Yeah with a CJ/TB this engine could probably pick up another 25-35whp. But it's a road course car and I imagine at over 100/whp per L it's not going to be easy on stuff as is.I originally assumed they’d switched to custom cams, so that makes it easier to see some room for growth. For an all out build, they could easily get more with a CJ or custom mani, E85, and cams with at least more duration. I don’t know how much more lift is on the table with this design. Many road racers ditch the VCT because it can become unreliable with that level of abuse. Just tune for the RPM range in which you want to stay, and eliminate some of the long term headaches.
I’d still like to know a baseline number on their dyno, obviously using the same correction factors and trying to mimic run conditions. If I remember correctly, JPC’s dyno showed 500whp+ on a 93 octane tune only. If that’s the case, this isn’t that great unless this tune is extremely conservative.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sounds great and having worked with them in the past I’m sure this one will be a solid performer.
Almost makes me want a gt350 with some light work and have fun at track days.
They might be a solid shop, but the fact that they didn't specify it's SAE and haven't responded to my requests to clarify means it's probably dyno "click bait." 538 to the wheels doesn't make much sense given the mods and I suspect those are juiced numbers that are STD rather than SAE.
I’m not sure on that, it doesn’t seem any of the other dyno print outs on their page on Facebook indicate that info either.
What would common expected power to the wheels be? Ultimately drivability is what would really matter so I’d be interested to see how it performs time wise on the same tracks the owner has previously ran on but I doubt we’d find that out with out tracking the owner down.
None the less the more I debate it the more scooping up a used GT350 for light mods and track days seems like a good idea.
I just find publishing dyno numbers without the detail sheet (or a confirmation they're SAE corrected) dubious. There's plenty of unscrupulous shops out there that love to produce inflated STD numbers because they generate a lot of attention and buzz, but aren't a very good comparison to others. Granted, all dyno comparisons come with a grain of salt, but SAE corrected is a MUCH better comparison than all the tricks and manipulations of STD numbers. Without revealing DA, dyno numbers can swing wildly. Someone who dyno's in the Summer in Denver with the same car is going to get a very different result than someone who dyno's at Sea level and 20F. That's where SAE comes into play to try to level/compare them.
The only thing different he has from other cars in the 500 rwhp range (on 93) is P/P heads. I find it hard to believe that P/P would make THAT big of an improvement and he's putting down numbers on 93 that no one has touched even with E-85. All the other stuff (locking out the IMRC and cam phasers) does nothing for peak output and just makes the tuning easier. He's also running the heavy/stock wheels, which can be up to a 5% parasite on numbers.
Yea I dont dissagree, it would seem more reasonable to post the most realistic numbers. I guess the easiest way to find out is to ask them on their Facebook post about it as they seem to respond well on there. Unless you’ve already tried that.