The quest for the record.............
big boost, I am working on my "methods" of posting. I have a new way of doing things as I am tired of fighting, too many years of it and I am working on it.
wickedE, actually I don't agree. Maybe in a naturally aspirated engine the elevation makes a big difference but I have not found it to be true to a large extent with turbos. For example. My old tube chassis car. We had been running 7.9's-8.0's with the car here and on the east coast at sea level. Well we went to Colorado, mile high to run. We were having some "issues" with the car. Well some dumb *** who was in a hurry with the car put the pistons in backwards, so the intake reliefs were on the exhaust side and exhaust (obviously) on the intake side. (BTW, I was the dumb ***). We pulled the head off in the pits, knowing the car was hurt. No ring compressor. Ted (my crew chief) and I managed to spin the pistons around in the bore without taking them out to get them lined up right. A spectator went to a local dealership and got me a stock head gasket. We put it back together, when we cranked it we knew it was junk, no compression. A compression check showed no cylinder over 90 psi. We decided to see if we could get it to start and filled it with starting fluid so it would even fire, to our luck it started with a can of starting fluid. I then rev'd the crap out of it hoping some heat and the valves slamming against the seats would help to straighten them out. It worked. Compression still sucked but it would atleast start. We won the Pro Import Class and ran an 8.2 there. Moral of the story is, turbos/nitrous aren't effected as much at elevation. Besides that, nobody with an EVO is running for a record 8 second pass at high elevation.
wickedE, actually I don't agree. Maybe in a naturally aspirated engine the elevation makes a big difference but I have not found it to be true to a large extent with turbos. For example. My old tube chassis car. We had been running 7.9's-8.0's with the car here and on the east coast at sea level. Well we went to Colorado, mile high to run. We were having some "issues" with the car. Well some dumb *** who was in a hurry with the car put the pistons in backwards, so the intake reliefs were on the exhaust side and exhaust (obviously) on the intake side. (BTW, I was the dumb ***). We pulled the head off in the pits, knowing the car was hurt. No ring compressor. Ted (my crew chief) and I managed to spin the pistons around in the bore without taking them out to get them lined up right. A spectator went to a local dealership and got me a stock head gasket. We put it back together, when we cranked it we knew it was junk, no compression. A compression check showed no cylinder over 90 psi. We decided to see if we could get it to start and filled it with starting fluid so it would even fire, to our luck it started with a can of starting fluid. I then rev'd the crap out of it hoping some heat and the valves slamming against the seats would help to straighten them out. It worked. Compression still sucked but it would atleast start. We won the Pro Import Class and ran an 8.2 there. Moral of the story is, turbos/nitrous aren't effected as much at elevation. Besides that, nobody with an EVO is running for a record 8 second pass at high elevation.
Cheers-
E
Isn't Bandimere right outside of Denver? I thought it was 5,000. These 8 second passes are in EVO's? I haven't heard of one of them if that's the case. Like I said, shouldn't make much of a difference. If they get that close and are building 8 second EVO's then they have enough money to go to a sea level track and not have excuses.
Bandimere Elevation: 5183'
Pueblo Motorsports Park: 4900'
My bad, I live in Colorado Springs which is 6350. I assumed Bandimere would be higher as it is closer to the mountains.
Cheers-
E
Pueblo Motorsports Park: 4900'
My bad, I live in Colorado Springs which is 6350. I assumed Bandimere would be higher as it is closer to the mountains.
Cheers-
E
Dave, while reading all the drama or most of it anyway for this past few months there were allot of things I really disagreed with you. But THIS post/thread you made I completely agree with you. I dunno how many damn times I have told people that dyno numbers don't me jack **** unless you can put it to the track and back the numbers up. Curt Brown is a huge prime example of this. Curt can take a 450whp car and run mid 10's on it all day long, why? Cause the boy can drive and has the right combination in all of his cars that he has built. For hells sake he went 153mph on a damn 35r! Some 1000whp cars are doing 152-155mph, was curt's evo 1000whp? NOT EVEN CLOSE!!
Dyno numbers don't win races, plain and simple. A dyno is good for tuning, I honestly prefer a mustang dyno as it's much easier and more consistent to tune on when it comes to dyno load vs street/track load. Dyno jets on the other hand I have seen tunes that are completely different then what it does on the track from the dyno. That is one of the reasons I don't even bother to tune my car on a dyno jet. My car is all track tuned, in a real world and real time driving environment.
I dunno how many times I have seen 550-600whp mustangs, evo's, hondas ect ect that sit there and expect to run these crazy ET's and mph then go out to the track and run 12's, or even 13's. It just goes to show you that dyno numbers don't mean anything on the track unless it's "usable" hp. Not this 9000rpm 1000+whp crap. Thats not going to do anyone favors.
Hell look at Bisi and his all motor honda insight, that car maybe makes 400whp, and guess what guys, that car runs 9.40's-9.50's at 145mph all day long.
Or Leslie Durst and her all motor scion TC. That car is making maybe 450-500whp at most and was running right there with me last season, 9.20's!!
Good thread Dave, finally something that I really agree with you on. Continue on guys!!
Dyno numbers don't win races, plain and simple. A dyno is good for tuning, I honestly prefer a mustang dyno as it's much easier and more consistent to tune on when it comes to dyno load vs street/track load. Dyno jets on the other hand I have seen tunes that are completely different then what it does on the track from the dyno. That is one of the reasons I don't even bother to tune my car on a dyno jet. My car is all track tuned, in a real world and real time driving environment.
I dunno how many times I have seen 550-600whp mustangs, evo's, hondas ect ect that sit there and expect to run these crazy ET's and mph then go out to the track and run 12's, or even 13's. It just goes to show you that dyno numbers don't mean anything on the track unless it's "usable" hp. Not this 9000rpm 1000+whp crap. Thats not going to do anyone favors.
Hell look at Bisi and his all motor honda insight, that car maybe makes 400whp, and guess what guys, that car runs 9.40's-9.50's at 145mph all day long.
Or Leslie Durst and her all motor scion TC. That car is making maybe 450-500whp at most and was running right there with me last season, 9.20's!!
Good thread Dave, finally something that I really agree with you on. Continue on guys!!
Hell look at Bisi and his all motor honda insight, that car maybe makes 400whp, and guess what guys, that car runs 9.40's-9.50's at 145mph all day long.
Or Leslie Durst and her all motor scion TC. That car is making maybe 450-500whp at most and was running right there with me last season, 9.20's!!
Or Leslie Durst and her all motor scion TC. That car is making maybe 450-500whp at most and was running right there with me last season, 9.20's!!
I don't drag race, but i'd have to agree and disagree on the point of the OP. I agree that numbers don't mean anything if what your after is getting to the track and setting numbers all year without anything blowing up only to prove that you've finally gotten a "method" down after 3,232 years and crap loads of cash, it's something to be proud of.
The other side is getting the numbers, wither it be stable or not, if they can drive it or not. But getting that much power out of something so small is also something to be proud of. We've been poking at V8 users for decades because of this exact fact.
And it's not only here, I'm a computer hardware geek so I like to also overclock processors. I got two machines here i'll call Bush Racing and English Racing for example. One has a 1.0gz processor that i've gotten overclocked to 3.51gz with liquid cooling of my own design. That much power out of something so....i'll use the word inadequate here since proc's are already small...is insane, no one had done it then and it was something to be proud of. Granted it wasn't very stable but it ran ok. The other box, Bush, has a 1.0gz processor oc'd to 2.60gz. This has standard fan cooling and nothing exotic (like full interior vs stripped) and has been running for 3 years now without a glitch. I've gotten the hang of the "method" now, and i prefer air cooled, but i don't knock someone for going liquid and insane numbers that "I" couldn't get stable.
I hope I didn't go over too many heads here, but I'm sure some will get the point. It's not that they are trying to make you look like an *** Dave, you see yourself as being made an "*** of" because your beliefs/methods are different from theirs, and your nature compels you to speak your mind about your beliefs, and we still respect you for it
The other side is getting the numbers, wither it be stable or not, if they can drive it or not. But getting that much power out of something so small is also something to be proud of. We've been poking at V8 users for decades because of this exact fact.
And it's not only here, I'm a computer hardware geek so I like to also overclock processors. I got two machines here i'll call Bush Racing and English Racing for example. One has a 1.0gz processor that i've gotten overclocked to 3.51gz with liquid cooling of my own design. That much power out of something so....i'll use the word inadequate here since proc's are already small...is insane, no one had done it then and it was something to be proud of. Granted it wasn't very stable but it ran ok. The other box, Bush, has a 1.0gz processor oc'd to 2.60gz. This has standard fan cooling and nothing exotic (like full interior vs stripped) and has been running for 3 years now without a glitch. I've gotten the hang of the "method" now, and i prefer air cooled, but i don't knock someone for going liquid and insane numbers that "I" couldn't get stable.
I hope I didn't go over too many heads here, but I'm sure some will get the point. It's not that they are trying to make you look like an *** Dave, you see yourself as being made an "*** of" because your beliefs/methods are different from theirs, and your nature compels you to speak your mind about your beliefs, and we still respect you for it
Isn't Bandimere right outside of Denver? I thought it was 5,000. These 8 second passes are in EVO's? I haven't heard of one of them if that's the case. Like I said, shouldn't make much of a difference. If they get that close and are building 8 second EVO's then they have enough money to go to a sea level track and not have excuses.
Dave is right here guys, the elevation does not really affect turbo cars nearly as much as a all motor car where an all motor car is more dependent on air, while turbo makes it's own atmosphere.
While traveling around last season my car ran pretty much the same no matter where I went, temps, elevation, ect. Hell I still went 9.27 @157mph in Utah where it was 4700ft and 98 degrees outside. sea level, the car ran pretty much the same, Infact my best run to date was in Las vegas with a 9.11 @159mph at vegas is at around 2200ft..
Only difference I noticed between higher and lower elevations is boost level and spool. Of course at sea level a turbo car will pick up mabye 1-3lbs of boost depending on the setup. While as higher elevations the boost will be lower and slower spooling. But thank god we all have boost controllers, just turn it up to make up the difference or turn it back down when going to sea level.
Only difference I noticed between higher and lower elevations is boost level and spool. Of course at sea level a turbo car will pick up mabye 1-3lbs of boost depending on the setup. While as higher elevations the boost will be lower and slower spooling. But thank god we all have boost controllers, just turn it up to make up the difference or turn it back down when going to sea level.
I don't understand how you guys seem to think elevation has no effect on turbo cars... That is mind boggling...
Watch it Jake, that's twice in the same thread you agreed with me! haha
Wicked E, yes, the thread is about turbo cars and we are telling you that your point of running at high elevation is not a big factor like you were trying to point out that it was.
Wicked E, yes, the thread is about turbo cars and we are telling you that your point of running at high elevation is not a big factor like you were trying to point out that it was.
Cause I've been there, done that, have time slips, logs to back all of it up. Been all over the west coast last season racing BOTI events and the car was consistent within a tenth of a second and the MPH was always spot on!!
My car was running 9.20's-9.30's consistently all year no matter where I was, no matter what elevation, weather, ect. Only thing that changed was the tune, mostly A/F ratios and boost levels from different states. Then I occasionally had my runs in the 9.1 range at 159mph, that was when I really pushed on the car hard just for ****'s and giggles. Theres no arguing about it. Talk to any of the racers that have traveled around with BOTI, NOPI, NHRA sport compact to race with a turbo car, and they will tell you the same thing.
Last edited by evil_eagle; Apr 3, 2008 at 06:39 PM.