Fill in the blanks… I think will be finding out soon… :-X
My B8 S4 runs 11.7x at 115.xx with current setup…
My B8 S4 runs __.__at _. with a TVS 1900 and supporting mods…
My guess is 11.2x - 11.4x at 119.xx - 121.xx
a lot of what is awesome about the B8 is the DSG and the reasonably good launches you’ve had at your track.
as for TVS1900, I did a calculation of the CFM and power that thing could in theory flow. Hopefully it’s reasonably accurate.
so with 500 whp it should be a significant gain. It should be noted that no other B8 has had anywhere near your success at any other track though.
The closest is 81bear and he ran barely 11s…with a 25mph tailwind…in cold Canada DA. Everyone else shows low 12s as being the point the car starts to max out the 1320. This makes a ton of sense based on what we’ve seen from the maps and the TVS1320 RS4s out there.
Your pbox data showed that too strangely…12.2 @ 115 or so quarter mile times, over and over. Would be interesting to see your car run somewhere else…or to see some other B8 S4s run at Thompson to see if they too are suddenly ‘outliers’. Imola Monster ran there with richib86’ modlist + dsg…and ran 11.8 @ 116 vs. richi’s 12.3 @ 114. Again the results are weird and outlierish.
Hit up Milan dragway with S6atron. That’s where a TVS1320 RS4 with a good driver and full exhaust and a JHM tune went 11.8 @ 118.
what do cts-v’s with all the goodies (pulley, headers, intake, catback, tune) run?
you’d have the same potential, minus some crank power due to the smaller motor (more restriction), probably more restrictive exhaust side (never looked into it but the ctsv guys must have nice longtube headers avaliable), minus some wheel power due to dtl, but the dsg will help get some of that back when you are talking 1/4 mile times.
CTSV is probably 200 lbs heavier if I were guessing…not sure though.
There’s a few high 10s @ mid 120s mph…however not sure if they’re using nitrous? This guy claims to be the fastest stock blower no nitrous time
http://www.dragtimes.com/Cadillac-CTS-V-Timeslip-21817.html
11.15 @ 126
They’re always on drag radials so they cut 1.5 sixty foot times etc. They are all dynoing in the 550-600 whp/wtq range, and that should outstrip what the S4 is able to do by a good margin.
I also imagine the S4 will be less awesome down low than a 6.2 litre V8 with the same blower…maybe I’m wrong. I don’t see a B8 S4 dynoing 525 whp/525 wtq the way they do with moderate power levels. With the 1900 I bet a Coke they’re more like 525whp/425wtq…but who knows with APR doing the tuning. Count Vohn should keep his ringer turned on lol.
Saki, Yeah the tranny is a huge advantage for this car which is funny because most folks think it is a detrement because it misshifts or shortshifts once in a while… clueless…
As for my #'s and the track, it is what it is… I’ll go run somewhere else but to my credit I have ran at Thompson everytime and consistently improved… I have raced at Norwalk, Thompson, Dragway 42 and Quaker in Ohio with other cars and Thompson is the slowest… As for the P-box I agree the 1/4 times seemed slow but all of my other data supported my car being much faster than the others Tsivas has tested…
Bear doesn’t have CPS, BBK, runs a different intake, tune, etc. Never been to the track with him so I can’t comment on his ability but given his time I say he knows how to get the most out of his car…
Imolamonster, he is on lw 18’s vs Richi on 19’s… he ran with Sunoco GT260 race gas vs 93 for Richi… he gutted the car vs full interior(as far as I know)… Plus the 6-speed vs DSG is tough to quantify especially if the clutch isn’t up to the task…
Back to my car, I think it benefits from the fact that I always run race gas, understand how to dragrace(yeah I know it’s an automatic), and tune… I understand your point on the track though and will see what I can do…
As for power I’ll be happy with 430whp - 450whp on ECS’s dyno with the 1.9L…
Beem, Lot of displacement to make up so not sure I’ll run V times… The DSG helps and a good LC would really help but still will be tough to overcome the tq of the V…
not only do i run full interior but i also run about an extra 80-100lbs of crap… when i go to the track i run in FULL street trim, shit in the trunk and all lol.
it’ll depend on how well the 3.0T can move the air and how whomever sets the blower speed. Lots to speculate but lets say both blowers are spinning the same speed at redline.
iirc the lsa has a lower redline, so its spinning faster per rpm, so at lower rpm it will be spinning faster/moving more air, so torque bump.
assume the inlets can be the same size. Bigger inlet = less friction loss from the outside to the blower inlet. Less friction loss means for the same pr there is more air density.
beyond that it comes down to the efficiency of everything from the blower outlet to the exhaust tips for how much power it makes. double the displacement, longtube headers, big catback, heads built for more power will all lower the restriction. This will decrease pressure losses (friction with the walls and internal friction rob the flow of energy, less flow energy, less stagnation pressure, less cylinder pressure, less torque by the arthurpe equation). The lower restriction also decreases the compressor outlet to inlet pressure ratio, thats what you measure then plot on the compressor map (if you have relief right at the compressor outlet I suppose you could design for pr but that’d be kind of strange to do). Depending on the compressor, lower pr may help or hurt, but for the 1900 which is centered at pr 1.6 (8.82 psig at the compressor outlet, through the coolers may only be 7psig map) its most likely gonna hurt. The efficiency you see is isentropic, which more or less measures how much work you do on the fluid (increase entropy) vs the amount of work input, the difference ends up as heat. Since the 1320 makes 15psi+ map on the 3.0 (probably a 2.0+ pr at the compressor outlet given the map and coolers), the higher flowing 1900 should have an even higher pr at the outlet, well past the 1.6 center eff island. ported heads, bigger charge coolers, bigger/better exhaust will all help.
So yeah, I think 500whp would be on the high end unless lots of other supporting work is done.
nice. You suck at timeslips. I am fanatical about being as light as possible while maintaining the integrity of being ‘full interior’. I arrive sputtering on fumes, I have NOTHING in the trunk etc. I even leave my manual at home 
Every little bit helps!
As you can see here though, I don’t rice it up ‘imola monster’ style.
Primetime good points about richi vs. imola etc. Also your track is IHRA certified I believe…so I’m sure they’re not trying to make you look like a star at the risk of their reputation lol. Just saying that it seems guys struggle to match anything your car does, unless it’s there.
Your pbox mph acceleration (60-100 etc.) times were definitely quicker…another good point. Although it wasn’t much. Auditude’s 60-120 time was 9.21 while you were 9.01? So 2 tenths for most of the quarter mile track (excluing the first 250 feet which is about how long 0-60 mph takes…and according to pbox you were 3.95 to 60mph and he was 4.09).
This chart shows the pbox results of him going 0-120 vs. you, and him going to ATCO in great DA vs. you at Thompson. Not sure what DA was when you did this pbox run. Was there another pbox run done after? This is from Tsivas27’s thread.
basically in a race from 0-120 he’s 3 tenths off your pace with his REVO tune only car…yet at the strip in a shorter race (0-115) he’s almost 7 tenths slower? And he doesn’t even get to 115…he trapped 112.88. So that’s another couple of tenths right there that he should be quicker. That doesn’t make sense. Sure he Pbox’d in great DA but he 1/4 miled in even better DA. So that shouldn’t matter.
next time i go down the strip ill go saki style lol
its gonna be tough reaching the pedals if you go saki style, I heard he removes the driver’s seat and sits on the rear bench, the 80lbs weight savings accounts for the times.
HAHAHAHAHA
lol watch that video. It’s basically in the rear (the driver’s seat).
hoping my next trip down the strip yields better results if i can beat the heat and humidity. between the stoptechs and the HRE’s the car feels EXTREMELY light on its toes now, just waiting on my rear rotors
heat is a killer. Gotta go in spring/fall.
Saki, Can’t disagree with any of the numbers… my latest are much better though… My 60-120’s are nearly .6 quicker… DA was worse and I still think he is/was on race gas not 93… At the end of the day it is what it is… I am always willing to run anyone at a strip to prove my results…
Here is what Tsivas posted… I can send you the logs…
PBOX_50
0-60 3.99s
0-100 8.85s
60-90 3.35s
60-100 4.86s
60-120 8.62s
60-130 11.06s
20-130 13.67s
PBOX_48 run 2
0-60 3.84s
0-100 8.74s
60-90 3.38s
60-100 4.89s
60-120 8.65s
60-130 11.09s
20-130 13.91s
The email u sent me had data from all 7 runs. Those two were best for posted speed sets above. What was DA that day?
Your car was f’n flying btw! The 20-130 time compared to Revo stage 1 DSG is insane. 13.67s vs 14.83s for Revo is huge difference.
oh ok, then I need to see the better info to be able to really compare them. That’s a lot more sensible if that’s the case. the gap now is the same.
This was in good da, this second set of runs, right? So much more comparable to auditurd who was at negative density altitude.
We’d have to remember your track is downhill a bit (I think it was like -1%) as that’s where you pboxed…that certainly helps a bit vs. the dead flat road auditurd was on. But if it’s now 12.49 seconds 0-120 vs. auditurd’s 13.30 so that makes a bunch more sense. That’s about 8 tenths to 120…and likely 6-7 tenths to 115…which is the gap at the strip best vs. best.
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4239/sakiseat.png
LOL. I think I called saki out for not having a reall 4 door, 5 seater sedan. That would be a pretty miserable trip.
The problem is there’s too many people bench racing not enough people getting out to the track trying their cars in different conditions…
I am thinking more about the heat soak our cars see, but it isn’t hurting the trap, it is hurting the ET in my case. I lost 0.5 seconds in ET but trapped the same as I had in previous events stretching to last November. I couldn’t do better than a 12.5 all night last Friday, but I had no problems doing the same 115.1 mph trap. Heck, Prime’s fastest time is only 115.8 trap (yes, I know you’ve gone faster…but…).
What I noticed from the logs is I lost all my power in first gear, until the air rushing in second and third cooled down the charge. While in the cold conditions, intake temps rose from 20s C at the start of the run to high 40s at the end, in the hot conditions the temps started at 60s and 70s, and ended at about 50 C.
I barely got in a 1.8 60’, and that only once even, the rest were 1.9s. But in cold conditions I had no problems getting a low 1.7. And those of you have watched how religious I am about my start ritual, but last Friday I couldn’t even light the tires heading to the staging beams to warm them up.
The point? That unless you line the two cars up next to each other and race, you can’t really say one is faster than the other. Dynos, and even 1/4 mile databases, really mean very little.
And also, that’s why I love this forum. Last year on AZ, when I started a thread talking about the TVS1900, all I got was 1.) talk about turbos instead and 2.) for sure it won’t fit and 3) this:
Here’s what I was figuring:
Where we are now:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7152/6519778109_24399cae31_z.jpg
Where we are now on a TVS1900 (black) and where it may be possible to go (red):
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7157/6519778161_c6aecff103_z.jpg
Considering the efficiency plot of the TVS1900, at the same PR and volume flow of a stage II setup, the 1900 should get us far lower intake temps, and thus a denser charge at the same airflow, I’d say easily worth 20-30 hp alone based on being 72% efficient vs 67% efficient.
Boost that 1900 up to the red lines, and we’d start to explore the flow limits of the head and charge coolers, as beem suggests. But even with the same flow restrictions, I would have to guess forcing an additional 6 psi or so into the stock setup, considering the charge temps would be similar to a Stage II setup, would have to get close to the 500 whp mark on race gas.
I also doubt much performance will be realized on pump though, without going to lower compression on the bottom end. We are pretty much at the point where more boost is requiring timing retarded to levels where we have already reached the power maximum. Already there isn’t much between REVO using 5 degrees more timing and APR S2V2 using 2 psig more boost. Any stage III setup will have to be severely bypassed on pump gas, likely only making the above 20-30 hp more due to compression efficiency.
1600=944=623 crank before losses to drive the blower