soooo in light of recent events and discussions, what do you guys think? I understand the desire to have more comparable results, but realistically the comparisons seem moot unless done under the same conditions at the same place - i.e. i dont agree with "corrected" numbers


Exhibit A: ME (1.13 CF @ the dyno day sat.)

332/737 morphs into 375/833 - that's a lot easier to brag about, that's for sure.

[Edited on July 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM. Reason : -]

7/27/2009 2:43:54 PM

number racing is lame

7/27/2009 2:49:01 PM

Quote :

"RUN WHATCHOO BRUNG"

7/27/2009 3:20:18 PM

If you read SAE J1349, the real test procedure for horsepower numbers (revised 2004), it's simply impossible for a dynojet or any other dyno "SAE correction" to be accurate for two main reasons:

1) SAE correction procedures are designed to be done under very controlled conditions so as to minimize the correction factor in the first place

2) The actual correction factors are pretty complicated (vector cross products etc) and rely on far more information than what is normally supplied to dyno software. If you ever use WinPEP7, the Dynojet software, there's no way to input information such as the type of forced induction/intercooler, fuel viscosity, water temperature, etc.








Whenever I go to the dyno I bring a flash drive and ask them to copy the files for me. Then I look through the runs myself with different smoothing factors, different scales for each axis, etc. The dynojet software is available on their website.

[Edited on July 27, 2009 at 5:02 PM. Reason : glossary of symbols]

7/27/2009 4:49:14 PM

the conversation at the event that the CF was extremely high.

thanks for the insight, everyone


now, where's Quinn-

7/27/2009 4:53:49 PM

^^ That's pretty much how I feel on the subject too.

7/27/2009 5:05:27 PM

1.13 correction factor is absurd. That would've given my old dyno run a 50hp increase over the uncorrected value. That's why SAE requires certified reps to oversee 'real' tests and file a detailed report:

7/27/2009 5:07:36 PM

somehow i knew arghx was gonna find a 50 page article on this

7/27/2009 5:23:40 PM

who cares what the dyno reads. you dont drive the dyno!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

7/28/2009 12:34:23 PM

Now that I'm above 300whp, when are we hitting the drag strip, Quinn?

7/28/2009 12:39:42 PM

new clutch goes in tonight. new turbo goes on tomorrow. new injectors on thursday. maybe i can get the motor back in the engine bay and street tune it decent enough myself this weekend. i just want an even 300 at the ground. car weighs 1950lbs.



140$ 16G this time

[Edited on July 28, 2009 at 1:01 PM. Reason : if anyone needs the 80$ 14B i ran for awhile I dont need it.]

7/28/2009 1:00:59 PM

you better have slicks on that thing

7/28/2009 8:13:30 PM

7/28/2009 8:35:59 PM

If you read SAE J1349, the real test procedure for horsepower numbers (revised 2004), it's simply impossible for a dynojet or any other dyno "SAE correction" to be accurate for two main reasons:

1) SAE correction procedures are designed to be done under very controlled conditions so as to minimize the correction factor in the first place

2) The actual correction factors are pretty complicated (vector cross products etc) and rely on far more information than what is normally supplied to dyno software. If you ever use WinPEP7, the Dynojet software, there's no way to input information such as the type of forced induction/intercooler, fuel viscosity, water temperature, etc.








Whenever I go to the dyno I bring a flash drive and ask them to copy the files for me. Then I look through the runs myself with different smoothing factors, different scales for each axis, etc. The dynojet software is available on their website.

8/4/2009 11:33:56 AM

The only dyno numbers that mean anything come from an engine dyno. Anyone telling you otherwise is just plain wrong.

8/4/2009 2:56:57 PM

Why is that, 400 hp in a 1900lb manual, isnt the same as 400 hp in a 3200lb auto.

8/4/2009 3:03:47 PM

^^haha ok dude

^agreed.

8/4/2009 3:58:19 PM

He's saying those are the only truly accurate ones

8/4/2009 4:02:35 PM

i got ya

8/4/2009 4:10:18 PM

oh - well for each condition and type they are "accurate" right? there's nothing inaccurate about my truck throwing down 332.05, 332.90, 332.15 whp, I know the conditions and circumstances, any different time or dyno would yield acceptable numbers for those conditions.


I guess it's the inability to compare the numbers.... but who cares unless you are tuning?!?!

8/4/2009 4:26:15 PM

thats retarded low standard deviation for an auto

8/5/2009 8:46:50 PM

I did touch the pump.... completely understandable results. I'll scan and post just to beat the dead horse

8/5/2009 9:59:16 PM

LOL @ 330.

What is it a 1.3L 3 bangeR?

8/5/2009 10:22:01 PM

.98L

per

swillinder

8/6/2009 8:08:25 AM

8/6/2009 3:58:42 PM

weak sauce

8/8/2009 6:26:12 PM