Originally Posted by 9sec9

I thought I would share the reason that I've been optomistic about our recent runs and why the slightest changes are important. The following image shows idential ET runs, the one on the left is from 5/12 the one on the right is from 6/05. Both were 12.02 with the early run at 113.35, the latter was actually at 112.52. The winds were 0 and no direction on the left (early run). On the latter run, the winds were out of the WNW at 1-5 mph (into the front of the car). The early run was made at 63.9 F, the latter run was at 76.6 F. Humidity was 18 early, 15 latter. Barometric early was 29.42 (better), latter was 29.24. I've given all of this to show how easy it is to actually be improving in performance, but due to atmospheric conditions, it won't show on the time slip. Pay attention to those details and take away what you can from each time at the track. The early run was very similar tune as the latter run, with exception of some Mivec changes and timing. Boost was still targeted at 26.5 psi.

You can also see that the early run 'corrected' to an 11.91 whereas the latter run corrects to an 11.82. Yes, these corrctions are identical to the corrections on dyno charts. As a matter of fact, this is why correction is necessary to accurately compare one dyno pull to another. I've seen dyno pulls advertising huge numbers that were actually made at nearly 600' BELOW sealevel, while others were made at 5000' ABOVE sealevel. NO WAY to compare them, even from similar dynos, without an accurate correction factor using weather conditions. Sorry for the poor image, but the alt-printscreen didn't get a very good shot.

Notice that the early run shows that Indy did a better job of driving, traction, and creating the 'used' horsepower, than the second run. 97.2% effective hp vs 94.98

Originally Posted by Erik@MIL.SPEC

Indy, you have mail

Snail mail that is. Should be there soon

Originally Posted by 9sec9

4kinboost, To be honest, I didn't know that the 7.25 V was lighter than stock. I know that the ones (Exedy and Tilton) that we've run on the Wilson Manifolds car were lighter, but we were scrambling to find a clutch for Indy, and primary concern was stopping the slippage. The weight is a + for sure. No doubt, if it is lighter, it will certainly help accelleration, since that's centrifugal force. As for 1.5 - 2 mph, it's going to be difficult to measure, since we were losing 'clamping force' on the newest tune. We expected to run 114 with the new tune, at least. If we go over 114.5 or so, I would say that the clutch weight is certainly showing the beneifit too. Either way, the weight savings is going to help.

Originally Posted by Indy Evo

UPDATE: The clutch was promised Thursday, then Friday, then today... Monday maybe? I'm not impressed... a little communication would have gone a long way and it has set us back two weeks before I can get another chance to get it in.

Originally Posted by Indy Evo

I was in the same boat, I did not want to remove the stock airbox...that was untill 9sec9 told me I had a cement head and read the data . After that it came out...we tried a Vibrant then the Perrin which is still on the car and never leaving. I'm sure the car could have run around a 12.50 with the stock box on Shell 93 if we really leaned on it, but with the info 9sec9 showed me we thought it best to move forward. I ran the OEM paper filter for the first 12 passes on the car, tried the K&N logging and did not see a change although I never took it down track. 9sec9's numbers confirmed this was the cork and we moved on.

Originally Posted by berniEVO

Sounds like I'm just as stubborn as you are
I guess I'll just pick up the perrin intake and deal with the noise. I'd like to get away with just tuning the car once and leaving it for a while, so I might as well get the most out of it.

Thanks for the info, and best of luck with the rest of the build

Originally Posted by 9sec9

4kinboost, To be honest, I didn't know that the 7.25 V was lighter than stock. I know that the ones (Exedy and Tilton) that we've run on the Wilson Manifolds car were lighter, but we were scrambling to find a clutch for Indy, and primary concern was stopping the slippage. The weight is a + for sure. No doubt, if it is lighter, it will certainly help accelleration, since that's centrifugal force. As for 1.5 - 2 mph, it's going to be difficult to measure, since we were losing 'clamping force' on the newest tune. We expected to run 114 with the new tune, at least. If we go over 114.5 or so, I would say that the clutch weight is certainly showing the beneifit too. Either way, the weight savings is going to help.

Originally Posted by Arkitek

what clutches have you all thought about? i;m looking into a new clutch soon, but my first is a better turbo and injectors. but i cant make up my mind on a clutch. and i need to find your number to call you! I need to pick your brain and maybe a tune haha

Originally Posted by 4kinboost

Big difference from the triple-disc.. Not sure about the weight on stock.

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ster-twin.html

I've noticed the car 'revs-out' much quicker with this set-up vs stock. I wish I had before/after logs to share with you.

Originally Posted by Indy Evo

If you are not pushing your car to the limit, and it's a daily driver, you might just throw a drop in filter in the OEM box and be done with it.

The noise is moderate with the Perrin filter and you get used to it over time, but if you are emissions restricted, or just don't want to hear the turbo and RBOV just get a drop in. Indy