I'm going in, cover me... (Built 1.8L GT2871)
06-21-2010, 11:31 PM
#82
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 2,910
Total Cats: 51
Turbo sounds like it spools up HARD.
im excited since i just ordered one of these turbos today!
i didnt go back to the start though... what A/R is the turbo?
edit i checked. 0.64... wicked stuff dude!
im excited since i just ordered one of these turbos today!
i didnt go back to the start though... what A/R is the turbo?
edit i checked. 0.64... wicked stuff dude!
Last edited by shlammed; 06-21-2010 at 11:44 PM.
Reply
0
0
06-22-2010, 02:17 PM
#83
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,847
Total Cats: 27
When I ordered this turbo I agonized over the decision on the ported shroud because I did not want a super loud compressor whistle. But it was not nearly as bad as I thought once I installed it. I am glad I added that option because it broadens out the compressor map a bit to the left side (surge line) with a very minor hit in efficiency, about 1%. In fact an ATP tech (and a Garrett engineer) both recommended it. There is a thread about it around here somewhere.
Reply
0
0
06-22-2010, 09:39 PM
#86
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 2,910
Total Cats: 51
from what i saw on the Garrett website there is only a 48 trim and a 56 trim, but with different style compressor housings.
Maybe there is more non-garrett custom wheels or something.
Maybe there is more non-garrett custom wheels or something.
Reply
0
0
06-22-2010, 10:12 PM
#87
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,892
Total Cats: 399
There should be a 52 trim too. I think that's what savington runs.
http://turbobygarrett.com/turbobygar..._472560_15.htm
http://turbobygarrett.com/turbobygar..._472560_15.htm
Reply
0
0
06-23-2010, 08:36 AM
#89
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Is this the same dyno that Eastep scored 288whp on a cast manifold, 2560, and 2.5" DP at 15psi? Numbers are just that, my car is still the fastest on this board, you're all ****, I'm more fertile, and you're all finooks.
Reply
0
0
06-23-2010, 10:05 AM
#90
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,847
Total Cats: 27
I'll bet he was on the Dynojet. Its numbers prop up the inadequate compensators, like yourself for example.
I do miss my 2560 sometimes. The insta-spool is nice.
I do miss my 2560 sometimes. The insta-spool is nice.
Reply
0
0
06-23-2010, 10:30 AM
#91
MPH at the end of the 1/4mi is pretty accurate. Pure physics. Wheelspin and driving skill make very little difference. The only compensation really necessary is the density altitude. This is a fantastic calculator:
http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-...calculator.php
It's probably been posted a thousand times but this is my favorite et/mph/weight/whp calculator:
http://www.rpmoutlet.com/dyno.htm
http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-...calculator.php
It's probably been posted a thousand times but this is my favorite et/mph/weight/whp calculator:
http://www.rpmoutlet.com/dyno.htm
Reply
0
0
06-23-2010, 12:05 PM
#92
MPH at the end of the 1/4mi is pretty accurate. Pure physics. Wheelspin and driving skill make very little difference. The only compensation really necessary is the density altitude. This is a fantastic calculator:
http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-...calculator.php
It's probably been posted a thousand times but this is my favorite et/mph/weight/whp calculator:
http://www.rpmoutlet.com/dyno.htm
http://www.dragtimes.com/da-density-...calculator.php
It's probably been posted a thousand times but this is my favorite et/mph/weight/whp calculator:
http://www.rpmoutlet.com/dyno.htm
Reply
0
0
06-23-2010, 01:03 PM
#94
I should have mentioned that the ET that is calculated is if you have a very good launch/traction and shift well. This is my personal experience on mph being a good measure of hp.
A couple years ago I ran a 13.468@107 w/ 2.21 60'. I had no traction, let off, got back on it, had trouble getting into gear and went through the traps at 107mph.
A year later, same setup except I was able to heat up the very old drag radials and had a trans that shifted decently. The result was a 12.98@106 w/1.91 60'.
To prove that the whp was pretty much the same(not taking density altitude into account):
1/8mi ET x 1.55 = 1/4 mi ET. So, for time cut off in the first 1/8th will pay off 1.55x in the 1/4.
Between the two runs the 60' launch difference x 1.55:
(2.21-1.91)x1.55=.465 seconds
Add this into the fast ET:
.465 + 12.981 = 13.446
and it is pretty close to the slow ET of 13.468.
Thus, at least in my case, mph is an indicator of whp even with poor traction and shifting. On the flip side, it shows how much a good launch makes.
A couple years ago I ran a 13.468@107 w/ 2.21 60'. I had no traction, let off, got back on it, had trouble getting into gear and went through the traps at 107mph.
A year later, same setup except I was able to heat up the very old drag radials and had a trans that shifted decently. The result was a 12.98@106 w/1.91 60'.
To prove that the whp was pretty much the same(not taking density altitude into account):
1/8mi ET x 1.55 = 1/4 mi ET. So, for time cut off in the first 1/8th will pay off 1.55x in the 1/4.
Between the two runs the 60' launch difference x 1.55:
(2.21-1.91)x1.55=.465 seconds
Add this into the fast ET:
.465 + 12.981 = 13.446
and it is pretty close to the slow ET of 13.468.
Thus, at least in my case, mph is an indicator of whp even with poor traction and shifting. On the flip side, it shows how much a good launch makes.
Reply
0
0
06-23-2010, 01:23 PM
#96
I was 2540lbs so it calculates to around 240whp+/- which sounds like it would be in the ballpark. This car has never been on a dyno.
ZX-Tex's car will run between an 11.90-13.20 at a trap speed of 108-116mph. Only one way to find out! Maybe we should have a pool.
Reply
0
0
