Track times evo 9
Apr 6, 2006, 01:48 PM
#16
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Diamond Bar, California
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EVIL_EVO_VIII
I just spoke to my friend Sean who actually made 2 passes and drove his car, and it was 13.1@ 107 and 12.8@ 108 there was no pass for 12.1. Sorry Mike
Apr 6, 2006, 01:56 PM
#17
Originally Posted by 3000ways
I am confused now, then what is going on with his slips? Misprints or digital alterations?
Apr 6, 2006, 02:17 PM
#18
Originally Posted by EVIL_EVO_VIII
I just spoke to my friend Sean who actually made 2 passes and drove his car, and it was 13.1@ 107 and 12.8@ 108 there was no pass for 12.1. Sorry Mike
Apr 6, 2006, 02:42 PM
#20
If you remove the proper one, you can get a raise in boost to around 22psi, but yes, it is inconsistent. It's so inconsistent that you get jagged edges all over the power curve on the dyno. I saw a guy in person who had done it on his 03 with an AEM intake, exhaust and no tune. He made ok peak power, but the curve was beastly. It was not consistent at all, and we attributed this mostly to the fluctuating non-regulated boost. It is not a good idea...
Apr 6, 2006, 02:53 PM
#21
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
If you remove the proper one, you can get a raise in boost to around 22psi, but yes, it is inconsistent. It's so inconsistent that you get jagged edges all over the power curve on the dyno. I saw a guy in person who had done it on his 03 with an AEM intake, exhaust and no tune. He made ok peak power, but the curve was beastly. It was not consistent at all, and we attributed this mostly to the fluctuating non-regulated boost. It is not a good idea...
Apr 6, 2006, 03:28 PM
#22
Originally Posted by Warrtalon
And those numbers fall directly in line with what the timeslips would indicate if you look at the splits through the 1/8th. Thanks for the info...I wonder what this guy was thinking when he posted this info.
Apr 8, 2006, 10:03 AM
#23
Evolving Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Inland Empire (Running Springs)
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the comparison Warr it was making me really confused when I recalled a recent run of mine where I hit 7.9 in the 1/8 at 85 then ran up to 110 and hit a 12.4.
Apr 8, 2006, 12:36 PM
#25
Newbie
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope I'm not hijacking a thread.. but.. you had mentioned the boost pills causing wacky boost readings.. Would you say this is a wacky boost reading? I think I still have a "pill" in one of the lines that run to my Hallman MBC. This is a log of a 4th gear pull down the 1/4 mile showing my boost.. but it's read by a high definition medical grade map sensor and logged by my ECU+. (zeitronix) You guys don't have some perfectly flat boost curve do you? I'm sure if there was some sort of smoothing the graph wouldn't be so crazy.
Apr 8, 2006, 04:06 PM
#26
We didn't say the stock restrictor pills cause erratic boost. I said that when people try to ghetto-rig their stock boost system by removing one particular pill, then it gives higher-than-stock boost, but it's erratic and uncontrollable.
I don't like how your device reads boost...so peaky and erratic, although if you could smooth it out, it would probably follow the normal boost profile.
I don't like how your device reads boost...so peaky and erratic, although if you could smooth it out, it would probably follow the normal boost profile.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
OneCrzyEvo21
For Sale - Cars For Sale
0
Apr 3, 2016 09:56 PM