Took the GT2 to the dragstrip last night
#1
Took the GT2 to the dragstrip last night
The conditions were all but ideal. The temp was 101 and the DA was 4558. The car ran strong! The GT2 seems to be far superior to my turbo in terms of performance. In case you haven't read the thread about the car and its current mods here it is:
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...ad.php?t=51944
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...ad.php?t=51944
#2
WOW that temp/ condition in AZ really sucks...
I dont know anything about correction factors... we dont have those issues here...do u get those figures along with the time slip or is it something u figure on ur own.
that car really needs the ICs, TB, bigger MAF, injectors and pump... then it will come alive...
did u run it at 1.3 bars on 100+ gas?
markski
I dont know anything about correction factors... we dont have those issues here...do u get those figures along with the time slip or is it something u figure on ur own.
that car really needs the ICs, TB, bigger MAF, injectors and pump... then it will come alive...
did u run it at 1.3 bars on 100+ gas?
markski
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Last edited by markski@markskituning; 07-02-2006 at 02:25 PM.
#3
I would love for Scott to see this thread. I had similiar issues with a track nearby me. 2710+ feet, humid, windy with a DA of over 5000+feet. I ran a 11.9@123 there and he wont give me much credit and claims that would be corrected to a 11.6@125 MAX. And were talking about SC car that loses boost up there.
#5
Originally Posted by MARKSKI
WOW that temp/ condition in AZ really sucks...
I dont know anything about correction factors... we dont have those issues here...do u get those figures along with the time slip or is it something u figure on ur own.
that car really needs the ICs, TB, bigger MAF, injectors and pump... then it will come alive...
did u run it at 1.3 bars on 100+ gas?
markski
I dont know anything about correction factors... we dont have those issues here...do u get those figures along with the time slip or is it something u figure on ur own.
that car really needs the ICs, TB, bigger MAF, injectors and pump... then it will come alive...
did u run it at 1.3 bars on 100+ gas?
markski
http://www.modulardepot.com/density.php
It ran full boost on 109 octane.
It's getting what will more than make it come alive next week...
#7
Unfortunately, using standard sea-level correction factors like the one on Modular Depot for Turbocharged cars is not at all accurate. This holds true for both sea-level correction at tracks and SAE correction on dynos. The below copy/paste will explain why.
Although I'll agree that the temp/humidity definitely wasn't optimal and the car will run better in cooler/dryer conditions. By the way, this is not a flame in any way whatsoever....so please don't take it as such.
Although I'll agree that the temp/humidity definitely wasn't optimal and the car will run better in cooler/dryer conditions. By the way, this is not a flame in any way whatsoever....so please don't take it as such.
.......the percentage of power loss between a naturally aspirated engine is what SAE corrections on dyno’s is designed to compensate for. They are basing the results at a certain altitude (and temperature but it won’t be discussed here) and try to get their results back to sea level on a perfect day. This is a set standard and makes numbers from other dyno’s easy to compare. This correction value is based on a set % for altitude and temperature. This is fine for naturally aspirated of mechanically supercharged vehicles but is worthless for exhaust driven turbocharged vehicles. This is because an exhaust driven turbocharged vehicle is set to reference pressure to sea level. At higher altitudes it just works harder to get that pressure back up. It has to work harder since there is less pressure to start with........The total gain is different and calibrated to a fixed, known location. This is why you use SAE corrections for naturally aspirated engines but not for exhaust driven turbocharged engines. SAE correction factors for turbocharged vehicles will basically be the same as giving you some free boost. That's cheating the numbers. It may be great way to sell more product but it isn't an accurate representation of how much power you put down. The greater the altitude change, the more inaccurate it becomes.
In reality, there are some differences that offset the effect of turbochargers holding boost at higher altitudes. First off, the turbo is working harder since it has to spin faster. This creates more heat. we also have an average loss in temperature of 3 degrees F over every thousand feet in elevation rise. While these will affect the final numbers from sea level a small amount, they are nowhere near as off as the SAE correction factor for turbocharged engines at altitude. The other thing to consider is that your turbo may get well out of it's efficiency range at these speeds. Different turbos will have different results so you can not have a set standard.
The next time someone tells you that you need to use SAE correction for a turbocharged engine because it is the "standard", laugh at them, tell them to go do their homework and to just go ahead and print up your uncorrected dyno sheet (turbo cars) so you can leave.
In reality, there are some differences that offset the effect of turbochargers holding boost at higher altitudes. First off, the turbo is working harder since it has to spin faster. This creates more heat. we also have an average loss in temperature of 3 degrees F over every thousand feet in elevation rise. While these will affect the final numbers from sea level a small amount, they are nowhere near as off as the SAE correction factor for turbocharged engines at altitude. The other thing to consider is that your turbo may get well out of it's efficiency range at these speeds. Different turbos will have different results so you can not have a set standard.
The next time someone tells you that you need to use SAE correction for a turbocharged engine because it is the "standard", laugh at them, tell them to go do their homework and to just go ahead and print up your uncorrected dyno sheet (turbo cars) so you can leave.
Last edited by Divexxtreme; 07-02-2006 at 03:50 PM.
Trending Topics
#8
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
Unfortunately, using standard sea-level correction factors like the one on Modular Depot for TC cars is not accurate. This holds true for both sea-level correction at tracks and SAE correction on dynos. The below copy/paste will explain why.
Although I'll agree that the temp/humidity definitely wasn't optimal and the car will run better in cooler/dryer conditions.
Although I'll agree that the temp/humidity definitely wasn't optimal and the car will run better in cooler/dryer conditions.
I guess whoever you just quoted knows alot more about drag racing than the NHRA:
(NOTE: Supercharged and/or turbocharged cars (i.e.: AA/A, AA/AT, BB/A, BB/AT, A/PM and AA/PM) use half factor)
http://nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
#9
Originally Posted by RennTechV12
DA deals with alot more than just altitude, it's only one of the factors. Are you saying that air temp and humidity aren't a factor either?
I guess whoever you just quoted knows alot more about drag racing than the NHRA:
(NOTE: Supercharged and/or turbocharged cars (i.e.: AA/A, AA/AT, BB/A, BB/AT, A/PM and AA/PM) use half factor)
http://nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
I guess whoever you just quoted knows alot more about drag racing than the NHRA:
(NOTE: Supercharged and/or turbocharged cars (i.e.: AA/A, AA/AT, BB/A, BB/AT, A/PM and AA/PM) use half factor)
http://nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
Using the same temp, humidity, pressure, E.T. and trap speed that you used above...but leaving the altitude at sea level...which is what you need to do when figuring for your car....I get 11.5 @ 126. That falls right in the middle of the two and is probably a much more accurate correction than the one you posted in your first post.
Here's further information from Modular Fords about how correction factors differ greatly between Turbocharged cars and N/A cars:
http://www.modularfords.com/forums/a...f?d=1150159172
Last edited by Divexxtreme; 07-03-2006 at 02:03 PM.
#10
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
I already stated that the heat/humidity has a negative effect. And even the note from the NHRA you posted above states to "use half factor" when figuring out the correction factor. Did you use half like they stated? No, you did not. Therefore your numbers, by your own post above, are not accurate.
Using the same temp, humidity, pressure, E.T. and trap speed that you used above...but leaving the altitude at sea level...I get 11.5 @ 126. That falls right the middle of the two and is probably a much more accurate correction than the one you posted in your first post.
Using the same temp, humidity, pressure, E.T. and trap speed that you used above...but leaving the altitude at sea level...I get 11.5 @ 126. That falls right the middle of the two and is probably a much more accurate correction than the one you posted in your first post.
#11
Originally Posted by RennTechV12
It doesn't matter to me anyway. I was just posting the numbers for informational purposes on what a Protomotive tuned GT2 can run, that's all. I thought the forum members would be interested. The post wasn't made as a "correction factor" post. Using YOUR math, it seems that my EVOMS Stage 4 turbo (comparable package) is faster even though it weighs more.
I just think if you're going to post correction factors at all (which I really don't see a need for in the first place), it's important to be as accurate as possible when figuring them out since they can sometimes be very misleading.
Last edited by Divexxtreme; 07-02-2006 at 04:14 PM.
#12
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
Again...it wasn't a flame post at all. I apologize if you took it that way. I think your car is very quick for the mods it has and I very much appreciate you taking it to the track and posting the numbers. I'm sure others feel the same.
I just think if you are going to post correction factors at all (which I really don't see need for in the first place), it's important to be as accurate as possible.
I just think if you are going to post correction factors at all (which I really don't see need for in the first place), it's important to be as accurate as possible.
#13
Originally Posted by RennTechV12
Just out of curiosity, what part of the country do you live in and what track do you run at?
I've used correction factors in the past for my other cars, out of curiosity, and have always seen a benefit. I just choose not to post the corrected (and better) numbers.
Last edited by Divexxtreme; 07-02-2006 at 04:21 PM.
#14
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
I live in VA and have run my cars at Dinwitty, Richmond, MIR, Atco and Kinston. All essentially sea-level tracks...some nice, some not so nice. Flat yes...but temps reach 100+ degrees with extremely high humidity in the summer. Very similar to FL.
I've used correction factors in the past for my other cars, out of curiosity, and have always seen a benefit. I just choose not to post the corrected (and better) numbers.
I've used correction factors in the past for my other cars, out of curiosity, and have always seen a benefit. I just choose not to post the corrected (and better) numbers.
#15
Originally Posted by RennTechV12
I agree to a certain degree about posting or bragging on corrected numbers. All of the figures in my sig are true numbers, I only post the corrections as a point of reference. When I trapped at 136 in the GT700 it corrected out to 139.8. We do have many atmospheric conditions working against us here in AZ, I just like to let that fact be known.