Good luck on 11's at Altitude. No one in SLC has run 11's on the stock turbo. Maybe we all suck here. But it's no simple feat.

 

There's still a chance of changing my mind or getting the opportunity to test more than one set. I just am not holding my breath. Not sure why it concerns you so much. It's just a little extra shipping.

 

You're right; that's why I said "try" and didn't say it was a foregone conclusion. It will be a great challenge.

By the way, my car JUST showed up and got delivered FINALLY. I went out and tested it to see how everything felt and to see how much power I lost in the butt dyno. There's definitely a noticable difference, but it's not 60-70whp like people keep telling me. In fact, the SOTP torque hit feels just about the same, but it definitely dies out in the upper rpms as if it's out of breath. This is probably why it's hard to nail good drag times, since we spend all our time above 5500rpm. I'll find out for sure on the dyno next week before the cams go in (and then again after).

 

Good luck on the 11's. I've been out of the game for awhile, but I do believe you'd have to run in the neighborhood of 3 tenths faster than the quickest stock turbo car thats run to date.

I'd like to see it done however.

 

lol 2 sets of cams nice...hey WT how about u give me thos 264 u dont want thos. looks like you had another great xmas...looks good.

 

Very nice! Youre really gonna be tearing it up with the cams. Im interested in seeing how you like the BDCK because I was looking into it when it came out.

 

Hmm, we shall see. Here is what I'll be working with:

Starting point: 12.000

Remove: race gas, 4000' of oxygen, 25psi, base flash+safc

Add: Alky, 28psi, ported/coated mani/10.5, o2 housing, forge wga, cams, custom flash (at altitude)

So, if I lose .4s due to altitude, then I need to gain .4s with cams and all the other stuff you see added.

This is also assuming I can cut similar 60's, which I'm not sure from what I've heard about PMI.

 

Yeah, that's my whole point - to do an install writeup and track day review so that others can make their decision on getting one.

 

i dont see the big deal

 

Cool, someone else will be running 272i/264e besides me up here. I was feeing pretty alone. (at least I haven'y seen anyone else around Denver doing it)

In the case of my 03, the 10.5 HS worked out very nicely with the so called "backwards" set up.

I later switched to 264/264, but went back to the 272i because of the top end concerns.

I'm really interested in what you end up with on the dyno if you end up using the 272i set up.

Not doing adjustable gears at the same time? or did I miss where you already have those on the car?

BTW, have any plans on what you are going to allow for a correction factor or will you be testing "uncorrected"? One of the popular local shops likes to use a whopping NA SAE factor of 1.25 or even greater, though alot of the more experienced guys will only talk uncorrected numbers. But you still end up with skewed results, on the one hand you're fooling yourself, and on the other your cheating yourself out of your real gains. Times (as always) end up being the benchmark.

 

I will only use uncorrected numbers. I'm coming in with uncorrected Dynojet numbers that I've posted previously, and I will go and get more uncorrected Dynojet numbers at MAC _before_ the cams to see how much the altitude affected me. I will then add the cams, get retuned, and go back one more time. I have been seeing all the dumb correction factors, so I am hoping to prove them wrong.

For instance, if 1.25 is correct, then my 341/361 would only be 270/290 or so up here. After getting my Evo today and driving it, if I only have 290whp, then my butty dyno needs a full recalibration.

No cam gears until GSC finishes theirs and sends them to me, but I don't yet know what settings I'd even use. That may be something to test down the line, but they are almost finished with the gears, so it may not be long.

 

god i remember the days of hpde 2. Yikes, no passing on turns, point bys and worse, careless drivers. You will enjoy nasa a lot more when you get to hpde 4/ Time Trials.

 

That's the goal for this year...to get through HPDE2 and HPDE3. Gotta start somewhere, though, eh...

 

I've had some long discussions with one of those"DSM Sages" that I talked about before (he really is a great guy and seems to know his stuff) He's got some pretty convincing points.

If the Dyno has been properly calibrated, the SAE factors are only accurate for NA cars. The issue is supposed to hinge on the fact that we can't know for certain if the turbo being tested is operating at it's claimed sea level proficeincy (I think that's the deal, I'll have to look it up again, I saved it somewhere)

Anyway the idea becomes that your true corrected numbers end up being somewhere between 0 correction and the SAE Correction de jur. The dyno of course determining through it's instruments what factor it will award the session.

(although I've been meaning to ask about the idea of using absolute MAP numbers, since, if I understand it correctly, 22psi absolute is the same regardless of atmospheric pressure etc... then you'd only correct for humidity and temperature IF even that.)

I dyno'd around 340+ on 91, with 272/264 stock turbo, IC, boost at 24 although the stock DV was leaking. I've since added AMS lower IC, 10.5 HS, the butt reported favorable results. I showed 300 uncorrected, untuned on the DynoRad just before the wreck, and it gets pretty close to the Dynojet numbers (+/- 10 hp/T) from what I could tell, testing back and forth. Got expensive, had to depend on the DynoRad for gains

I'll see how the Neisi IC affects things when I get it back.

 

enjoy the stock suspension, no other stock car drives so well, other than a few i.e. elises and z06s.