Supra Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
We just dynoed and eventually made 922WHP and 779WTQ ( i forgot to get the updated version but this will do for now. These numbers were also made with stock manifold and TB. The turbo made 36psi but fell to 34. No spray all turbo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
687 Posts
VERY NICE numbers!

What was the elevation? EMS? Cams? More info please!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
Engine:
pauter rods
cp pistons (.20)
Stock head(no porting)
HKS 272 cams
crower springs

Drivetrain:
Stock 6spd
RPS stage3 clutch

Turbo:
PTE 74GTS
VW ex. manifold
4'' downpipe
Air/water intercooler (great on the street also!!)

Fuel:
Sp fuel system 1000cc inj
twin pumps

Electronics:
AEM
HKS DLI

Stock int. manifold and throttlebody. The car has a little more in it, it started breaking up, i need different plugs, we are sure out of this setup we can make 940-950 with a few more changes, we will have to try it again!!! oh and elevation up here is in the 6000+


















Sal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
I would say run it at the track and let us know your et/mph. I know Matt Miller had a 74 and only made 750 something but ran [email protected] 143 or something like that.


Staats
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,475 Posts
AZMongoose said:
Great numbers, but they are over-corrected.
:agreed:
 

·
I rock like CRACK
Joined
·
1,010 Posts
These were SAE numbers right? I would have to agree with AZMongoose that they are good numbers but likely over corrected like a mofo. What were your uncorrected if you don't mind me asking?
 

·
iSketch Master!
Joined
·
9,044 Posts
I think uncorrected for our altitude would prob be around 750-800. I dont think he ever got the uncorrected sheet from the tuner though. This altitude is gay!!!

Alex
 

·
I'm back!
Joined
·
6,712 Posts
I doubt that's not a reeeeeeealy corrected graph. I made 811rwhp on my 74gtx at 31psi, I'll be back on the dyno on Saturday at 35psi to see what happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
braddman said:
I doubt that's not a reeeeeeealy corrected graph. I made 811rwhp on my 74gtx at 31psi, I'll be back on the dyno on Saturday at 35psi to see what happens.

I made 860+ on 32psi so yes i agree with you also, you got to remember im on a air/water combo it will make more power than air/air. And yes this is stock man. and T.B. there is guys here that can back me up on that. Everyone that has made big power use corrected numbers so im comparing apples to apples here, and yes our altitude kills cars not to mention the D.A. being 7500-8000 feet. Thanks for the comments though!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Jstaats said:
I would say run it at the track and let us know your et/mph. I know Matt Miller had a 74 and only made 750 something but ran [email protected] 143 or something like that.


Staats

I sure will, im on drag radials now but as soon as i get slicks ill let you all know, it probably wont go that fast due to our track, it is never preped like it should.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
I don't understand how you can use "corrected" numbers and call it any kind of record <shrug>
I don't doubt you are making some good power, because you are, but showing uncorrected data and stating altitude would be more valid for me...
You probably made an uncorrected record with that turbo for your altitude, so congrats :)

just my .02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Z-Gad said:
I don't understand how you can use "corrected" numbers and call it any kind of record <shrug>
I don't doubt you are making some good power, because you are, but showing uncorrected data and stating altitude would be more valid for me...
You probably made an uncorrected record with that turbo for your altitude, so congrats :)

just my .02



SAE numbers is what everyone uses. Besides you dont have to take it as a record if you dont want, READ THE TOPIC, thats why it says "correct me if im wrong" Besides look at this example and tell me whats the difference.





#1
komar
BIK KLR




Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston Texas
Age: 24
Posts: 430
Trader Rating: (0)
901 whp on 74 GTS!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the setup as it sits right now...3460 lbs as of 4-19-06

Autobanh Motorsports
-built engine
-Fuel system w/ 1000cc injectors
-street/ strip head w/ 1mm over size valves /springs and retainers
-turbo manifold w/ 74 GTS Tial 44 Wastgate
4 inch exhaust turbo back
AEM /FJO
HKS 272 cam in/exh
HKS Ti cat-back
Virtual Works intake manifold
Greddy 4 row intercooler


Since January i changed the Turbo manifold from a WOTM to a
Autobanh Motorsports Turbo manifold, and added the VW intake for even flow
distribution and of course more boost!!!


On pump gas roughly 17 psi (all done with HKS 272 Cams)
i made 500 stock head and stock intake WOTM turbo mani
then 560 with just head work and stock intake WOTM turbo mani
now 600 with VW intake and ABM head work ABM turbo mani


the higher boost numbers.
30 psi stock head and stock intake, 775 whp WOTM turbo mani
with ABM head work and stock intake XXX whp WOTM turbo mani
23 psi with ABM head work and VW intake 700 whp ABM turbo mani
36 psi dropping to 31 psi ABM head work and VW intake 901 whp ABM turbo mani


All runs were made no nitrous and
SAE correction factor

I believe that this is a record for the 74GTS all boost 3.0, correct me if i'm wrong.


thanks,
Kareem
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,887 Posts
The correction factor will artificially skew your numbers high, which is why you cannot use or compare "corrected" numbers for turbo cars when you are dealing with elevations above sea level. They simply do not lose horsepower at the same rate as a naturally aspirated engine will due to the fact that the turbo can simply spin faster to keep the boost the same. The turbo engine will eventually start to lose power, but only after the turbo is tapped, and this will vary from setup to setup. This makes it impossible to accurately and fairly apply a correction factor.

So the only really fair or accurate way to have a record of any kind would be to dyno all cars in question on the same day and on the same equipment.

Anyway, congrats on getting your car dialed in and no matter what the "numbers" say, I bet that thing is fun to drive! I really like the 74mm for a street car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
John Reed said:
The correction factor will artificially skew your numbers high, which is why you cannot use or compare "corrected" numbers for turbo cars when you are dealing with elevations above sea level. They simply do not lose horsepower at the same rate as a naturally aspirated engine will due to the fact that the turbo can simply spin faster to keep the boost the same. The turbo engine will eventually start to lose power, but only after the turbo is tapped, and this will vary from setup to setup. This makes it impossible to accurately and fairly apply a correction factor.

So the only really fair or accurate way to have a record of any kind would be to dyno all cars in question on the same day and on the same equipment.

Anyway, congrats on getting your car dialed in and no matter what the "numbers" say, I bet that thing is fun to drive! I really like the 74mm for a street car.

Thanks bud!! The car is a blast to drive
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,922 Posts
You cannot compare your car to Kareem's. His car dyno'ed at sea level, I bet his UNcorrected numbers were not that far off his corrected numbers. Your numbers are skewed, come down to sea level I bet you are 100 rwhp off (SAE and uncorrected).
Peter
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top