|
|
|
| Forums | Media Gallery | Classifieds | Chat | Membership | Marketplace | How-Tos |
| |||||||
| Register | All Albums | Blogs | FAQ | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| General Viper Discussion For non-model specific Viper questions and discussions. Sponsored by: PartsRack.com |
![]() |
|
|
#31 |
|
what simms said....Tony and Kevin are not even close to being standard or even good drivers....take them out of this to really compare.
__________________
510 Stroker, Greg Good heads, DLM Paxton, Rebuilt and Tuned by DLM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | |
|
Quote:
So its a trade off. Any forced induction engine is going to add more heat and reduce engine life and increase metal fatigue, etc. But exactly how much engine life is lost is not an exact science. So, if running at 700 rwhp makes my engine poop at 70,000 miles instead of say, 90,000 miles...so be it. The fun factor makes up for the difference in my opinion. And I know about the argument of "dont knock it until u try it" when it comes to going to 800, 900, or even 1,000 rwhp. But I also know my car is plenty fast and plenty fun now. I aslo know how fast I close on traffic and and how fast things happen with my current power, so going to "the dark side" is not something that seems practical to me, or usable...so, 700-775 rwhp is enough for me at this time. But...you never know. ![]()
__________________
blk 04 SRT bullet-proof NA motor by Tator, ported heads, comp cam, Belanger exhaust, VEC 3, comp oil pan, roll bar, nav, 08 Lemke hood, 528 rwhp/557 rwtq Support Chuck Tator !!!!!!!!!!
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Constitution State
Posts: 1,327
|
Does anyone have the general rwhp/tq numbers for a 5# Roe kit on a stock engine with headers and full exhaust?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
tator has installed a ton of that combo im sure....call chuck
__________________
510 Stroker, Greg Good heads, DLM Paxton, Rebuilt and Tuned by DLM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10
|
Got the belt slip worked out a little bit better now, going back out to the 1/4 tomorrow evening. I'll post vid/times tomorrow night. Shooting for sub 10.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
steve, isnt that kinda HIGH for those mods and boost ?
i thought it was more like 530rhp
__________________
510 Stroker, Greg Good heads, DLM Paxton, Rebuilt and Tuned by DLM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |
|
Quote:
We got a strong one I guess. I think 540-560 HP is about normal. I got a dyno sheet with the car from the original install (Dynojet machine -- sniffer up the tailpipe) in 2003. It was 554HP/586TQ. After I upgraded the VEC to log and installed a WB, I found those numbers were produced with WOT AFR running 9.6 to 10.2 or so. I removed lots of fuel and am now running about 11.6 - 11.8 AFR. Sean told me this is the high end HP for a 5 pounder. If gearing works conversely....then the 3.07 gears with 19" tires (2.92 effective rate) might add a tad. A 2008 Viper, with the controller mod and exhaust, dynoed a couple cars after me and turned around 570 HP? 545 TQ? (or close). I can get the exact numbers if needed. The lesson learned is always use a WB near the engine for more accurate dyno tuning. Steve |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
CO/UT VCA Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Lindon, UT
Posts: 491
|
What is the SAE HP? That is some good numbers for a 5lb system.
__________________
99 650R GTS ROE SC 715 RWHP & 756 RWTQ 2003 Heffner twin turbo Red SRT 2008 SRT Couple 100% stock 11.19 and Best mph 129.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15
|
Boy I tell you what - sorry to hijack this thread, but i'm a ferrari owner, and this is the reason why i'm in the market for a viper!!
These cars are just amazing!! I'm an inch away from kicking the italian to the curb!! Just wanted to let you guys know!!! Totally amazing and impressive! Thanks all! Bobby |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
CO/UT VCA Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Lindon, UT
Posts: 491
|
Typically the dyno operator can simply change it from std to sae. The sae is the corrected number. I think it corrects to a standard barometric pressure, sea level conditions, and around 70 degrees ambient temp. When I dyno my car at a dynojet the correction factor(to make it SAE) is anywhere from 14-22%. I live at 4500ft and thus lose power becuase of the air density.
You will sometimes see guys dyno their car during the winter months at sea level and have a negative correction factor. It supposed to put everyone on a level playing field. I see that your dyno runs were in the morning. If you had an unusually cold morning with very dense air then you might have a negative correction factor, if you are at sea level. However, more than likely your number will go up because it was probably not "ideal conditions".
__________________
99 650R GTS ROE SC 715 RWHP & 756 RWTQ 2003 Heffner twin turbo Red SRT 2008 SRT Couple 100% stock 11.19 and Best mph 129.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 | |
|
Quote:
Steve |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#44 | |
|
Quote:
And believe it or not, Vipers are more "exotic" than Ferrari's in that there are fewer Vipers around than Ferrari's. The final point that sealed my decision was how easily the Viper can be modified, whereas it is difficult and very expensive, very very expensive to modify Ferrari's, any Ferrari for meaningful power. Welcome to the forum!
__________________
blk 04 SRT bullet-proof NA motor by Tator, ported heads, comp cam, Belanger exhaust, VEC 3, comp oil pan, roll bar, nav, 08 Lemke hood, 528 rwhp/557 rwtq Support Chuck Tator !!!!!!!!!!
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#45 | |
|
Enthusiast
Join Date: May 1998
Posts: 5,638
|
Quote:
SAE J1349 Update: In August 2004 the SAE released J1349 Revised AUG2004 which specifies that the preferred method of determining the friction power used by the motor accessories is actual measurement, and that the assumption of 85% mechanical efficiency (as formerly used in SAE J1349 Revision JUN90) should only be used when actual friction data are not available. The equation for computing brake horsepower, assuming 85% mechanical efficiency, was very slightly revised (and is presented here converted to use pressure in mb) as: ![]() The J1349 AUG2004 revision also makes it clear that this correction factor is not intended to provide accurate corrections over an extremely wide range, but rather that the intended range of air temperatures is 15 to 35 deg C, and the intended range of dry air pressures is 900 to 1050 mb. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 171
|
I've ran high 9's on invo's running 12lbs of boost. Car is a 98 TT GTS from UGR. Mine has a TH400 tranny, so can't compare to a 6 speed. I went 9.90's at rockingham on mopar day only going 6.65 through the 1/8th. It had rained for 4 days straight prior to event so mid track was a mess. I can drive to the track on pump gas and run 6.30's all day. Once the temps go down I'm confident I'll run 9.60's on 12lbs of boost on Invo's. Obviously could turn it up, but I don't think the ET will change that much, just the MPH. On pass time on speed tv, I blew the tires off midtrack, got sideways, got it straight and went through at 150 in the 1/4 on 15lbs of boost on Invo's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 | |
|
Quote:
592.6 HP (std was 593.1) 616.8 TQ (std was 635.8) The 2008 Viper tested pretty much right after me was 565.3 HP and 533 TQ. His runs were juxtaposed for results. His other run was 559 HP and 536 TQ (SAE corrected) Steve |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
saw one run a 7.41 at the mopar nats this weekend, dual turbos i think.
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ITB's and forced induction | 03gobluecobra | SRT10 and SRT10 Coupe Discussions | 9 | 10-23-2006 07:22 PM |
| Forced induction is seductive but | GTS Bruce | RT/10 and GTS Discussions | 16 | 09-01-2006 07:36 PM |
| Forced induction question? | arian23 | RT/10 and GTS Discussions | 22 | 01-16-2006 06:38 PM |
| FORCED AIR INDUCTION | ronviper | RT/10 and GTS Discussions | 0 | 05-06-2004 11:19 AM |
| Forced induction madness!! | Gerald | RT/10 and GTS Discussions | 0 | 01-30-2002 07:38 AM |