UMW Stage 3A Zero Clearance Breaks New Ground: Dyno Sheet
#46
Great numbers!
Just for a friendly comparison, how does this setup (or the upcoming 3b setup) compare with protomotive's (ex. Markski's)?
I know they are different tunings with different goals overall but with the same boost (say 1.3bar) and within the same rpm range (2k-7k), how do think these 2 stack up?
Thanks.
Just for a friendly comparison, how does this setup (or the upcoming 3b setup) compare with protomotive's (ex. Markski's)?
I know they are different tunings with different goals overall but with the same boost (say 1.3bar) and within the same rpm range (2k-7k), how do think these 2 stack up?
Thanks.
#47
Originally Posted by geetee
Great numbers!
Just for a friendly comparison, how does this setup (or the upcoming 3b setup) compare with protomotive's (ex. Markski's)?
I know they are different tunings with different goals overall but with the same boost (say 1.3bar) and within the same rpm range (2k-7k), how do think these 2 stack up?
Thanks.
Just for a friendly comparison, how does this setup (or the upcoming 3b setup) compare with protomotive's (ex. Markski's)?
I know they are different tunings with different goals overall but with the same boost (say 1.3bar) and within the same rpm range (2k-7k), how do think these 2 stack up?
Thanks.
#48
Originally Posted by geetee
Great numbers!
Just for a friendly comparison, how does this setup (or the upcoming 3b setup) compare with protomotive's (ex. Markski's)?
I know they are different tunings with different goals overall but with the same boost (say 1.3bar) and within the same rpm range (2k-7k), how do think these 2 stack up?
Thanks.
Just for a friendly comparison, how does this setup (or the upcoming 3b setup) compare with protomotive's (ex. Markski's)?
I know they are different tunings with different goals overall but with the same boost (say 1.3bar) and within the same rpm range (2k-7k), how do think these 2 stack up?
Thanks.
The numbers for three 3b arent out yet, but beware of the Killer B's .
As far as Marks car, you cant compare, that is a one off car! but it would be nice for comparisons . Besides Marks car will destroy anything above 160,
than when the xtra HP comes in to play.
Last edited by topgun; 01-18-2007 at 10:35 PM.
#49
Yea, Markski's car is a true beast that is for sure. But I just wonder if someone could do a comparison with same boost (say 1 or 1.3 bar) within same rpms(2k -7k rpms).
With the extra boost (1.5 bar with protomotive) and with the extra 1200 rpms and of course the extra power within the 2000-7000rpm's, there is no doubt protomotive will destroy.
But not everyone can afford the protomotive treatment.
How about a comparison with the evo gt700 vs. UMW 3a vs. scott's proto 600? These all 3 are similar in price and all use stock internals right? I know all 3 were done on different dynos and different conditions but I think it would be a give us a good idea.
With the extra boost (1.5 bar with protomotive) and with the extra 1200 rpms and of course the extra power within the 2000-7000rpm's, there is no doubt protomotive will destroy.
But not everyone can afford the protomotive treatment.
How about a comparison with the evo gt700 vs. UMW 3a vs. scott's proto 600? These all 3 are similar in price and all use stock internals right? I know all 3 were done on different dynos and different conditions but I think it would be a give us a good idea.
#51
Originally Posted by geetee
How about a comparison with the evo gt700 vs. UMW 3a vs. scott's proto 600? These all 3 are similar in price and all use stock internals right? I know all 3 were done on different dynos and different conditions but I think it would be a give us a good idea.
Thats correct, but keep in mind that this will just become another numbers war. We need three cars at the same time, same dyno...to be legit.
#54
Originally Posted by geetee
Yea, Markski's car is a true beast that is for sure. But I just wonder if someone could do a comparison with same boost (say 1 or 1.3 bar) within same rpms(2k -7k rpms).
With the extra boost (1.5 bar with protomotive) and with the extra 1200 rpms and of course the extra power within the 2000-7000rpm's, there is no doubt protomotive will destroy.
But not everyone can afford the protomotive treatment.
How about a comparison with the evo gt700 vs. UMW 3a vs. scott's proto 600? These all 3 are similar in price and all use stock internals right? I know all 3 were done on different dynos and different conditions but I think it would be a give us a good idea.
With the extra boost (1.5 bar with protomotive) and with the extra 1200 rpms and of course the extra power within the 2000-7000rpm's, there is no doubt protomotive will destroy.
But not everyone can afford the protomotive treatment.
How about a comparison with the evo gt700 vs. UMW 3a vs. scott's proto 600? These all 3 are similar in price and all use stock internals right? I know all 3 were done on different dynos and different conditions but I think it would be a give us a good idea.
#58
Originally Posted by jags911tt
So does the 3a kit make 590awfpt and 640awhp?
jag
jag
#59
Originally Posted by KPG
Jags, the higher one is race fuel the other sheet is pump fuel. I think 720ish pump and 780ish race fuel, but the big tq down low is still there regardless of fuel. Wait til I put on heads and rods Kevin
Jag
#60
Originally Posted by jags911tt
Nice - but you didnt answer my question - is it all wheel? Does the dynopack measure power at all four wheels?
Jag
Jag