dynoed my car today...how'd i do??

Discussion in '1994 - 1995 Specific Tech' started by 94convgt, Mar 12, 2006.

  1. I love the way everything i say gets twisted all around. I respond to things you say and all of a sudden i'm an *******.

    Typical ricer??? Where the hell did that come from? In what way would you view me as a ricer? I was just explaining that this ain't my 1st rodeo and that i own and have built quite a few high hp cars. I own 4 imports and 4 domestics.

    I state that i made the power at a range of 10.8-11.3 and you automatically pick the lowest # to question about? Should i even be more specific and say that at 3000 it was 12.5 and at 3100 it was 12.4? Do i have to be that detailed? If you've built so many cars yourself then why do you find it hard to believe what i'm telling you? You really need to stop acting like it's SOOOO hard to believe. You said you did it yourself right? Is it impossible for anyone else to do it? Are you really THAT full of yourself?
  2. Well then i guess i should shut my mouth huh?? Run away with my tail tucked?? Give me a ****ing break!! I'm not scared of anyone on the street or the track. If i get beat then i will acknowledge it and give respect. But as far as not wanting any.....i don't think that way. I would LOVE to race him if he comes to Vegas! If i don't have a fast enough car then i'll build one.

    It's that easy.
  3. Not to take anything away from them but what does being in a magazine have to do with tuning skills? We all know how truthfull the magazines are right??:rolleyes: Actually Rick was someone that helped me pick alot of the parts on my car. When i bought the cam and other things from him he said that it should produce in excess of 500rwhp. That was with the PMS and without alot of the little things i did.

    If your the baddest car on this board then how come you have to take your car to someone else to have it tuned? Do you not know how to build and tune your own stuff? I'm just curious as to how you can question my abilities when it seems you can't do the same thing yourself:shrug:
  4. The ricer comment was just me pickin on you cause you were boasting so about yourself...I dont talk about all my cars (i have a few also) when your one car is what this thread is on.

    My last question since you think I'm just pickin on you...
    Was the 592rw on 42lb injs....and what pumps.

    When I made similar #s to you on a bigger combo I was on pump gas, 11.8a/f and only 18* total for safety (diff than your tune) and I ran outta fuel on 42s at 579rw, my 42s were at 118% duty cycle.
  5. When it comes to AFM i believe 100% on what they publish. BECAUSE UNLIKE you they have track numbers that back up their horsepower claims. Hell there one street car only made 480 some horse and went into the 9's.

    I didn't say anything about my car being badass someone else did, and are you mad because your not the center of attention? I build the setups, i unlike you don't have access to a dyno and the experience with the pms like rick and danny do, especially with the new 3.0 software i just got for it. At $100+ an hour i want someone with tons of experience and are fairly quick. As far as the tune they don't just go after peak numbers they get everything safe and manageable and then see what they can do. I play with the tune at the track after they give me a good base to start with.
  6. This is his thread so I do believe he is the center of attention.:nonono:
    If you dont want him to have the attention then dont post in his threads.:shrug:
  7. ?!?! :nonono: :shrug: Were did i say i didn't want him to have attention or anything to that nature. Read the post before YOU POST!!... I just saw that he got bent out of shape and started to attack me when someone else complamented my setup. FOR the most part i have left MY car out of this (we would be talking apples and oranges)... :nonono:
  8. Hi there,
    Congrats on your numbers but I can understand moneypit94's frustration. Hopefully, I can help.

    The B41 cam is a great cam for blown applications and I have seen rwtq numbers in the 520-550 range depending on setup. So the rwtq numbers seem to be about right.

    The AFR 165 are a great head and they are better than my old Edelbrock 6037's and I made 545rwhp with those. Plus my good freind Ross Mckenney made 550rwhp with GT-40 aluminum heads with an F-cam.

    So maybe its just the combo on this particular block and maybe his numbers are not the norm but I don't think the numbers are off that much.

    Another factor to consider is his tune. I have no idea what he did with his timing curve and fuel curves but you have to consider that fact.

    On 42's with no FMU, I have seen cars make 500rwhp-530rwhp but on those motors the injectors were all done. Maybe his setup is more fuel effiecient yet another unknown.

    What I am having trouble believing is the low boost numbers of 9 psi. I had to run 13-14psi to make my 545rwhp and my buddy ross needed 15psi to make his 550rwhp, plus other cars I've tune or have seen I have never seen a car with 9 psi make anything near 515rwhp

    But either way congrats and I hope moneypit94 can just let it go. If he's telling the truth awesome if he's lying who cares.....let him live with it and move on.

    See ya
    Michael Plummer
  9. amen to that!
  10. :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice:
    there you go :SNSign:
  11. arg.....someday......oneday, ill hit my 500rwhp goal. congrats on that sweet setup
  12. Maybe you should go back and look at my dyno sheet again. In what way does it not look safe? Remember now the a/f reading was taken at the tailpipe like i stated many times which gives a leaner number. Peak numbers? I think my curve looks pretty damn good to be perfectly honest.

    I think i also stated that i didn't go to the dyno to get a big number. I went there to tune and see what i was working with. I've been tuning the car on the street for the last year and a half and thought it might be nice to do it somewhere a little less stressful. I only made 3 passes...if i wanted to squeeze peak numbers i would've stayed there longer and tweaked on it a little more. I know for a FACT i could've got much higher numbers if that happened.

    Also i know it's not track times but i did gtech the car again tonight.....10.8 @ 135 was the best i could do without power shifting or getting too aggressive. Does that match up to my numbers at all? At my 506rwhp setting before i did 11.5 @ 128. This is shifting at 5400 which is where my shift light is set to. It was set to that before and i didn't want to change anything.
  13. I did state that my fuel system is completely upgraded from front to back. I don't run the stock lines at all. Upgraded fuel rails,fpr,pump and my injectors were flow tested and matched.

    I also did say that my boost numbers were read off of the computer which gets it's source from the map sensor. I've been completely honest from the beginning and said that if i left anything out then please ask away. I'm not holding anything back.

    I've learned alot about making power having built and worked on more than a handful of 1000+rwhp cars in the last few years. All the cars have been documented in numerous magazines and have backed up there numbers at the track. I say that only to back up my statement on experience. I have employed little tricks here and there but have layed them out in this thread. I guess more than a couple have worked out for me so far.

    I find it funny that nobody even asked me what i set my fuel pressure at. Isn't that a big part of the equation when finding out if an injector will reach a certain power level?? Also my duty cycle on the 592rwhp pass was at 95% and that's high enough for me. That's with my fuel pressure at 39 which i could up it a little but i think that'll be enough for a while.

    I don't mean for this to sound like i'm attacking you in any way. I quoted you to answer your questions but also thought i'd add a little extra.
  14. Thanks for being level headed. I don't think i've misrepresented myself in any way and to be honest have proven myself accurate. I'm happy with the numbers and really LOVE driving the car again. I'm thinking more and more about upping the ante now......but i'm sure the voice of reason (ie...girlfriend) will step in to say NOPE!!!:chair:
  15. Hi there,
    Sorry but I didn't read every single post and thanks for pointing out those facts. Again, congrats on the numbers. :jaw:

    See ya
    Michael Plummer
  16. Well when you posts your new results (which you still haven't) with the barometric reading half way normal and nothing else that looks funny maybe i will believe you.
  17. So you're making 9.3 psi on a 302 with a 7" crank and a 2.95" blower pulley, while this guy 347 @ 10psi is making 570RWHP with a similar S-Trim combo except that he has a 347 & is making 10 psi with a 7" crank and a 3.15" blower pulley - seems odd to me since he has 45 cu-in bigger motor to feed that he is making more boost than you with a larger blower pulley. Your MAP sensor is a piece of crap IMHO.
  18. Nice car

    I am about to put a vortech on my 94 convertible. I have a 351 in it and am about to put a Dart 408 im building in. What did you have to do to use the 93 supercharger setup? Different tb and throttle cables? Do they have the same alternator and smog mount? I am thinking about doing that and ditching the SN95 adapter.

    You have a nice car as well.
  19. Believable? Yes it is. It is often that people will rip a guy apart that makes more horsepower than the norm. A good friend of mine here in Wisconsin mad 480 horsepower at the wheels with his stock short block 5 liter last year with only 6lbs of boost from a Powerdyne (of all things). Nobody believed him. Comments like "you're leaving something out", "BS", "no way", "liar", etc were common. The boys on the Corral tore into him as well. http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?p=5353345#post5353345
    I made 559hp to the wheels with a motor that the most well known internet cam guru said would never make any power with the cam and heads I have and would not run the numbers that the car ran. I built an identical engine to my buddy with the Powerdyne (before he had the supercharger) and made less horsepower and ran 3 tenths slower. Every engine is different, every combination is different and every car is different. Comparing ETs with other cars is just as hard to compare. There are way to many variables. It should do this and should do that with X number of horsepower doesn't fly. Every car is different. Smokey Yunick said himself that he could build two identical engines with identical parts and identical clearances and not make identical horsepower.

    Congrats 94convgt on the impressive numbers.
  20. How can you use such a basic comparison such as blower pulley's without looking at all the other variables? It's a basic reference at best. You have to know EVERY other part that has to do with airflow before making assumptions. Maybe, just maybe, his heads don't flow as well as mine. Does he have them blower ported? Does he have the exact cam i do? Does he have the same headers and full exhaust? Same port matched intake? Just because my combo makes 9psi at a given rpm with said pulleys doesn't mean that it'll do the exact same thing on another combo. On a lesser flowing combo it might make 15psi.....who knows?

    I'll go off of a properly calibrated map sensor made by a company in which Indy cars, Rally cars, etc.....use them as tuning tools.