4g61t.org

Ive raced at Bandemere, in a turbo car it doesnt make a difference hardly. All Motor cars Im sure see a big difference.

I could see you coming here and running better, most cars do but we have one of the best tracks in the Country. Alot of records have been broken here and were still at 2200+ ft. Just goes to show the track will make more of a difference than the elevation. We also have hoopty street car night where there is no track prep, but with a good driver and a well setup car we still do pretty good.

Just go out with your bumpity bumpin beats and leave the roll at home.ha/ha
When the time comes I think I'll end up using 3/8 or 1/2" stock fashioned into an L bracket with a heavy duty gusset of some sort. Not true my friend. My car's never been or ever will be on a dyno. I seem to have good luck with dsmlink and my wideband. Damn Davis!! why you gotta go off and get all so-phis-ti-cated and shit. Thought I'd break it down for ya my brother...

1

I'm glad yours ran good out here most guys have some issues coming up here tune all out of wack etc....Shep and others seem to run alot slower here and i think are track is pretty decent not as good as some but decent...




P.s. thanks johny boy you know i can't read those big words...

We never had any issues with elevation. We havent dropped 3000 ft at once, but we went from tuning here in Vegas at 2200ft to 17 ft in Sacremento and ran a 9.40 right off the trailor. Are you guys ignoring you Baro sensor on the DSM link?

I noticed he posted his uncorrected numbers...not his corrected and the dyno he was at was closer to 6,000 ft. It sounds like your saying a turbo completely eliminates elevation issues, I do agree that corrected figures are obviously inflated, but the real sorry is the power under the curve. What a dyno does show is that through a peak efficiency range of about 1,000 to 1,500 rpms, a turbo car will perform close to its performance at low elevation. Before and after that small window, the cars suffer from noticable powerloss.

I'm also not sure about a 1.6L making more hp than a 2.0L at any elevation with similar mods. But Jason was absolutly correct about a volumetric efficiency range for a turbo. What I've noticed is that my 1.6 will spool a turbo about 1,000 rpms later than a 2.0 and as a result, peak hp is usually 1,000ish rpm later. I have literally spent hours calculating VE tables for my motor and cams. I even calculated out gearing and what rpm each gear change would net with my transmission and tire size. If anyone wants to spend few ours reading and is comfortable with a lot of trigonometry then I will gladly link you to sites that can walk you through it with great detail.

Like Davis also mentioned, I don't use local dyno's anymore unless I want to inflate my ego. I prefer to use a more consisten equation based on trap speed and total race weight. It doesn't matter what elevation your at, the numbers still crunch out the same if your speed and weight are similar. My car works out to 403 whp using these equations, which sounds a little high but I don't doubt I was in the area of 380 whp uncorrected. The last time I was on the dyno was two years ago, I was using an afc2 to tune with and only had 550 cc injectors on pump gas along with a whole bunch of loose ends. The injectors were maxed out at 23 psi and my uncorrected numbers were 308 whp and 223 ft/lbs. Just to give another example, when I enter my weight at the time and trap speed (2300 lbs/ 118.9 mph) it calculates my whp to be 301.7. It has been freakisly accurate for me over the last 5 years on several different turbo setup's.

Thanks for the offer college boy, but I'll take a pass on that. Davis and I let you retire this season on top so you'll stick around and do the hard thinking for us. I'm a driver...


Another thing to consider are two critical variables that these calculators can't factor in, driver error and traction loss. To me this makes elevation negligible. After careful scientific study(case of beer and a dart board) I've determined that at our power levels there may be about .2 difference in et when it comes to elevation.

We always setup and tune our cars on a dyno, mainly to get our timing curve correct. Doing it on the dyno, using peak tq numbers and by also checking and reading your plugs you are going to have a better looking curve and a better running car. Using steady state and seeing tq #s in real time are a must which is why we use a Mustang dyno. On DSM link cars, we tune the timing curve on the dyno, and then set the the Knock sensor to ignore. Makes the car very fast and very consistant without random noise, shift, and antilag pulling timing down the track.

Small update.

I got a new sponsor.

Ok, thats gay

Unless those stickers are 25 hp each...then I stand corrected.

BAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAAA... HEY FELLAS I CAME OUT OF THE CLOSET....

Little update.

Cutoff switch was installed yesterday. Works great and looks ten times better than the way I did it in the mirage. Learning more and more every step of the way. Thanks to Jason for the help once again. Took us about 15 minutes to wire the switch in together. Took like four or five hours to rig it up in the mirage.

The Mary Kay turbo special. I kinda like it!

Small update.

Two steps closer to having the turbo installed. I had to come up with a better solution for my radiator. As it would not clear the turbo with the manifold I have. This should help nicely, as it has more cubic inches than a stock two row radiator on a turbo CSM. And it gets cooled twice.

These two parts showed up today.

http://www.jayracing.com/index.php?main ... cts_id=216

http://www.siliconeintakes.com/product_ ... a6cef3517a