[Umbriel]

Originally Posted by danhr

really? who has 800+ rwhp on a SBE lt1? I only knew of one.









either meth or e85, imo. That's just my personal opinion. and those questions are something you need to bring up with your tuner, not a forum. there's A LOT of different ways to skin the cat as far as tuning FI LT1s...… some people run them a little fatter with more timing... some run them leaner with less. some think an lt4 fueling system is mandatory.... some think meth is mandatory. it all varies on your tuners approach... so pick your tuner and trust them.

I don't remember everyone's name that I've seen but Jessika Joy on Facebook is the one standing out in my head, I've talked with a couple others at least about it because I was going to be there myself until I decided to buys short block.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[wnta1ss]

Originally Posted by TheDamme94

With a meth kit though stock pistons become a ticking time bomb in the higher boost ranges correct? I mean i dont have any aversions to meth injection as a fuel supplement. Port injection is my future goal to have but as of now it takes money to play and port injection kits are high dollar

I think that what you heard about with meth kits might be coming from the fact that putting methanol into the charge tube, which then goes into a dry manifold, leaves a question of fuel distribution quality. There might be individual cylinders in that scenario that are not getting their proper share of the methanol, which would mean that cylinder would go lean and also not get the full cooling benefit of the meth. When the boost goes up and the amount of methanol fuel being injected into the charge tube necessarily goes up too, this question would likely rise in importance.

There were a couple of members who put their methanol nozzles into all 8 intake ports. One way to address the question of distribution.

[danhr]

Originally Posted by Umbriel

I don't remember everyone's name that I've seen but Jessika Joy on Facebook is the one standing out in my head, I've talked with a couple others at least about it because I was going to be there myself until I decided to buys short block.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Jessika is the only one I knew of.

[Umbriel]

Originally Posted by danhr

Jessika is the only one I knew of.

That's the only one that stands out but I know I've talked to a few others about it. It's definitely not something I want to push though so I bought a forged short block and secondary port injection.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[s3rics213]

Originally Posted by danhr

Also incorrect. Hp isnt what kills pistons... it's the heat. Which is why some people blow a piston with sub 600 reho numbers and others get away with 700+ and 800+ on stock bottom end

Originally Posted by Umbriel

I was just trying to refer to what he might be thinking was all, just like people say the LT1 can't handle more than 10 pounds of boost when it isn't the amount of boost that's the problem. There are multiple people over 800 on SBE but I didn't want to deal with it so I went forged.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Umbriel

I don't remember everyone's name that I've seen but Jessika Joy on Facebook is the one standing out in my head, I've talked with a couple others at least about it because I was going to be there myself until I decided to buys short block.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Im currently at 770 on a e50 and 50/50 meth mixed sbe Looking to go 100% and I possible can up the e at that point. Only thing is the d1x and lt4 fuel. pushing over 10 psi cause of my rpm range being higher. Looking to go higher and throw headers on it so I'll have to adjust boost for it. Looking to be able to lower and higher the boost along with turning on and off meth. more less on low boost no meth and when I swap to my power pulley ill spray.

[wnta1ss]

Originally Posted by s3rics213

Im currently at 770 on a e50 and 50/50 meth mixed sbe Looking to go 100% and I possible can up the e at that point. Only thing is the d1x and lt4 fuel. pushing over 10 psi cause of my rpm range being higher. Looking to go higher and throw headers on it so I'll have to adjust boost for it. Looking to be able to lower and higher the boost along with turning on and off meth. more less on low boost no meth and when I swap to my power pulley ill spray.

Since your profile says New Mexico, what was the dyno correction factor for that 770? High altitude, common in NM, makes a big difference. For example, if your 770 figure was produced by a 1.20 correction, it would mean that your engine was actually producing noticeably less hp than that. If your engine was actually burning ~642hp of fuel instead of ~770hp of fuel, you would not be pushing the parts as hard as you'd thought.

[s3rics213]

Originally Posted by wnta1ss

Since your profile says New Mexico, what was the dyno correction factor for that 770? High altitude, common in NM, makes a big difference. For example, if your 770 figure was produced by a 1.20 correction, it would mean that your engine was actually producing noticeably less hp than that. If your engine was actually burning ~642hp of fuel instead of ~770hp of fuel, you would not be pushing the parts as hard as you'd thought.

I was in Texas when I dyno'd the car and it had it tuned. When I was stock I compared the car to sea level and it put down very similar numbers. not even 5 hp apart honestly but I do know boost changes. I put down 620 before I upgraded the fuel system. Also never mentioned what size pulleys I'm currently using or psi I'm pushing. Heres one of a few sheets I have this just happens to be one that shows correct torque.

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by Umbriel

That's the only one that stands out but I know I've talked to a few others about it. It's definitely not something I want to push though so I bought a forged short block and secondary port injection.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Cleetus was 800+ for 30k miles.

[wnta1ss]

Originally Posted by s3rics213

I was in Texas when I dyno'd the car and it had it tuned. When I was stock I compared the car to sea level and it put down very similar numbers. not even 5 hp apart honestly but I do know boost changes. I put down 620 before I upgraded the fuel system. Also never mentioned what size pulleys I'm currently using or psi I'm pushing. Heres one of a few sheets I have this just happens to be one that shows correct torque.

Cannot see what the actual correction factor (like 1.1 or whatever) was on that sheet. What city in Texas was that done in? Also the numbers vs sea level is what I was talking about, when you go up in altitude, where the baro pressure is lower, the dyno makes a larger correction. So the actual hp goes down, but the dyno multiplies it by a larger factor. That is how you can get similar corrected numbers at different altitudes. BTW that trace is a mess, those crazy spikes messed up the peak hp number.

[s3rics213]

Originally Posted by wnta1ss

Cannot see what the actual correction factor (like 1.1 or whatever) was on that sheet. What city in Texas was that done in? Also the numbers vs sea level is what I was talking about, when you go up in altitude, where the baro pressure is lower, the dyno makes a larger correction. So the actual hp goes down, but the dyno multiplies it by a larger factor. That is how you can get similar corrected numbers at different altitudes. BTW that trace is a mess, those crazy spikes messed up the peak hp number.

Yeah it wasn’t reading torque towards the end of the day this just happened to be the one that showed the numbers stayed the same. But from the sheet I have shows 5.

[Umbriel]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

Cleetus was 800+ for 30k miles.

Yes he was another one I was thinking of.

[wnta1ss]

Originally Posted by s3rics213

Yeah it wasn’t reading torque towards the end of the day this just happened to be the one that showed the numbers stayed the same. But from the sheet I have shows 5.

5 would be the smoothing, a good choice, SAE is also good. What I was asking about is the numerical correction factor that was applied, which would be something like a 1.05 or 1.15 or whatever (depending on the conditions). Looks like it's not on the sheet.

[s3rics213]

Originally Posted by wnta1ss

5 would be the smoothing, a good choice, SAE is also good. What I was asking about is the numerical correction factor that was applied, which would be something like a 1.05 or 1.15 or whatever (depending on the conditions). Looks like it's not on the sheet.

He didn’t do any dyno correction. Other than SAE. I have the computer version also that shows everything.

[wnta1ss]

Originally Posted by s3rics213

He didn’t do any dyno correction. Other than SAE. I have the computer version also that shows everything.

Seems that you misunderstand what dyno correction factor is. By using the SAE correction, the software compares the atmospheric conditions on the dyno sensor to a certain baseline and makes a factor (the 1.05, 1.15, whatever that I was talking about) to try adjusting to the baseline conditions. Example, if the run was done at low altitude on a good day it might come up with something like a 0.97 correction. Then doing a run at high altitude might see a correction more like 1.20. The software multiples the actual measured hp by this factor and the resulting number is your corrected hp. This multiplication is done with any correction factor, does not matter if the actual numerical factor used is printed on the sheet or not.