Bnr k04-gt28
11-28-2010, 12:11 AM
#326
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
How am I a "tough guy" for having a laugh at your misguided opinion? No one is throwing out any misinformation. As you said, you're just assuming. "Big boy" pushing 30 and still don't realize that the "real world" is run what you brung and hope you brought enough? E85 is a pump fuel that is available to some and not for others. Same goes for race gas and methanol (not at the pump but still easy to acquire) and some of us run around with it, ALL the time. Therefor, that is OUR "real world".
Now, I wasn't arguing with you about straight gasoline. 350+whp is few and far between, I'm sure of it. But to blatantly say that it's impossible and it doesn't count unless you're using gasoline only is absolutely dumb, period. You cannot make that statement to prop up your own argument and expect it to fly when there are those of us that refuse to run anything less then whatever the hell floats our boat. And in my case, it happens to be a 1:1 mixture of ethanol and 91 octane (shittiest gas you will ever find, I promise).
Yes, these were from a DJ dyno. Car put down 311/360 Smoothing 5, SAE and 322/378 Smoothing 5, STD. I choose not to throw around the STD numbers as I believe SAE is a much more accurate indicator/correction factor. You cannot compare your numbers to mine because it's apples to oranges. Bone stock with a tune only versus a tune and CAI.
If I were to use *ricer math*, lets say that CAI gave you 10whp or better, that would mean that bone stock, you're throwing down 307. You also forgot to mention whether that was SAE or STD. Also, conservative tuning to one person could be a bit more aggressive to another. Wouldn't that be included in the "bs" you've been ranting about? To me, my E48 tune is pretty conservative compared to others. To you, it might be pretty aggressive. See how that works?
Now, I wasn't arguing with you about straight gasoline. 350+whp is few and far between, I'm sure of it. But to blatantly say that it's impossible and it doesn't count unless you're using gasoline only is absolutely dumb, period. You cannot make that statement to prop up your own argument and expect it to fly when there are those of us that refuse to run anything less then whatever the hell floats our boat. And in my case, it happens to be a 1:1 mixture of ethanol and 91 octane (shittiest gas you will ever find, I promise).
Yes, these were from a DJ dyno. Car put down 311/360 Smoothing 5, SAE and 322/378 Smoothing 5, STD. I choose not to throw around the STD numbers as I believe SAE is a much more accurate indicator/correction factor. You cannot compare your numbers to mine because it's apples to oranges. Bone stock with a tune only versus a tune and CAI.
If I were to use *ricer math*, lets say that CAI gave you 10whp or better, that would mean that bone stock, you're throwing down 307. You also forgot to mention whether that was SAE or STD. Also, conservative tuning to one person could be a bit more aggressive to another. Wouldn't that be included in the "bs" you've been ranting about? To me, my E48 tune is pretty conservative compared to others. To you, it might be pretty aggressive. See how that works?
Sorry I didn't realize I had to clearify here. "Pump gas" generally refers to 87, 89, 91, 93, or 94 octane fuels and NOT 100+ octane fuels such as a race fuel or E-85 (which is not avaiable in my area unfortunately), so don't take it so literally. I'm sure you knew EXACTLY what I meant and are just looking to be difficult by taking me so literally. Don't make an argument where one is not needed.
Yes, all of my numbers (mustang and dynojet) are all SAE smoothing 5 and no we're not using "ricer math" here so again, don't make an argument where one isn't needed. Not to mention I doubt that my little homefabbed CAI gave my 10whp.. None the less, it doesn't matter. By the end of your arguement here you went completely off track of any point I was trying to make with "bs" numbers and whatnot. Listen man, you can get bent out of shape all you'd like over all of this. No one is attacking your tuning abilities or you as a person, just realize that I am going to defend myself and the point I am/was trying to make.
11-28-2010, 12:21 AM
#327
john haters gonna hate lol .. ignant ******* gonna be ignant.. they dont know th dynos we **** with loll
i could put down 300 whp wit my car (on my new setup) and people would think it's supah weak s0s but it would wreck 90% of cars on here on stock turbo lol `
i could put down 300 whp wit my car (on my new setup) and people would think it's supah weak s0s but it would wreck 90% of cars on here on stock turbo lol `
11-28-2010, 12:28 AM
#328
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
11-28-2010, 02:14 AM
#330
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: 09-30-09
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've also seen them to greatly inflate torque output, much like a land & sea dyno (dyno-mite). So that would mean your 300+ is about 285-290+ and your torque much lower as well. My 60-100 times prove that you're down on power compared to me as our air and elevation are pretty damn close. Your best is 6.3, mine is now 5 flat, in a sedan no less(tiny bit heavier). Try not to get caught up in peak power, Ronn.
Datalogged is probably around 6 seconds and is pretty damned quick.
Did you read my previous post here?
https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/5401905-post315.html
"This is reason why engines with more average torque but less peak horsepower produce faster acceleration than engines with more peak horsepower but less average torque and why engines should be measured by how much average torque and horsepower they produce."
You're at 5 flat?..there's only ONE WAY for a 3000LB car to accelerate from 60-100 in that time interval....it's called HP and that would require close to 350 of those ponies TO THE WHEELS to do that. It's called *physics*.
Plug in 395 Crank HP and 1400 Kilos (3000lb) for *weight w/o driver* and see what comes up for 60-100
Yep..60-100 in 5 sec.Car Stats - Calculator
Explanation of calculator:
Car Stats - Explained
12) All formulas were designed with trial and error using research from proven road tests in magazines, this covered various different levels of cars that were used as a basis for setting the formulas, for example, figures from Hot Hatches like the Clio 172, to Supercars like the McLaren F1 were used as a guide. Also results from official modified car events were used as a guide when allowing for very high BHP per ton.
OH...Not that it has any *relevance* here.... I've been told the stop watch method reads several tenths slower than data logging due to *LAG* in speedo reading.
Last edited by ronn; 11-28-2010 at 02:30 AM.
11-28-2010, 02:50 PM
#331
Sorry I didn't realize I had to clearify here. "Pump gas" generally refers to 87, 89, 91, 93, or 94 octane fuels and NOT 100+ octane fuels such as a race fuel or E-85 (which is not avaiable in my area unfortunately), so don't take it so literally. I'm sure you knew EXACTLY what I meant and are just looking to be difficult by taking me so literally. Don't make an argument where one is not needed.
I've also seen other data trends that scream big power, on the stock turbo, using pump fuel, 1:1 mix.
Yes, all of my numbers (mustang and dynojet) are all SAE smoothing 5 and no we're not using "ricer math" here so again, don't make an argument where one isn't needed. Not to mention I doubt that my little homefabbed CAI gave my 10whp.. None the less, it doesn't matter. By the end of your arguement here you went completely off track of any point I was trying to make with "bs" numbers and whatnot.
Wow, what makes you think *I'm caught up in peak power*?
Did you read my previous post here?
https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/5401905-post315.html
Did you read my previous post here?
https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/5401905-post315.html
You're at 5 flat?..there's only ONE WAY for a 3000LB car to accelerate from 60-100 in that time interval....it's called HP and that would require close to 350 of those ponies TO THE WHEELS to do that. It's called *physics*.
Ricer math/Ricer calculators, typical ronn weak sauce
Ricer math/Ricer calculators, typical ronn weak sauce
Sorry ronn but even your silly calculators tell on themselves:
"3) The formula’s only use three items of easy obtainable data to produce the figures, these are Flywheel Power (BHP), Kerb Weight (KG) and Drive type (4WD, FWD or RWD). Formulas do not take into consideration other factors that could also affect real life figures, e.g. torque, gear ratios, aerodynamics, air density, temperature etc, these are not easy obtainable."
"5) A “through” 60-100 time is also quoted by subtracting the 0-60 from the 0-100 figure. The real time to cover this segment may well be quicker (due to correct gearing) but the “through” figure shows the time elapsed between 60-100 while covering the 0-100. It gives an indication of a car’s comparison performance once moving, and does not confuse the figures with a different amount of gear changes between cars."
I think you "forgot" to include these points from the "Car Stats Explained" link....
Now that we've officially de-railed this thread, I've said my peace and that's that. Have fun.
Last edited by T-Man; 11-28-2010 at 03:00 PM.
11-28-2010, 03:43 PM
#332
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: 09-30-09
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must have missed this one. Nice to see. Some nice improvements you've made but in this very thread you still stated that you made "close to my numbers bone stock blah blah" while trying to imply something.
Who's to say that my car is incapable? I make plenty of power and torque in order to do so, regardless of your silly calculators, especially when it's much cooler outside like it is now (dense air = more power). You said the same thing to me when I was running in the bottom 6's with tuning only, on gasoline, with a tune I even offered to give/show you.
Sorry ronn but even your silly calculators tell on themselves:
"3) The formula’s only use three items of easy obtainable data to produce the figures, these are Flywheel Power (BHP), Kerb Weight (KG) and Drive type (4WD, FWD or RWD). Formulas do not take into consideration other factors that could also affect real life figures, e.g. torque, gear ratios, aerodynamics, air density, temperature etc, these are not easy obtainable."
"5) A “through” 60-100 time is also quoted by subtracting the 0-60 from the 0-100 figure. The real time to cover this segment may well be quicker (due to correct gearing) but the “through” figure shows the time elapsed between 60-100 while covering the 0-100. It gives an indication of a car’s comparison performance once moving, and does not confuse the figures with a different amount of gear changes between cars."
I think you "forgot" to include these points from the "Car Stats Explained" link....
I'm well aware of this and even acknowledged it in my post and stated you're probably doing 6 flat or better.
Now that we've officially de-railed this thread, I've said my peace and that's that. Have fun.
At risk of jacking this thread....
I'm not letting you off that easy
YOU SAY:
Who's to say that my car is incapable?
I didn't SAY that did I?
You EXPLICITLY stated that your car does 60-100 in 5 sec flat Correct?
I QUOTE:
" Your best is 6.3, mine is now 5 flat, in a sedan no less "
All I was pointing out was that *feat* implies having a car with SIGNIFICANT HP..almost
CERTAINLY in the 350WHP range. I used the calculator as a ROUGH tool to point this out.
ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME OTHERWISE??
You quoted some of the *caveats* stated in the *Explanation* link..yes I saw that
Are you going to say that *trumps* anything I have said about what your car REQUIRES in order to do what you say?
Bottom line ... YOU HAVE MADE A CLAIM and I'm telling you what that implies.
I didn't say your car wasn't capable, but it would be *nice* if you could shed some light on HOW AND WHY IT IS CAPABLE of doing so.
Last edited by ronn; 11-28-2010 at 07:53 PM.
11-28-2010, 04:42 PM
#333
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Wasn't an attack. Was a simple observation. The "you mad" line was intended to keep things light and not for you to take it so "literal"
Again, here you are trying to prop up your argument again.... E85 is a pump fuel, period. Just because it's not available to you doesn't automatically make it a "non pump fuel". No, I didn't know what you meant because you make your blanket statement as such that it's impossible. So, in that sense, there is an argument to be made because I witnessed it myself, in person while the gentleman was using a pump fuel.
I've also seen other data trends that scream big power, on the stock turbo, using pump fuel, 1:1 mix.
How is there not an argument to be made? You asked the question "because I put down higher numbers than him, on a conservative tune using 93 octane, does that make my tune better". I said that its an apples to oranges argument on your part, regardless of your statement of "of course its not blah blah" (stock+tune vs CAI + tune) and I supposedly "went off track" by pointing out another flawed argument of yours. You can doubt all you want but when you remove that accordion tube, you will pick up a good bit of power and carry it well. GMPP stated this as well as ZZP who tested it and has currently produced a replacement.
No one is bent out of shape. My tuning ability? I never claimed to be much more than a novice. And like you said, you're going to defend your statements and I will do the same. However, I won't try and side step your "points". I hit them head on. You called mine "off course", remember? The point(s) you tried to make were to prop up your own flawed argument of "It's impossible to do and it damn sure doesn't count unless it's strictly a pump fuel". Well, what's this?
Again, here you are trying to prop up your argument again.... E85 is a pump fuel, period. Just because it's not available to you doesn't automatically make it a "non pump fuel". No, I didn't know what you meant because you make your blanket statement as such that it's impossible. So, in that sense, there is an argument to be made because I witnessed it myself, in person while the gentleman was using a pump fuel.
I've also seen other data trends that scream big power, on the stock turbo, using pump fuel, 1:1 mix.
How is there not an argument to be made? You asked the question "because I put down higher numbers than him, on a conservative tune using 93 octane, does that make my tune better". I said that its an apples to oranges argument on your part, regardless of your statement of "of course its not blah blah" (stock+tune vs CAI + tune) and I supposedly "went off track" by pointing out another flawed argument of yours. You can doubt all you want but when you remove that accordion tube, you will pick up a good bit of power and carry it well. GMPP stated this as well as ZZP who tested it and has currently produced a replacement.
No one is bent out of shape. My tuning ability? I never claimed to be much more than a novice. And like you said, you're going to defend your statements and I will do the same. However, I won't try and side step your "points". I hit them head on. You called mine "off course", remember? The point(s) you tried to make were to prop up your own flawed argument of "It's impossible to do and it damn sure doesn't count unless it's strictly a pump fuel". Well, what's this?
NO I'm sorry, E-85 is not considered a "pump gas" just because there is a pump in your area that you can get it from. Like I said before, when someone refers to "pump gas" they are refering to 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, or 94 octane fuels NOT a 105 octane fuel like E-85 that can not be run in any vehicle without serious tuning done. **** I can get cam2 out of the pump a few miles down the road from my house, is that considered pump gas? NO!! lol.. god damn man stop it already
So how about that sweet hybrid turbo setup from BNR?!?!?
11-28-2010, 05:06 PM
#334
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: 03-01-09
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I'd like to get back to the point, I do wonder what constitutes pump gas? Is the criteria that you have to tune for it? In that case race gas (110) would be pump gas since you can put it in without tuning. It is what is available nationwide at all pumps? In that case it would be 87,89,91 and that is it since we don't have 92 or above here. Is it whatever you can get at the pump? Cuz then e85 and race gas would count. Is it gas that cars use when they come straight from the factory? In that case e85 counts because of the flex-fuel vehicles.
I don't think the term pump gas is well defined.
I don't think the term pump gas is well defined.
11-28-2010, 05:24 PM
#335
As much as I'd like to get back to the point, I do wonder what constitutes pump gas? Is the criteria that you have to tune for it? In that case race gas (110) would be pump gas since you can put it in without tuning. It is what is available nationwide at all pumps? In that case it would be 87,89,91 and that is it since we don't have 92 or above here. Is it whatever you can get at the pump? Cuz then e85 and race gas would count. Is it gas that cars use when they come straight from the factory? In that case e85 counts because of the flex-fuel vehicles.
I don't think the term pump gas is well defined.
I don't think the term pump gas is well defined.
11-28-2010, 05:25 PM
#336
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
In the race world pump gas has always been (and still is) assumed to be 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, or 94 octane fuels. More specifically 91-93 octane. This isn't something that I'm just pulling from the sky here. This is a term that has been around for quite a long time now.
As far as flex fuel vehicles go, you are absolutely correct, they can obviously run on both e-85 and pump gas. However, the majority of vehicles on the road are not flex fuel capable. This is partly due to the basic fact that e-85 is not a readily available fuel as of yet and the demand for it hasn't really come to head in the states.
Oh and race fuel does and will need to be tuned for. It's resistance to burn can actually cause issues in an engine not properly setup to run it
damnit Kyle ya beat me to it...
As far as flex fuel vehicles go, you are absolutely correct, they can obviously run on both e-85 and pump gas. However, the majority of vehicles on the road are not flex fuel capable. This is partly due to the basic fact that e-85 is not a readily available fuel as of yet and the demand for it hasn't really come to head in the states.
Oh and race fuel does and will need to be tuned for. It's resistance to burn can actually cause issues in an engine not properly setup to run it
pump gas is commonly regarded as what is NORMALLY available at most pumps.. so 87-93 is "normal" pump gas.. ie what NORMALLY used on a car.. e85 isn't regularly used on most cars .. cars are flex fuel because they dont have e85 at all pumps so it gives you the option to use regular gas
Last edited by 09CobaltSS1; 11-28-2010 at 05:25 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
11-29-2010, 11:01 AM
#337
Senior Member
Thread Starter
So... the K04-GT28's have been released by BNR and several have shipped out. We can speculate all day long, but nothing beats real-life results.
Looking forward to seeing what happens! Post up if you've bolted one of these babies on.
Looking forward to seeing what happens! Post up if you've bolted one of these babies on.
11-29-2010, 11:19 AM
#338
Senior Member
At risk of jacking this thread....
I'm not letting you off that easy
YOU SAY:
Who's to say that my car is incapable?
I didn't SAY that did I?
You EXPLICITLY stated that your car does 60-100 in 5 sec flat Correct?
I QUOTE:
" Your best is 6.3, mine is now 5 flat, in a sedan no less "
All I was pointing out was that *feat* implies having a car with SIGNIFICANT HP..almost
CERTAINLY in the 350WHP range. I used the calculator as a ROUGH tool to point this out.
ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME OTHERWISE??
You quoted some of the *caveats* stated in the *Explanation* link..yes I saw that
Are you going to say that *trumps* anything I have said about what your car REQUIRES in order to do what you say?
Bottom line ... YOU HAVE MADE A CLAIM and I'm telling you what that implies.
I didn't say your car wasn't capable, but it would be *nice* if you could shed some light on HOW AND WHY IT IS CAPABLE of doing so.
I'm not letting you off that easy
YOU SAY:
Who's to say that my car is incapable?
I didn't SAY that did I?
You EXPLICITLY stated that your car does 60-100 in 5 sec flat Correct?
I QUOTE:
" Your best is 6.3, mine is now 5 flat, in a sedan no less "
All I was pointing out was that *feat* implies having a car with SIGNIFICANT HP..almost
CERTAINLY in the 350WHP range. I used the calculator as a ROUGH tool to point this out.
ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME OTHERWISE??
You quoted some of the *caveats* stated in the *Explanation* link..yes I saw that
Are you going to say that *trumps* anything I have said about what your car REQUIRES in order to do what you say?
Bottom line ... YOU HAVE MADE A CLAIM and I'm telling you what that implies.
I didn't say your car wasn't capable, but it would be *nice* if you could shed some light on HOW AND WHY IT IS CAPABLE of doing so.
It is all in the tune and the weather conditions.
11-29-2010, 03:43 PM
#339
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: 09-30-09
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway..whatever your tune or gas..it would take almost 400 WHP to accomplish that.
Like I said..it's physics. For a given MASS to accelerate from *A* to *B* it takes a given *FORCE* to accomplish that.
11-29-2010, 05:09 PM
#340
New Member
Join Date: 06-07-10
Location: Cold Lake, Alberta
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-29-2010, 05:22 PM
#341
Senior Member
Thread Starter
12-01-2010, 09:39 AM
#348
Member
Join Date: 04-01-09
Location: causapscal, qc
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-01-2010, 09:45 AM
#349
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-13-09
Location: Davie, Fl
Posts: 2,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you get the spacer as well?
yes!!
and YES!!
yes!!
and YES!!
Last edited by 09BlueBaltSS; 12-01-2010 at 09:45 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost