 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Ondonti
...mike has an obsession with stating the 3.0 runs 14's with 130whp which is physicaly impossible. Mike uses his crappy dyno sheet to verify his claims about that even though its physically impossible.
|
  |
Be careful discussing other people's "obsessions" Brent. I never said that 3.0s run 14s at 130whp. On the contrary, what I did say was that I have all of the "typical" mods and am not making anywhere near the power you claim. ...and for that matter I have had 2 different blocks in the car and 2 separate sets of heads on the car so we can't blame those. ...I've also had a 3.0 car bone stock in my driveway to compare the other one to as well as a stock 24v 3.0 Eclipse. My "crappy dynojet plot" backs up my seat-of-the-pants dyne used in the car-to-car comparisons.
Perhaps you and a couple others are making more power than that or perhaps your cars are lighter than you think they are. I honestly don't know which it is. Regardless with the typical bolt-ons people add, most 3.0s do not make close to 200hp and it's very frustrating to watch you mislead people and make childish comments about "kicking the dyne operator in the balls" when someone else starts discussing mods and gains. You really need to cut out the all-knowing arrogance, take a step back, and think a bit. Most likely, there are a combination of differences contributing the difference in power you and I are observing. My guess is that you probably have done something subtle that we don't know about that is bumping up your power. Your car is probably also lighter than you think it is. That is my best guess. All I know is that if John Q TurboDodger throws in a j/y 3.0, slaps the normal bolt-ons onto it, and hits the track, he isn't going to be making the output you claim and he's going to be very disappointed. Been there/done that.
Quote: |
Originally Posted by Ondonti
I just don't want to see you doing the same down talk of the 12v. It pisses me off, especially when there is nothing to back up the dyno numbers. There is a good 30-40whp difference between the 3.0's running 14's and the ones running high 15/low 16.
|
|
I don't think I'm down talking the 3.0. I simply state facts as I see them based on my own observation and experimentation. I love the 3.0 and have tinkered with mine enough to know what is real and what isn't. You are no more an "expert" than I however the tone with which you address others is often that of an all knowing 3.0 god rather than that of a college student learning as you go. It's that attitude that has led to the rifts that have emerged between you and some of the other experts out there. I like you Brent, but as time goes on, I find myself rolling my eyes at your posts more and more. We're on the same team here. We have the same goal.
"Nothing to back up those dyno numbers." As we've discussed, my drag strip driving isn't very good. ...and as a result, if you take my time slips and run them through an HP calculator, you get far worse power than my "crappy dyno sheet". I'll bet $100 that if even you drove my car it wouldn't exceed that sheet. If you lived in Chicago, I'd pay to put your car and mine on the same dyne back to back to end the debate. We'd either see that you're making a lot more power (which would throw us into the search for why) or you'd be sorely disappointed.
Quote: |
Originally Posted by Ondonti
I said you can fix the intake port all you want but that motor is still dynoing very low and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the heads.
|
|
Actually I'd say it's dynoing right about where I'd expect it to and the headwork Ed did is very evident in the location of the hp peak. Like Ed, I'd like to see a plot for a stock 3.0. Actually I'd like to see plots for a bone stock 3.0 and one with some limited mods... The more plots we have, the more we can compare configurations. Weight and driver are too big of question marks to compare quarter mile times.
TurboDodge.com 
Lets stay on topic and not fuss over absolutely nothing alright?
