General Dyno results are in guys!

[ceedawg]

Don't bother updating us anymore until the turbo is bigger....

That turbo is big enuff 6466 is nice but the 6266 is an all around beast!

 

[SasaniFab]

No. Keep upgrading.

I might of seemed like a nut for dumping the fp black so quickly.....I wouldnt be making this kind of power with a 8cm framed turbo. They are great street turbos but after 30psi you are pushing it. Its funny, I kind of regret buying the 6266, i really should of purchased the 6466 as its spools similarly. The fact of the matter is without a strong drivetrain all of this is pointless. This is why i stopped and have been saving for the dogbox. Hopefully ill be good for some 10s.

 

[Vegas Smith]

I know, I'm just kidding around. However, don't you think that 6466 would be nice? You know you do.......

 

[SasaniFab]

Haha no I'm serious ..... I really wish I bought it. I do have his tho sitting in my closet. It's a custom turbo I had made from agp , it's journal bearing 65mm they said it's good for 900

 

[gsxeclipse102]

Screw that jump to a gtx4202 or fp htz super99.

 

[Vegas Smith]

Haha no I'm serious ..... I really wish I bought it. I do have his tho sitting in my closet. It's a custom turbo I had made from agp , it's journal bearing 65mm they said it's good for 900

Pff, does it come with lipstick too? 4 digit hp potential or nothin.

 

[1990TSIAWDTALON]

Very impressive! You are on the limit of the clutch like I found at 515 ft/lbs.

 

[SasaniFab]

I guess i cant be that bad of a "tuner".....motor is still going strong. The entire time .....it was just the timing, moreover the wrong timing at the wrong rpm/load...

 

[SasaniFab]

The real question is how are some of these guys keeping gaskets sealed over 50psi? Like boosting performance, I know they half fill the block, they must do orings? What is a hks gasket with l19s really capable of with a polished tune?

 

[boostdawd]

Couldnt get a video guys......Car made 640 and 520 on 34psi on ignite 114..........still running a bit rich, really happy though. Clutch is starting to slip.

Why did u decide to run this type of fuel over e85?

 

[ceedawg]

i really should of purchased the 6466 as its spools similarly. The fact of the matter is without a strong drivetrain all of this is pointless. This is why i stopped and have been saving for the dogbox. Hopefully ill be good for some 10s.

Tranny would like the 6466 better.Imop as I have heard folks say slower spool less torque down low but insane topend higher rpms. But you may or may not like the 6466 as the 6266 is more streetable with the heavier broader torque band. Again this is what I have heard from folks who have owned both.

 

[SasaniFab]

This is an ethanol based fuel eq. To octane. I wouldn't go back to race reg race fuel..... ever never

Why did u decide to run this type of fuel over e85?[/QUOTE

 

[kmetiuk]

Tranny would like the 6466 better.Imop as I have heard folks say slower spool less torque down low but insane topend higher rpms. But you may or may not like the 6466 as the 6266 is more streetable with the heavier broader torque band. Again this is what I have heard from folks who have owned both.

This is something I do not quite understand but I am very curious about why the consensus is its true.

To me: torque is torque is torque to a gear....it does not care what speed it is spinning at. 400 ftlbs at 2000 RPM is applying the same force to the gear tooth as 400 ftlbs at 7000 RPM.

When you sit down and do the math on it the FBD would confirm that it is an identical force at both RPM's as you analyze it in a static condition which takes rotational speed out of the equation. That being said the differences in rotational speed would indeed give you a higher centrifugal force, but at the diameters were are looking at, w.r.t. to gears, is small enough I would hazard to say its basically negligible when considering the 400 ftlbs is the dominating forces when compared to centrifugal forces (by factors of 10 or 100 or more).

Does it have to do with the time that the force is applied to a single tooth before the next tooth is fully engaged?

I'm genuinely curious....

 

[ceedawg]

This is something I do not quite understand but I am very curious about why the consensus is its true.

To me: torque is torque is torque to a gear....it does not care what speed it is spinning at. 400 ftlbs at 2000 RPM is applying the same force to the gear tooth as 400 ftlbs at 7000 RPM.

When you sit down and do the math on it the FBD would confirm that it is an identical force at both RPM's as you analyze it in a static condition which takes rotational speed out of the equation. That being said the differences in rotational speed would indeed give you a higher centrifugal force, but at the diameters were are looking at, w.r.t. to gears, is small enough I would hazard to say its basically negligible when considering the 400 ftlbs is the dominating forces when compared to centrifugal forces (by factors of 10 or 100 or more).

Does it have to do with the time that the force is applied to a single tooth before the next tooth is fully engaged?

I'm genuinely curious....

I'm no engineer but my guess is the power band being narrower because of the bigger turbo plus where it comes in or timing like you stated, perhaps the gears are not stressed as much over a certain period of time vs a setup with a broader tq band which you would see on a dyno graph. I kinda know what I mean but not great at explaining. Gearing,shifting of course plays a part as well concerning when and where the turbo spools up and is at full boost. Torque is what breaks the gear box.

 

[bastarddsm]

This is something I do not quite understand but I am very curious about why the consensus is its true.

To me: torque is torque is torque to a gear....it does not care what speed it is spinning at. 400 ftlbs at 2000 RPM is applying the same force to the gear tooth as 400 ftlbs at 7000 RPM.

When you sit down and do the math on it the FBD would confirm that it is an identical force at both RPM's as you analyze it in a static condition which takes rotational speed out of the equation. That being said the differences in rotational speed would indeed give you a higher centrifugal force, but at the diameters were are looking at, w.r.t. to gears, is small enough I would hazard to say its basically negligible when considering the 400 ftlbs is the dominating forces when compared to centrifugal forces (by factors of 10 or 100 or more).

Does it have to do with the time that the force is applied to a single tooth before the next tooth is fully engaged?

I'm genuinely curious....

You can make more power with less torque with a bigger turbo.

 

[kmetiuk]

You can make more power with less torque with a bigger turbo.

@bastarddsm agreed. Power is a function of RPM and torque so if the RPM's are high enough 300 ftlbs can make a shiiit ton of power up top if you have a big enough turbo to flow it.

But why do people say that torque in low RPM kills trannys faster? Do you have any insights on this? I'm genuinely curious...i feel like I'm missing something or overlooking something here.

 

[bastarddsm]

Because of convention and missunderstanding. Torque peak is at a lower rpm than hp peak.

There might be something to do with "jerk" - da/dt. Which could potentially create a higher load on the trans at low rpm. I don't really know, information in this area is somewhat scarce.

 

[AdR]

@bastarddsm agreed. Power is a function of RPM and torque so if the RPM's are high enough 300 ftlbs can make a shiiit ton of power up top if you have a big enough turbo to flow it.

But why do people say that torque in low RPM kills trannys faster? Do you have any insights on this? I'm genuinely curious...i feel like I'm missing something or overlooking something here.

I don't think they mean actual lower rpm but rather low speed to standing launches with torque. It has to do with overcoming driveline reactant forces (tire friction, tire rotational inertia, driveline resistance, etc) which put a lot of shock loading into the transmission gearing.

 

[Vegas Smith]

Wow, just saw an old calculus^^ reference. If I were to guess, I would say it would be the aforementioned "jerk".

 

[SasaniFab]

Wow, just saw an old calculus^^ reference. If I were to guess, I would say it would be the aforementioned "jerk".

So my tach is starting to float around.....think my tach adaptor on the ignition is saying f*** you. one things after the other. Car still pullls fine. just annoying

 

[SasaniFab]

It's nice.... on my days off I get to play with my toy. Something always goes wrong. Wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[SasaniFab]

good old 4g63...

 

[gsxeclipse102]

Your next mod should be cleaning up that bay. Wire tuck makes a huge difference in these cars. Best thing i ever dis was make my own harness and run it through the firewall under the heater core hoses. Its so clean (and short). Went from like 10 feet long to 3 haha

 

[SasaniFab]

Your next mod should be cleaning up that bay. Wire tuck makes a huge difference in these cars. Best thing i ever dis was make my own harness and run it through the firewall under the heater core hoses. Its so clean (and short). Went from like 10 feet long to 3 haha

dude f*** you....i have a 600 hp engine bay, mind your own damn business. I have a rywire harness in my closet . I was planning on doing it last winter, never got the chance. This winter im spraying the bay and rewiring everything.

 

[SasaniFab]

Does anyone know with the installation of the dynatek arc2..... was I supposed to remove something? On the 1g