| Message |
numbers is still raging on.... I was definitely shocked with my numbers on my car, 407 hp and 437 ft/lbs TQ without an ECU, or AFC, but considering that all the other numbers for all the other cars that aren't being questioned here, Wayne's, the NA car, the 350Z, that 4 banger Contour, etc. are all seeingly legit, it seems that the cars in question, namely mine (actually the wife's :-) ), and Josh's #'s would have to stand. Boost spikes, timing issues, and certainly fuel octane should certainly be considered when it comes to these numbers. The Air/Fuel ratio plays a huge part in creating max hp, and I have to say that my stock 94 ECU did a KILLER job of flat-lining the A/F ratio at 12.5!!!!! There's no way I will consider buying a JWT ECU at this point, since that additional $500 will only buy a FAT A/F ratio. What we witnessed on the dyno for the JWT ECU equipped cars was low 11's for A/F... That's too damn conservative!! Hey, ask Woody,,, I'm the first one to bash NISSAN's on a daily basis, having to deal with their engineering alot lately, but that ECU kicked butt on the fuel curve...It may be a later model thing that was corrected for the 94-96 cars, who knows??? But for those who are wondering, I was running fuel around the 107-110 octane mark, my motor has JE pistons and Eagle rods, new turbos, the motor only has 1,100 miles on it, and was running at ~17psi on the final pull. The previous pulls were on 15psi, and netted 393 and 397 hp...if memory serves... Timing was in the stratosphere, but it never detonated.... I'd be willing to re-dyno it, but I'm guessing that if another dyno shows similar #'s, there'd be "other" issues coming up to dispute the numbers; but we'll see. All I know is that Mike LaCanada's posts about his 96TT mention stock IC's, stock injectors, stock turbos and a boost controller and AFC, and he 1/4 miled his car into the 11's. Looks like there's plenty of power to be had from turbos beyond what everyone adheres to as far as these "stages" everyone lives by.
 |
 |
