Sponsored

Any turbo regrets?

Crackerjack17

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Threads
24
Messages
635
Reaction score
282
Location
WV/Maryland
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT PP
I like the hellion kit and it's likely what I would go with if I go turbo. The 1194 number is probably correct. The only thing a bunch of us are saying is... What's the point. Sure the motor made it on the dyno and sure its definitely an accomplishement, but please don't think you can run it at that level for any appreciable time.
Sponsored

 

3beeps

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Threads
37
Messages
911
Reaction score
408
Location
Florida
Website
www.instagram.com
Vehicle(s)
'17 GT
The uncorrected number was 940whp. Using a 1.27 correction factor (derived from 8000+ DA), the car "made" 1194whp.

The argument is that it deceives people into thinking they could put that turbo kit on their car and make 1194whp on the stock motor, which did NOT happen. It made 940whp.

A small correction factor makes sense since it would be within a small range, but 27%? Do you think the stock block has 27% left on the table at 940whp? lol.

I love Hellion and my car is incredible. I'm REALLY happy with it. I just had a bit of an issue with the way that data was presented.
 

lxh89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Threads
12
Messages
211
Reaction score
103
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicle(s)
2015 Ruby Red Mustang GT - Whipple Auto
The uncorrected number was 940whp. Using a 1.27 correction factor (derived from 8000+ DA), the car "made" 1194whp.

The argument is that it deceives people into thinking they could put that turbo kit on their car and make 1194whp on the stock motor, which did NOT happen. It made 940whp.

A small correction factor makes sense since it would be within a small range, but 27%? Do you think the stock block has 27% left on the table at 940whp? lol.

I love Hellion and my car is incredible. I'm REALLY happy with it. I just had a bit of an issue with the way that data was presented.
Correction factors on turbos don't apply unless the turbo can't make full boost because it's maxed out. If it's making set boost, whatever number it shows is the number.

Tony
 

SlaughterOfTheSoul

Actual Engineer
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Threads
15
Messages
248
Reaction score
49
Location
Cen FL
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang gt pp1
Correction factors on turbos don't apply unless the turbo can't make full boost because it's maxed out. If it's making set boost, whatever number it shows is the number.

Tony
Correct which begs the question of why they're using a correction factor at all except for temp. Surely you can see the contradiction between your statement and the reality of the situation.
 

lxh89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Threads
12
Messages
211
Reaction score
103
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicle(s)
2015 Ruby Red Mustang GT - Whipple Auto
Correct which begs the question of why they're using a correction factor at all except for temp. Surely you can see the contradiction between your statement and the reality of the situation.
Contradiction? It makes 940rwhp, not 1194rwhp.
 

Sponsored

HELLION TURBO

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Threads
66
Messages
519
Reaction score
471
Location
United States
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GT
Correction factors on turbos don't apply unless the turbo can't make full boost because it's maxed out. If it's making set boost, whatever number it shows is the number.

Tony
Hello.

This is incorrect in our experience.

The correction factor works amazingly well, as we have tested hundreds of times over the years.

In our situation, which is turbocharged, the correction factor is accounting for the air density. At 6000 feet of altitude, the boost gauge may be reading 10 psi, but its 10 psi over a much lower beginning air pressure (barometer). At sea level the same gauge will read 10 psi but its with a higher pressure.

You can take this exact car to a sea level dyno and it will make 1194+, we see those dyno numbers every day with this same kit on other Coyotes.

Just want to make the correction details clear.

Team Hellion
 

lxh89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Threads
12
Messages
211
Reaction score
103
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicle(s)
2015 Ruby Red Mustang GT - Whipple Auto
Hello.

This is incorrect in our experience.

The correction factor works amazingly well, as we have tested hundreds of times over the years.

In our situation, which is turbocharged, the correction factor is accounting for the air density. At 6000 feet of altitude, the boost gauge may be reading 10 psi, but its 10 psi over a much lower beginning air pressure (barometer). At sea level the same gauge will read 10 psi but its with a higher pressure.

You can take this exact car to a sea level dyno and it will make 1194+, we see those dyno numbers every day with this same kit on other Coyotes.

Just want to make the correction details clear.

Team Hellion
So in your experience, 2 atmospheres pressure at 8000ft is less then 2 atmospheres at sea level?

I can see a small advantage at sea level but the sae and standard correction factors put too much emphasis on barometer which is meaningless and temperature in this context.

I bet that car wouldnt run much faster at a sea level track - definitely not almost 200rwhp different.

Tony
 

HELLION TURBO

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Threads
66
Messages
519
Reaction score
471
Location
United States
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GT
So in your experience, 2 atmospheres pressure at 8000ft is less then 2 atmospheres at sea level?

I can see a small advantage at sea level but the sae and standard correction factors put too much emphasis on barometer which is meaningless and temperature in this context.

I bet that car wouldnt run much faster at a sea level track - definitely not almost 200rwhp different.

Tony

It absolutely would run faster at sea level. What we experience is we can take a 1200hp corrected vehicle from altitude to the same dyno at sea level and it will make the exact horsepower as corrected---Turbocharged and Naturally Aspirated. As long as the turbos are within their airflow and horsepower ratings, everything transfers.

The correction is amazing and works to compare data all over the world.
 

lxh89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Threads
12
Messages
211
Reaction score
103
Location
Dallas, TX
Vehicle(s)
2015 Ruby Red Mustang GT - Whipple Auto
It absolutely would run faster at sea level. What we experience is we can take a 1200hp corrected vehicle from altitude to the same dyno at sea level and it will make the exact horsepower as corrected---Turbocharged and Naturally Aspirated. As long as the turbos are within their airflow and horsepower ratings, everything transfers.

The correction is amazing and works to compare data all over the world.
Ok - so you've now confirmed the correction factor is consistent, but it's still misapplied and the numbers inaccurate.

Right out of the SAE J1349 whitepaper, section 5.6, titled, "Correction Formulas", they state the following, "These correction formulas are designed for correction of net brake power at full throttle operation; however, for CI engines the formulas may also be used to correct partial load power for the
purpose of determining specific fuel consumption. These correction formulas are not intended for altitude de-rating. "

Section 5.6.2.1 outlines an extended correction factor calculation which references a CF table 5, "Atmospheric Correction Factor Exponents". That table lists the following:

Pressure Charging System Charge Air Cooling System α
Naturally Aspirated None 1.0
Mechanically Supercharged All 1.0
Turbocharged None 0.7
Turbocharged Air-to-Air 0.7
Turbocharged Jacket Water 0.7

Where α less than 1, the correction is dropping the value by 30% for Turbocharged cars even if conducted at sea level. I doubt the dyno operators are accounting for this and they're using the standard CF factor of 1 for Naturally Aspirated or Supercharged. That means the numbers are a factor of 30% higher for turbo cars when SAE numbers are applied.

Tony
 

Sponsored

Notagain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Threads
12
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
581
Location
United States
Vehicle(s)
yellow 2016 5.0 totaled white 2018 A10 now
LOL did this forum go through the same disbelief amd arguement when Whipple put out their Gen3 pump gas numbers............
 
OP
OP

Dream50

Active Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Threads
14
Messages
36
Reaction score
4
Location
Florence Ky
Vehicle(s)
2017 mustang gt
Can we please get back on topic. Hellion is a great company that makes a great product and stands behind it. Just wanting to hear from guys that went turbo.
 

HELLION TURBO

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Threads
66
Messages
519
Reaction score
471
Location
United States
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GT
Ok - so you've now confirmed the correction factor is consistent, but it's still misapplied and the numbers inaccurate.

Right out of the SAE J1349 whitepaper, section 5.6, titled, "Correction Formulas", they state the following, "These correction formulas are designed for correction of net brake power at full throttle operation; however, for CI engines the formulas may also be used to correct partial load power for the
purpose of determining specific fuel consumption. These correction formulas are not intended for altitude de-rating. "

Section 5.6.2.1 outlines an extended correction factor calculation which references a CF table 5, "Atmospheric Correction Factor Exponents". That table lists the following:

Pressure Charging System Charge Air Cooling System α
Naturally Aspirated None 1.0
Mechanically Supercharged All 1.0
Turbocharged None 0.7
Turbocharged Air-to-Air 0.7
Turbocharged Jacket Water 0.7

Where α less than 1, the correction is dropping the value by 30% for Turbocharged cars even if conducted at sea level. I doubt the dyno operators are accounting for this and they're using the standard CF factor of 1 for Naturally Aspirated or Supercharged. That means the numbers are a factor of 30% higher for turbo cars when SAE numbers are applied.

Tony
Thank you for the research into correction. For the purpose of this post, and to not confuse, let us be clear what we are saying. On at least 20 separate occasions we have taken a Hellion powered vehicle from 6000 ft actual altitude to sea level and had the exact samecorrected number. It has proven itself time and time again---hence why its used to compare similar vehicles all over the world.


Can we please get back on topic. Hellion is a great company that makes a great product and stands behind it. Just wanting to hear from guys that went turbo.
Our apologies for the tread losing direction. We just want everyone to have a full understanding of our testing and transparent results.

Please let us know if we can help in any way.

Team Hellion
 

3beeps

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Threads
37
Messages
911
Reaction score
408
Location
Florida
Website
www.instagram.com
Vehicle(s)
'17 GT
Can we please get back on topic. Hellion is a great company that makes a great product and stands behind it. Just wanting to hear from guys that went turbo.
I get where you're coming from but this is good info lol.
 

budsell

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Threads
1
Messages
22
Reaction score
26
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2018 GT
LOL did this forum go through the same disbelief amd arguement when Whipple put out their Gen3 pump gas numbers............

Probably not because I would think there isn't a large correction factor on their dyno results like on the hellion numbers.


I agree with Hellion that at sea level their kit will make big power, it is still misleading though to say it made 1194hp when it actually only made 940hp at the roller. People who take that at face value will think the stock block, rods, pistons, trans, etc held up to the stress of 1194hp, when it actually only saw the stress of 940hp.


The hellion kit is still tempting because blowers suck at altitude. When you are a few psi down due to elevation, you have to spin a blower more RPMs to get the power people do at sea level, leading to more parasitic loss. Turbos definitely seem to help make up for that deficit better than blowers do.
Sponsored

 
 




Top