04 HOGT Dyno and track numbers

[Ian-PT-GT]

hoopdiewagon:

quote:
"Ill get the 15.3 slip scaned and posted for you"

IMHO I don't like correction factors for this same reason.

15.3 Is the corect number for the stock PT in auto-stick.
I did a 15.37 '03 last year when I first started testing the car.
I live 7 feet above sea level and I did the same numbers as you did and you said you where over 5,300' above sea level.

These cars, they correct their engine performance maps to compensate for altitude, temp and humidity.

Your HP and torque numbers are close to what they should have been. It is just that the graph is off in the powerband.

[^]

[TripleJackInGA]

quote:Originally posted by hoopdiewagon

Ok, ok. You got me on the all 04 GTs being the "high output" version. I just looked it up on the Chrysler site. I'll admit defeat[B)] When we bought ours there were some that had the high output badge and some that didnt but I guess those were the 03s. Ill get the 15.3 slip scaned and posted for you as well as the link to the correction factors (you can do your own math). I still dont know what to say about the dyno. We were there when it was done, but to no coincedence to this thread, we were going to get it re-dyno's soon cause of the recent install of the Mopar exhaust. When we get that, I will post that one up and if you like, we can all start over on that. Last thing I want to do is make enemies here. I joined up so I can learn more about the Cruiser and compare ours to the rest of you. I apoligize for anything taken wrongly, but one thing I am not doing is lying about any numbers I have posted. I have no reason to do so dont want to be taken like that.

You didn't make any enemies, Man, it's just that I think whoever ran the dyno either didn't know what they were doing, or something was wrong with the dynoe and/or software on it. I mena, even the correlation between HP and TQ didn't make any sense. And running a 15.3 stock is not unusual, but at your altitude, it raises an eyebrow.
I didn't mean to jump on you about anything, but sometimes people slide in here and sign up and make one post that is some outrageous claim, and then you never see them again, which means it was BS.
You're as welcome in these forums as anyone, but don't feel like the world is against you if people disagree with you.Different opinions make forums like this what they are, and if everyone was the same it would suck.I'm just a little more willing to voice my opinion than some others (read: I have a big mouth), so don't think I am singleing you out.
And yes, I forgot to mention that on the 2003s they didn't have the HO label.They started that on the 2004s to differentiate from the 180HP 'Turbo Lite' models.

[TripleJackInGA]

quote:Originally posted by Ian-PT-GT


IMHO I don't like correction factors for this same reason.

15.3 Is the corect number for the stock PT in auto-stick.
I did a 15.37 '03 last year when I first started testing the car.
I live 7 feet above sea level and I did the same numbers as you did and you said you where over 5,300' above sea level.

These cars, they correct their engine performance maps to compensate for altitude, temp and humidity.

Your HP and torque numbers are close to what they should have been. It is just that the graph is off in the powerband.

[^]

I tend to agree with this. I mean, correction factors for altitude work great for carbeurated cars, but on Fuel Injection, especially newer cars, I don't see the relevance.I mean, the whole idea of FI is to correct for such things automatically.The PCM should read the MAP Sensor and use that to correct fuel and timing for the adjustment. I'll have to look, but I believe my times were pretty close to the low to mid 15s first time out too.I would be curious to see what your car would run at other tracks at a lower elevation.I'de be willing to bet you would still run close to your 15.3 .

[crazyjoe]

Remember what 3Bar said about our cars....he said that the PCM would increase boost to account for differences in air density, such as altitude differences. So his car might have been boosting up to 15, 16, maybe even 17PSI on the thinner air up there, but notice his performance was right in line with what one would run at sea level.

PCMs on N/A cars couldn't make these sorts of corrections, because when the air is thinner they have to lean out the fuel mixture or you will just bog the car down...there is no whay for them to get more air in than the natural vacuum of the intake will pull. With our cars and their turbosystems, it can yank in a bunch more air as that turbo spools up and force the air to be denser.

[hoopdiewagon]

Sorry it took so long, but here is the slip. I didnt want you all to thinking I was lying This is in Albuq, NM track elevation about 5300ft. Stock 04 GT (I guess I dont have to say "high output" anymore)

[blueberrygt]

First of all, the NHRA correction factors for Forced Induction cars are use half of the correction factor, and are then multiplied by your E.T.

So that would be 1 - 0.9341 which equals 0.0659.

Then divide that by half (or 2) which takes you to 0.03295

So 1 minus 0.03295 is 0.967. This is your new correction.

15.35 (your E.T.) times 0.967 equates to just about a 14.84 give or take a few.

And for the MPH it's 1.035 times 91.7 (your MPH) which equates to 94.9 MPH. Assuming your dyno is correct, you're right on target for the HP you are putting down.


Secondly, the computers used in the SRT/GT's (as finicky as they may be) are taught to compensate for different altitudes. Turbocharged cars respond differently to altitude over Naturally Asipirated cars.



I have an 03 GT. The best time I ever pulled stock was 15.1 @ 92MPH at 400ft above sea level, 68F degrees. Every motor is a little different, but a 1.00 difference (in the 1/4 mile) for the 190 +/- WHP your are putting down doesn't equate.

[hoopdiewagon]

quote:Originally posted by blueberrygt
First of all, the NHRA correction factors for Forced Induction cars are use half of the correction factor, and are then multiplied by your E.T.

I have spent quite a bit of time trying to find if the correction factors were different for boost but always came up short. Where did you find that info at?

quote:
15.35 (your E.T.) times 0.967 equates to just about a 14.84 give or take a few.

These guys still arent going to believe that!

quote:
Assuming your dyno is correct, you're right on target for the HP you are putting down.

Well, the srgument on my dyno was in..nobody liked. We shall see when I get it re-dynod on the 29th

[blueberrygt]

hoopdiewagon --

You can check around on NHRA's website, I'm pretty sure they should list something on there about FI engines ...

If you are putting down around 190-195 WHP, a 14.8 1/4 mile time is right on track. A lot of the 2.4 Autosticks are putting down around 180 - 185WHP stock, and running around a 15.2 - 15.3 on average.

If you are putting down 10-15 more WHP than other GT's, that equates to (rougly) a .5 quicker 1/4 mile...

Not all of GT/SRT engines put down the same numbers -- there can easily be a 5-15 WHP difference between any two engines... Just be happy you're making a little more power!