That depends on the power level and the amount injected. My black car makes about 200hp more than this and I target 10.5 but the sensor in that car reads a little leaner. I tune for power. If the car picks up 15whp going from 10.6 to 11.0 I go with 11.0. If it picks up 1 more going to 11.3 I'd just leave it at 11.0. Keep in mind pump gas is garbage one tank to another will have varying amounts of cosolvent. If I had c16 I'd have targeted around 11.6
10.61@127.85 with 60-1 compressor
- Thread starter bison
- Start date
That depends on the power level and the amount injected. My black car makes about 200hp more than this and I target 10.5 but the sensor in that car reads a little leaner. I tune for power. If the car picks up 15whp going from 10.6 to 11.0 I go with 11.0. If it picks up 1 more going to 11.3 I'd just leave it at 11.0. Keep in mind pump gas is garbage one tank to another will have varying amounts of cosolvent. If I had c16 I'd have targeted around 11.6
turb0buick57
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
What did that turbo and exhaust housing combination net you on the dyno? Are you still planning on going to a progressive controller?
I havent dynoed since i fixed an electrical issue i had. Putting it simply it picked up 5.5mph in the quarter. It made 480whp when it wasnt right with the same turbo and ex housing right in the ballpark with every other ive tested. Im not going to back to back the ex housings since i have other stuff im working on unless someone wants to pay me $50 for the time to swap them and make a couple pulls. Ill switch to a PAC but im in no hurry. It doenst really matter on this car since i dont drive it at mid boost levels. Either im on it or im cruising. Rarely in between. The alky pump is run at battery voltage. The transition is so fast having it progressive wont matter.
- Joined
- May 26, 2001
Bison, I hate to disagree with you on this point, but I have seen as much as .4th performance difference in turbo Buicks between tracks and conditions around the country with GN's from stock to 8.0.
The most dramatic changes were with the Gallina cars when we were setting NHRA records. Of course NHRA gave us correction factors for some tracks, which did help us more than the carb cars.
A dramatic difference was when we set 2 records at a divisional meet in Tucson when density altitude was at zero. We recorded best times ever!
I have run at that track when DA exceeded 7000' and we lost 5-7 psi even at max boost setting.
In Phoenix, we usually have 3000-3800 DA which gives us 2-3 tenths less than a very unusual "good" day at which is 12-1500'.
TurboTnZ06
Go on red!
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
My 11.2-11.4 sec at 122-125mph TR at Bandimere, CO (elev 5800 ft) DA around +10,000 ft on a locked converter. Then in FL it ran 10.9@127 unlocked converter the very first pass at sealevel at Bradenton, FL with basically the same setup, even used the exact same race fuel (116) that I bought right before I moved back to FL from Colorado. The ET's are hurt because it could never build boost at the line, not enough converter. MPH was within a few mph even at the same boost levels. I kind of enjoyed stomping most cars and bikes at TnT with my slow low 11 passes, most N/A cars had trouble keeping up and at sealevel I'm sure they'd go 9's.
Take a 3000 stall converter car with a TE45a and try spooling it up in Evergreen, CO where I lived, 8000 ft up in the mtns, sure once it got going it made very good power, but you'll notice it takes longer to get there. At sealevel on a GN1 DLS stroker the same turbo and converter spool as fast as a stock setup.
In contrast, my 01 Z06 ran 12.4 at 115 in Dallas but at Bandimere, CO with a DA of 10,000 ft it ran 13.9's at 103-105 and DA's of 6000 ft it ran 13.5 @ 108-109. Sealevel with -500ft DA it ran 12.4 @ 115+ No tuning changes.
Here's an example hearing how long it takes to spool. Notice the bike never passes me...Ignore the red lights, and me locking the converter...
[YOUTUBE]UdeMTC4wOTw[/YOUTUBE]
Take a 3000 stall converter car with a TE45a and try spooling it up in Evergreen, CO where I lived, 8000 ft up in the mtns, sure once it got going it made very good power, but you'll notice it takes longer to get there. At sealevel on a GN1 DLS stroker the same turbo and converter spool as fast as a stock setup.
In contrast, my 01 Z06 ran 12.4 at 115 in Dallas but at Bandimere, CO with a DA of 10,000 ft it ran 13.9's at 103-105 and DA's of 6000 ft it ran 13.5 @ 108-109. Sealevel with -500ft DA it ran 12.4 @ 115+ No tuning changes.
Here's an example hearing how long it takes to spool. Notice the bike never passes me...Ignore the red lights, and me locking the converter...
[YOUTUBE]UdeMTC4wOTw[/YOUTUBE]
imjoesnuffy
I just break stuff!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
Isn't that what knock looks like on the Knock sensor?? It looked progressive. I would have lifted as soon as I saw it going up after the first light.
TurboTnZ06
Go on red!
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
Yeah but I was locking the converter when it did that, it would always do that when I flip the lock conv switch. I never heard the tell tale rattle when its really going lean and knocking, so the go pedal stayed down. The cyl pressures were probably out of sight as the boost stayed up and the rpms dropped while locking, but hey, it held together.
- Joined
- May 27, 2001
Pics or video for a west coast brother?
If youre dropping boost because of too small of a compressor you will definitely lose a considerable amount of power. If youre running 35psi at sea and 35psi at 7000' the difference will be much less drastic unless the compressor is way out of range which it probably is if youre in a restricted class. Most never get to see this since they arent pushing the turbo hard. Increased altitude equals increased compressor speed to increase the mass flow through the engine.If the compressor is working way off the map then its going to heat the air up or just simply fail to make more boost if the gates are held closed. The difference in mass flow can easily be calculated if the air pressure is known. My passes were at 1100'. No big difference than running at sea level though there is typically a head wind. My whole point is the correction for a turbocharged drag race car is way less than a naturally aspirated engine which will lose power almost linearly with the drop in atmospheric if the a/f is kept in check. Much more if its a carbed application and no changes are made. If my car ran 10.0 at 3000'@25psi i wouldnt expect it to go much faster than 9.9 at sea level at the same boost. Now if i was running the turbo for all its worth at sea level i know id drop off significantly at altitude if boost fell off. There is a difference but its minimal in comparison to other correction factors. 25psig @100* at 8000' is the same as 25psig @100* at sea level. The only difference would be the speed of the turbine/compressor if the same turbocharger was used. If backpressure is the same they are going to require the same amount of fuel. A big change in air pressure like that really requreis a different compressor. Ive found that with this combo i was able to make well over 30psi in 40* air near sea level. That night it made a little over 30psi for most of the run it was 60*. I could see this as a huge problem on a turbocharged engine that flows 130lb/min of air if the compressor was tapped out at sea level.hBison, I hate to disagree with you on this point, but I have seen as much as .4th performance difference in turbo Buicks between tracks and conditions around the country with GN's from stock to 8.0.
The most dramatic changes were with the Gallina cars when we were setting NHRA records. Of course NHRA gave us correction factors for some tracks, which did help us more than the carb cars.
A dramatic difference was when we set 2 records at a divisional meet in Tucson when density altitude was at zero. We recorded best times ever!
I have run at that track when DA exceeded 7000' and we lost 5-7 psi even at max boost setting.
In Phoenix, we usually have 3000-3800 DA which gives us 2-3 tenths less than a very unusual "good" day at which is 12-1500'.
Dusty Bradford
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
The final spec will depend on how much power the engine will be making( et goal)
His rpm drop data is very interesting. These 9.5's still couple very well even with very little rpm drop. You can't get that efficiency from anything else out there unless it drops a lot more rpm.
The fastest single turbo stock suspension car in the country just swapped to one of these 9.5 and set the record. It only dropped 100 rpm on the gear change
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2002
Great info and congrats on the times.
Mike Barnard
Mike Barnard
porsches4lunch
Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
What size turbine wheel does that Turbonetics have?
It's a 76 p trim
porsches4lunch
Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
camshaft
Maybe you said this before, excuse me if i missed it, this is a flat tappet cam right? If so would you mind sharing a little more of the specs? Manufacturer, etc..
Maybe you said this before, excuse me if i missed it, this is a flat tappet cam right? If so would you mind sharing a little more of the specs? Manufacturer, etc..
It's a comp roller and the small 212 lobe. Gross lift is .497 with 1.65 rockers. I ran 10.20's with this cam in a stock shortblock and less boost with a 66GTQ
Pronto
Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2002
What part # is that cam and what valve springs are you running with that cam? The 264HR says .504 lift. Whats the lob sep?
I dont have the cam card on hand. Not sure where it is. Its not the common 212 you see most guys running. I had 1.65 rockers and didnt want over .500 lift so i ordered a different lobe. Its probably more like 213.5-214@ .050 with the 1.65 rockers. I cant remember all the specs. I just installed it exactly where i initially did years ago with the same timing st ive been running for just as long. This was 6 years ago at least. Lobe separation was 112 and the springs are comp 26918 in at 1.750".
