Re-Dyno'd the eclipse! 740AWHP/696Tq!

[99gst_racer]

Awesome work, Tim. It's good to see others still support the 7-bolt as well. I'll be shooting for about 200 less WHP than you on my 7-bolt this coming spring.

 

[20psimitsu]

We were seeing mid 12's for AFR's on the in-car wideband that is hooked up to the standalone, and around .2-.3 higher on the dyno's wideband because of its placement further down the exhaust stream. There was no knock, and we were using NGK BR9ES plugs on VP Import Race fuel.

Keep in mind, this was all being done on a 1G throttle body, a 1G unported head (stock size stainless valves, crower springs and retainers, HKS 272 cams, HKS cam gears), ARP head studs, Mitsu Multi-Layer Steel Head Gasket, Eagle Rods, Ross Pistons, 1000cc injectors, -6AN fuel feed/-6AN return to firewall w/ stock return to tank, dual walboro 255HP pumps (1 in-tank/ 1 in-line), 2.5" IC pipes, DN Performance T4 Manifold, etc.

There is alot that I can still do to maximize this turbo on the car. I don't see 800whp being a problem if I put more money and time into it.

That makes sense why your AFR was that high. I just picked up a set of BPR9ES plugs but, didn't get to do much cause the block locked up. Congrats on the new numbers.

 

[twicks69]

Nice! Do you know the Whp of the car when you ran the 147Mph run? You should be over 150Mph now for sure.

Nope, not really....I expect mid/upper 600's, since 35psi produced 641awhp, and 49psi produced 740awhp.

I think it will do a 150mph trap pretty easily, as we increased the torque band ALOT from retarding initial spoolup ignition timing. The timing change increased torque as much as 250tq at 5000rpms. It was just SICK.

The only problem I forsee with the ignition timing changes will be hooking up at the track -- I am expecting some MAJOR traction issues on slicks. I might have to revert my ignition timing to get the car to hook up and make its peak power/torque from 5500-8600rpms instead. Not hard to do with AEM EMS! If I am able to get this thing to stick at the track without changing the timing, I cannot wait to see what it does! More than likely it will be spinning through 1st and 2nd and into 3rd on the track as-is.

As for the car on the street....It is a handful! I tapped the gas in 3rd gear getting on an on-ramp, and it lit all 4 tires at 5K rpms just getting on the throttle -- I was not even trying.

This car will easily light 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gear -- I am going to need to have a major amount of restraint to keep this thing slow!

 

[99gst_racer]

Tim, Are those Wally pumps ran in series or parallel?

I assume series being that one of them in in-tank, but then I wonder how you had adequate fuel supply beinng that that set-up tapers off to less than 275 lph with 100 psi of fuel pressure. Either way, it's good to know that your set-up provided enough fuel for that kind of power.

 

[twicks69]

Tim, Are those Wally pumps ran in series or parallel?

I assume series being that one of them in in-tank, but then I wonder how you had adequate fuel supply beinng that that set-up tapers off to less than 275 lph with 100 psi of fuel pressure. Either way, it's good to know that your set-up provided enough fuel for that kind of power.

Paul, the setup is as follows:
1 - walboro 255HP in-tank
1 - walboro 255HP in-line near firewall
-6AN fuel feed
2-signal (5-prong) 50A relay
2-in-line fuses with 30A fuses each
8-gauge hardwire to relay, 10 gauge to each pump.
1G fuel rail
-6AN return from rail to firewall, stock firewall to tank return line
PTE 1000cc injectors
Aeromotive AFPR at 43psi static pressure.


If I am going to do any more than this for power, I need to upgrade to 1600's. I have maxed out the 1000cc injectors on this dyno experience.

 

[twicks69]

Paul, didn't you have a Turbonetics GT-K 550? Do you still have it, or are you running a 50-trim now?

 

[99gst_racer]

Paul, didn't you have a Turbonetics GT-K 550? Do you still have it, or are you running a 50-trim now?

Dan (project_tsi) has the GTK550. I sold my 50-trim a few months back. I'm currently turbo shopping for something for my new engine. I'll probably end up with an old school 60-1 as it's just for a street car.

 

[twicks69]

Gotcha -- nothing wrong with a T4 60-1 -- proven to 650whp and 35+psi capable.

 

[fulanititoo8198]

That's what I like to see, definitely cute.

 

[nokturnaltalon]

Im happy to see a high HP 7-bolt, im gunning for 500-550whp in mine this summer.

 

[deflator]

Beautiful numbers and that power curve is to die for.

 

[Black_Bullet]

Awsome numbers... I want to see some vids of this thing in action were be dyno/ track/ or street...

 

[AuntiesTSI]

Very nice, I am also goin for 500 with my 7 bolt this year. Mine is FWD though :?

 

[PieEyedPiper]

I hate to dumb down this thread, but my curiosity is killing me..

Are you sure it takes 289HP to turn your wheels?

 

[talonTSIDriver]

I hate to dumb down this thread, but my curiosity is killing me..

Are you sure it takes 289HP to turn your wheels?

A 30% drivetrain loss is a close estimate on an AWD car. If you start adding aluminum drive shafts it may make it a bit easier, but I bet its still near 25% loss.

Tim, Look forward to seeing your car at the track this summer. Will you be at the beyond redline dyno day in April?

 

[PieEyedPiper]

Perhaps 30% of a stock car's output, so why would having a more powerful engine increase the power required to turn the wheels?

The wheels require no more energy than they did before, yet we are assigning hundreds of horsepower more to them for them to simply operate.
Using fake, yet reasonable, numbers we can understand that 30% of 210HP is 63HP. It takes 63 horses from our cars to simply get it moving (friction, weight, xfer cases etc etc), the rest is free power, we use the other ~150HP to haul us around town or fly down the track.

Why does the power requirement of the drivetrain increase?

I'm sure there is some logical explanation,

 

[Black_Bullet]

Perhaps 30% of a stock car's output, so why would having a more powerful engine increase the power required to turn the wheels?

The wheels require no more energy than they did before, yet we are assigning hundreds of horsepower more to them for them to simply operate.
Using fake, yet reasonable, numbers we can understand that 30% of 210HP is 63HP. It takes 63 horses from our cars to simply get it moving (friction, weight, xfer cases etc etc), the rest is free power, we use the other ~150HP to haul us around town or fly down the track.

Why does the power requirement of the drivetrain increase?

I'm sure there is some logical explanation,

Ive always thought the same thing.
Theoretically drive train lose should actually slightly decrease as you increase power because youve got to consider the significant torque increases , and installing lighter drivetrain components or light wheels etc should decrease it some more.

Im surprised no one has done any hard factual test on drive train lose percentages and outcomes on a car w/ X amount of hp vs its stock drive train requirements... I guess because no one uses an engine dyno on a modifyed car.

 

[Mr Peepers]

That is downright amazing. Congrats on the great numbers, I'd never expect them with that usable of a curve! Great work!

For the drivetrain loss discussion:
You may need to factor in that the gear teeth slide across each other, and more torque will increase the resistance (likely in a linear fashion). BUT, I have also heard that drivetrain loss % tapers off with more total output (maybe thats where the drivetrain component inertia plays in? A ratio of power to inertia required?). I'm not sure how it all pans out, but interesting nevertheless.

 

[Boost92awd]

Awesome numbers cant wait to see what you do with it this year. So when can I get a ride in your car?

 

[Mr Peepers]

^Everyone in WI is wondering the thing

Hearing that it's still driven on the street is THE best part IMO.

 

[twicks69]

Ive always thought the same thing.
Theoretically drive train lose should actually slightly decrease as you increase power because youve got to consider the significant torque increases , and installing lighter drivetrain components or light wheels etc should decrease it some more.

Im surprised no one has done any hard factual test on drive train lose percentages and outcomes on a car w/ X amount of hp vs its stock drive train requirements... I guess because no one uses an engine dyno on a modifyed car.

The key reason there are varying drivetrain loss percentages depend on each person's setup. If we all were completely stock, using the same oil, tires, clutch assemblies, gross weight, coefficient of drag, frontal area, etc; we would be able to put down some numbers; but it is all based under ideal conditions with the least number of variables possible.

The drivetrain loss was calculated at ~30% by the dyno, based on friction and whatever other calculations it does. There will be increased friction on a car that is strapped down vs. a car just driving down the street, etc.

Yeah, I could post crazy numbers if I wanted to fool around with the dyno software, but I felt that the SAE uncorrected AWD numbers would be the most conservative, yet realistic. The 740AWHP on the DynoCom dyno (very similar for HP numbers as a Mustang "heart-breaker" dyno) are much lower than a dyno like the DynoJet. I wouldn't be suprised to see at least 785 on an AWD dyno, and around 900WHP on a 2WD Dynojet or Superflow dyno.

I will be re-dyno'ing the car on a 4WD Dynojet on April 6th (sunday afternoon) at Beyond Redline for their Dyno-Day, and will do a baseline pull to see what the actual HP difference is from the DynoCom to the Dynojet before retuning and upgrading the intake manifold, throttle body, and fuel system.

As for drivetrain: I am running a stock rear end, stock rear axles, stock driveshaft, stock transfer case, Raxles RACE front axles, and a "stage 3" transmission with a 4-spider center diff and an open front diff. I am also running Redline heavyweight shockproof in the rear/transfer case, and Redline lightweight shockproof in the transmission. The clutch is a Quartermaster V-Drive 7.25" twin-disk with unsprung 6-puck metal disks, and a PTT chromoly 1-piece flywheel and a Mitsu TOB. The moment of inertia on the clutch setup is 74.11 lb/in^2 without the flywheel, and the clutch weighs in at 8# with the disks and floaters.

The wheels/tires used for dyno-tuning were my 17"x7.5" Rota Subzero's with 245/40/17 Falken Azenis. The rear brakes are just pads and lines, and the fronts are Wilwood 12.2"x0.81" 2-piece directionally vaned rotors with Wilwood Forged Superlight calipers and Wilwood "D" Pads.

If you want to see crazy MOI's (moment of inertia) and clutch weight, look at the Quartermaster 4.25" V-drive CARBON triple-disk setup -- the MOI is 12.32 lb/in^2, and the clutch weigs 3.29# for everything (minus flywheel)!!! The thing would rev like a crotch rocket with a set of groden rods, a light crank and a set of Mahle lightweight pistons!! :: Quarter Master :: Viewing product: 4.5" Carbon/Carbon Clutch Unit It also has a torque capacity of 1000+lb/ft!!


Also, there are videos of the car from 2007 season at the 645AWHP/567tq levels on google -- do a search for "Tim Zimmer" there should be at least two up there right now from Dropfest and Import Wars -- 10.41 and 9.96 for sure are up there. The video from the 740AWHP is being mastered right now, and will be available soon; but more than likely there will be new vids up after the April dyno day.

Thanks for all the great feedback!

 

[Black_Bullet]

The key reason there are varying drivetrain loss percentages depend on each person's setup. If we all were completely stock, using the same oil, tires, clutch assemblies, gross weight, coefficient of drag, frontal area, etc; we would be able to put down some numbers; but it is all based under ideal conditions with the least number of variables possible.

The drivetrain loss was calculated at ~30% by the dyno, based on friction and whatever other calculations it does. There will be increased friction on a car that is strapped down vs. a car just driving down the street, etc.

Yeah, I could post crazy numbers if I wanted to fool around with the dyno software, but I felt that the SAE uncorrected AWD numbers would be the most conservative, yet realistic. The 740AWHP on the DynoCom dyno (very similar for HP numbers as a Mustang "heart-breaker" dyno) are much lower than a dyno like the DynoJet. I wouldn't be suprised to see at least 785 on an AWD dyno, and around 900WHP on a 2WD Dynojet or Superflow dyno.

I will be re-dyno'ing the car on a 4WD Dynojet on April 6th (sunday afternoon) at Beyond Redline for their Dyno-Day, and will do a baseline pull to see what the actual HP difference is from the DynoCom to the Dynojet before retuning and upgrading the intake manifold, throttle body, and fuel system.

As for drivetrain: I am running a stock rear end, stock rear axles, stock driveshaft, stock transfer case, Raxles RACE front axles, and a "stage 3" transmission with a 4-spider center diff and an open front diff. I am also running Redline heavyweight shockproof in the rear/transfer case, and Redline lightweight shockproof in the transmission. The clutch is a Quartermaster V-Drive 7.25" twin-disk with unsprung 6-puck metal disks, and a PTT chromoly 1-piece flywheel and a Mitsu TOB. The moment of inertia on the clutch setup is 74.11 lb/in^2 without the flywheel, and the clutch weighs in at 8# with the disks and floaters.

The wheels/tires used for dyno-tuning were my 17"x7.5" Rota Subzero's with 245/40/17 Falken Azenis. The rear brakes are just pads and lines, and the fronts are Wilwood 12.2"x0.81" 2-piece directionally vaned rotors with Wilwood Forged Superlight calipers and Wilwood "D" Pads.

If you want to see crazy MOI's (moment of inertia) and clutch weight, look at the Quartermaster 4.25" V-drive CARBON triple-disk setup -- the MOI is 12.32 lb/in^2, and the clutch weigs 3.29# for everything (minus flywheel)!!! The thing would rev like a crotch rocket with a set of groden rods, a light crank and a set of Mahle lightweight pistons!! :: Quarter Master :: Viewing product: 4.5" Carbon/Carbon Clutch Unit It also has a torque capacity of 1000+lb/ft!!


Also, there are videos of the car from 2007 season at the 645AWHP/567tq levels on google -- do a search for "Tim Zimmer" there should be at least two up there right now from Dropfest and Import Wars -- 10.41 and 9.96 for sure are up there. The video from the 740AWHP is being mastered right now, and will be available soon; but more than likely there will be new vids up after the April dyno day.

Thanks for all the great feedback!

What can I say....

 

[MilwaukeeGSX]

awesome,...

 

[iandsm77]

VIDEO PLEASE! were you able to find out how to host it online?

 

[twicks69]

VIDEO PLEASE! were you able to find out how to host it online?

As I said in my previous post, there are vids out there of the track passes; I am waiting for the dyno video to be completed -- I know, it has been a long time since dyno'ing, but it has been out of my hands to deal with.