Topic: Dyno Day Results (Read 1815 times)

CH46ESeaknight · « **on:** March 04, 2006, 04:29:25 PM »

Well I'll let everyone speak for thier own.

I went 223WHP and 290 Ft lbs. Third run nate sprayed the IC with N20 and it dropped my #'ers.

I think I need to get APR or Revo Software. Thats all I will say!

lpshade · « **Reply #1 on:** March 04, 2006, 04:40:47 PM »

My wifey's truck laid down some good numbers, very happy :mrgreen:

Base Line run - 304.08hp and 514.42tq (engine management not activated, TB exhaust, and CAI)

2nd run - 428.90hp and 759.83tq (engine management set at 4 race mode, TB exhaust, and CAI)

3rd run - 450.62 and 798.82tq (engine management set at 5 extreme mode, TB exhaust, and CAI)

motel6 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 04, 2006, 04:47:47 PM »

Quote from: "lpshade"

3rd run - 450.62 and 798.82tq (engine management set at 5 extreme mode, TB exhaust, and CAI)

Holy nuts torque! :mrgreen:

Soldier Boi · « **Reply #3 on:** March 04, 2006, 04:56:30 PM »

Ummm, not too happy with my numbers, and I was having some boosting issues. I was only spiking about 16lbs instead of my normal 21. I think it had to do with me messing with the SPS controller before my runs.

My max HP was 215 and max TQ was 258. I think if I had my other 5lbs of boost I woulda hit 220+ HP and 265+ TQ. Oh well, it was fun and got lotsa pictures and one video. I will post later. I am sleepy.

Lindsey · « **Reply #4 on:** March 04, 2006, 05:45:37 PM »

ME HAPPY! :mrgreen:

1st Run:
235.08 hp
297.06 foot pounds of torque

2nd Run:
235.93 hp
304.61 foot pounds of torque

3rd Run (with Nate spraying NOS on my intercooler)
232.24 hp
298.81 foot pounds of torque

Jesus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 04, 2006, 05:53:37 PM »

Impressive numbers... BUT

They seem awefully high for WHP. Factor in drivetrain loss and make those BHP numbers and they seem even less believable.

What kind of dyno were these runs made on???

Lindsey · « **Reply #6 on:** March 04, 2006, 05:56:22 PM »

Quote from: "Jesus"

Impressive numbers... BUT

They seem awefully high for WHP. Factor in drivetrain loss and make those BHP numbers and they seem even less believable.

What kind of dyno were these runs made on???

What drivetrain loss do numbers at the wheels not factor in?
It was on a dynojet...

stickfigure02 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:00:20 PM »

I went 214 whp and 242 Tq. I guess that's not too bad for just a chip.

punkrider99 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:00:20 PM »

Quote from: "Jesus"

Impressive numbers... BUT

They seem awefully high for WHP. Factor in drivetrain loss and make those BHP numbers and they seem even less believable.

What kind of dyno were these runs made on???

look patty cakes this is the same dyno everyone has been using. eric laid down 210 and so did ken. apr is an ass kicking tuner thats all.

i did 237 hp and 300 ftlb.

Jesus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:06:58 PM »

Like I said, factor in drivetrain loss and put those numbers at the flywheel.

Shit don't make no sense Nate.

Look around on Vortex and the hundreds of different 1.8T's that have been dynoed and you tell me that those numbers are believable.

What you are claiming here is that a chip and exhaust added nearly 100bhp to a stock 1.8T?

I think there were some funky correction factors or something being used on that dyno.

GTiGuy · « **Reply #10 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:10:34 PM »

What correction factor did they use? Usually its too high, it was for my car. I think it was a 1.27.... I wish i could have been there guys, hope you all had a blast

E

stickfigure02 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:16:23 PM »

The correction factor was 1.24

Jesus · « **Reply #12 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:20:14 PM »

Quote from: "stickfigure02"

The correction factor was 1.24

Were you guys getting dynoed on top of Pikes Peak in a freak 100 degree heat wave?

motel6 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:49:48 PM »

Quote from: "Jesus"

Quote from: "stickfigure02"
The correction factor was 1.24

Were you guys getting dynoed on top of Pikes Peak in a freak 100 degree heat wave?

Yeah, I didn't want to say nothing, but when Carlos told me some of those numbers, I thought they were awfully high. Let me do some research.

Mitch · « **Reply #14 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:53:05 PM »

Quote from: "Jesus"

Quote from: "stickfigure02"
The correction factor was 1.24

Were you guys getting dynoed on top of Pikes Peak in a freak 100 degree heat wave?

Thats right on the money for 6000ft above sea level, 75 degrees with a 24.3 barometric pressure. Thats 25% for a NA car, correction factor for a turbo car should of been around 15% or 20%.

I had 209hp and 225ft lbs of torque. I have about 170hp at 5900ft backed out from my 1/4 mile times from Bandimere so 209hp corrected is within 10%. Either way Im still faster! :mrgreen:

Jesus · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:53:50 PM »

A 1.24 factor would mean that the engine is assumed to be making about 80% of what it would make at sea level. I'm no dyno jet operator but to me that means that it basically added 20% on top of whatever it was actually putting down to the rollers.

Mitch · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:57:14 PM »

Quote from: "Jesus"

A 1.24 factor would mean that the engine is assumed to be making about 80% of what it would make at sea level. I'm no dyno jet operator but to me that means that it basically added 20% on top of whatever it was actually putting down to the rollers.

If you want actually hp numbers you would have to get the uncorrected numbers and NO ONE uses uncorrected numbers!! All of the stuff you see on the net and quotes from companies is corrected!

Jesus · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:59:55 PM »

Quote from: "Mitch"

If you want actually hp numbers you would have to get the uncorrected numbers and NO ONE uses uncorrected numbers!! All of the stuff you see on the net and quotes from companies is corrected!

I understand..al l I'm saying is that if you factor in driveline loss and convert it to @ the crank numbers they are not realistic for a 1.8T with the mods that they have..ie Lindsey's car.

motel6 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:59:56 PM »

Yeah, my calcs are coming up with a correction factor of 0.96 assuming

-58 F
-29.85 inHg air pressure
-0.05 inHg vapor pressure (based on 58F air temp and 2F dewpoint)

I pulled all the atmospheric data off of USAToday's website for Parker, CO as of 7pm Mountain Time.

.96 seems low to me though. Wierd.

Mitch · « **Reply #19 on:** March 04, 2006, 07:03:25 PM »

The are not corrected to flywheel horse power. Its wheel horse power corrected for temperature, barometric pressure, humidity. They corrected for altitude by actually inputing the uncorrect barometric pressure!

Temperature 79.28
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE WAS 24.26
humidity 5%
altitude input Zero because the barometric pressure is uncorreted

Correction FACTOR= 1.247

Use link below

http://www.csgnetwork.com/relhumhpcalc.html

Jesus · « **Reply #20 on:** March 04, 2006, 07:08:34 PM »

Right Mitch..I understand that.

BUT if these are WHP numbers then.. you can typically convert that to crank hp by assuming around a 13% driveline loss (pulling that number from memory) .... when you do that the numbers are not believable for the engine/mod combo's.

Mitch · « **Reply #21 on:** March 04, 2006, 07:11:42 PM »

Quote from: "Jesus"

Right Mitch..I understand that.

BUT if these are WHP numbers then.. you can typically convert that to crank hp by assuming around a 13% driveline loss (pulling that number from memory) .... when you do that the numbers are not believable for the engine/mod combo's.

They are inflated by about 10% because they are using a NA correction factor for turbo cars. The NHRA uses two different correction factors for NA and turbo cars for ET and MPH and dynos do not.

motel6 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 04, 2006, 07:22:01 PM »

Quote from: "Mitch"

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE WAS 24.26

Mitch, that Baro number is signifigantly lower than a CAT 5 Hurricane. In fact, i think its lower than any number ever recorded. Seriously. Thats in the 800 millibar range.

In fact, I just confirmed it. Lowest Baro reading ever... Hurricane Cammile 1969 @ 26.84 inHg.

So if you dynoed in Hurricane Cammile, your correction factor would only be 1.11.

stickfigure02 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 04, 2006, 07:22:18 PM »

I opened the files that they emailed me with Dynojet RunViewer. It only showed the HP and not the TQ, but it did let me change it so there were no SAE corrections. Here are some pics with and without the corrections on the same run. It went from 214.33 with the SAE corrections to 172.64 with no corrections.

motel6 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 04, 2006, 07:26:41 PM »

Here's my dyno chart...

News:

Author Topic: Dyno Day Results (Read 1815 times)

CH46ESeaknight

Soldier Boi

Lindsey

Lindsey

stickfigure02

punkrider99

stickfigure02

stickfigure02