Innovate/Spritex/Bullet... What I found searching the web.

[Carwhisperer]

Originally Posted by KevinBRZ

Going by the above math, this makes about 252-258 lb-ft of torque at 5400 rpm, since it is 15% lower?

295 HP and 255 torque with 2700-2800 pounds of weight will be very respectable.

How did you come up with those trq numbers? I wouldn't count on getting the torque up that high without some extra modifications with this blower.

[kombatlion]

I like this kit more than I like Vortech, because its simplicity and I just want to reach 250whp... no more. But There has to be a big problem when this people go dark for months is crazy,,, maybe a car blow to pieces or the pulley fell of and killed the driver I dont know whats goin on with them!!! lol!

[2forme]

The infamous HE hath spoken -------------

"maybe you can channel for me? if not just let me know and I send it to rob..
lol
_______________
guys, thats funny really, I'm very much 'back', just not allowed to post, but I'm here with y'all real time

I am indeed impressed with this kit tho I wont trade mine in for it unless youre doing an auto x build
...YET

and I have direct contact tester to tester and know a lil more than the forum knows and truth- the idea of this car ripping me a new orifice until I get e85 is very real, Robi hinted at the numbers and its nothing to sneeze at. Good work Innovate! I'm a little scared, but not too scared. But a little indeed!

This thread-am having a good laugh, rather, anyone wonder why they are on e85 and not 91?if you compare 91 vs 91 its not gonna be a fight.

SCCA this kit will make me cry tho-the centri is no match for TQ down low if thats the goal, which is what you will want on a AUTOx car where youre not hanging out at 6000 rpms like on a road course.

fwiw, the performance of the two compared 91 vs 91, vortech wins road course after getting passed initially off the line is my bet

fwiw the performance of the two e85, innovate wins autox, vortech wins road course, I am pretty sure in lower speed lower gear situations I havent a chance

fwiw the performance at he drag strip, innovate wins hands down

no way I can mess with 50-60-ft lbs of tq at 3000rpm, this will make the red light racers smile
I dont see the kit doing 'skatery e85' numbers, yet

then again, for me its a high rpm game. At 6500rpms, I win, where my peak HP and TQ line up for FTW

BS aside, this Innovate kit rocks, and I can see e85 on stage 2 giving me a solid run for my money.

I'd be lying if I didnt expect it to kill me off the line, but I think it will be interesting to see the two cars on track in action and look forward to offering the forum just that

So, here is whats is planned -1st week of June visit to robispec shop and he drives mine i drive his type of day coming soon, I'm sure there will be video, isnt this what we are all waiting for, charts aside?

cheers
g"

[jamesm]

i want to see someone bolt one of these inline with a gt35r. that would be interesting.

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by KevinBRZ

Going by the above math, this makes about 252-258 lb-ft of torque at 5400 rpm, since it is 15% lower?

295 HP and 255 torque with 2700-2800 pounds of weight will be very respectable. A little less at 91 octane.

I was having issues with the conversions on the torque. The numbers didn't seem right, so I didn't get into them. I'm assuming it's an issue with the Nm to ft-lb conversion.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by Draco-REX

I was having issues with the conversions on the torque. The numbers didn't seem right, so I didn't get into them. I'm assuming it's an issue with the Nm to ft-lb conversion.

Looks like he just took the numbers on the graph and did the 15% correction without converting to ft-lbs. I ran the numbers last night, but don't remember what I got and I'm busy doing data entry right now.

[Carwhisperer]

Originally Posted by Draco-REX

I was having issues with the conversions on the torque. The numbers didn't seem right, so I didn't get into them. I'm assuming it's an issue with the Nm to ft-lb conversion.

With my conversion I did with my algorithmic probability, I hypothesize right around 210ft/lb peak. Quote me later once a 93 usa dyno pops up.

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

Looks like he just took the numbers on the graph and did the 15% correction without converting to ft-lbs. I ran the numbers last night, but don't remember what I got and I'm busy doing data entry right now.

Peak stock looked to be about 190Nm. The conversions I'm finding is putting that at 140ft-lbs which is very high.

AHH! I just looked again and noticed it says "Flywheel Torque". That explains it, making it a touch low. In that case:

150 / 140 = 1.07

Modified peak torque look around 290Nm, or 214ft-lbs.

214 * 1.07 = 229 ft-lbs at the flywheel.

229 * .85 = 195ft-lbs at the wheel.

Before people get all flustered, this is an aproximation of a graph that was then converted to another unit of measurement and then had a second aproximation applied via simplistic math that doesn't take into account the nuances of this kind of measurement.

So, yeah.. These numbers could be complete junk. But I'm fairly confident they are within the same state. (maybe Texas..)

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by Carwhisperer

With my conversion I did with my algorithmic probability, I hypothesize right around 210ft/lb peak. Quote me later once a 93 usa dyno pops up.

My armchair-math saw 214 at the flywheel, so we're close.

[mines13]

Originally Posted by Draco-REX

Ok, I did this once before in one of the "Lost" Innovate threads, so let's do it again:

(removed for packaging. )

First, let's convert the units to something more familiar.

Stock 106kW = 143hp
Final 163kW = 219hp

Now, stock, we know the engine produces about 200hp. And a good rule of thumb is that a RWD with a manual transmission and independent suspension loses about 15%. So:

.85 * 200 = 170rwhp

That's a little on the high side, but still in the neighborhood of most stock dynos which land around 165hp. So we know we're on the right track. To keep things conservative, however, let's go with 165rwhp.

So we have what we should see at the wheels stock and what this dyno is showing. We can determine the percentage difference here.

165 / 143 = 1.15

A dyno that would report 165rwhp on a stock car is reading 115% of the dyno used on this graph. We can now figure out where the modified numbers would be:

219 * 1.15 = 251rwhp

Not the biggest numbers we've seen, but very respectable. This puts the crank hp at roughly:

251 / .85 = 295hp at the crank.

What I REALLY like is the shape of the torque curve. Lots of meat where it counts. This kit will be a dream at AutoX for those like me that don't give a fig about classing. The tough part will be getting the rears to hook coming out of the corners. But that's half the fun.

The non intercooled 91 octane canned tune complete kit will lay something closer to what you see on that graph, maybe a little more depending on the day and the dyno. Do not expect 250whp out of the base kit. As covered previously, the torque increase and delivery is the real meat and potatoes of this setup.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Sonolin

So... is this @robispec dyno, with e85?

I thought this was the old pull from last year...?

220whp is just... very very unimpressive with an e85 tune + pulley. I just don't see how that's competitive

This power/weight ratio puts the car squarely in Mustang GT territory, and a torqueband to match.

Pretty impressive if you ask me.

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by mines13

The non intercooled 91 octane canned tune complete kit will lay something closer to what you see on that graph, maybe a little more depending on the day and the dyno. Do not expect 250whp out of the base kit. As covered previously, the torque increase and delivery is the real meat and potatoes of this setup.

Yes. My post is just an analysis of the numbers. How those numbers were achieved is entirely a separate question.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

This power/weight ratio puts the car squarely in Mustang GT territory

Highway pulls, here we come! :happy0180:

[buditjoenawan]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Robi's car with the supercharger certainly survived me driving it... which is more than I can say about the stock engine.

Wait, are you saying that an FA20 is more reliable with a non-intercooled supercharger than without? I'm confused. If you start with a weak substance, putting more stress on that substance would make it weaker, no? Unless Robi's motor is not stock? Don't mean to slight anyone, but this completely fails my logical test...


budi