Current progress (as of 8/23/2016)
7000 DA, Stage 3 upgrades, custom Cobb tune ver 4 & 91 octane.
VBOX Sport times, one foot rollout on, 1% grade variation.
Quarter Mile: 10.88 @ 126 mph
0-60: 2.95
60-130: 9.01

Conclusion: Live in Utah, spend a butt load of money and you too can run stock times!

Working on 100 octane tune now... more to come.

_________________________________________

Any of you guys know stock (or modded) Turbo S times for 0-60, 60-130 or quarter mile runs in Utah or similar elevations? I didn't time anything when I was stock.

I've added a few modifications (stage 3 - not all By Design) and am in the process of tuning w/ Sam & Mitch. Going good- the car definitely feels faster and better but I'm a data kinda guy. I'm not even close to sea-level Turbo S cars and I just don't know what's typical for Utah. I'm at 4500', 91 octane & running cats (also if I was strapped to the front of a rocket and launched into space I'm the kinda guy who would announce it "wasn't as fast as I expected" before I passed out).

This is a 0-140 run from my latest tune. Time data is pulled out of the Cobb AP (VBOX en route).
0-60 in 3.013 (have done 2.8 when the car didn't engage traction control).
60-130 in 9.693
0-130 in 12.706
No quarter mile data yet but I would guess about 11.5ish at 122ish? (this guess was totally wrong)


I pulled up some old dyno charts and time slips from other cars I've modded. It's been a few years and I had forgotten that maybe this is "just how it is" in Utah. For example, I had a twin turbo 2007 Corvette w/ 635 whp / 570 ft lbs. It ran 12.5 @ 121mph all day (bad 2.6 second 60' ... bad track, bad tires, bad driving).

Long story short: What should times be up here? How are we doing? I hate popping on truck load of mods and running slower than stock sea-levelers but if that's how it is then so be it. I will move.

Cam

 

Try this..does DA at your location..corrected 1/4 times..calculated horsepower..etc
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/drag...457317263?mt=8

 

This is also very good..!!
http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculators.htm

 

Much appreciated! I have used the online calculators and guessed what my 1/4 time would be. Of course it will be more useful when I have an actual time to plug in .

Regardless, still looking for other real-world utah & high elevation #s.

 

I feel your pain. I am in Tahoe 6300' elevation. I am very familiar with DA's as I also fly. Non-turbo cars are much worse off. But, you are right that it sucks to have to do mods to be close to our sea level compadres.

I am just now getting set up with a Stage 3 from Sam. I will run in Reno/Fernley or Sac for my times.

I too am very curious about times. Perhaps our friends in Denver and such can chime in.

I for one was hoping a stock T/TS would be around 11.5 in the quarter and for us with a tune would be 10.9 ish. We shall see.

I recommend a cool day (at the minimum) to do testing so that maybe a 4,500 elevation will lead to a 2500-3000 DA. But, hey the pearls of living in paradise

 

The DA calc I used puts me in the 6000's (late evening when I do my runs). I love where I live but this speed deprivation is a big beef. It's a problem people just don't talk about .

If you time the video w/ a stopwatch my car is doing 0-130 in 12.1 seconds (oddly the speed on the car's dash and speed output from the OBDII port don't always match- no idea which is accurate). The dash speed is what I'm basing my quarter mile guess off of. Admittedly running an 11.5 quarter mile in a stage 3 car would make me feel a little sad. Really wanted to run in the 10's. Stage 4 for me, I guess (maybe I can get it down to 11.1!). Still a blast to drive.

Super excited to watch your build & see the results!

Cam

 

The NHRA official correction factors are based on the largest pool of data and are likely the most accurate. Make sure you use a correction factor for a turbo not an NA engine.

What is your target maximum boost and are you reaching it?

A turbo will adjust to increased altitude by keeping the wastegates open to meet target boost pressure assuming maximum airflow has not been exceeded.

 

We will keep pushing her Cam. Look at it his way. We will get more performance out no matter what. Just need to fight 200cel cats, 91 octane and elevation.

 

Whether it's high elevation or high density altitude due to low pressure, heat and humidity, a stock turbo motor does a fantastic job at compensating for higher DA by targeting the same boost level no matter the DA. You probably already know this living at elevation. But in order to see benefits at higher DA, your turbo must have more efficiency in it.

What that means is that if you mod up your car for more boost and are at max efficiency at sea level DA, then your turbochargers must spin faster at high DA to target the same boost level as sea level, and will be spinning out of efficiency range, producing too much heat. That might be what is happening. The 991 has very tiny turbos. While there is plenty of room for the ECU to adapt to higher DA at stock boost levels, you may have hit the limit with your boost/mods and while your car would perform fantastic at sea level, at high DA your turbos may not be as efficient as they can be.

 

Thank you for the suggestions! I have looked at the NHRA data. Using their correction figures I'm still going to be quite a bit slower than I expected.

I know we bumped the max boost up a bit (Sam would know where it is). The car hits the targets and holds the boost like a champ as far as I can tell.

Cam

 

I know- you guys have been great. But how do we know where there's no more performance to get? The VBOX data will probably help a bit to establish some baselines. And I think we need a local Turbo S to compare times with.

 

So, for example, a stock Turbo S may be making similar times in Utah and California. The stock turbochargers have to work harder in Utah, but they can handle a little more. Sure, that makes sense.

And while a modded Turbo S may make excellent gains in Californina (where the turbos aren't working as hard to begin with) at Utah DA the already maxed out turbos are not up to the additional workload of mods / higher boost. That makes sense.

It looks like my turbos build and hold the extra boost... but yeah, if they're out of their efficiency range then that could be a problem. So in the worst case I may actually be running the same speed (or slower) than a stock Turbo S. I don't think that's the case though. I sure feel faster than before. This is why I hopped on the board- I'm really hoping I can get some real world times from others at elevations like mine (or even find a local car to time).

-Cam

 

We are hitting octane limits at this point which are tougher with the current demands/hardware/fuel. But will not stop till we get the max out of it for you. You can bet your car is more efficient and is making more power than with a tune alone. You have larger coolers, a more free flowing exhaust, filter and IPD parts that all help move things along more efficiently. I have a few other ideas for you too. Chat soon

 

That's why you guys are the best. Physical limits are definitely looming but I'm sure there's a bit more to eek out.

No, for sure. When the car was new I would floor it and felt sad. Even after putting on the stage 1 tune it wasn't doing much for me. After the mods and tuning now I floor it and feel happy. There is no doubt that the car is faster / better than it was. I have hurt my neck doing 0-60 pulls.

All I am looking for is other high elevation Turbo S numbers. Just some data so we can say "Here's what we get in Utah." Okay, and I admit I'm looking for more speed too, lol.

 

What are your IAT's?

I think you need meth.