[ba] Re: [s-cars] 80tq: 20v Project Update, 415whp, 12.25, etc
centaurus3200 at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 12 13:11:22 EST 2004
why don't you believe the HP number?
javad, the engine is the 20 valve UR 5 cylinder,
right? that thing has a lot more potential.
you'd be surprised the HP numbers modded cars can put
out. i've seen a 520 wheel HP TAURUS!
--- JShadzi at aol.com wrote:
> Philip, where I dyno, elevation is zero, and temp is
> usually between 75 and 85 degrees (the reference is
> 77 degrees F), so the correction figures for my
> conditions are usually nill.
> And it wasn't "a zillion HP" (is that really a
> number Phillip...COMON NOW!! I think you're
> pulling my leg??!! ;) , though a million HP is my
> real target, working on it!
> >You're certainly entitled to believe any set of
> numbers you wish. The
> >Society of Automotive Engineers just needed a way
> to make the data from one
> >engine comparable to another. When engineers
> create things we have to know
> >how we're really doing, so all the numbers need to
> relate to a level playing
> >field. The original "Tuner Community" was a bunch
> of smart people trying to
> >win WWII - they couldn't kid themselves.
> >I applaud your efforts to mod your car, and I'm
> sure you're making a fun
> >amount of power. If it's important for you to
> believe your engine is making
> >a zillion horsepower you have that right. But for
> me if the number ain't
> >corrected, it's wrong.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <JShadzi at aol.com>
> >To: <Djdawson2 at aol.com>; <brett at cloud9.net>;
> <s-car-list at audifans.com>;
> ><quattro at audifans.com>; <urq at audifans.com>;
> <ba-group at audifans.com>
> >Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:59 PM
> >Subject: Re: [s-cars] 80tq: 20v Project Update,
> 415whp, 12.25, etc
> >> Hey Dave,
> >> I just wanted to clarify (and speak for myself),
> that I didn't post here
> >> attack anyone or call anyone into question - I
> just wanted to share some
> >> excitement with other Audi-turbo-heads about my
> project, that's all! =)
> >> big, bad-tone defying smile)
> >> In my original post, I stated that I was quoting
> an "uncorrected figure".
> >> I'm of the opinion that SAE correction figures
> for turbocharged motors
> >are not
> >> valid, nothing personal against you, I'm not the
> only one in the "tuning
> >> community" that feels this way, and I've taken
> the advice of
> >> with much more experience and understanding of
> this topic than I do. Do
> >> little research, you'll quickly find I'm not the
> only one saying this.
> >> I also have to admit that I know very little
> about your project or its
> >> results - care to share your experiences? I'm
> sure you have plenty with
> >the S-car
> >> list in the past, but I'd love to hear about it,
> sounds like you've got a
> >> project with a lot of passion and energy invested
> into it.
> >> Cheers,
> >> Javad
> >> In a message dated 11/11/2004 8:03:41 PM Pacific
> Standard Time, Djdawson2
> >> writes:
> >> Sorry, but you need to go back to school. If
> the air is being forced in
> >> not, the conditions, if not standardized, do
> have an impact. They may
> >have a
> >> different impact (as a percentage), but to say
> they don't apply to turbo
> >> engines is absolutely and unquestionably
> inaccurate. Does your car run
> >the same
> >> on a 100 degree day as a 30 degree day? Of
> course not. That means that
> >> some sort of correction is REQUIRED to normalize
> the tests. Otherwise,
> >we can
> >> just wait for that 20 degree day, test the car
> "uncorrected," and claim
> >> victory because Brett said that temp, pressure,
> and humidity don't matter
> >to turbo
> >> cars.
> >> I can appreciate your list of typical dyno
> tricks, but we're not quite
> >> stupid. There are a few of us here, interested
> in taking a scientific
> >> approach to engine tuning. The "cheating"
> concepts that you've spoken of
> >> pertain to my concept of scientific, and an
> exaggerated number doesn't
> >> me any benefit. If you had looked at my latest
> graph, you'd see 72 F,
> >> in Hg, and 7% humidity... all very reasonable, no
> >> Seems like some of you think there is a
> conspiracy theory WRT dyno
> >> by us Denver folks. Well, there isn't a
> conspiracy, more likely an
> >> in finding what correction is reasonable... and
> one is required. Anyone
> >> claiming that there is no difference between
> uncorrected power at
> >altitude vs.
> >> uncorrected at sea level just because there's a
> turbo involved, needs to
> >> their textbooks.
> >> To satisfy my curiosity, I'll go to a sea level
> dyno and see just exactly
> >> what the difference is... but I'm going to guess
> someone will still "cry
> >> BTW, I'm not interested in confrontational
> speculation, just real
> >> So don't take my comments personally. However,
> don't just throw "stuff"
> >> there as fact, that simply isn't fact. The
> conditions surrounding the
> >> ALWAYS have an impact, and to claim that they
> don't, is ignorant.
> >> Remember, I'm in this for the fun... so let's
> have fun, damn it!
> >> Dave in OH, today
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> S-CAR-List mailing list
> >> S-CAR-List at audifans.com
> Audifans ba-group mailing list
> Send posts to: mailto:ba-group at www.audifans.com
> Manage your list connection:
> Have an Audi question? Check the Audifans
> Have an Audi answer? ... Please help others by
> adding to the KB ... all contributions welcome!
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
More information about the ba-group