S2000 Forced Induction S2000 Turbocharging and S2000 supercharging, for that extra kick.

Tune Finished

Thread Tools
 
Old Jan 23, 2007 | 04:44 AM
  #11  
d-j's Avatar
d-j
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
From: STL -> Tampa
Default

Originally Posted by FIdreaming,Jan 22 2007, 11:04 PM
.... what kind of engine management are you running?


What engine management?
Old Jan 23, 2007 | 04:51 AM
  #12  
hboy7777's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
From: new york
Default

id like to see some proof also
Old Jan 23, 2007 | 05:22 AM
  #13  
geists2k's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Default

I'm betting it was closer to 9.5-10 psi -- the most you can do on the stock MAP.

With stock compression and that log mani, even that would be a stretch me thinks.
Old Jan 23, 2007 | 05:31 AM
  #14  
CourageOO7's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,170
Likes: 0
From: SLC, UT
Default

Originally Posted by s0rted,Jan 23 2007, 06:29 AM
^Hehe that's so funny. Wow CourageOO7 you might want to mail that to comptech. They could market their kit with "gains of up to 522 ft/lbs torque! on pump gas! with stock motor! Try it now! 30 day money back guarantee!! sorry, got carried away there...

I wonder what 522lbs/ft would feel like in the S. Though I see you have a very steep torque curve and only make full power high up in the rev range........and for only 1/2 a second
hehe...yeah...I think the connectors weren't grounded properly to cause the error in the reading.
Old Jan 23, 2007 | 07:03 AM
  #15  
s0rted's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
From: Rockin' in the Med
Default

It's prolly the dyno operator's error - put it down as whp rather than at the flywheel.
Old Jan 23, 2007 | 07:38 AM
  #16  
Quivers's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,083
Likes: 0
Default

I don't believe it.
Old Jan 23, 2007 | 09:08 AM
  #17  
Spoolin's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,507
Likes: 51
From: Sellersburg, IN
Default

LMAO..........There is no way in h@ll he is putting down 392 whp on 6 psi. That's 33 whp per psi! That's near my numbers which was on 9.75 psi and an equal length tubular manifold.

I call BS and am willing to bet he is either A. running closer to 15-16 psi or B. the real numbers are 292 whp @ 6 psi.
Old Jan 23, 2007 | 11:13 AM
  #18  
jdnissanz's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Default

I used AEM EMS. And the pictures to prove this will be posted today!

James D.
Old Jan 23, 2007 | 11:17 AM
  #19  
BlownAP's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,615
Likes: 0
From: 951
Default

Dyno pak
Old Jan 23, 2007 | 11:45 AM
  #20  
Spoolin's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,507
Likes: 51
From: Sellersburg, IN
Default

Originally Posted by BlownAP,Jan 23 2007, 03:17 PM
Dyno pak
Could be that too because I could put down at least 450-475 whp on a dynopak.

Put that thing on a real numbers dynojet and see what you get. I'm willing to bet it will be around 310-320 whp.



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:58 AM.