LIFER

iTrader: (16)

lol, I ran 11.8@116 and did 275whp on david's dyno... And you tell me that my track must have been wrong, you sure have some nerve

Smogrunner

iTrader: (5)

Actually you edited my response in an unethical way. I said either the track was wrong -OR- you had removed hundreds of pounds from your car.

I'll add a third possibility: I never play up the regional stuff about track differences, BUT, maybe the California tracks really are a lot slower like some people say...

Or a fourth possibility: Maybe it was 39 degrees out and there was was a nice tailwind.

PVD04

iTrader: (23)

If Buschur's dyno reads 22% lower, then his numbers must be multiplied by 1.282 to get the correct dynojet numbers, as 22% of the dynojet number is 28.2% of Buschur's lower number. If you only add 22%, that is the same as Buschur's dyno being only 18.3% lower. So actually, 30% is closer than the 22% you were using. If you don't believe me, go back to the thread you sited and try your 22% addition to Buschur's number and you will be way off of what the dynojet reading was.

-Paul

VTECH8TR

iTrader: (70)

Smogrunner and everyone else

This thread has nothing to do with track times and horsepower made on dynos. This thread is about Buschurs 20G upgrade for those members that are interested in purchasing one. Please stay on the topic of the 20G.

justchil

iTrader: (44)

I just wanted to say the butt dyno is very happy. FYI -- Buschurs dyno reads 11.69% lower than my butt dyno

All jokes aside.. if anyone has any questions pertaining to the installation I can help out.

LIFER

iTrader: (16)

Smogrunner

iTrader: (5)

Ok,
On topic. David Buschur just stated in a few posts above that his car went 124mph on 328whp.

Now, go back to post 264:
So now White Rabbits with simple bolt ons are making 364 (regardless of boost) and are therefore capable of around 127mph in the 1/4?


Ok, let's redo the math in a different way:
328wph + 22% = 400whp on Switzer's Dynojet

Now ct9a GSR has one of the fastest stock turboed Evos in the World. He did 389whp/420wtq on Switzers Dyno with 29psi with Alcohol injection:
His top MPH ever is 118.

How is 124mph possible? Things weren't quite adding up so I read a whole bunch of DBs posts over again and found this on post 387:

On some posts Dave posts that it did 120mph and on others he says 124mph. Which is it?

robertrinaustin

iTrader: (5)

This is a very good point. I question if there is another turbo on the market that can equal the 20G for area under the curve at the same peak whp. Also keep in mind that Dave has done almost everything possible to his RS.

Tires and traction greatly impact mph, especially at higher whp. I had some very used all season high performance tires and traped at almost 119. With everything else the same the next week except for new BFG KDWs, I trapped just under 114 with the same et.

robertrinaustin

iTrader: (5)

Louis,
You couldn't be more wrong. Performance was brought up by Buschur to help show the ability and power of the turbo. Obviously this is to help sell the turbo. Performance upgrades in general are all about track times and whp. Everything else is just opinion. I happen to disagree with Smoggy on this also, but you are even more wrong . You are normally pretty sharp and even handed but you really need to rethink this one.

Robert

Spooldyou

iTrader: (52)

no im just Confused.

mhgsx

iTrader: (6)

Wrong again! Your example is using DB's numbers as the 'base'. But the baseline is actually the Switzer Dynojet number. That 22% difference is using the Dynojet number as the 100%.

David Buschur

iTrader: (53)

From page 45.

Smogrunner, I'm not going to call you any names.

I have dyno charts that say 328 whp, I have ET slips that say 11.30's and 120-124 mph trap speeds. So I guess what I am saying is what I have said

A stock EVO 2003-2006 will make between 200 and 215 on our dyno, average.

I know of one car for sure that made 285 whp on our dyno and ran 11.8 at 116 mph, I think he has already commented here. Stock turbo on 94 octane.

Our black car only makes about 530 on our dyno and has run 141 mph.

Al's and Matt's car both made 580 (laggier turbos) and ran 144 mph. Both cars heavier than our black car too.

My RS is NOT heavy. If you take a look at our website you can find a section on weight reduction. Everything on that list has been done to my car. On top of that it is an RS with manual windows. This lighter weight helps obviously with the ET's.

Also, an EVO9 on Tym's dynojet made 281 whp and on ours made about 214 whp, this is in reference to what cars make all over the country.

I can't drive my car for crap but can still outdrive most of the guys I run into. The best I have run the car is 11.7's or so. Two of my friends, Kevin and Trent have kicked my butt severely. I don't know if any of you really realize how important driver is.

Two years ago at the shootout Al was running 10.30's if I remember right. He asked Kevin to try his car. Kevin had never driven it, sat in it or anything else. First pass runs a 10.0, fastest the car had ever gone. One more pass I am sure it would have ran 9's. Al wouldn't give him another pass Al ran the 9 himself a few weeks later.

Guess we'll have to wait and see what it runs come spring.

Yes, I still have our ported/coated manifold and turbine housing on the car. Also have the Ebay 02 housing. I am also using the AEM for the boost. No taper, 28-27 psi to 7,000 rpm.
I don't know what a stock EVO9 turbo would hold for boost, probably 25 psi flat across.

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

David Buschur

iTrader: (53)

Lifer/smog,

Our dyno read 22% lower than Tym's AWD Dynojet on the exact same day and car. So Lifer, I appreciate your support but it is 22%.

Boosted AWD, I am running 880 cc injectors, they are going over 80% right now on duty cycle. Depending on how many other mods you have and boost levels you are going to run the least I would recommend is a 680 cc. I would also recommend a FMIC first.

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

David Buschur

iTrader: (53)

I'm glad that I am not the only one that is confused on how to figure out percentage.

Is anyone here really good in math? Seems simple enough if you are. I went back to find the exact numbers from that day.

Our AWD MD dyno:

WHP=218
Torque=214

Tym's AWD Dynojet:
WHP=281
Torque=273

63 whp and 59 ft lbs of torque difference. If I multiply 281 x 22.5% (.225) I come up with 63.22 whp. So to me this means our dyno reads 22.5% less than Tym's on the WHP number. If I multiply 273 x 22% (.22) I come up with 60 ft lbs.

I could very well be doing this wrong but that's what I get.

Now doing this same math, and it could be wrong as I am not good at such things. If I input 500 whp into the calculator and multiply it by 22%, 500x.22=110 difference. I then take 500 whp and subtract the 110 whp and come up with 390 which is about what my car just made. It was 388-390.

Honestly, I find this extremely hard to believe. I don't think it is possible that this car will put 500 whp down on Tym's dyno. If it does then it very well explains the ET's I am guessing for it.

I should probably load the car up in the trailer and haul it over to Tym's dyno and see what this car does there.

We have some work to do on it this coming week that is going to require a serious re-tune. I'll consider taking the car there after this next round of work get done. I'm curious.

David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com

anjapower

iTrader: (18)

If a car putting down 214 whp on your dyno puts down 281 whp on Tym's dyno, that means his dyno is reading 31.3% higher.

If the difference is constant, your 328whp RS would put down 430whp on a dynojet.