Texas Side by side racing
#47
11-06-2009, 08:44 AM
Art...You never stop amazing me with your posts, 1st you said the car made 900 whp, then 1000 and NOW 1206..."bhp"! Are you serious, unless you are speaking of another mustang.
#48
11-06-2009, 09:37 AM
the white KR1000?
don't know anything about it other than when I asked what kind of power it was putting down (they said about 1000). I was lined up to race them on Sunday, did my burnout and popped a axle. If their power output was close I would say it would have been a fairly close race but they did say they have 2nd and 3rd gear traction problems.....this is where I would have the advantage as my car hooks in 2nd gear and up with the R6's on.
don't know anything about it other than when I asked what kind of power it was putting down (they said about 1000). I was lined up to race them on Sunday, did my burnout and popped a axle. If their power output was close I would say it would have been a fairly close race but they did say they have 2nd and 3rd gear traction problems.....this is where I would have the advantage as my car hooks in 2nd gear and up with the R6's on.
#49
11-06-2009, 10:49 AM
Every person will say different things and that's what I heard. The car is definately putting down 1000whp. You know how it's out there, every person will claim more or less but when you watch the race the car puts down crazy power, very obvious.
#51
11-06-2009, 06:06 PM
yeah me too. good thing it was just a simple axle pop instead of something serious.
SW and I were talking on Saturday and he thought it might have been he and I duking it out towards the end. I'd like to believe that too. I'll be ready next time.
#52
11-06-2009, 06:06 PM
The GT motor is a completely different one than what's in the Mustangs and trucks. My GT motor (internals) is bone stock except for the bolt on TT kit. It still has the SC on it and we put down 994 rwhp. I ran 13 200+mph runs in my GT (I am fairly certain no other car ran that many 200+mph runs at the Mile this time).
Durability......yep it's got it.
Durability......yep it's got it.
Pretty interesting dyno sessions, it was amazing what little changes would do to make power on those Lightnings. Pretty nice motor overall, a shame they made so few GTs and no longer make the Lightning...How's the response of the turbos on top of the blower? I really like the compound boost idea and you don't see it often enough IMO.
#54
11-06-2009, 06:15 PM
I'll have to dig up the article I've got. They had decided that the motor had to run something like 24hours WOT or somesuch before they would declare it done. Rods, pistons were upgraded I know, better blower, and umm yeah an upgraded damper! Don't recall what all else was different but it was an interesting read. Guys I knew at the time were hopping up Lightnings and finding the rods less than happy at high power levels Pretty interesting dyno sessions, it was amazing what little changes would do to make power on those Lightnings. Pretty nice motor overall, a shame they made so few GTs and no longer make the Lightning...
How's the response of the turbos on top of the blower? I really like the compound boost idea and you don't see it often enough IMO.
Pretty interesting dyno sessions, it was amazing what little changes would do to make power on those Lightnings. Pretty nice motor overall, a shame they made so few GTs and no longer make the Lightning...How's the response of the turbos on top of the blower? I really like the compound boost idea and you don't see it often enough IMO.
basically the SC does the work below 4000rpm and then the turbos take over. pretty much a bunch of power all the time. dyno graphs show up to 250 more hp than a non SC tt'ed GT below 4200 rpm. At my power levels it is pretty much the best of both worlds.
#55
11-06-2009, 06:17 PM
hehe....nah. I don't do nitrous (too many variables to go wrong to grenade a motor).
Safe and pretty much bulletproof is the setup I have.
#56
11-06-2009, 06:52 PM
With a supercharger AND turbos you don't need nitrous IMO. The supercharger is full time and the turbos don't need anything to excite them into boost down low. Some way of disengaging the supercharger at high RPMs might be interesting but complicated. Personally I'd LOVE to run a car with both a blower and turbo. Got any dyno sheets? The torque production ought to be awesome 
#58
11-06-2009, 08:13 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: MPLS, MN USA
Age: 63
Posts: 5,710
Rep Power: 464 
300 CRANK HP. Do not get me started on what the WHP is on my AWD
Volvo !
#59
11-06-2009, 08:17 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: MPLS, MN USA
Age: 63
Posts: 5,710
Rep Power: 464 The GT motor is a completely different one than what's in the Mustangs and trucks. My GT motor (internals) is bone stock except for the bolt on TT kit. It still has the SC on it and we put down 994 rwhp. I ran 13 200+mph runs in my GT (I am fairly certain no other car ran that many 200+mph runs at the Mile this time).
Durability......yep it's got it.
Durability......yep it's got it.
A good friend of mine and Atomic Z's is a former, F1 engine builder for Cosworth and he would call you motor "Lazy HP"
...Which is a good thing, by the way
#60
11-06-2009, 08:24 PM
wow, that is awesome for a VOLVO. Is that a GT42 force fed by an 8-71 blower on the volvo?
just trying to spread more disinformation to keep S351 happy