ESS G3X lays down 1104whp with a 6rib belt!

[Angrey]

Where are people installing the pressure sensor on these kits? I'm not questioning (and I don't think others are) the efficacy of the ESS kits. They obviously make sauce. What's remarkable is how much sauce is made for boost levels.

1100 on 17 psi.

150 trap speeds on 10-11 lbs of boost? Does that seem right to everyone else? Maybe we're all in for a giant industry shakeup. I'd be happy to eat crow and wow'd by how ferocious these setups are on low boost. Having a car that will trap 150 on 10 lbs of boost is VERY VERY attractive to those running 12:1 compression.

I'm sure everyone can understand the skepticism when virtually every other blown power adder out there requires more (in some cases SIGNIFICANTLY) more boost to reach the discussed power and trap speeds. Up to and including turbos, which I think the engineering and scientific community accepts as the most efficient.

Can someone run 10 or 11 psi on a twin kit and trap 150? That's barely above most wastegate settings.

I'm not even saying the disparity/discrepancy is intentional or sinister. Maybe it's simply explained through a difference of signal or measurement.

But if it is true and it is real, then it's pretty spectacular. I'd love to have an 1100 rwhp machine on E85 and 17 lbs of boost that traps 160 in the quarter.

Sponsored

 

[gimmie11s]

So when do we see the 150+mph trap speed?

At 1104, it should be next to 160 or better.

 

[gimmie11s]

Where are people installing the pressure sensor on these kits? I'm not questioning (and I don't think others are) the efficacy of the ESS kits. They obviously make sauce. What's remarkable is how much sauce is made for boost levels.

1100 on 17 psi.

150 trap speeds on 10-11 lbs of boost? Does that seem right to everyone else? Maybe we're all in for a giant industry shakeup. I'd be happy to eat crow and wow'd by how ferocious these setups are on low boost. Having a car that will trap 150 on 10 lbs of boost is VERY VERY attractive to those running 12:1 compression.

I'm sure everyone can understand the skepticism when virtually every other blown power adder out there requires more (in some cases SIGNIFICANTLY) more boost to reach the discussed power and trap speeds. Up to and including turbos, which I think the engineering and scientific community accepts as the most efficient.

Can someone run 10 or 11 psi on a twin kit and trap 150? That's barely above most wastegate settings.

I'm not even saying the disparity/discrepancy is intentional or sinister. Maybe it's simply explained through a difference of signal or measurement.

But if it is true and it is real, then it's pretty spectacular. I'd love to have an 1100 rwhp machine on E85 and 17 lbs of boost that traps 160 in the quarter.

My best mph (when my local track was still open) was 147, leaving the line on waste gates (6psi) then switching to 12 psi half track using a home-made manual/electric boost controller.

If my suspension was set up to leave on 10psi along with a 2 step and proper converter, im sure it would trap 150 or damn close.

 

[Angrey]

My best mph (when my local track was still open) was 147, leaving the line on waste gates (6psi) then switching to 12 psi half track using a home-made manual/electric boost controller.

If my suspension was set up to leave on 10psi along with a 2 step and proper converter, im sure it would trap 150 or damn close.

Trap speeds are virtually identical from a rolling start and a 1.2 60 ft. That's what makes them so useful in determining power, they're largely independent of suspension efficiency. There's a tiny difference, but we're talking 1 or 2 mph in the vast majority of cases.

 

[gimmie11s]

Trap speeds are virtually identical from a rolling start and a 1.2 60 ft. That's what makes them so useful in determining power, they're largely independent of suspension efficiency. There's a tiny difference, but we're talking 1 or 2 mph in the vast majority of cases.

yeah, my 60 ft on the 147 pass was 2.1 so.........

And ive never "roll" trapped the car in the 1/4. Only leave from a dig.

There is absolutely mph left in my set up based on the leave.

 

[WIST2019GT]

Car and Driver had a test with a 2018 PP1 and they listed the weight as 3863 (Its at the bottom of the article showing the difference of the PP1, PP2 and a 1LE Camaro). This is with a full fuel tank.

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2018-ford-mustang-gt-performance-pack-level-2-first-test-review/

You removed the passenger seat, rear seats, K brace and intrusion panels (the braces behind the wheels) to save weight per some of your posts. You also added a blower (~50 pounds per ESS). I'm not sure what you weigh so lets say 200 pounds for easy math.

Seats, Braces/Panels, Wheels = -150 (this is generous imho)
Blower, You = +250

3863+250-150= 3963

You can pick and choose whatever calculators you want online for the rest of this math. You went 6.2@119 in the 1/8th at ~3900 pounds (removed some weight for fuel). The car has to be making over 800whp. This is backed up by running 60-130 in 4.88 - That's damn close to a 150 trap car.

 

[p2wftl]

This thread brings me back to my 04 Audi S4 days when VF Engineering and PES came out with their Eaton m90 superchargers. Claiming ridiculous dyno #'s for a supercharger that came on a stock Buick and couldn't back it up with trap speeds.

 

[Angrey]

Maybe the explanation is in the intercooler efficiency. That's the only plausible explanation (assuming the measurements are apples/apples).

10 psi of air at 90F (.121 lb/f3) is roughly the equivalent of 12.6 psi at 150F. Sprinkle in some added inefficiency of the elevated intake temp and timing and let's just say if an intercooler kept 10 lbs of boost at 90F, another car with 150F intake temps would need roughly 13 or 14 lbs of boost to make the same sauce on the edge of knock.

IAT2's get a vote and an impact, but it's not enough to explain the magnitudes here and that's even starting with the idea that the ESS intercooler is vastly superior to the others on the market. I'm just grasping for some way to explain how extraordinary some of these numbers are (compared to what we normally see)

 

[Angrey]

yeah, my 60 ft on the 147 pass was 2.1 so.........

And ive never "roll" trapped the car in the 1/4. Only leave from a dig.

There is absolutely mph left in my set up based on the leave.

I'm telling you, whether you leave a standing start and bog or you roll through at 30 mph, your trap speed is going to be within 1-2 mph of each other. Some of the best data you'll see on the matter is Ken and PBD's testing of the progression of the 500 tuning. He covers it in his videos a couple of times.

 

[MagCoyote5.0]

Looking at the dyno sheet....the hp/tq crossover is at about 6700 rpm. That's about 1500 rpm more than most graphs. Incorrect gear selection or incorrect dyno setup no?

 

[wazslow]

Looking at the dyno sheet....the hp/tq crossover is at about 6700 rpm. That's about 1500 rpm more than most graphs. Incorrect gear selection or incorrect dyno setup no?

No. The hp and torque are just scaled differently. If it were scaled the same, they would cross at 5252rpm. The hp is just a mathematical equation based on the torque number.

 

[gimmie11s]

I'm telling you, whether you leave a standing start and bog or you roll through at 30 mph, your trap speed is going to be within 1-2 mph of each other. Some of the best data you'll see on the matter is Ken and PBD's testing of the progression of the 500 tuning. He covers it in his videos a couple of times.

Thanks for the video reference. But ive been drag racing long enough to have a stack of time slips tall enough to touch my ceiling.

I have plenty of my own data that directly contradicts what you've watched on YouTube.

 

[Brad1810r80]

That should be about spot on I weight 210, ran with little more than 1/4 tank of fuel. The blower only added 40 lbs all together.

I haven't dyno my car cause when I use to have my 04 cobra it would make 430 on one dynojet and 480 on another one close to same weather. So I really don't trust them. I just go off datalogs to make sure car is happy.

When I ran DA was right around 0 to plus 100 that day so about as good your going to get in Alabama.

Car and Driver had a test with a 2018 PP1 and they listed the weight as 3863 (Its at the bottom of the article showing the difference of the PP1, PP2 and a 1LE Camaro). This is with a full fuel tank.

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2018-ford-mustang-gt-performance-pack-level-2-first-test-review/

You removed the passenger seat, rear seats, K brace and intrusion panels (the braces behind the wheels) to save weight per some of your posts. You also added a blower (~50 pounds per ESS). I'm not sure what you weigh so lets say 200 pounds for easy math.

Seats, Braces/Panels, Wheels = -150 (this is generous imho)
Blower, You = +250

3863+250-150= 3963

You can pick and choose whatever calculators you want online for the rest of this math. You went 6.2@119 in the 1/8th at ~3900 pounds (removed some weight for fuel). The car has to be making over 800whp. This is backed up by running 60-130 in 4.88 - That's damn close to a 150 trap car.

 

[Brad1810r80]

I'm with you on this, If I start in 2nd my 60 ft suffers and trap speed by 3-4 mph.

Thanks for the video reference. But ive been drag racing long enough to have a stack of time slips tall enough to touch my ceiling.

I have plenty of my own data that directly contradicts what you've watched on YouTube.

 

[Brad1810r80]

My IATS always stay within 3-4 deg ambient cruising and 20-25 while WOT, quickly cool down from there.

Maybe the explanation is in the intercooler efficiency. That's the only plausible explanation (assuming the measurements are apples/apples).

10 psi of air at 90F (.121 lb/f3) is roughly the equivalent of 12.6 psi at 150F. Sprinkle in some added inefficiency of the elevated intake temp and timing and let's just say if an intercooler kept 10 lbs of boost at 90F, another car with 150F intake temps would need roughly 13 or 14 lbs of boost to make the same sauce on the edge of knock.

IAT2's get a vote and an impact, but it's not enough to explain the magnitudes here and that's even starting with the idea that the ESS intercooler is vastly superior to the others on the market. I'm just grasping for some way to explain how extraordinary some of these numbers are (compared to what we normally see)

Sponsored