edited.......deep sigh....

 

yeah, You sometimes have to put on the flame suit LONG before you make a post. I've never been one to shy away from controversy, nor one to stand in a line, just because everyone else is already lined up. Robertinaustin, I agree with your comparisons statements. With that in mind, why are almost all posts about anything invariably ending in a 'comparison' statement? Simply put, it becomes a point of reference and nothing more. Dynos are the same. A point of reference at a moment in time at a reference point in space. Nothing more. The back-to-back, identical testing is the best way to compare. Not using hype nor subjective comments. What I would love to see is a back to back test of current technologies using first same pump fuel, then race fuel on each. That way, we can see what the latest turbo technology yields, then how each of those technolgies reacts to the different fuels. Is that even possible? The Red's too big to compare, the Greens old technology, the BBK FULL is new technology than the Green, but the Lite is too small to compare to the Green. It would be nice to see a more equal comparison, but not sure if even that is possible. Oh well, good discussions with lots of 'details' brought out on both sides. No harm done.

 

Okay i see where Tom is coming from now. And i have a better understanding the reason for this thread now. But as TOM and everybody else already knows we would have to know air conditions of both runs along with a bunch of other variables.

I think somebody needs to get to Daves and do the back to back test. IMO i think the results are going to be pretty surprising and more evenly matched then what is posted.

 

9sec9,

See post #103: https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/6577881-post103.html

You might want to take another stab at your pencil overlay.

 

I know, my art skills need a tune up. Some of the data had to be extrapolated and in the middle of doing that for myself, I was writing code for one of my customers. I keep 3 or 4 computers running simultaneously, Unix, Windows XP and Windows Server. Since logs were used for the data penciling, my art work could be to blame. I'll take responsibility for that.

 

Bryan, when extracting 'numbers' from your chart, I gave EVERY advantage to a higher number to the GST plot and the lower number to the Buschur plot. If there was ANY question as to what the number was, I tried to make sure that I didn't understate the whp of your pull. That's why my statements clearly stated the numbers I was using. A fat Number 2 pencil, small differences in the higher rpms makes for an easy appearance of being closer than they really might have been. I'll post up the earlier comparison of our Green vs Davids and you can see how close I was on my art work. I guess now, my penciling skills for my own use will be called into question. If the chart doesn't work for you, maybe the numbers would be better to use.

 

Well if the torque curve is correct, then BR's HP should be higher, so if anything, you are selling BR's short.

Is your pencil dyno running the newest updates?

Shouldn't our time be better used than comparing two different cars, with two different fuels, with two different engine managment, with two different tuners, with two different dynos, in two different states on a pencil overlay chart?

 

wouldnt it still be fair to say a bbk vs green dyno testing from BR the bbk would prolly still come out on top since its alot "newer" and has alot of hours R&D with the past year Chad has put into it......it dont make sense to take the orginal badasss stock appearing turbo vs a turbo that took the green and made it better....just dont see the purpose of that test..

i mean the Green has been out what almost 2-3 years now?maybe more?....every year this community keeps inovating itself with newer bigger things and thats how we've got street cars into the 8's this year....i just dont see the purpose of that test....just look at the facts people that 9sec9 has posted and GST..

 

comparing numbers to numbers is one thing but ignoring the fact that both machines interpreted/recorded those numbers differently (just because they may both be mustang dynos doesn't mean they read the same) under different conditions, makes the overlay usless.

 

wow

 

Oh wow, this thread is full of loss. I still don't get the point of any of this. Different cars, different tuners, different everything. Then pencil doodles? What is going on here? The madness! There will never be a true fair comparison between the two, they are different turbos with different parts etc. One could very well make more power with parts combo A, and the other make more power with parts combo B. As well as manufactures castings etc. I really don't see the point, and if I was to buy anything based off the "data" in here. I wouldn't buy **** cause a stock IX turbo is right there with both. So since Mitsubishi shames you all and we all already have that turbo maybe CBRD, and FP should just give it up and call it quits?

 

Here's our numbers on a comparison of JUN's vs HKS on the GREEN. Notice the quick spool up. Only comparision here is to show how quickly the Green CAN spool up, just with cam change and slight tune difference. SAME TURBO. That's how easily a spoolup on the same fuel can be changed.


Here's the dyno of our back to back pulls with same tune, cams but ported vs unported head. This is another one of my reasons I stated a 15 whp difference in favor of Davids car 3 years ago. Unless the GST tuned car also had a ported head, but I assumed not.
added:Sorry, lost the 'copy/paste', should have used my pencil


Now, finally, the answers probably to Bryan's 6000 up, wtq/whp issue. If you read one of my posts I mentioned how Davids car made more whp than ours did from 6000 to 7000 rpms. My art skills obviously used MY whp when I extracted my whp artwork onto the GST plot. As you can see, Bryan was dead on with the problem at 6000 up. With that in mind, the whp difference is even greater on Davids Green. Our dyno pull also clearly shows how we had peak torque by 3900. I think our peak boost was reached earlier, but this chart shows the difference between our car and Davids in Nov 2007. Had I used ours, the lower torque/whp/rpm difference would have obviously been even greater. In summation, back to back comparisons is still the only way to be making comparisons. Even using AVERAGES isn't indicative of your individual results. By the way, the notes on the sheet are Davids, with the rpm/FPGREEN notes being mine.

 

Apple, meet orange.

 

I don't disagree, that's why all previous comparisons mean nothing. This just proves that for every point made, there can be a valid counter point, until both comparisons are equal. What it does point out is the devil can be in the details AND the fact that spool up is not only turbo dependent, but tune and part dependent. Maybe greater than has been previosly noted on several occassions. Spoolup can be manipulated (or tuned in/out) at will.

 

Is anyone looking at these tags on the site now?

"pencil dyno ftw, tom's not an idiot, worst thread of 09"



Anyway I kept seeing this 40k reply thread of a new CBRD secrest sauce turbo and I thought it was all fluff but then as it turns out CBRD obviously made a great turbo so that is cool. Some healthy competition in the stock appearing category can only be good for us end users.

I'll still recommend the Red though as hot damn a 9.5 ET is saying something.