3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002) 1993-2002 Discussion including performance modifications and Technical Support Sections.
Sponsored by:

Any dyno charts of 400 rwhp on stock twins?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-13-05, 04:40 PM
  #1  
Missin' my FD

Thread Starter
 
pianoprodigy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seminole, FL (Tampa Bay Area)
Posts: 1,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any dyno charts of 400 rwhp on stock twins?

I was having a friendly discussion with another forum member who thinks that 400 rwhp on stock sequential twins is possible. I was under the impression that it is not. I've always heard that 360 whp @ 16 psi is about all you'll get. This person has a 365 whp dyno at 16 psi.

Anyways, is 400 rwhp possible on stock sequential twins on a stock motor? I know JD (Boostn7) made 402 rwhp according to his signature, but I'm fairly sure that was running nonsequential.

I know that even if it is possible, it's going to kill the turbos from all the heat. Regardless, ignore that. I just want to see a dyno chart (or hear reliable info) of a stock sequential twins car with stock motor making 400 rwhp.

Thanks.
Old 04-13-05, 05:16 PM
  #2  
OooooohWeeeee

iTrader: (3)
 
Compilez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
If it is possible, the turbo's probably wouldn't make it 1,000 miles.
Old 04-13-05, 05:20 PM
  #3  
Slow RX-7

 
rotorsownyou7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Compilez
If it is possible, the turbo's probably wouldn't make it 1,000 miles.

Screw that, they wouldn't make it 100 miles.
Old 04-13-05, 05:24 PM
  #4  
Missin' my FD

Thread Starter
 
pianoprodigy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seminole, FL (Tampa Bay Area)
Posts: 1,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pianoprodigy
I know that even if it is possible, it's going to kill the turbos from all the heat. Regardless, ignore that.
.
Old 04-13-05, 05:40 PM
  #5  
Slow RX-7

 
rotorsownyou7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Possible, maybe, anyone done it, not that I know of.
Old 04-13-05, 05:56 PM
  #6  
Rotary Freak

iTrader: (3)
 
Jay7 Nyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC - SFL
Posts: 1,696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Look up screen name ' boostn7' he made 410RWHP on stock twins and ran 10s at the track..
Old 04-13-05, 06:01 PM
  #7  
Slow RX-7

 
rotorsownyou7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jxy nyc
Look up screen name ' boostn7' he made 410RWHP on stock twins and ran 10s at the track..

Dude, read what he wrote again.
Old 04-13-05, 06:09 PM
  #8  
Veni, Vidi, Vici

iTrader: (4)
 
Nuvolari's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 1,253
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
400hp on stock twins, good luck perhaps one or two passes on the 1/4mile, you may have better luck looking for Bigfoot, or a Yeti
Old 04-13-05, 06:45 PM
  #9  
Chasing numbers

iTrader: (5)
 
sk8world's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 5,097
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Hell, I was thinking 430 on stock ports with a single was good. On stock twins even running non sequential it a hell of an acomplishment..
Old 04-13-05, 09:20 PM
  #10  
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
 
njstreetrx7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: new jersey
Posts: 2,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
nope actually the car ran good and was relible!!! but they didnt last as long bostn7 is one of the best at tuning the apexi
Old 04-13-05, 10:24 PM
  #11  
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
 
superior_force's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
assuming it's not bs, these are very good #s for 6500 rpm and Mustang dyno

https://www.rx7club.com/time-slips-dyno-121/spank-dyno-chart-411977/
Old 04-13-05, 11:03 PM
  #12  
Mr. Links

iTrader: (1)
 
Mahjik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 27,595
Received 40 Likes on 26 Posts
pianoprodigy,

Unless there are some old schoolers like Kevin or Jim who know something different, I've only seen a few "close" to 400rwhp with the sequential setup and those weren't on stock twins. One was artguy with the M2 twins (around 380rwhp) and kwikrx7 a little lower using the BNR's.
Old 04-13-05, 11:23 PM
  #13  
Missin' my FD

Thread Starter
 
pianoprodigy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seminole, FL (Tampa Bay Area)
Posts: 1,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mahjik
pianoprodigy,

Unless there are some old schoolers like Kevin or Jim who know something different, I've only seen a few "close" to 400rwhp with the sequential setup and those weren't on stock twins. One was artguy with the M2 twins (around 380rwhp) and kwikrx7 a little lower using the BNR's.
I was waiting for you to reply, and I had similar thoughts about hearing from Kevin or Jim. Hopefully one of them will find his way in here.
Old 04-13-05, 11:39 PM
  #14  
Do it right, do it once

iTrader: (30)
 
turbojeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Eugene, OR, usa
Posts: 4,830
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by superior_force
assuming it's not bs, these are very good #s for 6500 rpm and Mustang dyno

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?t=411977
Those aren't stock turbos, they do run sequentially. I drove it this weekend, it pulls pretty hard from down low!
Old 04-14-05, 12:03 AM
  #15  
None

 
Kevin T. Wyum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,318
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I don't recall anyone running at 400+ on stock twins in sequential trim. At anything nearing those power levels the sequential operation actually becomes a handicap restricting flow with no real benefit in spool time as there is essentially none. Why does it matter if it's running in sequential mode? Are you wondering if the stock wheels and housings can do 400+ or is this some silly pissing match you're having with someone saying, it didn't come from the factory in non-sequential!?
Old 04-14-05, 12:29 AM
  #16  
Missin' my FD

Thread Starter
 
pianoprodigy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seminole, FL (Tampa Bay Area)
Posts: 1,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kevin T. Wyum
I don't recall anyone running at 400+ on stock twins in sequential trim. At anything nearing those power levels the sequential operation actually becomes a handicap restricting flow with no real benefit in spool time as there is essentially none. Why does it matter if it's running in sequential mode? Are you wondering if the stock wheels and housings can do 400+ or is this some silly pissing match you're having with someone saying, it didn't come from the factory in non-sequential!?
This person maintained that the 400 rwhp number was going to happen by changing nothing but increasing the boost and adding water injection but NOT leaning it out/tuning for the water injection. This post wasn't intended to spark a sequential v. non-sequential debate, but I was under the impression (correct?) that non-sequential twins will make more topend by sacrificing a bit of spool. I thought that someone may have made over 400 whp with non-sequential twins (JD, 402 rwhp according to his sig), so I wanted to clarify that I was only interested in the potential of the twins in the sequential setup.
Old 04-14-05, 07:36 AM
  #17  
DinoDude

 
tcb100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Harpers Ferry, West Virginia
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What difference would sequential versus non-sequential make for ultimate power? Once both turbos are on, they are on. How can there be a difference from from 4,500 RPM up?
Old 04-14-05, 08:20 AM
  #18  
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary

 
matty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: CT
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 14 Posts
i tune on sunday with steve kan. Hopefully going to up the boost above my current 15psi. I have all the boltons stock twins and motor. so stay tuned. I doubt i get anything near that level but we will see.

If you do a search under my username you will see i have taken a pretty good amount of heat for this very discussion. I share your view but alot of the oldschoolers think 400rwhp and 120mph traps are attainable and more importantly safely done.

i will link a member who has one of the more vocal oppossing view to this thread

Last edited by matty; 04-14-05 at 08:28 AM.
Old 04-14-05, 08:20 AM
  #19  
Missin' my FD

Thread Starter
 
pianoprodigy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seminole, FL (Tampa Bay Area)
Posts: 1,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tcb100
What difference would sequential versus non-sequential make for ultimate power? Once both turbos are on, they are on. How can there be a difference from from 4,500 RPM up?
I didn't realize that this is the case. I was under the impression that there was some kind of "door" in the the exhaust manifold that directed air to either the primary or secondary turbo.
Old 04-14-05, 08:22 AM
  #20  
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary

 
matty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: CT
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by tcb100
What difference would sequential versus non-sequential make for ultimate power? Once both turbos are on, they are on. How can there be a difference from from 4,500 RPM up?
going ns takes out some restrictions. more flow = more power.
Old 04-14-05, 08:32 AM
  #21  
Mr. Links

iTrader: (1)
 
Mahjik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 27,595
Received 40 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by matty
going ns takes out some restrictions. more flow = more power.
Theorectically.

Originally Posted by tcb100
What difference would sequential versus non-sequential make for ultimate power? Once both turbos are on, they are on. How can there be a difference from from 4,500 RPM up?
For the most part, there is little difference on ultimate power; you just lose the low end. Rynberg posted two dynos of cars, one seq and one non-seq in another thread. The seq setup has almost 70 ft/lbs of more torque more than the non-seq in the lower rpms. That's quite a bit considering how little our torque numbers are as a whole.

However, many people have run into problems with the sequential system when trying to increase the power (beyond a certain point). This is why people going for power only either go non-seq or single turbo.
Old 04-14-05, 09:17 AM
  #22  
Senior Member

 
RotorFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I realized a little something while i was reading this post, can the stock injectors duty cycle handle the 16psi fuel map? If not what should i need? 850ccs all around?
Old 04-14-05, 09:28 AM
  #23  
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary

 
matty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: CT
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by RotorFrank
I realized a little something while i was reading this post, can the stock injectors duty cycle handle the 16psi fuel map? If not what should i need? 850ccs all around?
need to upgrade the inj. i have 1300cc inj. Pretty common to get these.
Old 04-14-05, 10:37 AM
  #24  
DinoDude

 
tcb100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Harpers Ferry, West Virginia
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RotorFrank, I run 17-18 lbs at the drag strip on race gas, with the stock injectors but an upgraded fuel pump. I don't think bigger injectors are needed with the usual bolt-ons. My duty cycles are 90%-95%. I don't know what other upgrades you have done to your car, of course.

Mahjik, the dynos I have seen eliminate the dip that occurs as the first turbo starts to run out of steam. You get a more linear plot, but I like low end too much to consider it.

Seems to me the bottom line is boost. If you get more boost non-sequential, I can understand more power but usually non-sequentials and sequentials pretty much boost the same when both turbos are at full bore. I run a cat so I have plenty of restriction anyway.

Boostn7's numbers are like Secretariat's heart - a freak of nature. The power he makes, his times, his 60foot times on drag radials, are simply unreachable by us mere mortals.
Old 04-14-05, 10:46 AM
  #25  
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary

 
matty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: CT
Posts: 4,923
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by tcb100
RotorFrank, I run 17-18 lbs at the drag strip on race gas, with the stock injectors but an upgraded fuel pump. I don't think bigger injectors are needed with the usual bolt-ons. My duty cycles are 90%-95%. I don't know what other upgrades you have done to your car, of course.

Mahjik, the dynos I have seen eliminate the dip that occurs as the first turbo starts to run out of steam. You get a more linear plot, but I like low end too much to consider it.

Seems to me the bottom line is boost. If you get more boost non-sequential, I can understand more power but usually non-sequentials and sequentials pretty much boost the same when both turbos are at full bore. I run a cat so I have plenty of restriction anyway.

Boostn7's numbers are like Secretariat's heart - a freak of nature. The power he makes, his times, his 60foot times on drag radials, are simply unreachable by us mere mortals.
thats a good et for having the cat in there.


Quick Reply: Any dyno charts of 400 rwhp on stock twins?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 AM.