I overclocked my car this weekend!!!

[Gadflyii]

Here ya go...

My Overclocked car! (http://www.gadtek.com/supra/highway.wmv)

Camera car was a 911 GT2.....

Enjoy!

:woot:

[Soulburner]

Gotta love the Supras...can only run on the highway and whore their dyno numbers :p:

[Gadflyii]

I ran the 1/8th also, no video camera was there, but I ran:

1.9 60 ft time
7.1 sec @ 108mph

A stock (or modified) WS6 can not hang with me, from a roll, or from a stop..

The highway queens that have 70mm or larger turbo's (that generate over 1000hp) is what created the stereotype, but a Supra with a smaller turbo (like mine) makes full boost at 3200rpm, and more torque than a WS6 at 2180rpm. I launch at 3500 rpm.....

[WesM63]

nice.. but i'll take the GT2 :D

(I own a 87 Porsche 944 Turbo, puts down about 280rwhp (~190 stock))

[Magnj]

fancy...how fast was that run

[MaxxxRacer]

0-60 and 0-100 times?

either way.. nice car..

and id still take the GT2 as well... better handling, suspension, tranny, gas mileage, and most likely smoother power.

[CanadianTSi]

0-60 and 0-100 times?

7.1 at 108 would give him a 0-60 at a shade over 2 seconds.

PS I'd take your 10sec Supra any day :slobber:

[Gadflyii]

7.1 at 108 would give him a 0-60 at a shade over 2 seconds.

PS I'd take your 10sec Supra any day :slobber:


wow good guess!

[bachus_anonym]

That rev-up sound just rocks! And those "flames", hehe. Is that the trick with spark plugs or turbo does that? :D Sorry, not really tuner here...
Great ride :up:

[Gadflyii]

0-60 and 0-100 times?

either way.. nice car..

and id still take the GT2 as well... better handling, suspension, tranny, gas mileage, and most likely smoother power.

I'd have to aurgue all of those, but smoother power. When my turbo spools it feels like you get punched in the chest.

Handling? Well that is a relative term. For lateral G's the 911 might have a very small advantage, but turn in, braking, and exit speeds, I could take it. I don't like 911's on the track, the rear engine creates a pendulum effect. The supra will understeer if you push the coner too fast, but I would take minor controllable understeer over uncontrollable snap oversteer anyday.

Suspension? I'm not so sure why you would think the 911's suspension is better..... both are double wishbones with coil-over dampers.

Tranny? I will have stand my ground on that one. The Supra's German built GeTag v160 6spd is a fantastic transmission. Shifts can be a bit clunky, but it will handle well over 1000hp/1000 ft. lbs and still be reliable to well over 100,000 miles.


Better mileage? I get 26 mpg the GT2 is rated 14.7 city, 28 highway... my friends GT2 barely gets 21 highway... so Close enough I'll call it a tie.

Have yet to beaten on the track yet by any flavor of 911.

www.motorsportranch.com

[JasonDTM]

I'd have to aurgue all of those, but smoother power. When my turbo spools it feels like you get punched in the chest.

Handling? Well that is a relative term. For lateral G's the 911 might have a very small advantage, but turn in, braking, and exit speeds, I could take it. I don't like 911's on the track, the rear engine creates a pendulum effect. The supra will understeer if you push the coner too fast, but I would take minor controllable understeer over uncontrollable snap oversteer anyday.

Suspension? I'm not so sure why you would think the 911's suspension is better..... both are double wishbones with coil-over dampers.

Tranny? I will have stand my ground on that one. The Supra's German built GeTag v160 6spd is a fantastic transmission. Shifts can be a bit clunky, but it will handle well over 1000hp/1000 ft. lbs and still be reliable to well over 100,000 miles.



Sorry to spoil your parade about the 911 (Your car is nice car btw.) The 911's understeer, they do not suffer snap oversteer (only 914's ;) ) The oversteering on a 911 is Throttle induced, their general handling characteristics are understeering, When porsche designed the later 911's the went with a multi link rear, and coil a-arm setup in front, they're tuned to be fast on the track (Not drag racing) The Getrag transmissions are very well built units and will take any beating, the Later 80's carrera used the G50-5 speed, the 964, 993 and 996/997 use the later and stronger G50-6 speed.

The only downside to doing big Flat6's is money, you have to spend it to make the horsepower.

[MaxxxRacer]

^^ what he said :D

not a chance a Supra will take a 911 on the track. Get two guys who know how to push both of the cars to the limit and the supra will get left in the dust. There is a reason 911's are known for their great handling and there is also a reason the supra is known as a drag car... because that is what they are good at.

the oversteer on the 911's is what makes them so fast around the track.. i know it sounds wierd, but essentially you can get them around the turns faster by modulating the throttle to keep the best line.

"both are double wishbones with coil-over dampers."

so do alot of sporty cars.. doesnt mean they handle as well as the 911.. the GT2 has one of the fastes 700ft slamom speeds (70+mph) in history. It is only beaten by the Lotus Elise, CooperS (funny aint it).. and if u want to include race cars that R&T tested, the GT1 Porsche beats it by a bit... the Supra on the other hand is considerably slower.

[fatfreepork]

only JDM nissans could take 911's (silvia, skyline)

I'd still take the GT2. At the end of the day, he has a porsche... you have a toyota.

[Soulburner]

I ran the 1/8th also, no video camera was there, but I ran:

1.9 60 ft time
7.1 sec @ 108mph

A stock (or modified) WS6 can not hang with me, from a roll, or from a stop..

The highway queens that have 70mm or larger turbo's (that generate over 1000hp) is what created the stereotype, but a Supra with a smaller turbo (like mine) makes full boost at 3200rpm, and more torque than a WS6 at 2180rpm. I launch at 3500 rpm.....
Sure about that?

I'll match, and beat your 60-foot times. Supras just weren't made to launch well. Your engine power makes up for it though in the end. Not saying mine is faster, i've barely touched the car.

We'll see how they compare when my car comes out of hibernation in the spring :cool:

[Gadflyii]

Not the ones I drove.


Sorry to spoil your parade about the 911 (Your car is nice car btw.) The 911's understeer, they do not suffer snap oversteer (only 914's ;) ) The oversteering on a 911 is Throttle induced, their general handling characteristics are understeering, When porsche designed the later 911's the went with a multi link rear, and coil a-arm setup in front, they're tuned to be fast on the track (Not drag racing) The Getrag transmissions are very well built units and will take any beating, the Later 80's carrera used the G50-5 speed, the 964, 993 and 996/997 use the later and stronger G50-6 speed.

The only downside to doing big Flat6's is money, you have to spend it to make the horsepower.

[Gadflyii]

What you say is true only if you compare a Stock supra to a 911, which i am not doing.






^^ what he said :D

not a chance a Supra will take a 911 on the track. Get two guys who know how to push both of the cars to the limit and the supra will get left in the dust. There is a reason 911's are known for their great handling and there is also a reason the supra is known as a drag car... because that is what they are good at.

the oversteer on the 911's is what makes them so fast around the track.. i know it sounds wierd, but essentially you can get them around the turns faster by modulating the throttle to keep the best line.

"both are double wishbones with coil-over dampers."

so do alot of sporty cars.. doesnt mean they handle as well as the 911.. the GT2 has one of the fastes 700ft slamom speeds (70+mph) in history. It is only beaten by the Lotus Elise, CooperS (funny aint it).. and if u want to include race cars that R&T tested, the GT1 Porsche beats it by a bit... the Supra on the other hand is considerably slower.

[Gadflyii]

:rolleyes:

only if they have big nos ...


http://www.gadtek.com/nos.jpg








only JDM nissans could take 911's (silvia, skyline)

I'd still take the GT2. At the end of the day, he has a porsche... you have a toyota.

[Gadflyii]

Sure about that?

I'll match, and beat your 60-foot times. Supras just weren't made to launch well. Your engine power makes up for it though in the end. Not saying mine is faster, i've barely touched the car.

We'll see how they compare when my car comes out of hibernation in the spring :cool:


HEHEHE.... oh yeah... When the 1/4 mile tracks open back up in the spring, lets post some time sheets. :)

[Soulburner]

Yeah looking at your 1/8 mile trap it looks like you are making some crazy power. That is about my 1/4 mile trap. I don't intend to be making that much any time soon, the car needs to be built from the back to the front meaning, rear axle, transmission/converter, fully suspension modified, and THEN a nice engine build, when the car is ready to handle it.

It's going to take a lot of hard work, a TON of $, and a lot of time. I also do most work myself...

[hixie]

The guy i work for is a GT500 racer in japan (micheal krumm), he's always complaining that all porkers are crap except the 917. He said that the balance between oversteer and understeer is not optimal. If you want to relli go fast you have to either use grip style driving or a four wheel drift. Heres where the problem starts, if you start a corner using a grip style, you quite often go beyond the front tyres limit because there is very little weight in the front compaired to a front engined car. So you oversteer to counter the understeer which is slow because you didn't intend to do that before you entered the corner so your racing line isn't optimal.
Then why don't you just start off the corner doin a four wheel drift? Theres nothing wrong, except a four wheel drift uses alot more concentration then any other style of driving, and over a whole race which may be 1 or 2 hours long. You start to loss your concentration after 30 minutes and end up all over the place.
The porsche 917 doesn't have that fatal flaw because it was designed to be driven at Le Mons for 24hours. It has other fatal flaws but nothing that would worry most of you guys.

[[XC] leviathan18]

That rev-up sound just rocks! And those "flames", hehe. Is that the trick with spark plugs or turbo does that? :D Sorry, not really tuner here...
Great ride :up:


that is the turbo kicking no spark plug there... al car with hig compression do that when the turbo kicks...


btw nice car could you post some pics of the car in day light i want to see that baby :toast: i love supras.... (im waiting for the new supra)

[Gadflyii]

Supra pics, Some are kind of old, but here ya go:

Taken last weekend: (me and my Supra in the foreground)

http://www.gadtek.com/supra/jpimeet_nov05/_MG_5477.JPG

Few others (about 8-9 mths old)

http://www.gadtek.com/supra/14.jpg

http://www.gadtek.com/supra/16.jpg

http://www.gadtek.com/supra/20.jpg

http://www.gadtek.com/supra/7.jpg

[[XC] leviathan18]

wow sweet car very clean love it really (do you have any engine pic? sorry to bother you just love that car :D) love the rims they are the original ones chromed????

[Gadflyii]

Factory wheels, i have a few old engine pic's from when i got the car, but it looks a lot diffrent now....

http://www.gadtek.com/supra/3.jpg

[Soulburner]

We have the same battery ;)

[Gadflyii]

LOL

I love them

The turbo is an SP67 for now, my SP71GTS DBB turbo is due in Jan. I'll drop 800+ rwhp/780ish ftlbs with spool up in the mid 4's... the wait is killing me.. in the mean time a big ass box of parts showed up today for my project for the next month... I'll post a picture later... should be good

[MaxxxRacer]

whats ur whp right now??

and what in gods name are you gonna use to keep the tires from lighting on fire (besides good driving technique). aka what tires do u use.

[[XC] leviathan18]

only JDM nissans could take 911's (silvia, skyline)

I'd still take the GT2. At the end of the day, he has a porsche... you have a toyota.

the skyline can handle better cuz of the ATTESA ETS so you have better handling but if you can do a 4 wheel drift with a supra i think you will own a lot of cars in the track

[`SippY]

both cars are nub, there is nothing good like american muscle

[jaguarking11]

That rev-up sound just rocks! And those "flames", hehe. Is that the trick with spark plugs or turbo does that? :D Sorry, not really tuner here...
Great ride :up:

Could also be detonation caused by too mutch fuel in the system.

my .02c

[jaguarking11]

both cars are nub, there is nothing good like american muscle

Well to you and me maybe. These guys may have diferent ideas. The new z06 is as fast if not faster than a ford gt around track and acelerates like crazy. 427 under that badboy. These guys like to race around in small turbocharged engines that have to be in the 3k-4k range to make any usable power vs most larger motors will make usable power from the begining. You dont have to launch a 6Lv8 or a 7lv8. Reason is simple it makes peak tourque down low and horsepower up high where it needs to be.

At the end of the day its all about what you prefer.

Ill take a supercharged 427 that will probably cost me less to run and build and put out well over 1200hp with matching tourque and still be street legal than a small grenade waiting to blow. But thats my .02cent.

[zakelwe]

7.1 at 108 would give him a 0-60 at a shade over 2 seconds.



The shade being about 2 seconds as well ?

Regards

Andy

[Soulburner]

Well to you and me maybe. These guys may have diferent ideas. The new z06 is as fast if not faster than a ford gt around track and acelerates like crazy. 427 under that badboy. These guys like to race around in small turbocharged engines that have to be in the 3k-4k range to make any usable power vs most larger motors will make usable power from the begining. You dont have to launch a 6Lv8 or a 7lv8. Reason is simple it makes peak tourque down low and horsepower up high where it needs to be.
Actually, try higher...a lot of those small turbocharged engines need to be revved to 6k+ to make any real power. Their peak power may be nice, but the area under the curve is what matters. You need to look at dyno sheets and not peak numbers...because sure it's great if you make 600hp, but if you can't make it until its almost time to shift, the rest of your RPMs are near useless.

Now a heads/cam LS1 will need to be 3-4k to make good power as you said, especially in a stalled auto (which will destroy manuals all day long).

[Gadflyii]

Actually, try higher...a lot of those small turbocharged engines need to be revved to 6k+ to make any real power. Their peak power may be nice, but the area under the curve is what matters. You need to look at dyno sheets and not peak numbers...because sure it's great if you make 600hp, but if you can't make it until its almost time to shift, the rest of your RPMs are near useless.

Now a heads/cam LS1 will need to be 3-4k to make good power as you said, especially in a stalled auto (which will destroy manuals all day long).


Well not exactly true either. Yes it is true that peak torque is made late in the rev band, but not like there is no power below 6k. On pump fuel my supra as it sits now, I make 505hp, and 462ft lbs. I rev to 8k, and I make peak HP at redline, and peak torque at @5200 rpm. HP is just a number that is the result of a formula that uses RPM and torque to calculate. Any real car guy will tell you, HP is worthless torque is priceless. This holds true will imports as well as V8. I make 90% of my torque at 4300 rpm. and see little gains to redline, but HP goes up since Rev's go up.

What is the real diffrence is how I am geared. In my Z06 it was geared to stay in the peak torque range in 1-2, 3-4 peak HP, and 5th and 6th were really just for cruizeing.

The supra is geared very low in 1st, to get the turbo spooled quickly, and then it stays above the spool point from then on. Once rolling on the track, I never leave the power band of 4300-8000rpm, in that rev. band I always am making 90%+ torque, and 90% hp. If you were to take the vetter gearing and put it on the Supra, it would be worthless, he same is true if you were to take the Supra gearing and but it on the Vette.

I wish i had a newer dyno scaned in, but i don't

This dyno is my baseline run I made before i tuned fuel. With the rev limiter set to 6800. If you notice as soon as the turbo makes power, the A/F drops off the chart (we guess around 8:1) This is fixed now, (11.5:1) and as a result i make a bit more power. On race fuel I make @ 700/650 but won't know for sure for a few weeks.

http://www.gadtek.com/supra/dyno.jpg

[Gadflyii]

Ill take a supercharged 427 that will probably cost me less to run and build and put out well over 1200hp with matching tourque and still be street legal than a small grenade waiting to blow. But thats my .02cent.

I can build 3 1000hp supra motors for the cost of 1 1000hp american V8.

The stock supra engine is good to well over 1000hp, as is the drive train and transmission.

Turbo, fuel, boost controller, fuel computer, exhaust, intercooler, and maybe intake manifold is all you need on the supra. You do not even change the oil. My cost estimates to go from stock to 1000hp were are 6-8k depending on brands and personal prefrences.

I am street legal, and my motor will run well over 100,000miiles, and I still get 26mpg.

No disrespect to the Z06, I loved mine (till it was stolen), but the Supra is a far better sports car.


I do miss her though... :(
http://www.gadtek.com/vette1.jpg

[MaxxxRacer]

Gadflyii, many good words go out to you for being a well rounded non-fanboy tuner.


with full boost (im assuming you have a boost controller) on street fuel do you getting any knocking?


also you never said what tires your using....

[CanadianTSi]

Damn that thing was Rich!!

Making me feel slow with my high 7's in the 1/8th :(

[bullet2urbrain]

Nice Car... like the FMIC alot....check out this video for some beloved Supra on Saturn action ;)

real nice car... altho i think supra's are pretty "overplayed" it seems like everyone and their brother has a 700+ rwhp supra.... nothing really original there. but thats just my .02


http://qksltwo.com/video/fullversionsupravid.wmv

[Gadflyii]

No, no knocking. Knocking = rod ejection from block

I only run 18psi on pump fuel, and can do so with no issues. But this is Dallas, so when it gets REALLY freaking hot in the summer, I have to pull the boost to 16, or 17 to prevent the CPU from pulling timing.

with this turbo on C16 race fuel, in a 60/40 mix with pump, I can run 26 or 28 psi respectively.


Rich is an understatement.... I could power a hybrid with my exhaust. I would turn the back of my white car grey in a single tank of gas.

[JasonDTM]

The guy i work for is a GT500 racer in japan (micheal krumm), he's always complaining that all porkers are crap except the 917. He said that the balance between oversteer and understeer is not optimal. If you want to relli go fast you have to either use grip style driving or a four wheel drift. Heres where the problem starts, if you start a corner using a grip style, you quite often go beyond the front tyres limit because there is very little weight in the front compaired to a front engined car. So you oversteer to counter the understeer which is slow because you didn't intend to do that before you entered the corner so your racing line isn't optimal.
Then why don't you just start off the corner doin a four wheel drift? Theres nothing wrong, except a four wheel drift uses alot more concentration then any other style of driving, and over a whole race which may be 1 or 2 hours long. You start to loss your concentration after 30 minutes and end up all over the place.
The porsche 917 doesn't have that fatal flaw because it was designed to be driven at Le Mons for 24hours. It has other fatal flaws but nothing that would worry most of you guys.


Hehe, A friend I know got to see the 917K's and 917-10, 917-30 race at Road America back in the day... the man who truely tamed the Porsche 917 goes by the name of Vic Elford.

[MaxxxRacer]

why do u run it so freeking rich??

I've never heard of anyone running it that rich for performance purposes... Or is it that your car is tuned more for race fuel which will burn completely???

[JasonDTM]

why do u run it so freeking rich??

I've never heard of anyone running it that rich for performance purposes... Or is it that your car is tuned more for race fuel which will burn completely???

Most likely to reduce the risk of detonation when boost hits.

@Thread-starter

Have you ever looked into doing a TT setup with some Garrett GTBB series turbos?

[zakelwe]

There's no way you pull 0-60 in the 2 second bracket in that Supra with that power and torque and just front engine /rear wheel drive, sorry that is just pure BS.

Nearer 4-5 I would say.

[Cossey]

well the stock one has 320bhp and does it in 5.1s so 4s would be about right for a 500bhp one.

[[XC] leviathan18]

i have a question what the B means in BHP ??????

[JasonDTM]

Brake Horse Power

[[XC] leviathan18]

i tought it was that cuz trucks have brake horse power, but in what differs from HP or are the same?

[CanadianTSi]

Brake Horse Power is power measured at the wheels. When a manufactuer claims a cars Horse Power that is the power at the crankshaft.

BHP is roughly 15% lower because of drivetrain loses.

If you don't believe me about the 0-60 plug his numbers into a 0-60 calculator and see what you get.

Also running a car too rich can cause knock, if you read his post he said he has tuned it better and it's not so rich now.

I run 24psi Everyday on pump gas and pull 3.5sec 0-60 on 17's with street tires :D

[illmatik]

Wow I could almost swear you live cross the street from my ex-gf. Her lil bro is a trouble maker maybe he stole your Z06. hehe Sweet ride tho, may the theifs who took it from you be covered in post drag race engine coolant.




I can build 3 1000hp supra motors for the cost of 1 1000hp american V8.

The stock supra engine is good to well over 1000hp, as is the drive train and transmission.

Turbo, fuel, boost controller, fuel computer, exhaust, intercooler, and maybe intake manifold is all you need on the supra. You do not even change the oil. My cost estimates to go from stock to 1000hp were are 6-8k depending on brands and personal prefrences.

I am street legal, and my motor will run well over 100,000miiles, and I still get 26mpg.

No disrespect to the Z06, I loved mine (till it was stolen), but the Supra is a far better sports car.


I do miss her though... :(
http://www.gadtek.com/vette1.jpg

[mdzcpa]

Brake Horse Power is power measured at the wheels. When a manufactuer claims a cars Horse Power that is the power at the crankshaft.

This is incorrect. BHP is a measure of power at the flywheel. It can only be done accurately by an engine dyno. Chassis dynos calculate hp at the wheels and can only interpolate bhp.




BHP is roughly 15% lower because of drivetrain loses

You mean rwhp (real wheel horsepower) or fwhp (front wheel horse power). And the % varies dramatically depending on the drivetrain.




If you don't believe me about the 0-60 plug his numbers into a 0-60 calculator and see what you get.

Actually the 0-60 is closer to 2.2 seconds.



Also running a car too rich can cause knock

Not true at all. Running lean is what causes detonation (knock). In fact, running rich is a way to prevent detonation. Under boosted conditions the fuel cools the combustion chamber, particularly the hot spots, thereby reducing the possibility of the air/fuel mixture pre igniting.

The only thing that can happen by running too rich is to kill power.


No offense, but you need to brush up before stating what you think are facts:)

[CanadianTSi]

BHP means differnent things to different people.

I guess you've never heard of rich knock?

Also look at things you "Corrected" me on, If you think I don't know what i'm talking about thats great.

[mdzcpa]

BHP means differnent things to different people.

It only means something different to those who don't understand what it means.

Brake HP is a measurement of horsepower due to the device used to measure the power...a brake dynamometer. This device, which is quite specific, is a dynamometer that uses an electric brake to measure the work either of a flywheel or crank. SAE BHP is very specifically defined to be power generated at the flywheel or crank.

Of course, if folks want to use the term loosely, or incorrectly, they may feel free to do so.


I guess you've never heard of rich knock?

Nope. Been tuning forced induction motors for 13 years and I've never seen it, or heard of it. I've seen many thing from running too rich....lost power, higher emissions, poor fuel economy, and bad carbon build up. But, I've never seen a motor react to being to rich by detonating...ever.

Here's some Turbo AF mixture 411 for you:

Excerpt from European Tuner Resources -

Many people with turbochargers believe that they need to run at very rich mixtures. The theory is that the excess fuel cools the intake charge and therefore reduces the probability of knock. It does work in reducing knock. The following little article shows why.

First let’s look at the science. Specific heat is the amount of energy required to raise 1 kg of material by one degree K (Kelvin, same as Celsius but with 0 point at absolute zero). Different materials have different specific heats. The energy is measured in kJ or kilojoules:

Air ~ 1 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Gasoline 2.02 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Water 4.18 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Ethanol 2.43 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Methanol 2.51 kJ/( kg * deg K)

Fuel and other liquids also have what's called latent heat. This is the heat energy required to vaporize 1 kg of the liquid. The fuel in an internal combustion engine has to be vaporized and mixed thoroughly with the incoming air to produce power. Liquid gasoline does not burn. The energy to vaporize the fuel comes partially from the incoming air, cooling it. The latent heat energy required is actually much larger than the specific heat. That the energy comes from the incoming air can be easily seen on older carbureted cars, where frost can actually form on the intake manifold from the cooling of the charge.

The latent heat values of different liquids are shown here:

Gasoline 350 kJ/kg
Water 2256 kJ/kg
Ethanol 904 kJ/kg
Methanol 1109 kJ/kg

Most engines produce maximum power (with optimized ignition timing) at an air-fuel-ratio between 12 and 13. Let's assume the optimum is in the middle at 12.5. This means that for every kg of air, 0.08 kg of fuel is mixed in and vaporized. The vaporization of the fuel extracts 28 kJ of energy from the air charge. If the mixture has an air-fuel-ratio of 11 instead, the vaporization extracts 31.8 kJ instead. A difference of 3.8 kJ. Because air has a specific heat of about 1 kJ/kg*deg K, the air charge is only 3.8 C (or K) degrees cooler for the rich mixture compared to the optimum power mixture. This small difference has very little effect on knock or power output.

If instead of the richer mixture about 10% (by mass) of water would be injected in the intake charge (0.008 kg Water/kg air), the high latent heat of the water would cool the charge by 18 degrees, about 4 times the cooling effect of the richer mixture. The added fuel for the rich mixture can't burn because there is just not enough oxygen available. So it does not matter if fuel or water is added.

So where does the knock suppression of richer mixtures come from?

If the mixture gets ignited by the spark, a flame front spreads out from the spark plug. This burning mixture increases the pressure and temperature in the cylinder. At some time in the process the pressures and temperatures peak. The speed of the flame front is dependent on mixture density and AFR. A richer or leaner AFR than about 12-13 AFR burns slower. A denser mixture burns faster.

So with a turbo under boost the mixture density raises and results in a faster burning mixture. The closer the peak pressure is to TDC, the higher that peak pressure is, resulting in a high knock probability. Also there is less leverage on the crankshaft for the pressure to produce torque, and, therefore, less power.

Richening up the mixture results in a slower burn, moving the pressure peak later where there is more leverage, hence more torque. Also the pressure peak is lower at a later crank angle and the knock probability is reduced. The same effect can be achieved with an optimum power mixture and more ignition retard.

Optimum mix with “later” ignition can produce more power because more energy is released from the combustion of gasoline. Here’s why: When hydrocarbons like gasoline combust, the burn process actually happens in multiple stages. First the gasoline molecules are broken up into hydrogen and carbon. The hydrogen combines with oxygen from the air to form H2O (water) and the carbon molecules form CO. This process happens very fast at the front edge of the flame front. The second stage converts CO to CO2. This process is relatively slow and requires water molecules (from the first stage) for completion. If there is no more oxygen available (most of it consumed in the first stage), the second stage can't happen. But about 2/3 of the energy released from the burning of the carbon is released in the second stage. Therefore a richer mixture releases less energy, lowering peak pressures and temperatures, and produces less power. A secondary side effect is of course also a lowering of knock probability. It's like closing the throttle a little. A typical engine does not knock when running on part throttle because less energy and therefore lower pressures and temperatures are in the cylinder.

This is why running overly-rich mixtures can not only increase fuel consumption, but also cost power.


Like I said, I meant no offense by my corrections. I've just been tuning forced induction motors for many years and I'm sensitive to the accuracy of what I read on the topic.
[/QUOTE]

[[XC] leviathan18]

so the bhp is more accurate than hp ??? the most accurate one is wheel hp right?

[Cossey]

on a chassis dyno you work out wheel hp so any crank figures from a chassis dyno arent accurate. however you can get accurate crank figures if you stick the engine on an engine dyno. bhp is how its measured ie the engine is made to work against a brake (electric or water) which absorbs power the power absorbed by the brake when the engine is not increasing or decreasing in revs is the power the engine is producing due to consveration of energy. normal you measure torque then convert it into power but as power is equivalenty to torque x revs the principal is the same.

most chassis dynos also measure in bhp however instead of attaching the engine to the brake they used braked rollers that the car wheels sit on so by measuring the power/torque that is applied to the rollers you know the power at the wheels of the car.
convention says bhp is at the crank but rwhp is still measured in bhp.

mdzcpa: what else have you done to to it besides the power increase? its seems a bit wierd that a 1500-1600kg car (even with 550ish bhp) does 0-60 in 2.2s but only does 0-100 in 6.5-7s. i know someone who has an ultima which does a similar 0-100 time and has similar power but alot lighter (about half a ton lighter) and a 0-60 time that is a second slower.

[MaxxxRacer]

whp is what we really care about.

if you have a 900hp motor on a hond civic, u wont be getting anywhere near 900whp on stock tranny. (i know its a horrible example but it gets the point across)


what car is doing 2.2s 0-60?? Not any street legal cars, thats for dam sure. fastest cars in the world do 2.8seconds.. and those are handbuilt cars that were designed from the ground up to be as fast as humanly possible, while being streetable.

[Soulburner]

There seems to be a lot of people in this thread who don't know what they are talking about...but I guess that's alright, that's what boards are for, to learn.

mdzcpa is right.

Also, I really doubt he does 0-60 in 2.x anything. I would believe 3's if he can launch (which Supras never could do well, unless you swap in a Ford 9" or GM 12-Bolt sold axle setup).

[bullet2urbrain]

i believe that is exactly what i said.. in the thread about a lightning.... this is Xtreme Systems... people know so much about computers.. not much about cars.

[jaguarking11]

Lingenfelter has a TT 427 with 850hp do 0-60 in a hair under 2seconds with racing slicks. on street tires the thing is lucky to get 3seconds. I dont see your supra doing anything under 3 as any sreet tread would cause traction problems. Slap on some slicks then maybe in the 2second range.

It also depends on the engine setup on how mutch you need to spend to make 1000hp or more. Some v8's are expensive to work on and others are not. Its not unusual to spend about 6grand and pick up a junker high milage motor and rebuild it for over 1000hp. The old lt1 could withstand making 700-800hp on stock internals if done rite but its not a good candidate for 1000hp on the cheep. An old buick motor in the 400ci range or pontiac motor in the 400ci range will do over 1000hp with new pistons and seals and possibly a port job while feeding it with a 12or so psi supercharger.

But I gotta hand it to ya. Your no rice tuner. Your choice in car seems odd but thats your choice. If it was me I would pick up an old c4 and get to work. I loved the c4's.

Also as far as im concerned BHP means break horse power. Meaning hp developed to the breaks. Now weels. If you look at modern dynos (especialy the awd dynos) they hook the dyno to the disks and not let the car sit on it with weels. This creates acurate numbers and dosent rely on tires for traction.

[Soulburner]

Also as far as im concerned BHP means break horse power. Meaning hp developed to the breaks. Now weels. If you look at modern dynos (especialy the awd dynos) they hook the dyno to the disks and not let the car sit on it with weels. This creates acurate numbers and dosent rely on tires for traction.
:confused:

Links please?

[Cossey]

http://www.dynapackusa.com/product.htm
you take the wheels off and bolt the dyno straight onto the hubs so no tyre slippages.

brake horse power refers to the way it is measured ie against a brake it has nothing to do with where it is measured. however by convention if you see a power rating like 300bhp it refers to the power at the crank. if you see a dyno run then 90%+ of the time it refers to wheel power.

[Soulburner]

Interesting...I have never seen that before, though I don't come from the AWD crowd either.

[MaxxxRacer]

most of the more recent dyno results ive been seeing (in the honda world) have been done with the dynapack dynos.. they do provide very accurate results compared to other methods as it reduces the points of error.

[Soulburner]

It doesn't really matter anyway. A dyno should be used to tune a car. I wouldn't use it just for numbers - track times are the only thing that really matters.

[mdzcpa]

convention says bhp is at the crank

Agreed.


mdzcpa: what else have you done to to it besides the power increase? its seems a bit wierd that a 1500-1600kg car (even with 550ish bhp) does 0-60 in 2.2s but only does 0-100 in 6.5-7s. i know someone who has an ultima which does a similar 0-100 time and has similar power but alot lighter (about half a ton lighter) and a 0-60 time that is a second slower.


Sorry...the topic of this thread isn't my car:) I was only commenting as bhp is conventionally used to describe hp at the crank or flywheel.

[mdzcpa]

[url]brake horse power refers to the way it is measured ie against a brake it has nothing to do with where it is measured. however by convention if you see a power rating like 300bhp it refers to the power at the crank.

Agreed. The reason BHP is used as a convention meant to measure power at the crank was that this was the original method for measuring output. That was the engine brake dynamomoter that WAS attached at the crank. BHP was coined as a measurement long before any chassis dynos even existed. So, although it doesn't matter where you measure brake horse power, standard convention dictates that its measured at the crank.

[mdzcpa]

It doesn't really matter anyway. A dyno should be used to tune a car. I wouldn't use it just for numbers - track times are the only thing that really matters.

Agreed! Dynos are great tuning tools, but nothing more. It takes suspension, chassis, driver, drivetrain, weather, track conditions, environment, and luck along with the power to run good times:)

[MaxxxRacer]

It doesn't really matter anyway. A dyno should be used to tune a car. I wouldn't use it just for numbers - track times are the only thing that really matters.


agreed, but its still nice to know when u get a really big number ;)

[[XC] leviathan18]

yeah is like when you OC a suicide... is useless but is fun

[Gadflyii]

Sorry I did not reply to you all sooner, I think I got all the replys I missed, please read down, because it clears bunch of :banana::banana::banana::banana: up, especially the whole 0-60 thing.




why do u run it so freeking rich??

I've never heard of anyone running it that rich for performance purposes... Or is it that your car is tuned more for race fuel which will burn completely???


Most likely to reduce the risk of detonation when boost hits.

@Thread-starter

Have you ever looked into doing a TT setup with some Garrett GTBB series turbos?

No it was not supposed to run that Rich, if you read the post I say that the dyno was a baseline before the fuel system was properly tuned, I now run 11.5:1 under full boost.


No, I am not a fan of the Twins. You get faster spool up with the larger single being fed by all 6 cyclders vs. 2 smaller turbo's being fed by 3 each. Some people make it work, generally speaking, a larger single is a better solution.



There's no way you pull 0-60 in the 2 second bracket in that Supra with that power and torque and just front engine /rear wheel drive, sorry that is just pure BS.

Nearer 4-5 I would say.

I was talking about 0-60 Ft times, not Mph. According to my turbo timer (HKS Type 1, which I have not tested for to see how accurate it is, but the lap timer is DEAD on, so it should be pretty close) my best 0-60 mph was 3.4s. Sorry for the confusion.


There seems to be a lot of people in this thread who don't know what they are talking about...

Amen brother.....



Also, I really doubt he does 0-60 in 2.x anything. I would believe 3's if he can launch (which Supras never could do well, unless you swap in a Ford 9" or GM 12-Bolt sold axle setup).

Eh... I have to give you that... unless you soften the HELL out of the rear suspension, (thus killing your REAL track performance, ya know real tracks, with right AND left turns... :stick: :) ) they do not launch that well. Ryan Woon of WOTM ran an 8.99 @ like 170 mph in a full weight street car, so he got the launch down. By why would you swap some POS solid axle on to a supra *shudder*


again, I was talking about 0-60 Ft times, not Mph. According to my turbo timer (HKS Type 1, granted I have not had tested to see how accurate it is, but the lap timer is DEAD on, so it should be pretty close) my best 0-60 mph was 3.4s. Sorry for the confusion.



Hope that clears it up....


Gad

[Gadflyii]

Here is the video of one of Ryan Woon's passes.... full weight street car with required saftey equipment.

http://homepage.mac.com/rdwoon/8.99Pass2PSCAVegas.mov

[Soulburner]

Surely you don't mean your 60 foot time is 3.4s...my car will do 2.0 with really bad traction, probably 2.2 if it goes sideways on me with these tires that are half gone...

Regardless, 8.99 @ 170 is respectable, for a Supra. Though a car with a solid axle and enough power to run 170 through the traps would be running mid to low 8s. For 9 seconds I typically see about 152-160mph. Just shows you how much ass the Supra hauls in the end to make up for the launch. Must feel like a jet engine kicking in.

[Otaking71]

my understanding of the "b" hp was that what's the maximum amount of inertia the crank could overcome..... a.k.a. the amount of brake force required to hold the engine down to a single rpm range.

[Otaking71]

hehe...and i'm saving up to build up a project car.

a bridge/monster-ported 13b powered miata.

[Cossey]

my understanding of the "b" hp was that what's the maximum amount of inertia the crank could overcome..... a.k.a. the amount of brake force required to hold the engine down to a single rpm range.
nope bhp is at any revs, it is basically the braking required to stop the engine speed from increasing at all even with full wide open throttle. from this you get the torque then to get to power you mulitply the torque by the revs and then multiply by a conversion factor depending on what units you measured the torque and revs in and what units you want the power in.

weve got some old school pre computer dynos here (engine ones) withe dial gauges that are in lbft and rpm and a fairy modern one that does Nm and Kw with computer screens

[Otaking71]

that's what i meant...i just didn't explain it clearly....the force to hold the crank to a given rpm at wot.