SPOautos

Sorry man, but once you get all the bolt ones there is no other way of getting more power for $2000. The only alternative is single turbo and the cheapest one that will noticeably beat the BNR stage 3's on pump gas is 75% more expensive. Power for Power upgraded twins are much cheaper than single turbo. I'm traping 125 at the track on straight pump gas with a full tank of gas (100 extra lbs) granny shifting. Take a look around and see how many people you see traping over 125 on straight pump gas. With the 100lbs less and hard shifting I'd be at 126 or MAYBE even 127. I also have quite a lot more tuning I could do but I havent bothered cause the car runs great and I dont want to push my luck.

Dont believe dyno's they can lie, look at mph in the 1/4. Did you know that there is a "wheel losses" correction factor for a dyno jet that the operator can change that can inflate your rwhp # as much at 15%? It might be more common than you think for some places to "pad" thier numbers a bit. Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying PFS was pading his numbers, I'm mearly saying instead of everyone looking at dyno they should look closer mph in the 1/4.

My mph indicates about 430-435rwhp. The day I dynoed 412rwhp I was heat soaking on the dyno. My mph shows what I make on the street.

STEPHEN

Tim Benton

iTrader: (1)

I haven't used the PFS PMC in over 4 years roughly, moving on to the PFC which I feel is a better unit now with the datalogit software. Although the timing matrix, Doug says is 13x5, what are the actual paramters you can change for fuel, timing, etc? Still 8x8?

Tim

7-sins

Well my numbers are not inflated and are true with video and several forum members present. Wargasm was there and shot the video. Aswell as red-fd,7-sins, and so on. Also the PMS does the job for me until I go single it is good enough for me.

Yours truly
-Rikki

fitzrx7

iTrader: (1)

I trapped 117mph with stock injectors, turbos, engine, and 225's Daytona Dayton ZR's(shitty tire)on the stock rims.

Now 850's x 4, street port, and sticky tires

Wait till Wednesday, I'll be in the 120's with the stock turbos my friend.

Jon
'93 SSM base
stock turbos, blowing oil like a Kuwaiti well

Boostn7

Been there....

117mph w/ stock inj's, fuel pump, motor and turbo...

Best ET and MPH from stock engine and twins:

11.56 @ 120.xmph
11.59 @ 122.12 mph

Now with ported motor and stock twins:

Soon...soon...soon

Good Luck

artguy

john...im excited to see how your car performs with the streetport....when are you doing the dyno or track number chasing? It will be very interesting to see if your car (which is a total enigma around here) tops the bnr set. I honestly dont understand how you are doing it. Can my car stay at your house for a while? haha

SPOAUTOS...friggen hilarious

cant wait to see what happens this spring and summer boys...my car should be on the road to me in a day or two. BUT ITS FRIGGEN SNOWING>>>WTF!!!

east coast....lots of big power cars...nowhere to drive them. ******* april blizzards...i tell ya.

j

Boostn7

Artguy: Honestly I'm not sure how much more I'm gonna see from the street port...since the twins may be the bottle neck at this point.
I've replaced the 850cc sec's with 1200cc and since the motor is like 3 weeks old...I just started tunning it....... so far at 11psi it feels better and 14psi it pulls but still too rich (10.2-10.6A/F) to tell.
I do plan on racing it at the track soon.....but need to be careful since I have no cage.
If it wasn't for this crazy weather I would probably would have raced this past Sunday @ E-town.

Like I've said... the right combination of parts, tunning and patience....no magic sauce here !

The BNR turbo obviously make more power in the upper range(based on Steph's dyno).

I also can't wait for results.....I'll everyone posted.

jimlab

When did everyone suddenly stop reporting SAE corrected numbers? Every dyno sheet I've seen in the last several months has been labeled "Actual Horsepower" or "Max Power", not "SAE Horsepower" as it should be. SAE correction allows dyno results to be compared across the country by factoring out DA (density/altitude) and other factors. "Actual" horsepower numbers are almost always somewhat higher, and in many cases, by quite a significant amount.

Case in point... my Z06 dyno'd 355.4 RWHP bone stock, SAE corrected. I've never claimed that it made any more than that, and with 15% losses, that's approximately 419 at the flywheel. I even suspect that 15% may have been a little generous, because the T56 is so very efficient. "Actual" horsepower was nearly 368 at the rear wheels. I could have reported that number, but anyone who knows what they were looking at would have laughed me out of town.

So why are all of you reporting "Max Power" numbers? Are your dyno operators ignorant? Or did you just get both printouts and simply choose to post the Max power curves for bragging rights because the numbers were higher? In the case above, I can see why, because the SAE corrected graph probably didn't break 400 RWHP...

The numbers are impressive, certainly, but they're not comparable to any other numbers except those attained by someone else using the same dyno on the same day under the same conditions. They're worthless, in other words, for comparison.

So if your dyno operator doesn't seem to know what SAE correction is, you might remind him. I consider any dyno chart labeled "Max Power" or "Actual Horsepower" to be inflated, and so does most of the rest of the performance world.

artguy

my sheets are SAE corrected thank you....so not all of us are dealing with uncorrected charts.

when are you getting that car running jim? this summer maybe?


j

jimlab

I didn't say that everyone was. I said that all of the dyno sheets that I've seen in recent months have been.

Maybe.

artguy

i was responding to this above...i guess i read it out of context.

shouldnt their times speak for themselves?


j

jimlab

If they've been corrected for DA also...

///3oris

All I have to say is I've only read 4 or so pages of this post.. and have no idea what happened later... but just to partially add to your BSing (not saying your car isn't making the power you're claiming, but the fact that something _IS_ fishy).... it's all in the quote above, and you repeated this quite a few times. There is no way in hell you can raise torque at the same RPM without raising HP. There is no such thing as HP without torque. A Dyno masures torque and the calculates HP..... with that being said.... I'll side with the group that's calling your BS's (even if you made the power you claim you made). Just because the math doesnt add up.

Also, because I haven't read the whole post, and just blindly posting ****... I will also remind people that he could easily be using octane boosters and increasing timing to hell. Also, I didn't see any a/f readings in the dyno pics...

Finally, don't forget that a dyno is only as good as it's tuned. Every dyno, if tuned properly, should be displaying very similar corrected numbers. I know they don't all do, but how hard is it to figure out how much power it takes to spin up a 3k drum (assuming Dynojet) to a certain RPM within a certain amount of time? Soooooo..... if PFS dyno's are showing funny readings, it could easily be "dyno" tuning, not just engine tuning.

Just throwing more things out there to BS about... have fun!

Boris

///3oris

Oh, lol, another thing that just came to mind... you can always play "gear magic"... if that works with that particular dyno?

Boris

artguy

hangin's too good for em!

BURNIN's too GOOD for em....

we are going to rip them into little bitty pieces and BURY 'EM ALIVE...!!




anyone know what thats from?


I dont understand what the problem is if they have times to back up the sheets. could someone please enlighten me?

thanks

j

jimlab

Let me illustrate by posing a question... do you think it would be fair to compare the dyno sheets or track times of, say, a Viper GTS in Flordia to a Viper GTS in Colorado without any sort of correction factor?

On one hand, the weather is probably more temperate in Colorado, arguably, and a 10 degree decrease in intake temperature is good for an approximately 1% increase in power. On the other hand, Denver is also scraping the clouds, and every 1,000 foot increase in elevation equates to approximately a 3% decrease in power for naturally aspirated cars. It's not as pronounced for forced induction cars, since they create their own "atmosphere", but the air being ingested is thinner, so there is some small effect on them as well.

Let's say we know both cars produce the same power. Would it surprise you if the Viper in Florida ran a 12.1 @ 118 mph and the Viper in Colorado ran a 13.3 @ 111? Let's say we don't know how much power they're making. Now wouldn't you reach the conclusion that the Viper in Colorado was making less power, based purely on its "times"?

If a correction factor were used (as it should be) to compensate for the difference in DA (air density/humidity and altitude), THEN you can fairly compare the two cars, despite the possibility of widely varying climate and elevations involved.

Both track times and dyno sheets should be corrected so that, for example, a dyno sheet from car A on the west coast can be fairly compared to car B on the east coast, and car C in Texas. If there were no correction factors, everyone would dyno during the winter, when the air was much cooler to inflate their numbers. If there were no correction factors, everyone would think that cars at or near sea level made a lot more power with the same modifications than those several thousand feet above.

Correction factors make comparison possible. Without them, you have no basis for fair comparison, and the results, while technically "accurate", aren't being weighted by the same standard that everyone else adheres to. Reporting uncorrected numbers is therefore being dishonest, or at the very least misleading, if those numbers are in any way higher than what the corrected numbers would have been.

Is that an adequate explanation?

SPOautos

The fact is you cant compare dyno jet readings anyway cause any dynojet operator can change the wheel losses factor as much as 15% without you or anyone else knowing. I have a friend that owns a dynojet which is where I get my sheets. According to him almost all operators use a wheels losses correction factor and most of the time they all use different amounts. I would bet that I'm the only person thats posted sheets lately that knows without a doubt that there is no wheel losses factored into my runs.

So in reality you cant really trust a dyno jet reading anyway. This is why no one hardly every gets the exact same results from dyno to dyno even with the same car, no matter if they are SAE corrected or not.

At least at the track there is no padding the numbers, you ran what you ran. This is why I prefer to compare numbers and find out where people ran those numbers at.

Also, personally I like acutal readings because this IS what the car REALLY made (assuming no wheel losses factors are used). I personally dont care what someone in Denver would make with my set up, I dont live in Denver. My numbers reflect what I made on that day which is exactly what I want to know.

BTW - I found a real good article explaining how the dyno jet correction factors dont really work anyway but I cant seem to find it.....I'll have to hunt that up

I personally dont think its misleading at all. It is the real numbers you put down....how could that be misleading. Dyno readings even with SAE corrected hardley ever are the same from dyno to dyno so its really a mute point anyway

STEPHEN

SPOautos

Ahhh, I remember what the correction problem was, re reading Jims post reminded me.

Lets say there is a dyno at 5000 feet then the SAE correction factor for air density is 20%. This means if your actual power is 300 due to you suffering from lack of air density then its going to bump you up to 360. Here is teh problem with that. All types of engines respond differently to air density especially between n/a versus fi which Jim so kindly pointed out (which is what reminded me of the problem). This mean while 20% might be accurate for a n/a car its much too high for a turbo car which gives the turbo car over inflated numbers.

All of the factors are based on N/A engines and they are very much overkill for turbo cars.

Damn, I need to find that article, I just read it a couple days ago......I'll look for it and post it

STEPHEN

SPOautos

Damn, sorry for 3 posts in a row but I found the article, give me your .02 on it and yes I already know its long haha..........

***START OF ARTICLE***

Happy Correction Factor Trick

Just about every engine or chassis dynamometer has the ability to display the results with any number of applied "correction methods." SAE, DIN, STD, EEC, etc. Each correction method represents a way to equate (for the purpose of comparison) different dynamometer results that where taken under different conditions (barometric level, ambient temperature, altitude, etc.,) Even when used properly, these correction techniques don't always represent a realistic picture. This is because different types of engines react to conditions changes differently. In other words, there is no one-size-fits-all correction method.

Altitude

For example, let's consider a dynamometer located at 5000 feet above sea level. At such elevation, most cars suffer terribly due to the lack of air density. As a result, their power outputs fall noticeably compared to identical cars that operate at or near sea level. For this reason, just about every dynamometer applies a hefty altitude correction in the magnitude of 20% (SAE correction, in this case). This means that a car that put down an actual 100 wheel hp is "corrected" up to 120 wheel hp. While this correction amount is reasonably accurate in some cases, it is notoriously optimistic in the case of turbocharged engines. In such engines, power output rarely falls as dramatically in response to air density reduction. This is due to their turbo control systems that combat air density reductions by allowing for higher boost pressures. These increased boost pressures can almost completely offset the ambient pressure reduction and make the "altitude correction" almost completely unnecessary. However, I have yet to see a high-altitude tuner come forth and not apply the positive correction factor when displaying their grossly optimistic dyno results.

Humidity

Similar issues arise with changes in humidity. Standard dynamometer correction techniques apply an increasingly positive correction as humidity rises. The idea behind this is that air density reduces as moisture content increases. In other words, the more humid the day is, the less power the car will make. However, as with altitude, not all cars react to humidity changes the same way. For example, a naturally aspirated car may behave as predicted by the smarty-pants that derived the correction technique. But a heavily turbocharged may behave exactly opposite to the rule. Turbocharged cars, unlike naturally aspirated cars, often operate right up to their knock (also known as detonation) thresholds. When humidity rises, the extra water content in the air charge actually acts as a passive cooler of sorts, lowering in-cylinder temperatures just enough to allow for a few more degrees of ignition advance without the presence of detonation. In other words, whatever engine output is lost through the reduction in oxygen content is gained (and then some) through a significant bump in thermal efficiency (caused by operating with more ignition advance). Voila-another improperly applied correction factor!

Temperature

Unfortunately, that's not the only way to misuse correction factors. Case in point: Temperature correction. As with altitude, increases in ambient air temperatures almost always yield reductions in engine output. Conversely, reductions in ambient temperature just about always yield increases in engine output. One trick that is used by more than a few tuners is strategic placement of the dynamometer's air temperature sensor (which is used for correction factor calculation). When need for lower-than-normal dyno result arises, it's easy to place the air temperature sensor in a slightly colder environment (out of the engine bay, in a cool shadow, on some insulation, etc.). Similarly, when a higher-than-normal result is needed, all one has to do is to place the sensor in a hot environment (near the exhaust header, in a stagnant pocket of air, in direct sunlight, etc.). Complicating the matters further is that, yes, you guess it, not all cars respond to temperature changes the same way. Turbocharged cars may, in fact, make less power when ambient temperatures drop beyond a certain point. This is often caused by lean-run conditions induced by the increase in air density. Running with the leaner air/fuel ratios, a turbocharged car may run into detonation, which will result in spurious knock sensor activity. Before you know, it several degrees of ignition advance is yanked out and power suffers measurably. This situation is not uncommon in cars, like the WRX, that have their intake temperature sensors placed before the turbo (in the Mass Air Flow sensor) and not just before the throttle body. Latter placement provides a much more accurate indication of in-cylinder air temperatures, allowing the engine management computer to respond with proper fuel and timing compensations.


***END OF ARTICLE***

STEPHEN

Boostn7

>>I would bet that I'm the only person thats posted sheets lately that knows without a doubt that there is no wheel losses factored into my runs.<<

SPoautos: Don't bet ! you'll lose.
You're making it sound like you're the only one posting "correct" dyno sheets !!!!

Actual wheel horsepower is exactly it....no correction at all.

I ran 122mph in the 1/4....which clearly indicate 400+rwh regardless of temp, humidity or altitude.
Some believe I dynoed 402rwh other don't....either way I'm happy....and that's what matters

Do dynos put the same load on the engine as if it was going down the 1/4???

On the street my A/F's (FJO) were in the low 11's and on the dyno they dropped to 10.3-10.5 !!!! same day on the way home it was back to low 11's ......

dubulup

You were hoping for 11s, correct???

Did you get it? Or did you baby it like SPO ()

dubulup

nevermind...I see your sig now.

Congrats.

SPOautos

No, I didnt mean that. You mph and hp line up fine. I basically just meant that not hardley anyone ever knows the wheels losses factor being used because the customer never knows that unless they spacifically ask. I'm not saying that peoples numbers are wrong, like mine your dyno could have been set for no correction. I'm just saying a lot of dyno's DO have a correction entered in. It might be as low as 1% but it could be as high as 15% (even though thats rare).

I didnt accuse anyone of purposly inflating thier numbers because honestly the customer wouldnt even know. I was just saying that I doubt anyone knows spacifically what thier number was.....that doesnt mean it wasnt zero, just that most people didnt know it was zero....or 1% or 5% or 15%.

Dont worry man, I wasnt knocking your numbers, your trap says it all as far as I'm concerned.

STEPHEN

SPOautos

He has his rear end set up for it....I dont.

I wish I did but I'm in the middle of building a house and just havent had the money to spend. Maybe one of these days but the more I think about it the more I want to switch gears and start getting into road racing instead.

Hmm, it never ends haha

STEPHEN

artguy

take that car to fontana where i raced last year in the 100 degree heat. see if you pull down those same numbers...regardless of temp etc...as you said. I watched modded sevens run mid-high 13s all day long...same for the zo6 crowd...i think the best zo6 time at that track was 13.1 ....temp is absolutely part of the equation. it was friggen HOT. at those temps they simply were not making the power that someone would make back east in the spring or fall. the more heat...the less power one makes.

under your conditions you showed those times and power levels...congrats and nothing should be taken from that...tis an accomplishment.


j