one more

 

Mercy, seriously, are you a little worried about all that power in a cab?

 

Not really. I like to do these "project" cars. This car will not see any hard track action and will not get beat on very often. I will send it back to EVO this winter for rods, some head work etc, but if I was really going to run this car hard I would have gotten a coupe and caged it etc. Like your doing with yours.

This car is a poser with a punch.

I have a few other ideas with some other cars as well. I am just waiting for a sign from the car gods.

 

No Mercy,
that car is definately smoking, inside and out. The wheels look awesome and the tail does look good. What did you think of the tail when you first saw it in person? One of the hottest cabs I've ever seen.

Ron

 

Rodis, Thanks for the compliment!! I still have not seen it in person. It left AZ yesterday and is due sometime today. It's like freakin christmas ... I keep checking out the window to see if it's here yet.

The tail is growing on me though. Recent pics have shown it at more favorable angles the the first few I had seen.

 

The best looking cab I've seen yet. Congratulations man.

 

Yes that car looks great!!!

 

NoMercy,

Did you get the information from Todd yet? Is it a real 669 SAE 1990 Rev or 669 SAE Standard in which case it would be equal to about 628 SAE 1990 Rev. which is not new ground.

 

Chad, how does one aquire this information? I believe my Dynojet is the same type as the one you use at RPM.

 

Dare I ask - how much was this project??

 

The Dyno Jet at RPM Dyno can give whatever standand they choose to call up on their computer providing your dyno has all the software options. I have seen you post both DIN and SAE on your dyno charts.

I am assuming you called up SAE Standard judging from the stock numbers I have seen you post. I believe the difference between the SAE Standard and the SAE 1990 Revision is the ambient conversion temperature. I believe SAE 1990 Revision uses as 72 or 76 degree F ambient conversion while the SAE Standard uses a 58 or 62 degree ambient conversion temperature. I am sure you are not using the "actual" mode in Arizona heat.

If we don't compare using the the same standards , then comparisons are useless.

 

I will have to check on my Dynojet computer in the morning. The software that I am using is pretty current. It allows me to choose, DIN, SAE, STD and Uncorrected. Our tests were conducted in about 85-90 degree weather and the uncorrected #'s were not very different than the SAE corrected.

What are we comparing to? The numbers are what they are as compared to stock as the graphs clearly show. I was not aware of any other comparisons. What are you comparing them too?

 

Todd,

400+ rwhp on a stock 996tt is not SAE 1990 Rev. rwhp. Or at least not on any one I have ever seen dyno'ed. Generally, they are in the area or 372-380 rwhp.

The same car, same dyno run using DIN will show number about 1% higher and SAE Standard, same car, the dyno run will be about 5% higher.

If you are using actual and the ambient temperature is 72 degrees for one run and 85 degrees for the other run. The 72 degree run will always show more power, all other variables being equal.

I am really confused that your actual (85 degrees) would not show a difference between either SAE Standard or SAE 1990 Rev. as there is a approx. 13 to 23 degree difference depending on the SAE calibration being used.

 

You are correct, 380 RWHP & TQ is typical. The TQ # is in line with where is should be. The car made more power at the end of the run. The graph was posted to show a comparison to a stock car.

 

Todd,

Thanks for the reply. Please don't get me wrong, weather 630 or 669 that is one heck of a motor. When I saw 400 on a stock motor and then 669 on the same dyno, well you see where my assumption came from.