..........I think the 1/4 mile time 0f 11.5 is actually possible. Some E55 K4's have run mid 11's. The trapspeed of 125mph does not sound credible. You are correct, that it may have been a guess but the poster did not say it was aguess, infact he backed it up by saying that he got it from the RT team. He is a vendor of these products and people actually listen to these things and there has been too much of these figures being thrown arround by vendors and tuners only to leave customers dissappointed. If the poster was just guessing, then he/she should say so. Vendors and tuners should refrain from throwing figures around that have no basis.

...............As far as Renntech not publishing any 1/4 mile times to avoid controversy. Makes no sense. You don't just publish numbers out of the air..........you post the timeslip. sorry but for being firm........there is just too much of this going on.

Ted

 

I totally agree with you Ted.
One thing i do want to add is that those calculators are more accurate on naturally aspirated motors. They don't take into account that a fi motor will usually make more torque even-though hp might be equal. This leads to inflated horsepower numbers for the fi engine.

 

I've seen this same calculator on other sites with similar appearances. The person who wrote it knew his way around Javascript, but was misinformed about the output. The box labeled wheel HP is actually crank HP. To illustrate this, let's use DerekFSU's car as an example. With his mods, he's probably making about 600 HP at the crank, and about 720 when he's on the juice. Using a weight of 4200 pounds and a juiced trap speed of 131 mph, the calculator shows 737 HP at the wheels and 884 HP at the crank. Error.

Here's another calculator to use:

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phphorsepo...horsepower.php

The plots above look OK to me for a trap speed in the 123-125 mph range. However, I would expect the ET to be a couple of tenths lower.

 

Stage 5 = $16,000
Stage 6 = $36,000 (which seems to give only 50tq & 7hp gain over the stage 5???)


.....thats crazyyy

 

............I think we are making the same observations that the trapspeed and the 1/4 mile times don't match. You think the trapspeed is ok but the 1/4 mile time is off, and I think the 1/4 mile time is okay but the traspeed is off. The bottom line point for me is that numbers without timeslips are useless especially when coming from a vendor or a dealer.

.................As for Derek's car those calculations do not work when a car is on nitrous because the basic atmospheric assumptions used in the generating the equations are no longer present in a juiced environment. Besides, the calculations will work better if had the actual values of Dereks HP and torque numbers on and off the juice printed on paper. My crusade is against numbers coming from the air.

Ted

 

The only point that I was trying to make is the HP calculator you listed is wrong, which invalidates your arguement that the graphs don't match the suggested performance - they do.

You didn't like Derek's example, so take an average, stock E55 that dynos about 410 wheel HP (506 at the crank with a 19% driveline loss factor) and traps about 115 mph. Plug 115 mph into the calculator you listed with a weight of 4200 and it spits out 499 wheel HP and 598 HP at the crank. OK?

My observation wrt to ET is that a car that traps about 125 mph should ET about 11.3ish, assuming reasonable traction. It was not meant to debase the Renntech approximation.

Just as there are calculators that give HP based on trap speed, there are also programs that give 1/4 mile performance based on dyno plots. Renntech's approximation of 11.5 @ 125 mph is not unreasonable for the curve shown. In fact, without drag radials, it's probably a fairly accurate representation of what to expect.

 

What is your basis for this statement? These calculators are based on trap speed, not rate of acceleration. A forced-induction car with more torque will accelerate faster at lower RPMs. Take the E55/CLS55 and M5/M6 for example. They have similar weights and trap speeds. Plug these values into the calculators and they spit out similar HP numbers, which is accurate. But the supercharged E55/CLS55 has gobs more torque. Where's the inflation?

 

Those calculators are based on either et or mph to calculate horsepower. Their is nothing accurate about the numbers they spit out. The same page you linked shows the formula for calculating horsepower via et. Plug in a 12.06 E55, many on this board to a 12.40 M5 and look at the difference.

 

The ET calculator asumes a perfect launch - there are too many variables that affect the launch to allow for accurate results in all cases. BUT, my question specifically states trap speed calculator, as do all the posts in this thread that refer to HP calculator. Please stop trying to sidestep the question and tell us how the higher torque in FI cars inflates the HP value when using trap speed to determine HP.

 

.............the point here to me is that as usual someone has posted an et and trapspeed without a timeslip. The calciulations as imperfect as they are are to show that the posted numbers which were drawn from the air do not match. The same problem I had with Derek's numbers you gave as an example. The juiced HP figures you used were just drawn from the air. Even if you use crank Hp in the example I posted, the et and trapspeed don't match whether crank or rear wheel HP is used. I think the practice of tuners and vendors posting numbers drawn from the air is wrong. This not just Renntech. Kleemann, Brabus etc all inflate numbers. Up till today Kleemann still uses a dyno that calculates crank HP instead of directly meauring rear wheel HP. I don't think it is because they don't have the funds to get a better dyno machine. As for Brabus, when was the last time you saw a dynograph or timeslip of a Brabus car? Yet numbers a thrown arround without any evidence.

Ted

 

OK, I understand exactly what you're saying - and I don't necessarily disagree. You're argueing a principle - something that's been abused by the tuners to sell goods and services. I don't know if the quoted performance numbers were a rectal extraction from Adam, or if Renntech passed those numbers to him. If I had to guess, I would say the latter, because they look to be pretty close. Either way, I don't give a ****.

The main point of my last post was: if you have a valid dyno plot, trap speed can be determined with a high degree of accuracy. And if you assume adequate traction, ET can also be determined with reasonable accuracy. This is not art - it is science. The art part comes from someone who does this on a regular basis. After a while you can look at a dyno sheet from a given car and approximate 1/4 mile performance with fairly small error bars. This would be my bet on the genesis of the numbers.

 

A 9 second CL55 would be making well over 1000 rwhp.

 

Go back and read ted's first post regarding the formulas. He quotes both the mph and the et formulas you must have missed it.

But let's talk about mph as that is what you are fixed on. Real world numbers tell us that on a good day an average e55 will trap 114-116 and an m5 will trap 114-117. The m5's typically make 10 to 20 rwhp more on a dynojet once they are broken in. Punch the trap speed numbers into your calculator and you get both cars at around 527-to-528 flywheel horsepower for both cars. Yet the E tipically makes less on a rear-wheel drive dyno. That is also assuming they weight the same (4300)which they don't the m5 is around a 100lbs lighter. Plug that figure back in and you get 511 flywheel horsepower compared to 500 advertised horsepower for the M5 that is believable. But 527 to advertised 469 or even 500 for the sake of argument is once again inflated.

 

OK, now you're just blowing smoke. You're picking and choosing and playing with numbers and throwing in a bogus fudge factor to manipulate the data. All cars make more power when broken in - not just the M5. If you're going to use the HP calculator, use it right. These cars are not autonomous - they require a driver. A driver adds weight. Here's the real story using your suggested numbers:

E55 weighs 4087# + 150# driver = 4237# --> 115mph trap speed = 503 HP from calculator.
M5 weighs 4012# + 150# driver = 4162# --> 115.5 trap speed = 501 HP from calculator.

The average E55 dyno number for a stock car on this forum is about 410 HP (ranging from 390 - 430).
The only M5 dyno I've seen (also on this forum) is 421 HP.

The E55 driveline w/automatic transmission has about a 19% loss factor, which makes the crank HP from the dyno = 506 HP.
The M5 driveline w/manual transmission has about a 16% loss factor, which makes the crank HP from the dyno = 501 HP.

Now, these numbers are believable. They're based on factual data and there's no bogus factors involved to alter the outcome.
Again I ask, Where's the inflation?

 

Funny you mention the weight when a few post ago you assumed that all three cars weight the same. Now that you know they don't you post Internet curb weights for both cars. Then you post drive-line loss figures to correlate your numbers. The real smoke and mirrors.

In the real world a car that weighs 75 lbs less with only 5 less flywheel horsepower will have more than .5 mph trap speed over the other. Especially in this case were the drive-train loss for the m5 is lower than the e55.
You see i have weighted my car at the track and it tips the scales at 4390 with me and 4165 with-out. (Yes the facts are that I'm overweight). That night my best trap speed was 115.35. If you plug that into the formula you get 525 hp at the flywheel which equals real world facts yielding inflated formula numbers. Maybe if you come to south Florida you can go to the track with us and see for yourself. I'm sure i, pte, siswati, fiske, pas and the rest of the florida boys would love to see you there.

The last thing i wanted to inform you is that the ecu on the new m5 will not give you full power until a designated number of miles. I believe it's some were around 1200 miles but i will get the exact number. This is not something i made up but shown to me at Active autowerks. One of the first if not the first in the states to flash the new v10 ecu. Here is the link to the car they dynoed, scroll to the bottom for stock, stock-filters and ecu -filters.http://dragtimes.com/BMW-M5-Timeslip-8777.html
Remember this is on a mustang dyno which reads lower than a dynojet. I will make it a point to drive down there tomorrow to pick up an e55 stock graph on the same dyno. Which was about 380 to 390 rwhp so that we stick to the facts.

 

Save your effort - I'm not interested in seeing your hand-picked data points which are merely variations within a normal distribution. I'm looking for an explanation for your hypothesis that high-torque cars will have inflated HP values when using a HP calculator based on trap speed. The fact that you're trying to find data points that are not in perfect agreement tells me that you don't have a clue. You can't answer the question because you don't know.

I guess that happens when you can't find a web site from which to cut and paste someone else's knowledge to pass off as your own.

 

The point is unlike you, I do own the very car we are talking about, I do race the car we are talking about and i have shown you facts which prove that and my point. Like i said we can use actual real world data from real fi cars at the track or we can continue to live in your sterile research laboratory .

Then you talk about cut and paste from a web site, yet you yourself are a regular one link wonder. You try and talk a good game but you certainly don't live it.

 

OK - time to summarize.

You make a claim on how you think something works that has no basis in fact.
When asked to explain, you fumble around unsuccessfully trying to manipulate pieces of data to match your claim.
When called to the carpet to just explain it, you lash out like a hurt little boy, challenging my creditbility.

If that wasn't so pathetic, it would be laughable.

And then you call yourself a racer. Let's examine that. You buy a fast car and then you pay someone else to make it go faster. Racer? No, more like racer wannabe.

It's become obvious to me and the forum that the extent of your knowledge is whatever you can find with a Google search. You should just stick to posting other people's thoughts - you're much better at it.

 

Ok -I'll call this time for the facts again. I have shown you actual data from my own car at a real track that you call manipulating data. Yet all you show to disprove me is a listed Internet curb weight and an imaginary 150 driver.

If you read your own post you would realize that the the only one on this board that has a track record for for lashing out like a hurt boy is yourself. You run out of real data so you result to petty insults. No need to go there i respect my elders especially the one's on medication.

Then you continue to assume things, everything on my car has been installed by me with the help of my friends, the only two exceptions have been the ecu which was flashed by active and the welding of the fittings for the johnsonpump adaptation which was also done by a friend . I did not go out and by an install kit we made it, why because evo would not sell me the pump, brackets and fittings alone. With some more practice on the tig welder i will be able to do that also. I also can't forget to mention pte who modified the stock e55 thermostat to a 160 all i did was the easy part install it. The nitrous kit was also installed and tuned by me. A mitsubishi turbo -nos kit which i have also posted before to help out fellow forum members. I like wrenching on cars whenever possible.

Now last but not least you continue to quote Google because you obviously don't use it to quote your formulas or the rest of your info. You see, i don't have a problem admitting when i'm wrong in-front of hard facts which you don't provide. You on the other hand when proven wrong result to name calling and temper tantrums. Or you will through your hands up in the air and give up and take the moral road. The only time i will ever result to insulting someone is in their face. You are obviously bothered by something.

 

All that shows is that one data point fits within the population. It doesn't prove the hypothesis. There are other data points that don't fit. How do you rationalize those?

I'll ask again - explain with words (and you can use big ones if you wish - I'll look 'em up) how torque advesely affects the trap speed calculator. It's a simple request. What's the problem?

Wrong again. I use Google extensively to research info and verify facts. If I use it to post to this forum, I will cite the reference or provide a link. Other than that, everything I post is based on my knowledge and experience. I challenge you to identify a post of mine where this is not true.

Now for the kicker - I dare you to challenge me to identify one of your posts that is a cut & paste from another site that you passed off as your own knowledge. What say you - got the cajones?

 

Wen mocking someone it's alwaze best to get yer spelling wright.


Beyond the clutter, this was a darn good thread for the CL board! Thanks to all the contributors.

 

You continue with more repitition and the childish taunts. Why don't you show me one of your cars at the track proving me wrong or an actual car at the track for that matter. You can't of course.

As to the cut and paste you are upset that on the header post you were flat out proven to be wrong by me and eclou. The information was from Burn's stainless, would you even know about them if it wasn't for google. I certainly know of them and have ordered their stainless tubing before. Yet instead of being a man and admitting you were wrong you decided not to post anymore. What does that imply by definition, no cojones. So now you're only recourse is to bring up the cut and paste. The cut and paste contains nothing but the truth about you being flat-out wrong. I will admit to cut and paste but will you agree to being wrong? that is the question.

Now here are the dyno's i promised
#1 on the graph is a stock cls55
#2 on the graph is a cls with software and pulley.
#3 on the graph is a stock v10 M5.

The bottom of the graph displays max, min and average for both hp and torque.

 

Why do you persist in deflecting the question with irrelevent data. Once again, they are not a proof of anything. Answer the question. If you're right, it'll be on a web site somewhere - keep searching.

Yes, I incorrectly surmized that cooler air with closer molecule spacing (similar to solids) would propagate sound waves faster the hot air. It seemed like an obvious supposition. After I researched it further and learned why, I went back to the thread to post again, but you and your BFB already had your knee pads on, so I chose not to subject myself to that environment. It might have been an error on my part, but certainly not as egregious as your cut & paste tactic, which is a reflection of your character more than anything.

 

Okay -please explain why my data is irrelevant. All that is necessary is for the guys who have weighted their car at the track to post their trap speed. I find that to be very doable and credible.

Dude, why do you continue with the stupid insults and remarks that more then anything speaks volumes about your character. Like i said before typing insults while hiding behind a monitor is not my style. Real men of character do their talking face to face. On that note - we can close this thread saying thank you all for tuning into another Grummpy battle.

 

Rflow306: You and enzom ,Evolution Marine Bob and me (PTE) live and work with our passion of performance enhancements through our automobiles. All of us before mentioned have been dissed by Grumpy666 for what we know is tried and true facts. One thing I can say , IS that Grumpy666 is no Smokey Yunick. Grumpy's garage is his armchair and keyboard. I am surprised he hasn't told you in his thread that he was a graduate of top 10 university or ivy league university (which is no [Best Damn Garage In Town) . Man ,could you imagine working with this Guy!!! On a daily basis However he does lead us to some good reading material.Adam@ kronen, your a Hell of a salesman , Got any Bridges , Grumpy 666 , needs more of them, after your Rectal Extraction (as Quoted from Grumpy 666) . He burnt one more. BTW I saw a Renntech Car ,RED E500 Stationwagon, on the road with some Black wires coming from under neath. Held to the fender with green 200 mph duck tape. I say they where doing some real world testing ,today) , Not just dyno racing and Google searching , for HORSEPOWER Regards ___PTE___