Here's a dyno showing a porsche cup car clutch and gt2 pressure plate, supposedly good for 800# of torque, slipping while being tuned at Protomotive.
The engine was fairly conservative using the original MAF meter and stock exhaust manifold setup.
Bigger numbers and a broader curve could be had using the custom MAP and protomotive exhaust setup.
The numbers are actually what's at the wheels.

 

WOW, that's awesome! What kind of hybrids are you running on it? K24/18G's?

 

K24/T04E 46's

 

WOW, nice compressors! They flow 41lbs/min! Good for ~410HP on a water pumper and ~350HP on an air-cooled motor

How do you find the spool-up with those on the K24 turbines? Not too laggy?

 

Thanks. The BIG push in the back happens around 4500 rpm. With UMW stage 2's it was maybe 3600 rpm. Picked up 14 mph trap speed in the 1/4 mile though.

 

That's seriously fast in any man's language! Congrats!

 

Nice numbers!

This raises the question, why go MAP instead of MAF ? This dyno shows you have more horsepower than I do, with less boost, a 3.6 engine instead of 3.8 and I have equal length headers and special exhaust? Humm.

My guess is that on Todd's engine dyno you would show 600FWHP.
More than enough!

 

Brad
Awesome indeed Bud.

Jean
How will this engine comprised from not having MAP and stock IC?

 

Is 4500 when you hit maximum boost? If so, that means the T04E compressors have attributed an extra 900rpm of lag

I guess if you don't mind the extra lag, then yes, those figures are awesome.

How does the car perform in around street driving? Is it liveable?

 

Jean - Acropora has a 3.8 also.

 

Vincent, sorry I did not understand the question .

If it is :"Jean will this engine be compromised for not having MAP and being on stock IC" the answer is DEFINITELY, as far as HP and torque numbers are concerned that is. Drivability will be nicer though.

RSS thanks for pointing that out, I forgot the details of the build, 3.8, the way these engines should have been built from the factory!

In any case, I had to go with a radical MAP setup, exhaust system, intake, intercooler etc..from Protomotive to get to numbers that are lower than the ones Brad had at the same boost levels, there obviously is a problem somewhere!

Or maybe I have 800HP at 1.1 Bar then

 

Sorry Jean
I am not very good posting from my cell phone. But that' s what I meant.

 

I would hope you know the build since you helped me in deciding how to proceed Jean! My numbers are from Todd's new dynapack vs yours from his engine dyno. Your power band is much wider and the hp keeps climbing w/ rpm's.
This car is very driveable w/ r compounds. If you get on it w/ street tires it goes sideways w/ -2 rear camber though.
Basically yours, mine, and Jeans engines share the same foundations Vince. Dunno if you want to spend extra to get Jean's build vs settling w/ this build configuration.

 

Vince I would go with the MAF setup and smaller GTBB turbos than mine.

Todd's MAP setup is fantastic if your usage is like mine, more track oriented and less street daily usage.

Brad, I am not a fan of chassis dynos, and this is really why. I don't remember what went into this build, since you ended up making changes if I recall correctly, but with MAF restriction it sure cannot have bigger numbers than mine. Do you have stock IC still?

Of course this has nothing to do with a willie measurement exercice, I am just pointing at some inconsistencies. I knew this chart was from Todd's chassis dyno, so from an apples to apples comparison with the rest of the tuners out there, it is good, but when it comes down to reality it will not be.

IMO The powerband cannot be compared because it is being run on different dynos as well, I would expect yours to be broader than mine in fact and have more low end torque.

Your car is very fast no doubt about it, but if we want to nitpick a bit, the numbers should be around 15% lesser than mine at least at the same boost level.

A 60-130mph would be nice.