Jackson Racing Supercharger Owners Thread

[keithr]

Originally Posted by dj2020

Just wanted to share my numbers on this thread:
262 whp
208 ft lbs
CARB Tune

Is the JRSC your only performance mod for these numbers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dj2020]

Originally Posted by keithr

Is the JRSC your only performance mod for these numbers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. My only other mods are MXP catback and JRSC oil cooler. Cats still meowing in stock exhaust manifold and front pipe.

[alpax]

Originally Posted by dj2020

Just wanted to share my numbers on this thread:
262 whp
208 ft lbs
CARB Tune

This was done on Shawn Church's Dynapack here in Las Vegas. The car is a blast to drive!

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_np...p=docslist_api

The scan says "Flywheel" power and torque, so it seems like not WHP, but crank HP numbers, which could be directly compared to the stock 200 HP. Power at the wheels then would be around 222 whp/176 lbft, which is actually very close to what I got on a VirtualDyno.

[Jmonty]

So I ordered my kit April 27, hope I see it in May?

[Alltezza]

Originally Posted by alpax

The scan says "Flywheel" power and torque, so it seems like not WHP, but crank HP numbers, which could be directly compared to the stock 200 HP. Power at the wheels then would be around 222 whp/176 lbft, which is actually very close to what I got on a VirtualDyno.

That unusually low isn't it? I thought the carb tune gets you over 250 to the wheels.

Edit: My bad a little over 240 to the wheels. This dyno is from CSG Mike's Dyno

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...85657793_o.jpg

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54157

[alpax]

Originally Posted by Alltezza

That unusually low isn't it? I thought the carb tune gets you over 250 to the wheels.

Edit: My bad a little over 240 to the wheels. This dyno is from CSG Mike's Dyno

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...85657793_o.jpg

It's difficult to compare apples and oranges: we all had different measuring systems. VirtualDyno is, well, "virtual" , so cannot be taken as a hard argument. dj2020's graph is from Dynapack, and shows flywheel data. And Mike's results are from Dynojet. BTW, Dynojet AFAIK usually gives high numbers.
I would guess we all should have got similar results, as all tests were with CARB tune on otherwise stock cars. Just different numbers from different dynos.

[dj2020]

Originally Posted by alpax

It's difficult to compare apples and oranges: we all had different measuring systems. VirtualDyno is, well, "virtual" , so cannot be taken as a hard argument. dj2020's graph is from Dynapack, and shows flywheel data. And Mike's results are from Dynojet. BTW, Dynojet AFAIK usually gives high numbers.
I would guess we all should have got similar results, as all tests were with CARB tune on otherwise stock cars. Just different numbers from different dynos.

When it comes down to it, I wish I had done a baseline stock dyno pull for a good delta comparison. I didn't even realize Church's dyno read "flywheel" on the graphs I posted. For what it's worth, his Dynapack reads at the hub since my wheels/tires are removed for the pulls. This theoretically should mean higher readings than a dynojet/mustang dyno because the wheels/tires are not there to contribute to more drivetrain loss. (This is all speculation on my part. Far from being an expert). My butt dyno nonetheless is enjoying the power increase. The induction, spooling, and bypass noises are pretty awesome too! Cheers to everyone getting their kits soon. You guys won't be disappointed.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Alltezza

That unusually low isn't it? I thought the carb tune gets you over 250 to the wheels.

Edit: My bad a little over 240 to the wheels. This dyno is from CSG Mike's Dyno

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...85657793_o.jpg

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54157

I should probably note that it's a heat soaked run, without an oil cooler.

We don't do hero dynos at CSG, but if we wanted to, it would read much higher on a "hero" run. This dyno reflects realistic output when you're driving it hard.

[CSG Mike]

Church's dynapack reads hub horsepower.

The CSG car baselined about 172-173 on Shawn's dyno, which is virtually identical to a non-adultrated dynojet, on a car with zero toe (such as the CSG car). Alignment will affect readings on roller dynos, but not on hub dynos. We've baselined on a LOT of dynos, so we know how the numbers compare at various shops, and specific dynos.

Dynapacks are our tuning tool of choice.

[264grendel]

Any update on how backed up JRSC is on shipping out orders? Are people still waiting about a month for shipments?

[Germanjap]

Ordered JRSC on May 4. Was told today another 2-3 weeks. So about a month for shipment.

[CounterSpace Garage]

Originally Posted by 264grendel

Any update on how backed up JRSC is on shipping out orders? Are people still waiting about a month for shipments?

We have 3 kits on backorder for install. All of them require engine oil cooler kits so the clog is at that end. Otherwise we should be having them ready after the week of the Memorial Day. Fingers crossed of course. If you want to get in the queue, please send us a PM! Thanks!

[sachu]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Church's dynapack reads hub horsepower.

The CSG car baselined about 172-173 on Shawn's dyno, which is virtually identical to a non-adultrated dynojet, on a car with zero toe (such as the CSG car). Alignment will affect readings on roller dynos, but not on hub dynos. We've baselined on a LOT of dynos, so we know how the numbers compare at various shops, and specific dynos.

Dynapacks are our tuning tool of choice.

While its not the reason why I chose VitViper of VitTuned, given he knows his shit unlike anyone else i have met here in the pacific NW, I wasn't surprised he's been tuning on dynapacks as well.

My car with stock tune with all the bolt ons baselined at 166 on his DynaPack while it showed 186 on Drift Office's Dynojet. After tune ended at 180 peak on VitTuned's dynapack.

Been meaning to hit you up with a PM by the way about alignment.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by alpax

It's difficult to compare apples and oranges: we all had different measuring systems. VirtualDyno is, well, "virtual" , so cannot be taken as a hard argument. dj2020's graph is from Dynapack, and shows flywheel data. And Mike's results are from Dynojet. BTW, Dynojet AFAIK usually gives high numbers.
I would guess we all should have got similar results, as all tests were with CARB tune on otherwise stock cars. Just different numbers from different dynos.

Dynojets are giving about 170whp stock. Which is dead on for a 15% drivetrain loss which is pretty typical for a RWD. Others give about 155whp which probably isn't as accurate. I prefer dynojet numbers because of this.

I also prefer crank numbers if you don't have a baseline. This is one of the reasons that people compare percentage of gains rather than gains versus bhp from the factory.

The problem is the estimation of crank hp when almost no one is pulling the engine to run on a crank dyno.

For example, power to weight not withstanding, comparing a v6 mustang 308hp to a s/c'd twin with 300 whp isn't even close. It's going to be closer to 345 bhp on the twin.

Jaden