When I first posted that I was referring to "car guys" in general....change the numbers to please thenselves......but not any more!!! LOL

 

Maybe I am mistaken as I see that your NA is very fast, if this was true I'd take it all back.

 

It seems like this high H.P. 13 sec. discussion has been going on for quite some time.

https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...-new-best.html

Time slips trump Dyno sheets everytime.

All I know is, "Statistical Proof" says my 04 is putting out approx. 315 gross H.P.

 

Glad to hear someone is actually claiming over 300 HP.
It's nice to know some consider it, even if jokingly, possible. Don't time sheets include the competency of the driver, along with tire and suspension set ups, in the equations?

That said, I believe the original point was that compartive dynos of wheel HP will tell the new owner the percentage of HP gains after tune and mods. But with accuracy only if done on the same dyno under the same conditions. The actual numbers don't matter as much as the comparative ratios they calculate. Parasitic drag is rather irrelavant to the equations.

No more, no less is, needed to acheive that "statistic" and in the end, that is all one would have, a calculated statistic.

So how much HP did your '04 have on it's baseline run? Or when you failed to hook up?

 

I like to look at the mph at the end of the 1/4 mile as the best measurement of power. Stock and mostly stock I was trapping at 104 to 105. CAI and Code 3 got me to 107/108 mph. Now I trap 117 mph. I've had more dyno's than I can remember. What i've learned is paper will reflect what ever is put on it. My first time on the dyno gave me around 200 to the wheels. Lot's in the 270 to 280 range with a Code 3 pulley and Needswings intake. Lots of parts got me to 300. A tune bumped it to 320 ish. My track times were stuck in the 13's but the mph kept climbing. Obviously driver inexperience were reflected by the seconds and increases in power reflected by the mph.

Les

 

The claim you make in my post #42 is more than a statistic.

Quote:

I've got $3500.00 in mods on my NA and it will do High 13's
Cathy's SRT has maybe $10,000 in mods, tops. It does low 12's. A little work, less than a grand, it could do 11's

Are these true or not?

 

315 is more than the 5.0 V8... Which is the same design with 2 more cylinders and the cylinders are bigger... Sorry but I don't think that's possible on the NA V6 without forced induction.

 

He's joking ............

 

Early morning, oops lol.

 

Nice to see young people have them too.

 

No guys, I'm not joking.
I'm talking "Gross" H.P. not "Net" H.P.
I'm going by the performance similarities of the Crossfire and another car that's nearlly identical in all proportions.
I'm taking into consideration the weight of the car, the gear ratio, frontal area, weight disrtibution, and tire diameter.
Drivers ability is of little consequence with a 15 sec. car, (which is essentially a point and shoot scenario) but all tests were completed using professional drivers.


Seating Capacity______________2___________________2_______ _________

Wheel Base__________________97"_________________94.5"___ __________

FR.Track____________________59.7"________________5 8.3"_____________

R.Track_____________________57.0"________________5 8.2"_____________

Length______________________177.2"_______________1 59.8"____________

Height______________________51.7"________________5 1.4"_____________

Ground Clearance____________5.29"________________4.9"____ __________

Curb Weight________________3035 lbs._____________3084 lbs.__________

Weight Distribution F/R,%_____57/43________________54/46_____________

Trunk Space cu.ft.____________9.6__________________7.6________ ______

Turns Lock to Lock____________3.8__________________3.1__________ ____

Turning Circle________________33.5'_________________32.9__ ___________

Engine Compression Ratio______10.2:1________________10.0:1__________

Gross H.P.___________________315________net H.P. ___215__ ___________

Frontal Area sq.ft.____________20.6__________________20.6______ ______

Final Drive Ratio_____________3.15:1________________3.27:1____ _______

Body Construction____________Unitized_______________Uni tized_________

Steering___________________recirculating ball________recirculating ball___

Braking 60-0 m.p.h.__________115'__________________114'________ _____

Automatic Trans. Performance__Motor Trend____________Motor Trend_____
30 m.p.h.___________________2.9 sec.________________2.5 sec.________
60 m.p.h.___________________6.9 sec.________________7.1 sec.________
1/4 mile time & speed_______15.2 sec. 92 mph._____ 15.18 sec. 96 mph._

Manual Trans. Performance____Car & Driver____________Car & Driver_____
30 m.p.h.___________________1.9 sec.________________2.1 sec.________
40 m.p.h.___________________3.1 sec.________________3.5 sec.________
50 m.p.h.___________________4.5 sec.________________4.7 sec.________
60 m.p.h.___________________6.6 sec.________________6.5 sec.________
70 m.p.h.___________________8.5 sec.________________8.2 sec.________
80 m.p.h.___________________10.7 sec._______________10.2 sec._______
90 m.p.h.___________________13.5 sec._______________13.1 sec._______
100 m.p.h.__________________16.3 sec._______________16.1 sec._______
1/4 mile time & speed_______14.8 sec. 95 mph._________14.8 sec. 96 mph_


SOME COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS

Let’s clear up a couple of common misconceptions about gross and net horsepower ratings:

1. Contrary to some assumptions, net horsepower ratings do NOT measure horsepower at the drive wheels. Both gross and net ratings are at the flywheel and don’t reflect power losses in the drivetrain.
2. Because of the vagaries of the old gross ratings and the widespread over- and underrating of different engines, there is NO precise formula for converting gross horsepower to net horsepower or vice versa. Sometimes, the difference is as little as 5–10%; sometimes it’s more like 25%. The only way to be certain about the comparative gross and net ratings of a specific engine is if the factory released both gross and net figures for that engine. (Some U.S. automakers did this during the 1971 model year and intermittently before that.) Otherwise, the best you can do is make an educated guess based on state of tune and real-world performance testing — keeping in mind that published road tests didn’t necessarily reflect the performance of cars the average consumer could actually buy.
3. The ambiguity of gross horsepower ratings means that many pre-1972 American cars were actually a lot less powerful than the advertised figures would suggest. While the late sixties were a golden age of horsepower compared to the late seventies or early eighties, the differences weren’t quite as vast as they appear at first blush. For example, a 1967 Chevrolet Impala with the 396 cu. in. (6,488 cc) V8, rated at 325 gross horsepower (242 kW), probably had something like 220 net horsepower (164 kW) in pure stock form.

 

Right, but that logic applied would mean that all other cars on the road qualify, making it a wash anyhow.

 

https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...1&d=1394754171

 

Initial Turbo figures at 4psi?

 

Les

 

Nope old Dyno sheet.

 

What mods were done there then?

We want the new figures, do not keep us waiting.
I hope it's not going to be another two weeks. LOL

 

Yes , I had the bigger V8 Airbox with K & N Filters with bigger inlet tubes. Bigger throttle body, larger injectors from TUV and a tune. Sorry I haven't Dynoed the Turbo, not there yet. Had to get a new oil pump, bit of fabricating because it is a different fit. The first pump was so noisy you couldn't drive the car. Nobody is more frustrated with the set backs than me, quite anxious to see it up and running to the point of Dynoing it..

 

Your hp figures are like dtinkers as I recall.
This would be around 245 manual or 260 auto crank hp. What have you got?
I'm thinking that is about the max for an NA.

 

I got a manual.