and, should i pay the big-$ for a bassani?
or take that money and go for L/T headers w/ magnaflow?
or take that money and go for L/T headers w/ magnaflow?
Dyno: 2.80" pulley, Diablo
- Thread starter coleman
- Start date
Cool.:thumbsup:
mjchip, didn't you say that a dyno reprogram is better than a chip?
Hi,
What I may have said is that getting your car tuned "on the spot" using a chassis dyno and wideband as well as other equipment is MUCH better off than sending away for a "cookie cutter" chip.
However, chips are still used when doing custom dyno tunes. Some shops have the capabilities to reflash your computer altogether but most shops use chips which are external flash memory devices that are connected to the PCM's service port (J3 port).
Hope this helps,
Mark
wildstreet
New Member
When Joe from UPR went 11.86 @119.35 0n F1's he was making low 460's at the rear wheels and weighed 3815. Given better weather (than South FL) he would have gone into the low 120"s
So I feel 120's are possible and it wouldn't be the firstime that a dragcar''s performance was better at the track than on paper.
So I feel 120's are possible and it wouldn't be the firstime that a dragcar''s performance was better at the track than on paper.
I agree, wholeheartedly.
Math and Physics only go so far, remember, bumblebees aren't supposed to be able to achieve flight, either. :-D
That's one of my pet peeve quotes that drive me bonkers. If one's calculations show that bumblebees can't achieve flight, then your calculations are obviously wrong, because they can.
Math and physics are what we have to make sense of the world around us. If they only get us so far, what will get us the rest of the way? Sure as hell not some hokey supernatural insight. Answer: Math and physics.
I would have them add more fuel from tip on up mostly in the mid range.3000-4500 you want to be about 12.1 and build up to about 12.5 to 12.8 on a supercharged car.You will also pick up a ton of tq
Last edited:
You are assuming that humans have discovered every secret of math, physics and nature. Earning a B.S. in Biophysics taught me alot, one thing in particular is that Man does not have all the answers. Nature does not fit into our "explanations" and all math and physics are based on theories. Just when you think you have all the answers, nature throws you a curve ball that our understanding of science cannot explain...
We have only begun to understand the tip of the iceburg, IMO.
I agree with 03Dohc, the "aerodynamic expert" that proclaimed bumblebees can't fly was obviously not an expert. I wonder if any expert ever really said that. I too, am sick with people who throw that out whenever their flawed logic is pointed out to them. While it is true their are lots of things yet to be discovered, newtonian mechanics is not one of them.
JT
Last edited:
Blue03Cobra - I am assuming no such thing.
Theories can, and have been wrong. Knowledge is a neverending quest, and is not limited.
We can't explain everything...yet. Just because it can't be explained at this time doesn't mean it's magic.
Theories can, and have been wrong. Knowledge is a neverending quest, and is not limited.
We can't explain everything...yet. Just because it can't be explained at this time doesn't mean it's magic.
JT, are those dyno curves on your temp site w/only a pulley and chip and no exhaust? Those are some nice #'s man!
Yep, Just pulley and a chip. I am trying to keep it quiet, There does to be alot of power corked up in the exhaust, it is getting harder to resist ....
JT
JT
Does the pulley look obvious or is it hard to tell it's there? Is it an L pulley? And what kind of gas can you use? Thanks.
Last edited:
I am using a stock take-off L pulley. The pulley is not obvious, but if you know what you are looking for you can tell, even with the belt guard on. If you are thinking, if the car goes in for warranty service will the tech notice? Maybe not, unless he takes a test drive, in which case he will know something is not stock.
I use 93 octane.
JT
I use 93 octane.
JT
Thanks 
Sorry, but we're not dealing with theories in this case. But rather facts. It takes X amount of HP to move Y amount of weight down the track to a specific speed. Aerodynamics do come into play, but not when we are comparing apples to apples. Haveight's car is exactly the same as everyone else's (with the exception that it seems faster).
So I don't know why you want to start throwing in the possibility of unexplained mathematical theories. You'd think we found a Unicorn or something.
So far, there's been no good explanation. Even wildfire's post about running 119 doesn't help explain it. He makes <20rwhp less than Haveight, and runs 5mph slower. When I compare my timeslips to his, it doesn't make sense. Nor did it when JT posted and compared his timeslips (I think it was JT, but forgive me if I'm wrong). That's not a "curveball from nature". That's statistical proof of more HP, less weight, or a track with a nasty dropoff at the 1000' mark!
As I said before, I don't doubt it, I just want to know why. And yes, I will be at Bowling Green to witness it. It'll be interesting to see everyone compete on an equal playing field. Except of course for Haveight....he'll driving Nature's Curveball.
If I didn't say it before, congrats Haveight on a superbly tuned combination. That mph is EXTREMELY impressive.
Users who are viewing this thread
