3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Want to know how to get more out of your Beretta? Or have a mod you would like to share?
User avatar
z284pwr
Registered User
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2001 10:26 pm
Location: Fruit Heights, Utah
Contact:

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby z284pwr » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:10 pm

(nocutt @ Oct. 27 2005,13:28)
Q
U
O
T
E
Q
U
O
T
E
They are both running the same basic chip as well, 2 different dynos as well?  Both operators have their heads in their *****?


On the contrary...let me rephrase so this is not takin gout of context...turbocharged cars have this inherent problem, especially when ran on certain specific dynos with specific user errors multiplied by owners zeal  :p

Think about it for a second Z28pwr...we are talking a relatively stock car with less than 200 ci of displacement and even with less engine revolution...12psi of boost is saying the engine is producing almost 400 ft/lb tq @ the crank!!...again this is why I don't like to get into this realm of bench racing...it assumes a lot, but think about it for a second logically before not agreeing...to even put it into a better perspective...the turbobuick displaces what 231ci and have between 12-13psi of boost...formally Tq is in the 32Xft/lb range (don't quote me) and informally it is much higher...relative!! :D

Oh, I am not disagreeing with it at all, I was just pointing out that there were two cars.  Yes I do also find it very difficult to believe as well, but that is the fun of bench racing, something to talk about and "debate" over :p


Brian Edwards
'73 Trans Am - 455/Auto
'79 Suburban - 454/Auto
'88 Beretta GT - 3.1/5spd
'90 Beretta Indy - 3.1/Auto
'90 TGP - 3.2 Turbo/Auto
'04 TSX - 2.4/Auto

User avatar
Norm 88GT
Registered User
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 1:45 pm
Location: Ashland, Ohio
Contact:

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby Norm 88GT » Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:39 pm

nocutt, if the dyno owners are the cause then it could be reversed for real test of your theory.  What you have yet to explain/defend/test in the forums is your theory that the data is skewed.  

Until you test your theory, it is just that...a theory or an opinion.  And everyone has one of them.  :)

Norm


Norm -
'88 GT => V8 - http://www.beretta.net/board/ib3/ikonbo ... ;f=9;t=261
'00 C5 MN6 - Procharged


nocutt
Registered User
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed May 02, 2001 12:43 am
Location: Lost Angels

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby nocutt » Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:11 pm

(Norm 88GT @ Oct. 26 2005,17:39)
Q
U
O
T
E
nocutt, if the dyno owners are the cause then it could be reversed for real test of your theory.  What you have yet to explain/defend/test in the forums is your theory that the data is skewed. ÂÂÂ

Until you test your theory, it is just that...a theory or an opinion.  And everyone has one of them.  :)

I agree 99.564321% Norm...IFF (if and only if) we did not have a billion (exaggeration) of these engines running around town...there are two extremes here...a stock engine with boost and a modded engine with boost...we collectively know empirically data exist for both extremes...agree? That is a reality!! The theory now is where in between these extremes, will the aforementioned (uncertainty) fall...closer to a modded engine? or closer to a stock engine? There lies one anomaly...

Dynos are nothing but a measuring tool...of course different dynos have their advantages or disadvantages depends on how one views the world  :D ...regardless the at least on the older models they DO NOT SUBJECT ones car to real world magnitude...eg load! It is the reason why you can take one car put it on two different dynos and have two completely different values...I believe this anomaly is where the experience tech can account for, but that is not the point...any engine will respectively load the turbo accordingly...and here lies the other problem, the dynojets do not do this like it would so happen in the real world!?!?
I am not saying a dynojet is the devil...I am saying to get a specific AFR a dyno is beautiful, for making changes...fine!! as long as you go to the same dyno, or at least know your caveats...there is a reason why dyno from car to car is not realisitic, X% error can mean XX% for another car...to that end, I have never dyno'd my own car but have witnessed several and what I have noticed is dynojets (older) are notorious for spitting out crap for Tq...add the fact that when your vehicle isn't the run of the mill V8 or 4 cyl the technician tends to add their own respective errors...
I might not have answered all the questions put forth, for good reasons...it is difficult to answer when refuting a claim from the standpoint you have requested...again logic says 4XXft/lb Tq is not possible at the pressure ratio stated with the compressor used and the engine revolution it was subscribed to...  :laugh:



User avatar
Norm 88GT
Registered User
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 1:45 pm
Location: Ashland, Ohio
Contact:

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby Norm 88GT » Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:42 pm

Which Dynojets?  If your going to start making claims your going to have to back them up with facts.

What should viper have the operator do or change?

There you go with those theories again...

Norm


Norm -
'88 GT => V8 - http://www.beretta.net/board/ib3/ikonbo ... ;f=9;t=261
'00 C5 MN6 - Procharged


User avatar
rweatherford
Registered User
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 5:39 pm
Location: Shelbina, MO
Contact:

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby rweatherford » Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:01 am

I don't know nocutt.  You seem to blather along with no substance.

Here is my take based upon turbocharging my own car.  The HP and TQ graphs did not change relationship to each other very much.  Still makes more HP than TQ.  It just makes proportionally more of both.  So why would the TQ and HP on a V-6 not raise proportionally too?

180 Tq and 135 HP is stock.  That MIGHT be around 110 HP at the wheels.  They have increased the HP by double at the wheels.  The TQ also has to increase by double to make the same HP at the same RPM.

So 180 TQ at the crank might be 150 TQ at the wheels so you might end up with 300 TQ at the wheels.  Not far off these dyno #'s.  That would probably be 365 FT-lbs and 275 HP at the crank.  Not way off.  If my 2.3L can better those HP #'s with my setup I'm not sure why a 3.1L can't.

Now for your dyno issues.

The dynojet dynos can easily load the small engines we are dealing with.  The drum load simulates more load than our cars weigh.  Using a higher gear also helps.  Believe me, my car is not loaded until at least 3rd gear on the road.  Now if we are talking about cars putting out 600 HP, then the dyno might not load it enough, but we aren't.  I'd say a bigger issue is no air for the IC.  Diesel pickups often run into the load issue because the engines require LOTS of load to make the HP.  Those large turbos need lots of load over time to make the large boost #'s they use.  Trying to push 1000 ft-lbs of TQ through the little contact patch on a rotating drum is about impossible and wheel slip often occurs.  We have about 6 of the Cummins turbo pickups.  One is turned WAY up.  About as high as you can go with the stock setup.  The converter in the automatic cannot load the engine enough.  You have to lock the converter to even come close and then it is only really loaded in D or OD.  Having a trailer on the truck really helps load it properly, but then the transmission slips.  It takes a double disk clutch on a manual tranny to hold them and these are not small flywheels.

One way that the TQ could be off some is if the dyno operator does not account for a waste spark ignition, but then the dyno is WAY off. (double RPM)

Seems in the ballpark IMHO.






Rex Weatherford
92 Beretta GTZ Quad4 Turbo / 5-speed (sold)
Best 1/4 ET =  13.523 @ 105.16 mph

07 Mazda 5 Black on Black (it's slow)


User avatar
Ribz80
Registered User
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 5:05 pm

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby Ribz80 » Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:21 am

The HP definately seemed right to me.  I had estimated 260-275hp at the crank for the nearly identical setup.  So like Rex said, if thats double the hp, double the TQ would be over 300 as well.


91' GT  SOLD
99' Saab Viggen Stg-4 315hp- in European Car Magazine  7/2006

User avatar
TurboGTU
Registered User
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 10:24 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby TurboGTU » Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:50 am

IMEP- Indicated Mean Efficiency Pressure.  
"Gains in IMEP denote the availability of more net torque as a result of peak cylinder pressure development and slightly less spark timing.''-HRM oct 98

A faster burn chamber provides opportunity for less initial timming which I don't see in the GN engine. The GN engine doen't have the torque rich runners the gen 2 3.1l has. SO I would toss the GN engine out of it. The GN engine requires more spark timming. Only another engine of the same kind can be compared. Then we add boost to the equation...which reqires even less spark timming than that already required by the fast burn head. Why, because peak cylinder pressures will still accurer way past TDC ,more especially than a N/A app. The turbulant air in the boosted app helps keep fuel molecules small ..there by burnning fast  as appose to a less turbulant air mix keeping the fuel molecules large..and burning slower...which requries more spark advance.

SO my conclusion is still ...boost makes for more tq. BUT how much for each angine...WHO KNOWS. YOU do the math. I still think 60 numbers could be close. 100 Maybe..but it is possible. Maybe the dyno operrator didn't account for the Trans ratio...MANY VARIABLES. A 3.4 DOHC engine made about the same tq..hp...3XXhp, 3XX tq. BUT that engine was ment for HP..not torque rich like thise engine. Oh theres so many things.  Scruw math and dyno charts. I want to see RUNS.  :hammer


88 IMSA Beretta GTU w/McLaren TGP turbo system. Crane 260 cam, Ported heads...Lots more. Soon Bullet proof 3t40.
90 Black Turbo Grand Prix  -- The restoration project.

nocutt
Registered User
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed May 02, 2001 12:43 am
Location: Lost Angels

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby nocutt » Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:01 am

(Norm 88GT @ Oct. 26 2005,22:42)
Q
U
O
T
E

Ah now we are talking  :D

Q
U
O
T
E
Which Dynojets?  If your going to start making claims your going to have to back them up with facts.

Read this again...

Q
U
O
T
E
What should viper have the operator do or change?


LOL!! Not make an unsubstantiated claim...j/k, tune his AFR...if the motor is what it is...then if he so cares, he can also put it on the track. I think you should also know or perhaps understand what you might not be seeing. You see...the person who built that particular kit also claimed he made over 4XXft/lb TQ @ 5psi on a 3.4L with mild heads...again we believe what we want to...I 'll leave it at that  :p

Q
U
O
T
E
There you go with those theories again...


:p yes I know, but tell me something...if I came to you and said I can or rather I made 450hp/580ft/lb tq on a 3.2L (the same attributes your 'old' motor had) at the same pressure ratio you were running and put a dyno graph infront of you...how do you refute this claim...1) you weren't there 2) you are also told the dyno session had uncertainties eg signal lost, RPM not maximized tec, etc...but yet here we are ?

[/QUOTE]I don't know nocutt.  You seem to blather along with no substance.
[QUOTE]

Darn Rex...where have you been? substance? I have provided several angles from my own perspective, I don't claim to be a dyno tech...but I do know FOR A FACT that dynos can be easily made to favor or disfavor a particular session, now whether or not this is the case...yes I have no substance to support this...

Your Qu motor is of course a different animal than a pushrod Rex...the more you wind, the more you can make use of the air needed...inherent with most OHC motors...but Tq isn't the Qus attributes (of course this is relative)...anyhowz this particular 3.1 in question is stock with a stock turbo...yes pressure ratio might be in the 1.81 range but it does NOT MEAN you are getting the aiflow necessary to support a potential 4XXft/lb Tq (remember it is also a stick shift)...

For reference as I initially stated a buick GNX has this much power @ 12-13psi of boost, this is not your off the mill 3.8 and then there is the Typhoon with a 4.3L engine making that much...this is for reference only...the turbo to both cars mentioned here are much larger, the setup more than likely is more conducive to make better use of the airflow...where am I going with this, if I cannot not theorize or babble I can make references to what is collectively known an agreed upon...this particular 3.1 in question is really defying and finally there is this...
I am no dyno expert I made that clear and rather than taking a standpoint where I understand with a better foothold I stand corrected, the experience with the dynojets are perhaps opinion...we invariably don't share the same...BUT PHYSICS don't lie...the 3.1 should not be producing that kind of power with the circumstances stated...

Ok now no more bench racing  :p



User avatar
I-GOT-BOOST
Registered User
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:01 pm
Location: Michigan

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby I-GOT-BOOST » Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:42 am

I'm not sure if the numbers on this dyno run are right or not, but I'm sure they could be.  I tend to agree with Rex the most.  The numbers aren't that far out of line, a bit on the high side maybe, but certainly possible.  You guys can talk about your theories and mathematical formulas and A/F ratios all you want.  Crunch all the numbers you want, but those of us who have more real world experience know that all those formulas are guidelines at the very best.  All that stuff goes right out the window as soon as you step into the real world. I think some of you guys are getting all of your info from reading too many different peoples' posts on too many different message boards, and believing too much of what you read.  And not having enough real-world experience to distinguish the gold from the crap.  Experience and common sense need to take precedent.  Reading message boards doesn't count as experience.

While I do agree that the numbers seem a bit on the high side for the size of the turbo being used, I guess the thing that really bothers me here is that you guys are assuming that the TQ number has to be wrong because it is so much higher than the HP number.  Someone posted that the TQ number is off because it should be within 25 of the HP number.  To make an asumption like that is just completely wrong. I can tell you from experience, that once you put a turbocharger on  a GM V6, that the HP/TQ being close to each other "thing" goes right out the window.  One fact that no one seems to be mentioning here is that TQ isn't just a function of displacement.  The length of the stroke, and even the length of the rods has an effect on how and when, and how quickly the engine develops TQ.

Since the 3.8 Buick engine was mentioned, and I just happen to know a thing or 2 about it, I will make some comparisons for you guys.   TurboGTU,  I'm not sure what you mean by "The GN engine doen't have the torque rich runners the gen 2 3.1l has."  But I assure you, the GN engine was all about torque.  I think you are talking about the 86/87 intercooled cars and their short, fat, intake runners.  Just to keep this comparison more on track, let's use the 84/85 hot air cars.  The intake manifold on those has long, thin runners - just what you need for torque.  The 3.1 manifold has runners  designed for TQ as well, which is the big reason it falls on its face at high RPM.  Now I now we are comparing 3.8 liters of displacement to 3.1, and some of you are going to scream "fOUL," but bear with me, because I believe the facts are relevant and wil speak for themselves.

Here are some facts and figures that I bet you didn't know.  The 1984 3.8 turbo DID NOT HAVE AN INTERCOOLER.  The engine was rated 190 hp @  4800 rpm and  made 300 ft/lbs  at  2750 rpm @ only 12 psi.  And in case you were wondering, those numbers were AT THE WHEELS, not the flywheel.  Keep in mind that is through a 200r4 automatic trans as well.  Those are the official numbers from GM.  That's what is listed in the dealer service manuals.  How do I know this? Because I own a copy. Both volumes.  But wait, it gets better.  That is with relatively low, 89 octane fuel.  A completely stock, factory ecm with only like 18/19* of timing. 28 lb fuel injectors.  And a turbocharger that is only rated to flow 390 cfm - and no intercooler.  Anyone who has ever driven one will tell you that those HP and TQ numbers were purposely understated by GM as well.  Considering the factory rev limiter is set around 5800 rpm, I think its safe to say that the actual numbers are much higher.  So the engine came from the factory with a TQ number  that was 110+ what the hp number was.  Are you going to try and tell me that the tech guys at GM couldn't figure out how to dyno their own car?  Turbo buicks regularily dyno with a TQ number that is anywhere between 100/150+ what the HP number is.  A really experienced Buick engine builder will tell you that a turbocharged 3.8 Buick can make  over 600 ft/lbs at under 3000 rpm.  Why do you think everyone uses billet steel mains and engine girdles? Now why is all this relevant?  Bear with me, I'm getting to that part.

Let's compare the 3.1 TGP set up.  Yes it is a smaller engine, BUT - let's look at some of the important variables.  For one thing, the 3.1 has a WAAAAAAAYYYYYY better intake manifold.  I know some of you are shaking your heads right now, but I'm telling you it is true.  The 3.1 intake is so much better that there really is no comparison.  I have taken several of both of these motors apart,  so I have made comparisons.  And the heads, again, the 3.1 heads are way better - MUCH more flow friendly.  I'm also willing to bet that the flow of the T-25  isn't a whole lot less than the 390 cfm of the one on the buick.  Then we have to consider the fact that the TGP has an intercooler. How much is that worth? ALOT, maybe? And we are talking about a custom burned chip with higher timing, and GM ecm & chip technology that had a few years to get better.  And the TGP set up was running on a 5 speed getrag.  Considerably less drivetrain loss than you get out of a big overdrive auto trans and TQ convertor. ÂÂÂ

So what do we have? 2 V6 GM engines running at the same boost levels.  A bigger engine, 3.8 liters, making similar TQ numbers -  300 ft/lbs @ only 2750 rpm.  At the wheels.  A number that we can all agree was most  likely understated.  I'm willing to bet the real number was close to 370.  No intercooler. No MAP sensor. No IAT.  Are you seeing my point yet?

Then we have a smaller engine - only 3.1 liters.  With a better intake manifold.  Better heads.  Better electronics.  A possibly larger cam grind.  An intercooler.  A custom chip with higher timing.  A turbo that might flow almost as much air? (not sure about that one)  Putting the power to the ground through a front wheel drive manual trans.  Alot less drive train loss than a rear wheel drive auto, which means you need to make less at the crank to get the same at the wheels.

A 3.8 can easily make 600 ft/lbs, and you want to question whether or not a 3.1 can make 300 ft/lbs? That set up should DEFINITELY, EASILY be capable of producing that kind of a TQ number.  Just from a stand point of common sense alone, COME ON PEOPLE!  Get real.  Get a clue.  I am so TIRED of everyone on this board completely underestimating the kind of power they COULD be making, and calling BS anytime someone else does something GOOD.  And you people wonder why I won't post any dyno numbers or track times from my car.  Why the he## would I want too? Plain and simple, 300 ft/lbs out of a 3.1 isn't very hard to do once you slap a turbo on it.  If you think it is, or it is a number that is too big or out of line, you need to find yourself another hobby, because building fast cars just isn't for you.  And for a well-tuned,  well running GM V6 like a 3.8 or a 3.1 you should EXPECT a TQ number that is considerably larger than  the HP number. "IF" everything is as it "should be."  I'm sure this post probaly Pi###d some people off.  Oh well.  Get over it. You can say whatever you want to about me, but I know my S###.  (and yes I also know it stinks, thank you)






Quote of the week:

"A cam is only too big if it won't go into the block, and a turbo is only too big if you can't close the hood."

User avatar
TurboGTU
Registered User
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 10:24 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby TurboGTU » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:42 am

Its just too bad the GN and the SY ty have such a poor burn rate with outdated desighens. Even the 1st gen can fall into this catagory...slow burn, inaficiant engine. ONly thier displacenmet wins.  ??  :D . Also..a rich mixture will give a high tq number...thats till the plugs start misfiring.. :).

And yes..I did mean the short ram intake...since that style GN is usualy always used/mentioned. BUt I did get your point  :cool: . I try to look at all angles... sometimes I speak tooo soon...then someone else sees the other angles..then another sees the other..then I see where I have mine and all come together...or collide  LOL .

Theres a phenomenon..Auto Vs Manual for boosted app.:
Kenny K Vice President of The Preservation for McLaren Grand Prixs
1990 TSTE 221hp / 280ft.lbs @ 3850
1990 TGP 5-speed 222HP / 320ft.lbs @ 3700 RPM

40lbs of torque gain from a 5spd? WOW! No HP loss (ideal..it would also be hp loss). You have to question if the dyno is setup right for the right tire diameter, gear ratio...and tire slip on either.
Im not doubting it is possible...is possible,is a fact. Im basing my numbers more on all TGP/Turbo ford dynos since I have both engines/setups. And you would think a auto would ahve a higher tq number do to the tq converter...(BTW..some won't lock do to load the PCM senses.). The chip on the 5spd might also have torque management turned off...40lbs from tq management..THAT IS IMPRESSIVE  :oops .  So it IS 100lbs. But again..VARIABLES. MY rule of thumbe is on stock engines I know(maybe I should toss more info {too vaige} than leaving everything open to flames..GOTA LOVE THEM..maket things intresting). Not moded engines. I know a 3.1 can be built to make 300hp and 240lbs tq. or 300lbs tq and 150hp.

BTW..the only DYNOs "I" trust are engine dynos.

BUt like I said..Dynos don't win races.

"TurboSedan
Turbo Moderator


Joined: 14 Aug 2002
Location: Gillette, WY
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:08 am   Post subject:  ÂÂÂ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yeah i was really looking forward to seeing you there (and Luke too). i mean, look what Dan's '00 GTP did. with no changes to his GTP, he went from 249ft/lbs at PFI to 319ft/lbs at DynoPros! seriously ***? and then there is your Turbo STE, which put down 254 ft/lbs at PFI but then (with no other changes?) put down 280ft/lbs at DynoPros. who should we trust? i know Bear just went to a new shop and had his dynojet recently calibrated, and the RMCGP guys will only accept numbers from DynoPros, so i guess i will trust DynoPros over PFI. my Lebaron GTS put down 178whp/217wtq at PFI. i can't help but wonder how it would have done at DynoPros. it's very frustrating getting seeing such a discrepancy between the two shops. i will be honest here and say that i do not trust either of them. wayyyy too much discrepancy to trust one or the other IMO.

if your TGP already put down 322 ft/lbs at PFI, god knows what you will get at DynoPros. all i know is that you will kick my ***! "

???

I say post your numbers. I've always went by this say " What other people "think" of you is non of your buisness.". F..em and do what you do. For pride or fun.

Now I have to wake up in 4hrs to work...DAM






88 IMSA Beretta GTU w/McLaren TGP turbo system. Crane 260 cam, Ported heads...Lots more. Soon Bullet proof 3t40.
90 Black Turbo Grand Prix  -- The restoration project.

nocutt
Registered User
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed May 02, 2001 12:43 am
Location: Lost Angels

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby nocutt » Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:19 am

With all due respect to all the old timers I think we can all agree we have a difference in opinion...I will not insinuate anything as only two ppl right now are refuting the claim that this 3.1 IS INDEED PRODUCING close to 4XX ft/lb at the crank at only 12psi of boost with an anemic turbo...we can ALL bark all we want...throw credential all we want...I build turbos as a hobby...and sometimes also wonder the ...ish I read to that end it isn't about my person that matters. I careless about personality when on this end of the screen just thought, logic, it is a BB...claims are wild...it is really hard to seperate feelings and 'true' knowledge.

Before things materialize in the real world the physical aspect must be analyzed in theory ...paper and reality do meet...the disparity is what an engineer tries to figure out...ok off the soapbox!!

IGB...'Experience and common sense takes precedence' indeed but from whose perspective? Let me tell you something real quick about those that statement...I will keep short...
~Two yrs ago, a turbo kit was put into a local (fiero) members car, by _(nameless), anyways problems soon ensued and he brought it to WCF. We found out the turbo was shot and I put in a bigger (just compressor) unit ...this car had a haltec and the customer kept on going back to some ppl to help him tune it...it was plagued!!Long story shot...owner takes it to drag strip runs 12.7X secs I forget teh short time...he comes back and beats his chest...I remember this vividly...I don't drink, I was in the mist of Old timers  as a matter of fact, one of this guys was Chris West's relative running a donovan turbo charged T.buick). So the conversation ensues...The guy swears up and down that he ran 12s at only 6psi (granted the 3.4 was medium built with a cam). I am looking and trying to find a place in my head to see the possibilities...I see the guy get school ) his short time I remember was a tell tale...Regardless Chris tells him..."in 1987 I ran my turbocharged 2.8 at 14psi" and could only muster 12.99s with the same short time, with about the same turbo"...no way can you be doing it for less...His cousin agrees...I am miffed because this are very good friends we are talking average age 55yrs..."common sense"? Well about couple of wks later he brought the car to the shop...I asked Chris if I could check the W/G...I took out my pump magiga and checked the W/G...it actuates at ~16PSI!!...I am condensing this story so bear with me...this is someone who had the knowledge but because of Zeal and oversight he did not know his dakota gauge was "tweaking"...who is right, who is wrong?



Q
U
O
T
E
originally posted by IBG:  I think some of you guys are getting all of your info from reading too many different peoples' posts on too many different message boards, and believing too much of what you read.  And not having enough real-world experience to distinguish the gold from the crap

In one swoop you have rendered the turbo niche marginal...Ask yourself this, why is beretta.net in existence...or better yet why is turbobuick.com in existence? Insinuation can be termed an assumption you have asked question on the TR boards...how do you know the answer to your post are genuine?
I agree to disagree there  :)

On clubgp, a member claims he had built grandnationals since I was in diapers and the LC2 was the same bore and stroke as the L36/67...he had ppl that backed the statement and yet he did not seem to understand the LC2 rod length was not the same...and this difference, singularly made the LC2 more Tq'y than the gen2/3 3800s...how did I know this? Not from reading, but from actually trying the hardway? Yes reading and physicality have their own respective truths...none wrong, none right...just finding the balance my friend...just like the engineer looking for what creates the disparities...

The extremes I mention'd was a challenge for ppl to think,  Curtis walker I am sure we all know about is making ~31X.hp at the wheels at ~6K RPMs this is at 7psi of boost...I am sure you have READ OTHER boards and HAVE  knowledge of this almost 10yr monster  :D (don't quote me, he was around when I was still dreaming). Tq is ~29X ...what I am trying to OVERstand is that a stock engine with a T25 is making 12psi and close 4XXft/lb at the crank...( you and I know we can marginalize the PR but not the density at which both compressors are working at)
Let me ask you guys saying that this particular event is possible have you read this at all; or am I READING TOO MUCH INTO A DATABASE, where you are responsible to mod at risk, or get a general idea what is what...

http://www.w-body.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29569

IGB...we aren't talking...or maybe I should say... I AM NOT TALKING A 3.1, this particular one in question is from the above link...because from reading your post you seem to have generalized it...



nocutt
Registered User
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed May 02, 2001 12:43 am
Location: Lost Angels

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby nocutt » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:48 am

Yes I am still up...studying, i think I am going to be like  :oo in  a few hrs...
LOL!! Tgtu, that is some funny ...ish hey but 'don't post that on too many boards', especially when all you do is theorize eh'  :D (figure of speech)

Anyhowz respect guys, lets keep it...things just got a little interestingER...fact and fiction...I hate bench racing, I don't even have a turbo car  :yippie

Edit: I forgot another theory...the engine is nothing but a pump figuratively speaking...how it pumps is typically dependent on other variables most epecially VE...A THEORETICAL NUMBER...!!
Just because you can effectively double the atm, does not necessarily mean you can double HP/TQ it only means the potential exist...







User avatar
berettaspeed
Registered User
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:50 pm
Location: Milwaukee,WI
Contact:

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby berettaspeed » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:16 pm

i know this may sound dumb right now, but what if the dyno was not done in 4th?? could that raise the TQ #s if in 3rd or 2nd,and even 4th gear is not 1-1 ratio??  just a thought. but i know he stated it was a 4th gear pull i think... but this is all interesting.


Best ET 14.313@95.37 N/A
Best MPH 14.438@95.71 N/A
89GT 5spd
3400MPFI & Boost
:wave

User avatar
BerettaLove32
Registered User
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 5:40 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby BerettaLove32 » Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:26 pm

I feel smarter after reading all this.  :banana



Guest

3.1 5spd TGP setup dyno'd

Postby Guest » Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:06 am

believe me, i was just as surpised as most of you were after seeing the dyno-graph!  those #s were well beyond my expectations.

i'm very skeptical, but either way...this car runs like a mo-fo.  it destroyed a '95 Mustang GT from a 30mph roll-on just a few hours ago :)  it also walks my friends modded '00 GTP no problem.

all i care about is that this car is fun on the street.  #s are completely secondary and i don't care much about them.  i deliver pizza in this car 5 days a week; and it makes my job alot of fun :)

i have never been to the strip with this car.  i finished it too late and they are now closed for the season.  maybe next spring.




Return to “Performance Mods”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests