The 14b Drag Race Discussion Thread

[GRNDSM]

Cooling is not necessarily, unless you want your turbo to last 200k miles. Especially considering that a new (used) 14b can be found for $50-$100.

 

[1qkfwd]

I'm not running water lines on mine either. Granted I only have a few passes on it. If you look at some of the pics on project goodwill, doesn't look like Joe B was running lines either. I think if your just drag racing where the turbo doesn't get super hot it will be fine.

 

[1SloEvo]

Thanks guys.

Hey Justin, you gonna make it out with the car tomorrow?

 

[Diamond Star Werks]

I don't run any water lines either. Dd everyday. Normally I push it too hard but I have done quite a few pulls since getting link. No issues shaft doesn't budge a dang bit. Usually if i drive easy i'll just cut the car off when i get whenever. If i think its hot from driving alil hard i'll turn a/c fan on to cool it of and sit for a min or 2 when i get where I'm going.

 

[1qkfwd]

Thanks guys.

Hey Justin, you gonna make it out with the car tomorrow?

I actually thought about just tossin it together and taking it, but no. Goin to spectate only. I wanna address the oiling issue I'm having first then I'll have it out.

 

[Phil1320]

i just read this again....this can't be right man.

If your engine, with higher comp, no balance shafts, and crower 413 cams, isn't making more power than my original 86,000 mile, bone stock, with balance shafts, engine....something must be wrong with one of two things, or both:

1. Your set-up/tune

2. The hp calculator


?

bump

?

 

[Steve93Talon]

Phil, in all fairness your tune sounds VERY aggressive. I think you were making more power than you suspect, realistically well over 300whp on a dynojet. Also, with FWD vs AWD there are gearing differences so comparing MPHs isn't going to be apples to apples.

 

[Phil1320]

Phil, in all fairness your tune sounds VERY aggressive. I think you were making more power than you suspect, realistically well over 300whp on a dynojet. Also, with FWD vs AWD there are gearing differences so comparing MPHs isn't going to be apples to apples.

Possibly, however, I have nothing to compare it to. I'm also assuming everyone but me is tuning via dsmlink, which makes it hard for me to believe I'm tuned to more power.

Also, I trapped 116.85 BEFORE the chip......and made 295 awhp. After the chip I don't think I ran better than around 115.3. So, with that, I'm not sure the chip gave me any power gain at all. But, it gave me a tad better launch with the studder which I think was the biggest contributor to me hitting 11.49.

 

[1qkfwd]

I just read this again....this can't be right man.

If your engine, with higher comp, no balance shafts, and Crower 413 cams, isn't making more power than my original 86,000 mile, bone stock, with balance shafts, engine....something must be wrong with one of two things, or both:

1. your set-up/tune

2. the HP calculator


?

For some reason this didn't show up in my notifications. My phone and tuners are not getting along very well.

Now how much boost where you on when you made that power and ran those times at the track?? I do know my cars have always made less power at that track compared to tracks like in Sacramento. The elevation really has an affect at the local track.

My runs for the mph had a Density altitude of over 5000ft. The boost never went higher than 21-22 lbs dropping pretty good to I think less than 15. I'll have to go back over my logs when I get back home. I know my timing is probably less than yours to. Is it possible to make same power on less timing, low 11 afr, and less boost?

Possibly, however, I have nothing to compare it to. I'm also assuming everyone but me is tuning via dsmlink, which makes it hard for me to believe I'm tuned to more power.

Very possible to make a bunch more power without link. Just think with the afc everytime you yank fuel your timing goes up since your shifting to a different map. Tuning link it starts pig rich and low timing, but there's more control and finer tuning pressure/rpm. As before it's just per rpm.

 

[Phil1320]

For some reason this didn't show up in my notifications. My phone and tuners are not getting along very well.

Now how much boost where you on when you made that power and ran those times at the track?? I do know my cars have always made less power at that track compared to tracks like in Sacramento. The elevation really has an affect at the local track.

My runs for the mph had a Density altitude of over 5000ft. The boost never went higher than 21-22 lbs dropping pretty good to I think less than 15. I'll have to go back over my logs when I get back home. I know my timing is probably less than yours to. Is it possible to make same power on less timing, low 11 afr, and less boost?



Very possible to make a bunch more power without link. Just think with the afc everytime you yank fuel your timing goes up since your shifting to a different map. Tuning link it starts pig rich and low timing, but there's more control and finer tuning pressure/rpm. As before it's just per rpm.

21 psi regulated...

No kidding...

I do keep forgetting you're not racing near sea level.

I'd guess actual power for any given day, elevation, track temp, etc. would be hard to get a lock on...

 

[1qkfwd]

So Im looking over my logs and I have ALOT of tuning left on the tqble. I'm not seeing timing numbers near as high as you guys. My afrs are just about where I want them. I'll see what I can do to get my IATs to stay under 100 to.

For you link users at 5500rpms I'm seein around 31lbs/min.

 

[Phil1320]

So Im looking over my logs and I have ALOT of tuning left on the tqble. I'm not seeing timing numbers near as high as you guys. My afrs are just about where I want them. I'll see what I can do to get my IATs to stay under 100 to.

For you link users at 5500rpms I'm seein around 31lbs/min.

I'd imagine you do. So, do it up! But, I think you should get some dyno numbers so you're not shooting in the dark and using inaccurate internet calculators.

 

[SBstar]

I haven't said much lately but I'll point out some of my own observations.

HP Calculators aren't worth much, get on a dyno if you care enough about that figure, and even then be careful comparing your numbers to someone elses. I can take my 11.812 on street tires and come up making 317 and compare it to my 11.541 on the QTP's and all of a sudden I made 334. Only change was a little colder and 50 lbs of weight, not enough for 17hp difference. The difference was traction. And the HP calculators don't equate for 60', shifts, clutch slippage, etc.

In 2011 I was on a 8.5:1 fresh motor, high timing, 12.5:1 afrs on E-85 and ran a best of 12.05. In 2012 I was on a tired old 7.8:1 motor, much more conservative timing, and mid 11:1 afrs and clearly made more power. Only "power" addition was the HKS 264/272 cams. To me the cams clearly did something, and the extra compression and ragged edge tune didn't do a whole heck of a lot.

 

[1qkfwd]

I'd imagine you do. So, do it up! But, I think you should get some dyno numbers so you're not shooting in the dark and using inaccurate internet calculators.

You know I will. Been dying to hit the track. Especially with this next go around of mods I've gotten done to the car. I'll hit the dyno later after I squeeze evey mph out of this car.

I haven't said much lately but I'll point out some of my own observations.

HP Calculators aren't worth much, get on a dyno if you care enough about that figure, and even then be careful comparing your numbers to someone elses. I can take my 11.812 on street tires and come up making 317 and compare it to my 11.541 on the QTP's and all of a sudden I made 334. Only change was a little colder and 50 lbs of weight, not enough for 17hp difference. The difference was traction. And the HP calculators don't equate for 60', shifts, clutch slippage, etc.

In 2011 I was on a 8.5:1 fresh motor, high timing, 12.5:1 afrs on E-85 and ran a best of 12.05. In 2012 I was on a tired old 7.8:1 motor, much more conservative timing, and mid 11:1 afrs and clearly made more power. Only "power" addition was the HKS 264/272 cams. To me the cams clearly did something, and the extra compression and ragged edge tune didn't do a whole heck of a lot.

I never use ET as a way to gauge hp. I only used mph as a baseline between one car and another. Mph is a way to gauge ones hp goin down the track right?? It's how I tune the car at least.

On those runs now was there a mph difference?? Where they clean runs and good 60' times??

 

[Phil1320]

I haven't said much lately but I'll point out some of my own observations.

HP Calculators aren't worth much, get on a dyno if you care enough about that figure, and even then be careful comparing your numbers to someone elses. I can take my 11.812 on street tires and come up making 317 and compare it to my 11.541 on the QTP's and all of a sudden I made 334. Only change was a little colder and 50 lbs of weight, not enough for 17hp difference. The difference was traction. And the HP calculators don't equate for 60', shifts, clutch slippage, etc.

In 2011 I was on a 8.5:1 fresh motor, high timing, 12.5:1 afrs on E-85 and ran a best of 12.05. In 2012 I was on a tired old 7.8:1 motor, much more conservative timing, and mid 11:1 afrs and clearly made more power. Only "power" addition was the HKS 264/272 cams. To me the cams clearly did something, and the extra compression and ragged edge tune didn't do a whole heck of a lot.

Agreed, those calculators are only for ''fun'' if you ask me.

Interesting comparo about your two set ups. What I gather from it: get better cams in my engine and screw all the fancy stuff.

You know I will. Been dying to hit the track. Especially with this next go around of mods I've gotten done to the car. I'll hit the dyno later after I squeeze evey mph out of this car.




I never use ET as a way to gauge hp. I only used mph as a baseline between one car and another. Mph is a way to gauge ones hp goin down the track right?? It's how I tune the car at least.

On those runs now was there a mph difference?? Where they clean runs and good 60' times??

Well, yes MPH is a 'sign' of what potential power could be, or more relative to power to weight ratio. But, IMHO, as I've said before, MPH is secondary to ET. Years ago there were a handful of FWD 14b cars trapping 118-119, but ET's were high 11's. This was purely a power to weight thing. Look up, ''The Teal Tin Can.''

I'll see if I can find my timeslips today and post up the specifics. I can tell you they were all clean runs and 60' times were probably within .05 or so. I'm generally pretty consistant and get to the cars' full potential within 5-6 passes.

 

[SBstar]

I never use ET as a way to gauge hp. I only used mph as a baseline between one car and another. Mph is a way to gauge ones hp goin down the track right?? It's how I tune the car at least.

On those runs now was there a mph difference?? Where they clean runs and good 60' times??

I'll agree that mph is probably the better way, but still not accurate. A good way to gauge if your changes are working yes, not necessarily a true "x" hp rating from an online hp calculator. But here's some #'s from mph.

9-24 (street) mph 115.3 = 333.8
9-28 (slicks) best mph 116.5 = 337.8hp
I agree, much more comparable to one another. You can see 4 hp difference between seperate dyno runs at times, and freeing up 50lbs of rotating weight may have freed up 4 hp. So at least I know from now on if I'm going to even look at an hp calculator, ignore et and only use the mph function.

EDIT:

But, I looked back at Dave Womer's mph and weight. By the same calculator he was making...380.4 hp
His actual dyno sheet? 324 whp ----- so maybe it's crank hp? But that doesn't make sense being that Phil's #'s are close to what he made on a dyno...



Phil,
And yet other people have added cams and claimed they saw no gains. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Only thing that I changed that should have added or freed horsepower was the cams and the aluminum driveshaft. Everything else has stayed the same. Tore a little more weight out, but not enough to make the difference that I seen this year.

 

[Phil1320]

I'll agree that mph is probably the better way, but still not accurate. A good way to gauge if your changes are working yes, not necessarily a true "x" hp rating from an online hp calculator. But here's some #'s from mph.

9-24 (street) mph 115.3 = 333.8
9-28 (slicks) best mph 116.5 = 337.8hp
I agree, much more comparable to one another. You can see 4 hp difference between seperate dyno runs at times, and freeing up 50lbs of rotating weight may have freed up 4 hp. So at least I know from now on if I'm going to even look at an hp calculator, ignore et and only use the mph function.

EDIT:

But, I looked back at Dave Womer's mph and weight. By the same calculator he was making...380.4 hp
His actual dyno sheet? 324 whp ----- so maybe it's crank hp? But that doesn't make sense being that Phil's #'s are close to what he made on a dyno...



Phil,
And yet other people have added cams and claimed they saw no gains. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Only thing that I changed that should have added or freed horsepower was the cams and the aluminum driveshaft. Everything else has stayed the same. Tore a little more weight out, but not enough to make the difference that I seen this year.

Then at a minimum, I'll have the head checked and toss some cams and springs in there. I know a cam swap in an EVO gives a nice bump, can't see why it wouldn't on the 14b...

 

[1qkfwd]

Well, yes MPH is a 'sign' of what potential power could be, or more relative to power to weight ratio. But, IMHO, as I've said before, MPH is secondary to ET. Years ago there were a handful of FWD 14b cars trapping 118-119, but ET's were high 11's. This was purely a power to weight thing. Look up, ''The Teal Tin Can.''

I'll see if I can find my timeslips today and post up the specifics. I can tell you they were all clean runs and 60' times were probably within .05 or so. I'm generally pretty consistant and get to the cars' full potential within 5-6 passes.

I can see a high mph fwd with a slow et being more of a traction issue. Not all the dsm fwd guys know how to get these cars to hook.

I think the biggest apples to orange comparison, is the fwd chassis vs your guys awd. First big difference is that a fwd running a fwd trans and 24" slicks is not the same ratio as an awd running the same size slick. Then a fwd with an awd trans needs a taller slick. Again the outcome is different. All those are going to have different et/mph ratios. The way its looking Me running the fwd trans and 24.5" slicks will have to trap at least 125+ to match Joe's 10.8 et. Unless I switch back over to the awd trans and 26" slicks.

I'll agree that mph is probably the better way, but still not accurate. A good way to gauge if your changes are working yes, not necessarily a true "x" hp rating from an online hp calculator. But here's some #'s from mph.

9-24 (street) mph 115.3 = 333.8
9-28 (slicks) best mph 116.5 = 337.8hp
I agree, much more comparable to one another. You can see 4 hp difference between seperate dyno runs at times, and freeing up 50lbs of rotating weight may have freed up 4 hp. So at least I know from now on if I'm going to even look at an hp calculator, ignore et and only use the mph function.

EDIT:

But, I looked back at Dave Womer's mph and weight. By the same calculator he was making...380.4 hp
His actual dyno sheet? 324 whp ----- so maybe it's crank hp? But that doesn't make sense being that Phil's #'s are close to what he made on a dyno...

Height of tire will have some affect on the mph also. So it would have to be a back to back comparison after adding hp. I do only really use the calculator for fun and as a simple back to back comparison.

Now I spent a lot of time chatting with Dave at the track on sunday. We shared some very good information. He did mention that his Dyno numbers are a bit lower due to the dyno he used. Another factor is that the dyno cant recreate the air coming into our intakes (for force fed cars) to get the dyno numbers where they should be. So in turn I think the number would be lower since there is less air and a hotter charge. Just my thoughts on that and one reason i wont use a Dyno.

Ive always been a die hard track person and know what it takes to get a car running right and have the lowest et possible. Take for example my AWD 9.9@137. The mph is pretty low for a 9.9 pass. But somehow I managed to get the car down the track very smooth and a clean pass.

 

[SBstar]

Yeah, I totally agree, good for some fun and for seeing your own improvements.

Oh yeah, but I just read that we are all "retards" so perhaps we should all just move on, clearly we don't know what we're doing....sorry probably shouldn't have posted that, shouldn't stir the pot.

Here's to spring, lets go racing!

 

[1qkfwd]

Yeah, I totally agree, good for some fun and for seeing your own improvements.

Oh yeah, but I just read that we are all "retards" so perhaps we should all just move on, clearly we don't know what we're doing....sorry probably shouldn't have posted that, shouldn't stir the pot.

Here's to spring, lets go racing!

I say stir the pot and let people think what they think. We really know the truth. Got more work in on the car last night. Decided that im gonna shoot for March 3rd in sacramento. But I have a really strong feeling that Im going to have to swap in my awd trans and taller slicks in order to reach what Joe did. So ive gotta free up some time to get it finished rebuilt.

 

[SBstar]

I say stir the pot and let people think what they think. We really know the truth. Got more work in on the car last night. Decided that im gonna shoot for March 3rd in sacramento. But I have a really strong feeling that Im going to have to swap in my awd trans and taller slicks in order to reach what Joe did. So ive gotta free up some time to get it finished rebuilt.

Honestly I don't like being baited like that, (and I'm sure he'll see this reply as well), so it's not really worth the effort to respond as that's what he wants anyways. It's easy to talk big when you have the bigger pocketbook.

Looking forward to the results. The awd trans does seem to have the better gearing for it, not sure if it will truly be needed though. You'll have the weight advantage on your side at least.

With funds already being tight I haven't even picked up my clutch disc yet, hopefully I can get a few bucks off on a tax sale deal or something. Once I have that and can put the trans back in the car my motivation should spark back up again. I really don't see a personal set of slicks being a reality this year yet though, wifey got her vacation so there goes any extra money we had. Don't get me wrong I like vacation but I'd rather have slicks .

 

[Phil1320]

Honestly I don't like being baited like that, (and I'm sure he'll see this reply as well), so it's not really worth the effort to respond as that's what he wants anyways. It's easy to talk big when you have the bigger pocketbook.

Looking forward to the results. The awd trans does seem to have the better gearing for it, not sure if it will truly be needed though. You'll have the weight advantage on your side at least.

With funds already being tight I haven't even picked up my clutch disc yet, hopefully I can get a few bucks off on a tax sale deal or something. Once I have that and can put the trans back in the car my motivation should spark back up again. I really don't see a personal set of slicks being a reality this year yet though, wifey got her vacation so there goes any extra money we had. Don't get me wrong I like vacation but I'd rather have slicks .

. I didn't bite.....

 

[Bud92gsx]

Id rather have slicks then go on vacay..

Thats a true dsmer right there..

 

[Phil1320]

Well, here we go:

5/10/09 First time on slicks

1.57 [email protected] [email protected]
1.81 [email protected] [email protected] bogged it
1.63 [email protected] [email protected]
1.57 [email protected] [email protected]
1.57 [email protected] [email protected]
1.62 [email protected] [email protected]

7/10/09 Second outing on slicks, no changes at all

1.65 [email protected] [email protected]
1.54 [email protected] [email protected]
1.58 [email protected] [email protected]
1.55 [email protected] [email protected]
1.55 [email protected] [email protected] - highest trap to date
1.57 [email protected] [email protected]
1.62 [email protected] [email protected]
1.64 [email protected] [email protected]

Now, the chip is installed after all above runs, timing changes, studder, NLTS.

10/23/09

1.54 [email protected] [email protected]
1.48 [email protected] [email protected] - slip blew away, couldn't remember 1/8
1.49 [email protected] [email protected]
1.50 [email protected] [email protected]
1.49 [email protected] [email protected]
1.48 [email protected] [email protected] - best ET to date

10/8/10

1.50 [email protected] [email protected] - missed third gear
1.48 [email protected] [email protected]
1.48 [email protected] [email protected]
1.48 [email protected] [email protected]
1.49 [email protected] [email protected] - compressor nut comes off at about 1000', second quickest 1/8 ET to date

 

[1qkfwd]

Were you logging those runs Phil?? Your Mph varies alot thoughout a day.