538 rwhp naturally aspirated

DSG2003SVT

Gray only, please
Established Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
2,904
Location
DFW, TX
What do stock cars typically baseline there? Looks pretty impressive for 93 octane. I’d imagine E85 could get another 15-20 easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

AustinJ427

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Beer Money Bros.
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
5,900
Location
Colorado
I saw this on instagram a while back, but this is the first time seeing numbers.

It's my understanding this car made piston contact with a valve and it ended poorly, hence the build. They did VCT lockouts, long tubes, and heads. I guess that's what the stock cams sound like locked out.
 

AustinJ427

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Beer Money Bros.
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
5,900
Location
Colorado
What do stock cars typically baseline there? Looks pretty impressive for 93 octane. I’d imagine E85 could get another 15-20 easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
450-470 depending on the dyno.
 

jvandy50

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,318
Location
AR
i can't find the spreadsheet now, but i think i remember something to the tune of 23k for this rebuild...making me really rethink voiding my warranty on anything now.

he's gonna be even more of a beast on the track though
 

ANGREY

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
553
I'm a bit skeptical until we see the details. Is it SAE or Standard? Much of the build was either things that others have done OR items that don't add power, just durability. The only thing done that's actually above and beyond is porting of the heads. I find it difficult to believe that a P/P job would add 35 rwhp. But as someone pointed out, the only real evaluation would be to see what this car baselined on THIS dyno under similar conditions (if it's not SAE corrected).

Locking out the cams makes the tuning more simple, but hurts other areas of the power band (between that and the additional huff, might explain why the torque is so low (comparatively)).

The entire point of VCT is to wring as much performance out of the motor as possible under all conditions.

We've yet to see anyone on E-85 come close to these numbers, so I'll remain a skeptic until someone chimes in that these are corrected numbers.

Having said all that, badass build, irrespective of final numbers.
 

DSG2003SVT

Gray only, please
Established Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
2,904
Location
DFW, TX
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
 

AustinJ427

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Beer Money Bros.
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
5,900
Location
Colorado
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
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.
 

DSG2003SVT

Gray only, please
Established Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
2,904
Location
DFW, TX
Fully agreed. Plus, he doesn’t have to worry about the motor mount height, hood fitment, etc. I wasn’t suggesting that for his build, but I’d still like to see what it can do. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ANGREY

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
553
Nearly "full bolt on" (hate that term) I've seen guys yank 500-510 on 93. That's intake, tune, longtubes and no cats. Depending on whether it's stock wheels or not, it'll pull in that range.

I've seen the same with E-85 in the 520-530 rwhp range.

Setting aside the CJ intake (because apples to apples he didn't use one) you're basically talking about a 35 rwhp bump (on 93) for P/P heads. Locking the phasers and plates doesn't get you more power. It just makes the tuning more simple and in fact, robs you of power at other points in the curve. So the only thing I saw that would make MORE power in his build (over other modded cars) was the P/P job.

Oil Pump gears, cam sprocket, rotating components and sleeves, all that stuff is awesome, but doesn't do anything for power.

Again, a lot depends on if these are SAE corrected or Standard. I've seen some pretty ridiculous dyno sheets that forgot to mention it's STD and not corrected.

The only TRUE evaluation (as I said earlier) is a baseline (SAE corrected) and the after on the same dyno, with similar conditions (the whole point of SAE is to normalize the temp and DA, but it helps if one wasn't at -1000 DA and the other at +2000. Even SAE correction has limitations).

There are multiple reasons for this and not just because the calibrations for the dyno are unique. The way that the car is strapped down for instance, CAN have affects on the numbers. How much the tires did or didn't slip, whether or not there was so much tension that it caused the tires to bulge as if underinflated. Whether or not the tech installed the temp sensor for the dyno near the engine or far away in good/clean/cold air, etc, etc, etc.
 

My94GT

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,642
Location
woodbine, MD
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.
 

ANGREY

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
553
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.
 

My94GT

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,642
Location
woodbine, MD
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.
 

ANGREY

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
553
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.
 

My94GT

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,642
Location
woodbine, MD
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.
 

ANGREY

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
553
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.

I asked on the Tube (no response), haven't seen their FB post about it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top