# New #'s for me! AND I'm very pleased....



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

Hey guys....Well I think im doing well for a chip tuned vr...I dynoed last friday and hit 415whp and 398 wtq SAE. Heres the breakdown of the setup on the dyno:
60-1/.58 O-trim
18 psi
3" Downpipe only
c2 chip/440's/Bosch pump
w00t!!!1!1!!11!1!!
I think timing is being pulled up top...the curve sure does move around a lot...and this was done on pump gas...so im a little unsure...but i guess im lookin to see what you all thought!
And the photo evidence:










_Modified by Gavster at 7:27 AM 10-27-2004_


----------



## vdubspeed (Jul 19, 2002)

*Re: New #'s for me! AND I'm very pleased.... (Gavster)*























Nice numbers! Is your VR street driven. That thing must be a beast!!!
congrats,
Jason


----------



## SoFarKingFast (Jul 9, 2003)

*Re: New #'s for me! AND I'm very pleased.... (vdubspeed)*

Sick.


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: New #'s for me! AND I'm very pleased.... (SoFarKingFast)*

yeah! its fricken sick...i love it







street driven fo sho!!


----------



## MiamiVr6T (Jul 24, 2004)

*Re: New #'s for me! AND I'm very pleased.... (Gavster)*

awesome numbers.. im thinking about going c2 now.. been to the track at 18psi? have u raced anything on 18psi?


----------



## veedub11 (Mar 10, 2002)

*Re: New #'s for me! AND I'm very pleased.... (MiamiVr6T)*

nice numbers, you finally get a decent exhaust system?


----------



## veedub11 (Mar 10, 2002)

*Re: New #'s for me! AND I'm very pleased.... (Gavster)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Gavster* »_
3" Downpipe only


Nevermind, you don't think that hurts you at all?


----------



## BigDaddyCW (Apr 4, 2000)

Awesome numbers! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## bretter (Sep 6, 2002)

*Re: (BigDaddyCW)*

I'm callin B.S.


_Modified by bretter at 11:44 AM 10-27-2004_


----------



## drivingisfun (Apr 5, 2001)

*Re: (bretter)*

impossible?


----------



## drivingisfun (Apr 5, 2001)

*Re: (drivingisfun)*

ahh you edited your post, i belive it http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (drivingisfun)*

Gav, can you PM me the uncorrected #s again?








415whp is very nice, but it does seem very high http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Good work either way








Lee


----------



## turbojeta3 (Feb 23, 2002)

*Re: (leebro61)*

SWEET JESUS








Man the wife just saw this and wants to sell here supercharger and go turbo. Thanks alot man JESUS...........


----------



## I am Jack's VR6 (Sep 18, 2001)

*Re: (leebro61)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebro61* »_Gav, can you PM me the uncorrected #s again?








415whp is very nice, but it does seem very high http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif

Especially on a stock exhaust...
What are the uncorrected numbers?


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (I am Jack's VR6)*

Those #'s do seem a bit on the high side, and that curve is one of the uglier ones ive seen. Regardless, nice power bro. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (I am Jack's VR6)*

My only thought is this...
Gav, when you pm'd me your STD numbers from the 290whp pulls... and then I heard about these numbers, I did some checking (im a dork). I found a calculator from STD to SAE online, looked up albuquerqe's altitude, current dew point, barometric pressure, etc. I put in how much boost you were running before, etc etc.
Then I used the calculator and the STD numbers you told me were about 20whp lower then the STD numbers (for a turbocharged car correction) then what I got. So on the reverse side, your #s seemed to be inflated 20whp the first time around. 
As it turns out there is a correction for NA cars and for turbo cars. There is approximately a 1.08 correction factor for a boosted car at 18psi if you dynoed RIGHT NOW (current conditions Alb, NM) and a 1.206 if a NA car dynoed right now.
So 415whp becomes 384whp STD with a boosted correction, and it becomes 344whp STD with a NA car correction. Either one is a nice number, but you "could" have a 40whp optimistic correction depending on what was used. 
Im not hatin on your numbers (Ill leave that to the professional) but based on the earlier numbers you told me, it really looked like they used the NA correction factor, which would explain the http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif numbers on stock exhaust, unintercooled, etc etc.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif either way
Lee


----------



## I am Jack's VR6 (Sep 18, 2001)

*Re: (leebro61)*

You're right, you are a dork.








Tim seems to be right about the correction factor.
Oh, and Gav is intercooled now. He has been for a while now.


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (I am Jack's VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *I am Jack’s VR6* »_You're right, you are a dork.








Tim seems to be right about the correction factor.
Oh, and Gav is intercooled now. He has been for a while now.

I know hes intercooled, but I was going on the STD numbers that he IM'd me from when he dynoed when he wasnt. I wouldnt propose such an elaborate theory if I didnt at least have some STD numbers to go off of


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (leebro61)*

btw who is tim?


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (leebro61)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebro61* »_btw who is tim?

GTRTIM


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (nycvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nycvr6* »_
GTRTIM

The king of all haters







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
We need a bowdown icon.
What did Tim say about the correction factor? I see he didnt post in this thread yet, so I was wondering what he had to say


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (leebro61)*

Okay I found that thread too. Hes saying the same thing I was thinking... seems the only possible way to me. Also, C2s software is generally pretty non agressive. That makes me think (esp) on pump gas that these numbers dont add up.


----------



## TAI-VW boosted Dubs (Aug 18, 2004)

*Re: (leebro61)*

Well,even if he has "only" 384whp,I am still impressed as hell........The curve does look like it is pulling timing up top,but still looks sweet........take it to the track and see what the car does,that will tell you if you are truly making that much hp.......Good job Jefnes,C2,and Gavster!


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (TAI-VW boosted Dubs)*

well thats the problem, he might not have 384whp, he could have 344whp, or somewhere in between (std of course). And going to the track only introduces another correction factor








Gavster, youve got a place to stay in Daytona, FL elevation 33 feet hehe if you wanna come down here and get some numbers!
Drive over for the south florida GTG lol


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (TAI-VW boosted Dubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TAI-VW boosted Dubs* »_Good job Jefnes,C2,and Gavster!

Didnt wanna forget this part http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
And for the record, im not trying to give him a hard time, im trying to find out the truth while giving credit where credit it due... and it certainly is due http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## VRQUICK (Sep 20, 2000)

*Re: (leebro61)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebro61* »_ 
So 415whp becomes 384whp STD with a boosted correction, and it becomes 344whp STD with a NA car correction. Either one is a nice number, but you "could" have a 40whp optimistic correction depending on what was used. 


Isn't the 384whp and 344whp mixed up since you said NA correction was 1.206 and FI was 1.08?


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (VRQUICK)*

The NA car gets the bigger gains when gains when going from STD to SAE at those altitudes. 
ie: you multiply NA STD numbers by 120.6% (1.206) and multiply FI STD numbers by 108% (1.08)
I divided the SAE #'s he had by the correction factor. I think it should make sense that the NA correction factor should yield the lower STD number since NA cars get the larger correction.
Maybe im thinking unclearly?
edit - maybe it seems wierd because im trying going from SAE BACK to STD instead of how the dyno correctionl, which goes from STD to SAE?
Its like going from BHP (sae) to WHP (std) in a sense. Only the conditions represent either a 20.6% drivetrain loss in a NA car and a 8% drivetrain loss in Boosted car.
Now im confusing myself











_Modified by leebro61 at 2:54 PM 10-27-2004_


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (leebro61)*

Leebro...your math is actually pretty good...the actual number for the 415whp pass was 341 whp...im also thinking that must be an NA correction. I also thought the correction value was high...but i will contact my dyno guy to see if it was NA corrected. I really think you guys are right about the altitude correction for turbo cars...me and all of my friends think so crazy (a bit too generous) numbers have been coming out of our area. Im still impressed...and at the end of the day..my vr still presses you into the seat like youre taking off in a plane...lol


----------



## VRQUICK (Sep 20, 2000)

*Re: (Gavster)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Gavster* »_Leebro...your math is actually pretty good...the actual number for the 415whp pass was 341 whp...im also thinking that must be an NA correction. I also thought the correction value was high...but i will contact my dyno guy to see if it was NA corrected. I really think you guys are right about the altitude correction for turbo cars...me and all of my friends think so crazy (a bit too generous) numbers have been coming out of our area. Im still impressed...and at the end of the day..my vr still presses you into the seat like youre taking off in a plane...lol









That makes a lot more sense. 341whp to 415whp would be a corrected factor of 1.218. Where as 341whp to the proper correction of 1.08 is 368whp. Which is still suprising to me for a C2 program, but not taking anything away from your setup.


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (VRQUICK)*

Which is what I said.








I said they corrected his boosted car as if it was a NA car, hence with the 1.206 correction instead of the 1.08 correction.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (leebro61)*

yep...368 aint half bad...i still am proud either way!


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Gavster)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## AbqVR6 (Dec 29, 2001)

*Re: (Gavster)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Gavster* »_me and all of my friends think so crazy (a bit too generous) numbers have been coming out of our area. 

good way to make money at the dyno... :/


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (VRQUICK)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VRQUICK* »_
~ 368whp. Which is still suprising to me for a C2 program.

What's surpirsing about it?

Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (AbqVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *AbqVR6* »_
good way to make money at the dyno... :/


You see this all the time......
Put the car on the rollers (strap it down TIGHT)
correction ~1.0 (or lower)
run it.
loosen straps a bit
adjust correction (higher than 1st run)
open hood
make ratchet noise
squeeze trigger on air gun a few times
eat lunch
run it again
BAMN....we 'made' 15whp. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
Dyno operator: pay me sucker....








$$$$ 
I 'MADE' hp for you.
Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## I am Jack's VR6 (Sep 18, 2001)

*Re: (Jefnes3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_What's surpirsing about it?

Jeffrey Atwood

Because it's not written for power. Don't you always say this yourself??
A/F looks great.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (I am Jack's VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *I am Jack’s VR6* »_
Because it's not written for power. Don't you always say this yourself??
A/F looks great.


um, No.....
I run as much ignition timing as pump gas will allow,
(I do not 'decide' I let the ecu make the decision)
and correct fueling.
By 'internet racer' standards this is deemed conservative.

Jeffrey Atwood http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 26, 2004)

*Re: (Jefnes3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_

um, No.....
I run as much ignition timing as pump gas will allow,
(I do not 'decide' I let the ecu make the decision)
and correct fueling.
By 'internet racer' standards this is deemed conservative.

Jeffrey Atwood http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 



We all know what you mean by internet racer. Too many of them out there!
I enjoy my C2/Atwood chip for my V1!! Time for some cams!!


----------



## #1 S T U N N A (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: New #'s for me! AND I'm very pleased.... (Gavster)*

Nice #'s http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## VRQUICK (Sep 20, 2000)

*Re: (Jefnes3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_
What's surpirsing about it?

Jeffrey Atwood

Well you used to say that you like to run safe timing and that you didn't try to get the most power, but the best drivability. It is surprising to me that he made that much power with your software since most people don't. There are a few that have but most people don't. 
And about the "internet racers" they seem to be the ones who don't buy your stuff cause they actually want to go fast down a race track. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 


_Modified by VRQUICK at 6:12 PM 10-28-2004_


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (VRQUICK)*

Gavster,
Nice numbers.
Drop me an email or IM of you need any
adjustments.

Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## VRQUICK (Sep 20, 2000)

*Re: (Jefnes3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_

um, No.....
I run as much ignition timing as pump gas will allow,
(I do not 'decide' I let the ecu make the decision)
and correct fueling.
By 'internet racer' standards this is deemed conservative.

Jeffrey Atwood http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


Um..., you seem to be forgetful. Here are some quotes from you. 

_Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_The real deal with my tunes is driveability, NOT
absolute power.


_Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_Ignition timing: I tune to where I am comfortable with power to risk ratio.


----------



## AbqVR6 (Dec 29, 2001)

*Re: (VRQUICK)*

either way, its not an attack on c2 or jeff, but merely a statement regarding the conservative numbers that c2 claims. 
i think everyone is happy with C2, which are powerful words in this market saturated with with frauds and theifs.
max


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (VRQUICK)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VRQUICK* »_
Um..., you seem to be forgetful. Here are some quotes from you. 



How is any of 'that' contradictory....?
ALL of those things are STILL true.

Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## VRQUICK (Sep 20, 2000)

*Re: (Jefnes3)*

I am not tryimg to argue but when...

_Quote, originally posted by *I am Jack's VR6* »_
Because it's not written for power. Don't you always say this yourself?[/QUOTE
And you reply


Jefnes3 said:


> um, No.....






Jefnes3 said:


> And I quote you saying...
> 
> _Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_The real deal with my tunes is driveability, NOT
> absolute power.
> ...


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (VRQUICK)*

VRqick: Is there a point to all of this?
I'm always up for a good discussion about car stuff, but this doesn't
seem to be about cars anymore.....
Is there something specific about the software in Gavster's car
you would like to know?
Jeffey Atwood


----------



## Ohio Brian (Aug 13, 2001)

*Re: (VRQUICK)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VRQUICK* »_I am not tryimg to argue but when...
And I quote you saying...
And then you say....
Maybe it's just me but ......
con·tra·dic·to·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntr-dkt-r)
adj. 
Involving, of the nature of, or being a contradiction. See Synonyms at opposite. 
Given to contradicting. 
That seems to be the 'opposite' me.

_Modified by VRQUICK at 9:14 PM 10-29-2004_

So the idea of a tune is driveability....then on the dyno it ALSO makes power. 
I don't have a dyno, neither does Jeff. When we tune, we go off of a/f, how much (if any) timing is being pulled, and how the car feels. I know my car enough from driving it this way for years to tell if I've gained or lost power. I can't tell you how much it makes now, but I know it's more than last time I dynoed. 
Don't think that driveabilty and power can't go hand in hand.


----------



## I am Jack's VR6 (Sep 18, 2001)

*Re: (Jefnes3)*

You're a real tool Jeff.
I tried to be as polite as possible but you just couldn't hold back your school-boy grudge, could you? I even complimented the AFR.
How old are you again??
I do think your chip is conservative. I usually use the terms soft and underpowered though. I guess that makes me an internet racer according to you, but I'm an internet racer that will pull on any local running your chip anytime.


----------



## I am Jack's VR6 (Sep 18, 2001)

*Re: (Ohio Brian)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ohio Brian* »_So the idea of a tune is driveability....then on the dyno it ALSO makes power. 
I don't have a dyno, neither does Jeff. When we tune, we go off of a/f, how much (if any) timing is being pulled, and how the car feels. I know my car enough from driving it this way for years to tell if I've gained or lost power. I can't tell you how much it makes now, but I know it's more than last time I dynoed. 
Don't think that driveabilty and power can't go hand in hand. 

If I'm not mistaken, VRQUICK runs the EIP stage 2 setup as do I now.
Do you think it isn't drivable? How many properly setup EIP turbo VR's have you driven?


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

*Re: (I am Jack's VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *I am Jack’s VR6* »_You're a real tool Jeff.


And you're a jackass!


----------



## jsnVR6 (Feb 5, 2001)

If 368 whp is conservative tune with pump gas then get back on the dyno with some 104 oct unleaded race gas. This should help the timing to bump up even more since it won't sense any knock. (Is that right Jeff?)
I think that is a lot of power for a "chip" tuned car on straight pump gas.
Definatly take it to the track. Do you have any weight reduction? You should be in the 116 - 118 mph range for trap speed. I do not know your elevation though.

I think these are very good numbers for a street driven daily driver car. Nothing to be ashamed of.


_Modified by JsnVR6Corrado at 9:57 AM 11-8-2004_


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (JsnVR6Corrado)*

Im taking it to the track on sunday to see what she does..ill keep everyone posted!


----------



## benzivr6 (Feb 16, 2001)

*Re: (Gavster)*

Good luck at the track playa


----------



## 30LVR6 (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: (Jefnes3)*

I would have liked to see higher #'s with 18 psi man.
im at 9 psi and running 306 HP


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

*Re: (30LVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *30LVR6* »_I would have liked to see higher #'s with 18 psi man.
im at 9 psi and running 306 HP

Do we need to get into the built motor vs. the unbuilt motor. You have a 3.0L...what have you done with it....obviously that puts you at somewhat of an advantage over any other unbuilt 2.8,


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (vr6ofpain)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vr6ofpain* »_
Do we need to get into the built motor vs. the unbuilt motor. You have a 3.0L...what have you done with it....obviously that puts you at somewhat of an advantage over any other unbuilt 2.8,









Seriously dood.... attack mode OFF. That's twice now that you and your







's have been lookin to start a fight.
A 3.0 would make marginally more power, so I dont think thats his point. His 3.0 is prolly an 83mm bore and I doubt hes making crazy gains because of it.
Besides, building a motor doesnt add power, it supposedly makes it more resistant to failure.
I think his point was, alot of people have made better numbers on less boost, albeit diff turbos/mgmt system.


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (leebro61)*

His turbo might be larger too...all i know is that im happy with my power output and i drive my car everyday! 12-15k miles a year


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

*Re: (leebro61)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebro61* »_Seriously dood.... attack mode OFF. That's twice now that you and your







's have been lookin to start a fight.
A 3.0 would make marginally more power, so I dont think thats his point. His 3.0 is prolly an 83mm bore and I doubt hes making crazy gains because of it.
Besides, building a motor doesnt add power, it supposedly makes it more resistant to failure.
I think his point was, alot of people have made better numbers on less boost, albeit diff turbos/mgmt system.

Well it seems like he is trying to say his setup is "better". I think it is unecessary to bring down someone who is happy with their vehicle....especially when it makes 415whp. Who cares, why bring up the conflict.


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (vr6ofpain)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vr6ofpain* »_
Well it seems like he is trying to say his setup is "better". I think it is unecessary to bring down someone who is happy with their vehicle....especially when it makes 415whp. Who cares, why bring up the conflict.

Well, I dont think he said his setup was better, just saying that he thought Gavster could make more power on 18psi than he did.
For the record, Gavster made 368ish whp (341actualy whp). The 415whp number was formed by using an incorrect correction factor.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (leebro61)*

this above info is true...but i also felt that post was a sort of "im better than you" post...and i think saying my vr put down 309 whp at 9 psi is fruitless unless you provide details on your setup...for all i know that guy could be full stand alone, gt42r, blah blah blah...my point, and what i think vr6ofpain's point is is that it was a pointless post...w/out any good info in it


----------



## aqua_blue_pearl_g60 (Dec 4, 2001)

nice numbers gavSTER ahhh to have chip tuning like this for the 1.8t oh well haha


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Gavster)*

well, if every post on this website had a point to it...
there would be one forum, 3 users, and 2 posts per week.


----------



## Bad Habit (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: (leebro61)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebro61* »_

Besides, building a motor doesnt add power, it supposedly makes it more resistant to failure.
I think his point was, alot of people have made better numbers on less boost, albeit diff turbos/mgmt system.

I would say building a motor adds power,did you not have yours balanced?


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

*Re: (leebro61)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebro61* »_
Well, I dont think he said his setup was better, just saying that he thought Gavster could make more power on 18psi than he did.
For the record, Gavster made 368ish whp (341actualy whp). The 415whp number was formed by using an incorrect correction factor.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

So what did it make, 415, 368 or 341whp? Don't all dyno #'s have a correction factor of some sort? What was this "incorrect correction factor"?


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Bad Habit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Bad Habit* »_
I would say building a motor adds power,did you not have yours balanced?

Okay, assuming you have a built vr6t, you are likely making in excess of 400 hp. 400hp would be a gain of 230ish bhp from stock. Do you really think you could gain more than 1 or 2% by balancing it? My rods were individually weighed and so were the pistons. I matched them up as well as possible but I did not balance the entire rotating assembly (rods, wrist pins, pistons, rings, etc). If it was a million dollar project then I might have, but Ive been told its not a huge issue if you wont be revving to the moon.
Aside from arguing semantics, I meant that you dont start with 170hp and throw in forged pistons and make 200hp.
To vr6ofpain... just read the thread and I think your questions will be answered http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (30LVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *30LVR6* »_I would have liked to see higher #'s with 18 psi man.
im at 9 psi and running 306 HP

This is ALL rediculous:
so we'll play the 'internet racer dyno game'....
306hp
figure ~15% trans loss = ~260whp on ~9psi. (big deal this is 'standard' FI vr6 stuff)

Gavter's ~415whp on 18psi:
We can't control what correction the dyno operator applies 
to the run, so why agrue about it?
One thing though: we can't say his 415whp isn't real
and then in the SAME breath say his ~18psi is 'low'
for the what 'real' power he is making.
You guys are using the altitude correction for half of the conditions:
Gavster is in Albuquerque. (Gav. correct me if I'm wrong here)
The local altidute is ~6000ft above sea level.
Therfore the 'typical' ambient air pressure is ~11.8psia
or ~3 psi LOWER then sea level. 
(Sea level ambient presure ~14.7psia)
Thus the 'real' boost could be compared to ~15psi at sea level.
Take your pick:
415whp @ 18psi boost
(dyno operators attempt to correct to sea level)
or
341whp @ 15psi boost.
or 6 million hp at 50psi of boost.......








Eitherway makes no difference to me, just do the math right....
Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Jefnes3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_
306hp
figure ~15% trans loss = ~260whp on ~9psi. (big deal this is 'standard' FI vr6 stuff)


Since youre arguing semantics, how do you know he didnt mean whp? Not everybody says w.
Also where he is at is closer to 5300 feet...
As for the correction factor used... in theory people say (I have little personal experience with dynos) you can make a dyno read whatever you want.
Why would we NOT argue what the real numbers were? We know why you dont want to








Considering I dont even have a car with a motor in it, im not in a position to hate on anyones numbers and I honestly think I wasnt hating... but from my perspective, Id rather see actual whp @ actual boost
However, I do see your point


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

In light of all this discussion, I'm gonna ask for both my corrected and uncorrected #'s next time I dyno my car. I assume the sheet they printed out for me was SAE corrected. Though the shop I used to dyno my car was in Livermore, CA, which is probably within a few hundred feet of sea level anyway....it is the bay area.


----------



## AbqVR6 (Dec 29, 2001)

*Re: (vr6ofpain)*

who cares, gavin's car owns


----------



## 30LVR6 (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: (vr6ofpain)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vr6ofpain* »_
Do we need to get into the built motor vs. the unbuilt motor. You have a 3.0L...what have you done with it....obviously that puts you at somewhat of an advantage over any other unbuilt 2.8,









Hey dick head, yeah its a 3.0L, but its also 8.5:1 CR. and that 306HP is at the wheels!!
Eat that sh!t








thanks leebro61 for backin me up.

_Quote, originally posted by *gavster* »_
His turbo might be larger too...all i know is that im happy with my power output and i drive my car everyday! 12-15k miles a year

I have a 60-1 standard, so i am guessing its larger than yours.
big deal with miles, im in the same boat, but i put on 12K with out driving it in the winter!!!










_Modified by 30LVR6 at 11:27 AM 11-10-2004_


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (30LVR6)*

I have a 60-1 too, what do you use for management


----------



## GTijoejoe (Oct 6, 2001)

*Re: New #'s for me! AND I'm very pleased.... (Gavster)*

wow








awesome numbers-
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## BigDaddyCW (Apr 4, 2000)

*Re: New #'s for me! AND I'm very pleased.... (GTijoejoe)*

What a thread.


----------



## J Dubya (Oct 26, 2001)

*Re: (30LVR6)*

Take it to the track. Get your ET, trap speed and car weight. That will tell you your HP. Forget the dyno and forget what Joe blow did with his car at whatever PSI. THat should give you a good number to go by.
JsnVR6corrado dyno's his car at 368 WHP. He traps 118 MPH with a full interior corrado.


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (J Dubya)*

Finally got her to the track! All i have to say is...i hate fwd+gobbs of torque and street tires...lol. Best time was [email protected] and my best trap was [email protected] i think our guess at what the real correction factor is is correct. what do you guys think of my times...remember...im only really making 341 whp


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (Gavster)*

What does your car weigh? Nice trap speed.


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

Who cares what your car makes power wise if you trap 115-117?
NICE runs http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (leebro61)*

haha yeah!!! Justin- Ive never weighed it....i dont think it weights much less than a stock vr jetta....i have full interior...no weight reduction whatsoever....i think they weigh around 3000lbs right?


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (Gavster)*

If youre around 3000lbs, your car is probably making high 300's, pretty close to 400. Put some good tires on, youll hit 12's easily. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (nycvr6)*

yeah...i would get slicks...but im afraid of breaking the ones that ive got...so when the track re-opens, ill try out some 225/50/r15 BFG radials..im sure theyll help!


----------



## jsnVR6 (Feb 5, 2001)

*Re: (Gavster)*

What is the correction factor for your power at sea level?
At closer to sea level you are making some serious power for a chip.
12's are not something that should be a problem to hit. Just need to learn how to drive a high 300 whp car down the track. It will take a couple visits to learn on street tires. I know it took me 4 times down the track before I hit 12's on streets.
Next time in the track go with some Race Gas. Might get into the 120 mph club


----------



## 30LVR6 (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: (JsnVR6Corrado)*

all im saying is that i am at 306HP @ 8.5:1CR with 9psi with an ATP 310cc 8.5:1 chip
and you have ~340 @ 10:1CR with 18 psi.
if i were you i would be pissed!!!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## veedub11 (Mar 10, 2002)

*Re: (30LVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *30LVR6* »_all im saying is that i am at 306HP @ 8.5:1CR with 9psi with an ATP 310cc 8.5:1 chip
and you have ~340 @ 10:1CR with 18 psi.
if i were you i would be pissed!!!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 

hmmm, 3liter








Don't even compare ATP sofeware to C2


----------



## 30LVR6 (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: (veedub11)*

well i am 40 hp away with 9 less psi.
i wouldnt use that c2 chip if YOU bought it!


----------



## veedub11 (Mar 10, 2002)

*Re: (30LVR6)*

go bash in the MK4 forum noob.


----------



## sonoflight (Aug 1, 2003)

*Re: (30LVR6)*

ahem...he's got a c2 headspacer as well, and at our higher elevation its closer to 8:1 CR.
also, this is a full weight jetta trapping at 117 mph. Id say he's makin more than 340 whp.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (leebro61)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebro61* »_Who cares what your car makes power wise if you trap 115-117?
NICE runs http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Plus, thats at ~58xx ft altitude. 
Food for thought: 
'Thin' air is easier for the car to 'push' through....
'Thin' air makes less power....
Good stuff Gav. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## 30LVR6 (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: (veedub11)*


_Quote, originally posted by *veedub11* »_go bash in the MK4 forum noob.

i have a mk3 and i was banned with over 1000 posts.
i go to school and have a job.
im not an internet racer!!!


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (30LVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *30LVR6* »_all im saying is that i am at 306HP @ 8.5:1CR with 9psi with an ATP 310cc 8.5:1 chip
and you have ~340 @ 10:1CR with 18 psi.
if i were you i would be pissed!!!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 

Let me see your dyno chart...and your AF...and my cvompressio may be a whole point less than yours....like sonoflight said...my compression is somewhere between 7.5:1 or 8:1 because of altitude with my 8.5:1 spacer....what times do you run at the track? I cant take you seriously til you provide some facts


----------



## nycvr6 (May 4, 1999)

*Re: (30LVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *30LVR6* »_all im saying is that i am at 306HP @ 8.5:1CR with 9psi with an ATP 310cc 8.5:1 chip
and you have ~340 @ 10:1CR with 18 psi.
if i were you i would be pissed!!!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 

Wow you made such an accomplishment, you want a cookie? Lets see the air/fuel on your crapper. Why dont you troll somewhere else.


----------



## 30LVR6 (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: (nycvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nycvr6* »_
Wow you made such an accomplishment, you want a cookie? Lets see the air/fuel on your crapper. Why dont you troll somewhere else. 

fishing season is over!
but...
i didnt know you had a spacer, that explains some of it.


----------



## turbojeta3 (Feb 23, 2002)

*Re: (30LVR6)*

Gav,

awsome man long time coming, well deserved http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (turbojeta3)*

Thanks!! Im very happy...contrary to what a certain someone might think...BTW 30LVR6, please share your info since your car runs _so_ well and is _so_ much better than mine...just because yours made 309 whp @ 9 psi doesnt tell us crap...what times/traps do you get...what are the a/FS...until we know this...you are just a huge tool


----------



## 30LVR6 (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: (Gavster)*

i never said mine was better than anyone elses, i just said that if i were you i would be dissapointed.
i'll try and get my damn scanner hooked up and working, becasue i just have to prove myself








What ever happened to trust in this world.
Maybe its just the people that i am dealing with http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## rbr20 (Jul 28, 2001)

Nice numbers Gavster!!!


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (30LVR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *30LVR6* »_i never said mine was better than anyone elses, i just said that if i were you i would be dissapointed.
i'll try and get my damn scanner hooked up and working, becasue i just have to prove myself








What ever happened to trust in this world.
Maybe its just the people that i am dealing with http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 

Whatever happened to reading comprehension in this world?
Id say shut up while you are still ahead but youve been behind all along.
First of all, he has a 5800ft elevation handicap. Second of all, his dyno numbers are questionable. I HIGHLY doubt he is really making 340whp. Based on his trap and weight, he seems to be in the very high 300s, regardless of elevation and correction factors. 
If you read the thread and looked at it objectively instead of picking out the details you wanted to comprehend, you would have shut up a long time ago.
Final thought: He is making ALOT more power than you at presumably a higher elevation (you never did post details or slips or anything, just 306whp @ 9psi so since you didnt, im making up the details). 
Go get 'er done with your atp software and #30 injectors http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## BigDaddyCW (Apr 4, 2000)

*Re: (leebro61)*


_Quote, originally posted by *leebro61* »_
Go get 'er done with your atp software and #30 injectors http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## SoFarKingFast (Jul 9, 2003)

#30 injectors and 300hp eh? Checked the duty cycle on those injectors recently?


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (SoFarKingFast)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SoFarKingFast* »_#30 injectors and 300hp eh? Checked the duty cycle on those injectors recently?

30*6*whp @ 9 psi
Get it right


----------



## steveedub (Jan 2, 2001)

*Re: (leebro61)*

Thats a pretty good trap speed for a stock weight mk3 jetta!


----------



## bretter (Sep 6, 2002)

*Re: (steveedub)*

hey gav i just got a new set of 225/50/15 bfg g force dr's and ive snapped both my stock axles comin outta the hole real hard. i guess im gettin a lil greedy with the 6 puck........slip it good. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Gavster (Jan 8, 2002)

*Re: (bretter)*

wow...even on the drag radials?? goo...i guess id better get some DSS axles and just skip the dr's n get slicks...Are the stock axles pretty weak sauce?


----------



## sonoflight (Aug 1, 2003)

i think anything related to VW drivetrains is weak sauce


----------



## bretter (Sep 6, 2002)

*Re: (sonoflight)*

yep just with drag radials. i think im just launchin too hard. 
ive heard of ppl running slicks and not really having a problem with stock axles. i am always the exception................


----------



## SoFarKingFast (Jul 9, 2003)

I have heard from others that you need to use the e-brake and preload that drive train by slipping the clutch like crazy.


----------



## thirdstorystart (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: (SoFarKingFast)*

nice numbers gavster. i love seeing big # stock block vr6t's. of course there are people like me who went built motor no boost.







oh well. keep up the good work.


----------

