513whp, Many Stock Parts

[TTA89]

Oh it definetly picked up some knock
Nate
SBR

So was there timing being pulled on that dyno pull?

 

[Scrymerr]

I'm not making 551whp on my 7 bolt but I did go 12.1 @ 114 mph on pump gas with a 50-trim on a fully stock motor that has never been appart with stock cams HG and bolts etc.. Thats pretty impressive for a 7 bolt IMO... 551whp on a 7bolt is not gonna last and we all know it, at least it sure as hell wouldn't last if I owned it.

What would you estimate your horsepower to be at the crank?

 

[red91gst]

So was there timing being pulled on that dyno pull?

Yes, the stock ecu was pulling timing because of knock, but I still got alot of timing from the base timing being so far advanced.

Its all in the power switch.

Nate
SBR

 

[red91gst]

What would you estimate your horsepower to be at the crank?

Typically, there is a 16-18% drivetrain loss in a fwd car, 24% or more in and awd. If it was 551 front wheel hp, crank should be around 640. (551 * 1.16)

Nate
SBR

 

[Scrymerr]

Typically, there is a 16-18% drivetrain loss in a fwd car, 24% or more in and awd. If it was 551 front wheel hp, crank should be around 640. (551 * 1.16)

Nate
SBR

I will remember those percentages as a useful tool for determining crank HP, however I am still interested what DSMJims numbers are (roughly).

Thanks,

--Dan

 

[Kevin Jewer]

I have two problems with the above mentioned wheel to crak conversion factors. One, as power goes up the percentage should drop. 25-30% might apply to stock cars, but as power goes up percentage drops, some components in the loss figure should be static while others will increase with power (increase in component accleration rates, etc). Two, when you are using loss figures you cant just add them to the whp number, since that number already includes the loss. Instead of multipliying by 1.20 for example, you should divide by .8. That is assuming that the loss figures were originally calculated as a percetage of known crank HP of course. And that just gives a higher number, and when added to already high loss figures just artificially inflates the numbers even further. On a high HP AWD DSM I'm more comfortable using a figure thats more like 15% (dividing by .85). FWD I would use even less. Hard to believe that in the above example it takes 90 HP to turn the wheels in a front driver. But of course there is little or no hard data due to the severe lack of engine dyno numbers available at high HP, so my speculation is about as worthless as anyone elses And I'm not sure we should have opened the WHP vs CHP in this thread, perhaps future discussion of this would be better off in its own thread.

 

[red91gst]

I have two problems with the above mentioned wheel to crak conversion factors. One, as power goes up the percentage should drop. 25-30% might apply to stock cars, but as power goes up percentage drops, some components in the loss figure should be static while others will increase with power (increase in component accleration rates, etc). Two, when you are using loss figures you cant just add them to the whp number, since that number already includes the loss. Instead of multipliying by 1.20 for example, you should divide by .8. That is assuming that the loss figures were originally calculated as a percetage of known crank HP of course. And that just gives a higher number, and when added to already high loss figures just artificially inflates the numbers even further. On a high HP AWD DSM I'm more comfortable using a figure thats more like 15% (dividing by .85). FWD I would use even less. Hard to believe that in the above example it takes 90 HP to turn the wheels in a front driver. But of course there is little or no hard data due to the severe lack of engine dyno numbers available at high HP, so my speculation is about as worthless as anyone elses And I'm not sure we should have opened the WHP vs CHP in this thread, perhaps future discussion of this would be better off in its own thread.

Kevin,

As I stated before, you are the man. Looks like we just need to get your motor on an engine dyno and prove it. We have access to one

Nate
SBR

 

[Awdboost]

There are people making this power with stock 6 bolt long blocks all day long. Guy on talk made 551whp on a stock 7 bolt. Nothing about your setup is really stock at all.

That our local Guy Jeff Harrington.. He's a FWD running 11.036 @ 133.05 He a really good driver.. I can verify the numbers too.. He is on stock 7 bolt bottom end, stock head and intake mani. He does have HKS 272.

 

[diambo4life]

That our local Guy Jeff Harrington.. He's a FWD running 11.036 @ 133.05 He a really good driver.. I can verify the numbers too.. He is on stock 7 bolt bottom end, stock head and intake mani. He does have HKS 272.

Is that the ORIGINAL stock long block though? Has he rebuilt the car anytime - with stock parts of course? If he has never opened up that car I will be most impressed.

I agree with Kevin as well on the crank-drivetrain issue as well.

 

[EclipseOwner95]

Yes, the stock ecu was pulling timing because of knock, but I still got alot of timing from the base timing being so far advanced.

Its all in the power switch.

Nate
SBR

LMFAO , that picture is awsome ! Sweet Numbers by the way, I just got my GT3255 , moving up from the big 16g, hope to put some stout numbers down on pump gas and stock 6 bolt.

 

[DSMu4ia]

Yes, it is shitty because Curt went 9.5 and made 620whp with it, must be the wheel. :thumbdown

The 66 or the 40 would not make that power for the same reason this didnt make anymore, internal gate and stock intake manifold. Peak power was made at 6100rpms, trust me it wasnt because of the turbo

Nate
SBR

38psi for 800rpms imo

I never knew curt dyno'd his car?


Curt never went 9.5's with a 60-1.

 

[red91gst]

I never knew curt dyno'd his car?


Curt never went 9.5's with a 60-1.

Yes, you dont know curt dyno his car obviously.

What do you think a red is?

Nate
SBR

 

[DSMu4ia]

Yes, you dont know curt dyno his car obviously.

What do you think a red is?

Nate
SBR

I know turbo's like the back of my hand, but I never knew curt went 9.5's on the RED. I thought he only went into the 9's on the 65.

 

[red91gst]

I know turbo's like the back of my hand, but I never knew curt went 9.5's on the RED. I thought he only went into the 9's on the 65.

Curt Brown 90 Eclipse GSX 9.870 @ 145.70 01/01/01 FPRed

Nate
SBR

 

[DSMu4ia]

Curt Brown 90 Eclipse GSX 9.870 @ 145.70 01/01/01 FPRed

Nate
SBR

Thanks for proving me wrong.

I am an idiot.

 

[DSMu4ia]

It needs 38 psi because the 60-1 is a shitty wheel to work with. That car would make 550whp easily with the stock 7000rpm redline and twards 600whp 8000rpm with a t-66 or a gt-40 with the correct exaust wheel/turbine combo without issue.

I can see how Stalp3 would say the title is misleading, because it is. You have a mildly built block and a not stock head. The numbers are somewhat impressive non the less though.

JP.

You are wrong here, the 60-1 is a GREAT wheel. While there are better ones available now, this wheel is second to only the 50trim IMO for overall greatness on the 4g63. The 56trim/gt40/scm61 wheel everybody uses has taken the 60-1's place, but it still seems that it needs a bit more boost to make the power a 60-1 does. It will put out a higher overall hp number though, with about the same degree of boost threshold.

I've seen multiple cases of 500whp at 24psi, along with great timeslips to back it up. The wheel has also done 600whp in a few cases as well. It'll do 400whp on pump gas and 20-ish psi with ease, and is not that laggy.

I'd much rather have a 500whp 60-1 car, than a 550whp t66 car, as I have little doubt that on a 2.0 the 60-1 would own it on the track. Not to mention being MUCH more fun to drive.

As you might know, I have this wheel on my car (60-1, to4e housing, stage 3 wheel, .63 4bolt housing, t3/4) and it's proven to be nice so far. Of course, anything will tend to shine on a fully built setup. My car has 15psi by 4k or so, and does well over 400whp on low boost (under 22-ishpsi). This is DSMlink proven based on airflow logs, acceleration figures, etc.

 

[coltboostin]

I know you have a 60-1, but that wont make me like the wheel. It is old technology, period. Their is a vast amount of turbos on the market that will outperform the 60-1 at all boost levels. I especially dont like the wheel for its lack of low boost power. All the cars I have driven or tuned with them dont get happy until you crank the crap out of the boost.
Ask your boy Ron if he likes it. He had one on his green car, and he said he wouldnot buy one again. This is the same thing I hear from 99% of 60-1 owners, the 1% being you This is why I am not going with one next year.

The 60-1 is an old inefficient wheel, and is at the bottom of the heap in terms of current turbo technology.

 

[sypderdude31]

Not really, its a rebuilt tranny with cnc shift forks and an LSD insert. Stock axles.

Nate
SBR

Who's LSD did you go with?

 

[red91gst]

I know you have a 60-1, but that wont make me like the wheel. It is old technology, period. Their is a vast amount of turbos on the market that will outperform the 60-1 at all boost levels. I especially dont like the wheel for its lack of low boost power. All the cars I have driven or tuned with them dont get happy until you crank the crap out of the boost.
Ask your boy Ron if he likes it. He had one on his green car, and he said he wouldnot buy one again. This is the same thing I hear from 99% of 60-1 owners, the 1% being you This is why I am not going with one next year.

The 60-1 is an old inefficient wheel, and is at the bottom of the heap in terms of current turbo technology.

If you dont like the wheel, dont buy it. The 60-1 is an awesome turbo. Yes, it is ancient technology, but it still works very wheel. It does like higher boost, but if you bought a 60-1 to run at low boost, you bought the wrong turbo in the first place.

Nate
SBR

 

[red91gst]

Who's LSD did you go with?

Its our own>

http://www.slowboyracing.com/more.php?id=1241&

Nate
SBR

 

[Da Dymer]

Damn those are some really nice numbers...congrats......btw guys I finally have some stuff up on the web about my car, you can check it out http://www.redshiftmotorsports.com/KevTalon.htm

Wats the most whp anybody got out of a 97 tsi awd without nitrous....cause Im looking to beat it

 

[DSMu4ia]

I know you have a 60-1, but that wont make me like the wheel. It is old technology, period. Their is a vast amount of turbos on the market that will outperform the 60-1 at all boost levels. I especially dont like the wheel for its lack of low boost power. All the cars I have driven or tuned with them dont get happy until you crank the crap out of the boost.
Ask your boy Ron if he likes it. He had one on his green car, and he said he wouldnot buy one again. This is the same thing I hear from 99% of 60-1 owners, the 1% being you This is why I am not going with one next year.

The 60-1 is an old inefficient wheel, and is at the bottom of the heap in terms of current turbo technology.

I'm not saying its the best wheel out, but it's FAR from the worst. I'm not saying I totally dig it either, but to say it's junk is just bullshit. If I had to do my setup over again, I would definately not chose it, but I bought this setup well over 2 years ago.

There are SEVERAL people who have put down 500whp at 24psi on 60-1's/Reds/etc. How much more power do you need at "low boost?"

To Quote anything Ron says is funny, his turtle has been on jack stands just as long as mine was, and to even grossly remember how a car ran 3 years ago can't be judged upon. I'm sure Ron would chose different, maybe that's why none of his cars run. Heheheh. He also had one on a 2.3l, which is like a 16g on a 2.0.

And speaking of old technology, that t66 you mentioned is every bit as old as a 60-1, it's just bigger, so it makes more power, but it's DAMN laggy. Even in a t3 hotside.

 

[coltboostin]

I'm not saying its the best wheel out, but it's FAR from the worst. I'm not saying I totally dig it either, but to say it's junk is just bullshit. If I had to do my setup over again, I would definately not chose it, but I bought this setup well over 2 years ago.

There are SEVERAL people who have put down 500whp at 24psi on 60-1's/Reds/etc. How much more power do you need at "low boost?"

To Quote anything Ron says is funny, his turtle has been on jack stands just as long as mine was, and to even grossly remember how a car ran 3 years ago can't be judged upon. I'm sure Ron would chose different, maybe that's why none of his cars run. Heheheh. He also had one on a 2.3l, which is like a 16g on a 2.0.

And speaking of old technology, that t66 you mentioned is every bit as old as a 60-1, it's just bigger, so it makes more power, but it's DAMN laggy. Even in a t3 hotside.

Its not junk, its just not the best.

Yeah, Ron's junk is consistently non-running, but hopefully I can motivate him to get that white car done for summer, with gt42 and all.

Your car will make good power, so woul mine if I had a 60-1. It is just not my wheel of choise. I know the t series wheels are older technologie, but they are fat more efficient than the 60-1 or 62-. Speaking of, does anyone run a 62-1 wheel?

 

[gsx91b0y]

I thought the red was a 60 trim not a 60-1

*shrugs*

-aaron

 

[tim_korn_99]

you brought this thread back from the dead to say that?!?! geeeeeeeeezzzzz......
why not just do a search on it and find out for sure? you MUST'VE been searching to even find this thread, so why not keep searching?
-Tim