4g61t.org

at least

_________________
1990 Colt AWD 8.8

I didn't ask how much power he'd make in Colorado!

_________________
91 GSX - 511fwhp and 352 lb/ft 25psi 110 octane, 7.68 @ 95.9mph 1/8th 21psi 91 octane, 11.93 @ 112.9mph, 117.7mph best trap speed, 20psi 91 octane
98 Volvo S70 T5 - DD

http://www.facebook.com/captaintonus

HAHA CO guys think you get to apply a correction factor with turbo-charged cars. NOPE

Have you dynoed or raced a car at sea level and altitude? I have done both. There is a loss without making any changes. That is also why I posted corrected and UNCORRECTED numbers if we throw something on the dyno. English Racing revently brought a car from Washington to Colorado. They now know first hand what happens.

_________________
1985 Mitsubishi Cordia
Build in progress

LOL, gosh that was easy...

_________________
91 GSX - 511fwhp and 352 lb/ft 25psi 110 octane, 7.68 @ 95.9mph 1/8th 21psi 91 octane, 11.93 @ 112.9mph, 117.7mph best trap speed, 20psi 91 octane
98 Volvo S70 T5 - DD

http://www.facebook.com/captaintonus

Pressure Absolute, look it up.

_________________
'89 Colt GT w/bigger than stock turbo
'91 Talon AWD w/bigger than stock turbo
'05 Dodge diesel w/bigger than stock turbo

Absolute Pressure maybe? I've read all about the differences between sea level and the "Mile High City" in relation to automobile power output. I still am not convinced that the same correction factor for a naturally aspirated engine can be applied to a turbo-charged engine. Yes the turbo has to do more work to make the same pressure in the intake tract, but the wastegate has no idea if that 20 psi of boost is being made in Denver or San Francisco. The ratio of oxygen to everything else is the same at elevation also. So I can see the torque curve not being as broad and the turbo lag being greater due to the turbo having to spin faster to force the same amount of air into the engine. I do appreciate that the CO guys give their uncorrected numbers along with the corrected numbers.

Density altitude

_________________
1989 Mirage Turbo - 11.7@119

First you say you don't get to use a correction factor then you say you don't believe the same correction factor applies.

Since you understand the difference between psig and psia, do you understand how that difference is applied to a compressor map?

_________________
'89 Colt GT w/bigger than stock turbo
'91 Talon AWD w/bigger than stock turbo
'05 Dodge diesel w/bigger than stock turbo

The jab about not getting to use any correction factor was written in jest. I am not getting into a massive debate about all the science involved with this.

^ You were right

Made the trek today 2.5 hours north to a DynoJet and rolled off the trailer and onto the rollers.



Some dialing in last night, didn't touch it otherwise.

First run 593hp, 528tq

Added 1 deg of timing..

Second run 616hp, 546tq

Added 1 deg of timing...

Last run, 637hp, 549tq

Runs were done at 42psi on E85, which at this time of year is technically E70. There's still some more left in her. The 272's and .63 exhaust side is choking things off after 8K or so. Peak power is around 6800RPM.

The only real changes from the Shootout 2011 / Buschur mustang dyno was a PTT twin disc/lightened flywheel and a Dynomax Ultraflow that replaced a Dynomax VT.

Video:
http://lilevo.com/lilevo2/videos/dyno_637awhp.mpeg

nice 3 sec video of your leg lol.. wheres the dyno pull? hehehe and gratz on those numbers.



Steve

_________________
Steve 89 colt 2.3 stroker stock top end. evo3@20 psi 13.489@99.30mph 3/10 2012
On drag radials.auto trans.launching @ 5 psi and no traction thru 2nd.

Video FIXED!

Nice! putting down some #'s!!!!!

_________________
92 Colt GL 4g63t + AWD swap
00 Mirage LS

That is brutal!