no
just as many people have trapped 120 plus as people who have put down 390- 400 plus rwhp.

and i am sorry i dont believe 360 rwhp equals 120 plus traps unless the car is on a serious diet. i make 340 and trap 116mph. thats inline. 360 trapping 120 isnt.360 rwhop doesnt trap 120 plus. dont go and show me one time slip either. Thats isnt gonna change my mind. Very very few people on the stock twins trap 120 plus but alot make 360 rwhp...explain that one for me!!!!

As i have said there are plenty of time slips in the time slip section of guys making 360. they dont trap 120 plus.

 

Overall its been done but the car wont last long

 

No

 

the most i've ever seen on stock twins is 387rwhp at 17psi with a ported motor and all the bolt ons with 1300cc secondary injectors and a straight pipe. The problem was that the turbos didn't want to hold boost at 17psi or go any higher than that or maybe 400rwhp would have been possible

 

r71 did 384rwhp on stock twins at 17.9psi on a stock ported motor. It had just about every other mod you could throw on it though. Didn't seem that the turbos would last long like that though.

 

"Possible to have around 400rwhp from stock twins reliably?"


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...................

 

No

 

Tell me exactly how many have put down 390 rwhp and then give the exact number of people who have made 360 plus rwhp and trapped 120 plus...Opps you CANNOT. You don't have any idea.


Wrong again. This is a FACT. Brooks car weighed 2780 without driver and he trapped 121 with 360 rwhp. These guys DIDN'T lighten their cars up. You keep changing your story.

You said 120 traps aren't possible so I gave you multiple examples. I showed it takes ~360 rwhp on twins with a well driven and tuned car to do it. Not many have done it? If one person does it it is POSSIBLE. It's not the norm? BS it is, see below.

Jimlab
"I trapped 119.2 mph @ 14 psi. Do a little weight trimming and raise your boost up to 15+ psi, and I think 120+ mph is relatively easily attainable. Brooks Weisblat trapped 120+ mph, Kevin Wyum trapped 120+ mph, etc."

Kevin Wyum
"With the same bolt-on's done and assuming everything else is working with the car I could get 120mph out of any normal 3rd Gen, excluding automagics of course."

"Well then I hit 125mph on non-seq worked stock turbos. I thought you meant stock turbos. The other guy who ran a ten did it on actual stock turbos I believe."

Jodney
"In March of 2001 I trapped 122 mph at 18-19 pounds of boost with stock twins/stock port/m2 medium/ rp fuel pump/ crane hi 6/ PFC and m2 intake."

"I set up my buddies car with a similar homemade map. He has almost the same combo but a ported engine. Recently he hit 123 mph @ 15.5 pounds of boost."


Boostn7
"The twins turbos were completely stock 94 FD twins.....no upgraded wheels."
*Ported-motor/stock twins/pump gas*
-10.98 @ 122.9mph(ET streets)
-11.08 @ 125.3mph ( Nitto drags)


http://rx7s.com/tandrracing/team/team.htm

Anthonys 1993 Rx7 - 386 RWHP - 11.1@122.6 mph - Stock Pettit Ecu

This guy ran 120.6 mph on 360 rwhp on a 80 degree Florida day.
http://www.bridow.com/rx7/dragquick.html



340 isn't 360 rwhp is it?. Just because YOU can't do it or suck has nothing to do with anything. IT HAS BEEN DONE OVER AND OVER.


IT WAS ALREADY DONE! It isn't debatable! It's FACT! You lose!




Then the facts don't matter. You aren't interested in the facts you want to believe what you want to believe it's called denial. You are wasting bandwidth and everyones time.

I just gave you a list. Please, show me a list with all the cars that make 360 rwhp plus on stock twins, then show me how many of those cars are running right then show me the drivers are capable. YOU CANNOT. You have no idea.

All it takes is ONE! That means it was done! I gave you a LIST of guys that trap 120-126 mph on the twins. Go away you are looking stupid and wasting bandwidth.

 

Bro' I keep reading your posts and I can't help but wonder.....what's your point? You shared your opinion once, twice, three times....whats the point in rehashing it all the time throughout the forum? I just don't get it. I don't really want to be rude but I am wondering are your posts helping anyone or adding to any RX-7 knowledge??
John

 

in this case u are right. This particular topic is just bothering me.

 

i am not looking like nothing...u think i care what u think? i mean really..what kind of dumb comment is that.
most cars dont trap 120 rwhp w/o upgrading the turbos. 99% of them. thats it. i am finished. If you want to make a conclusion based on that 1% thats your busy. I really think its YOUR arguing, now that i think about it. I have an opinion and YOU are disagreeing...and now u flame me...interesting.

 

>Possible to have around 400rwhp from stock twins reliably?

Its possible but not reliable for the turbos themselves.

Is it possible? I am shooting for 11's and I want to use my stock turbos. my engine needs to be rebuilt and I might go extreme and get a brigport/half bridgeport. All i want is about 400rwhp. If I'm boosting around 17psi with my stock twins is that just asking for trouble. Of course I will take care of the fueling and I have a Power FC for tuning but I don't know if this is a good idea or not.<

Now.... to run 11's you don't need ~400rwh.
The sweet spot for the stock twins is about ~15psi, about 350-360rwh with the right bolt-ons and minor tuning.

>This is a FACT. Brooks car weighed 2780 without driver and he trapped 121 with 360 rwhp. These guys DIDN'T lighten their cars up. You keep changing your story<

He was obviously making over 360rwh !!! Do the math.

>"I set up my buddies car with a similar homemade map. He has almost the same combo but a ported engine. Recently he hit 123 mph @ 15.5 pounds of boost."<
123mph @ 15.5psi !!!!! BULLSHIT, unless he's @ 2500lbs w/driver.

Now, the stock turbos will stay together for a long time up to 17psi...I did it for over a year. Above that they are really being stressed.
I ran 125mph few times on stock twins on a ported motor which is actually closer to ~425rwh !!!! Their limit is actually in the exhaust manifold/turbine side. They were NOT designed to flow ~400rwh worth of exhaust!!!
Upgaded twins will reach the same limit of hp as the stockers for the same reason.
Turbine pressure and heat is what kills them at those levels.

To run 120mph ++ you need more then 380rwh!!! simple fact on a ~2900lb FD w/driver.

[btw, not calling you a bs'er, just illustrating the difficulty in duplicating JD's car]

Rich, the set up is easily duplicated...I have no custom/secret parts.
When I started running over 17psi I spent alot of time around the PowerFC modifying the maps(reference scale) to increase accuracy at those higher boost levels. So my maps are completely different then the default map.
Since I drive it everyday I often keep an eye on the FJO wideband to see where it needs adjustments.

So my final word.....
Set it to 15-16psi on the stock twins and with the right bolt-ons, tires and driver 11's is no problem...... and the turbos will last plenty.

Hope this helps.....

 

yes...finally someone that jknows soemthing.

Mrrx7tt....u are wrong on allot of what u say....people siding wiht you are newbies that simply see sopmeone getting attacked and jump on the band wagon
and i got news for you 340 rwhp and 116mph is a damn good trap..dont know where u got that idea that that sucks.

Come on goodfellas, jimlab and the rest of you....i want to hear your input.

 

That depends on which math you use. The "math", as you put it, is just an estimate, and there are several formulas to choose from...

Engineer Roger Huntington's 1960s-era formula - MPH = 225 * (hp/weight)^0.3333

Professor Geoffrey T. Fox's 2001 formula - MPH = 230 * (hp/weight)^0.3333

Lucius/Road&Track formula - MPH = 219.87 * (hp/weight)^0.3138

hp is flywheel horsepower, by the way.

Not true.

364 RWHP (from Brooks Weisblat's dyno sheet) = ~428 flywheel horsepower (15% losses)

Huntington formula
MPH = 225 * (428/2900)^0.3333
MPH = 118.9 mph

Fox Formula
MPH = 230 * (428/2900)^0.3333
MPH = 121.6 mph

LRT Formula
MPH = 219.87 * (428/2900)^0.3138
MPH = 120.6 mph

Since Brooks managed a best run of 11.42 @ 120.6 mph (gee... that looks familiar), we know that it IS possible. Estimated trap speed, on the other hand, varies depending on which formula you use.

 

Yes if its done once it is posible, but whats that really mean anyways? I think its better to see whats more common. And in this case it is more common to run 114-118mph with the stock twins and all the boltons. So if Joe Smoe asked me what kind of traps or rwhp are the stock twins running i would feel much more comfortable in say 114-118mph making 330-360 rwhp.

 

Kevin Wyum and I are newbies? That's news to me.

2,907 lbs. with driver...



307.6 RWHP...



Guess what Brian trapped on the day I watched him run at SIR. 114.x mph. What an amazing coincidence, since Fox's formula estimates 114.9 mph, and the LRT formula estimates 114.3.

 

i was refferring to some name calling 16 yr old from another thread.

and i certainly didnt think that u agreed that 400 rwhp and 120 mph traps are a resonable expectation when keeping the stock twins and a safe boost level.

116mph and 340 rwhp works perfectly in the calculatiors that i used...my car weighed soemthing like 2940 with me in.

I cut 2.0 sixty foot times with street tires..not the best by any means. but not bad for a person that goes once or twice a yr. Sure if i cutr a 1.7 it muight be slightly higher but i thought thats a pretty good trap based on the reports that i have read on thsi forum in the time slip section.

 

I am correct, period. I also don't keep changing my story like you either.

The people who you say are jumping on the bandwagon are not newbies and if they were it wouldn't matter. They ran 120 mph traps on the twins. (360 plus rwhp).

Please show me which one of these guys is a newbie?

Brooks? Nope
Jimlab? Nope
Jodney? Nope
Anthony? Nope
Boostn7? Nope
Me? Nope

You are wrong again. Telling someone they are starting to look stupid isn't a flame btw. Before you start accusing others you had better read your own flaming posts aimed at me.

"u act like a ******* jerkoff if u ask me..veteran to rx7 maybe but immature like a 15 yr old."

 

If it was done once you just lost the debate...You said it couldn't be done. It also wasn't done once but numberous times by MULTIPLE forum members...(Complete with posted timeslips and dynos). You are so hard up you won't even admit you are wrong. Comical little fellow you are. Did you ever join this society?
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm

 

>364 RWHP (from Brooks Weisblat's dyno sheet) = ~428 flywheel horsepower (15% losses)

Huntington formula
MPH = 225 * (428/2900)^0.3333
MPH = 118.9 mph

Fox Formula
MPH = 230 * (428/2900)^0.3333
MPH = 121.6 mph

LRT Formula
MPH = 219.87 * (428/2900)^0.3138
MPH = 120.6 mph

Since Brooks managed a best run of 11.42 @ 120.6 mph (gee... that looks familiar), we know that it IS possible. Estimated trap speed, on the other hand, varies depending on which formula you use.<

Using both Fox and LRT formulas for ETs they're way off.
Fox formula:
120.6 mph @ 2900lbs= 418 hp
11.42 ET@ 2900lbs= 480 hp

LRT formula:
120.6mph @ 2900lbs= 428 hp
11.42 ET @ 2900lbs= 504 hp

Now let's use Patrick Hale's formulaused the most)
120.6mph @ 2900= 397 hp
11.42 ET @ 2900= 385 hp

There's alot variables that will affect the numbers....

Do you think dyno hp numbers and actual pavement hp numbers are the same ?????? mainly in a turbo car.

Later
JD

 

Well, they seem to be eerily close to the results for the car tests that Road & Track have done, not to mention the real-world example I showed above, but of course they are just estimates.

That's certainly true, including DA, tire contact patch (coefficient of friction), tire diameter, gearing, tire air pressure, weight transfer, and track condition, not to mention driver skill.

I think you don't know how to quote someone else's post properly.

 

<Do you think dyno hp numbers and actual pavement hp numbers are the same ??????

I think you don't know how to quote someone else's post properly. >

You ASSumed I was quoting someone !!!!!! I wasn't.

JD

 

Silly me, I could have sworn you were quoting my post in your own.

 

You might be able too, but they, or you aren't gonna like it. Maybe if you got some of the 99+ high flows you would get a little closer, but they probably will not like that too much either....There is always race gas, as was mentioned....that will help too....

 

man, look at all the lovable old timers in one post. vintage arguing too...gotta enjoy it.

the fact of the matter is that many things are possible and in this situation have happened in the past... ala boostn and his 402rwhp with time slips to back it up.

the question isnt if its possible more than the question is... is it reliable to do so? I can say this much...of all the guys I know who ran or run twins at that boost, or even upgraded twins (myself, goodfella, spoautos etc...) every one of them has either gone thru twins or motors in unreliable fashion. spo lost his motor, i lost my motor, goodfella now runs the new bnr's...ya follow? in my case it wasnt the turbos that cost me my motor as it was the **** tuning done by xs. the point is the same though...odds of most guys getting all the **** straight on their car even with knowledge behind them is slim.

its not just the twins though...go in the single turbo forums and do a poll to see how many of their cars are actually running. I bet two dollars it is less than half. my car is a great example...it is being tuned and built by gotham which has some of the nicest and most knowledgable guys around...yet it has been there nearly a year...and it is still not running well enough to pick it up.

these old cars really are one problem after another when you mod them out.

heavily modifying vehicles leads to unreliability. period. to reach 400rwhp you need to heavily modify your vehicle. that is the only math you need to do.


jason