Jason, Jeff actually lists his at 195 HP with 7.5 lbs. Just wanted to clarify.
Are there any dyno sheets out there besides CPRs that we can look at?
Are there any dyno sheets out there besides CPRs that we can look at?
TurboKeith
Pro
If the cooled charge tube in the tunnel is supposed to be the big benefit as far as getting colder air to the motor and making more power, how could you ever see the results on the dyno unless you had snow on it during the dyno run? There must be some other benefit that is not being accounted for!
Sorry about that I'm guessing it's about 200 on 8 pounds give or take a couple HP. 
That said I still think it would make more in the rear witht eh extra Cooling capicity.
I used to have a bender Sheet from dynotech. I'll try to locate it. I also used to have a sheet from Kurt Kidder on his bender. I'll try to find it. It showed 219.5 HP at 8 pounds of boost.
That said I still think it would make more in the rear witht eh extra Cooling capicity.
I used to have a bender Sheet from dynotech. I'll try to locate it. I also used to have a sheet from Kurt Kidder on his bender. I'll try to find it. It showed 219.5 HP at 8 pounds of boost.
jason, i advertise 195 hp at 7.5 psi with extremely safe air to fuel ratios. this is after six hot back to back runs. this is hard core full heat saturated data, (worst case senario) this lowest hp possible is what i base my money back guarantee on, now look at the rear mount dyno sheets posted on dyno tech, his air fuel ratios are maxed out, (you can't run something jetted like that for 1 mile wide open), and it is a cold shot run, how do i know?, well just look at the outlet temps from the turbo, they are way too low to start with to be a heat saturated run, the turbo outlet temps should be over 200 degrees on a fully heat saturated run) so of course it will show more power. but its advertising bull #*$&@, not real world hp. i guarantee my hp or your money back, because they are real world test conditions and i refuse to bs about hp. how many others do this?
also, how can you claim how effect a snow/heat exchanger is working on the dyno, when there is no snow hitting it while its on the dyno??? don't get caught up in all the advertising hype, remember when our 147 hp viper pipes beat their 153 hp viper pipes at the am snow 1000ft drag race shoot-out, we blew them away by .66 seconds in 1000ft. thats around 5-6 sled lengths in 1000 ft. after taking a beating, what did they do?, advertised to you that they had the fastest sled there. in reality it was less than 1 mile per hour faster and 6 sled lengths slower. another one is just like how they advertise in their catalog that their turbo was 20 mph faster than the competitors turbos at the am snow asphalt shoot-out.., but neglect to tell you theirs was a bored, stroked, 1150 cc full race turbo running on race gas, in a chassis that was over 100 lbs lighter than stock, running against a full weight rx-1 trail turbo running pump gas. all i have to say is congratulations to the false advertisers!! its best to believe what YOU know for fact, (not what someone else tells you) and take everything else with a grain of salt. we didn't set the world record by having less hp than the rear mounts. jeff
also, how can you claim how effect a snow/heat exchanger is working on the dyno, when there is no snow hitting it while its on the dyno??? don't get caught up in all the advertising hype, remember when our 147 hp viper pipes beat their 153 hp viper pipes at the am snow 1000ft drag race shoot-out, we blew them away by .66 seconds in 1000ft. thats around 5-6 sled lengths in 1000 ft. after taking a beating, what did they do?, advertised to you that they had the fastest sled there. in reality it was less than 1 mile per hour faster and 6 sled lengths slower. another one is just like how they advertise in their catalog that their turbo was 20 mph faster than the competitors turbos at the am snow asphalt shoot-out.., but neglect to tell you theirs was a bored, stroked, 1150 cc full race turbo running on race gas, in a chassis that was over 100 lbs lighter than stock, running against a full weight rx-1 trail turbo running pump gas. all i have to say is congratulations to the false advertisers!! its best to believe what YOU know for fact, (not what someone else tells you) and take everything else with a grain of salt. we didn't set the world record by having less hp than the rear mounts. jeff
SIMONS CPR: Jeff the first thing you must know is I would rather have any front mount Turbo over any rear mount anyday of the week.
However I did see Kidders sheets and they were 219.5 on 8 pounds. He did a ton of back to back runs and it was always within 1 HP and that was on safe trail jetting that he put over 5000 miles on.
I know your setup is trail safe and that's what's important not ultimate HP. Throttle response and instant boost are also important in my book which you ahve with yoru kit. I road Matts and I liked it a lot.
You have to agree to this though. A inter-cooled sled will make more power then a non inter-cooled sled because in theory the charge will be cooler. If you agree to that statement then a rear Mount with a Aluminum Charge tube "which sucks heat out of the charge" along with a inter-cooler will make more power then a front mount with out the extra cooling surface area created by the long charge tube comming from the rear.
Again I like the front mount better!!!!
However I did see Kidders sheets and they were 219.5 on 8 pounds. He did a ton of back to back runs and it was always within 1 HP and that was on safe trail jetting that he put over 5000 miles on.
I know your setup is trail safe and that's what's important not ultimate HP. Throttle response and instant boost are also important in my book which you ahve with yoru kit. I road Matts and I liked it a lot.
You have to agree to this though. A inter-cooled sled will make more power then a non inter-cooled sled because in theory the charge will be cooler. If you agree to that statement then a rear Mount with a Aluminum Charge tube "which sucks heat out of the charge" along with a inter-cooler will make more power then a front mount with out the extra cooling surface area created by the long charge tube comming from the rear.
Again I like the front mount better!!!!
snowy1
TY 4 Stroke Guru
just because it has more cooling surface doesn,t mean it is cooling more in the cause of my front mount with out a hood the air is cold enough to ice up the carbs with out the coolant going through them so that tells me I don,t need any more suface area if I have to heat the air going through the carbs to keep it from icing up, that tells me either the rear mounts don,t cool as efficiantly or they have more surface area than is neccessary.
jtssrx, yes they both have intercoolers, but look at the surface area of mine, its way larger than the smaller rear mount, so they allready have a deficet, now what they do gain from the rear cooler makes a level playing field, there is a point of deminising returns when it comes to intercooling, when its getting the job done, making it the size of a football field isn't going to help it anymore, but the extra volume will kill it. the super size intercooler we run is unmatched by any other intercooler, and theres also more to it than size, whats the pressure drop? there will be more pressure drop coming from the rear of the sled to get to the carbs than the front mounts see, our intercooler has less than 1 pound of pressure drop (.6ths to be exact) thats incredibly efficent, the rear mount will surely have more pressure drop which now requires you to make more boost at the turbo to compensate for the pressure drop by the time it gets to the carbs to maintain a set boost. more boost is more heat which now requires more intercooling, the facts are its a wash between the frt and rear mount on charge temp because of all thats involved. the front mount just boost quicker, hp is the same. jeff
SIMONS CPR: The numbers don't lie. The MC Express and your Turbo setup both make around 200 hp at 8 pounds of boost. The Bender makes 220. The only way the the Bender makes 20 more is the Temperature off the air going into the motor. If you can make 220 at pounds on less fuel I'd like to see it.
I'll say it one more time Kurt Kidder and Scott Blonshine Dynoed there Bender setups. They made 220 hp on trail jetting.
I'll say this one more time as well. No matter what they did they couldn't beat the LP "non Inter-cooled" Turbo in any distance. They just couldn't over come the LAG. They even used a shot of NOS out of the whole. The same can be said for any other front mount. The instant boost is more important then the ultimate power numbers.
snowy1: At what temperature did your Carbs ICE? I would say Humidity played a bigger roll then your Inter-cooler.
I'll say it one more time Kurt Kidder and Scott Blonshine Dynoed there Bender setups. They made 220 hp on trail jetting.
I'll say this one more time as well. No matter what they did they couldn't beat the LP "non Inter-cooled" Turbo in any distance. They just couldn't over come the LAG. They even used a shot of NOS out of the whole. The same can be said for any other front mount. The instant boost is more important then the ultimate power numbers.
snowy1: At what temperature did your Carbs ICE? I would say Humidity played a bigger roll then your Inter-cooler.
snowy1
TY 4 Stroke Guru
It was about 20 degrees out it still takes 32 degrees to freeze and I have heard others on this forum say the same thing not sure if they were rear mounts or fronts but the point is the air going in the motor was 32 degrees or below and this is in the mountains of nevada we don,t have high humidity no higher than anyone else
whose numbers jt?? i can do a cold blast with leaner jetting than i recommend and make bigger numbers, (check out the data on dyno tech, it shows way too low compressor outlet temps to be a heat soaked run, and the run was done so quickly the fuel flow never even had time to stabilize, the numbers are all over the place) get all the sleds together set them all at the same air/fuel ratio, and fully heat soak all of them, then dyno them on the same day on the same dyno, different dynos give different numbers, correction factors, calibration, load stability among other things play huge factors in consistenency, you can easily vary the power of a turbo 20 hp just by lean or rich jetting, add another 10-15 hp of variation from how heat saturated the intercooler is.. quit talking about grouping others peoples results because its inconsistant data. same day same dyno is the only way to know for sure, if you want to talk hp how come kip had to spray nos at his bender stage 3 rear mount turbo to beat my all boost front turbo by 1 mph in 1000 ft radar run in cable wis? mph shows hp, and without the nos, it couldn't do it. (this means no disrespect to kip or his guys, we really enjoyed running with them, just stating facts) so tell me where i can find all this supposedly extra hp on the rear mount, because its not on my dyno, and it sure doesn't show up in the field. but if you still say its on the dyno and it doesn't show up in the field, then why is it even worth talking about it? 
jeff
jeffAttachments
TurboKeith
Pro
Jeff, do you have one of your front mounts in work for the Apex?
Heres an idea, get the front mount, rear mount and S/C guys together at the same location and have a dyno party. Same Dyno, Same day, Same temp...etc. Otherwise you can argue this till your blue in the face...BBY
Ted Jannetty
TY 4 Stroke God
jtssrx said:
If you seen this on a dyno who was throwing snow on the charge tube?
Different size turbos make different amounts of horsepower on a given engine.
The 2 turbos you compared are different sizes
If you read my 2 earlier posts there is no benefit to the charge air pipe running through the tunnel, it is simple math.
snow melts at 33 degrees, this is the lowest you could possibly hope for with 100% heat transfer which is impossible given the air speed and volume through the pipe.
Then don't forget the exhaust is right next to it heating it.
example: 11 degrees increase per pound of boost over air inlet temp
air inlet temp 20 degrees 10 psi boost; 11X10=110 + 20 = 130
If we assume (and we should never assume) under perfect conditions the charge air pipe were 60% effective at reducing temps, the best you could hope for is 52 degree charge air temps.
I don't see this charge air pipe being 60% effective probably more like 50% then they would be 65 degrees.
Ted Jannetty: For the record I spent lots of time on the LP turbo making multiple changes so I understand how the Dyno works and how the changes we made affected the out come of each dyno run. I also understand that different turbo sizes will make different hp numbers. Exsample we switched to a smaller houseing and the Turbo spooled faster but made less hp at any given boost level.
Where in my posts did I say "I saw the bender Turbo dynoed"? I said I saw Kidders dyno sheets. Big difference.
In my opinion just from seeing the 2 turbo's used I think Jeff uses a larger Turbo then Bender does on there Trail applications. If that's the Case then tell me why Does the bender make 220 HP and the Simon's only make 200 at 8 pounds of boost? Maybe I'm wrong maybe the Bender is a bigger turbo.
Don't tell me jetting either. I spent a Whole afternoon on the dyno with the LP simply playing with Jetting and we absolutely never saw a 20 HP change by leaning it out as Jeff has suggested. The only thing that gave us HP gains like that was alcohol injection. The alcohol is a natural inter-cooler which cooled the charge.
Where in my posts did I say "I saw the bender Turbo dynoed"? I said I saw Kidders dyno sheets. Big difference.
In my opinion just from seeing the 2 turbo's used I think Jeff uses a larger Turbo then Bender does on there Trail applications. If that's the Case then tell me why Does the bender make 220 HP and the Simon's only make 200 at 8 pounds of boost? Maybe I'm wrong maybe the Bender is a bigger turbo.
Don't tell me jetting either. I spent a Whole afternoon on the dyno with the LP simply playing with Jetting and we absolutely never saw a 20 HP change by leaning it out as Jeff has suggested. The only thing that gave us HP gains like that was alcohol injection. The alcohol is a natural inter-cooler which cooled the charge.
Every Race I've ever attended that had Rear Mount Turbos Verse Front mounts the front mounts always came out ahead. You made the statement "Stop grouping others peoples results because its inconsistent data" the same can be said for your results. 2 different sets of tuners went the the cable race. They ran 2 completely different setups. How the hell can I answer why Kip was only 1 MPH faster then you were? I wasn't there. I didn't see the Runs. If you had Identical configurations "Clutching Gear, Chassis setup and the only difference was his turbo was in the back then I might have an answer. There are just to many variables.
The fact that Kip was only 1 mph faster supports my original argument that just because you make more HP doesn't mean your going to be quicker or faster. I would be willing to bet the longer you went the more the HP difference would have mattered. 1000 feet is hardly enough distance for a sled making more power especially if it's only 10 or 20 more to be able to show the extra power.
I still feel the closer you get the turbo to the intake the better. That means I still think the LP is the best setup on the market. Boost for boost I'd lay money on it against any turbo out there. That also means I think the CPR setup is better then the bender setup.
Maybe one day we'll be able to see this happen as a matter of fact I'm going to make it happen. Neon Phil has a MC, Chrisinparts has a CPR, Howard Hack and IBEABAD have North east Turbo's, Doc Diggler has a Bender and Fred and Bob at LP have their kit. We are going to have a turbo shoot out this comming winter to lay this all to rest. Boost for boost racing. lets say 18 pounds.
