Dyno results

[Un4GivN]

Who stands to be out more money? I vote for the TT.

Not to get on one person's case or the other, but your statement is very wrong with the way I look at things. Droptop bought the twin setup used for a pretty good price and makes 3 times the power that olgrey's makes. Now, for the total amount, sure droptop spent a little more money, however.. his hp per $ figure is far greater than olgrey's.

 

[po-po 5.0]

Alot of FI owners have experienced a solid beat down by a much lower powered NA combo. Now, let's be realistic. In the end, money no object for both camps, a forced induction combo will always produce more power than a naturally aspirated build but why will a naturally aspirated combo always beat a forced induction combo (all other things being equal) of the same horsepower? More power under the curve. Look at the comparison below.

Here are two Cobra's with the same "peak" horsepower. One is Naz's 460 horse big bore and the other is a typical pullied Terminator, also making a peak 460 horsepower.

When were talking about two skilled drivers in an all out acceleration contest, the engine stays within a narrow 1500 RPM power band between gear shifts. Notice how much broader the power curve is for a NA combo. The Terminator drops 100 horsepower over the 1500 RPM range. The NA combo: 50.

Naz's car would have killed this equally powered Termy (not to mention the more agressive gears usually accompanying NA Cobra's and the lighter weight):

RPM HP RPM HP
5700 407 4400 360
5800 413 4500 365
5900 419 4600 380
6000 424 4700 385
6100 429 4800 388
6200 435 4900 390
6300 440 5000 410
6400 445 5100 419
6500 447 5200 421
6600 452 5300 430
6700 456 5400 439
6800 458 5500 443
6900 459 5600 457
7000 460 5700 459
7100 461 5800 459
7200 461 5900 460

Something just doesn't ring true about that.

 

[olgreydog7]

Something just doesn't ring true about that.

Like what? Ever take calculus? Going fast is about area under the curve. Not about peak numbers. On a drag strip, you have to make power through the rpm range to get going, you usually shift right after the peak, so the more power you make before and after the peak, the faster you will go. On a road course, you might spend a considerable amount of time in one area of the rpm range. So, the flatter the torque curve, the faster you go.

 

[olgreydog7]

Not to get on one person's case or the other, but your statement is very wrong with the way I look at things. Droptop bought the twin setup used for a pretty good price and makes 3 times the power that olgrey's makes. Now, for the total amount, sure droptop spent a little more money, however.. his hp per $ figure is far greater than olgrey's.

True, but if you only have 5 grand to spend, it doesn't matter what the hp/$ amount is if the TT setup costs 10 grand. And, I'm not done working the bugs out of it, there is more power to be had. So, it's really only going to be like 2.3 times the power :-D

 

[na svt]

Not to get on one person's case or the other, but your statement is very wrong with the way I look at things. Droptop bought the twin setup used for a pretty good price and makes 3 times the power that olgrey's makes. Now, for the total amount, sure droptop spent a little more money, however.. his hp per $ figure is far greater than olgrey's.

You also have to take into consideration engine work and the drivetrain and fuel system mods required for that much power. Oh, and is all that power usable...I doubt it.

 

[po-po 5.0]

Like what? Ever take calculus? Going fast is about area under the curve. Not about peak numbers. On a drag strip, you have to make power through the rpm range to get going, you usually shift right after the peak, so the more power you make before and after the peak, the faster you will go. On a road course, you might spend a considerable amount of time in one area of the rpm range. So, the flatter the torque curve, the faster you go.

I have an engineering degree. I've taken plenty of calculus, and I agree: power under the curve matters. What I'm saying is that those particular curves don't make sense. NA motors tend to be significantly more "peaky" in their power production than blower cars ESPECIALLY roots blower cars. The graphs just don't sit right with me.

 

[olgreydog7]

I have an engineering degree. I've taken plenty of calculus, and I agree: power under the curve matters. What I'm saying is that those particular curves don't make sense. NA motors tend to be significantly more "peaky" in their power production than blower cars ESPECIALLY roots blower cars. The graphs just don't sit right with me.

Me too! Well, if you look at it right, you are somewhat right. Notice that the na numbers go from 5700-7200 rpm while the blown numbers are from 4400-5900. The spread is the same, but at very different rpm levels. That shows you what proper cam and intake selection can do.

 

[po-po 5.0]

Me too! Well, if you look at it right, you are somewhat right. Notice that the na numbers go from 5700-7200 rpm while the blown numbers are from 4400-5900. The spread is the same, but at very different rpm levels. That shows you what proper cam and intake selection can do.

Ok..... I don't think we're looking at the same graph, and after closer inspection, was that shit hand drawn!? It goes to 16k rpms!

 

[olgreydog7]

Ok..... I don't think we're looking at the same graph, and after closer inspection, was that shit hand drawn!? It goes to 16k rpms!

Yes we are, look at the numbers posted above the graph. There are 15 data points for each combo. The blower goes from 4400-5900 and the na goes from 5700-7200. The graph has them plotted as if they were both going from say 4400-5900. Make sense? If I knew how to post a graph I'd show you. The graph is showing hp vs number of data points, not hp vs rpm.

 

[po-po 5.0]

Yes we are, look at the numbers posted above the graph. There are 15 data points for each combo. The blower goes from 4400-5900 and the na goes from 5700-7200. The graph has them plotted as if they were both going from say 4400-5900. Make sense? If I knew how to post a graph I'd show you. The graph is showing hp vs number of data points, not hp vs rpm.

Well that makes reading the graph easier, but it still doesn't make the information any more believable! Not to mention, hp doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[1Quick4.6]

Not to get on one person's case or the other, but your statement is very wrong with the way I look at things. Droptop bought the twin setup used for a pretty good price and makes 3 times the power that olgrey's makes. Now, for the total amount, sure droptop spent a little more money, however.. his hp per $ figure is far greater than olgrey's.

not after having to go threw the motor that let go..not fun for anyone$$$$:shrug:

 

[olgreydog7]

Well that makes reading the graph easier, but it still doesn't make the information any more believable! Not to mention, hp doesn't tell the whole story.

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/new-edge-cobras-51/499013-some-details.html

There's some of the details, plus the motor was featured in 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords, i think it was the August or Sept issue. It had a two-tone Bullet on the front. It was a well researched and built motor, not just thrown together with off the shelf parts.

 

[droptopsnake01]

not after having to go threw the motor that let go..not fun for anyone$$$$:shrug:

You mean the oil pump right? Since you know whats going on.:lol1:

 

[droptopsnake01]

Dude, what's with all the negativity? You need to get laid or something. I thought you just hated everything naturally aspirated but then I decided to "view more threads by droptopsnake01" and it turns out you're just an angry SOB. You have the most consistent string of negative derogatory posts I've ever seen. Have a beer and chill :beer:

Honestly I see some pretty stupid stuff posted up on here. Im not negative, I just bring reality to a wishful thinking internet site. I call it how I see it and I don't sugarcoat it.

 

[droptopsnake01]

I would bet that my little 346 rwhp Cobra is a much better driver than your 900rwhp twin. I heard a rumor you're selling it too. So, I spent "too much" to make a car I love, but not an impressive dyno sheet, and you spent so much that now you have to sell it. Which one of us made the smarter choiceoke: If the rumor is true anyway:beer:

My 900rwhp cobra drives/idles/starts and stop just as good if not better than yours. You think just b/c its a "dyno queen" it cant do what yours does. Thats the beauty of turbos. Matter of fact with all your fancy intake and cams Ill bet mine drives better and idles even smoother with its STOCK intake and cams ;-)

And yes you heard the "rumor" that my car is for sale. Its even so top secret I put it for sale on here!!!!!!101OMFG!!!! But I dont have to sell it, but Im sure you know everything is for sale...

Goodluck with your ride though, I hope the cam timing is the issue :beer:

 

[po-po 5.0]

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/new-edge-cobras-51/499013-some-details.html

There's some of the details, plus the motor was featured in 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords, i think it was the August or Sept issue. It had a two-tone Bullet on the front. It was a well researched and built motor, not just thrown together with off the shelf parts.

So what the poster was trying to do was satisfy the argument that NA is better......by comparing a well thought out NA build to a bolt-on (if not pulley only) terminator.

 

[Nazman]

So what the poster was trying to do was satisfy the argument that NA is better......by comparing a well thought out NA build to a bolt-on (if not pulley only) terminator.

The graph posted on this thread is NOT the one for the motor quoted by Oldgray.

Two, completly diferent combos.

The one quoted on the dyno graph is one very similar to Oldgray's, FR500 HCI, with a Big Bore behind it.

The one on the provided link....was a diferent animal.

Naz

 

[Nazman]

This NA vs. FI argument is non-sense. They are 2 diferent aproaches to performance.

Period.

Each one have thier own attributes and they are completely diferent.

 

[olgreydog7]

My 900rwhp cobra drives/idles/starts and stop just as good if not better than yours. You think just b/c its a "dyno queen" it cant do what yours does. Thats the beauty of turbos. Matter of fact with all your fancy intake and cams Ill bet mine drives better and idles even smoother with its STOCK intake and cams ;-)

And yes you heard the "rumor" that my car is for sale. Its even so top secret I put it for sale on here!!!!!!101OMFG!!!! But I dont have to sell it, but Im sure you know everything is for sale...

Goodluck with your ride though, I hope the cam timing is the issue :beer:

Sorry, I don't search the cars for sale listings. It would take ALOT of cash for me to sell mine, I really don't think I would. I'm that happy with it. If you are selling such a great car, I'd like to see what you get to replace it. I agree with what you said on another post about bringing reality to the internet world. Well, nasvt, Naz, tmhutch, myself and a couple others are trying to do the same thing. If you read Mustang forums, the solution to everything is put a blower on it and swap to an SRA. That you can't make power na and you can't go fast with an IRS. And that is just wrong. If I built this motor with a blower, the boost would most likely mask the problem. Since I am down 30-50 hp from what I was expecting, I knwo something is up. And, chances are, it's my fault for not swapping the fuel pump while I had the IRS out and for running out of time to degree the cams properly.

So what the poster was trying to do was satisfy the argument that NA is better......by comparing a well thought out NA build to a bolt-on (if not pulley only) terminator.

Not saying better, just different. Really just to point out that there is more to a motor than peak numbers. Which I believe you said yourself.

The graph posted on this thread is NOT the one for the motor quoted by Oldgray.

Two, completly diferent combos.

The one quoted on the dyno graph is one very similar to Oldgray's, FR500 HCI, with a Big Bore behind it.

The one on the provided link....was a diferent animal.

Naz

Doh! You're right. I brain farted on that.

This NA vs. FI argument is non-sense. They are 2 diferent aproaches to performance.

Period.

Each one have thier own attributes and they are completely diferent.

That post should end thread. But it won't. We all love Mustangs, except for Quad, can't we all just get along?:beer:

 

[po-po 5.0]

Not saying better, just different. Really just to point out that there is more to a motor than peak numbers. Which I believe you said yourself.

Yup I did. If tmclutch had posted a dyno comparison of a centri car vs an NA car at similar power levels he would have had something. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that a roots blown car at the same power level as an NA car is slower. Those roots cars make great torque everywhere.