Fd3BOOST

iTrader: (7)

Billybudboy whatever. Ryan isnt smart enough to use photoshop for christ sakes.
There Ryan I had to get your back..Errr sortoff

Hee Hee

E. Whats your current dyno sheet lookin like?
What are the #'s?

R Xplicit

billy bob must have a mullet, and is a real-live RIKKI [hence the name BB] and is simply hating on ryan. old hair doooo's suck. **********

great numbers. you *should* see a bigger increase on the upper end with your new port job.....good luck

Billy Bob, who are you really?

artguy

who ever mentioned the 388 hp on stockers by anthony...Id bet cash money that was one run...lol...just cuz you get one good run out of a car does not mean that you can drive it that way.

you cannot drive a rex on stockers at over 14lbs of boost without damaging them quickly...you will have to push 18-20 lbs on the stockers to get that kind of power....and a big port...no way those turbos would hold up for more than a small amount of time under that amount of heat....thats what you get when you push the stockers over 14lbs..you get heat.

rikki should take a look at his twins..i wonder how much damage is on them from running those boost levels..13-14lbs.

i dont think its photoshop...why would a person do that...he posted it so we could all see what a dyno chart for non seq with mods looks like...to compare vs the other turbos or seq...i dont think he is trying to pull anyones leg...his car is broken...no motah...

thanks to rikki for posting the chart. it was good to see the power curve.


j

ErnieT

iTrader: (2)

You really shouldn't comment on things you have no experience with. I ran 16psi on my stockers for over 1.5 yrs and had no ill effects. In fact, when I went single turbo, I sold the stockers for $500, looking brand new, I might add.
Anthonly ran 19psi to make those numbers with a stock motor.......thats right, no porting. He ran 11.1@121mph. and 11.2's numerous times after that.

Fd3BOOST

iTrader: (7)

And to add to Ernies comments Ryans car is working the new engine has been in for a few days now.
His turbos were beat before he was running his current setup anyway. Thier seal failure is what helped contribute to the popped rear rotor.
He swapped them out when installing the new motor and did several mods while at it. His new set up sould be kickass after break-in and tunning.

Tim Benton

iTrader: (1)

I've always said that there is minimal gain with the non-seq vs. seg, everything else being the same. Like Stephen pointed out, the non-seq. is down almost 70 HP in the low end, then has 20 to 30 more in the mid range, but its about even going up to redline. If I had time to overlay them, the seq would have more area under the curve, meaning its overall through all rpm ranges, makes more HP on average than the non-seq. The ONLY benefit I see is the rat's nest is gone, but if you did the tie-wrap job, it is a non issue and you might save 1.5 lbs from taking the soleniods and other related items out. Heck comparing these 2 dyno sheets in this thread has me definitely in the camp of don't do it, but hey, everyone's different.

Tim

Tim Benton

iTrader: (1)

Although Ryan's dyno sheet looks like its been used to change the oil and wipe the dipstick, its kinda hard to tell the lines on his to the near exact hp and torque figures.

Baddog - 230 ft/lbs from 3K to 4500K, goes from 275 at 5 K and drops to about 270 at 6200 rpms.
Ryans - looks like 150 at 3 K then goes to the peak 288 at 4500. then stays there from 4500 to 6200 in the 285 range, nice flat range through there.

damn it, I just refuted my first post, although it still depends on the owner and what they want the power curve to be.
Either way, good numbers.

Tim

Wargasm

Whilst we're on the topic of comparing dynos.. I've got a little tool that I helped make at

http://www.catenet.net/dyno.php

that lets you roughly compare dynos of actual cars. Where possible, I've collected information about mods too!

Note that the software that generates the graphs sometimes puts a little wiggle in here or there, or something that might not have been exactly like that in the original but they are damn close. The graphs there are not absolutely 100% accurate because they are generated on the fly from a table of RPM vs HP that I have stored on the server... but they are true to the overall original and can be used to make some general observations.

B

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

I was told they won't dyno because of the complaints (nearby houses) so I would have to go elsewhere..but they do seem to dyno selectivly...HMMMMM Between me and my brother we have spent over 30,000 not to mention all the business I refered to PFS, I kind of feel like a second class citizen..You guys from PFS want to explain this to me..?

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

Gordon, That's a ported motor...It might be Lane B's car which had every bolt on including an XR-1 and a full day of tweaking (7 hours) at PFS..He dynoed 363 peak. A non ported engine would make less obviously..

KevinK2

Ryan hit 13 psi by about 4500 rpm, based on start of flat torque curve.

From is datalog, Baddog ran a regulated 9.3 psi from 3k to 4500 in single mode. In twin mode. started at 10.4 psi at 5k and rose to 12 psi at 6.5k where max hp was first hit.

If Baddog tuned to regulate at 13 psi across the board, and made the transition happen 200 rpm earlier (as u did with PFC?), then he would have one, very fat torque curve.

BillyBob

PFS is bogus, you can pay them to make you a custom dyno sheet.



PFS



PFS is

Badog

Nice runs, Ryan!

KevinK2, I'll have a new run by the 27th with some boost tuning. In search of the big fat torque curve...

93TTRX7

Stop hatin'

BillyBob

& Start the lovin'

jspecracer7

You give hicks a bad name Billy likes Bob

SaltyDog12

he gained almost 150Hp within 500RPMs (5k-5.5k). I sure would hate to have that kick in while playing in a good curve.
NOT HATING> but singles and non-sequentials have too much "all at once" power to handle well on anything other than a straight line. I would enjoy the same power applied even and consistantly.

jimlab

Note that Rikki's graph is labeled "STD Horsepower", while Max's is labeled "SAE Corrected Horsepower". Rikki, did you not have PFS correct your readings at all, or did you just choose to post the uncorrected (higher) output for some reason?

jimlab

Lighten up? I can understand why you're hot under the collar at this point in the thread, but I was only pointing out that the readings in the picture you posted had not been corrected, and are therefore higher. If anything, that should calm people down a little because your SAE corrected readings should be more in line with "average" results.

BTW, my Z06 put down nearly 380 RWHP bone stock... uncorrected. SAE corrected horsepower was 355.6. There's a big difference, and sometimes people use the standard readings for bragging rights (I'm not accusing, just making a statement) when in reality, the corrected numbers (which are intended to make dyno results from different parts of the country more or less comparable) would have been a bit lower.

Personally, I could care less what your affiliation with Peter Farrell is, as long as you're happy with the service and results. That's all that really matters, isn't it?

SPOautos

Interesting, but I dont think all the mags that were busting vettes and everything else back in the early/mid 90's on road race courses with the stock seq system had too many problems with it. Could be wrong though

You adapt, if you dont want to be in the 4500rpm range.....downshift, it gives you more power anyway to downshift and hit the band around 6000.

STEPHEN

Tim Benton

iTrader: (1)

I plan on going to the dyno again tonight, to tune in the 99 spec turbos I just installed, nothing else. My last run at roughly 13.2 psi netter 334 rwhp, every mod possible except ported motor. I'll post the number later tonight when I scan it in. I'll have both runs, tonights and my previous best, on the same graph. I just want to see the difference, if any the 99 spec turbo make at the same boost level.

Tim

ttpowerd

I believe that is a sequential setup. Otherwise his curve would be a lot smoother and he would not have that drastic dip (the secondary coming online) @ 5k rpm.

I could be wrong but compare the smooth graph of a non-seq. with the dipped graph of a seq. and you will see where I am coming from.

nocab72

I'm anxious to see your graphs! With the same psi, you should be able to push more CFM with those 99 spec's.

BTW: anyone know where I can specs on the stocks vs 99's ... it should help us determine what we should get out of the BNR's or M2's based on gains from stocks to 99's if we know the specs on all of them...

K