Am I missing something here? Considering the dynos are different, I'm just looking at the general trend of the dyno sheet. It looks like your car comes up to full boost around 4800 RPM where the HTA comes up to full boost around 4400 RPM?

OF COURSE your curves are similar, they are both GT35R variants, but a 400 RPM difference in observed spool is SIGNIFICANT and not to be over looked?

It is also holding torque better up top. Pretty interesting considering FP claimed better spool and the same/better top end. That's what Buschur's testing showed and it sure seems like that is what these dynos show too?

Now, is the $1700 price tag worth it compared to a normal GT35R that can be had for $500 less? I don't think so considering a GT35R is for a 6000-redline powerband and I'm not too worried about what it does below there.

 

Full boost does not equal full torque.

A 35R gives MUCH broader than a 6k-redline power band.

He makes peak TQ at 5600 rpms I make mine at 5252, or damn close enough to where tq/hp cross. Both our TQ curves drop off to about 320-330 at redline.

How the hell can you decipher where mine is making full boost at?

I am going to use my voodo powers and guess that he is making full boost at approx 4100-4400 rpms: I dont have a boost vs RPM plot for my setup but we are running vastly different manifolds ( I believe mine would spool up a turbo quicker while his manifold will lend itself to top-end performance). I have shorter runners and a cast manifold while his is tubular steel with equal length runners.

You do NOT know what your talking about, have a nice day.

Scorke

 

Lol, I'm well aware full torque and full boost are not the same. You can clearly look at the chart and see the general trend though and his car comes to full boost noticable sooner then yours. If you don't see that, then that is your misunderstanding, not mine. Also, I said nothing about a USABLE powerband of the GT35R. Fact is, if I have a GT35R, I'm going to drive it right and an EVO is EASY to keep above 5500-6000 RPM if driven correctly and that is where the car should be drive with a GT35R turbo. If you are really concerned about powerband, stick to a stock IX turbo because it's pretty damn hard to beat.

Now, there is the fact that the Dyno Dynamics could easily have more load, causing an earlier spool time, or the fact that he rolled into the throttle at a lower RPM then you being a cause for the difference.

Please, don't be a jack *** and think that just because somebody has a different opinion then you means that they don't know anything. You make yourself out to be a real ******* by doing that.

Thanks though, I will have a nice day, because I can easily discredit anything you have to say in the future with a response like that above instead of wondering if you know what you are talking about.

 

I'm really curious how you've deciphered this. Care to educate us.

 

Show me how you can tell that his car comes into full boost sooner than mine?

You seriously must be seeing things that NOBODY else in this forum can see.

Robertinaustin runs a HTA 35R, knows what he is talking about and cannot decipher what you see that we can't, so enlighten us...

Unless we both had Boost vs rpm graphs you nor I have NO way to tell which one is making full boost sooner, apparantly you can tell without having any information in front of you and without owning/driving/dynoing either of the cars.

Scorke

 

Actually that would be 443 x 1.2 = 531whp dynojet

 

No the dyno is not corrected, we use 1.0, or zero correction. I think the sheets you are referring to is what is called shootout mode, those graphs (shootout mode) estimate the flywheel power and will read higher than regular mode. To get dynojet power on out dyno add about 20%, interestingly enough this is about what shootout mode adds, go figure

 

Scorke, go over your PMs and we can continue in private for a few.

To answer the question though, I simply looked at % of peak torque curves and the HTA comes on sooner and makes better top end power. With it being different dynos on different cars, that's about the best that I can possibly see making a comparision off of.

To make it a real comparison though, short of the two cars racing each other, I don't see how there can be conclusive proof either way. And even then you have a host of other variables so it's really pointless and a subjective "this thing spools like a GT30R" is about as valuable as all these dyno charts.

I stick to my opinion though, it looks like the HTA, in these charts, comes on noticeably sooner and makes better top end, yet it's still probably would not be worth the extra $500 to me.

 

It's cool I know we were both being a little smart *** but i belive it was harmless.

I know for a fact that lt1killers car makes more power than mine, a lot, that is not even debateable, what is however, is the spool up characteristics. As I said I am running a cast, short length runner manifold, far from a lot but not quite equal length.

I do not know how much of a difference there is with his pull starting about a bout 2k and mine at about 3.2k, I am sure that attributes to some difference between his and my early numbers but as I see it, and I think most others do, the main gains in the HTA vs Normal between his and my results are top end.

His car's HP climbs signifigantly more than mine after say 45-5000 rpms, I believe this is the area where the HTA will clearly have an advantage over a normal turbo, maybe other people will see more of the advantages in spool rather than top end but compairing our two sheets/setups those are the differences.

We are running the same cams, so some of the X factor can be taken out of the equation, if we both dynoed at the same place that would make it a lot easier, but since when has comparing two cars via dynosheets ever been easy

Scorke

 

Hi! Thanks for reply.

This is something that has irked me for a while. In the UK, on the MLR, Dyno Dynamics is far and away the most common dyno used. Over the years there has been numerous MLR dyno days, with literally 100's of Evo's dyno'd. The MLR has collected this data, and as a feature to the website, has a "MLR Modified" section which you can use to plot any two cars results against each other. It's very nifty.

But my point in explaining this is, that ALL these shops with DD dynos use Shootout 44 mode. And no this is not a flywheel estimate by any means. In fact, on the MLR, it has become, although still is debated, somewhat accepted that a 24% fudge factor could be applied to DD results to get flywheel hp.

This 24% fudge factor has been proven on several occasions by taking an engine from an engine dyno to the DD chassis dyno. For example, take a look at this thread:

http://www.lancerregister.com/showth...hreadid=140934

And you will see in the first post engine dyno results.

Later in the last page of the thread, you will see the cars DD results in Shootout 44 mode. And you will notice that the 24% fudge factor proves to be pretty accurate.

So my question is, why in the UK does every DD dyno run in Shootout 44 mode and have a bunch of nice data at the bottom about the mode, temps, etc. And why in the USA do they not use Shootout 44 and have no nice data at bottom of graph?

So sorry for the off-topic, but since we have dyno operators attention I could not help but ask.

 

Andrew typically runs this dyno in standard mode at a correction of 1.0, which yields the most conservative numbers. That figure however should be confirmed before assumed correct.

A stock EVO 8 gives ~200-205whp on this dyno in standard mode with the aforementioned correction - a difference of 25% from the factory bhp rating. I don't recall what a stock EVO 8 typically gives in shootout44 mode (?), but I believe it's a larger figure.


It's actually been demonstrated to be closer to 13-15%.



Let's consider the documented 25% difference between the whp and bhp figures of a stock EVO on this dyno, which is virtually identical to your universal 24% claim. According to this magic figure, LT1runner's car (with very similar setup to the one quoted in the thread you mentioned) is generating some 590bhp, and at only 1.43 bar of boost, as compared to the 605bhp at 2.3 bar for the car in the UK. Do you believe this to be correct?

 

It's hard to swallow which is why I'm on this dyno witchhunt

LT1 what is your engines compression ratio?

600 hp on pump for an Evo with headwork, cams, etc for GT35R is believable for me of course... but surprising to see done with such little boost.

 

I'm using Wiseco Evo 8 Stroker pistons at .020 overbore(9.0:1),and manley rods.

 

For both of us, which is why extrapolating figures using supposed drivetrain losses and such is unreliable business.


Perhaps a bit too surprising to be real, which indicates the claimed static drivetrain loss figure isn't so static. If it were, that 25% figure should be static across the board, and it almost certainly is not.

Just ask LT1 runner to make back-to-back runs in standard mode and shootout44 mode next time at the dyno, and you'll see your answer.

 

First off, nice work LT1runner!

While I enjoy a rigorous discussion of dyno correction factors as much as the next guy, what would really be helpful would be having both turbos on hand and swapping the turbos back and forth to see exactly what the difference in turbocharger actually was on the same car and dyno on the same day or weekend.

If you want to know exactly and specifically what the difference in the two turbos is, then that is how you would do it, right? Rent some dyno time, find a hot shot tuner, find a suitable test car, collect both GT3582R and FP3582HTA turbos and have at it right? Of course, that way you don't need to correct any of the data, it is all directly comparable.

Here is that exact dyno comparison. Nothing changed but the turbo.

http://store.forcedperformance.net/m...de=NTFP3582HTA

The graphs are some of the smaller thumbnail pics below the glamor shots. Same car, same everything, each turbo running at as close to the same boost pressure as possible. From this exercise it is possible to tell exactly what the FP3582HTA does compared to the standard GT3582R.

Boost On!

Robert Young