Miller Posted May 26, 2007 Report Share Posted May 26, 2007 Nice numbers, I saw a horrible fucking ricer of a GTO on 71 last night with a brother driving. Silver, blue, body kit, two tone, wing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rl Posted May 26, 2007 Report Share Posted May 26, 2007 BTW you are smoking crack if you think you will gain 50rwhp going from 91 octane to 93. At low manifold pressures (up to 12 or so)you might be able to run another degree of timing making another 7-8rwhp at most. We've tuned a lot of cars all over california. I'm fully aware of how much of a difference there is between sunoco 94 and california 91 octane. The car was picking up 13-14rwhp per degree and we had more than 1 degree out from where it would be on 94 octane. If you think otherwise than thats perfectly OK with me. Yes the car has excessive backpressure due to the restrictive exhaust (2 1/4" catback), its what the customer wanted, in the future he will upgrade it. Same with the valve train, however with a dual 3" exhaust the backpressure would fall significantly and help with the valve float a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500HP RX-7 Posted May 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2007 Has Ponyfreak always been a dick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ponyfreak Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 We've tuned a lot of cars all over california. I'm fully aware of how much of a difference there is between sunoco 94 and california 91 octane. The car was picking up 13-14rwhp per degree and we had more than 1 degree out from where it would be on 94 octane. If you think otherwise than thats perfectly OK with me. Yes the car has excessive backpressure due to the restrictive exhaust (2 1/4" catback), its what the customer wanted, in the future he will upgrade it. Same with the valve train, however with a dual 3" exhaust the backpressure would fall significantly and help with the valve float a lot. My point is there is no way you will go from 481rwhp to 530rwhp as you claim with only a change in fuel. I don't think you would break the 500rwhp mark. And why am I a dick? The car is obviously way down on power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rl Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 My point is there is no way you will go from 481rwhp to 530rwhp as you claim with only a change in fuel. I don't think you would break the 500rwhp mark. And why am I a dick? The car is obviously way down on power. OK, thanks for your input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.