I just took my car and got it dyno'd.
I got 197.6 hp and 264.8 ft.lbs of torque!!
The dyno guy did some kind of equation and came up with estimating numbers of 250 hp and 340 ft.tq at the crank.
I did all the tunning myself, running E85 without an intercooler. That isnt half bad. Its running 9.5-10 psi.
----------------------------------------------------------------
www.bradsairsoft.com
Yea i would say thats not to bad from a tune by your self.. but there is definatly a lot more power to be made there... i was making 240hp @7.5psi of boost with the stock internals/head ect.. but i do like the torque numbers
The First Twin Charged jbody
blue car (R.I.P) - 240whp @7psi..
silver car - 305whp 315lbs.tq @15psi (91 Octane) or 420whp & 425lbs.TQ @20psi (94 octane+Alcohol Injection)
All dynos run on a Mustang dyno
Josh F wrote:Yea i would say thats not to bad from a tune by your self.. but there is definatly a lot more power to be made there... i was making 240hp @7.5psi of boost with the stock internals/head ect.. but i do like the torque numbers
I think those are nice numbers to see out of a 2.2 non-ecotec... its not the same as your 2.4 TC so it's not really fair to compare hp numbers
Damn, you lose over 50HP and almost 80 ft-lbs through that transmission? Time for a swap, HP means nothing if it's not getting to the ground.
2001 Olds Alero (LD9)
650 whp / 543 ft-lb
@turboalero
[ion wrote: C2]Damn, you lose over 50HP and almost 80 ft-lbs through that transmission? Time for a swap, HP means nothing if it's not getting to the ground.
I believe he's rockin the three speed auto, which would be quite the HP-sapper. 25% loss is believeable.
Those are generous estimates - if it was a five speed...its assuming a 25 percent loss, when its probably closer to a 15 percent loss. BHP would be probably closer to 230 and torque at the crank would be probably closer to 315ftlbs.
So you got that from a mild turbo set up with no intercooler and just the pushrods and 1.6 rockers with no cam? That makes me optimistic about my plans. The thing is I thought are cars couldn't run E85 without some modifications. So what did you do?
The proper way of using the word seen. It is not I seen it that would be I saw it. He has seen the car is the right way to use the word. English class is Cool. By the way thats my sig
sleepy sunfire wrote:Josh F wrote:Yea i would say thats not to bad from a tune by your self.. but there is definatly a lot more power to be made there... i was making 240hp @7.5psi of boost with the stock internals/head ect.. but i do like the torque numbers
I think those are nice numbers to see out of a 2.2 non-ecotec... its not the same as your 2.4 TC so it's not really fair to compare hp numbers
That is my thoughts.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
Crazy TQ #s.. I suggest you get an intercvooler if you expect it last though.... Also, what are the specs on your turbo?
P&P Tuning
420.5whp / 359.8wtq
I thought E85 ate regular fuel systems.
U can run an E85 mix like 75% E85 an 25% gas an not have no problems....that's how i save money.
hmmmm, that seems to be a higher concentration than I would feel safe using without modding the fuel system to use E85. I do see lots of people adding 1 gallon of E-85, then filling thier tanks with premium.....
But those are some crazy torque numbers....some more detailed specs of your build would be appreciated.
For the record, it was 197.6 hp @4600 and 264.8 ft.lb @3600
Yeah, i have heard bad things about the E85 on stock systems. I have a fuel pressure regulator, RC Injectors, and a Venom fuel pump. I was talking to the dyno\tuner guy (he just so happens to be my teacher at Lincoln Tech so the dyno was free) and he said E85 is safe. A little corrosive over long periods of time, but he fully reccomended it with the turbo. Without the intercooler I had to retard timing quite a bit, but with E85 i could advance it to almost the stock numbers. I guess it also creates a "cooling" effect on the air and they cylinder. About 30% more fuel too. He runs it in his 2000 Benz and in his naturally aspirated 1998 Corvette that makes almost 600hp to the wheels.
As for the engine, I actually started this turbo project out with Ebay parts. The turbo failed due to my mistake within days. So I decided to just buy a Garrett. Then the trans failed. So I put one in with 40,000 miles. (My car has 123,000 now). Other then stock parts, I have the 550cc RC Injectors, Pushrods, Rockers, quad-four throttle body, no a\c, high flow catalytic converter, 4 wire sensor in front o2 bank, adjustable regulator, the ethanol, and of course the Garrett turbo (cold side of the turbo is AR .50 and the hot side AR .58).
Well, thats about all thats really been done that is currently on it. Yes those estimated at the crank numbers are pretty generous. I dont really care about the estimated numbers, I just care about the actual to the wheels power! The torque amount is awesome. I actually had the dyno guy print out the run before the turbo, and after the turbo comparison. All I need now is some head work and a new cam that way the power curve stays alive later down in the RPM range. Peak HP at 4600 isnt where I wanted it to be. BUT it was the same for before the turbo too. I was told it is head flow and cam profile, which makes sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------
www.bradsairsoft.com
Oh, and it is a Automatic, the 3T40.
----------------------------------------------------------------
www.bradsairsoft.com
Tyler Gregory wrote:U can run an E85 mix like 75% E85 an 25% gas an not have no problems....that's how i save money.
You should use some of that money you saved for hooked on phonics!
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
ImPhat0260/Cavattack2000 wrote:Crazy TQ #s.. I suggest you get an intercvooler if you expect it last though.... Also, what are the specs on your turbo?
Low compression with 105+ octane fuel doesn't really need an intercooler to survive.
- 93 mph in the 1/8 mile
Member of J-Body Of Michigan.
damn! pretty impressive, especially for an automatic.
what gear is 1 to 1 with the 3t40? was the car ran in that gear on the dyno?
Riddle me this... riddle me that...
sleepy sunfire wrote:Josh F wrote:Yea i would say thats not to bad from a tune by your self.. but there is definatly a lot more power to be made there... i was making 240hp @7.5psi of boost with the stock internals/head ect.. but i do like the torque numbers
I think those are nice numbers to see out of a 2.2 non-ecotec... its not the same as your 2.4 TC so it's not really fair to compare hp numbers
oops my bad.. I thought it was a 2.4L... in that case.. damn that is very impressive.. even more so being your on the Auto trany..
The First Twin Charged jbody
blue car (R.I.P) - 240whp @7psi..
silver car - 305whp 315lbs.tq @15psi (91 Octane) or 420whp & 425lbs.TQ @20psi (94 octane+Alcohol Injection)
All dynos run on a Mustang dyno
wowie wow
Built&Boosted moar
04 Cavalier Turbo r.i.p my baby
2nd place 2009 GM tuner bash qwick 8--holla
I dont know about the gearing. The car is 1 to 1 in 3rd gear. I didnt drive it on the dyno.
----------------------------------------------------------------
www.bradsairsoft.com
congrats man, that TQ number is inspiring
Damn man, thats a pretty bad car. Are you around the chicago area since you go to Lincoln Tech?
97 Cavalier 2.2 5-speed, 88 Camaro IROC-Z 5.7 auto, 91 Firebird Formula 5.7 auto, 88 Conquest TSi 2.6T 5 speed, 93 Silverado ECSB 5.7 auto.
CheesyPackerFan wrote:264.8 ft.lbs of torque!!
HOLY ROASTED TIRES BATMAN!
_________________________
i love it man, i cant wait until i have my new motor in with some goodies in it. Do you have any pics of the setup or your car?
