no i agree with you on how dynos are just numbers, and are not real. track times will tell it all. What i do know is that his baseline run was around 252hp? or possibly 262. so the dyno does read a little happy. But he did gain 100+whp, and obviously over 100+wtq, so ive got respect for the mans abilities. hopefully his track numbers prove it. if he ever goes that is.

 

That is ok I make peak torque at 3500 rpms. I can short shift all day long. Torque is useless number? Are you retarded? How do you think they calculate horsepower? I have a huge amount of area under the curve from 3000-6600 rpms. It takes big torque to make big hp unless you rev to 10,000 rpms. Yeah my car is slow, it runs 60-100 mph in 4.5 seconds consistantly. You have loads of lag and do not make peak torque or even spool up fully until a long while after I do I. Big lowend and midrange torque gets you moving

Way less power huh. I will take my lowend and midrange torque advantage over his lag and weak lowend and midrange torque. I dont need to rev that high. BTW StageZero has a GT2876 swapped LNF Cobalt that makes 370 whp 350 wrtq and it runs 5.2 seconds from 60-100 mph. My car using the same scanner and method runs 4.4-4.6 seconds from 60-100 mph but hey my car is slow remember.

That was a street tune that I dynoed. I have 15K miles of street tuning on my car. I change things almost daily. That quote in my sig is from the owner of one of the last cars I tuned. He has owned several very fast cars including a 530 whp Terminator Cobra and a Evo IX on 33 psi and meth. He says in his own words that his car pulls harder than his Evo did on 33 psi with meth. He easily beats his friends tuned SRT8 Jeep that traps 110 (he put 2 buses on him from 40-120) and he put and held two cars on his friend 360 whp stage 3 SRT 4 from 40-125. If you do not believe me you can always ask him. My secret is not big numbers it is really area under the curve.

 

It feels quicker when you make more torque, it doesn't necessarily make the car quicker. Like I said, power is less than half of the battle. The only way to tell who is a good tuner is by looking at long term reliability and track results. I've done dyno tunes where I couldn't pull any bit higher numbers, then gone and gained 2-3mph over that dyno tune with test and tune at the strip. The dyno is a tool, not a system for comparison. If a butt and dynojet dyno's are the only thing to support your tuning, I suggest you drop down on the cockiness. I'm not saying your tunes aren't good, because really I have no idea they could be great, but you can't claim superiority by butt dynos.

 

No butt dyno, I data log and record acceleration times on the same stretch of hwy with my scanner. I generally use 60-100 times as a bench mark because it is a full 3rd gear pull. No shifting, traction, or driver skill involved. I like to eliminate as many variables as possible. Stock, most LNF turbo Cobalts take 8.5-10 seconds to go from 60-100. Big disparity because sometimes there are 3 people in the car, but sometimes it I am by myself. With just tuning using the same exact method they normally run 5.2-6.0 seconds from 60-100 mph again depending on how many of us there are in the car. Either way you slice it cutting off an average of 4 seconds off your 60-100 acceleration time is a big gain. It would be even bigger if the factory boost solenoid was not so weak. I have a regulator on the boost reference in to the boost solenoid on mine so I can run 24-26 psi instead of being limited to 20-22 psi. No issues with my car so far, but I do wish GM would have put forged pistons in this motor instead of cast pistons.

 

Look here mother ******. If you knew half of what you thought you did you would know that it's the torque calculated not the horsepower. How do you think a dyno get HP reading with no rpm pickup? Who the **** do you think you are? Call me retarded? You dyno number nut hugging ****!


Right there you just proved how completely full of **** you are. Your stupid ******* data logs are complete bullshit. Your stupid quotes from, "customers" and butt dyno comparisons further prove how much crap you talk.


Get some track times or shut the **** up. Then take your 400tq vrs my 330 and get a jump because you won't be in front for long.

 

x2

Terminator is officially retarded (as if we didn't already know).
Powahhhhhhhhhhhh > TQ!
400tq @ 3500rpm < 330tq @ 5000rpm. Not to mention the added benefits of being able to stay in gear longer!

You can see how naive Cobalt owners would jump all over the chance of the almighty terminator tune. I mean, some guys cousins uncles brother who once had a 870whp Cobra and said his tune was good!

Reminds me of those direct to market adds on tv, BUY NOW!!!

 

its funny you would bold that statement. you claim to be in the 11's with your gto but have 0 proof. funny

 

This isn't even about my car, I'm not here trying to sell my methods, ****, if anything I'm trying to keep them a secret! I get zero gain from any claim, while Term here sells tunes on the basis that it is ultra-l33t 400tq @ 2.4rpms and 118mph traps!

 

i dont see whats so hard to believe about a car that weighs 2900 lbs making 363whp running in the upper teens. granted he has no times, but this guy has been one of the most helpful and knowledgeable members on this board along with always being a nice guy. dont be a hypocrit, you made claims of your own with less proof than terminator, and alot less believable to.

if you expect people to believe your tune only with headers gto ran 11's, i wouldnt be doubting anything.

 

It's the simple-minded thinking that'll get you into trouble.

 

Why is it that everyone is fighting? One has to respect the people that have the knowledge and the capabilities to tune cars nowadays.. especially the New LNF with the new bausch computers. Keeping secrets are nice and all, but why not try to help further the development of the aftermarket segment? Terminator and many others are a true true trail blazer for us. I for one dont have the luxury of no warrenty, but will soon be able to enjoy what you all have now. When that time come.. i'll be in hopes of gaining knowledge of proven parts, kits, etc. Furthermore, if i did end up stumbling onto some thing great... i would most certainly share it with others. I dont aim to gain anything by trying to be the best.. and quicker faster than others.. when it comes down to a drivers race.. having a blast with people that share the same ideas of 4cyl cars blowing the doors off of v8's? Thats all the fun righ there. I just want to say thank you all for doing what you do for the love you have in doing it.

Seems kinda cheezy, but felt as though i needed to say something.

 

i wudnt say anyones fighting. people just want proof...which is understandable, but at the same time people just shudnt be making claims of what a car can or cant do especially when they have never seen it before. our cars are still relativley new, and tuning has come a long way in the past 6 months. i dont doubt it, but hopefully he can prove it.

 

He can't prove it, because proof would ruin his credibility/business when he traps nowhere near his claim.

Terminator on street tire = high 12's @ ~113-114 on his best day.

 

For every guy making tunes etc just take the Google business model maudo


"Don't Be Evil"

It work for them and made billions, so I would suggest the bickering and claims of this and that be put aside and a group or alliance of tuners and tuners themselves share these LITTLE secrets to bring to the cobalt world a good tune that provides good power, reliability and just some ******* fun.

Remember, the people in your ******* market are not all car savy, they just like the fact that the car makes some more power. That alone is exciting and **** to them but they really won't give a **** really about who tuned or anything. Maybe a recommendation and a "Thanks Man" but that's it. Calm down on this power trip of who knows more, straight to arguing and calling names and **** instead of contructively correcting each other. There was one guy on here(matrix something) went ape **** with "****" **** this and **** you and that, chillax.

Its a forum, holy ****. I wish all would just come over and talk about this over some Marry Jane, ****.
(Puts flower in the bore of the gun) LOL LMAO

 

Im just calling BS on the 40-70 time being less than 2 seconds. Period.

So Terminator let me get this straight... your 400tq beat a 480 tq car and the 480 car also had more hp and stayed in its powerband longer...

You might be in the 3-4 second range for 40-70 but definitely not less than 2 second range!

Now yes granted his are whp ratings. But still even then hes giving up parts of the powerband as well as a good chunk of hp. Yes the porsche weighs more but it has the advantage of better traction a better powerband and more hp still (even using the 15% drivetrain loss formula and its most like around 8-10% in a porsche). Im calling bs on his 2 second time. The rest of the information is up for debate. But if a porsche can do it in 2.5 then I cant see his lnf doing it in less than 2 with less traction and less power.

 

lulz.

 

I don't know about all you, beat this!!!!!


80,000 TPP, 4 LM2500 Turbines beat that!!!

Tuned at Bath Iron Works Bitches!!!

And if you do pass me, I'll just turn the gun on you and shoot a HE-VT shell and blow you up.


Greetings from the Pacific

 

im surprised it was that close

 

actually, dynojets and most other chassis dyno's, at least other drum dynamometers measure horsepower and calculate torque. What you quoted is about an engine dyno, which is not what you use. I don't need to go quote some website because I know this is fact, it is physics. the drums on a dynojet have an effective weight of 50 lbs. The computer measures how many revolutions the drum makes in a given amount of time, calculating work from distance (revolutions of the drum of known circumference) and the force required to move that 50 lbs. Once work is found, power=work/time, so it's a simple, direct calculation to get horsepower. Otherwise you would have to rely on optical rpm outputs or the crank sensor which may be inaccurate and would give you a false horsepower reading. Since the required force to rotate the drum is known, getting a more precise reading of horsepower is possible by directly calculating it instead of calculating torque then using the conentional hp=tq*rpm/5252.

 

Nevermind apparently I have the engine dyno and chassis dynos confused. I apologize

 

I just woke up. I'll explain it better in a little, but it's a common misconception, so I don't blame you.

 

Term cant be wrong though!!! He's the l33t tooner!@!!1!!!1!!

 

Cool. Thanks.