LS1GTO Forums banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Forum member Silvermoose got the first custom Modern Day Muscle Cars D-1 Procharged GTO. Here is the combo:

Stock engine
MDMC long tube headers
High flow exhaust with CATS in place
Custom D-1 Procharger kit
7 psi of boost
3,100 stall converter.

Stock the car made 283 RWHP and 339RWT
Now the car makes 465 RWHP and 497.8 RWT

We gained 182 RWHP and 158 RWT

Regards Modern Day Muscle Cars LLC.
 

·
Feynman fan
Joined
·
2,336 Posts
Sweet! Really sweet. That translates (figuring about a 19% drivetrain loss from the baseline numbers) to roughly 574 HP & 615 ft-lbs at the flywheel!

Can you post dyno chart and pricing?
 

·
Oh my f*ck!
Joined
·
6,464 Posts
Ok I have to ask a stupid question with regard to wheel vs. engine horsepower. More and more it seems that when someone calls out an estimated loss and works backward to get to the flywheel horsepower, they get a different answer than I do. For example, if someone were to tell me that I had 465rwhp and a 19% drive loss, that means to me that 465rwhp is 81% of the horsepower available at the flywheel, and that the flywheel hp is therefore 574hp. Is this not a correct way of thinking about it?
 

·
Feynman fan
Joined
·
2,336 Posts
phobos512 said:
Ok I have to ask a stupid question with regard to wheel vs. engine horsepower. More and more it seems that when someone calls out an estimated loss and works backward to get to the flywheel horsepower, they get a different answer than I do. For example, if someone were to tell me that I had 465rwhp and a 19% drive loss, that means to me that 465rwhp is 81% of the horsepower available at the flywheel, and that the flywheel hp is therefore 574hp. Is this not a correct way of thinking about it?
You are exactly right, phobos - and I'm not sure where my head was at that moment! You'd think I'd be able to do arithmetic. I'm gonna edit my post to fix my numbers...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
phobos512 said:
Ok I have to ask a stupid question with regard to wheel vs. engine horsepower. More and more it seems that when someone calls out an estimated loss and works backward to get to the flywheel horsepower, they get a different answer than I do. For example, if someone were to tell me that I had 465rwhp and a 19% drive loss, that means to me that 465rwhp is 81% of the horsepower available at the flywheel, and that the flywheel hp is therefore 574hp. Is this not a correct way of thinking about it?
We use 20 percent loos in the automatics and 15 percent in the 6 speeds, this is what are tests have shown.
 

·
Oh my f*ck!
Joined
·
6,464 Posts
Optic - are there any pictures of the setup anywhere? And can you say how much the thing cost?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
497 ft lbs of torque at 7 lbs boost seems high for a stocker with only exhaust I would like to see the dyno sheet on this one. The torque converter must have been locked because high stall converters have lower numbers on a chassis dyno. The corvette guys with ATI superchargers are not getting these good of torque numbers at this boost without head and cam combos. But great numbers anyway, that should give you some low to mid 11 second times. Pictures Please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
GOATANATOR said:
497 ft lbs of torque at 7 lbs boost seems high for a stocker with only exhaust I would like to see the dyno sheet on this one. The torque converter must have been locked because high stall converters have lower numbers on a chassis dyno. The corvette guys with ATI superchargers are not getting these good of torque numbers at this boost without head and cam combos. But great numbers anyway, that should give you some low to mid 11 second times. Pictures Please.

The dyno sheet is below and as for numbers with prochargers just run a search for OpticZ06 on www.corvetteforum.com or follow this link to the record pass for our D-1 procharged Z06 you will need real player to watch, cheers to all http://www.moderndaymusclecars.com/z450/9.8optic.rm



This is just a shot of our 505 rWHP and 615 RWT new corvette C6 R and D car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
I do not understand this dyno chart, Max torque of 497 is at 3000 rpm and its all down hill from there I thought this was a procharger. I hate to say this but I have seen alot of dyno charts from blown LS1s and with ProChargers @ 7 lbs peak torque goes uphill from 3000 rpm, it all most looks backwards. What kind of dyno is this? The HP curve looks about right. Oh well I just think it seems odd.
 

·
I like boobs.
Joined
·
6,581 Posts
Thats kinda what I thought too. This is what my old Vortech dyno looked like at 15psi. It ran 12.3 @ 116mph a year ago in June. I was running 18psi this year but never got it dyno'd or ran it at the track before tearing it down and selling most of it. Granted it didnt have the low end of a 5.7L, it still gained torque as revs climb due to the increased boost with RPM's. It made almost no boost at all until 3000rpm and it boost climbed quickly from there. The car had massive top end pull like you wouldnt believe.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
GOATANATOR said:
Almost Looks like a 50 HP shot of juice at 6200 the hp and the torque jump up at that point ??

OK here it is you will have to understand first this car has a 3100 rpm stall converter wich we leave unlocked at the start of the pull and then lock at the top that is why the torque is what it is. Second Remember this is not a 6 speed torque curve.

Cheers we are off to the track with the car today.. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Stock or high stall, Auto or 6 speed, locked or unlocked,I still say a stock 7 lb procharged ls1 will not peak torque at 3000 rpm and I have a real hard time with 497 at 3000 maybe 400. I think you would have to have 10 lbs boost at 3000 rpm to see a torque number like that or, a 427 engine. Don't get me wrong anything is possible but I still say it looks wrong. My Magna Charged GTO only makes 400 ft lbs torque at 6 1/2 lbs. what you are saying is a procharger makes a 100 more ft lbs at the same boost on the same engine at 3000 rpm I don't buy it. Like I said I think your HP looks OK its just the torque that looks weird. Also I see you ran this to 7200 rpm, I was told thats to high for a stock valve train. My rev limit is 6500 and my shifts are 6200 rpm.Am I wrong or can I run mine at 7200 rpm on a daily basis?
 

·
Resident Douche M3 Driver
Joined
·
1,597 Posts
WOW, those are some healthy numbers for only 7psi. Running 14psi I could only manage 483rwhp. :eek2:
 

·
May I quote you on that?
Joined
·
22,046 Posts
Could it be that it is pulleyed to get 7 PSI at a lower than normal engine rpm and then "blowing off" the extra boost higher up? Just guessing. I have no hands-on with centrifugal S/C.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
GOATANATOR said:
I guess this is just a dynojet thing, I am use to superflow and mustang dynocharts. It stills seems weird though.

The pully is a 4.85 it made 7 psi
 

·
I like boobs.
Joined
·
6,581 Posts
mistermike said:
Could it be that it is pulleyed to get 7 PSI at a lower than normal engine rpm and then "blowing off" the extra boost higher up? Just guessing. I have no hands-on with centrifugal S/C.
Funny you suggest that, I was going to do just that on my car by running a 25psi pulley (smallest I could use on the charger) and have the bypass open at 18psi which would have peaked closer to 6000rpm vs 8000rpm making so much more power down low.

Fact is, centrifugal superchargers make more boost as revs climb, which is why I think these dyno numbers are questionable. It almost looks to me like a nitrous power curve.
 

·
Master Technician (ASE cert)
Joined
·
384 Posts
phobos512 said:
Ok I have to ask a stupid question with regard to wheel vs. engine horsepower. More and more it seems that when someone calls out an estimated loss and works backward to get to the flywheel horsepower, they get a different answer than I do. For example, if someone were to tell me that I had 465rwhp and a 19% drive loss, that means to me that 465rwhp is 81% of the horsepower available at the flywheel, and that the flywheel hp is therefore 574hp. Is this not a correct way of thinking about it?
That is correct when figuring hp you need to divide by (100%-loss%). you can't multiply by 100% plus the loss%.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top