Dyne testing

[Reaper1]

I can help with a plot of a 3.0 with limited mods. I dynoed my car back in 1999/2000(somewhere is there). Mods included: CAI, timing at 16*, 2.5" exhaust no cat straight through muffler, 52mm T-body, 180* t-stat, Magnecor wires, NGK GR4 plugs. This was done with an A604 in 3rd gear. The car put down 130hp at the wheels right around 5000rpm. I don't know torque becuase they didn't have the machine set-up to show those numbers. That car pulled a best of 15.949@85.1mph at the drag strip with a low 2.2 60' on street tires. Keep in mind this engine is TIRED...somewhere in the neighborhood of 275,000miles at that time.

I have the sheet somehwere, but I'd have to dig it out....I may try to find it and take a picture of it and post it up...

[Ondonti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightymulhern 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. 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. 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.

Mike, I have weighed my car. I also never said anything about 200hp......lots of newbies have said that they make 200hp after looking around at all the claims people make on cardomain.com.

180+whp is needed to trap 92+ in a 3000# car (car in normal race prep weighs 2825 without me and 1/4-1/3 tank gas, so 2975 or more with me in car) 182whp to run those times with 2975#.

Your experiments of comparing your sohc24v car (which makes more power on the dyno then the doch 24v motors, and I have confirmed this by posting dyno numbers here) doesnt mean much to me. That sohc 24v car makes 170-180whp bone stock and with 4v heads it has a much wider powerband so it "feels" even faster then it really is.

Both Josh and I both have owned autotranny stock spirits with 52mm TB that were as fast as your daytona. He even raced his in a similar elevation/climate as you.

if your car isnt making power, then I dont know what to tell you. If you think its such a piece of crap, then give it up.

A bone stock duster with driver and no weight removed has run 15.2@~90 after sitting for two years year. Car owned by a TDer and Josh raced against him at the track.

If you think a 2800# car with driver can run 15.2 when bone stock (even 46mm TB) making 140crank hp (about 120whp) will run 15.2@90mph.......then I think you need to rethink your experiments on judging cars.

Just for your info, that bone stock duster would walk your mighty 24v eclipse.
yes its lighter, but it supposedly makes 60whp less.

Your 3200#+ eclipse and its mighty 175whp would only run a 15.4......Oh wait, thats the stock 1/4 time.

So if you think a bone stock 2800# car can run faster then you with 55whp less, your experiements are way off.


oh, because you are benchracing factory crank HP numbers I did the same. 24vshadow has kindly informed us that 24vsohcs dyno around 175whp give or take.

a decent drivetrain loss is about 15% with a manual trans

205crankhp times .85 gets you your magical 175whp which is exactly what your 3200#+ car needs to run 15.4 (15.4 is actually the bone stock time your eclipse would run with a great driver)


140crank hp times .85 = 119whp.

119whp and a 2800# car thats enough power to run 16.7@82mph........All using the same calculations that work PERFECTLY for your 24v car.
But the car actually runs 15.2@90mph.
With the supposed 119whp people think a bone stock 3.0 makes, that car would need to weigh 2100# with driver to run those times. 2100#, now that is very much impossible.


I can name a bunch of others with the same experience.

People who have much more racing experience and general car experience.
Cliff sebrings son had his P body convertable run 15.3 bone stock.

Angelo taylor ran 15.00 like clockwork with a 52mm TB and small exhaust and he is a big guy. with his son driving the car ran 14's.

All VERY respected TD people with much more racing and car experience then most people in this thread.

Angelo taylor has PILES of tropheys from his excellent skill as a bracket racer.

Yes I absolutly think that the 12valve bashing is based on a bunch of shit logic.

[Ondonti]

Mike, you clearly claim that I am pretending my car is lighter then it really is, and that Im fudging #'s

Feel free to make the needed corrections comparing your car to a bone stock 3.0 so that they fit your version of reality.


The 12v isnt crap. Im sure ED has a lot of great things in store for it. he didnt post what is done to the motor he is testing his heads on.
I also dont believe the full extent of his headwork will be realised without the supporting modifications.

His heads along with a great setup and healthy motor should prove very potent.

[irocelectric93]

BLAH more pointless bickering. We are all on the same team so why must we fight? At any rate ed i am interested in a set of these heads if they prove worthy. Im sure they will.

[mightymulhern]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ondonti Mike, I have weighed my car. I also never said anything about 200hp......lots of newbies have said that they make 200hp after looking around at all the claims people make on cardomain.com. 180+whp is needed to trap 92+ in a 3000# car (car in normal race prep weighs 2825 without me and 1/4-1/3 tank gas, so 2975 or more with me in car) 182whp to run those times with 2975#.

Ummm... if you assume 15% (which you also stated in your reply) 180whp would come out to 207 crank hp. So perhaps you didn't say 200 crank hp, you just made the equivalent assertion in wheel hp. Whatever...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ondonti Mike, you clearly claim that I am pretending my car is lighter then it really is, and that Im fudging #'s

Please re-read my post. I never accused you of "pretending" or intentionally misleading. I said that your car is probably lighter than you think it is. I never questioned your honesty or integrity. I just think you're wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ondonti The 12v isnt crap.

I never said it was. I think mine is fun to drive. ...it just isn't as amazing as you want to make it out to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ondonti A bone stock duster with driver and no weight removed has run 15.2@~90 after sitting for two years year. Car owned by a TDer and Josh raced against him at the track.

What is the matter with you? That's crazy. I put as much weight on that claim as I would if you told me you had a bicycle that could do 20s in the quarter mile. Don't forget that I had a bone stock 3.0. Bone stock, there is not much going on in the upper rpm band. Whoever said that car was bone stock was being less than honest. ...or the track was down hill, short, and there was a heavy tail wind. That claim is so outlandish that I’m embarrassed for you for having actually typed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ondonti oh, because you are benchracing factory crank HP numbers I did the same. 24vshadow has kindly informed us that 24vsohcs dyno around 175whp give or take. a decent drivetrain loss is about 15% with a manual trans 205crankhp times .85 gets you your magical 175whp which is exactly what your 3200#+ car needs to run 15.4 (15.4 is actually the bone stock time your eclipse would run with a great driver)

That directly contradicts your prior comments that the stock 24v setup is overrated by the factory. If you're willing to concede that it will make 175whp on the dyne and equate to 205, you've just lost one of your prior arguments. Regardless, the debate isn't about the power of a 24v setup. The debate is over your ongoing need to claim that the 12v setup with typical mods makes a whole lot more power than what most people are going to see.

You can throw out all of weights, 1/4 mile times, and references you want. You can twist my words, refer to my version of reality, or cloud the issue by bringing in whatever other sets of heads you want. Until you show me a few real dyne plots of typically modded 12v 3.0s making power close to your claims, I'm not going to buy it.

[Reaper1]

I can't even figure out what the hell the bickering is about!? I've read the whole thread, I STILL don't get it.

Let's just see what the hell happens and then compare apples to apples! At this point ANY improvement is a step in the right direction.

[mwinkle353]

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ondonti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightymulhern Ummm... if you assume 15% (which you also stated in your reply) 180whp would come out to 207 crank hp. So perhaps you didn't say 200 crank hp, you just made the equivalent assertion in wheel hp. Whatever... Please re-read my post. I never accused you of "pretending" or intentionally misleading. I said that your car is probably lighter than you think it is. I never questioned your honesty or integrity. I just think you're wrong. I never said it was. I think mine is fun to drive. ...it just isn't as amazing as you want to make it out to be. What is the matter with you? That's crazy. I put as much weight on that claim as I would if you told me you had a bicycle that could do 20s in the quarter mile. Don't forget that I had a bone stock 3.0. Bone stock, there is not much going on in the upper rpm band. Whoever said that car was bone stock was being less than honest. ...or the track was down hill, short, and there was a heavy tail wind. That claim is so outlandish that I’m embarrassed for you for having actually typed it. That directly contradicts your prior comments that the stock 24v setup is overrated by the factory. If you're willing to concede that it will make 175whp on the dyne and equate to 205, you've just lost one of your prior arguments. Regardless, the debate isn't about the power of a 24v setup. The debate is over your ongoing need to claim that the 12v setup with typical mods makes a whole lot more power than what most people are going to see. You can throw out all of weights, 1/4 mile times, and references you want. You can twist my words, refer to my version of reality, or cloud the issue by bringing in whatever other sets of heads you want. Until you show me a few real dyne plots of typically modded 12v 3.0s making power close to your claims, I'm not going to buy it.

Mike, i was using 205crank HP as the stock 24v sohc #, then multiplying it by .85.

15.2@90 has been done, josh raced against the car. Owned by a TDer on THIS BOARD. The damn car sat for 2 years, he started it up, took it to the track. Then he added 52mm TB and slicks and ran 14.8......and a heavier convertible ran 15.3 owned by sebrings son.

You should be the one embarrased. The people making those 1/4 passes have a lot of respect on this board.

My car does weigh 2975# when I race. That is actually a very low weight for a spirit with driver. If you think that my spirit weighs 2500# with driver you are dillusional.


Lastly, I said the DOHC 24v n/a is overrated, it doesnt make 220 crank hp. Hell, it ony dyno's 165-170whp bone stock and I posted a whole thread full of real owners who had dyno'd there cars. The sohc 24v motor dyno's better then it (170-180whp depending on the health of motor/tolerances).

You wont find a single 3/s member who knows what they are doing who wont agree the 24v dohc is overrated from the factory. Countless companies do it to sell a car.

Hp calculators are very rough science and have large margin for error on low HP cars, but when you think 119whp cars are running low 15's then we are all in trouble.
Please, go tell the man on this board who owns that car he is a liar. Also go tell cliff sebring's son he is a liar.
Go tell Angelo Taylor to jump off a cliff because he is a liar as well.
They are telling the truth.

[mightymulhern]

Sorry guys. This is an argument that has spanned multiple threads and IMs over the last few months. I'll take it off line.

[93sundance]

I witnessed the stock sundance duster run 15.2. Ok, it wasn't BONE STOCK, he did remove the seats, and center console, but that is it. Then he installed a 52mm TB, and made a ghetto ram air intake and cut a 14.8, ON STOCK TIRES! Then he installed some cheapo 20X6 slicks and ran a 14.65. I was impressed. I raced against him a few times, with my modded low 14 second sundance duster. He always got me off the line because of the slicks, then I passed him near the end of the track.

[93sundance]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightymulhern What is the matter with you? That's crazy. I put as much weight on that claim as I would if you told me you had a bicycle that could do 20s in the quarter mile. Don't forget that I had a bone stock 3.0. Bone stock, there is not much going on in the upper rpm band. Whoever said that car was bone stock was being less than honest. ...or the track was down hill, short, and there was a heavy tail wind. That claim is so outlandish that I’m embarrassed for you for having actually typed it.

I witnessed it with my own eyes, Mike. The only thing he did is remove the seats and center console. That track rarely has a tailwind, and no it is not downhill.

[yogurtslinger]

I was also at the track and helped rip the seats out... no seats, no console.

Car sat under a tree for 2 YEARS, untouched.. added a couple gallons of gas, 52mmTB, ghetto intake, and headed to the track and ran the 15.2 and then 14.8 with some practice, on DRY ROTTED TIRES, and then like josh said, a 14.6 with those tiny ass slicks..

Later we found out that the car had one incredibly loose plug wire that we don't understand how it stayed on, and 6 DIFFERENT plugs with different gaps.... needless to say it was out of *tune*.. We were not believers in the 3.0 5-speed combo until we stumbbled across this little beast of a car.. I can't wait to see what it runs with the right plugs(gapped proper), new plug wires, supercharger, and some high octane...

I think he still has the time slips to prove the times, and I still might have the vid to back it up also..

[yogurtslinger]

I just found a pic of Josh /\ 93sundance running against Jason.. the pic is blurry(old 3mp cam) but you can make out Joshs 14.5 and Jasons 14.8.

I got a couple sweet vids of Jasons duster LAUNCHING on a mustang and a grand prix.. Oh yeah, he didn't have a working tac (big surprise there aye) so he was just trying different shift points and finally found a sweet spot.
I tell yah, If I didn't see the car in action for myself, I prob wouldn't have believed it, those 3.0s are stout little freaking motors for sure.I actually felt kind bad for Josh because of all the hard work and money he invested into his and was only a couples tenths faster.

[j4278h]

Time for my 2 cents.

I own the duster that 93sundance/yogurtslinger/beavis1313/iixxandrewxxii/ jonny mopar/motorxploder and several other turbododge member have seen run the mythical 14.6.

The car in question is a 92 duster 2 door v6 5speed with 140k miles on it and manual seat/mirrors and windows. I got this car free out of a guys backyard with a bad wheel bearing in the drivers rear and bad cheapo tires. Pulled it home and tossed a battery in it along with a new wheel bearing. This car had been sitting since 2003 and i picked it up last october 2005.

Didn't change the oil/plugs/timing or any other routine maintenance items cause frankly i didn't care to cause at that point i thought all 3.0's were a steaming pile. The track was still open so group of us turbododge guys went up there to see what this car can do. With completely stock setup and nothing removed, I ran 15.2 with the a/c belt still on along with the cheapo tires.

On the first day there i managed a best of 14.9 with the a/c belt cut and the pass seat and rear seat removed along with the center console. Thats it, the cheapo tires and stock airbox and all was still there.

2nd time to the track i had the ghetto cold air which was the stock flex hose hooked to the tb and ran to where the drivers headlite should be. At that time I also put a 52mm tb on. Best i managed that day was a 14.8 with the same crappy tires. We then put slicks 20x6 borrowed from beavis1313 on it and I ran couple of 14.6's.

That made me a believer of the 3.0 mated with a 5speed. Since then i finally changed the oil and plugs and I found something interesting. Cylinders 4 & 6 had stock plugs for a 2.2 with a wider gap than what is called for on the 3.0 while the other 4 cylinders had stock 3.0 plugs but also gapped wider. I still have no idea on what the timing is on the car cause i never botherd to check it.

I am now using the car for daily driver status and have installed a udp as the only other mod. This thing has 2 mods, the udp and 52mm tb. I put stock airbox and interior back in it. I will gladly come down to northern indiana and get this thing dyno tested. Maybe the car is a fluke? I am willing to take the 2 mods off and do comparison runs if that will make people happy.

the only issue is that when i did try to put a new cap and rotor on i damaged the dist so i had to replace that with another stock one, but i might have changed the timing. We can adjust that to any particular setting you guys want.

We can videotape the event to make people happy. I would love to take this thing down the track with few more mods on it but the track is closed and i have a feeling that i won't own this car come spring.

All together i have maybe 20-30 runs down the 1/4 with this car and at least 10-12 are 14.85 or faster.

jason

[j4278h]

I will have to check but i'm sure i still have the timeslips for the runs. But they could also be on the floor in the car and most likely are unreadable.