Yeah, at 1800 feet elevation! That "should" put it at about 13.6 @ 104 at sea level STOCK! How many stock LT1s run that? Not very many. Just like any car, there are a lot of idiots that cannot drive these cars to their full potential (not talking about you Jim).

 

'97 Z-28/6 speed:

1)LT1 free mods=TB Bypass, blocked-off air silencer
2)Hypertech airfoil-$40
3)Hypertech 160* thermostat-$20
4)Moroso CAI-$140
5)custom cold air scoop-$8
6)Flowtech Warlock 3-in. muffler with built-in cutout (stock exhaust otherwise)-$120 w/install

 

not necessarily. altitude correction will be different for turbo and centrifugal boosted cars. while their effeciency will be down some, it isn't anywhere near what n/a cars loose.

 

Just as a point of reference, my 94 Trans Am A4 went 14.1@98.6 stock in the same conditions. I drove my brother's 95 Z28 M6 to a 13.9@100. It would be a driver's race between my SRT and an LT1 6 speed.

 

I think this is a myth. Any solid proof of this? I have been racing and watching cars race for 14+ years between sea level and 5100 feet elevation. I have NEVER seen a nitrous, supercharger or turbo car not loose just as much % of horsepower as a n/a car at altitude. They have all been slower by the same amount as n/a cars compared to sea level from what I have seen.

 

why did they turbo and supercharge the piston engine fighters of wwII? to give better performance at high altitudes.

from turbochargersnz.com-

"With a naturally aspirated engine, horsepower drops off 3 percent per 1000 ft (300m) because of the 3 percent decrease in air density per 1000 ft (300 m). If fuel delivery is not reduced, smoke level and fuel dilution will increase with altitude. With a turbocharged engine, an increase in altitude also increases the pressure drop across the turbine. Inlet turbine pressure remains the same, but the outlet pressure decreases as the altitude increases. Turbine speed also increases as the pressure differential increases. The compressor wheel turns faster, providing approximately the same inlet manifold pressure as at sea level, even though the incoming air is less dense. However, there are limitations to the actual amount of altitude compensation a turbocharged engine has. This is primarily determined by the amount of turbocharger boost and the turbocharger-to-engine match."

 

Jim,
I've been hanging out at the srtforums and debating wether to buy an srt.I'm leaning to buying one .Some guys just won't learn til they become the next victim.My local dealer has an electric blue one in stock.My boss says he can prolly get me a good deal as he knows the dealer personally and we purchase all of our cargo vans and a few rams from them every year.
The dealer is asking 22030,it has the viper delete seats due to the side airbags also has the sunroof.


BTW,SRTGURL is the chick hitting 12.6 with her srt with very little invested!!!

 

as you guys can see,not all of them are dogs

http://srtforums.com/forums/showthre...?threadid=1711

also i think i made a mistake when i said 11's for the girl and the srt4 :0, it wasn't even close but o well. i'm human

 

Maybe because it was easier, lighter and more compact than making the engine bigger.


from turbochargersnz.com-

"With a naturally aspirated engine, horsepower drops off 3 percent per 1000 ft (300m) because of the 3 percent decrease in air density per 1000 ft (300 m). If fuel delivery is not reduced, smoke level and fuel dilution will increase with altitude. With a turbocharged engine, an increase in altitude also increases the pressure drop across the turbine. Inlet turbine pressure remains the same, but the outlet pressure decreases as the altitude increases. Turbine speed also increases as the pressure differential increases. The compressor wheel turns faster, providing approximately the same inlet manifold pressure as at sea level, even though the incoming air is less dense. However, there are limitations to the actual amount of altitude compensation a turbocharged engine has. This is primarily determined by the amount of turbocharger boost and the turbocharger-to-engine match." [/QUOTE]

I always heard it was 3.5% loss per 1000 feet. What is it for turbo, nitrous or blower motors? The only way "Inlet turbine pressure remains the same" is if the turbo spins faster, because it is grabbing less dense air per unit time. This is a decent theory. But between 0-5100 feet elevation, I have seen every turbo car run slower by the same amount as n/a cars. My old Stang ran 15.4 at 91 at 4000' elevation on a cold, high baro. day. If what you say is true, then stock WRXs should spank me, because they run 14.2 at 96ish at sea level with a good run. I have never been beat by a stock one yet with that Stang! They lost just as much power as me at 4000'. Also stock turbo DSMs run low 15s at 91ish at sea level. I could pull on them easily with this Stang at 4000'! So they lost a ton of power at 4000' as well. I also beat a stock GTP by 5 cars every time with this Stang at 4000'. People say they run low to mid 14s at sea level with an excellent run. I want to see somebody run that at 4000' with one, bone stock.

 

I got the viper deleted seats too, they were much to constrictive for me. The seats they put in it's stead are awesome. Very comfortable. Have you test driven one yet?

 

no. read any historical book on wwII aviation and you will find out that it is so that the aircraft could be operated at ever higher altitudes.



I always heard it was 3.5% loss per 1000 feet. What is it for turbo, nitrous or blower motors? The only way "Inlet turbine pressure remains the same" is if the turbo spins faster, because it is grabbing less dense air per unit time. This is a decent theory. But between 0-5100 feet elevation, I have seen every turbo car run slower by the same amount as n/a cars. My old Stang ran 15.4 at 91 at 4000' elevation on a cold, high baro. day. If what you say is true, then stock WRXs should spank me, because they run 14.2 at 96ish at sea level with a good run. I have never been beat by a stock one yet with that Stang! They lost just as much power as me at 4000'. Also stock turbo DSMs run low 15s at 91ish at sea level. I could pull on them easily with this Stang at 4000'! So they lost a ton of power at 4000' as well. I also beat a stock GTP by 5 cars every time with this Stang at 4000'. People say they run low to mid 14s at sea level with an excellent run. I want to see somebody run that at 4000' with one, bone stock. [/QUOTE]

i understand what you are saying, but go back and re-read the last two lines of the turbochargersnz quote. how much efficiency will be lost depends on the design of the system. a stock system may be capable of delivering full boost (any arbitrary number will do, so let's say 15 psi) up to 2000 ft, but only half of that at 5000 ft. i doubt designing a car's turbo system to be 100 percent effecient at all elevations was very high on the engineer's list.

iow, to answer you question about what is the loss for turbo motors- it all depends on the design. there is no hard number.

 

Yes and it was pretty quick,surprised me.We have 3 kids and it's a pain to get them from school(I work 3rd shift and the wife 1st shift) and run errands in the Z.Actually I can't really go anywhere cuz the oldest is 8 and she's not suppose to be in the front seat with an airbag,Rhode Island law.

 

Interesting.


i understand what you are saying, but go back and re-read the last two lines of the turbochargersnz quote. how much efficiency will be lost depends on the design of the system. a stock system may be capable of delivering full boost (any arbitrary number will do, so let's say 15 psi) up to 2000 ft, but only half of that at 5000 ft. i doubt designing a car's turbo system to be 100 percent effecient at all elevations was very high on the engineer's list.
[/QUOTE]

Sucks living up in the mountains and not having full power . I wish they would design a turbo car to make full power at any elevation up to about 10,000+ feet by automatically turning up the boost as the elevation increases.