Close

    • Vishnu Tuning E92 335i with FFTEC N54 single turbo hardware + raised boost finally runs a 10 second 1/4 mile pass, underwhelming?

      Vishnu Tuning finally managed to eek out a 10 second pass in their single turbo E92 335i that they were once touting would be in the 9's. After multiple unsuccessful attempts (with driver errors) from Vishnu owner Shiv Pathak he was able to get a high 10 second slip by raising the boost according to his data log and shifting cleanly. Details are scarce as Vishnu did not provide information on the youtube video upload and there also is no exterior view to show the slip actually correlates to the run shown in the video.

      We will give the benefit of the doubt here but with all secrecy and the multiple attempts to get to this point the performance is simply underwhelming for the time and money investment. The car is said to have run 10.8@131. It recently was dyno'd at 627 wheel horsepower by Insideline so these horses are not translating well to the ground. This single turbo offers considerable lag and the top end pull for the sacrifice simply is not there especially compared to existing solutions such as the Rob Beck twin turbo upgrade which offers far greater spool and performance only a few miles per off through the traps but with far greater driveability.

      The previous record was 11.10@127.21 with 19 psi of boost on the RB turbos. These turbos are a much more affordable option that also currently is available. Vishnu claims 23.5 psi of boost for this 10.8@131 mph run. Is it worth the minor top end benefit for the estimated $8500+ plus install? We do not think so and considering the way Vishnu hyped this the results are very underwhelming. The low end torque sacrifice is not being justified with a large top end gain.

      We wish Vishnu luck in the future but for now this is still an experiment and work in progress that is tough to buy both figuratively and literally. There are more affordable options that work better for daily driven N54 vehicles that offer 97% of the performance in practice (as in not just a dyno queen) with less compromises. Not to mention for users to repeat what Vishnu has done here with their own single turbo it will likely be far more difficult as they will not have the option of risking their engine with higher boost and timing advances simply to try to eek out a tenth to squeeze past what already exists and get into the 10's. It may be a record, but it certainly is not impressive considering where the bar was already set with far less horsepower and much more affordable tuning and hardware options.







      This article was originally published in forum thread: Vishnu/FFTEC 10.822 1/4 mile RECORD! started by onesuperboi View original post
      Comments 682 Comments
      1. amclint's Avatar
        amclint -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nafoo Click here to enlarge
        I thought it was common knowledge that DynoJets read high?

        I always thought Dynojets were more accurate for power at the flywheel. In Shiv's case, 625 on a dynojet would equal about 532 on a mustang dyno (15% loss), which would be right around a 10.8 1/4 mile and 132 trap speed.

        http://robrobinette.com/et.htm Click here to enlarge
        My car at race weight runs way faster than the calc says I should be able to Click here to enlarge
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nafoo Click here to enlarge
        I thought it was common knowledge that DynoJets read high?

        I always thought Dynojets were more accurate for power at the flywheel. In Shiv's case, 625 on a dynojet would equal about 532 on a mustang dyno (15% loss), which would be right around a 10.8 1/4 mile and 132 trap speed.

        http://robrobinette.com/et.htm Click here to enlarge
        Uh, so other cars dyno'd on dynojets putting out less power with higher traps don't have this apply to them?

        And no, they don't show you flywheel power they have an established 15% loss. Dynojet created that standard.

        Wow, people really are pulling at straws now.
      1. nafoo's Avatar
        nafoo -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Uh, so other cars dyno'd on dynojets putting out less power with higher traps don't have this apply to them?

        And no, they don't show you flywheel power they have an established 15% loss. Dynojet created that standard.

        Wow, people really are pulling at straws now.
        I'm not understanding what you're saying.

        1) Isn't it true that DynoJets read higher than Mustang Dynos?
        2) Roughly 15% higher?
        3) I'm just trying to figure out why Shiv only ran 10.8 @132mph and being at 532 rwhp would make sense.

        Does this make sense?
      1. nafoo's Avatar
        nafoo -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by amclint Click here to enlarge
        My car at race weight runs way faster than the calc says I should be able to Click here to enlarge
        My car runs slower than what it says I should run, but that's because I can't drive. The numbers I get from that site seem pretty accurate when I put in my Mustang Dyno number.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nafoo Click here to enlarge
        I'm not understanding what you're saying.

        1) Isn't it true that DynoJets read higher than Mustang Dynos?
        2) Roughly 15% higher?
        3) I'm just trying to figure out why Shiv only ran 10.8 @132mph and being at 532 rwhp would make sense.

        Does this make sense?
        1. No, it isn't established law as it varies from dyno to dyno. It is a general rule of thumb but some Mustang's read higher. AWE-Tuning's mustang for example.
        2. Huh? 15% is the dynojet established loss for manual transmissions. It applies only to dynojets but it doesn't read flywheel.
        3. He isn't at 523 rwhp that is the whole issue.
      1. nafoo's Avatar
        nafoo -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        1. No, it isn't established law as it varies from dyno to dyno. It is a general rule of thumb but some Mustang's read higher. AWE-Tuning's mustang for example.
        2. Huh? 15% is the dynojet established loss for manual transmissions. It applies only to dynojets but it doesn't read flywheel.
        3. He isn't at 523 rwhp that is the whole issue.
        I'm just trying to figure out why he's not running what he should be running.

        What do you think is the cause?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nafoo Click here to enlarge
        I'm just trying to figure out why he's not running what he should be running.

        What do you think is the cause?
        There are several theories and until we get more results with more details/info that isn't hand picked to be released by Shiv to portray this in the best way possible we won't truly know.

        Are the slicks sapping top end? Maybe.
        Is it a dyno queen? Maybe.
        Is there too much lag with a curve too far to the right? Maybe.
        Will it do better with an Auto? Maybe.
        Has Sac slowed down after light calibration? Maybe.
        Are the gains better in theory than in practice? Maybe.
        Karma? Well, if you believe in that sort of thing.

        There are a million variables. For now, it still is the fastest just not as fast as people were hoping/praying/expecting. This is still a work in progress and for now simply is not justified with what it has shown.
      1. Laloosh's Avatar
        Laloosh -
        According to that calculator my car makes 425whp which it probably does. However et is based on traction. My 12.1 at 3850 lb race weight would be a solid 11.8 on a dr and even lower on a slick making this calculator complete bull$#@!.
      1. nafoo's Avatar
        nafoo -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Laloosh Click here to enlarge
        According to that calculator my car makes 425whp which it probably does. However et is based on traction. My 12.1 at 3850 lb race weight would be a solid 11.8 on a dr and even lower on a slick making this calculator complete bull$#@!.
        Why's your car so heavy? I'm 225 lbs and my car weights 3720 with an 1/8 tank of gas. Does "race weight" = full tank of gas?

        I just looked at my latest dyno and I only make 338hp/375tq on a mustang dyno Click here to enlarge I thought I made 352hp, but it was thinking of my 252 baseline. So yeah, the ET calculator is a little off, but it's somewhat close!

        Click here to enlarge
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Why in the world is a drag calculator being used as support and being debated?
      1. Laloosh's Avatar
        Laloosh -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by nafoo Click here to enlarge
        Why's your car so heavy? I'm 225 lbs and my car weights 3720 with an 1/8 tank of gas. Does "race weight" = full tank of gas?

        I just looked at my latest dyno and I only make 338hp/375tq on a mustang dyno Click here to enlarge I thought I made 352hp, but it was thinking of my 252 baseline. So yeah, the ET calculator is a little off, but it's somewhat close!

        http://www.benzboost.com/images/impo...2/05/121-1.jpg
        I have a mustang, not a 335.
      1. Q4P's Avatar
        Q4P -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Laloosh Click here to enlarge
        I have a mustang, not a 335.
        need a blower for that heavy tank...
      1. Laloosh's Avatar
        Laloosh -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Q4P Click here to enlarge
        need a blower for that heavy tank...
        Yea well I'm in Mexico right now and just found out our offer we threw at a home back in jersey got accepted so I will be spending a lot of time and money at home depot lol. However the blower is the next purchase for sure.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Laloosh Click here to enlarge
        Yea well I'm in Mexico right now and just found out our offer we threw at a home back in jersey got accepted so I will be spending a lot of time and money at home depot lol. However the blower is the next purchase for sure.
        that will be ina few years. regardless of what it is, men have to mod. i bet you spend all your time doin $#@! to the house now Click here to enlarge
      1. fundahl's Avatar
        fundahl -
        Guys, this makes sense and is in line with the Mustang Dyne numbers I talked about. Looks like it made about 520whp on the MD at 22psi:

        Attachment 17554

        At the (25?) psi he was running at the strip, probably about 550whp on a MD, which is in line with the trap speed. One of the reasons I prefer it over the Dynojet, realistic numbers. Click here to enlarge
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
        Guys, this makes sense and is in line with the Mustang Dyne numbers I talked about. Looks like it made about 520whp on the MD at 22psi:

        Attachment 17554

        At the (25?) psi he was running at the strip, probably about 550whp on a MD, which is in line with the trap speed. One of the reasons I prefer it over the Dynojet, realistic numbers. Click here to enlarge
        I don't think I have ever seen a 100 whp disparity like that on a mustang versus dynojet at this power level.
      1. fundahl's Avatar
        fundahl -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I don't think I have ever seen a 100 whp disparity like that on a mustang versus dynojet at this power level.
        Yeah it's like a 19% change. And we can see the numbers were weather corrected (WC). Wonder what the actual correction was...

        And Dynojets can't be altered in any way? Are you sure? If the MD load cell is off calibration, or the roller weight is off (under Dyne Parameters), then the numbers can come out low or high.

        But my trust is in the Mustang Dyne. Click here to enlarge
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
        Yeah it's like a 19% change. And we can see the numbers were weather corrected (WC). Wonder what the actual correction was...

        And Dynojets can't be altered in any way? Are you sure? If the MD load cell is off calibration, or the roller weight is off (under Dyne Parameters), then the numbers can come out low or high.

        But my trust is in the Mustang Dyne. Click here to enlarge
        There are things that can be done to fudge the numbers on basically any dyno.
      1. fundahl's Avatar
        fundahl -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        There are things that can be done to fudge the numbers on basically any dyno.
        Exactly, but some people were arguing that you can't on a Dynojet (which I find hard to believe). Dynojet can show uncorrected, STD or SAE numbers. Mustang Dynes are SAE corrected with a weather station hooked to the dyne and of course have a Power Absorption Unit to create a true load on the vehicle vs just spinning weight.

        STD:
        Air Temperature: 60F
        Absolute Pressure: 29.92 inches Hg
        Relative Humidity: 0%

        Relative Horsepower : 104.8%
        Air Density: 1.223kg/m3
        Relative Air Density: 99.8%
        Density Altitude: 67feet
        Virtual Temperature: 60F
        Vapor Pressure: 0 inches Hg
        Dyno Correction Factor: .955

        SAE:
        Air Temperature: 77F
        Absolute Pressure: 29.23 inches Hg
        Relative Humidity: 0%

        Relative Horsepower : 100%
        Air Density: 1.157kg/m3
        Relative Air Density: 94.4%
        Density Altitude: 1952feet
        Virtual Temperature: 77F
        Vapor Pressure: 0 inches Hg
        Dyno Correction Factor: 1


      1. R1000K3's Avatar
        R1000K3 -
        Needless to say, many parameters comes into play to get low ET's. The 10.8 s run shows the car runs great but cannot be directly transferred to whp. It shows the engine is more than 500 whp but not the claimed 640 whp since the trap speed is too low. It is still very good though since it is better IRC than any N54 on nitrous.

        Here is a slip from yesterday, the bike on the right is fast. It has a 1000 hp Hayabusa engine.