[s-cars] 80tq: 20v Project Update, 415whp, 12.25, etc

[JShadzi at aol.com]

Hey Dave, thanks for kind words about the project.

It wasn't my intention (directly) to assert that anyone specific person (or group) are purposely posting inflated #'s, but I will say that it is commonly accepted that "SAE Corrected" dyno figures are notoriously inflated for boosted turbo motors at elevation.  The higher you get, the more boost you run, the more inflated they are.

I won't name any names, but at one point in the past, a "400whp" car from out west came to the ATP dyno where I run my car and barely could make 340whp, a significant drop in the dyno figure.

I believe you when you say your car feels faster at lower elevation, my assertion is that the "corrected" dyno figures at elevation are inflated and not accurate for heavily boosted motors.

If you haven't already, check for uncorrected figures, Jim Green has always been good about posting corrected and uncorrected figures, I believe this is a reasonable way to quote dyno figures at elevation.

Thanks,
Javad

>Javad,
>That sounds great, and looks good too.  But I must ask... are you implying 
>that us high altitude folks in Colorado are posting inflated numbers, since 
>we're being corrected to stp?  Hmmm... maybe we'll all have to trek to a sea level 
>dyno.  I'm not sure (as a percentage) what our losses are at 5k+ ft, but it 
>is substantial.  I drove my car to the SEMA show in Vegas to taste some lower 
>elevations (about 2000 ft), and the difference was amazing.  The boost 
>threshold came down about 5-600rpm, and the car had front wheelspin in 2nd.  I don't 
>get that in Denver.
>
>Anyway... great looking effort... and great times.  Don't know if we'll be 
>able to compete with the timeslips in a 2 ton cruise missile.  But the urq is 
>next in line...if that 5 speed holds together, maybe it'll go that quick.
>Take care, and happy tuning,
>Dave in CO
>