Well not what we thought, we were having some belt slippage probs
My Last numbers were
558 @ 7400 3.33" pulley
541.6 @ 6600 3.125" pulley
N20 20 shot for aftercooler effect
588 @ 6100
What gets me is comparing #s from my last dyno tune vs this one At JMS with a 3.33" pulley the car made 558 @ 7400, today with the 3.125" pulley the car was making 541.6 @ 6600 which is 800 rpm's less which tells me if the belt wouldn't slip the ca woulda made about 575-580 I think at the same given rpms
One major change that has happened to the car is I bent the stock alum belt tensioner and replaced it with a steel for upgrade. The belt I was running with the alum tensioner was a Goodyear 113" belt which was making 19psi vs this belt which is an AC DELCO 112" making 16-17 max .
I am gonna put a 113" Goodyear back on in the next week and go back .I believe the shorter belt doesn't let the tesioner get enough of the slack out of the belt compared to the Goodyear 113"
Brian sorry to hear of your problems on the dyno. I too had belt slippage problems and just got them corrected. If your interested I have a brand new 3.12 no-slip pulley from Reichard racing that I can sell you. I planned on using it for my car but I had to resort back to a 3.6 pulley because my car was making way too much boost for a stock bottom end. I had a regular Vortech 3.12 pulley on my car when the dyno run was made and it put down [email protected] the wheels at only 5000rpm's. I really wanted to use that no-slip pulley but I guess I will need to get a new one now in the 3.6 variety.
I went on Reichard Racing site last night after talking to Randy Haywood to look at those pulleys but they didn't have any prices on them .
How much do you want for it ?
Also another funny thing I forgot to mention, on the way home from the dyno lastnight running about 75 on I-459, I put the car in third and got on it through 7400 rpms in fourth and the damn thing made 19 psi like it shoulda made on the dyno. Maybe the belt needed a few heat cycles ?