2007 Shelby GT500...9.96@141

[Teufelhunden]

Stock s/c, engine, trans :wow

9sec GT500 Video (http://www.evoperform.com/GT500/9.wmv)

Dyno #'s
664hp
778tq

Mods:
2.5" Pulley
75 shot
Headers
3" Exhaust
hot air intake
tune
E/T Drags

http://www.evoperform.com/images/mainpagegt500.jpg

[BOSS LX]

Torque monster!

Very impressive!

And that is mid 9 second mph!

[juicedimpss]

damn,thats a pretty car.

[Reverend Cooper]

f'n sah weet i know what my next new car will be fo sho

[animal]

Heh, is there even a pulley there?

Looks like the belt just hooks to the shaft that thing is so tiny :)

I wonder what kind of belt slip they're getting

[HITMAN]

That's pretty impressive. These engines LOVE the bottle. The torque skyrockets even on a small shot. But I would like to know how much this car has been lightened, as 3900+lbs (stock weight) and 664rwhp do not equal 141mph trap speeds on my planet.:confused

[Slow Joe]

Wow... That's... Sweet!

[HITMAN]

Heh, is there even a pulley there?

Looks like the belt just hooks to the shaft that thing is so tiny :)

I wonder what kind of belt slip they're getting

Good question. It makes me wonder if they have any aftermarket idler pulleys or some sort of manual tensioner pulley to keep the belt wrap to the maximum. The blower snout must be very small to accommodate that size pulley. I know on my Eaton I'd have to machine the crap out of my front housing to put a pulley anywhere near that small on it.

[animal]

Good question. It makes me wonder if they have any aftermarket idler pulleys or some sort of manual tensioner pulley to keep the belt wrap to the maximum. The blower snout must be very small to accommodate that size pulley. I know on my Eaton I'd have to machine the crap out of my front housing to put a pulley anywhere near that small on it.

Heh, you goofy snout pulley guys... us Lightning guys get to use a larger lower pulley :devil

Just cog it :durr :goof

[BOSS LX]

But I would like to know how much this car has been lightened, as 3900+lbs (stock weight) and 664rwhp do not equal 141mph trap speeds on my planet.:confused


Good point! It looks like there is a roll bar in there as well. One thing to remember is it is a stick car, which means it only has around 720 hp at the crank.

[Flicktitty]

i wonder what it goes on boost alone no nitrous? Very impressive car though

[HITMAN]

Heh, you goofy snout pulley guys... us Lightning guys get to use a larger lower pulley :devil

Just cog it :durr :goof

Oh, I think I might know somebody with a Metco 4lb lower to go with his Billetflow 2.93 upper...;)

Actually, MotoBlue makes a cog drive set up for an Eaton. I saw a video of it and it sounds bad-ass, much better than the standard Eaton "bad power steering pump" yowl. I wanted to buy it, but I kept reading about what a POS it is, so I took a pass. Maybe they'll work the bugs out of it and make it so it fits a KB or Whipple. Now THAT would be cool...:devil

[BAD LS1]

Now that is neat! I absolutley love two things especially about this: The simplicity of it, it took very few mods. And that its STILL a manual trans.

That car must make a ton of torque is right, it was 2 thenths faster alone in the 1/8th and 1 mph quicker than my car, which the weight of mine is about 3400 and has the torque of a 200 shot to push it. So its impressive that that heavier car with a slower 60 foot, and roughly about the same HP can hustle that hard.

Very cool! If i could only afford one, i have found my next project car.

Animal, looks like they got a 3.5" idler pulley right next to the blower pulley. Probably still a struggle to keep it clamped! unless it has VHT injection for the belt of course hahah.

[HITMAN]

Good point! It looks like there is a roll bar in there as well. One thing to remember is it is a stick car, which means it only has around 720 hp at the crank.

Hmmm. How do you figure? If I use the "standard" 15% loss for manual transmissions I come up with 780fwhp. 780 - 15% = 663rwhp.

Meh, either way, it's damned impressive for an internally stock 330 cid motor with some bolt-ons.:shades

[animal]

unless it has VHT injection for the belt of course hahah.

Now that is a sweet concept! :)

[HITMAN]

Now that is neat! I absolutley love two things especially about this: The simplicity of it, it took very few mods. And that its STILL a manual trans.

That car must make a ton of torque is right, it was 2 thenths faster alone in the 1/8th and 1 mph quicker than my car, which the weight of mine is about 3400 and has the torque of a 200 shot to push it. So its impressive that that heavier car with a slower 60 foot, and roughly about the same HP can hustle that hard.

Very cool! If i could only afford one, i have found my next project car.

Animal, looks like they got a 3.5" idler pulley right next to the blower pulley. Probably still a struggle to keep it clamped! unless it has VHT injection for the belt of course hahah.

Just get an '03/'04, unless the styling doesn't appeal to you. Very similar potential, without all of the weight. Better aftermarket support, as well.

And you're right about that idler. I wasn't paying that much attention the first time I watched. It looks very similar to my idlers. Probably a Billetflow prototype. I know with my auxiliary idler set-up, my belt doesn't even think about slipping.

[BOSS LX]

Hmmm. How do you figure? If I use the "standard" 15% loss for manual transmissions I come up with 780fwhp. 780 - 15% = 663rwhp.

Meh, either way, it's damned impressive for an internally stock 330 cid motor with some bolt-ons.:shades

Yeah, you are closer.

Now if those cars sold for sticker, it would be a steal!

For 3900 lbs to go 141 mph, it should take around 880hp, right? I think that car is around 3600 lbs, race ready.

[BOSS LX]

Now that is a sweet concept! :)


VHT works! It gets a little messy though!:rolf

[HITMAN]

Yeah, you are closer.

Now if those cars sold for sticker, it would be a steal!

For 3900 lbs to go 141 mph, it should take around 880hp, right? I think that car is around 3600 lbs, race ready.

If you use the flywheel hp formula of mph x .00426, cube the result, and then multiply that figure by the weight of the vehicle (in this case 4100lbs including the driver), then yeah, about 890fwhp. That would equate to about 760 at the wheels to go 141mph @ 4100lbs.

3600lbs WITH driver would work out perfectly. Gut chob mit da zience calculations, mine Herr.:thumbsup

[BAD LS1]

Anyone know how much these things are going for?

I like the fact that they have a solid axle 8.8" in them right off the bat. With an 03-04 id be into that racing tax right off the bat with having to scrap the IRS axle.

I like the looks of the 03-04 better actually, just the rear end and not having the 5.4L kinda would make it a hard pill to swallow for me.

First thing to go would be every emblem and stripe off the car if i got one. More sleeper, less tacky. Red, black or white body color.

To each their own, they can make a ton of HP too, I personally have not heard of and 03-04 going this fast w/o more mods anyway, perhaps one has information on ones that do?

[Teufelhunden]

Whats the tank for? Water/methanol injection?

[BOSS LX]

Whats the tank for? Water/methanol injection?
Heat exchanger reservoir.

[theavenger333]

a good belt on that type of setup i would think would do well. get teh gatorback. i also am curious of the car without N2O

[HITMAN]

Anyone know how much these things are going for?

I like the fact that they have a solid axle 8.8" in them right off the bat. With an 03-04 id be into that racing tax right off the bat with having to scrap the IRS axle.

I like the looks of the 03-04 better actually, just the rear end and not having the 5.4L kinda would make it a hard pill to swallow for me.

First thing to go would be every emblem and stripe off the car if i got one. More sleeper, less tacky. Red, black or white body color.

To each their own, they can make a ton of HP too, I personally have not heard of and 03-04 going this fast w/o more mods anyway, perhaps one has information on ones that do?

There are guys with solid axle cars (GTs) that will swap with you all day long. I have a guy in Appleton that wants to swap with me, but I have gotten cold feet after reading some articles by Postban on SVTperformance.com. He's had two different Cobra's, a vert with a solid axle swap and a coupe with a modded IRS. He really didn't care for the solid axle after he made the swap, and as he really had no use forthe convertible either, he sold the car. He decided to go a different route with his coupe and put the effort and money into beefing up the IRS. This way, you end up with a car that still handles and rides like a dream (compared to a solid axle car) yet still gives you the strength for drag racing. The solid axle swap is definitely cheaper, and if handling and comfort aren't your bag, than that is most assuredly the way to go. Next year I want to ride in Sam's Cobra before I make a final decision on which way to go.

The bigger engine will always have more potential, but it's not as well built as the 4.6 is. Ford cheaped out on the rods. They're still forged, but they aren't the Manley aftermarket H-beams that came in the '03/'04 engines.

As for ETs? Here, read this thread (http://www.modularfords.com/forums/2003-2004-mustang-cobra/first-eaton-cobra-in-the-9s-47753.html?highlight=9s+eaton).

[HITMAN]

a good belt on that type of setup i would think would do well. get teh gatorback.

The Gates belts from NAPA are better and they are less noisy than the Gatorbacks are.

[TransAm12sec]

Mods:
75 shot



It says a NX 100 wet shot in the first post.

I read through post 4, some people were doubting the jetting. What happens in the end of the thread?

[HITMAN]

It says a NX 100 wet shot in the first post.

I read through post 4, some people were doubting the jetting. What happens in the end of the thread?

I think you've mistaken the car in the link I posted for the car that this thread is about. The car in my link is an '03 Cobra not an '07 GT500. The older Cobra does use a slightly larger shot of nitrous than does the GT500 that is the subject of this thread.

I posted that link for Tommy so that he could see that '03/'04 Cobras have similar potential to the much larger and heavier GT500.

[A B4C Z]

that heat exchanger tank STOCK!?

[HITMAN]

that heat exchanger tank STOCK!?

Negative. That tank probably hold three to four times stock capacity.

[Prince Valiant]

Is the torque numbers *with* the nitrous or without? I'm just trying to guestimate the boost numbers from this combo...it seems to come out something radical like 26 some psi which I wouldn't think that blower would even be able to come close to. Almost seems that a larger shot would be needed. jmo.

A more conservative estimation puts the boost levels at ~ 20 or so, itself, quite high for a stock s/c...can't see the vid here, so just working from what's in the first post.

[A B4C Z]

So there really is more to the maddness than just those simple bolt ons. There extra little things lurking around to help the combo not just the pulley exhaust tune situation.

example 1 the heat exchanger tank. Possible bigger heat exchanger also?
Still damn impressive.

Was this on ford factory suspension or aftermarket?

kyle

[HITMAN]

Is the torque numbers *with* the nitrous or without? I'm just trying to guestimate the boost numbers from this combo...it seems to come out something radical like 26 some psi which I wouldn't think that blower would even be able to come close to. Almost seems that a larger shot would be needed. jmo.

A more conservative estimation puts the boost levels at ~ 20 or so, itself, quite high for a stock s/c...can't see the vid here, so just working from what's in the first post.

The hp and torque numbers are with the N2O flowing. That's a fairly good sized blower from the factory. It displaces 2.3 liters (140ci). It's the same sized blower as the Ford GT super car, but instead of being a twin-screw, it's a high helix roots style. The blower has been ported and is probably putting out around 15 psi of boost.

[HITMAN]

So there really is more to the maddness than just those simple bolt ons. There extra little things lurking around to help the combo not just the pulley exhaust tune situation.

example 1 the heat exchanger tank. Possible bigger heat exchanger also?
Still damn impressive.

Was this on ford factory suspension or aftermarket?

kyle

Oh they're still bolt-ons, but yeah, there's some stuff that hasn't been mentioned. It most assuredly has a bigger heat exchanger. And the factory blower has been ported in addition to the smaller-than-stock pulley. The suspension is of stock configuration but it does utilize BMR aftermarket control arms.

[Crawlin]

Yep, I'd do like Sam and do an auto and solid axle in an '03-'04 Cobra in a heartbeat with just some bolt ons and spray and see how fast the thing could go. Just having a hard time swallowing doing that to a $25k+ pricetag car at this point.

[Prince Valiant]

I'm also always skeptical of "stock" designations...as if nothing has been done to it.

It's like the "stock" 69 two-barrel camaro I saw with a 307 running low 13's. Sure it was "stock", but the engine had been gone through and blueprinted within an inch of it's life, taking advantage of every loophole available (compression, lightening the rotating mass, porting, cam duration, LSA, centerline, exhaust, etc, etc,etc) while running 4.88 gears.

Like the heads on my plymouth...completely "stock" in one sense, well ported in a real and actual sense.

I'd prefer to see "completely untouched factory long-block", or something along those lines before I believe "stock".

plus, boost is boost up to a point...I wouldn't be suprised to see that thing running 18-20psi, just that the internal mods to the blower within the stock housing allows for an increase in it's adiabatic efficiency (if not it's volume too), allowing it to boost to levels significantly greater than a stock, un-modded s/c.

[BOSS LX]

Regardless, it is a 9 second street car.

There are very few cars with that little of mods doing it.

[TransAm12sec]

Kick ass song in the vid.

[Prince Valiant]

Regardless, it is a 9 second street car..Wasn't saying otherwise.


There are very few cars with that little of mods doing it. Well, if I had a blown v8 pushing 15+psi, running a shot of 75 shot of nitrous, I'd hope whatever that engine was in would be in the 9's. It's not like hearing a combo like that being in the 9's is *shocking*

See, it depends on how you actually look at it. You can say it has a "few mods", or call it like it is.

[BOSS LX]

No, your right. It isn't *SHOCKING* to see a fairly stock mustang going fast.:thumbsup

Pick a car in it's price range that can match it with very little mods.

Its easy to talk about it, but it is a different story to do it.

141 mph is badass!:headbang

[HITMAN]

Wasn't saying otherwise.

Well, if I had a blown v8 pushing 15+psi, running a shot of 75 shot of nitrous, I'd hope whatever that engine was in would be in the 9's. It's not like hearing a combo like that being in the 9's is *shocking*

See, it depends on how you actually look at it. You can say it has a "few mods", or call it like it is.

Here's a simple test. You use your Valiant, as it is a fairly light weight car with a 360 cubic inch engine. Here are the rules. The engine can have forged rod and pistons, but no more than 9:1 compression and it MUST run a hydraulic cam. You will not be allowed to internally modify anything once it is together and running. You put a 6-71 blower on it with a couple of 850 Holley's. The boost can be no more than 15psi. The fuel will be 100 octane unleaded race gas. You get to add a 75 shot of nitrous. You also get to run a set of Mopar Super Stock springs and slicks. You must run a stock Hemi four speed with a streetable clutch and H pattern aftermarket shifter. You may move the battery to the trunk. The car must have working AC, power windows, power locks, working stereo, power trunk release. You may use race buckets and remove the rear seat, but the car must be no lighter than 3600 pounds. I've given you more cubes, more throttle area, and a bigger blower to make up for the lack of an intercooler. Now get it to run high nines at 140+ if you think it's so easy.

I'm betting you can't.

[animal]

I'm betting you can't.

Heh we should start a new stickie and call it "Take the Hitman Challenge".

Too bad said challenge is not funded. I'd try it.

[BOSS LX]

Here's a simple test. You use your Valiant, as it is a fairly light weight car with a 360 cubic inch engine. Here are the rules. The engine can have forged rod and pistons, but no more than 9:1 compression and it MUST run a hydraulic cam. You will not be allowed to internally modify anything once it is together and running. You put a 6-71 blower on it with a couple of 850 Holley's. The boost can be no more than 15psi. The fuel will be 100 octane unleaded race gas. You get to add a 75 shot of nitrous. You also get to run a set of Mopar Super Stock springs and slicks. You must run a stock Hemi four speed with a streetable clutch and H pattern aftermarket shifter. You may move the battery to the trunk. The car must have working AC, power windows, power locks, working stereo, power trunk release. You may use race buckets and remove the rear seat, but the car must be no lighter than 3600 pounds. I've given you more cubes, more throttle area, and a bigger blower to make up for the lack of an intercooler. Now get it to run high nines at 140+ if you think it's so easy.

I'm betting you can't.



Good luck!:thumbsup

But to make it fair, we should let him use a big block and Indy heads!

[FourEyedFord]

Good luck!:thumbsup

But to make it fair, we should let him use a big block and Indy heads!

I thought you said you were making it fair? I think this would also be needed to even the playing field for the Mopar. :)

http://static.summitracing.com/global/images/prod/large/nos-02520-cnos_w.jpg

[FourEyedFord]

Well, if I had a blown v8 pushing 15+psi, running a shot of 75 shot of nitrous, I'd hope whatever that engine was in would be in the 9's. It's not like hearing a combo like that being in the 9's is *shocking*


If you have never had one or built one, then why are you calling it easy?
Like Boss LX said, it is easy to talk about it, but it is another thing to ACTUALLY DO IT. :thumbsup

[Prince Valiant]

Here's a simple test. You use your Valiant, as it is a fairly light weight car with a 360 cubic inch engine. Here are the rules. The engine can have forged rod and pistons, but no more than 9:1 compression and it MUST run a hydraulic cam. You will not be allowed to internally modify anything once it is together and running. You put a 6-71 blower on it with a couple of 850 Holley's. The boost can be no more than 15psi. The fuel will be 100 octane unleaded race gas. You get to add a 75 shot of nitrous. You also get to run a set of Mopar Super Stock springs and slicks. You must run a stock Hemi four speed with a streetable clutch and H pattern aftermarket shifter. You may move the battery to the trunk. The car must have working AC, power windows, power locks, working stereo, power trunk release. You may use race buckets and remove the rear seat, but the car must be no lighter than 3600 pounds. I've given you more cubes, more throttle area, and a bigger blower to make up for the lack of an intercooler. Now get it to run high nines at 140+ if you think it's so easy.

I'm betting you can't. You and I both know a 6-71 stands no chance pushing 15+ psi (actually, you DON'T seem to know this :rolleyes: ). Most of the ones I see on small blocks are running 6-8 generally, and 10 tops, so I'd probably actually take an 8-71, and even then, I'd probably find a better choice of blower to begin with. Regardless...if I chosed to pursue and fund such a project, I don't doubt my abilities to accomplish solid 9's....that being w/o the aid of nitrious.

I just choose NOT to live with my parents, that's all :loser

Oh yeah, good luck finding a valiant with power locks, power windows, power trunk release (ooooooh!), or even a working stero :rolf

But hey, I understand, if you guys are super-duper-impressed by it, go with it. You guys are probably running out of free pron to whack-off to on the internet.

[DirtyMax]

A book

I think the point you're missing is this is a car you can walk into a dealer and buy, bolt on a few parts probably totaling $1500 tops, drive it to the track with the A/C on and the cruise at 80 MPH, run 9.40's all day long, then drive it on the freeway home... all without ever even opening the motor to modify it whatsoever. And also all for less that MSRP on a Z06 or a Viper. That's impressive IMO...

[Teufelhunden]

You guys are probably running out of free porn...on the internet.You know it will never happen.

[FourEyedFord]

You and I both know a 6-71 stands no chance pushing 15+ psi (actually, you DON'T seem to know this :rolleyes: ). Most of the ones I see on small blocks are running 6-8 generally, and 10 tops, so I'd probably actually take an 8-71, and even then, I'd probably find a better choice of blower to begin with. Regardless...if I chosed to pursue and fund such a project, I don't doubt my abilities to accomplish solid 9's....that being w/o the aid of nitrious.

I just choose NOT to live with my parents, that's all :loser

Oh yeah, good luck finding a valiant with power locks, power windows, power trunk release (ooooooh!), or even a working stero :rolf

But hey, I understand, if you guys are super-duper-impressed by it, go with it. You guys are probably running out of free pron to whack-off to on the internet.


Well, at least you can admit you were wrong, but you don't have to be salty about it. :D

By the way, congrats for not living with your parents at 32. :thumbsup

[BOSS LX]

You and I both know a 6-71 stands no chance pushing 15+ psi (actually, you DON'T seem to know this :rolleyes: ). Most of the ones I see on small blocks are running 6-8 generally, and 10 tops, so I'd probably actually take an 8-71, and even then, I'd probably find a better choice of blower to begin with. Regardless...if I chosed to pursue and fund such a project, I don't doubt my abilities to accomplish solid 9's....that being w/o the aid of nitrious.

I just choose NOT to live with my parents, that's all :loser

Oh yeah, good luck finding a valiant with power locks, power windows, power trunk release (ooooooh!), or even a working stero :rolf

But hey, I understand, if you guys are super-duper-impressed by it, go with it. You guys are probably running out of free pron to whack-off to on the internet.


Nobody went the personal route with you. When I am 32, we can compare achievements.

Again keep talking the big talk, but the truth is a bone ass stock GT 500 has you by a second!:rolf

Just another thread to prove you are a Choad!

[Teufelhunden]

I think the point you're missing is this is a car you can walk into a dealer and buy, bolt on a few parts probably totaling $1500 tops, drive it to the track with the A/C on and the cruise at 80 MPH, run 9.40's all day long, $1500?:stare That may get you the exhaust.

[nismodave]

Who cares if it takes 25 cents in mods to make a car go 9s or 25k?

The Gt500 is a great car......Dont think I would own one if I had the money, but thats me.

Its kind of like the..."If my car had a Turbo......" or "If my car had 4 more pistons......."

There are plenty of people on BCM that have spent some BIG BUCKS on cars, some not as much.

Fast is fast IMO......I dont care how you get there. Although it can be hard to compete with SHOP CARS......Like AMS' cars and so forth. Where they have an endless supply of $ and tuning capabilitys.

SHUT UP AND RACE.......:D

[BOSS LX]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=choad

[Prince Valiant]

Again keep talking the big talk, but the truth is a bone ass stock GT 500 has you by a second!:rolf
Really? I was under the impression that a 12.7 (sourced by MT, as I've never witnessed a stock GT500 at the track)-12.9=0.2 :confused

When I am 32, we can compare achievements.
uh, sure. whatever :rolleyes:

I think the point you guys are missing is this:

Yep, car is what it is. Guy took it and did some very smart mods, and getting the *most* from said mods. Great :thumbsup to him. Nothing critical there :rolleyes:

I also brought up issues I have with the terminology, IE, how the word "stock" is used and more importantly abused. Didn't accuse this guy of anything. Just pointed out examples of misuse of the word, in ways readily done on this board even. Stated that I more readily accept "untouched factory long-block" over the term "stock", as "stock" is abused too often. Again, didn't accuse anyone of anything :rolleyes:

Asked the qeustion "how much boost" the guy is running (not really answered, but guessed at). What the hell is wrong with that? Stock one turns what, 10-12psi? How much more boost can it run effeciently, what did it take to get it to boost more effeciently? WOW, ohwhatanassIam! :rolleyes:

Pointed out that a car running 15lbs or more of boost, WITH nitrous running in the 9's is NOT that shocking. Really, it isn't. Don't know WHY you guys would think it is. Sure...I don't think I could take a STOCK (or better yet, untouched factory long-block) 5.0, give it 15psi, and a 75 shot (assuming it'd live with all that) and end up with a 9 second car...maybe though. It's a little less certain when you start with 215-225hp car.

Start with an admittedly heavy car, but with a v8 producing in excess of 300hp NA, and 15psi and 75shot looks pretty enticing. I WOULD be disappointed if it wasn't damn close to 9's, given that my suspension was in order.

For some reason, you guys get butt-hurt about all this. Don't ask me why...it's like you've guys got the thinnest, most sensitive skin in the world...as if anything short of:

"OHMYFREAKIN'GOD THAT'S THE MOST AMAZING THING MY EYES AND MIND HAVE EVER WITNESSED!!!!! USA! USA! USA! USA! I WANT ToBY KIETH'S BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!"

...elicits from you guys:

"well, if it's so easy, let's see YOU do it"

It's so predictable. Everytime.

Tell you what. Come and borrow my 6hp shop vacuum, so that you can get the sand out of your guys seat. Because somehow the sand is making it's way past your panties and into your vaginas. :wooo :rolf

[DirtyMax]

$1500?:stare That may get you the exhaust.

Fine, make it $3K. You're still under $50K including the car and running mid 9's without even opening the motor...

[DirtyMax]

Pointed out that a car running 15lbs or more of boost, WITH nitrous running in the 9's is NOT that shocking. Really, it isn't. Don't know WHY you guys would think it is.

When the curb weight of the car is 3920 and you're rowing gears all the way down, it is.

[Prince Valiant]

When the curb weight of the car is 3920 and you're rowing gears all the way down, it is.
eh. Not really.

[BOSS LX]

Really? I was under the impression that a 12.7 (sourced by MT, as I've never witnessed a stock GT500 at the track)-12.9=0.2 :confused
uh, sure. whatever :rolleyes:

I think the point you guys are missing is this:

Yep, car is what it is. Guy took it and did some very smart mods, and getting the *most* from said mods. Great :thumbsup to him. Nothing critical there :rolleyes:

I also brought up issues I have with the terminology, IE, how the word "stock" is used and more importantly abused. Didn't accuse this guy of anything. Just pointed out examples of misuse of the word, in ways readily done on this board even. Stated that I more readily accept "untouched factory long-block" over the term "stock", as "stock" is abused too often. Again, didn't accuse anyone of anything :rolleyes:

Asked the qeustion "how much boost" the guy is running (not really answered, but guessed at). What the hell is wrong with that? Stock one turns what, 10-12psi? How much more boost can it run effeciently, what did it take to get it to boost more effeciently? WOW, ohwhatanassIam! :rolleyes:

Pointed out that a car running 15lbs or more of boost, WITH nitrous running in the 9's is NOT that shocking. Really, it isn't. Don't know WHY you guys would think it is. Sure...I don't think I could take a STOCK (or better yet, untouched factory long-block) 5.0, give it 15psi, and a 75 shot (assuming it'd live with all that) and end up with a 9 second car...maybe though. It's a little less certain when you start with 215-225hp car.

Start with an admittedly heavy car, but with a v8 producing in excess of 300hp NA, and 15psi and 75shot looks pretty enticing. I WOULD be disappointed if it wasn't damn close to 9's, given that my suspension was in order.

For some reason, you guys get butt-hurt about all this. Don't ask me why...it's like you've guys got the thinnest, most sensitive skin in the world...as if anything short of:

"OHMYFREAKIN'GOD THAT'S THE MOST AMAZING THING MY EYES AND MIND HAVE EVER WITNESSED!!!!! USA! USA! USA! USA! I WANT ToBY KIETH'S BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!"

...elicits from you guys:

"well, if it's so easy, let's see YOU do it"

It's so predictable. Everytime.

Tell you what. Come and borrow my 6hp shop vacuum, so that you can get the sand out of your guys seat. Because somehow the sand is making it's way past your panties and into your vaginas. :wooo :rolf



For you to sit there and point out why this car is not impressive, is absurd.

I don't have thin skin, you just know how to get under it.:goof

Your opinion is your opinion, but you are still a choad.:goof

[Prince Valiant]

For you to sit there and point out why this car is not impressive, is absurd.

I don't have thin skin, you just know how to get under it.:goof

Your opinion is your opinion, but you are still a choad.:goofi'm MUCH taller than I am wide. Get it right. :durr

[Prince Valiant]

For you to sit there and point out why this car is not impressive, is absurd.Plus, I said I wasn't all that surprised, or even in the first post, *shocked*

Big difference from impressed.

[FourEyedFord]

Just another thread to prove you are a Choad!

Hahaha! Prince NeedsaValium is a Choad! :rolf

Your the one getting all hot and bothered about this. Why else would you twist our posts into this:

"OHMYFREAKIN'GOD THAT'S THE MOST AMAZING THING MY EYES AND MIND HAVE EVER WITNESSED!!!!! USA! USA! USA! USA! I WANT ToBY KIETH'S BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!" :eek:

[BOSS LX]

Plus, I said I wasn't all that surprised, or even in the first post, *shocked*

Big difference from impressed.

And I told you why you weren’t *shocked*. Because it is a Mustang.


"OHMYFREAKIN'GOD THAT'S THE MOST AMAZING THING MY EYES AND MIND HAVE EVER WITNESSED!!!!! USA! USA! USA! USA! I WANT ToBY KIETH'S BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!"

And WTF?

[Prince Valiant]

I hope the tech school's you guys are at have decent remedial reading courses, cuz reading comprehension>>>>>*you guys

:rolf

[BOSS LX]

I hope the tech school's you guys are at have decent remedial reading courses, cuz reading comprehension>>>>>*you guys

:rolf

I owe you one. When you post up a 89% stock mopar going 141 mph, I will simply give you a :thumbsup .:goof

It's winter and I am happy that I got to use the word "choad"!:rolf

[HITMAN]

You and I both know a 6-71 stands no chance pushing 15+ psi (actually, you DON'T seem to know this :rolleyes: ). Most of the ones I see on small blocks are running 6-8 generally, and 10 tops, so I'd probably actually take an 8-71, and even then, I'd probably find a better choice of blower to begin with. Regardless...if I chosed to pursue and fund such a project, I don't doubt my abilities to accomplish solid 9's....that being w/o the aid of nitrious.

I just choose NOT to live with my parents, that's all :loser

Oh yeah, good luck finding a valiant with power locks, power windows, power trunk release (ooooooh!), or even a working stero :rolf

But hey, I understand, if you guys are super-duper-impressed by it, go with it. You guys are probably running out of free pron to whack-off to on the internet.

:rolf Looks like someone put her thong on backward and got it twisted up in her labia.

Look btch, you're the one with the claimed vast automotive knowledge. I merely offered you a challenge to demonstrate it. You see, I HAVE built a 9 second car with a stock style suspension, and I did it without the use of nitrous OR a blower and it weighed 3700 pounds with me in it. So I am slightly familiar with what's involved in building a car to go that quickly. If it were THAT easy, then EVERYONE would have a 9 second car.

Also, in my challenge, YOU don't get to pick what blower to use. You made the comment about 15 psi and N2O, so you have to constrain yourself to trying to equal or better what the GT500 did on similar equipment. What better way to show all of us knuckle-dragging rubes your incredible engine building prowess. In other words, no, you don't get to throw on a Procharger F3R and run it at 15psi.

BTW, I passing familiarity with the capabilities of a 6-71 GMC blower. :rolleyes: The car I owned before my RR was a '67 Camaro with a 6-71 blown 350. The engine made 8.5 pounds of boost with the blower being 13% UNDERDRIVEN. Imagine what it would have made had I swapped those pulleys and overdriven the blower by 13%... A 6-71 is a MUCH larger blower than what comes on either my engine or the 5.4 in the GT500. I would imagine if you wanted to get serious with one, you could probably get it to produce in excess of 20psi.

As for your Valiant not having any luxury or power amenities, I am terribly sorry to hear that. I'll remember that when I blow past you in my unimpressive 4000 pound Cobra with the tunes playing and the ice blowing on my way to my Mom's house in time for bed. :thumbsup

[HITMAN]

Good luck!:thumbsup

But to make it fair, we should let him use a big block and Indy heads!

Hmmm, I know this is all in fun, but with the right big-block and Indy heads, he could probably go deep nines without any power adder, especially given his awesome engine building and tuning abilities.:thumbsup

[Teufelhunden]

For the record, I don't mind if this shop used the word stock when maybe they should have used slightly modified. 9.96@141 with bolt-on's(and some possible porting) gives me wood.

This is an awesome car. I am impressed, thus the post. I'm a mopar fan at heart, but they haven't made anything to rival a Mustang since 1974 IMO.

Hopefully the 2008 Dodge Challenger gives me some new hope, but a used '03-04 Cobra is a more likely choice for me at this point. :banana1:

[Prince Valiant]

:rolf Looks like someone put her thong on backward and got it twisted up in her labia. I'd be suprised if you even knew what that looked like. Pretty certain it'd cost you a pretty penny for a girl to show you one :durr


Look btch, you're the one with the claimed vast automotive knowledge. I merely offered you a challenge to demonstrate it. You see, I HAVE built a 9 second car with a stock style suspension, and I did it without the use of nitrous OR a blower and it weighed 3700 pounds with me in it. So I am slightly familiar with what's involved in building a car to go that quickly. If it were THAT easy, then EVERYONE would have a 9 second car. Oh, yea! When loosing an aurgument (that has nothing to do with anything), point to past accomplishments that have nothing to do with the facts at hand.

Here...I'll offer YOU a challenge then (since inane challenges are somehow how we prove ourselves correct):

Lose 250lbs. It'll gain you ~.3ths of a second in the 1/4, and probably 50 years in life expectancy.

Just offering a "challenge", btch :rolleyes:




BTW, I passing familiarity with the capabilities of a 6-71 GMC blower. :rolleyes: Great. You had one blowing 8.5psi. Woopdedoo! :wow

Then You MUST be right! It's *SHOCKING* that a mustang can do that! Just a hairpin and a pulley, with some mcCgyver-sque aluminum foil applied just right and it's a 9 second car!

(oh yeah, btw, do we even *know* how much boost that mustang actually making? You know, just one of those *vile* questions that upsets you so, and I understand when you can't answer :rolleyes: )


As for your Valiant not having any luxury or power amenities, I am terribly sorry to hear that. I'll remember that when I blow past you in my unimpressive 4000 pound Cobra with the tunes playing and the ice blowing on my way to my Mom's house in time for bed. :thumbsupOh NO!!! Anything but THAT! Please! I might have children to feed!!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


while i don't doubt, nor have made any claims to the contrary, that your 25+G blown stang would beat my 3G pile...i wouldn't be suprised if it turned out to be a little closer than you might think.

Is your chest still inflated from your lame post? Or is that your new bra that lifts and seperates? see ya :loser:thumbsup

[BOSS LX]

^^^^^

That post is ridiculous! I would say more, but I am sure you will get more then an earful from HITMAN!:thumbsup

And I think we both know your shitt isn’t worth half of 3g's! Choad!

[FourEyedFord]

And I think we both know your shitt isn’t worth half of 3g's! Choad!

:rolf :rolf

[BadAzzGTA89]

I got it!!!!
I will do the same set up as the sheby has as far as the drivetrain and slap it in a yugo 8's here i come!!!

[MurphysLaw88GT]

:onfire :onfire :onfire :onfire :flamet :flamet :flamet :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :hump2: Watch the sparks fly

[turbogarrett]

Neat, but '03-04 cobras look soooo much better...

[Teufelhunden]

Click on the reply button already. How long are you gonna make us wait?:) :stare
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3800/hitmanvy0.jpg

[HITMAN]

Well, as long as we're going to get personal, I just want it to be known that I didn't start it...


I'd be suprised if you even knew what that looked like. Pretty certain it'd cost you a pretty penny for a girl to show you one :durr

Su-prised? Who are you, Gomer Pyle?

Actually, it only costs me a dollar each time. How else do you think your wife is able to afford your Christmas present? She's been saving all year...



Oh, yea! When loosing an aurgument (that has nothing to do with anything), point to past accomplishments that have nothing to do with the facts at hand.

Help me out here for a second. What's an aurgument?:loser

The fact at hand is your flippancy about how easy it is to run in the in the nines with a fairly heavy car with some mild modifications. I feel as though my past accomplishments give me some perspective on your imbecilic notion, whereas your utter LACK of accomplishment gives you none. Sorry Princy, but reading car magazines doesn't count. Here, I'll put succinctly, so that even someone of your meager mental abilities can understand. Better a has-been than a never-was.:durr



Here...I'll offer YOU a challenge then (since inane challenges are somehow how we prove ourselves correct):
Lose 250lbs. It'll gain you ~.3ths of a second in the 1/4, and probably 50 years in life expectancy. Just offering a "challenge", btch :rolleyes:

I'll take you up on your challenge, provided you are successful with mine. It's only fair, as my challenge came first. Please hurry though. With the present pathetic state of your pile, you've got your work cut out for you, and at my age, I'm going to need to get started as soon as possible.:thumbsup




Great. You had one blowing 8.5psi. Woopdedoo! :wow

You = obtuse
You made an uniformed comment about a 6-71's inability to make more than 10psi of boost. I (apparently unsuccessfully) tried to point out that MY blower was underdriven quite bit yet still made 8.5 psi. I did this in a vain attempt to show that the 6-71 still has plenty of potential for higher boost. I guess I should have known that with all of your vast experience dealing with turbo/supercharging, you would obviously have a better grasp of the situation than I would. Silly me.



Then You MUST be right! It's *SHOCKING* that a mustang can do that! Just a hairpin and a pulley, with some mcCgyver-sque aluminum foil applied just right and it's a 9 second car!

Actually, this whole A R G U M E N T started because YOU made an allusion that it IS just as easy as that, not only with the GT500, but with ANY V8 powered car. Seeing as you have a short memory:

Well, if I had a blown v8 pushing 15+psi, running a shot of 75 shot of nitrous, I'd hope whatever that engine was in would be in the 9's. It's not like hearing a combo like that being in the 9's is *shocking*
:rolf



(oh yeah, btw, do we even *know* how much boost that mustang actually making? You know, just one of those *vile* questions that upsets you so, and I understand when you can't answer :rolleyes: )

You're right, I can't honestly answer about the true amount of boost being made. It was an semi-educated guess, based on what I know about these Eaton superchargers and their efficiency range. The Eaton blowers can make more than 15-16 psi of boost, but over 14psi, they start to heat the discharge air pretty severely. Anything over 17psi is a complete waste of the extra horsepower required to turn the input shaft. I would imagine that the shop fielding this car would be aware of that, and would pulley the blower accordingly. BTW, the porting on the Eaton is worth approximately 30 to 40 horsepower. It does help with the efficiency due to the fact that the air has to make a 180° turn before it even gets into the blower. The 6-71 doesn't have that problem...;)

But back to you. The part I most enjoyed about this whole "whether or not the GT500 is impressive" situation was you trying to figure out how much boost was being made based on the horsepower figures, like it's some sort of constant that has nothing to do with intake restriction, cylinder head flow, compression, camshaft, exhaust, overall swept volume, ect. Good job there, Fermi. Way to show us all your mental midgetry.:thumbsup :thumbsup



Oh NO!!! Anything but THAT! Please! I might have children to feed!!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me, do they have extra 21st chromosome like you?



while i don't doubt, nor have made any claims to the contrary, that your 25+G blown stang would beat my 3G pile...i wouldn't be suprised if it turned out to be a little closer than you might think.

Su-prised... Gomer Pyle strikes again...:rolf

Well, not only are you an automotive guru, you also seem to have the ability to read minds, as well. Tell me Kreskin, just exactly how much WAS I expecting to trounce you by? :confused

3K for a Valiant? You got ripped...:rolf



Is your chest still inflated from your lame post? Or is that your new bra that lifts and seperates? see ya :loser:thumbsup

That's pretty funny coming from you. Tell me, does that fat head of yours have a Schrader valve to relieve the occasional over-pressure, Brainiac?

[HITMAN]

Click on the reply button already. How long are you gonna make us wait?:) :stare
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3800/hitmanvy0.jpg

Sorry for keeping you in suspense, but in between making/eating supper, plus the distractions of CSI-New York and the news in addition to my overall glacial typing speed, you'll just have to suffer through. http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_tongue.gif

[Teufelhunden]

More proof that a 3920lb car (with bolt-ons) can move...


Gt500 in car vid from RA in oct.
This guy also owns the red cobra r with the big wing, which he usually drives at the track. The car only had a few bolt ons (497 rwhp) and some r compound tires, he passes a pretty impressive list of cars with that heavy machine! Try to ignore the crazy passenger http://videos.streetfire.net/video/02b8bcc7-9884-4333-b76a-98650024d103.htm

[BOSS LX]

Surprise, surprise, surprise!:rolf

[FourEyedFord]

But back to you. The part I most enjoyed about this whole "whether or not the GT500 is impressive" situation was you trying to figure out how much boost was being made based on the horsepower figures, like it's some sort of constant that has nothing to do with intake restriction, cylinder head flow, compression, camshaft, exhaust, overall swept volume, ect. Good job there, Fermi. Way to show us all your mental midgetry.:thumbsup :thumbsup



:rolf :rolf :rolf

I got a kick out of that one too!

[MurphysLaw88GT]

More proof that a 3920lb car (with bolt-ons) can move...
Linky no workie

[juicedimpss]

this is entertaining as hell
:popcorn :popcorn


heck,i dont have any profound love for mustangs in general,but that car is still cool,and running one hell of a number for what it appears to be.

[Teufelhunden]

Linky no workie
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/02b8bcc7-9884-4333-b76a-98650024d103.htm

[Prince Valiant]

Actually, it only costs me a dollar each time. How else do you think your wife is able to afford your Christmas present? She's been saving all year...:wooo the btch is getting a beating tonight when I get home then. But it's okay...she's only my girlfriend. Do you know what one of those are? Ones from the internet don't count.

But, it was nice, I bet, to look at the snatch of a 22y/o, eh?


]The fact at hand is your flippancy about how easy it is to run in the in the nines with a fairly heavy car with some mild modifications. Here's what you can't clearly understand...sure, if I added "pulley's" to my car, it wouldn't do $hite. Why? It's not a supercharged, v8 car! WOW!

See, I am NOT suRprised that a supercharged, nitrous fed, v8 car, with a good suspension set-up is touching the 9's. You want to accuse me of not being impressed (which is something I haven't said anyhting about) of a car with "mild" modifications (again, a subject that I haven't said anything about).

I mean, let's be honest...13 second NA v8 cars are pretty commonplace. It's pretty pathetic when a v8 supercharged car runs that, or only just faster than that.


I'll take you up on your challenge, provided you are successful with mine. It's only fair, as my challenge came first. Please hurry though. With the present pathetic state of your pile, you've got your work cut out for you, and at my age, I'm going to need to get started as soon as possible.:thumbsup Oh no...if you want to "prove" anything, you have to prove capable of meeting my challenge. If you meet it, and I don't, just think how you could use that fact to impress some 13y/o girl from "myspace". She might invite you over when her parents aren't home.


You = obtuse You = round


You made an uniformed comment about a 6-71's inability to make more than 10psi of boost. I (apparently unsuccessfully) tried to point out that MY blower was underdriven quite bit yet still made 8.5 psi. I did this in a vain attempt to show that the 6-71 still has plenty of potential for higher boost. I guess I should have known that with all of your vast experience dealing with turbo/supercharging, you would obviously have a better grasp of the situation than I would. Silly me.Listen, a 6-71 can boost small engines quite a fair amount...they can boost moderately sized engines a decent amount, but will lose effeciency as the rpm's climb. Sure, I could put a pulley on there that let me make "20 psi" per your contenetion, but to what rpm? I do not believe that I can sufficiently move enough air to support over 10psi for an engine, even built somewhat mildly as mine is to support the power that I'd want.


Actually, this whole A R G U M E N T started because YOU made an allusion that it IS just as easy as that, not only with the GT500, but with ANY V8 powered car. Seeing as you have a short memory: Hmmm...care to show me this statement? Where do I say it's "easy", or even allude to it? Oh yeah! I only said I wasn't S U R P R I S E D (! ! !) that a v8, nitrous injected car is touching the 9's!


:rolf I thought I felt some tremors :rolleyes:



But back to you. The part I most enjoyed about this whole "whether or not the GT500 is impressive" situation was you trying to figure out how much boost was being made based on the horsepower figures, like it's some sort of constant that has nothing to do with intake restriction, cylinder head flow, compression, camshaft, exhaust, overall swept volume, ect. Good job there, Fermi. Way to show us all your mental midgetry.:thumbsup :thumbsup :) I was hoping you'd ask "how".

Basically, power, torque, are all products of moving air and fuel into, and out of an engine. For example, for a given cubic inch of an engine, and a given volumetric efficiency, you can expect and engine to generate X amount of torque...it's fairly predictable to a degree. Most mid 70's engines made .8 or so ft-lbs of torqe for a given cubic inch. Today, many make 1.1-1.2. Really hot engines engines can reach as much as 1.3-1.4...and you won't see much beyond this. Try to find an NA GAS engine that exceeds this by much....

Same with HP, to a degree...it's limited by the amount of air/fuel that can get into and out of an engine (this is why heads and cam, and all other things that move air into and out of an engine are so important!). IF I take a 302, and a 460, and build each to produce 500hp, one thing we already no for certain....that the 302 is going to rev a whole lot higher than the 460 to make the 500hp, right?

So, that 302, every 2 revolutions is displacing ~ 302 cubic inches of air depending on it's VE. Same with the 460...every 2 engine revolutions, it's displaicing ~ 460 ci of air depedning on it's VE as well...but, take the rpm that the 302 is making 500hp at, and the rpm the 460 is making 500hp at, figure out how much air is being displaced, and guess what...you'll find ~ same amount of spent fuel/air is being passed over 1 minute time (because Horsepower is work, work is measured over time). There will be some differences (negligible in this example), as one engine will probably have to overcome the greater friction, rotating mass, more restrictive intake or exhaust, etc. This should be easy for such a mind as yours, correct? Interesting that over the minute, each would displace the same amount of fuel/air...so engine rpm, is really just another way to displace more fuel/air, IE, make more HP (this is pretty common knowledge, is it not?)

So, now let's through boost into the equation....1 bar over the ambient pressure repressents twice the pressure of ambient. This means that at 1 bar of boost, there is approximately TWICE the amount of oxygen present for combustion in the air than there otherwise would be (nitrogen, carbon dioxide too...but they don't really count). 2 bar, three times the normal amount of 02 present, etc..

...and of course, 1 bar = 14.7 psi.

But, given that the above examples of the relationship to torque and displacement are true (they are), and HP and air-displacement over time are true (they are), THEN let's throw 14.7 psi into the equation....

This means, that one could assume that 14.7 psi of boost will yeild an engine that'll produce 2.2-2.8 ft-lbs of torque/per ci, OR, that the approximate HP would simply DOUBLE. We are DISPLACING 2x the amount of air and fuel...see, there really is NO substitute for DISPLACEMENT. (holy shit! old axiom stand the test of time!)

So, say you built a v8 engine that wasn compatible for boost...and put it on a dyno. It produced 300hp, and 350ft-lbs of torque.

Now give it 14.7 psi of boost. It should, theoretically produce 600hp, and 700ft-lbs of torque.

Sure, there'd be some loses due to heat, mechanical drag...but it'd be pretty close, and there'd be gains in cylinder pressure to offset some of the loses.

So, I simply assumed that the 4v 5.4 liter, unboosted ran ~ 300hp or so (reasonable, as this is what the lincoln 4 v 5.4 ran) and with lower compression probably yielded 1.1 ft-lbs of torque per cubic inch (reasonable...figuring that the 3V 5.4 produces that with higher compression, but probably less cam and less head flow)

SO...

...lets say that the 778ft-lbs of torque at the wheels translated to ~ 900ft-lbs of torque at the flywheel (reasonable).

Let's also say that the "75 shot" of nitrous garnered an extra 100ft-lbs of torque to the flywheel (reasonable), leaving us with ~ 800ft-lbs of torque from an engine that displaces 330 ci.

330* 1.1 = 363ft-lbs of torque, NA is a reasonable guess.

800/363 = 2.2 = 2.2 - 1bar ambient = 1.2 bar

1.2 bar*14.7psi/bar = 17.6psi

Hmm...the math seems pretty reasonable to me. How about you Dr. Yeti?

In the first calculation, I mistakenly took 2.2, and thus was confused with numbers of over 30psi...I knew this wasn't true, so then accounted for the ambient.

Still not surprised that a v8 car running ~ 17psi, nitrous, and a good suspesion just barely touches the 9's :rolleyes:

and while you wax on, unpoetically about the eaton not being efficient over 15 psi, and how "porting" gains you 30-40 magical HP, I think that not only does the porting allow for less mechanical losses, but that it will also allow it to boost more with less turbulence and work, therefore less heat generated, therefore greater adiabatic efficiency, so 17psi, or even more boost is more than reasonable for the eaton. Dumbass.

...and Dumbasses like to make some things seem harder to justify why they don't truly understand, and ask about impressive sounding things like "swept areavolumethingamagibs"


Well, not only are you an automotive guru, you also seem to have the ability to read minds, as well. Tell me Kreskin, just exactly how much WAS I expecting to trounce you by? :confused I'd hope that a v8 supercharged, modded mustang could handle a gradma's car by a whole lot, don't you?

Come to think of it...I think I posted a race of my car vs one just like yours on here...might want to look it up.


3K for a Valiant? You got ripped...:rolfActually, the car cost me 350 dollars. The subsequent engine, rebuilding the engine, trans, clutch, rear, carbs, intake, exhaust, etc cost me ~ 2.5G. = ~3G when all is said and done

Better hope that 13 y/o girl you were plannin' on mackin' is pretty understanding tonight. :crying

Now I better worry that my pizza's aren't delivered cold and mostly eatin'

[Prince Valiant]

Sorry for keeping you in suspense, but in between making/eating supper, plus the distractions of CSI-New York and the news in addition to my overall glacial typing speed, you'll just have to suffer through. http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_tongue.gif
That explains it. :rolleyes:

[HITMAN]

:wooo the btch is getting a beating tonight when I get home then. But it's okay...she's only my girlfriend. Do you know what one of those are? Ones from the internet don't count.

But, it was nice, I bet, to look at the snatch of a 22y/o, eh?

Yes, given the impact you've had on it so far, it looks unused.


Blah, blah, blah...

:yawn:



Oh no...if you want to "prove" anything, you have to prove capable of meeting my challenge. If you meet it, and I don't, just think how you could use that fact to impress some 13y/o girl from "myspace". She might invite you over when her parents aren't home.

Is that your technique? You sound fairly polished at it, so I guess it's safe to assume you've had a lot of practice. Practice makes perfect...:thumbsup




You = round

You = unoriginal.


Listen, a 6-71 can boost small engines quite a fair amount...they can boost moderately sized engines a decent amount, but will lose effeciency as the rpm's climb. Sure, I could put a pulley on there that let me make "20 psi" per your contenetion, but to what rpm? I do not believe that I can sufficiently move enough air to support over 10psi for an engine, even built somewhat mildly as mine is to support the power that I'd want.

We're talking about a 360 cubic inch engine here, not an 810 cid IHRA Pro-Stock mill. If a 2.3 liter supercharger can supply the necessary CFM (more on this later) of air to make 650 non-nitrous flywheel horsepower at 7000 rpm, then surely a much larger 6-71 should be capable of at least that much. You seem to think that your going to need a 14-71 to make that kind of power. Right.:rolf


Hmmm...care to show me this statement? Where do I say it's "easy", or even allude to it? Oh yeah! I only said I wasn't S U R P R I S E D (! ! !) that a v8, nitrous injected car is touching the 9's!

You may not have said it directly, but you inferred it. We can argue semantics all year long, but it's not going to change that fact, jeenyus.


I thought I felt some tremors :rolleyes:

You might want that condition checked. Seizures are no joke.



:) I was hoping you'd ask "how".

Blah Blah blahbety blah excruciatingly boring lecture attempting to impress with my algebraic prowess but really only demonstrating my stupidity....

...and Dumbasses like me try to make themselves seem smarter by blathering on ad nauseum to try and justify why they don't truly understand, and then try and blow off pertinent things like "swept areavolumethingamagibs"

"Boost" isn't anything but a term referring to pressure above ambient. Things like available atmospheric pressure above or below theoretic sea-level, swept volume of the given power adder, cylinder head flow, so on and so forth can all effect what the guage shows. You can have ten different turbo/superchargers all showing 15psi on a boost gauge but yet you will have 10 different horsepower readings. That is why I reject your contention that boost pressure can be figured out as though it were a constant that no amount of variables can change. What we are really talking about here is cubic feet per minute of air. This I think we really can agree on. It takes a given amount of oxygen to combust a given amount of fuel. That much is just basic physics. The only thing we need to know beyond that is the type of fuel. From there, you just need to know how much power you want to make with said type of fuel, and then figure the amount of air needed to burn the fuel completely based on the oxygen density of the ambient air. That's the only thing you're going to be able to figure out based on the limited amount of empirical data available. Unless you have a lot more of the particular statistics of this exact engine combination, you're just blowing smoke up your own ass if you think your going to be able to calculate the exact amount of boost showing on the gauge. But hey, if you want to keep deluding yourself, be my guest.:thumbsup


I'd hope that a v8 supercharged, modded mustang could handle a gradma's car by a whole lot, don't you?

Come to think of it...I think I posted a race of my car vs one just like yours on here...might want to look it up.

Yeah, you got beat. What's your point? You said it would be "little closer than you might think." Well Mr. Geller, I'll ask you again: How much of a win/loss gap was I thinking there would be?


Actually, the car cost me 350 dollars.

You still got ripped.


Better hope that 13 y/o girl you were plannin' on mackin' is pretty understanding tonight. :crying

Wow, that was really clever. So clever, in fact, that it's meaning went right over my head.:rolleyes:


Now I better worry that my pizza's aren't delivered cold and mostly eatin'

Another bit of witless wit. Here's a bit of advice. Don't quit your day job...

[HITMAN]

That explains it. :rolleyes:

How about explaining your fetish with 13 year old girls?

[FourEyedFord]

:) I was hoping you'd ask "how".

Basically, power, torque, are all products of moving air and fuel into, and out of an engine. For example, for a given cubic inch of an engine, and a given volumetric efficiency, you can expect and engine to generate X amount of torque...it's fairly predictable to a degree. Most mid 70's engines made .8 or so ft-lbs of torqe for a given cubic inch. Today, many make 1.1-1.2. Really hot engines engines can reach as much as 1.3-1.4...and you won't see much beyond this. Try to find an NA GAS engine that exceeds this by much....

Same with HP, to a degree...it's limited by the amount of air/fuel that can get into and out of an engine (this is why heads and cam, and all other things that move air into and out of an engine are so important!). IF I take a 302, and a 460, and build each to produce 500hp, one thing we already no for certain....that the 302 is going to rev a whole lot higher than the 460 to make the 500hp, right?

So, that 302, every 2 revolutions is displacing ~ 302 cubic inches of air depending on it's VE. Same with the 460...every 2 engine revolutions, it's displaicing ~ 460 ci of air depedning on it's VE as well...but, take the rpm that the 302 is making 500hp at, and the rpm the 460 is making 500hp at, figure out how much air is being displaced, and guess what...you'll find ~ same amount of spent fuel/air is being passed over 1 minute time (because Horsepower is work, work is measured over time). There will be some differences (negligible in this example), as one engine will probably have to overcome the greater friction, rotating mass, more restrictive intake or exhaust, etc. This should be easy for such a mind as yours, correct? Interesting that over the minute, each would displace the same amount of fuel/air...so engine rpm, is really just another way to displace more fuel/air, IE, make more HP (this is pretty common knowledge, is it not?)

So, now let's through boost into the equation....1 bar over the ambient pressure repressents twice the pressure of ambient. This means that at 1 bar of boost, there is approximately TWICE the amount of oxygen present for combustion in the air than there otherwise would be (nitrogen, carbon dioxide too...but they don't really count). 2 bar, three times the normal amount of 02 present, etc..

...and of course, 1 bar = 14.7 psi.

But, given that the above examples of the relationship to torque and displacement are true (they are), and HP and air-displacement over time are true (they are), THEN let's throw 14.7 psi into the equation....

This means, that one could assume that 14.7 psi of boost will yeild an engine that'll produce 2.2-2.8 ft-lbs of torque/per ci, OR, that the approximate HP would simply DOUBLE. We are DISPLACING 2x the amount of air and fuel...see, there really is NO substitute for DISPLACEMENT. (holy shit! old axiom stand the test of time!)

So, say you built a v8 engine that wasn compatible for boost...and put it on a dyno. It produced 300hp, and 350ft-lbs of torque.

Now give it 14.7 psi of boost. It should, theoretically produce 600hp, and 700ft-lbs of torque.

Sure, there'd be some loses due to heat, mechanical drag...but it'd be pretty close, and there'd be gains in cylinder pressure to offset some of the loses.

So, I simply assumed that the 4v 5.4 liter, unboosted ran ~ 300hp or so (reasonable, as this is what the lincoln 4 v 5.4 ran) and with lower compression probably yielded 1.1 ft-lbs of torque per cubic inch (reasonable...figuring that the 3V 5.4 produces that with higher compression, but probably less cam and less head flow)

SO...

...lets say that the 778ft-lbs of torque at the wheels translated to ~ 900ft-lbs of torque at the flywheel (reasonable).

Let's also say that the "75 shot" of nitrous garnered an extra 100ft-lbs of torque to the flywheel (reasonable), leaving us with ~ 800ft-lbs of torque from an engine that displaces 330 ci.

330* 1.1 = 363ft-lbs of torque, NA is a reasonable guess.

800/363 = 2.2 = 2.2 - 1bar ambient = 1.2 bar

1.2 bar*14.7psi/bar = 17.6psi

Hmm...the math seems pretty reasonable to me. How about you Dr. Yeti?



Ummm, most of what your saying are ASSUMPTIONS. What happens when you take into account whether the track is above or below sea level? How about if you take into consideration the type of fuel the car is running, or amount of total timing. Heck, what about air temperature and humidity, I know for sure my car won't make nearly as much power on a really hot and humid day as it will on a cool and dry day. This all should be easy to comprehend, right?

Lets get back to the sea level thing here for a second. Do you know that for every 2343 feet of elevation gain, bar will decrease by approximately one pound due to less air molecules being pulled towards the earth. So lets say that they were at Albuquerque National Dragway racing the car. This track is 5320 feet above sea level, so 5320/2343= 2.27. This would mean then that at this track, bar is 2.27psi less than bar at sea level, 14.7psi.

Using this number in the last part of your equation I get a different number :wow .

14.7psi-2.27psi=12.43psi bar at that track

1.2 bar* 12.43psi/bar= approx 15psi :thumbsup

There are way too many factors for you to just come up with how much boost the car is running for sure.

Besides why am I even debating this with you. You are claiming to be this "know it all guy" on how to make horsepower with boost, and all you have is a 13 second NA combo.....:wow

[FourEyedFord]

D@mn HITMAN you beat me to the punch! :rolf

[Adamsy87]

Besides why am I even debating this with you. You are claiming to be this "know it all guy" on how to make horsepower with boost, and all you have is a 13 second NA combo.....:wow

Aww.....SNAP

[Prince Valiant]

Besides why am I even debating this with you. You are claiming to be this "know it all guy" on how to make horsepower with boost, and all you have is a 13 second NA combo.....:wowum, I don't know...I wasn't debating you :rolleyes:

btw, it seems all you have is a broken pony. What should I gather from that? That you don't know a damn thing???

[Prince Valiant]

"Boost" isn't anything but a term referring to pressure above ambient....yadda yadda yadda... exact amount of boost showing on the gauge. But hey, if you want to keep deluding yourself, be my guest.:thumbsup
Who said that I was figuring the precise boost pressure? I've only claimed to make fairly accurate assumptions. Again, you like to read things in conversation that never occured. :rolleyes: You have yet to show where, or how my assumptions are wrong. oh please, deal with it point for point, assumption for assumption.

Again, then how do you figure this "magical" power or torque numbers occur? If it wasn't boost, then what, pray tell, what?

btw, boost guages don't actually show "pressure aove ambient", as they don't constantly calibrate themselves to the ambient condition sherlock...so please stay away from "10 different gauges, blah blah blah...."

If a 2.3 liter supercharger can supply the necessary CFM (more on this later) of air to make 650 non-nitrous flywheel horsepower at 7000 rpm, then surely a much larger 6-71 should be capable of at least that muchThis perplexes me...why do you seem to think that simply the volume of an s/c is what determines how much boost it can support? You can't seem to accept that the eaton on the GT is FAR more efficient, using both less hp to generate the boost it makes....so please, stop comparing apples to oranges.

[DynoTom]

btw, it seems all you have is a broken pony. What should I gather from that? That you don't know a damn thing???


This thread keeps getting deeper !:alcoholic :alcoholic

[DynoTom]

Torque monster!

Very impressive!

And that is mid 9 second mph!


I agree 100 % !


I'm really impressed on the torque numbers !:thumbsup

[HITMAN]

um, I don't know...I wasn't debating you :rolleyes:

btw, it seems all you have is a broken pony. What should I gather from that? That you don't know a damn thing???

Now there is a knowledgable and coherant response...:rolleyes:

[HITMAN]

I am either too dense to understand the truth, or I am intentionally being argumentative for the sake of my own amusement. Therefore, my posts have ceased to be worthy of a lengthy response.



Yup, that's pretty much the way I see it. :thumbsup

The information about boost verses the actual power increasing substance, oxygen content and density and the ability to burn more fuel thereby making more horsepower and torque have already been discussed in some of the above posts. Try actually reading the posts instead of just glancing at them and then blathering on ad infinitum about your own faulty perspective. But you won't and you will just continue to be contrary for the sake of doing so. I am done beating my head against the wall that comprises your obviously incomplete knowledge about this subject.

They say ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your little slice of Heaven...;)

[FourEyedFord]

um, I don't know...I wasn't debating you :rolleyes:

btw, it seems all you have is a broken pony. What should I gather from that? That you don't know a damn thing???


Oh I just had to prove you wrong thats all. :thumbsup

When you make power, you tend to brake things-Something you know nothing about. When John Force himself brakes something, do you assume that he doesn't know anything either? Thats pretty sad if thats the case, and its really showing your true engine prowess. :loser

BTW, I went 9.92 @ 137.5 the year before on 10psi and a lot less camshaft.

You will see next year :)

[Teufelhunden]

I've emailed Evolution Performance and requested they drop in and post. Hopefully they do and provide some more info on their GT500.

[Prince Valiant]

Besides why am I even debating this with you. You are claiming to be this "know it all guy" on how to make horsepower with boost, and all you have is a 13 second NA combo.....btw, it seems all you have is a broken pony. What should I gather from that? That you don't know a damn thing???Oh I just had to prove you wrong thats all. :thumbsup

When you make power, you tend to brake things-Something you know nothing about. When John Force himself brakes something, do you assume that he doesn't know anything either? Thats pretty sad if thats the case, and its really showing your true engine prowess. :loser

BTW, I went 9.92 @ 137.5 the year before on 10psi and a lot less camshaft.

You will see next year :)Um, yeah. Maybe it was lost on you, but I was simply following your logic (and seeminly hitman's logic) from earlier. See how inane it actually is?

[FourEyedFord]

Well, if I had a blown v8 pushing 15+psi, running a shot of 75 shot of nitrous, I'd hope whatever that engine was in would be in the 9's. It's not like hearing a combo like that being in the 9's is *shocking*



This is what I had a problem with. You've never built one so how would you know how easy it is? I'm sorry I don't agree with your knowledge of supercharged cars, when you yourself have never even had one. :thumbsup

How can you say that a brand new car, with all the bells and whistles and nothing very invasive for mods, going 9.90s @ 141 mph is not pretty d@mn shocking? I think you were just trying to down play it for the sake of getting under peoples skin.

So, I am just going to leave you with HITMAN'S quote because he said it best.

"They say ignorance is bliss. So, enjoy your little slice of Heaven..."

[Prince Valiant]

Yup, that's pretty much the way I see it. :thumbsup

and fwiw, I do happen to eat too much and blame my problems on bad metabolism. Plus, my mom is right, I AM BIG BONED!!!But never-the-less, I see myself as FAR superior in intellect (in my own mind, of course), so when it comes to specific questions posed to me, by you, I will simply refer one to past post, since, I, being omnipotent (and impotent...blame the fat rolls around "it") I had anticipated your questions earlier and thus already answered them!!! I am too lazy to even "quote" your questions, and go back and highlight specific portions of said earlier post. Hell, my mom's typing this as I dictate this right now.

They say ignorance is bliss. That being so, I think I'll have a 1000 slices of cheesecake :thumbsup


Still won't answer specific questions, huh?

It's like this:

"Boost" isn't anything but a term referring to pressure above ambient. No disagreement, didn't try to say differently. Regardless, given one is at sea level, OR at 7000 above sea level, given that the engine makes X amount of power at that given altitude/conditions, boost of 1 bar will result in approximately 2X amount of power. This IS true. Don't obsificate around it.


Things like available atmospheric pressure above or below theoretic sea-level, swept volume of the given power adder, cylinder head flow, so on and so forth can all effect what the guage shows I really don't care about "what the gauge shows". If X amount of boost is being generated, assuming no loss of efficiency due to excessive heat or turbulence due to overworking the power adder, it truely is X amount of boost, no matter the flow of the cylinder heads, or "swept volume of the given power adder".

Why? The boost is really just this: The amount of air being pushed by the power adder vs the relative consumption of air by of the engine.

It's simply pushing more air into the cylinder. True, push X amount of air into a cylinder that let's say is 25ci will result in Y boost, and X amount of air into a cylinder that is 50ci will also result in 1/2Y boost (this would result in approxmately same amount of torque though). BUT, cylinder head flow doesn't matter (all that much) when discussing boost...given two engines with the same cubic inches AND same RPM AND same supercharger with same pulleys, but VASTLY different heads (One bone-stock, the other a trick 4V ported variant of the other) and cam (assuming they are both boost friendly) will yeild approximately the same amount of boost. Will there be some difference, maybe...but they'll be negligible.

In the example above, would power thus be the same? NO, of course not...THAT's where head flow, cam come in. But heads that flow better WON'T result in less or more boost for a given engine.

Your "swept area of the power adder" has little merit in this as well...if power adder "A" is moving X amount of air, and power adder "B" is moving X amount of air, then "Y" amount of boost read for a given engine. It is because of this, then we can therefore can assume that for a given engine, if "Y" amount of boost is being generated, both blower A and B, or even turbo C, or tornado "D" are then moving the same volume (X) of air. We are only assuming that said power adder is in fact capable of moving "X" efficiently.

Sure, if I wanted to precisely predict how much said power adder is going to boost a given engine in the abscence of given torque or HP numbers, then swept area, blower volume, engine size, speed of the blower relative to the engine WOULD be important...head flow, cam duration, wouldn't....unless I wanted to predict the amount of HP and Torque the engine would thus produce (actually, torque wouldn't be terribly important to need this, but it'd make one more accurate).

BUT, I don't HAVE to predict the HP and or torque...that's already given.

And as far as "available atmospheric pressure above or below theoretic sea-level", it's really not that important, since we are assuming everything has been corrected to standardized conditions. Sure, if I wanted to predict HP/Torque precisely, that would be needed...As stated before, no argument there.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it almost seems your posistion (and I am exagerating here, but it's for clearer illustration) is that for a given engine SIZE, if power adder "A" has superior "swept volume", head flow, and cam, then it's concievable for an engine to produce 800ft-lbs torque...While the same engine size, but it's power adder "B" has less "swept volume", it's heads don't flow as well, and has a smaller cam CAN'T produce as much torque given the same amount of boost, or even match the torque numbers given even greater amounts of boost (provided we are still in the power adders efficiency range). This is a notion that I reject.


You can have ten different turbo/superchargers all showing 15psi on a boost gauge but yet you will have 10 different horsepower readings.Yep, no disagreement there. I DO believe we are still dealing with with relatively samll amounts of HP/Torque differences though (IE, less than 40hp/ 40 ft-lbs torque between most efficient to least), due to the power it takes to drive said power adder, and how efficiently said power adder moves the volume of air to generate heat or losing efficiency due to turbulence.

Given that, thats why I contend 1 bar of boost, no matter the power adder, yields approximately 2X the HP and 2X the torque of the given engine when compared to NA.

And that's why I give an approximate (ap·prox·i·mate = Almost exact or correct, to come close to; be nearly the same as) guesstimate of the boost needed to generate the torque/HP numbers. You seem to contend that it's so impossible, but I won't be surprised if I am 1-2 psi off what it actually produces.

If I am within that range, then guess what? I am probably correct in all my assumptions. I'm sure you'll attribute it to the blind squrriel theorem though :rolleyes:


This I think we really can agree on. It takes a given amount of oxygen to combust a given amount of fuel. That much is just basic physics. The only thing we need to know beyond that is the type of fuel. From there, you just need to know how much power you want to make with said type of fuel, and then figure the amount of air needed to burn the fuel completely based on the oxygen density of the ambient air. That's the only thing you're going to be able to figure out based on the limited amount of empirical data available Like I said, I am working off fair assumption's, but ones I believe are approximate, therefore giving me fair accuracy.

First, and most importantly with the amount of torque the engine would produce NA. The guess I gave is fairly approximate, based on known examples that are admittedly different, but some reasonable fudge factor figured in.

I didn't try to tell you this was precise accounting of boost, which is exactly what you are inferring that I'm trying to do.


Unless you have a lot more of the particular statistics of this exact engine combination, you're just blowing smoke up your own ass if you think your going to be able to calculate the exact amount of boost showing on the gauge. And this proves my statement above beyond a shadow of doubt :rolleyes:

You might want to rethink your other inferrences (see below). As I've stated, you have been quite incorrect from the get go. You just have been to obstinate to admit as much (no shock there! Do you find it hard to relate to people, comic book guy?)


Hmmm...care to show me this statement? Where do I say it's "easy", or even allude to it? Oh yeah! I only said I wasn't S U R P R I S E D (! ! !) that a v8, nitrous injected car is touching the 9's!You may not have said it directly, but you inferred it. We can argue semantics all year long, but it's not going to change that fact, jeenyus. As I said, you think what you want to think, damn if a greater authority on my intent (IE=ME!) tells you otherwise. And you accuse me of being Uri Geller?!? (kettle, meet mr. pot! Plus, I've never claimed to bend spoons with my mind :goof )


Yeah, you got beat. What's your point? You said it would be "little closer than you might think." Well Mr. Geller, I'll ask you again: How much of a win/loss gap was I thinking there would be?We'll, assuming that you once bought a camaro with a GMC 6-71 blower providing 8.5 lbs of boost, and you bought a 9 second mopar, then I can reasonably guess you planned on beating me by 4 lengths at "the rock" this upcoming summer.

Geez, one should hope by as much, if not more too...given that my 350 dollar pile of rip-off was only built and tuned by ME, the neanderthalic thick browed cretin' that somehow darwin forgot about :rolleyes:


I am done beating my head against the wall...Oh no, please continue...until this guy tells you to stop:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200401/r14036_34134.jpg

[Prince Valiant]

This is what I had a problem with. You've never built one so how would you know how easy it is? I'm sorry I don't agree with your knowledge of supercharged cars, when you yourself have never even had one. :thumbsup Hmm...continues the "logic" of this post HERE (http://brewcitymuscle.com/forum/showpost.php?p=212545&postcount=97) :rolleyes:

Einstien didn't know shit...he's never built or had a 9 second supercharged car, you know?

Oh I just had to prove you wrong thats all. :thumbsup And what's really ironic is that, in order for YOU to be correct, then I HAVE to be correct, since you used my numbers and all :rolleyes:


How can you say that a brand new car, with all the bells and whistles and nothing very invasive for mods, going 9.90s @ 141 mph is not pretty d@mn shocking? You make it sound easy in this paragraph, but then imply in the quote box above that it's not very easy. There is a certain disconect in your "logic".

Let me share two things with you
shocked(p) = aghast(p): struck with fear, dread, or consternation
as in: "I am not shocked when a car with a v8 and 15+psi boost, 75 shot of nitrous, and a suspension set-up for dragracing goes 9.90"

It doesn't violate what I've observed or can reason with. It does not strike me with fear, dread, or consteration, despite it's considerable wieght.

impressed(p): deeply or markedly affected or influenced
as in: "I am impressed that one can purchase a supercharged, v8 car from the showroom, and for relatively little effort versus other powerful, more expensive cars, could with smart modding, touch 9.90's"

To me, it strikes me as a wonder that one CAN in fact by cars that with relatively little effort you can possibly hit 9's with. I wouldn't have imagined as much in the late 80's, early 90's that I could have done this...I was impressed with low 14's from my 87 Daytona shelbyZ (high 15's stock, and I had gotten to low 14's with relatively little in mods) in THOSE days.

I think you were just trying to down play it for the sake of getting under peoples skin.Hardly. I rarely, if ever gush (when I've ridden in damn fast cars, sure, I'll gush) about cars I see on the internet.

I think you and others just couldn't stand the fact that I didn't get all "golly gee whiz, this is the greatest day of my life" about it...this might seem personal to you as you've built a 9 second car and know first hand what a ***** it was (something I don't disagree with nor I never implied differently, you infered incorrectly that I somehow did) and by extension, you feel shorted for your accomplishment. Would you feel better if I told you "good job" and gave you a :thumbsup ? :goof


So, I am just going to leave you with HITMAN'S quote because he said it best.

"They say ignorance is bliss. So, enjoy your little slice of Heaven..."Then let me leave you one originally from bob lanier:
http://www.nba.com/media/lanier_229_030605.jpg
"Reading; It's FUNdamental!!!"

[FourEyedFord]

Hmm...continues the "logic" of this post HERE (http://brewcitymuscle.com/forum/showpost.php?p=212545&postcount=97) :rolleyes:

Einstien didn't know shit...he's never built or had a 9 second supercharged car, you know?
And what's really ironic is that, in order for YOU to be correct, then I HAVE to be correct, since you used my numbers and all :rolleyes:

You make it sound easy in this paragraph, but then imply in the quote box above that it's not very easy. There is a certain disconect in your "logic".

Let me share two things with you
shocked(p) = aghast(p): struck with fear, dread, or consternation
as in: "I am not shocked when a car with a v8 and 15+psi boost, 75 shot of nitrous, and a suspension set-up for dragracing goes 9.90"

It doesn't violate what I've observed or can reason with. It does not strike me with fear, dread, or consteration, despite it's considerable wieght.

impressed(p): deeply or markedly affected or influenced
as in: "I am impressed that one can purchase a supercharged, v8 car from the showroom, and for relatively little effort versus other powerful, more expensive cars, could with smart modding, touch 9.90's"

To me, it strikes me as a wonder that one CAN in fact by cars that with relatively little effort you can possibly hit 9's with. I wouldn't have imagined as much in the late 80's, early 90's that I could have done this...I was impressed with low 14's from my 87 Daytona shelbyZ (high 15's stock, and I had gotten to low 14's with relatively little in mods) in THOSE days.
Hardly. I rarely, if ever gush (when I've ridden in damn fast cars, sure, I'll gush) about cars I see on the internet.

I think you and others just couldn't stand the fact that I didn't get all "golly gee whiz, this is the greatest day of my life" about it...this might seem personal to you as you've built a 9 second car and know first hand what a ***** it was (something I don't disagree with nor I never implied differently, you infered incorrectly that I somehow did) and by extension, you feel shorted for your accomplishment. Would you feel better if I told you "good job" and gave you a :thumbsup ? :goof

Then let me leave you one originally from bob lanier:
http://www.nba.com/media/lanier_229_030605.jpg
"Reading; It's FUNdamental!!!"

You have major fuking issues! :thumbsup

[Prince Valiant]

You have major fuking issues! :thumbsupDealing with imbeciles seems first and foremost.:thumbsup

[FourEyedFord]

Dealing with imbeciles seems first and foremost.:thumbsup

I just have one question though, how do you deal with yourself? :confused

Go ahead and keep wowing us with your extensive knowledge, I am getting a kick out of it.
Apparently I wasn't getting through to you either with any of my posting.

I borrowed your quote for my sig if you don't mind.

[juicedimpss]

this thread is still alive?

i forgot about this stupidity

[Prince Valiant]

I borrowed your quote for my sig if you don't mind.Well, really you should use the whole quote...for context and all. Otherwise that's not accurately quoting me. But of course, you knew that.

Well, I'll borrow your quote then... :devil

[juicedimpss]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that was some weak a$$ sh1t

[FourEyedFord]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that was some weak a$$ sh1t


:rolf :rolf

[Prince Valiant]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that was some weak a$$ sh1t
:durr Really? :wooo

[BOSS LX]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that was some weak a$$ sh1t


Prince Valiant's quote, or Prince Valiant's Valiant?:rolf

[Prince Valiant]

Prince Valiant's quote, or Prince Valiant's Valiant?:rolfhey now....it did show the lightning it's tailights :wow

[FourEyedFord]

hey now....it did show the lightning it's tailights :wow

And some thunderous wheel hop. I think Andy got out of it when he heard it! :D

[Prince Valiant]

And some thunderous wheel hop. I think Andy got out of it when he heard it! :DYou were his passenger? Did not know that...

Naw, he was just doing as I was I'm sure...just struggling for traction on the salt encrusted roads :rolf

[BOSS LX]

hey now....it did show the lightning it's tailights :wow

On a hole shot in 10 degree weather. And if it was a full 1320, I would have the "W".

This is an official callout. Bring your highly modified mopar, and I will bring my stock truck and see what's up down a full 1/4 mile.:thumbsup

And if I get hit with any rusty sheet metal, I will be pissed.

[Adamsy87]

All I can say about this thread is this. If going 9.90 is so fundamental why isn't your car going that fast if not faster?

Ps.- Prince Valiant you must have a lot of time on your hands typing these extremely long posts. Take a chill pill and acknowledge that this car is quick assuming the amount of mods done to it.

[FourEyedFord]

You were his passenger? Did not know that...

Yes'm I was.

[BadAzzGTA89]

Who want's some of the mighty YUGO:thumbsup

[Prince Valiant]

On a hole shot in 10 degree weather.
And if it was a full 1320, I would have the "W".BTW, a win IS a win, is it not?

Sheesh, ford guys...
This is an official callout. Bring your highly modified mopar, and I will bring my stock truck and see what's up down a full 1/4 mile.:thumbsup

And if I get hit with any rusty sheet metal, I will be pissed.
Absolutely Accepted.

You are going to have to wait till summer though...valiant's done for the season. And "highly modified"?!? What, pray tell, consitutes "highly modified"? Stock heads, stock intake, stock cast pistons (8.2:1 cr, devoloping a whooping 150psi cranking compression!) stock ignition, stock stock stock stock. Stock. :(

Okay, so the camshaft has 12 degrees more duration than true stock, and I've got headers and a decent carb.

As far as getting hit with rusty sheetmetal, you won't...it'll only be rust flakes. Not enough metal left to constitute any "sheet metal" that you speak of.

[Prince Valiant]

All I can say about this thread is this. If going 9.90 is so fundamental why isn't your car going that fast if not faster?
Show where I say it's "fundamental"? How about, show where I say it's easy? Or even, how about I say it's not impressive? Why not actually reading some of the post...you couldn't have and then asked that...

[BOSS LX]

You are going to have to wait till summer though...valiant's done for the season. And "highly modified"?!? What, pray tell, consitutes "highly modified"? Stock heads, stock intake, stock cast pistons (8.2:1 cr, devoloping a whooping 150psi cranking compression!) stock ignition, stock stock stock stock. Stock. :(


Highly modified means you tore into the motor, it is not my fault you put bullshit parts back in it.:loser The GT 500 never had the cam covers off.:banana1:

I can wait until summer. Or if you want you could race the mustang and negotiate spots. What do you think is fair, 73?:rolf

Why is the valiant down for winter? Are you installing a foot gas pedal, or maybe some lakewood traction bars?

[HITMAN]

Prince Valiant's quote, or Prince Valiant's Valiant?:rolf

:rolf :rolf :rolf :rolf :rolf

That's some funny shit, right there. I don't care who you are, if you don't think that's funny, you've got more issues than a waterhead trying to put on a turtleneck.

[Teufelhunden]

Are you installing a foot gas pedalEasy there.../hang10 :) :goof

http://www.thinair-usa.com/Pictures/G1/ModGas.jpg

[Myles]

so... some dude with a mopar... was trying to have an intellectual argument about cars... with a guy who owns a ford...

Shouldnt you guys be talking about how many times a day you have to repair your junk?

[2SLOW]

dayyum that is nice.

[BOSS LX]

so... some dude with a mopar... was trying to have an intellectual argument about cars... with a guy who owns a ford...

Shouldnt you guys be talking about how many times a day you have to repair your junk?

Or maybe we could talk about how many lengths we won by against the last GM we raced.:goof

[Myles]

Or maybe we could talk about how many lengths we won by against the last GM we raced.:goof

Wait till later tonight, when i have certain video of you asking a GM guy his number so you can finally go fast. :goof :goof

[Prince Valiant]

Highly modified means you tore into the motor, it is not my fault you put bullshit parts back in it.:loser So, by that definition, anyone that has rebuilt an engine has a "highly modified" engine?!? :confused

If that's your definition, then I guess I'll have to accept that I've got a "highly modified" valiant. I'll change my sig...


The GT 500 never had the cam covers off.:banana1:Do you know this to be absolutely true? Or are you just "supposing"?

I can wait until summer. Or if you want you could race the mustang and negotiate spots. What do you think is fair, 73?:rolf 72 works for me. It'll be closer than you think.

Hopefully I don't break my junk.

Why is the valiant down for winter? Are you installing a foot gas pedal, or maybe some lakewood traction bars? No, it's at the exterminator getting rid of rodents, roaches, ho's, etc....but maybe I can swing a foot shaped gas pedal, new fuzzy dice, and some d-con roach motels along the way.

Actually, it's just in hibernation mode...I pulled it out special last winter (or was that two winters ago?) only to be disappointed in not getting it running well (needed a new magetic pick-up). I'm too busy with school, work, woman and dog to even begin to get it out and going again until both school and work (work at greendale HS) are done this summer. Plus, moving up to a larger house....

[Prince Valiant]

Shouldnt you guys be talking about how many times a day you have to repair your junk?It's kind of understood and goes without saying.

[Myles]

It's kind of understood and goes without saying.


ah like a secrety society of broken parts then!

[Prince Valiant]

The first rule about the illuminati, is that you don't speak about the illuminati....

[BOSS LX]

So, by that definition, anyone that has rebuilt an engine has a "highly modified" engine?!? :confused

If that's your definition, then I guess I'll have to accept that I've got a "highly modified" valiant. I'll change my sig...
.

To be able to shave 6 seconds off a cars ET in stock trim, it would have to be highly modified.:rolf

And yes, the cam covers have never been removed.

[Prince Valiant]

To be able to shave 6 seconds off a cars ET in stock trim, it would have to be highly modified.:rolf

And yes, the cam covers have never been removed. :confused
It went 16.7 stock....you don't really think I've got a 10.7 car, do you :confused :goof

Plus, I reject the notion that it's "highly modified" though. There is nothing special about the short block. Nothing...maybe only it's balanced better than stock. The cast pistons don't even have valve reliefs...none to speak of. They cost less than 125 bucks for the complete set.

Cam: Hyd flat-tappet...and small at that. Isn't even bigger than the 340 automatic cam. Your s/c car probably runs more duration, has more overlap, and certainly more lift.

Heads use stock valves, stock rockers, stock shaft, even stock relacement valve springs with a measely 90lbs of seat pressure.

No funny machining was done to either the block (didn't even bore it last time, much less zero-deck it) or the heads(other than some basic port work limited to the bowls, short-side turn, and some blending, no port mactching, didn't open the push-rod pinch)...and the valve job is a pretty standard 3 angle job done with a serdi machine. When the block was honed, I didn't even use a torque plate.

Intake: Stock replacement dual plane, but cast AL.
Ignition: Stock distributer, ECU, higher voltage coil.
Carb: Holley DP, that's it.
Headers: Hedman 1 5/8.

But if that's highly moddified to you, so be it. Sig says it all. :goof

[MIKESPACECAR]

That car is sweet!:thumbsup

[HITMAN]

Is the torque numbers *with* the nitrous or without? I'm just trying to guestimate the boost numbers from this combo...it seems to come out something radical like 26 some psi which I wouldn't think that blower would even be able to come close to. Almost seems that a larger shot would be needed. jmo.

A more conservative estimation puts the boost levels at ~ 20 or so, itself, quite high for a stock s/c...can't see the vid here, so just working from what's in the first post.

Back from the abyss...

Wow, you were absolutely correct. He isn't running 15psi of boost as I originally surmised. Score one for the boostually challenged. NOT.

The actual figure is 13.5psi. 596rwhp/602rwtq.*

This plus a 75 shot gives the power figures in the first post. Methinks your boost calculator needs an owner mod. But hey, what do I know? My knowledge of the subject is obviously far inferior to yours. Must be the Ghost of Twinkies Past clouding my neurons...;)

*Hot Rod magazine, February 2007 issue, page 75

[HITMAN]

Quote:

You can have ten different turbo/superchargers all showing 15psi on a boost gauge but yet you will have 10 different horsepower readings.

Yep, no disagreement there. I DO believe we are still dealing with with relatively samll amounts of HP/Torque differences though (IE, less than 40hp/ 40 ft-lbs torque between most efficient to least), due to the power it takes to drive said power adder, and how efficiently said power adder moves the volume of air to generate heat or losing efficiency due to turbulence.

Given that, thats why I contend 1 bar of boost, no matter the power adder, yields approximately 2X the HP and 2X the torque of the given engine when compared to NA.

And that's why I give an approximate (ap·prox·i·mate = Almost exact or correct, to come close to; be nearly the same as) guesstimate of the boost needed to generate the torque/HP numbers. You seem to contend that it's so impossible, but I won't be surprised if I am 1-2 psi off what it actually produces.

If I am within that range, then guess what? I am probably correct in all my assumptions. I'm sure you'll attribute it to the blind squrriel theorem though


No, I would say in your case it's more like the Helen Keller squirrel theorem. 40hp and 40lbft. Right. Read on...(You do know how to read, don't you?)
http://www.kennebell.net/media/articles/BOOSTBASHpart1.pdf
http://www.kennebell.net/media/articles/BOOSTBASHpart2.pdf

I've been looking for a source for these articles since you entered the Ludicrous Zone, and finally found it. I only keep periodicals for a year and it never entered my mind that I might one day have to use a printed reference to refute the meanderings of a pseudo-intellectual half-wit.

You'll notice in Part 1 of this series (11psi test pressure) that from least efficient (the stock Eaton M112) to the most efficient (the HP twin turbo kit) that the power goes from a low of 572hp/533tq to a high of 750hp/679tq. Gee, that's 178hp and 146tq worth of difference. Why do you suppose that is, oh God Of PSI?

Part 2 shows what happens when the boost level grows to 14psi. The Eaton is clearly out of it's element as it only makes 11 extra horsepower, but the torque goes up to 574lbft. Lots of heat being generated. The high of this test was once again the HP TT system. Even though the boost never actually made it to 14psi (13.6psi actual), it never-the-less produced 830hp and 756tq. That's one helluva lot more than the 40/40 you ASSUME, Oh Diety Of Air Density...

See, that's your whole problem. You ASSUME too much. You assume your knowledge of forced induction is superior to anyone else's on this board. You assume your calculations to be unarguable fact. And your biggest mistake was to assume you were smarter than the old, fat guy. (Not that physical condition had anything pertinent to do with this discussion, but it seemed to matter to your juvenile psyche, so I let you run with it.) That's OK. It's been assumed before by better than you, but as is the case now, the facts haven't exactly shown this to be the truth.;)

There is an old saying: People that ASSUME they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do. Now scram junior, you have some studying to do...

[badvenom]

That Thing Is Amazing


i WILL OWN ONE REAL SOON

[70sschev]

nice car and nice work!!

[Prince Valiant]

Back from the abyss...

Wow, you were absolutely correct. He isn't running 15psi of boost as I originally surmised. Score one for the boostually challenged. NOT.

The actual figure is 13.5psi. 596rwhp/602rwtq.*

This plus a 75 shot gives the power figures in the first post. Methinks your boost calculator needs an owner mod. But hey, what do I know? My knowledge of the subject is obviously far inferior to yours. Must be the Ghost of Twinkies Past clouding my neurons...;)

*Hot Rod magazine, February 2007 issue, page 75BTW, if you use my math that I demonstrated earlier, and assume ~ 17% drivetrain loss, and 1.1 ft-lb torque per cubic inch of the 5.4 under N/A conditions, you get ~ 12.8 psi. Margin of error well within the approximations I made regarding drvetrain losses, power under NA conditions.

hmm. not too far off. Maybe you should check my work before you tell me I'm so wrong.

Plus, I believe I remember stating that more nitrous was needed to get the kind of torque numbers from the first post (778ft-lbs of torque to the wheels, a whopping 176 ft-lbs improvement from a 75 shot to the wheels)...as a matter of fact:

Almost seems that a larger shot would be needed. jmo. Now, I don't know that a "75 shot" will improve torque THAT much. Maybe. You tell me. One thing the HOT ROD article did clear up was the great unknown of what power numbers were to the wheels w/o the nitrous so that I could remove more unknowns to more accurately use my voodoo math.

BUT, you should note that YOU make an assumption that may or may not be true...and that is that NO other mods have been made since the magazine article was written, and the 9.90 times and dyno test were performed. Not that I am saying that there had to have been, just saying you don't KNOW that there was. Oh the emperor has no clothes...and in this case, it kind of looks like jabba the hut :durr :goof

[HITMAN]

Plus, I believe I remember stating that more nitrous was needed to get the kind of torque numbers from the first post (778ft-lbs of torque to the wheels, a whopping 176 ft-lbs improvement from a 75 shot to the wheels)...as a matter of fact:
Now, I don't know that a "75 shot" will improve torque THAT much. Maybe. You tell me. One thing the HOT ROD article did clear up was the great unknown of what power numbers were to the wheels w/o the nitrous so that I could remove more unknowns to more accurately use my voodoo math.

The problem with me checking your math is that A) Math has always been the subject I've liked the least. I use it, but when the going gets tedious, my eyes glaze over and I skip to the end. B) Your posts do tend to ramble. (a certain dissertation on the principles of how snow tires work comes to mind...;) )You rarely get right to the point. Once again, my ADD gets the better of me and I tend to skip to the end. Sorry. Be a little more concise, and we'll all be more likely to read your posts in their entirety. But I digress.

In short, the answer to your question of whether or not a 75hp shot of N2O will sky rocket the torque of one of these engines is, YES. I have seen many dynos of Terminators over on SVTperformance.com and any of the cars that are sprayed all post ridiculous amounts of torque for the amount of nitrous being used. A 100hp shot, wet or dry, will usually yield approximately 200lbft of torque. It is subject to the law of diminishing returns, however. A 300hp shot will not yield a 600lbft return in torque.



BUT, you should note that YOU make an assumption that may or may not be true...and that is that NO other mods have been made since the magazine article was written, and the 9.90 times and dyno test were performed. Not that I am saying that there had to have been, just saying you don't KNOW that there was.

The car ran 10.46 at 132.8 mph on nuts. Given the substantial increase in torque from the nitrous, I don't have a problem with it. The sixty foot doesn't reflect the nitrous, but I can't tell from the video if they were spraying right out of the hole or not. Seeing as the first pass shown was a 10 flat @ 137, I'd say that all of the stars aligned just right on that 9.96 pass to give them that 141 mph trap speed. If I had to guess if any more mods were done to the car since the Hot Rod article was written, I would say that the car might have been lightened up a bit more. The horsepower and torque seem to be where they should be, the ET decrease isn't out of line, but the trap speed does seem a bit high. I would have guessed it would gone about 138/139 mph with the nitrous. Then again, most of my experience has been with automatic cars. A manual is more efficient, so perhaps it's not really out of line.


Oh the emperor has no clothes...and in this case, it kind of looks like jabba the hut :durr :goof

:rolleyes:

Seriously, how old are you? 13?

You completely lack any originality in your insults. When all you have to rely on for flaming is some worn out "fat" commentary like you're some snotty little dip-shit 7th grader, you lose any cred-points you might ever hope to accumulate. Time for some new material, Henny.

[Teufelhunden]

Hitman charges the net to end the volley...hopefully. :goof
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/17/70tennis10_gallery__470x323.jpg

[Prince Valiant]

:rolleyes:

Seriously, how old are you? 13?

You completely lack any originality in your insults. When all you have to rely on for flaming is some worn out "fat" commentary like you're some snotty little dip-shit 7th grader, you lose any cred-points you might ever hope to accumulate. Time for some new material, Henny.lol...because it's the one that sting YOU the most. And I KNOW this, because it's comments like above that give me pathetic comments like this:

I've got over 6000 rep points to burn. Do you? Keep up with the personal commentary and I'll take you to the sewer, where such comments belong.
I mean, com'on. "cred-points"?!? I might live on the norf-wes-side, but "rep" or "cred" means nothing to me. I mean, what world do you exist in? I hear beavis saying "What areyouthreatening me?!?"

If I WAS in 7th grade, i'd be the one eggin' you on with "What? Are you going to cry? Come on crybaby, CRY! CRY! WAAAAAH!", until you did ;)

In the end, my guestimate was wrong, with too many variables that I thought I could make reasonable guesstimates on (assumptions as you say, but still reasonable). Take some of the unknown out, and I was pretty close :wow

And notice...I don't have to get my "gharunteeeeed to get the sand out" tampon over your assumptions, because I agree...they seem reasonable enough, if not wholely working with everything I know as well. But as far as trap speeds, to add 9mph to ones trap speed, when you are already starting with 132mph is damn impressive for a 75 shot...I mean, just think of the drag forces one has to overcome at those speeds in the first place, while accelerating your heavy ass car, in less time!

I still have reservations about a 75 yielding that much torque, at least in an rpm band that is useful while drag racing...but I don't claim to have any expertise with nitrous. I guess if the rate of nitrous flow is static, and doesn't increase with rpm's, I could see large gains in torque relative to HP, but that's only at lower rpm's, and the car is probably at a greater rpm as it's going down the track. I mean, that much gain in torque certainly isn't occuring at 4500-6500rpm, clearly.

...and contrary to your grandiose hyperbole, I've never claimed to be the "boost god" :rolleyes:

Sorry scott. Really.

[Cryptic]

Hitman... of the people to argue... I'm not sure why (becuase I am not reading 900 pages of banter) you picked a arguement with Chris.

He's one of the more knowledgable people on the board.
Although nice tech throughout page 7...

[Teufelhunden]

^^^Wait, the umpire has said something to one of the players...
http://www.purewimbledon.com/images/wimbledon_tennis_umpire.jpg

[Teufelhunden]

Will Hitman confront the ump????? :goof
http://www.fuzzysignal.com/tennis/fashion/john-mcenroe.jpg

[Prince Valiant]

**EDIT**
TREED!


Hitman... of the people to argue... I'm not sure why (becuase I am not reading 900 pages of banter) you picked a arguement with Chris.

He's one of the more knowledgable people on the board.
Although nice tech throughout page 7...
ah, it's nothing andy...we're just competeing for the title of "Most Obnoxious", that's all :durr

lol @ scott.

me:
http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/pic/adc/10038471A~Jimmy-Connors-Posters.jpg


Hitman:
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/writers/roy_johnson/08/08/pass.word/p1_mcenroe.jpg

[Cryptic]

:rolf :rolf :rolf

[HITMAN]

lol...because it's the one that sting YOU the most. And I KNOW this, because it's comments like above that give me pathetic comments like this:

I mean, com'on. "cred-points"?!? I might live on the norf-wes-side, but "rep" or "cred" means nothing to me. I mean, what world do you exist in? I hear beavis saying "What areyouthreatening me?!?"

If I WAS in 7th grade, i'd be the one eggin' you on with "What? Are you going to cry? Come on crybaby, CRY! CRY! WAAAAAH!", until you did ;)


:rolf In seventh grade, a twerp like you would have been picking his underwear out of the crack of his ass. EVERY DAY. As for your comments stinging me? Righty O. I've been "a fat guy" for a long time, so I've heard them all. Yours are about as feeble as they get. The bottom line is, you just aren't very creative or funny. And since the rep means nothing to you, then you won't mind some more negative will you? ;) :D BTW, do you get all of your tough guy lines from "A Christmas Story," Ralphie?


In the end, my guestimate was wrong, with too many variables that I thought I could make reasonable guesstimates on (assumptions as you say, but still reasonable). Take some of the unknown out, and I was pretty close :wow


Uh, OK.


I'm just trying to guestimate the boost numbers from this combo...it seems to come out something radical like 26 some psi...
A more conservative estimation puts the boost levels at ~ 20 or so...



I wouldn't be suprised to see that thing running 18-20psi, just that the internal mods to the blower within the stock housing allows for an increase in it's adiabatic efficiency (if not it's volume too), allowing it to boost to levels significantly greater than a stock, un-modded s/c.


SO...

...lets say that the 778ft-lbs of torque at the wheels translated to ~ 900ft-lbs of torque at the flywheel (reasonable).

Let's also say that the "75 shot" of nitrous garnered an extra 100ft-lbs of torque to the flywheel (reasonable), leaving us with ~ 800ft-lbs of torque from an engine that displaces 330 ci.

330* 1.1 = 363ft-lbs of torque, NA is a reasonable guess.

800/363 = 2.2 = 2.2 - 1bar ambient = 1.2 bar

1.2 bar*14.7psi/bar = 17.6psi

Hmm...the math seems pretty reasonable to me.


How's that crow tasting? Need some salt?



I still have reservations about a 75 yielding that much torque, at least in an rpm band that is useful while drag racing...but I don't claim to have any expertise with nitrous. I guess if the rate of nitrous flow is static, and doesn't increase with rpm's, I could see large gains in torque relative to HP, but that's only at lower rpm's, and the car is probably at a greater rpm as it's going down the track. I mean, that much gain in torque certainly isn't occuring at 4500-6500rpm, clearly.


Clearly...
but I don't claim to have any expertise with nitrous.:rolf


...and contrary to your grandiose hyperbole, I've never claimed to be the "boost god" :rolleyes:

No, you've never claimed it... in those exact words...

But your contempt for others (not just me) in this thread shows that you place no value on anyone's opinions other than your own. Even when faced with facts to the contrary, you still try claiming that you've been correct, all along:

...Take some of the unknown out, and I was pretty close...

BTW, if you use my math that I demonstrated earlier, and assume ~ 17% drivetrain loss, and 1.1 ft-lb torque per cubic inch of the 5.4 under N/A conditions, you get ~ 12.8 psi. Margin of error well within the approximations I made regarding drvetrain losses, power under NA conditions. hmm. not too far off.

How about some ketchup?

[HITMAN]

Hitman... of the people to argue... I'm not sure why (becuase I am not reading 900 pages of banter) you picked a arguement with Chris.

He's one of the more knowledgable people on the board.
Although nice tech throughout page 7...

You seem easily impressed. Go back and read his last post. He admits he was incorrect. And then tries to weasel out of it with some more of his rambling rationalizations. Valiant = All hat, no cattle.

[HITMAN]

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3298/HTMNvsU.jpg


:thumbsup

[Prince Valiant]

As for your comments stinging me? Righty O. I've been "a fat guy" for a long time, so I've heard them all. Yours are about as feeble as they get. The bottom line is, you just aren't very creative or funny.Jeez, that sounds good and all, like you've got thick skin, and can just roll with such joshin' like water off a ducks back...but the reality is that when push comes to shove, you cry...and threatin' "rep"-taliation and talk about "6000 rep points to burn" and how I better not step....ooooooh, scary! :rolf I'll play this game...left some more! OUCH :goof

BTW, do you get all of your tough guy lines from "A Christmas Story," Ralphie?Well, since I figured you probably spent christmas watching at least 4 consecutive showings during the TNT marathon, you'd appreciate them.


you still try claiming that you've been correct, all along:
What, you don't think that 12.8 is close to 13.5? Working from a bunch of unknowns, it's pretty damn close. I still stand by my contention that one is able to make reasonable guestimates at boost numbers, provided one knows displacement and rear-wheel torque numbers. I pointed out where I made my errors, and they have NOTHING to do with the bull$hit you spout.

You have yet to make the case why this can't work, or why it was just dumb luck about even being within 0.7 psi away...aside from cutting and pasting an article that shows a blower out of its efficiency range. Wow, the brilliance of HITMAN is amazing :rolleyes:


Wait...it's coming to me (eyes roll back):

You can't know you imbecile! To many variables! PSI means nothing! See this article @ http://www.magracer.com (http://www.crybaby.com)! IT proves it! I looked and looked, and I found it! Which is as good as authoring it! You are beaneath any reasoning that I might offer, I still won't explain...you have to understand that with my superior intellect, if I actually share any of it, it'll melt your faces like the lost ark in Indiana Jones! (well, I always SAY that I share my intellect, doesn't that count?). Listen maybe if YOU cut and paste some articles, this will work. Will you? Here's some negative "rep"...good luck with the "cred".
As sure as God talks to Pat Robertson, he told me what you'd come back and say :wow

[BOSS LX]

Choad!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:banana1:

[Prince Valiant]

Choad!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:banana1: And your freekin' lightning is going down to a 318 this time :wooo


:goof

[BOSS LX]

And your freekin' lightning is going down to a 318 this time :wooo


:goof

Lightning is gone! But I woulda kicked your mopar ass!:rolf

[Prince Valiant]

Lightning is gone! But I woulda kicked your mopar ass!:rolfonly if moddified, and woulda/coulda/DIDN'T when you had your best chance :wow

What are you replacing it with? (...please be mustang, please be mustang, please be mustang, please be mustang...I'd really want to beat you in a mustang)

[BOSS LX]

only if moddified, and woulda/coulda/DIDN'T when you had your best chance :wow

What are you replacing it with?

Still looking.

[Crawlin]

Come pick up what you were looking at... hella deal man! haha

[BOSS LX]

Come pick up what you were looking at... hella deal man! haha

I decided against the bus with 10 cylinders! Although "BOSS BUS" would fit on a plate.:rolf

Mark may have a hook up on a truck that was just traded in to you guys. 03' FX4

[Crawlin]

BOSS BUS woulda been the SHIT!!

i want one SO bad. trying to find a used one, with the diesel, with about 50k miles on it. if i can find it for about $20g's at auction, a 24 month lease(yep on a used car) ends up being like $150/month through northshore, haha. sadly, most of those are at about 25g's still since it's the diesel

[HITMAN]

What, you don't think that 12.8 is close to 13.5? Working from a bunch of unknowns, it's pretty damn close. I still stand by my contention that one is able to make reasonable guestimates at boost numbers, provided one knows displacement and rear-wheel torque numbers. I pointed out where I made my errors, and they have NOTHING to do with the bull$hit you spout.

The first place this 12.8psi figure you've concocted appeared was in post #137.


BTW, if you use my math that I demonstrated earlier, and assume ~ 17% drivetrain loss, and 1.1 ft-lb torque per cubic inch of the 5.4 under N/A conditions, you get ~ 12.8 psi.

Nowhere else does it appear. How convenient for you to have come up with this figure after I quoted the article in Hot Rod...:rolleyes:
I gave all of the other examples of your guesstimates in my post, #146, above, yet you now claim to have been at this figure all along?:rolf


The only bullshit in this thread is that pile you're working on. Here's an idea: Why don't you go back and reread you own posts? That way, you can at least keep your fabrications on track...:loser

[Cryptic]

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3298/HTMNvsU.jpg


:thumbsup

hey where the picture of me go :goof

[Prince Valiant]

The first place this 12.8psi figure you've concocted appeared was in post #137.



Nowhere else does it appear. How convenient for you to have come up with this figure after I quoted the article in Hot Rod...:rolleyes:
I gave all of the other examples of your guesstimates in my post, #146, above, yet you now claim to have been at this figure all along?:rolf
Uh, because that's AFTER we found out what the actual torque to the rear wheels is without the nitrous. It was an erroneous assumption that I made to assume that a "75" shot of nitrous would only yield 100 ft-lbs of torque earlier, and I conceded that this led to my error in my first calculations. I mean...that should have been obvious because I STATED IT EARLIER(post # 132) to a brilliant m*-h*rf*(k*r (excessive profanity screens here) like yourself, oh he-who-professess-I-don't-read :rolleyes:

(waits for some complaint about "I don't read cause you ramble and me gots ADD" response)

And here's something for you, "New Jack": :rolf

I went and found an old magazine I had laying around...it doesn't specifically expound on the ability to predict power based on boost levels, but it does offer some revealing dyno tests...much better than the one you refer to:

Magazine" "Engine Masters", a supplemental issue to "Popular Hotrodding", released at the same time of the 2005 engine masters challenge, IIRC

In it, it had three examples of supercharged, or turbocharged engines:

EX #1: Ford Modular 4.6 cobra crate motor. As originally equiped with the eaton blower, that they determined wouldn't provide the kind of boost capabilities they needed to make the 1,000hp they were looking for. They therefore removed the blower, then put on an NA cobra style intake manifold, upgraded comp cams, and headers. While still NA, put it on the dyno and got:

426hp, 390ft-lbs of torque.

Then they start plumbing for twin turbo...the results are interesting.

At 16.2 psi, my generic calculations would predict peaks of this:

895hp, 819f-lbs torque

What they actually got:

891hp, 815ft-lbs of torque

A whopping 4hp, and 4ft-lbs of torque (0.4%) off :wow :wow :wow

At 20.4 psi, my formula would predict:

1017hp, 930ft-lbs or torque

Actual results:

990hp, 911ft-lbs of torque

2.6% off ? :wow what da hells goin' on?!?

Yes, I'm aware that the margin of error increased as the boost levels were raised, I'm aware that more heat generated and the greater work that the engine had to do pushing exhaust probably contributed to the decline in power level relative to what the formula predicts. I never claimed precision!!!

EX #2: This one is more up your alley, because it demonstrates a point you try to illustrate, and one I didn't deny. Here we have an example of an "inexpensive" blown motor: Chevy 350, 9:1 pistions, bigger cam (240/248 @ .050) and good heads, one that you might find in a typical street build. Now, let's test it NA, then throw the blower on it (IE, like someone who might just "throw a blower on their current, unchanged engine in their car now"). The blower in question is a procharger D-1SC. They don't use an intercooler.

Here is what's interesting; The generic principle works up to a point on such an engine (as I expected), but beyond a certain level of boost, it starts to falter...why? I'd suppose that after a certain point in a non-intercooled boosted application, excessive heat begins to corrupt power making abilities...combine too much heat with a relatively high compression ratio for a boosted car, and you probably also have to pull back timing enough to make significant declines in power. Combine the above two with the fact that the engine has to work harder to spin the blower and compress more air faster, then one starts to fall out of the general nature of the rule. This is nothing I didn't concede earlier in post #82 and #99.

Here are the results:

At 3400rpm, the engine made NA 384ft-lbs of torque...I'd predict 498 at 4.4 psi it was generating, and the actual amount was 484.

At 4000rpm, the engine made NA 388ft-lbs of torque...I'd predict it would make 541ft-lbs of torque at 5.8psi, and the actual amount was 545ft-lbs.

At 4200rpm, the engine made NA 398ft-lbs of torque...I'd predict it would make 573ft-lbs at 6.5 psi, the engine actually made 568.

At 4400rpm, the engine made NA 404ft-lbs of torque...I'd predict 607 ft-lbs at 7.4 psi, the engine made 597ft-lbs.

Beyond this, things start to falter...examples:

At 5000rpm, the engine made NA 420 ft-lbs of torque...I'd predict 697ft-lbs of torque at 9.7psi...the engine actually made 611ft-lbs.

At 6000rpm, the engine made NA 405 ft-lbs of torque...I'd predict 785ft-lbs at 13.7psi, the engine actually made 606 ft-lbs.

Let's not forget, I never claimed this works in all cases...just in cases where the blower or turbo is efficient for the application, and the engine is ideally configured for blown applications as I referenced in post # 82 I believe.

EX #3: This one doesn't have a before after dyno test with NA and boosted power numbers....BUT, it does illustrate another claim I made.

The engine is a 6.0 iron block LS type. In this case, I illustrate that I can reasonably guess the NA torque numbers, and then get a pretty appromixmate torque number at a given boost level.

So let's assume that the 6.0 (364ci) is making ~ 1.1 ft-lb of torque if it was NA...this gives us ~ 400ft-lbs of torque, from this engine, NA. This is of course, a guess...but I contend a reasonable one. I do this, because it's easier to guestimate torque numbers if you know the displacement...for HP numbers, the unknowns are too many to account for...If I have an idea of flow numbers, cam, compression, I can fudge somewhat okay. But I digress...

These guys then boost the ever-living-snot out of it...giving us 29.1psi.

Accordingly, If we try to predict what kind of torque numbers at that given boost, we'd guess ~ 1191 ft-lbs of torque.

The actual dyno result : 1221ft-lbs! Only 2.3% off. :wow :wow :wow

Why would I be any off? Well, in this case, it's certainly harder to get precision...but precision is something I don't claim to aim for with this. Instead, I don't really KNOW what the torque numbers are NA...instead, I just assume that since this is probably a heavy lower end, with low compression, it's probably not going to get the high specific torque numbers that we know the LS series can achieve...at the same time, I wouldn't think that it'd be completely gutless with specific torque numbers, so 1.1 seems reasonable. 1.0 is pretty common, 0.8 is downright lazy, and 1.3 or more is higher than I'd guess an engine built to live with so much boost would be good for. I made a reasonable assumption! Is it always right? No! just look at the 4.6 (281ci) making a whooping 1.38 ft-lbs per ci of torque above before being boosted...that's on the upper end of any NA engine, much less one ready for boost.

There. Citations. Dyno test. Math. Intellectual honesty (something you most clearly lack). It has it all.

It has where the generic priciple works AND doesn't work. It cites reasonable cases for all. If you don't concede that this general principle is true from the above, you'll never learn this then.

I concede that I was wrong on my initial figuring. I stated that I erroneously figured the torque production of what the engine would be in lieu of nitrous. I was wrong, on that. I know that when I have to figure power or torque production too the wheels, my margin of error will go up with more unknowns...I never stated that this wouldn't be the case.

More importantly, I never stated that the overall approach I used was wrong.

What galls me, is that you accuse me of "not respecting" yours, or others opinions. This isn't because I don't respect it...I do, I just don't think that you are right.

But YOU, the freekin' HYPO-crite (say it slowly for best effect), show the greatest lack of respect. YOU were the initial condescending punk. YOU were the one that issued the stupid, POINTLESS challange. YOU haven't conceded that one thing, not one thing i've posted has been correct.

Read, YOU might learn something :rolleyes:

Something I don't expect to read:

Okay, I concede...you were right, and at least honest about where you were wrong. I learned something...or at least understand that you were relating something I already understood.:rolleyes:

[HITMAN]

:sleep

Oh, are you through? Sorry, I nodded off there for a bit. Old age and high blood sugar combined with slogging through the La Brea Tar Pits of posts will do that, don't you know...;)

OK, I concede... You spelled my name right this time.
:thumbsup

You got your concession. Happy?


:rolf :rolf :rolf :rolf :rolf :rolf

[Prince Valiant]

OK, I concede... You spelled my name right this time.
:thumbsup

You got your concession. Happy?Just like hitman...all fluff. Try to get him to post anything that isn't a rip on a newb and all you get is the duck n' weave. Doesn't even offer why the above examples are just dumb lucky close. Not bad old man.

[HITMAN]

Just like hitman...all fluff. Try to get him to post anything that isn't a rip on a newb and all you get is the duck n' weave. Doesn't even offer why the above examples are just dumb lucky close. Not bad old man.

:D

[Prince Valiant]

:D

me:
http://espn-att.starwave.com/i/sportscentury/inline/connors.jpg

Game, set, match :banana1:


:D

[HITMAN]

me:
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5638/dancetard.gif
Mamma, I winded da race! :durr


:D

Yep, I do agree, that is definitely you...:thumbsup

[HITMAN]

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
[b]HITMAN IS ABOUT TO ADMIT HE WAS WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING! THE WORLD MAY IMPLODE IN SECONDS![/Background Chorus from Iron Maiden's Run For The Hills]

I ran your math today and for the most part, it works, sort of. It's a pretty generic math formula (just like a lot of engine math) and I guess I made more out of it than I should have (Hitman making mountains out of mole hills. There's a surprise...:D ) especially in light of the fact that it wasn't you that invented said formula. Having admitted that, I never-the-less see areas that can be inaccurate, at least for my way of thinking. I still say that some variables can effect your results to differing degrees, mainly in the areas of blower/turbocharger efficiency. A formula like this is too rigid to be able to account for something like: How much horsepower/torque does a given power adder need to sustain itself? You have to remember that any device being driven off of the crankshaft requires a percentage of the power being made to turn it. If blower X requires 50 horsepower to turn it at YYY rpm then the actual power made is really 50 hp higher than the number being shown. Blower Z only needs 25 hp to drive it, but is otherwise the same in every respect, and the dyno reflects this with and extra 25 hp being shown on the meter. Or, in the case of turbocharging, how much of an effect does back pressure have? Different turbine housings and turbine wheels will effect not only how a given turbo reacts, but ultimately how much total horsepower can be made. But I suspect you knew that already, and that is why you've given yourself a fudge zone you feel you can live with. So be it. If it makes you happy in your theorizing, then by all means use it. I will most likely use this formula myself in the future if I ever see the need for it. :wooo

There is the concession you've been waiting for. It isn't the first time I've been wrong about something (especially in regards to math) and it won't be the last. Hey, shit happens. Even God gets it wrong once in awhile. Mosquitoes, Arabs and the idea for the Valiant come to mind...;)

Now back the original subject of this thread. After having dragged this thread through the off topic quagmire of warring egos, I still say that the '07 GT500 is a damned impressive car for what little has been done to it. It's a fine example of what something thoroughly designed for a certain application is capable of. The Chevy boys ought to be relieved that it's not a 3200 pound car like the original Fox bodies were. Subtract another 400lbs from what this thing has already run at 3600+lbs and the talk about what a monster the C6 Z/06 is would be a lot more muted. Someday, perhaps Ford will wise up and stop loading a Pony car like the Mustang with a lot of heavy extras, and start utilizing some light weight componentry in it's construction. Gee, then maybe some of us with more mundane incomes could afford one. Now, wouldn't THAT be something?

[Teufelhunden]

Glad thats over. I love the theme music!

[HRSEPLA]

You guys both had good points, now line em up, some people talk it, but now its time to walk it.:)

[Teufelhunden]

:3gears::banana :3gears:

[HITMAN]

You guys both had good points, now line em up, some people talk it, but now its time to walk it.:)

Sam, I am counting the days until March 31st...:D :3gears:

[Prince Valiant]

There is the concession you've been waiting for.
I don't believe it. I am being set up or something. This is like bad poker from a cheesy movie. When is the other shoe going to drop? I feel like the spanish prisoner and i'm going to have to watch my back this summer :rolf


But you are correct...the mustang IS impressive. Hell, it's even SUPRISING (:goof) given that it did this on less boost than I would have guessed it needed. :wow

[FourEyedFord]

Pants down hugs for everyone, yay!!!! :banana