Close

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 80
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    804
    Rep Points
    607.0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Not exactly what I am saying, I am saying that thus far Weistec has not had issues with the transmission. This will be explained in Part 3 as soon as I am done transcribing the interview.
    I was saying I didn't think the TCU (not the trans) would cooperate with 730 bhp, shifting in automatic or in Manual when not short shifting.

    I look forward to hearing how the TCU isn't an issue in such cases when part 3 is released.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northport NY
    Posts
    1,551
    Rep Points
    736.0
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Yes Reputation No

    Thumbs down

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sonny Click here to enlarge
    63 series cars with LT's put out over 475 rwhp--at least the C's do. Are you saying with this blower installed on such a car rwhp will be up to 600? That would be like 730 bhp.

    I didn't think the TCU would cooperate with this kind of power in automatic shift mode or even manual shift mode when not short shifting.
    + one love to see some shifts beyond a stage one unit. That are made in S mode. That's still in the so called dark as I assume
    Click here to enlarge
    Drives: Basically a pretty bad ass f250 lifted with 24" wheels! Dpf delete 4" exhaust h&s tuner and intake..

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,377
    Rep Points
    32,769.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328


    Yes Reputation No
    Some more details I was told I could post:

    I just found out some info after speaking with Rich on the phone. The car was ran on a 50/50 mix of 91 and 100 octane making 95 octane. However the tune was for a 91 octane map. I was wrong, so I want to pass on info that clears that up. There was obviously a mis-communication on my end. I do remember asking what fuel. And I thought I hear it was only 91 octane. But indeed it was a 50/50 mix on a 91 octane map.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Without any disrespect to either side, I would like to share my opinion on this topic:

    I don't think asking for real-world track data before deciding on a performance product is unreasonable. I do understand that the owner of a given car may not be a track person and may never want to track their car at all, which is a position that I am 100% okay with... there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And if that was indeed the case, I would never expect the car owner to do something against their will or go through a lot of trouble just to convince me and/or a few forum members of how good/bad a certain product performs. However, in such scenario, one should rightfully be able to remain undecided (and maybe critical) about the given product until more concrete evidence is presented; ideally from multiple independent members (not necessarily a tuner car) and if possible from multiple tracks or areas around the country or world for that matter.

    There are many reasons why dyno numbers are harder to analyze than track data; these are a few:

    1) Dyno numbers can easily be manipulated, misconstrued, produced from an incorrectly caliberated machine, and most importantly the dyno machines themselves sometimes produce very inconsistent data - even on the same day.

    2) Today's cars are influenced heavily by electronics which monitor hundreds of variables per second and react accordingly. So what may show as good numbers on the dyno may not translate to good results on the track - and vice versa of course. It would be hard, for example, to produce 130 mph winds on the dyno. It would be hard to simulate aerodynamic drag. And although some dynos can simulate load on the car, the simulated load is still not identical to the car's load on an actual road with correct friction values, etc... Consequently, I believe the ECU will react to those variables differently on the dyno than it would on the track - I assume relative track data would be more accurate in this case.

    3) Most dyno numbers show a single gear pull. Sometimes the transmission software affects the power transition during the car's acceleration when climbing through the gears due to the many different parameters it is reacting to, such as, the extra power, torque, etc.... So while the car may show great dyno numbers from a single gear pull, those numbers may not translate to great numbers on the track.

    I've literally seen dyno machines vary by as much as 120 whp in the past..... For example, I have posted dyno graphs of my car on a newly calibrated Mustang dyno showing the car putting down 500+ whp absolutely stock while at other dynos putting down 379 whp also stock. Another example that has been posted on a couple of different forums is my friend Alan's car (bassn_07): his E55 (which happens to run 10s all day long) has dynoed from 440 whp to 600 whp depending at which dyno place was used.
    Last edited by Exeenom; 07-26-2011 at 04:08 AM.
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northport NY
    Posts
    1,551
    Rep Points
    736.0
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    Without any disrespect to either side, I would like to share my opinion on this topic:

    I don't think asking for real-world track data before deciding on a performance product is unreasonable. I do understand that the owner of a given car may not be a track person and may never want to track their car at all, which is a position that I am 100% okay with... there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And if that was indeed the case, I would never expect the car owner to do something against their will or go through a lot of trouble just to convince me and/or a few forum members of how good/bad a certain product performs. However, in such scenario, one should rightfully be able to remain undecided (and maybe critical) about the given product until more concrete evidence is presented; ideally from multiple independent members (not necessarily a tuner car) and if possible from multiple tracks or areas around the country or world for that matter.

    There are many reasons why dyno numbers are harder to analyze than track data; these are a few:

    1) Dyno numbers can easily be manipulated, misconstrued, produced from an incorrectly caliberated machine, and most importantly the dyno machines themselves sometimes produce very inconsistent data - even on the same day.

    2) Today's cars are influenced heavily by electronics which monitor hundreds of variables per second and react accordingly. So what may show as good numbers on the dyno may not translate to good results on the track - and vice versa of course. It would be hard, for example, to produce 130 mph winds on the dyno. It would be hard to simulate aerodynamic drag. And although some dynos can simulate load on the car, the simulated load is still not identical to the car's load on an actual road with correct friction values, etc... Consequently, I believe the ECU will react to those variables differently on the dyno than it would on the track - I assume relative track data would be more accurate in this case.

    3) Most dyno numbers show a single gear pull. Sometimes the transmission software affects the power transition during the car's acceleration when climbing through the gears due to the many different parameters it is reacting to, such as, the extra power, torque, etc.... So while the car may show great dyno numbers from a single gear pull, those numbers may not translate to great numbers on the track.

    I've literally seen dyno machines vary by as much as 120 whp in the past..... For example, I have posted dyno graphs of my car on a newly calibrated Mustang dyno showing the car putting down 500+ whp absolutely stock while at other dynos putting down 379 whp also stock. Another example which my friend Alan (bassn_07) has experienced with his E55 (which runs 10s all day long) shows very similar results: his car have dynoed from 440 whp to 570 whp depending at different dyno places.

    I love you! Mo you are my hero
    Last edited by Exeenom; 07-25-2011 at 11:28 PM.
    Click here to enlarge
    Drives: Basically a pretty bad ass f250 lifted with 24" wheels! Dpf delete 4" exhaust h&s tuner and intake..

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,377
    Rep Points
    32,769.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    Without any disrespect to either side, I would like to share my opinion on this topic:

    I don't think asking for real-world track data before deciding on a performance product is unreasonable. I do understand that the owner of a given car may not be a track person and may never want to track their car at all, which is a position that I am 100% okay with... there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And if that was indeed the case, I would never expect the car owner to do something against their will or go through a lot of trouble just to convince me and/or a few forum members of how good/bad a certain product performs. However, in such scenario, one should rightfully be able to remain undecided (and maybe critical) about the given product until more concrete evidence is presented; ideally from multiple independent members (not necessarily a tuner car) and if possible from multiple tracks or areas around the country or world for that matter.

    There are many reasons why dyno numbers are harder to analyze than track data; these are a few:

    1) Dyno numbers can easily be manipulated, misconstrued, produced from an incorrectly caliberated machine, and most importantly the dyno machines themselves sometimes produce very inconsistent data - even on the same day.

    2) Today's cars are influenced heavily by electronics which monitor hundreds of variables per second and react accordingly. So what may show as good numbers on the dyno may not translate to good results on the track - and vice versa of course. It would be hard, for example, to produce 130 mph winds on the dyno. It would be hard to simulate aerodynamic drag. And although some dynos can simulate load on the car, the simulated load is still not identical to the car's load on an actual road with correct friction values, etc... Consequently, I believe the ECU will react to those variables differently on the dyno than it would on the track - I assume relative track data would be more accurate in this case.

    3) Most dyno numbers show a single gear pull. Sometimes the transmission software affects the power transition during the car's acceleration when climbing through the gears due to the many different parameters it is reacting to, such as, the extra power, torque, etc.... So while the car may show great dyno numbers from a single gear pull, those numbers may not translate to great numbers on the track.

    I've literally seen dyno machines vary by as much as 120 whp in the past..... For example, I have posted dyno graphs of my car on a newly calibrated Mustang dyno showing the car putting down 500+ whp absolutely stock while at other dynos putting down 379 whp also stock. Another example which my friend Alan (bassn_07) has experienced with his E55 (which runs 10s all day long) shows very similar results: his car have dynoed from 440 whp to 570 whp depending at different dyno places.
    It isn't unreasonable to ask for it. It's unreasonable to expect it at this stage.

    Also, not all track times are created equal as we will soon find out. When you see the interview portion (today or tomorrow) you will have a direct answer to Weistec's stance on this.
    Last edited by Exeenom; 07-25-2011 at 11:29 PM.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Dodger63 Click here to enlarge
    I love you! Mo you are my hero
    Why because he has good grammar ?
    Click here to enlarge
    I kid, I kid....

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northport NY
    Posts
    1,551
    Rep Points
    736.0
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LZH Click here to enlarge
    Why because he has good grammar ?
    Click here to enlarge
    I kid, I kid....
    Yes I was going to go into the reasons and that would be one of them.. Grammar and spelling were never a good area for me.. But most everything he said is close to my thoughts put down in writing I could never do..
    Click here to enlarge
    Drives: Basically a pretty bad ass f250 lifted with 24" wheels! Dpf delete 4" exhaust h&s tuner and intake..

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Dodger63 Click here to enlarge
    I love you! Mo you are my hero
    LOL... thanks bro.... that was just my opinion and thought process when I'm researching a new product for my car. Some people will like it and some won't. I edited my post above to expand on what I was trying to say.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    It isn't unreasonable to ask for it. It's unreasonable to expect it at this stage.

    Also, not all track times are created equal as we will soon find out. When you see the interview portion (today or tomorrow) you will have a direct answer to Weistec's stance on this.
    I stated that I would not expect it if it was too much trouble for the owner. It would've been nice to see track data from Weistec before they even used the product on customer's cars but sometimes it is not feasable I guess. We all know the supercharger adds power... the question is: how much power and how much of it is realistically useable? Our next bet would be to wait for a track enthusiast owner who is able to share their results with the community.

    I agree with you that track data will vary from track to track, but with a little correction and some common sense, one can approximate what a car will do in decent weather. It is certainly much easier and more useful than trying to approximate how much hp a car will put down on a different dyno. For the record, I have nothing against Weistec or their products; on the contrary, I'm glad a company like Weistec is out there developing products for the 63 platform, and I'm as excited as ever to see their next round of mods.

    Very good thread guys Click here to enlarge
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,377
    Rep Points
    32,769.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    I stated that I would not expect it if it was too much trouble for the owner. It would've been nice to see track data from Weistec before they even used the product on customer's cars but sometimes it is not feasable I guess. We all know the supercharger adds power... the question is: how much power and how much of it is realistically useable? Our next bet would be to wait for a track enthusiast owner who is able to share their results with the community.
    As stated, you will get their stance on this in Part III. They prefer third party numbers.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    I agree with you that track data will vary from track to track, but with a little correction and some common sense, one can approximate what a car will do in decent weather. It is certainly much easier and more useful than trying to approximate how much hp a car will put down on a different dyno. For the record, I have nothing against Weistec or their products; on the contrary, I'm glad a company like Weistec is out there developing products for the 63 platform, and I'm as excited as ever to see their next round of mods.
    I can already foresee bolt on guys beating their chests when the first Weistec cars at the strip don't trounce their numbers.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    As stated, you will get their stance on this in Part III. They prefer third party numbers.
    Personally, I don't like to choose one or the other, I prefer to see both if available but of course with a slight advantage to third party numbers Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I can already foresee bolt on guys beating their chests when the first Weistec cars at the strip don't trounce their numbers.
    I hope this doesn't happen....
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Well said Mo. Welcome back? Where ya been?

    I can see both sides to this and the Dyno numbers look good, but for me real world results are needed before I could justify the purchase.

    and yes Sticky... For the money and investment the SC costs the bolt on guys will be watching very critically and closely. People buy performance parts for performance. Not for inflated dyno numbers that can never translate to the track. At least they do in my experience. Buying something to just own it and say you have it is a concept I do not understand.
    Tune only 60-130: 8.57
    Tune only 1/4 mile record: 11.531 @ 122.12



  13. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northport NY
    Posts
    1,551
    Rep Points
    736.0
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Yes Reputation No
    I would be more then happy to strap one on and give it a full test. I need to settle a few things up befor I can throw the cash that way. But if I get the opportunity to strap it on it'll be put yhrough the test.. Atco English town Mir Sebring pocono the Texas mile. Travel anywear to play and prove. As some know already Wink wink weistec
    Click here to enlarge
    Drives: Basically a pretty bad ass f250 lifted with 24" wheels! Dpf delete 4" exhaust h&s tuner and intake..

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge


    I hope this doesn't happen....
    It will. As it should. But this kit was developed as an alternative to bolt on's (Stage 1 at least). With CARB approval and what will most likely be more hp than bolt ons, less guess work with multiple bolt ons, and the power deliver of a positive displacement blower is something that can't be duplicated with NA. Personally I don't think the 63 needs a blower. But for those who just want to go fast it's a great solution. On the track, well, I'd like to see how it holds up after 50 hard laps at Willow.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,377
    Rep Points
    32,769.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by propain Click here to enlarge
    and yes Sticky... For the money and investment the SC costs the bolt on guys will be watching very critically and closely. People buy performance parts for performance. Not for inflated dyno numbers that can never translate to the track. At least they do in my experience. Buying something to just own it and say you have it is a concept I do not understand.
    Best thing is a head to head comparison really.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LZH Click here to enlarge
    It will. As it should. But this kit was developed as an alternative to bolt on's (Stage 1 at least). With CARB approval and what will most likely be more hp than bolt ons, less guess work with multiple bolt ons, and the power deliver of a positive displacement blower is something that can't be duplicated with NA. Personally I don't think the 63 needs a blower. But for those who just want to go fast it's a great solution. On the track, well, I'd like to see how it holds up after 50 hard laps at Willow.
    Well said. On the Black Series I think it will hold up just fine but ya never know. On the C63 it will go into tranny limp mode even faster. Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Best thing is a head to head comparison really.
    No question. Hopefully we get some east coast testers of this product that enjoy the 1/4 mile track. Mike seems like hes offering himself up. He would be a good person to test this as he lives at the track.
    Tune only 60-130: 8.57
    Tune only 1/4 mile record: 11.531 @ 122.12



  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by propain Click here to enlarge
    Well said Mo. Welcome back? Where ya been?

    I can see both sides to this and the Dyno numbers look good, but for me real world results are needed before I could justify the purchase.

    and yes Sticky... For the money and investment the SC costs the bolt on guys will be watching very critically and closely. People buy performance parts for performance. Not for inflated dyno numbers that can never translate to the track. At least they do in my experience. Buying something to just own it and say you have it is a concept I do not understand.
    Thanks bro... I've been super busy for a while so haven't had a chance to spend any time on the forums.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LZH Click here to enlarge
    It will. As it should. But this kit was developed as an alternative to bolt on's (Stage 1 at least). With CARB approval and what will most likely be more hp than bolt ons, less guess work with multiple bolt ons, and the power deliver of a positive displacement blower is something that can't be duplicated with NA. Personally I don't think the 63 needs a blower. But for those who just want to go fast it's a great solution. On the track, well, I'd like to see how it holds up after 50 hard laps at Willow.
    I prefer the NA characteristics of our 63 engine as well, but if at some point down the line, somebody or some company developed a strong and reliable forced-induction package for this engine (whether supercharger or turbo) that is capable of taking this engine to 800+ hp output, I would be willing to give up those characteristics for the extra power. Unfortunately, I know I'm dreaming at this point as I have been since the 63 first came out (been hoping a twin turbo solution would emerge) but I guess I won't lose hope.
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    I've said all along the TT 63 would be the best FI option for our motor. I guess the blower was easier and more cost effective. Still, would love to see someone do some rear mounted turbos like the Vette guys do Click here to enlarge

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,377
    Rep Points
    32,769.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    I prefer the NA characteristics of our 63 engine as well, but if at some point down the line, somebody or some company developed a strong and reliable forced-induction package for this engine (whether supercharger or turbo) that is capable of taking this engine to 800+ hp output, I would be willing to give up those characteristics for the extra power. Unfortunately, I know I'm dreaming at this point as I have been since the 63 first came out (been hoping a twin turbo solution would emerge) but I guess I won't lose hope.
    Why lose hope? 800+ hp is almost already here with just the Stage II+ cars like Jim's.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,377
    Rep Points
    32,769.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LZH Click here to enlarge
    I've said all along the TT 63 would be the best FI option for our motor. I guess the blower was easier and more cost effective. Still, would love to see someone do some rear mounted turbos like the Vette guys do Click here to enlarge
    They wanted to do turbos to begin with but the blower simply made more sense for packaging, CARB, cost, etc.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    They wanted to do turbos to begin with but the blower simply made more sense for packaging, CARB, cost, etc.
    Seems like the blower and having it cast an entirely new intake manifold, would be more ? What would make a rear mount TT kit more?? Some of these Squires turbo kits seem pretty damn reasonable...but I'm sure for them to do an AMG the requisite tax would apply Click here to enlarge

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    120,377
    Rep Points
    32,769.4
    Mentioned
    2133 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    328


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LZH Click here to enlarge
    Seems like the blower and having it cast an entirely new intake manifold, would be more ? What would make a rear mount TT kit more?? Some of these Squires turbo kits seem pretty damn reasonable...but I'm sure for them to do an AMG the requisite tax would apply Click here to enlarge
    I don't think rear mount was ever an option.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I don't think rear mount was ever an option.
    I'm gonna call Squire and see what they say. They did a $15k TT kit with upgraded GT35's rear mounted on a Zo6 and that is 10 sec flat car. I just think a turbo is a better option for a car made to be on a road course.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    le Paris
    Posts
    6,618
    Rep Points
    -92.0
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Why a rear mounted?

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Plenty of space in the rear (not much up front) and turbos develop tons of heat. Heat that you want to keep out of the engine compartment as well with rear mounts they get cooled better from fresh air running under the car. I was thinking about removing the mufflers and installing them there. That would be plenty of room as well, a good place to vent for cooling. It's just an idea I've been kicking around.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •