Hah, you naysayers are going to get owned!

 

Well maybe if the original poster had mentioned this very minor detail, I wouldn't have said his numbers were suspect.

Mental note: Post my friend's 780 rwhp dyno tomorrow...









Oh yeah that's on a Supra motor, but I won't say anything

 

nobody cares to see your friends dynosheet.

 

Let's have some more details of the setup...

What tranny and diff are you using?
What tires are you running in the rear?
How is the engine mounted? (Pettit subframe? Custom job? What?)
How much do you figure the total setup cost ya?
Got any pics of the install?

 

If you search for posts by "Red-Rx7", you'll see a few pics of it (but not in it's newly completed state).

 

As the size of the engine goes up the pressure that it takes to make a certain cfm goes down. Since he increased his displacement 50% I'd imagine the pressure dropped 50%. The reason is the 50% larger engine takes 50% more cfm to make the same boost. On a 13B you'd prob have to run twice as much pressure to get the same cfm...which would prob be about right (28psi for 600+rwhp on a 13b)

BTW - Nice numbers man. What size injectors are you running and what engine management?

STEPHEN

 

You have an awfully big mouth for someone that I've never heard of on here... I rarely get into flame battles... but please go away!

 

Good numbers... I have a couple other 20B dynos here and you're doing really nicely:

http://www.catenet.net/graph.php?car...1&SUBMIT=GRAPH

 

The name "Resource" might ring a bell.

 

Sweet, a real 3 rotor dyno!!!
Congrats dude. A faily low stress 600whp at that.

 

Guess I'm the only one that thinks that's funny! LOL

 

Yea, how could you miss the blue Resoure-mobile in the sig, Wargasm?

 

Something must be wrong with that T72 graph in your link, they should be making that power with a 13B....even at those boost levels. Maybe something was wrong with the car

STEPHEN

 

Well I don't tune/test the cars, I just find dynos and put them in there.

As for me not seeing the Resourcemobile in the sig, I've had a hell of a day and I'm not thinking clearly... and I was in no mood to see what I thought was an "April Fools" type dyno in here....

Sorry for casting doubt without asking for a mods list first, that was my bad!

B

 

I apologize for calling BS without knowing it was a 3-rotor as well, although you might want to post a mods list next time...

I still stand by the fact that SAE numbers are more accurate and comparable than "actual". It is very easy to tweak the settings on a dyno to produce whatever numbers you want.

 

SO take it out to a track already and see what mph you get on pump gas. We wont care if your ET sucks *****, I want to see a mph

Also, what is the weight of the car? Any idea?

PLEASE get a mph

STEPHEN

 

Hey why are you still reading? You supposed to be on your way to the track lol

 

SAE numbers are NO more accurate than actual horsepower numbers. If you want the truth ACTUAL horsepower numbers are as accurate as you can get since they are the exact horsepower readings for his location. SAE is a means of standardizing horsepower readings thus elevation ect doesn't play as big a role. However SAE is less accurate because it isn't climate specific.

 

So what you're saying is that if you tied a rope to the tow hook of this car and the other end to the necks of 600 horses, you could win a tug of war?

I DONT BELIEVE IT!!

 

You're right, the "actual" number is the "actual" number at the time of the dyno -- minus whatever fudge factors the dyno operator has put in....

However, comparisons with other dyno results are meaningless unless all numbers are SAE. And yes, SAE takes into account climate conditions as well as elevation.

 

Well since 1000ft times are also location specific it seems more logical to use dyno times that are location specific as well =) However I like to keep both SAE and actual dyno sheets handy just for the fun of it.

 

I think the first part of of the thread with all the Bs was funny to those that knew it was a 3 rotor. I'm alo interested to see what kinda trap speeds you can get with that setup.

~Luke

 

Guestimating that the car weighs 2800 and Mike weighs 160. This brings the total weight to 2960 + 628 rwhp = 9.70 @ 139mph w/ good driving and track conditions

 

i would suspect he would have a little higher then 139 trap speed. Sometimes those performance calculators suck ***. He would have to have some tall *** tires though or he would be shifting into 5th (unless he has different gear ratios)

 

Great numbers Mike! I'm envious!
I'm also glad you got everything sorted out.
Chris