Trainman's Ultimate NA Build

Wifey said:
Ahhh Hahh! Here you are :D

So, my friend, CAN YOU STILL SHIFT after your surgery back when?? :dontknow:
Click to expand...

Good to hear from you. Yes I can still shift. The surgery was minor cleanup on my rotor cuff, I still pitch fastpitch softball, play racketball 3 times a week and can still shift.
 
Dyno numbers look good. SRTBrad was there to video with 3 cameras and several mics so the video should be great. Peak horsepower was 729.346 at about 6,050 rpm but was over 700 from 5,500 to 6,500 with very little drop at 6,500 where Chris shut down the pulls . The torque flatlined at 697 from 4700 to 5300, the graph looked like it maxed the machine at 700 ft lbs and it was over 600 ft lbs from 3700 to 6300 rpm...amazing. I will need to add some O2 sensors upstream and address a voltage drop from the battery to starter before some final tuning. Looks promising. Brad should be working on some video soon and maybe post some stills of the readings.
 
Trainman said:
Dyno numbers look good. SRTBrad was there to video with 3 cameras and several mics so the video should be great. Peak horsepower was 729.346 at about 6,050 rpm but was over 700 from 5,500 to 6,500 with very little drop at 6,500 where Chris shut down the pulls . The torque flatlined at 697 from 4700 to 5300, the graph looked like it maxed the machine at 700 ft lbs and it was over 600 ft lbs from 3700 to 6300 rpm...amazing. I will need to add some O2 sensors upstream and address a voltage drop from the battery to starter before some final tuning. Looks promising. Brad should be working on some video soon and maybe post some stills of the readings.
Click to expand...

Great numbers for sure! Great work to all involved :rock:
 
Trainman said:
Good to hear from you. Yes I can still shift. The surgery was minor cleanup on my rotor cuff, I still pitch fastpitch softball, play racketball 3 times a week and can still shift.
Click to expand...

RIGHT ON! Old guys rock :rock: :rock: :rock: :D
 
SRT10VENOMOUS said:
Nice NA run looks like you got about 597 RWHP... good job...
Click to expand...

So do you think I will be in the 12's for the 1/4 mile....since you know so much . 597 won't be enough to beat your 11.51 NA record......Or maybe you would like to wager that I can't.:rock:
 
VENOMOUS1 RACING said:
Do you have a track date scheduled?
Click to expand...
Some minor tuning, and waiting for Bogart to finish my 18X5 front wheels so I can run the M&H bias ply front runners since I have bias cheater slicks in the rear. They don't want me to run radials on the front. Soon I hope.
 
SRT10VENOMOUS said:
Nice NA run looks like you got about 597 RWHP... good job...
Click to expand...

So I got to thinking since you only believe in the mustang dyno, and used .82 factor to reduce my power numbers.....I thought I would check out some other factors. With my stock engine I ran 11.68 @118 mph, 4400 lb race weight. Using the Wallace ET calculator for horsepower, it said based on ET my RWHP was 491 and flywheel horsepower was 545 (the stock engine). Based on MPH it said RWHP was 521 and flywheel was 579, again the stock engine. When Chris tuned my stock motor for 100 octane using the Dynopac it read 541 rwhp, so according to your factor I was only making 443 rwhp at that time. I put your Hp estimate of 597 (for my new engine) into the Wallace ET estimate (same 4400 lb race weight) and it said 11.47 @ 119.69. So I will potentially gain .21 in ET and 1.69 mph for all my trouble. I will be willing to bet my gains will be more....a lot more. The dynapac numbers are only a tool, but I like to keep things consistent. So by gaining 188 rwhp (dynapac numbers, stock to built engine), I'm pretty sure that I will gain more than .21 sec and 1.69 mph....if I can control it. But......I won't be doing it on street tires at full weight......I have to cheat!
 
Trainman said:
Some minor tuning, and waiting for Bogart to finish my 18X5 front wheels so I can run the M&H bias ply front runners since I have bias cheater slicks in the rear. They don't want me to run radials on the front. Soon I hope.
Click to expand...

Yeah most all are guilty of radials up front with bias ply slicks out back.
It oughta run straight and true down the 1320 now
 
VENOMOUS1 RACING said:
Where've you been hiding? Long time no see. I came up with 569:dontknow:
on a Mustang dyno
Click to expand...


I was in your area as well but saw there was a 2% or so variable so gave me the benefit of the doubt .. Looks like he got about 28-40hp over my na build.. So that's pretty impressive, Credit due to his dedication.

Awesome build Trainman...


Oh and ive been hiding at a friggen desk 10-14 hrs a day, started a new company its been a ton of work...
 
Trainman said:
So do you think I will be in the 12's for the 1/4 mile....since you know so much . 597 won't be enough to beat your 11.51 NA record......Or maybe you would like to wager that I can't.:rock:
Click to expand...


LOL wheres all the hostility coming from old man, i havent spoke to you in years and i give you compliments on your build and then this??

wow if you seriously think your crappack dyno gives acurate hp numbers your out to lunch... its a solid 22% high ALL DAY LONG, EVERY DAY , 365 DAYS A YEAR... I know it and you know it.. So if it makes your ***** hard ( which i imagine is tough at your age) we can all pretend that your crap pack numbers are accurate LOL.

If you dont beat my time, with a gutted shell of a truck, 40more hp mccloud clutch, full slicks that would be pretty funny.. I expect that you should be low 11s high 10s if your any good...

And PS knowing so much?? its basic knowledge my friend, basic knowledge.. Do a search on the most accurate dynos you will come up with an answer that is Mustang, which are 8 to 10 % lower reading than a Dynojet and then you can look at dynapack and see they are 10-12 % higher than a dynojet dyno.. Do the math my friend your 22% high on your numbers, shit my 5 year old daughter could figure that out..

And I wager you will beat it, but i also wager for 40more hp you spent about 40k more than I did.. and My truck was a truck not a shell with miss matched doors and no interior..

But if you want to measure dicks,, ( if you can get it hard) tough to measure rope with a ruler.. LOL... we can measure them on my truck when its done...

WOW you cant congratulate a guy now days on a wicked build, but you also have to cow tie to his make believe numbers as well... PS Train man being dam near 600hp on a Mustang dyno is super impressive.. and being over 700 or whatever you claim well thats just fiction my friend...
 
Last edited:
Bro I seriously dont care if you run 5 seconds with your truck, Dont care at all really, as you can see ive kinda lost interest in the low budget cars and moved on to bigger and better things... But hey I was just saying congratulation on the build and wicked numbers and gave out a true reading of your actual hp... But apparently giving the world your true hp numbers is offensive to you... Good luck my friend.. I bet you will go faster than Dom with the way your dyno works.. I but it will read out 2000hp with the new rims and tires.. Shit add some racing stripes and it will reduce your drag coefficient from .51 to .14 :).... Good luck

Trainman said:
So I got to thinking since you only believe in the mustang dyno, and used .82 factor to reduce my power numbers.....I thought I would check out some other factors. With my stock engine I ran 11.68 @118 mph, 4400 lb race weight. Using the Wallace ET calculator for horsepower, it said based on ET my RWHP was 491 and flywheel horsepower was 545 (the stock engine). Based on MPH it said RWHP was 521 and flywheel was 579, again the stock engine. When Chris tuned my stock motor for 100 octane using the Dynopac it read 541 rwhp, so according to your factor I was only making 443 rwhp at that time. I put your Hp estimate of 597 (for my new engine) into the Wallace ET estimate (same 4400 lb race weight) and it said 11.47 @ 119.69. So I will potentially gain .21 in ET and 1.69 mph for all my trouble. I will be willing to bet my gains will be more....a lot more. The dynapac numbers are only a tool, but I like to keep things consistent. So by gaining 188 rwhp (dynapac numbers, stock to built engine), I'm pretty sure that I will gain more than .21 sec and 1.69 mph....if I can control it. But......I won't be doing it on street tires at full weight......I have to cheat!
Click to expand...
 
SRT10VENOMOUS said:
LOL wheres all the hostility coming from old man, i havent spoke to you in years and i give you compliments on your build and then this??

wow if you seriously think your crappack dyno gives acurate hp numbers your out to lunch... its a solid 22% high ALL DAY LONG, EVERY DAY , 365 DAYS A YEAR... I know it and you know it.. So if it makes your ***** hard ( which i imagine is tough at your age) we can all pretend that your crap pack numbers are accurate LOL.

If you dont beat my time, with a gutted shell of a truck, 40more hp mccloud clutch, full slicks that would be pretty funny.. I expect that you should be low 11s high 10s if your any good...

And PS knowing so much?? its basic knowledge my friend, basic knowledge.. Do a search on the most accurate dynos you will come up with an answer that is Mustang, which are 8 to 10 % lower reading than a Dynojet and then you can look at dynapack and see they are 10-12 % higher than a dynojet dyno.. Do the math my friend your 22% high on your numbers, shit my 5 year old daughter could figure that out..

And I wager you will beat it, but i also wager for 40more hp you spent about 40k more than I did.. and My truck was a truck not a shell with miss matched doors and no interior..

But if you want to measure dicks,, ( if you can get it hard) tough to measure rope with a ruler.. LOL... we can measure them on my truck when its done...

WOW you cant congratulate a guy now days on a wicked build, but you also have to cow tie to his make believe numbers as well... PS Train man being dam near 600hp on a Mustang dyno is super impressive.. and being over 700 or whatever you claim well thats just fiction my friend...
Click to expand...

Sorry. I apologize, I took your first posting as being sarcastic, not as a compliment. BUT,...I did not resort to any name calling...which you just did...so you can retract if you like. I try to be civil. I wasn't saying your numbers are worse than mine. Everyone knows Dynapac numbers are higher than Dynojet numbers which are higher than Mustang numbers....so what, it's just a measure. The engine dyno at Exotic Engines measures flywheel horsepower , should be pretty accurate and it made 862 flywheel horsepower on 91, so probably close to 880 on MS109 fuel, so according to you our trucks have a 32.2% drivetrain loss (597 rwhp). Again just a number, but that seems a little high. So who's to say which dyno is the most accurate, maybe Mustangs read too low, just saying. I will report the actual drag strip times along with the temp, and DA, so everyone will know what is possible. Also I don't have $40,000 MORE than you in my truck, several people have helped (and donated time and interest) in this project. I can't thank them enough. Again I apologize for my initial assumption.:rock:
 
Nice and polite! That's the way to go Jerry :rock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Support Us

Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Random Media

Gyeah!
image
1858.jpg
My old Malibu. Got a lot of compliments on this thing.
Back
Top