Who has 600rwhp on 91 Octane???

I would like to know how many people on this board are running 550 to 600rwhp with an intercooled blower on 91 octane gas and how long they have been running this combo.

I've been slowly collecting parts for my 383 rebuild over the past 6 months. I realized that I never even thought to ask if my goals are achievable (since most people run 93+ octane). The car is a daily driver (40miles/day) and has to run on our ****ty 91 octane gas (all I can get). If I can't reach my goal, I may as well quit while I'm ahead, rebuild it cheaply for around 450rwhp and put all the extra $$ somewhere else. The plan was a forged 383, AFR heads, 8.5:1 CR, XE cam, twin intercooled D1SC, 72# injectors with impedance converter box, dual in-tank pumps, water injection, street twin, beefed up tranny/driveshaft/12bolt rear.

The car has to be reliable because I want to enjoy all the time/money I'm putting into it. Failures of the tranny/rear would be OK, but I don't want to spend big $$ on an engine and have to pull it every year (not fun in an fbod). If this combo will not get me to 600rwhp, or will be breaking all the time, it just won't be worth it. I want to spend more time driving my car than my beater. I've seen too many people collect all this stuff, drive the car for 2 months, decide they can't stand all the breakdowns and sell off everything.

I'd really like opinions if the above will get me there (from personal experience) or if I am wasting my time dreaming.

Thanks,
Brent M.

Keep in mind, that all dyno's are different. Not only that- but a real 600rwhp should net at least a 140 mph trap speed in a 3500 lb car.

My buddy Vince runs 160+ in the 1/4 and makes "only" 720 rwhp. Makes ya wonder about some of the "1000 hp" guys out there that can't bust 130.

Of course, who am I to talk. I'll be lucky to bust 120 this year on the temp setup. lol

Steve

It might be costly and a pain in the @$$ but couldn't you just dump a bottle of Octane boost in ever time you fill up? Not like it would need a whole bottle all the time. Where are you from Cali? Why the $#!% gas? That sucks that you can't get anything better than 91. Personally if I was the EPA, we wouldn't have anything below 93 to run on.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, have to love traction don't ya? No wonder them Supra Guys love to race on the rollers because they don't actually have to truely put the power to the ground. :D

I hope you're kidding about the bottle of octane boost.

You realize that when they say that it raises the level of octane 1 point that they mean .1?

It would be easier and more cost effective to mix with racegas or do your own tolulene mix than spend $3 a bottle on 10 bottles of octane boost that doesn't do anything.

Originally posted by steve10358

My buddy Vince runs 160+ in the 1/4 and makes "only" 720 rwhp. Makes ya wonder about some of the "1000 hp" guys out there that can't bust 130.

Steve

That's because people concentrate on peak numbers, and not the area under the curve.

Originally posted by steve10358
Keep in mind, that all dyno's are different. Not only that- but a real 600rwhp should net at least a 140 mph trap speed in a 3500 lb car.

My buddy Vince runs 160+ in the 1/4 and makes "only" 720 rwhp. Makes ya wonder about some of the "1000 hp" guys out there that can't bust 130.

Of course, who am I to talk. I'll be lucky to bust 120 this year on the temp setup. lol

Steve

You'd be suprised how much power a non lockup converter can cost on the dyno, especially in something with a lot of power. You can also spin the heck out of the tires and not even notice it.

As for the 1000rwhp cars, take a look at the power curve. If they make 400rwhp at 5k rpm and 1,000rwhp at 5500rpm then they probably aren't going to be very fast. Most of the big power cars (thinking Supras) have a monster turbo that takes forever to get spooled up and they have to keep shifting gears, getting out of the power band.

Here is a 965rwhp graph btw, I just think it looks cool:)

http://www.landrocket.com/images/turbostuff/965rwhp.jpg

Originally posted by Brandy
Here is a 965rwhp graph btw, I just think it looks cool:)

http://www.landrocket.com/images/turbostuff/965rwhp.jpg

ROFL.....that looks cool but the thing that's so funny that it is so characteristic of HUGE turbo cars ie. single turbo Supra.

Originally posted by Brandy
You'd be suprised how much power a non lockup converter can cost on the dyno, especially in something with a lot of power. You can also spin the heck out of the tires and not even notice it.

I wonder just how much you loose on a non-lockup.. most cars at WOT are not locked up anyhow..

I've been wondering about that, because I thought my HP was a bit low.. but then I considered the stock heads and intake, and just accepted it. I also know you loose some hp for the big, soft Hoosier tires, even though I aired them up to 18 psi, which is pretty hard for them!

Is there a given number for say, a 3500 non-lockup and some 31x 16.5 soft tires?? :D

Originally posted by sb427f-car
It might be costly and a pain in the @$$ but couldn't you just dump a bottle of Octane boost in ever time you fill up? Not like it would need a whole bottle all the time. Where are you from Cali? Why the $#!% gas? That sucks that you can't get anything better than 91. Personally if I was the EPA, we wouldn't have anything below 93 to run on.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, have to love traction don't ya? No wonder them Supra Guys love to race on the rollers because they don't actually have to truely put the power to the ground. :D


bwahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaahha

octane booster :rolleyes: ROFLMAO im not even gonna comment cause im laugin too hard right now :thumb:

No simple answer to this one. But my simplified answer is that a reliable 600rwhp with a blower car on 91octane is barely possible. Some of the issues have been touched on, which is that dyno numbers can be misleading. The conditions must be specified. Amd the transmission will strongly influence dyno numbers. The difference between an automatic with a loose converter and a manual can be in the 10% range. And as far as reliability, a lot will depend on how it's driven. If you drove conservatively except under optimal conditions, that would make a big difference as would the tune.

So, if the car were an M6, and the dyno run showing "600rwhp" was done under optimal conditions, and the driver were very careful as far as tune and driving habits, yep, it could probably be done. My previous setup ran 10,000 miles over 2 years with no reliability issues and dynoed more than 600rwhp. However, I never ran less than 94octane and would run 100octane unleaded when I was pushing the car or at the track. There was no evidence of detonation damage at teardown, but the bearing were looking pretty shot.

Overall, I'd set my goals a little lower for a car designed to run on 91 octane. That, or look for a perfect day to dyno!

Rich Krause

Good point TA! Vince has a VERY flat power curve from 5000 to 8000.

Steve

Back on topic, you can't make 600rwhp reliably with a street car and definitely not on 91 octane fuel. Now 450rwhp or maybe even 500rwhp with the right intercooler and you'd be in business. That is A LOT of power and parts will break.

Originally posted by Arctic_White_WS6
The car is a daily driver (40miles/day) and has to run on our ****ty 91 octane gas (all I can get).

If you were wanting this kind of power on 91, I would seriously look into Propane Injection, It will help increase the octane of the fuel as well as cool the intake charge some, should be the ticket for what your looking to do.

Bill

Originally posted by Arctic_White_WS6
The car is a daily driver (40miles/day) and has to run on our ****ty 91 octane gas (all I can get). Thanks,
Brent M.

Xylene ... 2 gallons per tank will noticeably increase the octane value of your 91 pump gas. I buy it in 5 gallon pails for around C$1.86/liter, that works out to about US$5.07 a gallon.

If you're feeling "frisky", dump in a little extra ... I've been running 15 - 20% Xylene for a year and a half, no ill effects what so ever.

Hope this helps

LWM

It really sounds to me like this more of a project than I want to take on. It would be pushing the limits of what is achievable with a street driven LT1 on a reasonable budget. Pushing limits is never good for the pocket book! If I drop my goals to 450rwhp to 500rwhp, I can save tons of money as the rotating assembly does not have to be as good, the heads don't have to be as good and a lot of my existing parts like high impedance injectors and fuel system can stay.

My XE cam (224/236,115LSA,111ICL) with an Eagle 383 rotating assembly, SRP dished pistons, 8.5:1 CR with decent heads on 10# should probably make for a pretty nice daily driver. I'd still go with water injection to try and make up for the crappy gas. Depending on heads, this combo should make the 450rwhp to 500rwhp I would think.

Heck, the money saved will almost buy me a bike that will run 9's or 10's :D

When I was running my blower at 8psi on my stock block, I always ran a 20% Toluene mix to make up for the 91 octane. Toluene was $50Cdn for a 5 gallon container. I'd dump 1.5 to 2gal per tank which added $20Cdn to a $45Cdn tank of premium (91) gas. Considering I go through a tank of gas every 4-5 days, it got expensive. Heck, just the cost of the Toluene would have paid for nitrous, not even counting the $$ in the blower.

Thanks for all the comments,
Brent M.

In September with the latest dyno pulls, LJ at www.acceleronics.com helped dyno tuned my car to 611rwhp 608 ftlbs (http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/bc/hughlam@sbcglobal.net/vwp?.dir=/Camaro_SS+R&.src=ph&.dnm=dyno+7-26-03.gif) on a dynojet. Notice the nice big area under the hp curve and the nice torque curve as well. This car consistently dyno the same. The first dyno tuning was done in April on a mustang type dyno and pulled 598rwhp. All dyno pulled is done with Unocal 76 91 octane, no ice in the aftercooler, and going through a full exhaust.

This car is tuned for daily driving on 91 octane still using the stock PCM. I have to admit that I am extremely happy with the result. Even AFR could not believe that I am making this kind of power with just their AFR LT1 heads and asked for my dyno tables.

I think it is because Nutek did a extremely good job for my motor, flow checked the heads with larger valves installed, and picked out a custom grind Comp cam to match my setup. The motor was built to handle over 15# and I am only making 11#. All the machining and everything that can be done to reinforced it was done by Nick. Then my little cousin installed everything and LJ did a tremendous job on the tuning. I have to add, because of LJ's impedance box, I am using all stock fuel lines with only a Walbro 340M intank, a Voltblaster and Seimens 72#/hr.

This car will drive in traffic then around town for over two hours in 95F and the temperature guage will increased from 170 to about 180, not even the 1/4 mark.

The motor has been in for almost a year now and tuned for about 5 months. I have only romped on it a handful of time, but haven't taken it to the strip yet. I have just taken it to Thunderhill Raceway for road racing and it was fantastic.

In short this can definitely be done, but you don't see too many people setting up a 600rwhp reliable street car. In all honesty, although this came out better than what I dreamed of, if I can go back, I would definitely not have done it. I could have invested this money in other things. But since I did it, I tried to do everything right and not skim on anything, that will be what I would suggest.

good luck

Originally posted by Camaro_SS/R
In September with the latest dyno pulls, LJ at www.acceleronics.com helped dyno tuned my car to 611rwhp 608 ftlbs (http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/bc/hughlam@sbcglobal.net/vwp?.dir=/Camaro_SS+R&.src=ph&.dnm=dyno+7-26-03.gif) on a dynojet. Notice the nice big area under the hp curve and the nice torque curve as well. This car consistently dyno the same. The first dyno tuning was done in April on a mustang type dyno and pulled 598rwhp. All dyno pulled is done with Unocal 76 91 octane, no ice in the aftercooler, and going through a full exhaust.

This car is tuned for daily driving on 91 octane still using the stock PCM. I have to admit that I am extremely happy with the result. Even AFR could not believe that I am making this kind of power with just their AFR LT1 heads and asked for my dyno tables.

I think it is because Nutek did a extremely good job for my motor, flow checked the heads with larger valves installed, and picked out a custom grind Comp cam to match my setup. The motor was built to handle over 15# and I am only making 11#. All the machining and everything that can be done to reinforced it was done by Nick. Then my little cousin installed everything and LJ did a tremendous job on the tuning. I have to add, because of LJ's impedance box, I am using all stock fuel lines with only a Walbro 340M intank, a Voltblaster and Seimens 72#/hr.

This car will drive in traffic then around town for over two hours in 95F and the temperature guage will increased from 170 to about 180, not even the 1/4 mark.

The motor has been in for almost a year now and tuned for about 5 months. I have only romped on it a handful of time, but haven't taken it to the strip yet. I have just taken it to Thunderhill Raceway for road racing and it was fantastic.

In short this can definitely be done, but you don't see too many people setting up a 600rwhp reliable street car. In all honesty, although this came out better than what I dreamed of, if I can go back, I would definitely not have done it. I could have invested this money in other things. But since I did it, I tried to do everything right and not skim on anything, that will be what I would suggest.

good luck

Your post is informative, but it doesn't really prove much about 600rwhp and reliability. As you said, you don't get on it much. If you drive your 600hp car conservatively, it should last a long time. But that's not what most of us buy them for!

Rich Krause

Very impressive car Hugh.

how would the reliability be different with a turbo car with 600 rwhp, any at all?

Originally posted by lt4 fd
how would the reliability be different with a turbo car with 600 rwhp, any at all?

Maybe, to a point. A turbo doesn't take much hp to drive, it mostly runs off the heat energy from the exhaust. So, the 50+hp it may take to drive a centrifugal represents additional stress on the motor.

Rich Krause

Yeah, doesnt the load of turning the blower wear out certain main bearings really fast? I figure thats the only thing that would make it less reliable, since well theres nothing else that would put any more stress on the motor in a supercharged motor that I can think of, I was just curious if there is any reason why either would be less reliable as far as maintenance and or longevity.

Originally posted by lt4 fd
Yeah, doesnt the load of turning the blower wear out certain main bearings really fast? I figure thats the only thing that would make it less reliable, since well theres nothing else that would put any more stress on the motor in a supercharged motor that I can think of, I was just curious if there is any reason why either would be less reliable as far as maintenance and or longevity.

This is true. Some SC motors suffer premature front main bearing or crank snout failure due to loading from the belt. Especially if it's run tight. My point was that there is additional stress on the motor related to the hp needed to drive the SC. If it takes 50hp to drive the blower, a 600hp motor must generate 650hp internally to "see" 600hp at the flywheel.

Rich Krause

Originally posted by Camaro_SS/R
The first dyno tuning was done in April on a mustang type dyno and pulled 598rwhp. All dyno pulled is done with Unocal 76 91 octane, no ice in the aftercooler, and going through a full exhaust.



I was wondering when you think you will be smogging your car? I'd be interested in finding out how you do, so I can know what to expect in the future.:)

Last year my car was making 600+rwhp (with a blower) and I ran it on 93 octane all the time.

I ended up taking the engine out because of poor leakdown on 1 cylinder (17 percent), and found that the moly was chipping off of the top ring (due to detonation).

When I rebuilt the engine, and built the turbo setup, I decided that mixing in race gas was cheap insurance.

I've been running over 700rwhp with half 93 (1.98gal) and half 110 (3.49gal), all summer and I've had no problems with the engine. I have around 2,000 miles on the setup now, including multiple trips to work (30mi each way), 3 trips to the dragstrip 45 miles away, and 1 trip to a dragstrip 120 miles away. Every time I get in the car I've got the boost controller set to 19psi, and I use every bit of it.

So, is it possible to make 600+rwhp on 93 octane? Sure it is. But with the amount of time and money invested into such a setup, good fuel is cheaper than a rebuild.

Originally posted by lt4 fd
Yeah, doesnt the load of turning the blower wear out certain main bearings really fast? I figure thats the only thing that would make it less reliable, since well theres nothing else that would put any more stress on the motor in a supercharged motor that I can think of, I was just curious if there is any reason why either would be less reliable as far as maintenance and or longevity.


I read somewhere that a blower adds approx 200lbs more stress to the crank at all times because the boost is always there. Now if you go turbo, when the motor isn't revving in the boost range there won't be that 200lbs of added pressure to the crank/bearings. So your motor should last a hell of alot longer. I dunno, just a thought.

Well guys, I have been on both sides of this fence.. my 70 Camaro with an ATI was a nitemare..period.

This current TTA has been the oppossite. 2 years of flogging on it and zero damage to the motor.

The lesson learned on my part is keeping knock retard in constant check. if it detonates, you will destroy bearings, rings, pistons,valves, U name it. You can take a cast piston motor to 600 RWHP, but cannot take a forged piston motor to 300 with detonation present.

Its not the power that kills, its the PING(aka knock retard) that will make mince meat.

How to get that HP on 91 octane safely, build a 10:1 540 cubic inch big block chevy. With a small motor, your octane requirement increases as the HP does.

Solutions, race gas..alcohol injection..propane injection.

I'm still waiting to see a really fast car on propane.

HTH

I have done 600s with 190AFR heads and 10psi boost... 93 octane.. no ping... all about tunning I guess.

car with 600 should trap 130 MPH.. if you have been racing it at the track trapping 130+ on 91 octane..not on one nite..but on multiple occassions..

My hats off to you :bow:

Actually when I was tunning it I did a horrible 13.0@118, had missfire problems and more problems, had just raised the boost and was tunning it, but beat a few 10sec cars that trapped more than 130mph... and them launching first ;)

Remember..till the slip's' are in the hand.. there is no other proof :bow:

Not ET but MPH :D

He showed me 6 slips.. the slowest being a 10.6@133mph.. the fastest being a 10.3@ 136mph ;)

Listen, I am not saying you have a slow car. And that you didnt beat a 10 second car...

But when your car in closed conditions does the time..and you get kicked out..thats when reality is what it is. Until then you have a fast car with no real basis but seat of pants.

I have too beaten plenty of 10 second cars.. just cant get that 130 MPH slip..just yet.

If the tune is in deed correct, shouldnt take you but a trip to the track, run a 12.3 at 130.. bada bing..done :)

End of story :bow:

Until then..its all keyboard drag racing ;)

Not true.. there is so much to the 1/4 mile than just that... I personally cant get any less than 2.4 on the 60' times... and the best 8th has been 8.9s. So not good... If I would have raced with him that day of the 118 I would have gotten beaten, that is for sure, my car had so much problems that day, which were fixed.. Anyways...

I cant use slicks.. my clutch wont hadle it... and I have an AL flywheel which is too light for slicks... I would need 28" to get the 130 traps with my 4.11 diff, and I launch in second gear to avoid 5 shiftings... If I change my flywheel and clutch I bet I can... but till then... I wont get there

Actually cars that dont hook typically MPH better than cars that do hook. So a 2.4 60 foot will still get you way into the high 120's easy as pie with 600 RWHP. Were measuring accelleration after its hooked.

If your clutch cant handle 600 RWHP..if the tires cant handle 600 RWHP..if the rear cant handle 600 RWHP .. then the car cant make 600 RWHP.. else it breaks when it does. :D

Look a viper runs 12.2 at 118. 450 RWHP with a 2.0 60 foot

Now if we're dyno racing.. that another story.. look at Supras..even they can get way into the 120's with less.

Till the slip is there..there is no pudding :bow:

That is true... but the 600rwhp applies when you are over 100mph also ;) and with 600rwhp and good tires you dont spin them at 100mph, which was why I put a 4.11 to get to 150mph in 5th gear @6200rpm... and max out there ... and the 600rwhp help though..

[QUOTE]Keep in mind, that all dyno's are different. Not only that- but a real 600rwhp should net at least a 140 mph trap speed in a 3500 lb car.

My buddy Vince runs 160+ in the 1/4 and makes "only" 720 rwhp. Makes ya wonder about some of the "1000 hp" guys out there that can't bust 130.

Of course, who am I to talk. I'll be lucky to bust 120 this year on the temp setup. lol

Steve

My buddy's 4v Cobra makes 634 rw and traps 132-133....Car weighs around 3200 lbs.
Scott

I know of a cobra 4v that has 602rwho and traps 128

11.1@128

Guys: there is no magic or mystery to the relationship of trap speed and rwhp. Unless you are talking about about cars with drastically different aerodynamic drag, trap speed closely correlates with weight and rwhp. Of course, you can take a really extreme situation, like comparing a diesel to a Wankel or some crazy thing like that. But if you are comparing cars that are pretty similar, it's a simple equation. Within pretty broad limits, even traction and gearing aren't a huge factor.

Example: at the track the other day I made a second gear start. Once I realized it, I proabably should have aborted the run, but I didn't. Trap speed was off only 3mph (less than 3%) while the ET increased nearly two and a half seconds (25%). If one car goes 160mph with 720rwhp and another goes 130mph, it's 'cause the faster cars weighs less. It's just physics. As is well known, ET has a lot to do with traction and the 60' time (which are closely related) as well as hp.

BTW: it would take ~1,300rwhp to make my 4,100lb go 160mph. That's whay it ain't gonna happen. Take 1,000lbs off and and it would require less than 1,000hp.

Rich Krause

A twin screw supercharger has a bit more area under the curve than a centrifugal, although the 1.5L difference in engine displacement might make up for it...

Eric K's car hit 590 RWHp on pump gas, but it was 93 octane. He also used the Motec system. Emmisions legal IM240. The Motec was the key to his success I think. It did cost a lot though :) BTW his compresion was around 8.3.1 and was running an S-trim /Aftercooler with 12 PSI of boost on a 383.

Another thing is there is a huge difference between making 600 RWHP with the hood open and a fan blowing cool air into the engine compartment on the dyno vs a car thats heat soaked from idling for an extended period. AC on, etc...

Remember dyno pull lasts seconds.. the track is an eternity in comparison..

Still the only true unadultered way is vehicle weight vs trap speed. Not racing on a roller
:bow:

Hats off to those who can and their shizit stay together...beating after beating..not once or twice..mean hundreds of times.

Mine should do 600 or better with the cog setup. The numbers in the sig are on a Mustang dyno last night with a conservative tune on 91 octane. The belt was slipping or the horsepower would have been pretty close to the torque. Mine has a huge honking intercooler with 3" plumbing everywhere and is breathing very well.