pipes. I am sure some can argue that 1200cc injectors could not sufficiently support 689whp but hey, enjoy the cake.
Nov 17, 2009, 08:05 PM
#158
Horsepower calculators almost universally read like dynojets because of the formula used-
Speed-
The formula is: hp = weight * (speed / 234)3
E.T.-
The formula is: hp = weight / (ET / 5.825)3
I havent seen one yet that reads like a Mustang, I personally dont believe in them nor use them for proof of anything related to the dyno. Cars do what they do and thats about it, either I can drive or cant, its heavy or its not, it runs what it runs.
Speed-
The formula is: hp = weight * (speed / 234)3
E.T.-
The formula is: hp = weight / (ET / 5.825)3
I havent seen one yet that reads like a Mustang, I personally dont believe in them nor use them for proof of anything related to the dyno. Cars do what they do and thats about it, either I can drive or cant, its heavy or its not, it runs what it runs.
Nov 17, 2009, 08:54 PM
#159
Horsepower calculators almost universally read like dynojets because of the formula used-
Speed-
The formula is: hp = weight * (speed / 234)3
E.T.-
The formula is: hp = weight / (ET / 5.825)3
I havent seen one yet that reads like a Mustang, I personally dont believe in them nor use them for proof of anything related to the dyno. Cars do what they do and thats about it, either I can drive or cant, its heavy or its not, it runs what it runs.
Speed-
The formula is: hp = weight * (speed / 234)3
E.T.-
The formula is: hp = weight / (ET / 5.825)3
I havent seen one yet that reads like a Mustang, I personally dont believe in them nor use them for proof of anything related to the dyno. Cars do what they do and thats about it, either I can drive or cant, its heavy or its not, it runs what it runs.
Our car dynoed 713whp uncorrected and 763whp corrected.
There was NO weather correction used on the Epic Motorsports Mustang Dyno I am told for comparative purposes in case anyone was curious as to a 660whp car compared to our 713whp. That is the uncorrected to uncorrected comparison.
Nov 18, 2009, 05:06 PM
#164
Weather correction can bring whp figures closer to Dynojet figures so the math is applicable.
Our car dynoed 713whp uncorrected and 763whp corrected.
There was NO weather correction used on the Epic Motorsports Mustang Dyno I am told for comparative purposes in case anyone was curious as to a 660whp car compared to our 713whp. That is the uncorrected to uncorrected comparison.
Our car dynoed 713whp uncorrected and 763whp corrected.
There was NO weather correction used on the Epic Motorsports Mustang Dyno I am told for comparative purposes in case anyone was curious as to a 660whp car compared to our 713whp. That is the uncorrected to uncorrected comparison.
Nov 18, 2009, 08:31 PM
#165
http://www.hotrod.com/thehistoryof/1..._creation.html
Originally Posted by HotRod Magazine
One of the biggest headaches of Dynojet's go-it-alone chassis-dyno project was figuring out how to assign meaningful power numbers in the face of unknown inertia from the moving parts of the hundreds or thousands of engine, drivetrain, and tire combinations. Wrestling to fully understand inertia and powertrain losses, Dobeck and his team quickly realized that the standard physics formula of weight, time, and distance for converting acceleration into horsepower simply didn't work-the derived number was always lower than accepted numbers. They poured on resources and burned up time and money investigating it, but no matter what they did, the math never added up.
Dynojet's final number-fudge was arbitrarily based on a number from the most powerful road-going motorcycle of the time, the '85 1,200cc Yamaha VMax. The VMax had 145 advertised factory horsepower, which was far above the raw 90hp number spit out by the formula. Meanwhile, existing aftermarket torque-cell engine dynamometers delivered numbers that clustered around 120. Always a pragmatist, Dobeck finally ordered his Chief Engineer to doctor the math so that the Dynojet 100 measured 120 hp for a stock VMax. And that was that: For once and forever, the power of everything else in the world would be relative to the '85 Yamaha VMax and a fudged imaginary number. Dobeck's engineering staff was dismayed by the decision
Dynojet's final number-fudge was arbitrarily based on a number from the most powerful road-going motorcycle of the time, the '85 1,200cc Yamaha VMax. The VMax had 145 advertised factory horsepower, which was far above the raw 90hp number spit out by the formula. Meanwhile, existing aftermarket torque-cell engine dynamometers delivered numbers that clustered around 120. Always a pragmatist, Dobeck finally ordered his Chief Engineer to doctor the math so that the Dynojet 100 measured 120 hp for a stock VMax. And that was that: For once and forever, the power of everything else in the world would be relative to the '85 Yamaha VMax and a fudged imaginary number. Dobeck's engineering staff was dismayed by the decision