732 RWHP / 670 RWTQ Thanks to DC Performance and Woodhouse

[ILLSMOQ]

See if sac or sears is open I'm not available tuesday afternoon or saturday day untill 4:00pm.

put it together Jonny.

 

[Bobpantax]

Bob, 732rwhp seems reasonable enough to me given the mods Jon has on his car.
Big numbers are easily attainable if you know what you are doing with the tune in the PCM and the split second box....LOOKEY HERE.

The paxton kit gives you a ton of power out of the box and as many of us have proved leaves plenty of room for guys like us to wring more power out of them.

As for the road course, while your car does well at the track, I would be nervous running mine on a track. Maybe I'm overly cautious but I think with my setup things would get a little hot for those cast pistons....even though it runs very rich.

Hi IllSMOQ. In the referenced post ( "lookey here" ) it states: 05 srt with a set of forged pistons, cat back exhaust,and a vec 2.

The dyno graph does not show the A/F chart and 93 octane fuel was used. I remember the thread within which the post is contained. In the instant situation, we are dealing with cast pistons, 91 octane fuel and an 11.5 A/F across the chart. If I remember correctly, Joe indicated that the A/F on the car in his post was about 12.5 or there abouts - a significant difference. My questions regarding the numbers here were not meant to in any way impeach the poster's credibility. They go to the physics of the situation. I do not understand how the numbers ( 732RWHP/670RWTQ) can be produced with an 11.5 A/F and 91 octane fuel. Furthermore, based on the thread you mentioned, Joe made it clear that at the power levels he was obtaining forged pistons were a must. So I also do not understand, assuming that the 732RWHP/670RWTQ numbers are correct, how the tune is safe since it would appear to exceed the built in tolerance of the stock pistons per the comment of Joe and other tuners who have posted regarding Gen III mods.

 

[KenricGTS]

The Dyno that my Viper was on is from a well known tuner and respected tuner here in NM, and it pulled 704rwhp. Our NM Viper club was there and the other number pulled on the other stock Vipers were right within the range of other Dyno Jets.

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

See if sac or sears is open I'm not available tuesday afternoon or saturday day untill 4:00pm.

put it together Jonny.

I called both:

Infineon Raceway | Schedule | Dragstrip Schedule Not until March for them.

http://www.sacramentoraceway.com/ They are open on saturday's only, but today was rained out

Any others ?

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

The Dyno that my Viper was on is from a well known tuner and respected tuner here in NM, and it pulled 704rwhp. Our NM Viper club was there and the other number pulled on the other stock Vipers were right within the range of other Dyno Jets.

Kendric, what were you mods again (if any other then the paxton stock kit), and do you have your dyno files, or at least the chart print out? How about your AFR.

I'm guessing this would put the naysayers to rest on your car.

I'll do the same with mine, once I get the print out and car back from day on Monday.

Jon

 

[KenricGTS]

Jon, I have the print out. I can have them e-mail my file and send it to you. I don't know how to post it. Mods where basic Paxton Corsa and tune. I have since put on the DLM goodies and a DC tune as well as a lower thomostat.

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

If you want to email it/them to me, I'm more then happy to help with posting them, the files would be great, as they are the most accurate and I can make jpgs out of them for clearest viewing.

I'll pm you my email addy.

Jon

 

[Bobpantax]

Please make sure the temperature, relative humidity and barametric pressure are indicated and visible on the posts. Please also make sure the A/F and boost levels are shown across the RPM levels. This data will help. However, regardless of the graphs, the real issue is what is permitting the observed power levels. 704 RWHP is approximately 50 RWHP above the average I have seen on this board for Kenric's set up. 734 RWHP is about 84 RWHP above the norm. Assuming for discussion purposes the data is correct, there has to be a mechanical explanation of what is occurring and I do not think that it is explained by "I got a good one from the factory". I suspect that the A/F is leaner than thought and the boost levels higher. If so, one or both tunes may be beyond the safe levels for cast pistons. The graphs should help. Use of 100 octane fuel would, as Mark J said, account for higher numbers but per the posts above, Kenric was at 93 octane and GTS ACR was at 91 octane.

 

[ILLSMOQ]

Hi IllSMOQ. In the referenced post ( "lookey here" ) it states: 05 srt with a set of forged pistons, cat back exhaust,and a vec 2.

The dyno graph does not show the A/F chart and 93 octane fuel was used. I remember the thread within which the post is contained. In the instant situation, we are dealing with cast pistons, 91 octane fuel and an 11.5 A/F across the chart. If I remember correctly, Joe indicated that the A/F on the car in his post was about 12.5 or there abouts - a significant difference. My questions regarding the numbers here were not meant to in any way impeach the poster's credibility. They go to the physics of the situation. I do not understand how the numbers ( 732RWHP/670RWTQ) can be produced with an 11.5 A/F and 91 octane fuel. Furthermore, based on the thread you mentioned, Joe made it clear that at the power levels he was obtaining forged pistons were a must. So I also do not understand, assuming that the 732RWHP/670RWTQ numbers are correct, how the tune is safe since it would appear to exceed the built in tolerance of the stock pistons per the comment of Joe and other tuners who have posted regarding Gen III mods.

I brought up the car Joe tuned because it is pretty close to stock ( forged pistons don't add power they just allow the motor to handle more power) and made over 700rwhp with the tune. I'm not so sure that there is a "safe" tune when you get to and above 700rwhp on cast pistons.

 

[ILLSMOQ]

Jon, I have the print out. I can have them e-mail my file and send it to you. I don't know how to post it. Mods where basic Paxton Corsa and tune. I have since put on the DLM goodies and a DC tune as well as a lower thomostat.

I thought you said you got the tune after your car pulled 704.

 

[ILLSMOQ]

I called both:

Infineon Raceway | Schedule | Dragstrip Schedule Not until March for them.

http://www.sacramentoraceway.com/ They are open on saturday's only, but today was rained out

Any others ?

I think that's about it...unless we take it to Mexico.

Oh well sorry Jon guess it's not gonna happen....I'm sure you would have run better times than me anyway.

 

[KenricGTS]

Yes you are right, that number was before the tune. You will see that my car ran Very rich then flattened out. I faxed my Dyno print out to DC they may even still have it. They tuned my car based on that dyno print out. I will re-dyno and see what she pulls, don't expect more peak HP just more power under the curve. My DLM car that someone has that is on this board pulled real close to 900rwhp on 91 pump. In any case Paxton Vipers can get close to and in some cases over 700rwhp when cool, but as we all know, when hot you loose alot of power do to heat soat.

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

Bob, I'm afraid I don't see you as the foremost expert on the paxton setups. I more so see you as novice trying to understand how things work, but are in denial until its spelled out for you. Thats fine, thats your choice.

As far as 'safe' I am simply refering to AFR of less then 12.0 across the board. Meaning, the engine will NOT burn up from being lean. I guess you dont understand that 11.5 is NOT lean, but thats fine, you'll hopefully someday get there. As far as what the Hypereutectic pistons (not 'cast') can handle, is anyones guess/bet. But when your not going lean, and your not spark knocking, they certainly have a much higher chance of success. My exhaust and Tune make me FAR from 'the normal' group, and so I should NOT have the 'average' numbers for a paxton basic setup. I'm not basic.

I dont have more boost, I am actually a little 'boost eveny' of Illsmoq because he's got 10 lbs going in his motor without any current issue (I'm way to scared for that one). I have the stock pulley with the stock seal from Paxton, I'd take a photo of it to prove it, but I tire of this whole thing. I'm glad these numbers are so above average they cause contraversy. I'll enjoy being that guy.

On to what I do care about... Kurtis... Maybe we could get a street 'pull' in there but I really have STRONG reservations about that. I too would like to see the difference in the two cars, you certainly have a strong machine, and I'd like to see how the two faired against each other, but the risk isnt worth the 'reward' of knowing. Maybe we could at least go for a drive and we could swap cars, and see the difference in types of power. Dont know, but it would be nice to compare the two... oh well.

I agree I'd run better times, not because I'm cocky, its that I have drag raced enough to know the keys to successful runs. Would your car do 10s? Yup... No doubt, I did that with 640 rwhp, and you got PLENTY more then that. Could you do it? I dont know, you dont seem to be a fan of drag racing.

Oh well, I'm excited about the car coming back tomorrow! Lets get together sometime during the week and see if we can get some driving time in there.

Jon

 

[ILLSMOQ]

10 Day Weather Forecast for San Jose, CA (95135) - weather.com

how's tuesday?

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

See you on Tuesday for Lunch!

 

[ILLSMOQ]

son of a *****

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

hahhahaha... That looks BROKEN to me !! Hey Don't worry DLM will offer you a replacement FOR FREE. Thats what we need a lifetime replacements of parts that ****!! (nah, I'd get something else if I was you. BTW DC Performance index's the Paxton Tensioners, look into that as a better option).

Ok, I wont keep going. I think it took a lot for Kurtis to admit the DLM tensioner broke, I thank him for his honesty.

Jon

 

[Bobpantax]

Hi GTS ACR. Producing the requested data would be helpful to those of us who like precise data in order to undertsand the posted results. Some are less strict with their data requirements and that is their choice. You started out saying the A/F did not exceed 11.5 across the RPM range. In a post above, you now say it is less than 12. Which is it? Posting the dyno data including temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and A/F and boost levels across the entire RPM range would be useful. You are about 82 horsepower above the norm for your mods. That did not happen by itself. Since you have represented yourself to be an expert, perhaps you can explain to those of us that are not the mechanics of how this power level was achieved on 91 octane fuel at, using your original data, an 11.5 A/F ratio. You also might want to explain how the engine's durability will not be impacted by a result which is about 82 horsepower above the norm without changing the pistons.

 

[ILLSMOQ]

hahhahaha... That looks BROKEN to me !! Hey Don't worry DLM will offer you a replacement FOR FREE. Thats what we need a lifetime replacements of parts that ****!! (nah, I'd get something else if I was you. BTW DC Performance index's the Paxton Tensioners, look into that as a better option).

Ok, I wont keep going. I think it took a lot for Kurtis to admit the DLM tensioner broke, I thank him for his honesty.

Jon

I didn't take much for me to admit it broke! I went to change out my bad power steering pump (to get ready for tuesday ) and to my suprise the tensioner was missing the loop on the end of it! I was laughing so hard..I couldn't believe it, after all my talk...anyway, I'll tell it how is and call it like I see it. I not mad at Doug, I knew what this part was when I put it on the car and expected it or something to fail sooner or later and like I said before it's not an expecive piece so it's no big deal....the damn thing worked while it was together!

Jon! I think you either snuck over my house and broke the thing when I wan't looking or threw some bad luck my way ..!..

So anyway I just finished clocking the paxton tensioner. I drilled another hole in the plate it mounts to for the locator pin on the tensioner and just finished with putting it back together. The belt feels snug. I'll get the data log the split second and see if it holds....otherwise I'll either repair the DLM part ( got some ideas on how to make it better) of get another one from Doug....or maybe just look at upgrading the whole pully set up sooner than I thought.

 

[ILLSMOQ]

Many of us have had problems with different vendors while others have had good luck with them...whatcha ya gonna do?

anyway do you have a better idea on how to stop the belt slippage issue?

.....the guys post was deleted

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

Hi GTS ACR. Producing the requested data would be helpful to those of us who like precise data in order to undertsand the posted results. Some are less strict with their data requirements and that is their choice. You started out saying the A/F did not exceed 11.5 across the RPM range. In a post above, you now say it is less than 12. Which is it? Posting the dyno data including temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and A/F and boost levels across the entire RPM range would be useful. You are about 82 horsepower above the norm for your mods. That did not happen by itself. Since you have represented yourself to be an expert, perhaps you can explain to those of us that are not the mechanics of how this power level was achieved on 91 octane fuel at, using your original data, an 11.5 A/F ratio. You also might want to explain how the engine's durability will not be impacted by a result which is about 82 horsepower above the norm without changing the pistons.

Please quote where I say 'its less then 12' in reference to what my car CURRENTLY does for AFR ? I said one thing about what its current AFR ration is and I said its got a solid 11.5 across the range. I have NOT said its 12 and under. (although those who are 'sceintific' as you state certainly would agree 11.5 is under 12.) So I guess my car is BOTH less then 12, AND 11.5 ... crazy how that works huh? But to be more SPECIFIC. Its 11.5 across the board. (Per Dan).

What you may not have read closely enough is that to ME... anything under 12.0 is SAFE for AFR on a boosted car. I think 11.99 and below is not lean, and is a great place to be. I think going into 10.99 and below is TOO fat, and will be too rich and cause to much soot/carbon/black smoke and hurt power.

I whole heartedly dissagree that I am 83 hp above the 'average' for my mods. Instead I demand YOU prove that the 500+ Paxton kits that are out there today, show an average hp rating where you say it is. Please provide COMPLETE data showing this. NOW. Otherwise, I'm done wasting my time with you.

Next, Every HP over stock I feel takes life away from the motor, just like every rpm past a certain point in the rev range also takes life away from the motor. A STOCK car is definitely going to have MORE engine life over a modified car all things equal. More strain = more chance of breakage. What I am and was talking about is that 'safe' AFR is below 12 and that has been achieved by dan (again 11.5 is below 12, I can get a chart out showing you that too). So by my car having a solid afr 11.5 across the board, the motor is FAR safer then if it was running around in the mid 12's for AFR or heaven forbid 13s.

Every hp you add to a car, you put the associated parts that are left dealing with it under more strain. Your car is definitely LESS RELIABLE then it was stock.... Sorry.

Jon

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

hhahahah... hey what happen to that long post of the guy ranting about how Doug /DLM screwed him, and 'he was nothing but a crook'? (it was between Illsmoq's photo and mine) It doesnt even show post deleted, its just gone!!

He even Slammed MikeyR for being an *** kisser..

And thats what Kurtis responded to about some people having success with vendors and other people not....

Is this the mods hard at work ?? Odd...

 

[Bobpantax]

Please quote where I say 'its less then 12' in reference to what my car CURRENTLY does for AFR ? I said one thing about what its current AFR ration is and I said its got a solid 11.5 across the range. I have NOT said its 12 and under. (although those who are 'sceintific' as you state certainly would agree 11.5 is under 12.) So I guess my car is BOTH less then 12, AND 11.5 ... crazy how that works huh? But to be more SPECIFIC. Its 11.5 across the board. (Per Dan).

What you may not have read closely enough is that to ME... anything under 12.0 is SAFE for AFR on a boosted car. I think 11.99 and below is not lean, and is a great place to be. I think going into 10.99 and blow is TOO fat, and will be too rich and cause to much soot/carbon/black smoke.

I whole heartedly dissagree that I am 83 hp above the 'average' for my mods. Instead I demand YOU prove that the 500+ Paxton kits that are out there today, show an average hp rating where you say it is. Please provide COMPLETE data showing this. NOW. Otherwise, I'm done wasting my time with you.

Next, Every HP over stock I feel takes life away from the motor, just like every rpm past a certain point in the rev range also takes life away from the motor. A STOCK car is definitely going to have MORE engine life over a modified car all things equal. More strain = more chance of breakage. What I am and was talking about is that 'safe' AFR is below 12 and that has been achieved by dan (again 11.5 is below 12, I can get a chart out showing you that too). So by my car having a solid afr 11.5 across the board, the motor is FAR safer then if it was running around in the mid 12's for AFR or heaven forbid 13s.

Every hp you add to a car, you put the associated parts that are left dealing with it under more strain. Your car is definitely LESS RELIABLE then it was stock.... Sorry.

Jon

Hi. Let's get back to basics. How about just posting the requested data. Then those who are reading this thread can look at that data and chime in with their respective views if they choose to do so. As to stats, I will defer to the Paxton web site, a number of Mark J's posts ( including the one in this thread where he is being tactful but informative ), a number of posts from other well known tuners over the years, results from our local chapter's dyno days ( we have quite a few members with stock Paxton kits), and basic common science and mechanical sense. The figures listed for the stock kit application cluster around the 650 RWHP level. Paxton claims about a 200 horsepower gain which is actually a bit less than the 650 RWHP level. You claim 732 RWHP. If you can suspend your defense posture for just a moment, you should be able to see that something does not make sense based on the assertion that 91 octane fuel was used and the A/F was 11.5. If it was me who got the 732 RWHP result, I would be less intent on proving you wrong and more intent on understanding how the result was possible given the octane and A/F used. A very wise person once said: "If it is too good to be true, it ain't true." In this instance, 732 RWHP on 91 octane fuel and a 11.5 A/F ratio is too good to be true. I am not questioning your credibility. I am questioning your unwaivering belief in data that does not make sense.

 

[Doug Supercharged Vipers]

IllSMOQ,

Ouch! Allow me the honer of replacing your tensioner free of charge. I'd like to remedy the problem to the best of my ability

I hate to see this happen at any cost!

Unfortunately, I can't make them much stronger; If I did something more expensive would have broken.

Best regards,
Doug Levin

 

[ILLSMOQ]

On the air/fuel it's all about the tune and the fuel system. More timing and more fuel ( PBJ pushed that car to 878 using the paxton fuel system) as long as you know what you're doing while tuning the tuner should be able to get the ratio where he wants it. 11.5 is generally considered safe but some people consider 12 safe...even 12.5.

also the 91 octane may be adding a few ponies to Jon's rwhp number....compared to others (like me) who run a higher octane mix.

 

[ILLSMOQ]

IllSMOQ,

Ouch! Allow me the honer of replacing your tensioner free of charge. I'd like to remedy the problem to the best of my ability

I hate to see this happen at any cost!

Unfortunately, I can't make them much stronger; If I did something more expensive would have broken.

Best regards,
Doug Levin

Thanks Doug, I figured you'd send just send me another one.

I agree if it were stronger something else might have broke or worn out. I went to the hardware store and bought this spherical rod end.

You must be registered for see images attach

The plan was to weld the new end to the rod, bore out the mount and add a jam nut to the rod to allow the whole rod to rotate in the mount while tightening. It would be much stronger, but I am not interested in finding out what the next weakest link is going to be

since the little loop would be replaced with a heavier rod end, this would probably put more stress on the bolt holding the threaded mount to the paxton mounting plate......hmm I'll call you during the week Doug and talk to you about it.

 

[Bobpantax]

On the air/fuel it's all about the tune and the fuel system. More timing and more fuel ( PBJ pushed that car to 878 using the paxton fuel system) as long as you know what you're doing while tuning the tuner should be able to get the ratio where he wants it. 11.5 is generally considered safe but some people consider 12 safe...even 12.5.

also the 91 octane may be adding a few ponies to Jon's rwhp number....compared to others (like me) who run a higher octane mix.

If timing is advanced on the stock Paxton system beyond normal sugggested parameters, a higher octane fuel would likely need to be used or the car would ping. Those of us who had Roe units on our Gen IIs learned alot about this phenomenon because of the need to change cards ( caused programming change) and fuel for different performance levels. I had a 91 octane card, a 93 octane card, and a race fuel octane card. The system at issue here is the stock Paxton system. If the timing was advanced to the point where 732 RWHP was produced, the car would have pinged like a door chime on 91 octane fuel. Also, more power means a bigger explosion in the cylinders. The stock pistons have a limit. Paxton knew this limit and developed their kit with it in mind. Tuners are not magicians. They are bound by the same rules of physics as everyone else.

Until the detailed data requested on a number of occasions above is made available, it will be difficult to reach a conclusion on what happened here. The numbers do not make sense based on an 11.5 A/F ratio and 91 octane. And, even if there was some way that the numbers did make sense, the power level is too high based on stock piston specs. I have seen people, using a laptop, play games with the split second box for dyno test purposes and then reset the split second unit to normal parameters immediately after the test. I am not saying that this was done here. I am just saying that I have seen it done. I have also seen a person add some race fuel to their tank for a dyno test which resulted in a noticeable increase in HP. Once again. I am not saying that happened here. I am just saying that I have seen it done.

My goal has been to try and illicit a detailed, logical explanation for the numbers posted. This benefits the membership. So far, neither the poster nor anyone else has explained the exact mechanics of what occurred; how it occurred and why it occurred. And, like I said before, it is not because the poster got a good one from the factory.

 

[Tom F&L GoR]

On the air/fuel it's all about the tune and the fuel system. More timing and more fuel ( PBJ pushed that car to 878 using the paxton fuel system) as long as you know what you're doing while tuning the tuner should be able to get the ratio where he wants it. 11.5 is generally considered safe but some people consider 12 safe...even 12.5.

also the 91 octane may be adding a few ponies to Jon's rwhp number....compared to others (like me) who run a higher octane mix.

Can you explain this comment? The energy content per gallon (i.e. more or less BTUs in 91 octane vs. 93 octane) becomes a minor effect since the air/fuel is rich. The higher octane may perform better because pump 93 octane "may" have more ethanol, so the cooling effect is greater. If you were comparing to "race gas" with even higher octane, then for some reason the engine can't take advantage of the octane?

 

[wastntim]

I can't believe you guys put 2002 gts acr in a position to say he was right. How could this happen? If his ego wasn't big enough already.

 

[ILLSMOQ]

Can you explain this comment? The energy content per gallon (i.e. more or less BTUs in 91 octane vs. 93 octane) becomes a minor effect since the air/fuel is rich. The higher octane may perform better because pump 93 octane "may" have more ethanol, so the cooling effect is greater. If you were comparing to "race gas" with even higher octane, then for some reason the engine can't take advantage of the octane?

no Tom, I think you could better expain how octane works than I can. The advantage I'm refering to is minimal at best anyway 5-10 hp...maybe? It's not like Jons numbers are crazy huge but they are high than most with similar mods so I pointed to his 91 octane as another contributer to his higher than most number.

I was comaparing to a higher octane blend, not 93. For instance I usually fill up with about 10 gallons of 100 ocatane and top it off with 91 octane. My understanding is the lower the octane, the faster the burn. With that comes a higher chance for detonation since the mix starts to burn faster. Almost like advancing the timeing a hair. That's how I have understood it. Set me straight if that's not correct. I would like to inderstand fuel and timing better, I'd like to be able to tune my engine myself rather than drive 4 hours to go see Dan.