MP122H Dyno Numbers.
09-10-2006, 07:57 PM
#1
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MP122H Dyno Numbers.
Well, we got a chance to do some tuning today. Below is the before and after dyno for my car. The injectors (42lb) are at 94% duty cycle, and fuel pressure is steady at 50psi at wot. Below are the mods I had before, and what I have now.
The mods that did not change:
-Full 2.5" dual exhaust into a 2-1 muffler at the rear.(3 mufflers, 2 cats)
-Fuddle 3200 stall converter
-K&N Cone Filter
This is what I had before in addition to the above mods.
-MP112 1:1 rear ratio, 2.9" pulley on the front (11.5 psi)
-Stock throttle body ported
-Stock descreened maf
This is what I have now in addition to the mods up top.
-MP122 1:1 rear ratio, 2.9" pulley on the front (13.5psi)
-UMI 90mm throttle body
-GM 85mm MAF
-Magnavolt
This is a stock engine, stock manifold, stock tranny car. Here is the before and after.
434/460 before
485/456 after
I'm sure some people will be happy, and others dissapointed. Post up what you feel, I'm sure Magnuson will be listening. I have tried to be as straight forward, and honest as possible, as not to sway anyone's opinion. For me, this blower is great. The car pulls very hard, and I'm sure the MPH will be there at the drag strip as well. I should have timeslips on the 23rd.
The mods that did not change:
-Full 2.5" dual exhaust into a 2-1 muffler at the rear.(3 mufflers, 2 cats)
-Fuddle 3200 stall converter
-K&N Cone Filter
This is what I had before in addition to the above mods.
-MP112 1:1 rear ratio, 2.9" pulley on the front (11.5 psi)
-Stock throttle body ported
-Stock descreened maf
This is what I have now in addition to the mods up top.
-MP122 1:1 rear ratio, 2.9" pulley on the front (13.5psi)
-UMI 90mm throttle body
-GM 85mm MAF
-Magnavolt
This is a stock engine, stock manifold, stock tranny car. Here is the before and after.
434/460 before
485/456 after
I'm sure some people will be happy, and others dissapointed. Post up what you feel, I'm sure Magnuson will be listening. I have tried to be as straight forward, and honest as possible, as not to sway anyone's opinion. For me, this blower is great. The car pulls very hard, and I'm sure the MPH will be there at the drag strip as well. I should have timeslips on the 23rd.
09-10-2006, 08:10 PM
#2
Nice numbers IMHO, if you look at the big picture the gains are huge. The blower is not tipping over, you are an auto car with a high stall converter.....and with some new injectors the power will come up a bit....I would like to think that 500 rwhp on a stock motor such as yours is obtainable. Congrats on the new numbers, I am looking forward to seeing your next step.
On a forged 346 that could really take the boost / timing the numbers would be sick! You are not coming close to maxing out that blower at 13 psi either! Do you have any IAT data? I bet with the HH the numbers are impressive.
On a forged 346 that could really take the boost / timing the numbers would be sick! You are not coming close to maxing out that blower at 13 psi either! Do you have any IAT data? I bet with the HH the numbers are impressive.
09-10-2006, 08:14 PM
#3
This is on a 6L GTO correct?
I'm curious why you only saw a 2psi increase with the MP122 and a 90mm TB? I thought the MP122 was going to push more air with that small of a pulley. In fact I was thinking you would have to increase pulley size to keep it safe for the stock bottom end. Actually your chart says 3.1 pulley is that right or is it 2.9?
How were the AITs between the two runs? The MP122 is more efficient or not?
Question, questions, questions
I'm curious why you only saw a 2psi increase with the MP122 and a 90mm TB? I thought the MP122 was going to push more air with that small of a pulley. In fact I was thinking you would have to increase pulley size to keep it safe for the stock bottom end. Actually your chart says 3.1 pulley is that right or is it 2.9?
How were the AITs between the two runs? The MP122 is more efficient or not?
Question, questions, questions
09-10-2006, 08:16 PM
#4
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlownChevy
Do you have any IAT data? I bet with the HH the numbers are impressive.
09-10-2006, 08:17 PM
#5
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1SlowHoe
This is on a 6L GTO correct?
I'm curious why you only saw a 2psi increase with the MP122 and a 90mm TB? I thought the MP122 was going to push more air with that small of a pulley. In fact I was thinking you would have to increase pulley size to keep it safe for the stock bottom end. Actually your chart says 3.1 pulley is that right or is it 2.9?
How were the AITs between the two runs? The MP122 is more efficient or not?
Question, questions, questions
I'm curious why you only saw a 2psi increase with the MP122 and a 90mm TB? I thought the MP122 was going to push more air with that small of a pulley. In fact I was thinking you would have to increase pulley size to keep it safe for the stock bottom end. Actually your chart says 3.1 pulley is that right or is it 2.9?
How were the AITs between the two runs? The MP122 is more efficient or not?
Question, questions, questions
09-10-2006, 08:18 PM
#6
Originally Posted by 1SlowHoe
This is on a 6L GTO correct?
I'm curious why you only saw a 2psi increase with the MP122 and a 90mm TB? I thought the MP122 was going to push more air with that small of a pulley. In fact I was thinking you would have to increase pulley size to keep it safe for the stock bottom end. Actually your chart says 3.1 pulley is that right or is it 2.9?
How were the AITs between the two runs? The MP122 is more efficient or not?
Question, questions, questions
I'm curious why you only saw a 2psi increase with the MP122 and a 90mm TB? I thought the MP122 was going to push more air with that small of a pulley. In fact I was thinking you would have to increase pulley size to keep it safe for the stock bottom end. Actually your chart says 3.1 pulley is that right or is it 2.9?
How were the AITs between the two runs? The MP122 is more efficient or not?
Question, questions, questions
this is a 5.7L LS1, he jumped 2 psi with just the blower swap....the notes on the dyno sheet about the pulley sizes are incorrect . The IAT's (I have been told) were in the 134-140 range at 13.5 psi, this was 45* over ambient (again I have been told). The one thing you need to look at is this is on a STOCK LS1, with cats and 3 mufflers. The gains on a 6.0 LQ4 would be greater.
Trending Topics
09-10-2006, 08:22 PM
#8
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlownChevy
The gains on a 6.0 LQ4 would be greater.
09-10-2006, 08:29 PM
#10
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1SlowHoe
Did the AFR dipping off the chart affect the numbers? Seems it might kill your TQ number in the mid range. Is future tuning coming soon to smooth that out?