How accurate is the G-Tech
#1
How accurate is the G-Tech
i was wondering if anyone used a G-Tech and what kind of numbers were they getting? I was runnning mines and got some very good number last night. I was wondering if it was very accurate. Any help would do.
Thanks
Thanks
#2
Pretty Close
Hubbard - I've run my G-Tech simultaneously while making some runs down the quartermile track in Baton Rouge & I've found the times to be slightly more optimistic in terms of times & mph. However, if ya use it not as an "absolute" timing tool but instead just to chart performance figures whenever U make modifications it's an excellent piece of electronics. Also keeps ya from having to wait for the local "test 'n tune" night at the strip.
BTW - my best quartermile run was an actual 13.79 @ 106.2 ( that's with the track's timers ). The G-tech showed 13.68 @ 16.7 on the same run. Close enough for me!!
BTW - my best quartermile run was an actual 13.79 @ 106.2 ( that's with the track's timers ). The G-tech showed 13.68 @ 16.7 on the same run. Close enough for me!!
#4
Bit More, I Think
JAC - After all the engine mods ( which R only the SRT intake/ECU & the Borlas ), the best dyno test showed 274.1 HP at the rear wheels & we used 80% for the drivetrain efficiency figure & ended up with roughly 342.6 flywheel HP. I've seen 75% used before but the baseline runs yielded 248 rearwheel HP & if the factory numbers of 300 HP R to be believed, then 80% is closer to the correct percentage. I know that 248/.8 results in 310 HP but I think maybe I got a slightly stronger engine in mine - hope so!! It was a cool ( for Louisiana, anyway ) day of 60 degrees & relatively low humidity & the best results came on the first runs ( as to be expected although I let the car cool off between runs ). FWIW - I changed to the Borlas after 2 baseline runs & they showed an increase of almost 7 rearwheel HP so Borlas claims of 5-10 engine HP should be considered valid ( this 7 HP should show almost 9 flywheel using the aforementioned 80%. The addition of the SRT induction was worth the balance of the power gains &, again, should validify SRT's claims of 20-30 engine HP ( at least in MY case ). The rest of the performance gains came from maximizing what power I had via the 2800 rpm stall Dragon T/C & the Supra 3.76 geared LSD. Other tricks I used was lowering my rear tire pressures ( ran 18" wheel/tire combo ) &, as I've run for many years at State Capital Dragway, I had a kind of a "home field" advantage!! Next step on the dyno will be TorqueMaster spark plugs ( on Percy's recommendation ) maybe in early summer. THIS time I'll try to remember to print out & KEEP the dyno sheets for posting.
#5
?
Originally posted by Mean Gene
JAC - After all the engine mods ( which R only the SRT intake/ECU & the Borlas ), the best dyno test showed 274.1 HP at the rear wheels & we used 80% for the drivetrain efficiency figure & ended up with roughly 342.6 flywheel HP. I've seen 75% used before but the baseline runs yielded 248 rearwheel HP & if the factory numbers of 300 HP R to be believed, then 80% is closer to the correct percentage.
JAC - After all the engine mods ( which R only the SRT intake/ECU & the Borlas ), the best dyno test showed 274.1 HP at the rear wheels & we used 80% for the drivetrain efficiency figure & ended up with roughly 342.6 flywheel HP. I've seen 75% used before but the baseline runs yielded 248 rearwheel HP & if the factory numbers of 300 HP R to be believed, then 80% is closer to the correct percentage.
JAC
Last edited by JAC JZS; 03-05-02 at 12:10 PM.
#6
Hubbard - What times you get ? The best i got was 15.4 if i recall . What mods have you done ? Been awhile since i've been on so excuse me for asking .
After i make the switch to srt's race ecu maybe we can meet up to dyno both of our cars to compare . Wynne speed is only 30 min from vicksburg and 1hr from Hattiesburg .
After i make the switch to srt's race ecu maybe we can meet up to dyno both of our cars to compare . Wynne speed is only 30 min from vicksburg and 1hr from Hattiesburg .
#7
Math?
JAC - R U refering to my GS or your Supra? Unless I'm suffering from ANOTHER senior moment ( OK, Percy - NO comments!!:eek: ), 274.1/.8 equals 342.6. Of course, this wouldn't be the first ( or last ) time that my math stunk - & I'm an engineer!!
Trending Topics
#9
Gene, I should have been a little more specific with my post now this is getting pretty confusing . My car has 330 hp at the crank with a 15% loss I am getting 281rwhp. With a 20% loss my car has 351 hp at the crank (not 342) .
Last edited by JAC JZS; 03-05-02 at 12:12 PM.
#10
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mean Gene
[B]JAC - I know that 248/.8 results in 310 HP but I think maybe I got a slightly stronger engine in mine - hope so!!
Gene, I wouldn't be surprised if your car started out with 310hp at the crank stock I know my car dynoed at around 328hp at crank stock versus the 320 advertised . It appears as Toyota was conservative in thier hp ratings for these two engines vs. other carmakers that overrate thier engines(i.e. Ford's mustang cobra pre 02' or 01' .
[B]JAC - I know that 248/.8 results in 310 HP but I think maybe I got a slightly stronger engine in mine - hope so!!
Gene, I wouldn't be surprised if your car started out with 310hp at the crank stock I know my car dynoed at around 328hp at crank stock versus the 320 advertised . It appears as Toyota was conservative in thier hp ratings for these two engines vs. other carmakers that overrate thier engines(i.e. Ford's mustang cobra pre 02' or 01' .
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post