Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ye but it only ran 135mph - SIF 900rwkw

yep, absolutely no way. Even if it had a lazy take off (which it did) and has low 'average' power, it should still have pulled off 145

I found that comical considering my ET was 129.75mph with only 320awkw

My mates xr6 ran a 10.9 with 400rwkw

130mph just tells me the dyno figure you are quoting is low. At 130mph you should have 500-520rwhp (370-390rwkw)

130mph just tells me the dyno figure you are quoting is low. At 130mph you should have 500-520rwhp (370-390rwkw)

That was in my r32gtr with street radials, 320awkw was on a dyno dynamics dyno as well (crd tune).

I think I'm a good driver :) 60 foot was 1.5s from memory...

That was in my r32gtr with street radials, 320awkw was on a dyno dynamics dyno as well (crd tune).

I think I'm a good driver :) 60 foot was 1.5s from memory...

It doesn't matter if you take 20 seconds to get off the line, your top end speed will be similar

they dont do mph tho like gtr's. have a look at any ford v8 with a s/c, even with huge power they just dont run the mph for some reason. the turb is always faster with the same power.

that doesn't make any sense.

Edited by Rolls

yep, absolutely no way. Even if it had a lazy take off (which it did) and has low 'average' power, it should still have pulled off 145

130mph just tells me the dyno figure you are quoting is low. At 130mph you should have 500-520rwhp (370-390rwkw)

so does that mean the dyno is out by like 700hp ?

60 foot generally has no effect on trap speed.

I ran the same mph on street tyres as i did on slicks.

I found that it did, minor - but it was consistent as i raced every 2nd week for 6 months :D

This is what i was doing when on the same tyres with varying 60fts.

1.9 60ft - 109mph (12.9 ET)

2.1 60ft - 110-111mph (13.2 ET)

But yes, marko - you didnt have 320rwkw with a 11.1 @ 130mph, over 350.

I found that it did, minor - but it was consistent as i raced every 2nd week for 6 months :D

This is what i was doing when on the same tyres with varying 60fts.

1.9 60ft - 109mph (12.9 ET)

2.1 60ft - 110-111mph (13.2 ET)

But yes, marko - you didnt have 320rwkw with a 11.1 @ 130mph, over 350.

That is interesting ash as crd's dyno isn't optimistic so u might be right...I know that my tuner did tell me to convert from awkw to rwkw I'd need to add close to 10%, therefore 320awkw might equate to 350rwkw

i know but that is how it happens. do some reasearch and u will see what i mean.

It has nothing to do with the fact it is turbo or v8, the reason they have different speeds is turbo cars (skylines etc) have much better drag coefficients than V8s from the 70s, they are also usually quite a bit lighter. It has absolutely nothing to do with the engine, power is power, it won't go faster just because it is a turbo :P

so does that mean the dyno is out by like 700hp ?

lol, I can get a camry to read 1200hp. Not saying it doesn't make a lot of power, just saying it doesn't make as much as they claim...unless ofcourse, he backed off at the end like someone said.

I don't think I'd post a 11sec run on youtube if I did one with that much hp

Also rolls there power curves are usually pretty different, Im not sure about the supercharged v8s, but when i was comparing the NA V8 torque/power curves to my rb30, i noticed that the v8s power curves usually have pretty flat torque curves that result in the peak power being made almost at their peak RPM, while my car had a lot less torque off boost, but once on boost picked up a lot of torque through the mid-range and started dropping off a fair way before redline, so although they made the same peak power, my car had more torque in the top end, as its power curve had a rounded top earlier in the rev range while the NA v8 had a straight line power curve. If the supercharged dyno curves are similar could explain it.. tho im stikking a v8 in a r32, so i suppose we'll see what sort of top end speed it will get with a car thats light and has a descent drag coefficient.

Anyone got a gt3788r dyno curve yet?? I've been following this thread waiting for someone to post one, so i can compare the response to my gt35r

Jarrod

I found that it did, minor - but it was consistent as i raced every 2nd week for 6 months :D

This is what i was doing when on the same tyres with varying 60fts.

1.9 60ft - 109mph (12.9 ET)

2.1 60ft - 110-111mph (13.2 ET)

But yes, marko - you didnt have 320rwkw with a 11.1 @ 130mph, over 350.

Yes, you are correct... People don't often understand the concept of why when your 60ft is lower the mph is lower. When you do a quicker 60ft you do a quicker ET, a quicker ET allows your car less time to accelerate and thus is going slower at the finish line.

Got a tip for you guys, an R32 skyline has a f**king atrocious drag coefficient like almost 0.4 or something.

I've heard that they've got a good one, and i've heard that they've got a horrible one. Hard facts please people, sick of the hearsay.

.40 it is, seems i was getting it confused with something else (and not the new gtr either)

Edited by sneakey pete

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
    • Probably not. A workshop grade scantool is my go to for proper Consult interrogation. Any workshop grade tool should do it. Just go to a workshop.
×
×
  • Create New...