732 RWHP / 670 RWTQ Thanks to DC Performance and Woodhouse

[ILLSMOQ]

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.

jeez...I know But look, that part was designed as a bandaid for a problem that should not have existed in the first place. It was designed to be put into place after the whole supercharger kit is installed in the vehicle and there really isn't much room in that location to begin with. The part worked as advertised, and Doug said he'll replace the part if there is a problem. You get what yo pay for and this part didn't cost much

The real fix would be to go to a wider pully system with more belt wrap around the pullies (doug has this as well but it isn't cheap) or put more tension on the existing belt with a stronger tensioner or clock the existing one (more tension runs the risk of putting too much pressure on other components)

So I'll take the risk and I clocked the tensionor last night. I'll test it out later today if I have time...tomorrow for sure

 

[Bobpantax]

Wider pulleys could mean more weight. More weight could mean more stress on the nose bearings of the supercharger and other components. Another alternative is to live without the tensioner and within the confines of the stock kit components like many of us do. I have 14,000 plus miles on my car now and it is still the wonderful automotive creation that the only Certified Woodhouse Performance Edition SRTC Viper in existence should be.

 

[ILLSMOQ]

Wider pulleys could mean more weight. More weight could mean more stress on the nose bearings of the supercharger and other components. Another alternative is to live without the tensioner and within the confines of the stock kit components like many of us do. I have 14,000 plus miles on my car now and it is still the wonderful automotive creation that the only Certified Woodhouse Performance Edition SRTC Viper in existence should be.

No, not that much more weight. You would be going from an 8 rib to a 10 or 12 rib belt, I'm not sure how much wider dougs kit is. Going to the wider pullies would put less stress on the pullies than more tension from a stronger tensioner.

BOB! come on man.....did you just suggest we should leave the kit in it's stock form? If you're going there , why not just leave the car totally stock all together?!?!

500 rwhp wasn't enough, 640 rwhp wasn't enough, now 700rwhp isn't enough...I need more.

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

lol. My thread has a life of its own. I'm going to sitback and watch this now.. lol.. Its a lot more fun in the passenger seat.

And as far as Bob... its like he talks out both sides of his mouth. First keep it 'stock' paxton, for reliabiilty or some other nonsense, but then... Why didnt you leave your car stock for the ultimate reliability. You're NOT about to state that Stock cars become more reliable when you add a paxton kit to it? Are you? hahahaha... oh bob..

Jon

 

[wastntim]

lol. My thread has a life of its own. I'm going to sitback and watch this now.. lol.. Its a lot more fun in the passenger seat.

And as far as Bob... its like he talks out both sides of his mouth. First keep it 'stock' paxton, for reliabiilty or some other nonsense, but then... Why didnt you leave your car stock for the ultimate reliability. You're NOT about to state that Stock cars become more reliable when you add a paxton kit to it? Are you? hahahaha... oh bob..

Jon

Shouldn't you be packing instead of posting in here?

 

[plumcrazy]

the DLM on mine is a 10 rib belt. it HAS TO put more stress on the snout of the crank and less on the pulleys NO ?. its what ? 20% wider than an 8 rib maybe ? and extending it out further putting more stress on it.

 

[ILLSMOQ]

Shouldn't you be packing instead of posting in here?

What's he gonna pack? All he has here are a couple pairs of pants, 3 shirts and a single chromed ACR wheel...he can throw all that in the jeep in about 2 minutes...don't worry you'll have him back there soon enough

 

[ILLSMOQ]

the DLM on mine is a 10 rib belt. it HAS TO put more stress on the snout of the crank and less on the pulleys NO ?. its what ? 20% wider than an 8 rib maybe ? and extending it out further putting more stress on it.

By going to the wider pully set up, you're not really adding a critical amount of stress onto the crank snout, the fact that the pully sticks out 20 precent further does not translate to more pressure being leveraged onto the crank snout since the pully still starts in the same place. You should still be leveraging the a similar amount of pressure onto the crank snout ( maybe a little more since the pullies are a few ounces heavier.) The greater surface area of the wider belt reduces the chances of the belt actually slipping not more pressure being put onto the the whole pully system.

How about when the belt slips and then grabs again...how much of a shock is that putting onto the crank snout?

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

What's he gonna pack? All he has here are a couple pairs of pants, 3 shirts and a single chromed ACR wheel...he can throw all that in the jeep in about 2 minutes...don't worry you'll have him back there soon enough

Oh stop trying to be a tough guy, you were upset on the phone last night when you called me. Either your pissed your DLM sheet broke, or your upset I'm leaving.

I'm going with the upset I'm leaving.

Jon

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

Shouldn't you be packing instead of posting in here?

Wow, you're that excited to be getting me back, you just want me to hurry up an pack....

E-Z Robero', I'll be there soon enough. I know its been a tough 8 months for you.

 

[wastntim]

Wow, you're that excited to be getting me back, you just want me to hurry up an pack....

E-Z Robero', I'll be there soon enough. I know its been a tough 8 months for you.

I'm happy your coming back for two reasons:
1) I'm tired of hearing you boast about it being 80 degrees whiles it's negative five here, now you can suffer like I am;
2) I have a list of things I need done to my car before racing season, and with me having one dead arm, you will fit the bill just fine.

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

the bill just fine.

Expect a big one of those!

 

[Bobpantax]

No, not that much more weight. You would be going from an 8 rib to a 10 or 12 rib belt, I'm not sure how much wider dougs kit is. Going to the wider pullies would put less stress on the pullies than more tension from a stronger tensioner.

BOB! come on man.....did you just suggest we should leave the kit in it's stock form? If you're going there , why not just leave the car totally stock all together?!?!

500 rwhp wasn't enough, 640 rwhp wasn't enough, now 700rwhp isn't enough...I need more.

I am a firm believer in data and testing. From what I undertsand Paxton tested their kit extensively within the context of the available data on the existing tolerances of the stock Gen III engine. I also did some of my own due diligence with a then retired SRT person who now lives in Florida who appeared at one of our functions a few years ago. Unlike many who post here, I do not merely rely on tuner representations. The issue is not whether or not to leave the kit in its stock form. The issue is what else has to be modified in the engine to keep the same level of reliability and safety when the stock kit is enhanced. If you go to the DC Performance web site, or the Heffner web site, or a few other tuner web sites that have detailed descriptions of higher HP performance packages that employ a Novi 2000 supercharger which are beyond the stock kit's output, you will see that somewhat extensive internal engine mods are made. This is done in order to maintain engineering consistency. A bigger bang in the cylinder requires stronger parts for an acceptable level of safety,durability and reliability when RWHP gets beyond normal Paxton kit levels. All competent tuners know this and all prudent car owners should heed this. There is no such thing as a free performance lunch. Over the years since the sixties I have seen some pretty stupid things happen to some pretty impulsive, ignorant people who thought that they could modify one part of a closed system without regard to the other parts of that system. The worst instance was a young fellow without a scatter shield on his car whose flywheel and clutch blew up and nearly severed both his legs.

On another front, I guess we are never going to see the specific data I requested so time to move on from this dead horse. As far as I am concerned, the posted performance results, without corroborating data, are not credible.

 

[Tom F&L GoR]

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.

There are gasoline components that burn faster or slower, but I believe the mixture richness and compression ratio (or cylinder pressure if it's a supercharged engine) is a bigger factor in determining combustion rate. A little lean is faster, more lean faster yet, then even more lean is... boom. Octane is defined as the resistance to self-ignition caused by either heat or from the compression ahead of the combustion event. So by itself, octane does not define combustion rate at all.

 

[ILLSMOQ]

I am a firm believer in data and testing. From what I undertsand Paxton tested their kit extensively within the context of the available data on the existing tolerances of the stock Gen III engine. I also did some of my own due diligence with a then retired SRT person who now lives in Florida who appeared at one of our functions a few years ago. Unlike many who post here, I do not merely rely on tuner representations. The issue is not whether or not to leave the kit in its stock form. The issue is what else has to be modified in the engine to keep the same level of reliability and safety when the stock kit is enhanced. If you go to the DC Performance web site, or the Heffner web site, or a few other tuner web sites that have detailed descriptions of higher HP performance packages that employ a Novi 2000 supercharger which are beyond the stock kit's output, you will see that somewhat extensive internal engine mods are made. This is done in order to maintain engineering consistency. A bigger bang in the cylinder requires stronger parts for an acceptable level of safety,durability and reliability when RWHP gets beyond normal Paxton kit levels. All competent tuners know this and all prudent car owners should heed this. There is no such thing as a free performance lunch. Over the years since the sixties I have seen some pretty stupid things happen to some pretty impulsive, ignorant people who thought that they could modify one part of a closed system without regard to the other parts of that system. The worst instance was a young fellow without a scatter shield on his car whose flywheel and clutch blew up and nearly severed both his legs.

On another front, I guess we are never going to see the specific data I requested so time to move on from this dead horse. As far as I am concerned, the posted performance results, without corroborating data, are not credible.

You are 100% correct. In a nut shell, you gotta pay to play...I am however a bit of a thrill seeker, so I'm gonna see how long I can play with out paying for those internal engine mods....or at least see if I can make it to next winter. do you have a transmision blanket/scatter shield on your car?

 

[ILLSMOQ]

There are gasoline components that burn faster or slower, but I believe the mixture richness and compression ratio (or cylinder pressure if it's a supercharged engine) is a bigger factor in determining combustion rate. A little lean is faster, more lean faster yet, then even more lean is... boom. Octane is defined as the resistance to self-ignition caused by either heat or from the compression ahead of the combustion event. So by itself, octane does not define combustion rate at all.

Take Jons engine. Dyno it with th 91 octane and then dyno it with 100. Eliminate all other factors such as detonation and knock sensors...will it make the same power?

 

[Bobpantax]

I believe that Mark J already answered this question near the beginning of this thread. Higher octane fuel, at least in a stock Paxton application, can cause a power increase. I have also tested this theory a bit myself. And, certain timing requires certain octane levels. Note that on the DC Performance blower tune there is a warning that at least 93 octane gasoline must be used. Many high performance cars have this same warning. Next time you are at a dyno day where 100 octane fuel is available, bring your car with a half a tank of 93 octane. Then after a couple of runs and adequate cool down, add say seven gallons of 100 octane fuel and retest. Howver, if you have a 2006 Viper with a stock Paxton kit without the DC blower tune and the cats get really hot, the stock program floods the system with fuel to try and cool down the cats and the engine's performance goes to the dogs. The DC blower tune eliminates this problem. Sorry to beat the dead horse but the above is relevant to your inquiry.

 

[ILLSMOQ]

I believe that Mark J already answered this question near the beginning of this thread. Higher octane fuel, at least in a stock Paxton application, can cause a power increase. I have also tested this theory a bit myself. And, certain timing requires certain octane levels. Note that on the DC Performance blower tune there is a warning that at least 93 octane gasoline must be used. Many high performance cars have this same warning. Next time you are at a dyno day where 100 octane fuel is available, bring your car with a half a tank of 93 octane. Then after a couple of runs and adequate cool down, add say seven gallons of 100 octane fuel and retest. Howver, if you have a 2006 Viper with a stock Paxton kit without the DC blower tune and the cats get really hot, the stock program floods the system with fuel to try and cool down the cats and the engine's performance goes to the dogs. The DC blower tune eliminates this problem. Sorry to beat the dead horse but the above is relevant to your inquiry.

Mark didn't asnwer this question he only said the car that they had dyno'd made 73x rwhp on 100 octane.

My question was if you take all other facors out of the equation will 91 make more than 100 or vice versa or no differnence all.?

I think Tom should be able to answer this adequatly.

and Bob....I think you and I both have enough energy in us to beat this dead horse into fertilizer

 

[Dan Cragin]

I guess I should chime in here. The tune was done on our new Dynapack dyno. This dyno is really slick as it allows us to bolt up to the hubs on the car without the wheels on. This eliminates any wheel spin and gives us great load control for tuning. This new dyno reads much higher than our Dynojet. Most likely John's car would be closer to 700rwhp on the Dynojet.

The custom tune we do consists of a boost referenced split second calibration and a custom tune of the factory JTEC engine controller for the best air fuel. There is a lot we can do with the JTEC to improve the tune.

I hope this puts the numbers in perspective,

 

[ILLSMOQ]

I guess I should chime in here. The tune was done on our new Dynapack dyno. This dyno is really slick as it allows us to bolt up to the hubs on the car without the wheels on. This eliminates any wheel spin and gives us great load control for tuning. This new dyno reads much higher than our Dynojet. Most likely John's car would be closer to 700rwhp on the Dynojet.

The custom tune we do consists of a boost referenced split second calibration and a custom tune of the factory JTEC engine controller for the best air fuel. There is a lot we can do with the JTEC to improve the tune.

I hope this puts the numbers in perspective,

hmmm.....all of the sudden 2+2=4 and not 5 after all....

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

thanks clearing things up a bit Dan

 

[ILLSMOQ]

it's ok Jon I'll consider "closer to 700 rwhp on a dynojet" to mean "more than me" so you can keep the title.

 

[Bobpantax]

I guess I should chime in here. The tune was done on our new Dynapack dyno. This dyno is really slick as it allows us to bolt up to the hubs on the car without the wheels on. This eliminates any wheel spin and gives us great load control for tuning. This new dyno reads much higher than our Dynojet. Most likely John's car would be closer to 700rwhp on the Dynojet.

The custom tune we do consists of a boost referenced split second calibration and a custom tune of the factory JTEC engine controller for the best air fuel. There is a lot we can do with the JTEC to improve the tune.

I hope this puts the numbers in perspective,

Thank you for the data Dan. At least that explains 32 HP of the result but can you explain how that much power can be produced without advancing the timing to the point where more than 91 octane fuel is required? Or, to put it another way, how that much power can be produced on 91 octane fuel without the engine pinging like a door chime?

I am running the blower tune you put together for me pursuant to Mark J's request and a dyno sheet sent to you by Mark done with my car. My car has the stock kit with Corsa cat back. With your blower tune, at 86 degrees F, 30.18 in - Hg and 46% humidity STD 1.02, 93 octane fuel, Smoothing: 5, I produced 669.03 RWHP and 617.68 RWTQ. I also had midrange power increases of 30 to 50 RWHP. ( By the way thank you. It worked well at Homestead Speedway.)

Also, at 700 RWHP aren't you really cutting into the safety margin on the stock engine with the stock pistons and related components? Thank you in advance for your answers to the above questions.

Best,

Bob

PS. I think I smell the odor of California crow cooking somewhere in Silicon valley. LOL.

 

[Bobpantax]

hmmm.....all of the sudden 2+2=4 and not 5 after all....

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

thanks clearing things up a bit Dan

What it means is that the result was inflated by the use of a different type of dyno that unlike a Mustang dyno requires a downward adjustment to arrive at the correct power figure instead of an upward adjustment - with a Dynojet result being somewhere in the middle of the two. Now, if Dan is kind enough to answer the questions posed above, we will get to the bottom of the rest of the mystery. Like I said above, tuners are not magicians and are bound by the same laws of physics as evryone else.

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

lol.. Well maybe it wont be this whole 'the world is going to end and your engine is going to blow up' or 'you're lieing' thing this turned out to be. I gave the exact numbers I got from Dan on the phone. I knew nothing about this 'dyno pack' change. Last time I was there it was dyno jet, so I rightfully assumed that it was still a dyno jet.

I guess this takes the mystery out of it all.. Or maybe someone can find some conversion for dyno pack to dynojet. And we can compare apples to apples, as I thought we were originally

I guess it is what it is..

Jon

 

[Tom F&L GoR]

Take Jons engine. Dyno it with th 91 octane and then dyno it with 100. Eliminate all other factors such as detonation and knock sensors...will it make the same power?

If both fuels run at least a little rich, timing isn't changed, then fundamentally it should make the same power.

but...

you never know for sure because if one fuel (could be either octane) is closer to stoichiometric it will have a quicker bang. Or the other fuel could be farther away (richer) and the excess fuel cools the intake charge for a bigger bang. which is better, Quicker or Bigger... which gets into combustion chamber shape, crank angle geometry, and other reasons I'll come up with to say that it shouldn't matter but probably does.

If you knew more about the two fuels beyond octane I could make up some more excuses.

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

PS. BTW, if your still buying, we could get some dyno time in on Tuesday and end all this Kurtis

Let me know, call your boyz.

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

I produced 669.03 RWHP and 617.68 RWTQ.

Sounds to me like you have small power syndrome and are jeleous of those who have more. Those are unimpressive numbers, I certainly have dynojet numbers rivalling that before Dan's switch to dynopack.

 

[99 R/T 10]

It's funny, all you guys arguing over dyno numbers, yet you should be discussing why you made a 11.2 and not a 10.9 because you missed a shift from 2nd to 3rd.

My best time on street tires and no NOS is a 10.6(small little stock block Roe ). Let me know when you DYNOQUEENS get it on a track and prove those number to be true....................................

 

[Bobpantax]

Sounds to me like you have small power syndrome and are jeleous of those who have more. Those are unimpressive numbers, I certainly have dynojet numbers rivalling that before Dan's switch to dynopack.

Funny post. My mission was and is to find out the correct answers to a few basic questions. I posted my numbers to refresh Dan's recollection. I hope that Dan responds. I will defer to your knowledge and expertise with respect to "small power syndrome". I am unfamiliar with it. I assume it is a Northern California behavioral manifestation prevalent in the Silcon Valley area. It seems to go hand in hand with false assumption syndrome which seems to have been prominently exhibited by the first post in this thread. LQ.

 

[2002_Viper_GTS_ACR]

Funny post. My mission was and is to find out the correct answers to a few basic questions. I posted my numbers to refresh Dan's recollection. I hope that Dan responds. I will defer to your knowledge and expertise with respect to "small power syndrome". I am unfamiliar with it. I assume it is a Northern California behavioral manifestation prevalent in the Silcon Valley area. It seems to go hand in hand with false assumption syndrome which seems to have been prominently exhibited by the first post in this thread. LQ.

You can clearly finding it in your dyno sheet. And it seems to be in its earliest of phases, because your still in the denail phase. Good luck with that Bobby.