Everyone should have this bookmarked.
http://www.turbofast.com.au/Drag.html

2900#
620hp (to the wheels)

9.74 @ 140


-Ted

 

The car weighs 2940 with driver, and I had about 568 when I redyno my car after the race. I was running a new setup. I wasn't running the 32-30 psi at the track as I was in the AVI. I had made some changes at E-town and it brought the power down. I'm sorry you guys are having such a hard time believe this. BTW, how much power is Pluto making to the wheels? I thought I read something posted from him saying "the most I've made that was a clean run was 640rwhp" Has he gone 9's@140+ not that I know of. This doesn't mean he isn't or hasn't made that much power does it? just wondering...


-Ray

 

Guys, common...at what point do you throw in the towel..? If you knew the hours these guys had in tuning alone your mouth would drop. Those are great numbers and I am impressed. Good job...you also Russell.........Chris

 

So why would someone pay $2500 for a TECIII when you can get a wolf3ed or haltech e6k for $1000-$1300? How can they be making money doing business like that?

 

Some of you need to realise that calculators estimate a perfect run and spot on diff ratio etc.

A guy I know down here has a 1st gen running 10.40s @ 131mph. He changed his diff ratio from 4.3 to 4.8s and picked up 6mph. Nothing else was changed.

If I changed my diff ratios I would be in the 9s easy and running high 130mph not 133mph. Why? Because then my diff ratio would match my tyre height and allow the engine to hit max RPM over the line.

Nice times, big numbers Ray, all the best mate.

Steve

 

1fookntitefd... how is your pipes ghetto? I wonder who made such ghetto pipes
Do you have a picture of it? Does it clear the power steering benjo or it rubs it?

 

Its called variety, if that was the case then motec, microtec, wolf or any other EMS manufacture would not be making any money. People want different products. Look at it this way, what if Kraft was the only one making cheese, sure you would be fine with it but what about the other millions of cheese eaters out there. I have always been curious about the tecIII, maybe if I see some more numbers then Ill go ahead and pick up one.

 

Not to mention that the TecIII comes with ignition

 

When you made those runs at the track you were making 568rwhp wich is inline with the times. What I think everyone is confused about is the fact that your dyno numbers show 620 no nos and you run a 50 shot wich puts you 670 with nos. The assumtion I think gordon and ernie was under that you were making 670 when you were at the track when actually you were making 550rwhp. I'm sure you have made this power as I personally know it is possible but just not at the track yet Good luck this weekend!!

 

I will think twice before I post my new dyno sheet

 

go for it

 

Then I guess it all comes down to bragging rights, or you inadvertantly implied you're a crappy drag racing driver.

Whatever the case, it doesn't "look good".&nbsp I'm still waiting for the dyno sheet myself, or did I miss that also?

It kinda reminds me of the JZA80 showing off 800hp to the WHEELS on a dyno sheet, yet they were only able to click off a 11.0-11.1 1/4-mile time.&nbsp It makes you scratch your head - this thread is in the same boat.


-Ted

 

forcefed7's dyno sheets are here:

https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...5&pagenumber=3

 

Yes, there is a deviation factor involved, but I find the Ray Hall one pretty damn close.&nbsp I've ran a 13.447 @ 105.00 and dyno'd at 253.9hp at the wheels in my FC, and when I punch in 3000#, the numbers are within 2% on the ET and 1.5% on the MPH.&nbsp Even at an optimal 9.74 on 620hp, a 10.00 is within 2.6%, which is not unreasonable.&nbsp A slower 10.2 jumps up to a 4.6% deviation; the 10.35 is almost hitting 6%.&nbsp The 136 versus 140mph optimal is within 2.86% - not bad, but still within reason.

Maybe the original poster can add their comments on that 10.35 @ 136 run - a babied 60' time coupled with a bunch of baby shift can easily account for the discrepency.


-Ted

 

Maybe they are not hitting the same boost in each gear. The dyno was probably done in 4th gear at a certain boost level. If your not running that same boost level in 1, 2nd, and 3rd you wont be making as much power in those gears.

Also, while we are on the subject. I know the calculator is almost always close but I dont understand why. It only goes by peak power, it doesnt take into account curve. Using this situation as a example, lest just say he only holds 620rwhp for 400rpms causing his curve to be very "peaky". That car would be much slower than a car that makes 620 for say 1500 or so rpms with a nice flat curve........right.

How does it work, maybe thats why its not accurate in this situation. I have no idea, I'm no math guru or engineer.

STEPHEN

 

HP is the ability to push a certain weight (1 pound I think?) a certain distance (1 foot I think) in a certain time (1 second). So I would assume a calculator takes this equation and does it over 400 metres or 1320ft.

When drag racing, you want your car to sit in the meat of its powerband for most of the run, so things like power curves make little difference because if you are off the throttle long enough to drop the power under its peak range, you are doing it wrong

I should know, when I did my 10.3 I was off the throttle 100% between gear changes, which dropped the boost heaps and took ages to come back up on power....

 

550 pounds 1 foot in 1 sec=1hp

oops, wrong calculator work . 271hp to move 2800#'s 1320 feet in 10.3 sec. Of course not counting all the Hp losses in a car.

 

Umm yeah... I'm pretty sure I did that calculation wrong... Long day at work..

 

Yes, there is a deviation factor involved, but I find the Ray Hall one pretty damn close. I've ran a 13.447 @ 105.00 and dyno'd at 253.9hp at the wheels in my FC, and when I punch in 3000#, the numbers are within 2% on the ET and 1.5% on the MPH. Even at an optimal 9.74 on 620hp, a 10.00 is within 2.6%, which is not unreasonable. A slower 10.2 jumps up to a 4.6% deviation; the 10.35 is almost hitting 6%. The 136 versus 140mph optimal is within 2.86% - not bad, but still within reason.

Maybe the original poster can add their comments on that 10.35 @ 136 run - a babied 60' time coupled with a bunch of baby shift can easily account for the discrepency.


Ted, Those are great numbers and they are correct but read his post..He wasn't making 620 rwhp when he ran he was making 570 rwhp...

 

And anyone know what happened? Ray, how did you do?

 

I'm curious as to how the stock tranny is holding up......or is it not stock? That's a lot of power! Almost up there with Jason from AEM. He made 680rwhp with a 50 shot.......now that's power! I was just down at his house a couple weeks ago to talk cars and learn some new stuff about the AEM computer. I'm looking to be putting my car on the dyno soon...with a little help from Jason of course

Ray's car needs to break into the 9's! We need more RX7's running with the Supra's! Put that car on a diet and go for it

 

I would love a copy of jasons maps on that AEM. just to see the master at work.

 

Thats if he is even using the AEM

 

Greg: Me or Jason using the AEM? Of course Jason is! and me too in a very short time I'm still waiting on a few other things to come in that i ordered before i can start my car. I've already got the EMS.....i've had it for about 8 months Jason is running the AEM in his Supra and his 7. Actually the one in his 7 is the 1st model from his prior business.....the one that AEM is modeled after.

Amemiya: i'm not sure if i'll be sharing that kind of info.......gotta keep some things secret I know that sounds like **** but he doesn't tune for many people and i don't want to put him in a bad position by giving out any secrets he might have.