cuspub

Fordboy1981. Just for the record, pull out the 1/4 mile calculator (if you haven't one, go here: My Webpage lets for the sake of it multiply the 512rwhp by 25% for 640 horsepower, add in the weight of the vehicle with driver (say 3950 pounds), enter this into the calculator and the car should achieve a 10.68 @ 127.5 mph. On a perfect run. Umm, sorry, but the APS vehicle is way off that. That being the case, do you really feel that you should believe everything you're told? Using a Dyno Dynamics rule of thumb, the Stage 111, 330rwkw kit will acheive approximately 440 engine kW or 590 horsepower. That at just 14-15 psi. Yea right! It's time people questioned postings and manufacturers claims thoroughly, not just dream on and believe.

Peter has certainly gone to a lot of trouble providing his opinion, and there is no doubt the Unichip is a good product. There is a problem, though, with people making statements degrading another person/s kit or kit concept, irrespective of there being a pact made between the two companies concerned. Seems to me that a lot of people out there are brainwashed by reading too many forum posts. Bottom line, if you believe everything you read on here, you are either very naive or brain dead. Enough said!

Well done to the guys at C&V, you've done a great job. It's also great that by throwing out the gauntlet to Nizpro who previously had the fastest XR6T, they will undoubtably respond and everyone will benefit from the input. Anyway, once again, well done.

Seems amazing to me that there is a misunderstand premise behind what I opened this thread to suggest. The fact is that I am stating that irrespective of what Dyno Dynamics has done with their Shootout Mode package, it still leaves open the opportunity for the unscrupulous tuner to rip people off. I am not and was not casting any aspersions on the DD product whatsoever, rather it was a case of making it clear that when having one's car modified, we must always be vigilant. That a number of different readings were achieved on the same dyno in a short space of time simply indicates what and how a dyno operator can fool people. What Peter Luxon says about repeatability with the DD product is absolutely correct. I totally agree - if the playing field remains level. The fact of the matter is that whether it's a Dynamic Test Systems, DynoLogic, Dyno Dynamics, or any other chassis dyno for the matter, if calibrated correctly - and if the playing field is level - they will all read within a few kilowatts. As to your Turbo6man, well, you simply miss-read it!

Seems amazing to me that people on this forum don't seem to understand that the simple premise behind what I opened this thread with was to suggest that irrespective of what Dyno Dynamics has done with their Shootout Mode package, it still leaves open the opportunity for the unscrupulous tuner to rip people off. I am and was not casting any aspersions on the DD product whatsoever, rather it was a case of making it clear that when having one's car modified, we must always be vigilant. That a number of different readings were achieved on the same dyno in a short space of time simply indicates what and how a dyno operator can fool people. What Peter Luxon says about repeatability with the DD product is correct and I totally agree - if the playing field remains level. The fact of the matter is that whether it's a Dynamic Test Systems, DynoLogic, Dyno Dynamics, or any other chassis dyno for the matter, if calibrated correctly - and if the playing field is level - they will all read within a few kilowatts. As to your Turbo6man, well, you simply read-read it!

My apologies with regards to the comments at the opening of this thread. I was in fact wrong about the modifications as when the manifold was removed (and the photo taken), the car had not been modified. Rather the paint had started to flake off with a stock engine. In other words, the intake temperatures with the stock combo are high. No question.

ktford. Check the following link: http://www.torinocobra.com/horsepower.htm Like several others that rely on the same mathematical equation (which invariably proves to be correct), it prodies you with the horspower used to achieve a speed over the quarter mile. I used a figure of 1780 kgs (with driver) which equals approx 3900 pounds. Add this to the calculator at the address above, the add in your 102 mph and see what your actual engine (yep, that's right, flywheel) horsepower is. You will be surprised. Bottom line, the quarter mile doesn't lie.

teebone, if from melbourne try Autotechnique in Rowville. 9763 1195

BLKXRT. You make valid points, and I agree wholeheartedly. 1. However the point is that when running back to back runs on a dyno, they should remain consistent. In this instance, the vehicle was strapped the same for each as they were literally one after the other. The point I am making is that I am suggesting PEOPLE TAKE CARE WITH PAYING GOOD MONEY FOR MODIFICATIONS, after having received a 'before' dyno readout, then an after. Make sure the parameters are exactly the same. EG: If the original is run in Shoot6, then the final is Shoot8, this is not a fair comparison because the ramp speed is different (shorter) and the power will be greater as a consequence. I simply want people to be careful when they pay money for performance modifications. 2. Comparing software modes - why? Because Freddy from Ripsville does exactly what I have just stated, and to justify the money spent with him, he changes the shoot mode or the Extra Correction Factor to provide a greater figure than is actually true. 3. "the key variables (that haven't been mentioned yet ) are temperature, barometric pressure and tyre pressure" I was under the impression I mentioned a weather station. In any case, the SAE standard should be adhered to, and this takes care of the correction. Tyre pressures typically only come into play on dynos incapable of handling big power unless a vehicle is heavily strapped down. This is not the case with the DynoLogic. Strapping down is important from a safety point of view, as is - for example - running the tyres at 30psi. However the effect these have on the different dynos (Dyno Dynamics v DynoLogic) is massive. 4. Not wanting your engine to run more than 5 sec... interesting. Consider this. A tuner modifies the ecu timing/fuel et cetera, running it extremely close to detonation - but not quite there with a 5 second ramp. That's fine on the dyno for 5 seconds. Take the car out on to the road under constant acceleration for 15 seconds and what do you get? The potential for detonation and disaster. I am not going to cast any aspersions on any tuners, suffice it to say that a credible tuner will - when tuning the likes of a MoTeC, spend quite an amount of time at full throttle under full load, mapping each point. Once this is complete, he would then run it on an appropriate ramp rate (say a 20 second run), to ensure absolutely no detonation - which we all know is the biggest engine killer around. ducatijb. I agree 100%! Macktheknife. Agreed once again. However if you want consistency, the DynoLogic dyno can't be frigged with, it provides accuracy run after run, and provides optimum traction (the driven roller is literally twice the size of a DD). You are also right about percentages, thing is, if the original figure is way off the mark, the percentages will also be out.

Interested in hearing a little story about dyno figures? If so, read on, if not (because you are inclined to believe the hype surrounding chassis dyno marketing), don’t bother reading any further! The following is fact, having taken place literally minutes prior to me penning this ditty. And for the record, all dyno sheets are available for reference if proof is required. Scenario; We take a turbocharged six cylinder vehicle and place it on an unnamed dyno (this info comes later), a dyno whereby the software makes it impossible for the operator to in any way fudge the figures, with the only variation being temperature correction (via an inbuilt weather station that automatically corrects in relation to the ambient), which is of course to SAE standards, and once again can’t be played with. 1. Said Test Vehicle produces 282.1 rear wheel kilowatts @ 14 psi boost. 2. Said vehicle is then driven approximately 300 metres to another workshop where it is placed on a current model Dyno Dynamics chassis dynamometer equipped with the latest Dyno Dynamics Shootout Mode software. Software designed, we’re told, to ensure an absolute level playing field between every Dyno Dynamics dyno in the country (when fitted with the Shootout Mode software). 3. Once said vehicle is strapped onto the dyno and the software is set to the ‘Shoot6’ Mode (for six cylinder powered cars), a power run is performed for a relatively consistent result of 288.5kW @ 14 psi. 4. Said vehicle is now run with the ‘Shoot8’ Mode (designed for V8 powered cars), with the power run resulting in 304.9kw @ 13 psi. 5. Said vehicle is finally run on ‘Shoot81’ Mode (designed for turbocharged/supercharged or nitrous facilitated V8 powered cars) with the power run resulting in 317.8kw @ 12.5 psi. Okay, so we have the very same car producing more power with each run but with a lower boost output. Interesting huh! The bottom line is that the bigger the engine (4 versus 6 versus 8 versus forced induction , the faster the ramp rate, hence the potential for a turbo to achieve maximum boost is lessened. In other words, the run is so fast it’s hard for the turbo to come on boost. So the question is this: Why should a V8 benefit from a faster ramp rate (hence vastly improved power output)? Could it be that the more the power, the more potential there is with a Dyno Dynamics dyno for the car to spin the tyres if a ‘real’ ramp rate was allowed? Another thing to consider with these fast ramp rates is that they are far from ‘real world’. A ramp rate that sees an engine achieve maximum power and rpm in say five seconds is simply ridiculous. A concern here is that the slow ramp rate allows a tuner to go with greater boost, greater ignition advance et cetera because during a five second run this may not be a problem. In the real world it is. The bottom line is that using the same car on the same dyno, and run after run it produced almost an additional 40 rear wheel kilowatts by simply changing the Shootout Mode. Harking back to the third paragraph (scenario), the dyno used for the initial run was a DynoLogic. Assuming the moderator allows this post to go up, a post that I believe offers a genuine summation of a real world situation, I would love to hear your comments.

From what I have been able to decipher, there has been some suggestion that raising the boost with the stock intercooler isn't a problem and doesn't affect intake temperatures. As seems common, when the standard exhaust (or at the least the centre muffler and cat) are changed for freer flowing items, it tends to increase the factory boost by a small margin, hence also raising the power slightly (the boost raises the power, not the exhaust, it is merely a facilitator). Thing is, this minor mod alone (marginally increased boost) can have a devastating affect on intake temperatures. If you don't believe me, check out the attached pic of an intake intercooler crossover assembly whereby the owner had changed the exhaust (completely), and although driving the car like it should be (relatively hard), it had not been on a racetrack. Irrespective, the scars are there. Heat is a genuine problem and increasing boost while retaining the stock intercooler is fraught with problems from a long-term reliability perspective. Sure, you will get away with it for a while (just like people who only change the oil in their engine every 15,000k), but given time it will turn around and bite you. Agree? I would like to hear if others are having the same problem.

Ktford, I will be interested to see how u go.

KTFord. Excuse my ignorance, but what is an Xede 300kW?

Oh, perhaps more importantly, what speed was achieved, because as we all know, the ET can be affected badly by gear changes, wheelspin and so forth, whereas the speed typically remains relatively constant.

Was wondering what times those who have run their cars over the quarter mile - and I don't mean with a G-teck or the like. Would be interested in seeing a list.

Turbomax, Nizpro's Ute which is running their 290rwkw Stage 2 package, runs the stock fuel pump and lines, but with higher flowing injectors. The engine is making over 450 horsepower at the flywheel and the factory fuel pump has been tested to happily deliver enough fuel for 500hp (373 kW), so anyone who suggests that an additional fuel pump or rising rate regulator is required for anything up to or slightly in excess of these figures is simply looking to sell something that isn't needed. Also as a matter of interest, the same vehicle delivers factory 'cruise' fuel consumption figures of 8.2 litres per hundred.

bcl. Thanks for the reply on the Nizpro kit. As I am extremely close to the guys at Nizpro, I can cofirm all of the statments I have made to be 100% correct. In relation to your comment: "I'm waiting on Stage 3 details, as there are also proposed compressor changes, as well as exhaust changes over the last 2 weeks. ... so it appears to be still in development, although Stage 1 & 2 seem to be finalised. I suspect you'll find that the quoted 650hp is not with the stock turbo.... results are very good and not surprising." The truth of the matter is that the Stage Three kit employs the stock turbo as it has proven itself more than capable of delivering 650 horsepower. There will, however, be a turbo change with the Stage Four kit. GB

Due to there being very little time getting the vehicle ready for the drags, they hadn't time to replace the cat, so for the drags left it as a straight through pipe. They believe that the restriction in the exhaust is so damn limited (apart from the cat) there is no need to change it. Also, one thing I didn't mention before was that the car in question is running the Factory turbo (unmodified).

Having read through this thread it appears to me that whereas a number of 'suppliers' have been mentioned, one is missing. Nizpro has developed three kit stages, and whereas the price is relatively high, the results are simply staggering. Nizpro debuted their Acid Rush development sedan at Calder on Friday night, and although having the engine management side nailed, it turned out that the automatic transmission management is an issue that is yet to be rectified. In other words, they ran into problems with the inherent management instruction that pulls power from the engine just prior to a gear change so as to not hurt the transmission. As a consequence of vastly higher engine power than standard, the trans problems had much more of an impact than you might expect, resulting in vastly slower quarter mile times than anticipated. Unfortunately for Nizpro, the car 'only' recorded an 11.73 @ 125.9 mph (201.44 kmh), thanks to the trans dramas. The car is equipped with a Stage Three development combination consisting of their Stage two Kit (plenum, FMIC, rocker cover, cold air intake, injectors and other fabricated bits), along with MoTeC (for development purposes as typically they run the Xede), the engine has custom rods (but is otherwise 100% stock internally) is backed with a shift kitted auto and an otherwise stock driveline. Tyres are 245 Nittos. The only changes to the fuel system consist of a larger in-tank pump, likewise the car runs the FACTORY exhaust system less cat. On Nizpro's DynoLogic chassis dynamometer, the Falcon delivered 410 kilowatts to the treads at 20 pounds boost, which effectively equates to approximately 650 flywheel horsepower. Nizpro has only just started playing with the new combination (hence the trans problems) however once these are sorted (two weeks), expect low 11 or high 10-second time slips. Also interesting is how Nizpro has another development mule, this one a Ute which will be equipped with a Stage Four package expected to push the vehicle over the quarter in low 10s or quicker. Check Fullboost for details on the 11.7 run. By the way, ROB HERROD is selling the Nizpro kits. As I am not sure how to get images up on here (I know, I'm dumb), if anyone wants a shot of the car or the engine bay, contact me via email please.

For everyone's information, the GCG turbo kit is available in Melbourne through Autotechnique (03-9763 1195), with distributors coming on stream in every state shortly. It will be EPA tested within the next couple of weeks, further to which the system design allows for significant improvement thanks to all of the components needed for serious Late model camira crunching included in the comprehensive Stage One kit. I noticed in one post that the Stage One system lacks a modified exhaust (as does Stage Two), which is true irrespective of suggestions that the stock exhaust system suffers from back pressure. The company behind the development of the kit has proven via engine and chassis dyno testing (they have one of the best equipped engine dyno facilities in the country) that the stock system is in fact extremely free flowing. Their testing has in fact shown that a single 3 1/2" system only results in around a 7 kW improvement - which for around say $1800 is damned expensive in my book. Given that the factory system includes twin 2 1/4" pipes that in effect equals the volume achieved with a 3 1/4" pipe, you can understand why. And remember that a new exhaust will probably lack shielding which isn't a good thing given the plastic fuel tank! Testing has also proven that the stock fuel pump is more than adequate to equal the needs of the Stage Two kit (275 rear wheel kilowatts on a DynoLogic dyno - around 300 kW on a Dyno Dynamics Dyno). So spending money on a higher flowing fuel pump also is not necessary. The earlier post also mentioned the Xede ChipTorque computer. This is very true, with the results of collaboration between the companies in question resulting in incredibly smooth operation and running, and amazing fuel consumption (unless the right foot is heavily provoked!) Stay tuned for more news on the system.