354HP @11 psi with Dyno sheet
08-16-02, 05:46 PM
#126
Lurking..................
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rikki,
You have not given all the answers. You've been repeatedly asked questions in which you avoid.
Tell me if in fact you dyno'd it at over 13 psi or not. You have conflicting posts on this thread, one says it's not tuned to go 15 psi and the other says that you went up to 18 psi but saw no gain in HP only a gain in torque.
How is no gain in HP at 16-17 psi runs over your 11-13 psi runs possible? Was Anthony running 17 psi on stock twins for no HP gain? Are other peoples non seq/ported dyno sheets wrong when they show a increase in HP at higher boost pressures? Look at ErnieT's dyno, he sure had an increase in HP as the boost was up'd.
Please explain because I am missing something. I would hope since you were there and since Ray and maybe Peter were there that they explained for whatever reason it is. Now can you explain it to me?
Basically you're saying that torque increased at higer boost levels but not HP. HP is a mathmatical calculation like Spoautos said. It's based on torque.
And lastly IF there were no runs at over 13 psi. Since you're obviously trying to show that PFS is a great tuner why no runs at 14-15 psi? If you did do runs at 14-15 psi+(even 18psi you had said) then why not share the numbers? It seems like you're trying to hide something and that more numbers and info would give something away.
You have not given all the answers. You've been repeatedly asked questions in which you avoid.
Tell me if in fact you dyno'd it at over 13 psi or not. You have conflicting posts on this thread, one says it's not tuned to go 15 psi and the other says that you went up to 18 psi but saw no gain in HP only a gain in torque.
How is no gain in HP at 16-17 psi runs over your 11-13 psi runs possible? Was Anthony running 17 psi on stock twins for no HP gain? Are other peoples non seq/ported dyno sheets wrong when they show a increase in HP at higher boost pressures? Look at ErnieT's dyno, he sure had an increase in HP as the boost was up'd.
Please explain because I am missing something. I would hope since you were there and since Ray and maybe Peter were there that they explained for whatever reason it is. Now can you explain it to me?
Basically you're saying that torque increased at higer boost levels but not HP. HP is a mathmatical calculation like Spoautos said. It's based on torque.
And lastly IF there were no runs at over 13 psi. Since you're obviously trying to show that PFS is a great tuner why no runs at 14-15 psi? If you did do runs at 14-15 psi+(even 18psi you had said) then why not share the numbers? It seems like you're trying to hide something and that more numbers and info would give something away.
Last edited by black99; 08-16-02 at 05:51 PM.
08-16-02, 05:50 PM
#127
Passenger
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by black99
Rikki,
You have not given all the answers. You've been repeatedly asked questions in which you avoid.
Tell me if in fact you dyno'd it at over 13 psi or not. You have conflicting posts on this thread, one says it's not tuned to go 15 psi and the other says that you went up to 18 psi but saw no gain in HP only a gain in torque.
How is no gain in HP at 16-17 psi runs from your 11-13 psi runs possible?
Please explain because I am missing something.
Basically you're saying that torque increased at higer boost levels but not HP. HP is a mathmatical calculation like Spoautos said. It's based on torque.
And lastly IF there were no runs at over 13 psi. Since you're obviously trying to show that PFS is a great tuner why no runs at 14-15 psi? If you did do runs at 14-15 psi+(even 18psi you had said) then why not share the numbers? It seems like you're trying to hide something and that more numbers and info would give something away.
Rikki,
You have not given all the answers. You've been repeatedly asked questions in which you avoid.
Tell me if in fact you dyno'd it at over 13 psi or not. You have conflicting posts on this thread, one says it's not tuned to go 15 psi and the other says that you went up to 18 psi but saw no gain in HP only a gain in torque.
How is no gain in HP at 16-17 psi runs from your 11-13 psi runs possible?
Please explain because I am missing something.
Basically you're saying that torque increased at higer boost levels but not HP. HP is a mathmatical calculation like Spoautos said. It's based on torque.
And lastly IF there were no runs at over 13 psi. Since you're obviously trying to show that PFS is a great tuner why no runs at 14-15 psi? If you did do runs at 14-15 psi+(even 18psi you had said) then why not share the numbers? It seems like you're trying to hide something and that more numbers and info would give something away.
We did high boost runs and prove to be no gain in HP just torque. this is beside the point I admit it did not make more power just torque. If his dyno was a cheat would we just put up a huge *** 400HP graph. So blow all the smoke you want. We even did a 20psi run and it just over spun the twins and the boost backed itself off. that is it. WE TUNED FOR THE SWEET SPOT. PLAIN and SIMPLE take it or get over it........
08-16-02, 06:16 PM
#128
Hell, I'll step up and pay the cash. What's the nearest dyno besides PFS? Who much for 3 runs? Who has a paypal account I can send the cash to?
I don't question the 345 rwhp number, I just question the BOOST LEVEL it was achieved with. If he made 345 at 13 psi I'd think that is more in line with what I feel to be an accurate level of cars with similar mods.
What was the correction factor for the runs? Not the smoothing number. At my last dyno run, I made 365 rwhp at 13 psi.....I almost **** in my pants until we saw the correction factor was 1 whopping 1.20. Next run dropped to 320 range at 13 psi due to heat soaking while we rebooted the PC and redid the connections. For anyone who's been on the dyno a number of times, if you do a run and immediately do a run with 30 seconds or so, you don't drop that much HP on a turbo car. Waiting more time actually lets the car heat soak to a point of dropping anywhere from 12 to 15 rwhp on your next run.
As far as tuning and claiming HP numbers with race gas, its, well, pretty stupid to tune a system with an octane you won't be using all the time. You'd have to retune the car for the lower octane which costs more money, or use one of the PFS settings for race fuel and boost, timing etc. and only have 2 settings for pump gas....thats do able.
But I still doubt 345 rwhp at 11 psi on pump gas.
I even had Peter street tune my PMC back when I had it and it was fast, but now there's other systems out there (PFC comes to mind, AEM if it comes out) that offer more flexibility and resolution than the PMC's 8x8 grid. PFC has 20x20 for instance. To tune the car more towards the known edge with our cars with the PMC makes it much less reliable than the PFC since the PMC has to great a range between points to make calculations for. data ranges being every 400 rpms for the PFC...from 4000 to 8000 there are 11 data points for the PFC, how many from 4000 to 8000 for the PMC, its been way to long since I've had mine. What woud you want controlling your system? one with only 2 maybe 3 data points and then it has to extrapolate the rest of the data, timing, fuel, and boost from 4000 up to redline? The PMC had its day, its now obsolete with newer stuff on the market being better, not piggy backed in and faster processors then the PMC.
Damn, I flew off on a tangent just now. Back to topic, read the first 4 lines I wrote and let me know about how to send the cash.
Tim
I don't question the 345 rwhp number, I just question the BOOST LEVEL it was achieved with. If he made 345 at 13 psi I'd think that is more in line with what I feel to be an accurate level of cars with similar mods.
What was the correction factor for the runs? Not the smoothing number. At my last dyno run, I made 365 rwhp at 13 psi.....I almost **** in my pants until we saw the correction factor was 1 whopping 1.20. Next run dropped to 320 range at 13 psi due to heat soaking while we rebooted the PC and redid the connections. For anyone who's been on the dyno a number of times, if you do a run and immediately do a run with 30 seconds or so, you don't drop that much HP on a turbo car. Waiting more time actually lets the car heat soak to a point of dropping anywhere from 12 to 15 rwhp on your next run.
As far as tuning and claiming HP numbers with race gas, its, well, pretty stupid to tune a system with an octane you won't be using all the time. You'd have to retune the car for the lower octane which costs more money, or use one of the PFS settings for race fuel and boost, timing etc. and only have 2 settings for pump gas....thats do able.
But I still doubt 345 rwhp at 11 psi on pump gas.
I even had Peter street tune my PMC back when I had it and it was fast, but now there's other systems out there (PFC comes to mind, AEM if it comes out) that offer more flexibility and resolution than the PMC's 8x8 grid. PFC has 20x20 for instance. To tune the car more towards the known edge with our cars with the PMC makes it much less reliable than the PFC since the PMC has to great a range between points to make calculations for. data ranges being every 400 rpms for the PFC...from 4000 to 8000 there are 11 data points for the PFC, how many from 4000 to 8000 for the PMC, its been way to long since I've had mine. What woud you want controlling your system? one with only 2 maybe 3 data points and then it has to extrapolate the rest of the data, timing, fuel, and boost from 4000 up to redline? The PMC had its day, its now obsolete with newer stuff on the market being better, not piggy backed in and faster processors then the PMC.
Damn, I flew off on a tangent just now. Back to topic, read the first 4 lines I wrote and let me know about how to send the cash.
Tim
08-16-02, 06:27 PM
#129
Rotarian
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, from all this evidence I have concluded that Rikki's power readings are accurate relative to the PFS dyno. However, the only country I know off that has strict calibration of Dyno testing is Germany (TUV). Does the US have a similar standard for Dyno machines???
I reckon if you put it on another Dyno, the figure may not be so favourable, but only by 10-20 bhp.
I could be wrong, I still think his figures are achievable, and whether its 354bhp or 334bhp, it's still a damn nice car!!
my 1pence
I reckon if you put it on another Dyno, the figure may not be so favourable, but only by 10-20 bhp.
I could be wrong, I still think his figures are achievable, and whether its 354bhp or 334bhp, it's still a damn nice car!!
my 1pence
08-16-02, 07:13 PM
#132
Senior Member
Originally posted by Dont_Be_A_Rikki
O.k. for the last time............
We did high boost runs and prove to be no gain in HP just torque. this is beside the point I admit it did not make more power just torque.
O.k. for the last time............
We did high boost runs and prove to be no gain in HP just torque. this is beside the point I admit it did not make more power just torque.
Horsepower=Torque*RPM/5252
So how is it that you made more torque, but no more HP? Are you telling me that turning up the boost shifted the RPM range that the torque was made in so far down that it negated the possible HP gains? I'm no expert, but I can do the math and this doesn't make sense to me, someone care to clarify?
Last edited by jr; 08-16-02 at 07:16 PM.
08-16-02, 07:25 PM
#134
No flames here. But if i had a couple extra buck laying around, i would be more than happy to pitch in. But i'm a poor boy tring to build a single turbo.
I totaly agree with gordon that something sounds fishy. but would love to see some twins put down that type of power at the boost level claimed with the a/f ratio stated. I'm realy looking forward to seeing this new dyno session. Keep us posted. CJ
I totaly agree with gordon that something sounds fishy. but would love to see some twins put down that type of power at the boost level claimed with the a/f ratio stated. I'm realy looking forward to seeing this new dyno session. Keep us posted. CJ
08-16-02, 07:26 PM
#135
Rotarian
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think Rikki stated how much more torque was achieved by uping the boost.
However, it would be interesting to see the average bhp output (between say 3000 and 7000rpm) instead of the peak bhp output, as this would take into account the torque changes in all rpm's. Or maybe just the average torque??
It's quite feasable that the torque changed at an RPM that didn't affect the Peak bhp
However, it would be interesting to see the average bhp output (between say 3000 and 7000rpm) instead of the peak bhp output, as this would take into account the torque changes in all rpm's. Or maybe just the average torque??
It's quite feasable that the torque changed at an RPM that didn't affect the Peak bhp
Last edited by rx-7ml; 08-16-02 at 07:28 PM.
08-16-02, 09:04 PM
#136
Passenger
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by gmonsen
i may be seeing a bit of light coming through a small hole... i do not quite understand what rikki means by: "I will not give a/f numbers because that is PFS information. That is up to Peter. I gave you pump gas A/F so what is so fishy about that? I used race fuel and picked up a few horses but that is it." but, he says he won;t give out a/f numbers, because that is PFS information? tikki, where, EXACTLY, did you get the a/f number of "11.3:1" that you provided us with in your initial posts? and, what do you mean the a/f's are PFS information? what do you mean by saying you gave us the A/F on pump gas? was that the 11.3:1?
what i want to know is whether anyone there at the dyno pull can claim to have seen an AIR FUEL RATIO on any display? on a wideband? on the dyno computer? anywhere? did any of the guys who were there see and AFR? brian, did you?
i believe i have my answer, though i will wait to see if anyone other than rikki or another employee of PFS saw an Air Fuel Ratio. the fact that rikki says the a/f is PFS inform,ation suggests very strongly that these runs were made at 12.5:1 or higher. and, genetlemen, there's our missing piece. and, with that information, i understand how he may have pulled 350 rwhp at 11 psi. (i'm surprised they didn't chill the Intercooler before the run with nitrous, CO2 or at least ice. or did they?
oh, and rikki, i will gladly pay for you to run the car on KD Rotary's dyno anytime you want. my pocketbook is open and i invite everyone to attend. we'll slap a wideband lambda on this puppy and see what she's got. then, the numbers will be comparable to what a lot of people in the northeast have as their basis for understanding their car's power versus yours. we'll also be able to see the Air/Fuel Ratios that have been programmed into your purple box. we'll see the 11.3:1 pump gas setting that generates 349 rwhp at 11 psi.
you see, rikki, you first said it made 349 rwhp at 11 psi with an 11.3:1 AFR on pump gas. bring your car with a nearly empty tank and we'll fill her up with pump gas, hook up the wideband, turn on the fan, strap her down and run her up. all done. thank you for being willing to do this. i am totally prepared to believe these numbers and put them on the forum personally as the god's truth that they will be.
-gordon
i may be seeing a bit of light coming through a small hole... i do not quite understand what rikki means by: "I will not give a/f numbers because that is PFS information. That is up to Peter. I gave you pump gas A/F so what is so fishy about that? I used race fuel and picked up a few horses but that is it." but, he says he won;t give out a/f numbers, because that is PFS information? tikki, where, EXACTLY, did you get the a/f number of "11.3:1" that you provided us with in your initial posts? and, what do you mean the a/f's are PFS information? what do you mean by saying you gave us the A/F on pump gas? was that the 11.3:1?
what i want to know is whether anyone there at the dyno pull can claim to have seen an AIR FUEL RATIO on any display? on a wideband? on the dyno computer? anywhere? did any of the guys who were there see and AFR? brian, did you?
i believe i have my answer, though i will wait to see if anyone other than rikki or another employee of PFS saw an Air Fuel Ratio. the fact that rikki says the a/f is PFS inform,ation suggests very strongly that these runs were made at 12.5:1 or higher. and, genetlemen, there's our missing piece. and, with that information, i understand how he may have pulled 350 rwhp at 11 psi. (i'm surprised they didn't chill the Intercooler before the run with nitrous, CO2 or at least ice. or did they?
oh, and rikki, i will gladly pay for you to run the car on KD Rotary's dyno anytime you want. my pocketbook is open and i invite everyone to attend. we'll slap a wideband lambda on this puppy and see what she's got. then, the numbers will be comparable to what a lot of people in the northeast have as their basis for understanding their car's power versus yours. we'll also be able to see the Air/Fuel Ratios that have been programmed into your purple box. we'll see the 11.3:1 pump gas setting that generates 349 rwhp at 11 psi.
you see, rikki, you first said it made 349 rwhp at 11 psi with an 11.3:1 AFR on pump gas. bring your car with a nearly empty tank and we'll fill her up with pump gas, hook up the wideband, turn on the fan, strap her down and run her up. all done. thank you for being willing to do this. i am totally prepared to believe these numbers and put them on the forum personally as the god's truth that they will be.
-gordon
-Rikki
Thanx for the chance to shut you up my freind.
BTW I have no hard feelings Gordon but you have alot of knowledge but you are not an FD tuner are you. With your cash and knowledge you have why not open a shop up. You do have the money right? So if you are the man as you claim why have you not done so. Oh I know why. It is not as easy as you put it. With mis-leading facts and profund numbers that you GRAB out of the air IMO. I like you as a person but we have a contest here and it is a good one huh? I love it and please call asap. I look forward to this chance to button up you claims you make.
BOTTOM LINE
08-16-02, 09:23 PM
#138
Hey, where did my $$$ go?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bimingham, AL
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet I can explain why there is no difference in power with the extra boost!!!!!
How about this..... Peter probably know 12.5 a/f ratio is only safe at real low boost levels so he ran a 12.5 a/f up to 11psi (which is REALLY pushing the safty margin especially in the heat) then above 11psi of boost he lowered the a/f to the stated 11.3. The change in a/f above 11psi caused the richness to negated the extra boost!!!!
Ok so who want to clap for me??? Do i get a cookie? What about some kind of prize???
Hey man you also mention that you did runs at 20psi, the stock map sensor only reads to 17, you better watch out that sounds very dangerous. Its also very bad for the twins.
STEPHEN
How about this..... Peter probably know 12.5 a/f ratio is only safe at real low boost levels so he ran a 12.5 a/f up to 11psi (which is REALLY pushing the safty margin especially in the heat) then above 11psi of boost he lowered the a/f to the stated 11.3. The change in a/f above 11psi caused the richness to negated the extra boost!!!!
Ok so who want to clap for me??? Do i get a cookie? What about some kind of prize???
Hey man you also mention that you did runs at 20psi, the stock map sensor only reads to 17, you better watch out that sounds very dangerous. Its also very bad for the twins.
STEPHEN
Last edited by SPOautos; 08-16-02 at 09:26 PM.
08-16-02, 10:35 PM
#141
Originally posted by SPOautos
I bet I can explain why there is no difference in power with the extra boost!!!!!
How about this..... Peter probably know 12.5 a/f ratio is only safe at real low boost levels so he ran a 12.5 a/f up to 11psi (which is REALLY pushing the safty margin especially in the heat) then above 11psi of boost he lowered the a/f to the stated 11.3. The change in a/f above 11psi caused the richness to negated the extra boost!!!!
Ok so who want to clap for me??? Do i get a cookie? What about some kind of prize???
Hey man you also mention that you did runs at 20psi, the stock map sensor only reads to 17, you better watch out that sounds very dangerous. Its also very bad for the twins.
STEPHEN
I bet I can explain why there is no difference in power with the extra boost!!!!!
How about this..... Peter probably know 12.5 a/f ratio is only safe at real low boost levels so he ran a 12.5 a/f up to 11psi (which is REALLY pushing the safty margin especially in the heat) then above 11psi of boost he lowered the a/f to the stated 11.3. The change in a/f above 11psi caused the richness to negated the extra boost!!!!
Ok so who want to clap for me??? Do i get a cookie? What about some kind of prize???
Hey man you also mention that you did runs at 20psi, the stock map sensor only reads to 17, you better watch out that sounds very dangerous. Its also very bad for the twins.
STEPHEN
Damn, them PFS guys are a bunch of weasels.
08-16-02, 10:37 PM
#142
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Rikki you still never answered Gordon's question. You've always been very open and try to help everyone on the forum out, don't be afraid to explain everything the best you can. I know you're probably worried everyone will just try and shoot holes in whatever you say no matter how complete, but its ok, no one is accusing you of lying we're just trying to figure out how you did it. I will make it easy, if you don't know the answer, dude its ok! Just say so, no one likes a know-it-all anyway. Now, referring to your 349HP run at 11PSI on PUMP GAS:
1. What was the A/F ratio?
a: Don't know
b: I do know, it was ____ (fairly steady)
c: I do know, it fluctuated between ___ and ___
2. How was the intercooler chilled?
a: No form of intercooler chilling
b: Fan blowing air into it
c: Ice
d: Don't know
3. What was the ambient temp?
a: It was around ___ degrees
b: Don't know
4. What was the humidity?
a: It was __%
b: Not sure but it was dry
c: Not sure but it was moderate
d: Not sure but it was damp
e: Don't know
5. How did you verify your boost settings?
a: My usual boost gauge, which was ____ (model of boost gauge)
b: An external boost gauge attached to ____ (manifold, etc) which was a ____ (model of boost gauge)
c: Don't know
6. Once full boost was hit, was boost steady for the entire run(s)?
a: Yes
b: No (describe fluctuation)
c: Don't know
7. How was boost controlled? (this one shouldn't be too hard
8. What brand of dyno was used (ie Dynojet, etc)
a: Brand ___
b: Don't know
9. What kind of octane rating was your pump gas?
a: It was ___ octane
b: Don't know
10. Did you experience any ignition breakup on your higher boost runs?
a: Yes, starting at ___ rpm
b: Yes, not sure at what rpm
c: No
11. Did you moniter your intake temperatures?
a: Yes, peak intake temps were ___ (feel free to elaborate if yes)
b: No
I think every person here would like to make those numbers at that psi, so help us!
1. What was the A/F ratio?
a: Don't know
b: I do know, it was ____ (fairly steady)
c: I do know, it fluctuated between ___ and ___
2. How was the intercooler chilled?
a: No form of intercooler chilling
b: Fan blowing air into it
c: Ice
d: Don't know
3. What was the ambient temp?
a: It was around ___ degrees
b: Don't know
4. What was the humidity?
a: It was __%
b: Not sure but it was dry
c: Not sure but it was moderate
d: Not sure but it was damp
e: Don't know
5. How did you verify your boost settings?
a: My usual boost gauge, which was ____ (model of boost gauge)
b: An external boost gauge attached to ____ (manifold, etc) which was a ____ (model of boost gauge)
c: Don't know
6. Once full boost was hit, was boost steady for the entire run(s)?
a: Yes
b: No (describe fluctuation)
c: Don't know
7. How was boost controlled? (this one shouldn't be too hard
8. What brand of dyno was used (ie Dynojet, etc)
a: Brand ___
b: Don't know
9. What kind of octane rating was your pump gas?
a: It was ___ octane
b: Don't know
10. Did you experience any ignition breakup on your higher boost runs?
a: Yes, starting at ___ rpm
b: Yes, not sure at what rpm
c: No
11. Did you moniter your intake temperatures?
a: Yes, peak intake temps were ___ (feel free to elaborate if yes)
b: No
I think every person here would like to make those numbers at that psi, so help us!
Last edited by Nathan Kwok; 08-16-02 at 10:55 PM.
08-16-02, 10:50 PM
#143
If PFS has some so-called secrets in tuning and he shared them with the 18K members of the forum will he lose business? I think not. Will he gain business, I think yes.
How many people across the world will gain by this knowledge? Many and they would never be able to come there for business with PFS.
But the world will have a better opinion of the knowledge gained.
Once that sharing is known many will gain.
My guess is many will come to PFS and have them tune their car for those great results.
Just my opinion.
Ken
How many people across the world will gain by this knowledge? Many and they would never be able to come there for business with PFS.
But the world will have a better opinion of the knowledge gained.
Once that sharing is known many will gain.
My guess is many will come to PFS and have them tune their car for those great results.
Just my opinion.
Ken
08-16-02, 11:33 PM
#145
Originally posted by LUV94RX7
If PFS has some so-called secrets in tuning and he shared them with the 18K members of the forum will he lose business? I think not. Will he gain business, I think yes.
How many people across the world will gain by this knowledge? Many and they would never be able to come there for business with PFS.
But the world will have a better opinion of the knowledge gained.
Once that sharing is known many will gain.
My guess is many will come to PFS and have them tune their car for those great results.
Just my opinion.
Ken
If PFS has some so-called secrets in tuning and he shared them with the 18K members of the forum will he lose business? I think not. Will he gain business, I think yes.
How many people across the world will gain by this knowledge? Many and they would never be able to come there for business with PFS.
But the world will have a better opinion of the knowledge gained.
Once that sharing is known many will gain.
My guess is many will come to PFS and have them tune their car for those great results.
Just my opinion.
Ken
If Petah were smart, he should be looking at the PFC and datalogit like KDR but I doubt it. I mean what do you expect from a guy who sued his deep pocket customers?
Off Topic - Anyway, PFS is so competitive that he'll do anything to gain that 1% advantage over other tuners. This whole thread just reinforces the bad impression of PFS (which started with I'm the tuner and I'll sue you if you bash me with my ex-employee who is beholden to me as a fiduciary...) instead of reinforcing the positives (not those expletives that Rikki has been whoring around).
08-16-02, 11:34 PM
#146
Passenger
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Nathan Kwok
Rikki you still never answered Gordon's question. You've always been very open and try to help everyone on the forum out, don't be afraid to explain everything the best you can. I know you're probably worried everyone will just try and shoot holes in whatever you say no matter how complete, but its ok, no one is accusing you of lying we're just trying to figure out how you did it. I will make it easy, if you don't know the answer, dude its ok! Just say so, no one likes a know-it-all anyway. Now, referring to your 349HP run at 11PSI on PUMP GAS:
1. What was the A/F ratio?
a: Don't know
b: I do know, it was 11.3____ (fairly steady)
c: I do know, it fluctuated between ___ and ___
2. How was the intercooler chilled?
a: No form of intercooler chilling
b: Fan blowing air into it YES
c: Ice
d: Don't know
3. What was the ambient temp?
a: It was around _95-97__ degrees
b: Don't know
4. What was the humidity?
a: It was __%
b: Not sure but it was dry
c: Not sure but it was moderate It was o.k. but hot as heck
d: Not sure but it was damp
e: Don't know
5. How did you verify your boost settings?
a: My usual boost gauge, which was ____ (model of boost gauge)
b: An external boost gauge attached to A known accurate boost gauge with no leaks to the line. I verified myself. With a new line and zip tys")____ (manifold, etc) which was a ____ (model of boost gauge)
c: Don't know
6. Once full boost was hit, was boost steady for the entire run(s)?
a: Yes
b: No (describe fluctuation) Spiked @maybe 12 and backed down to 10 as video shows it averaged at 11 or so. If you do the math
c: Don't know
7. How was boost controlled? (this one shouldn't be too hard A PFS manual Boost controler
8. What brand of dyno was used (ie Dynojet, etc)
a: Brand _Dyno jet__
b: Don't know
9. What kind of octane rating was your pump gas?
a: It was ___ octane it was race fuel
b: Don't know
10. Did you experience any ignition breakup on your higher boost runs?
a: Yes, starting at ___ rpm
b: Yes, not sure at what rpm
c: No No I did not
11. Did you moniter your intake temperatures?
a: Yes, peak intake temps were ___ (feel free to elaborate if yes)
b: No did not see the need with the fuel that was used on these runs. On 349 it was pump gas
I think every person here would like to make those numbers at that psi, so help us!
Rikki you still never answered Gordon's question. You've always been very open and try to help everyone on the forum out, don't be afraid to explain everything the best you can. I know you're probably worried everyone will just try and shoot holes in whatever you say no matter how complete, but its ok, no one is accusing you of lying we're just trying to figure out how you did it. I will make it easy, if you don't know the answer, dude its ok! Just say so, no one likes a know-it-all anyway. Now, referring to your 349HP run at 11PSI on PUMP GAS:
1. What was the A/F ratio?
a: Don't know
b: I do know, it was 11.3____ (fairly steady)
c: I do know, it fluctuated between ___ and ___
2. How was the intercooler chilled?
a: No form of intercooler chilling
b: Fan blowing air into it YES
c: Ice
d: Don't know
3. What was the ambient temp?
a: It was around _95-97__ degrees
b: Don't know
4. What was the humidity?
a: It was __%
b: Not sure but it was dry
c: Not sure but it was moderate It was o.k. but hot as heck
d: Not sure but it was damp
e: Don't know
5. How did you verify your boost settings?
a: My usual boost gauge, which was ____ (model of boost gauge)
b: An external boost gauge attached to A known accurate boost gauge with no leaks to the line. I verified myself. With a new line and zip tys")____ (manifold, etc) which was a ____ (model of boost gauge)
c: Don't know
6. Once full boost was hit, was boost steady for the entire run(s)?
a: Yes
b: No (describe fluctuation) Spiked @maybe 12 and backed down to 10 as video shows it averaged at 11 or so. If you do the math
c: Don't know
7. How was boost controlled? (this one shouldn't be too hard
A PFS manual Boost controler8. What brand of dyno was used (ie Dynojet, etc)
a: Brand _Dyno jet__
b: Don't know
9. What kind of octane rating was your pump gas?
a: It was ___ octane it was race fuel
b: Don't know
10. Did you experience any ignition breakup on your higher boost runs?
a: Yes, starting at ___ rpm
b: Yes, not sure at what rpm
c: No No I did not
11. Did you moniter your intake temperatures?
a: Yes, peak intake temps were ___ (feel free to elaborate if yes)
b: No did not see the need with the fuel that was used on these runs. On 349 it was pump gas
I think every person here would like to make those numbers at that psi, so help us!
-Rikki
08-16-02, 11:45 PM
#148
Passenger
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by RX-8
this is why i'll never post my #'s on this forum. you think your helping others out by posting your mods/dynosheet and you get flamed. total bullshit. congrats Rikki, nice #'s.
this is why i'll never post my #'s on this forum. you think your helping others out by posting your mods/dynosheet and you get flamed. total bullshit. congrats Rikki, nice #'s.
-Rikki
08-16-02, 11:50 PM
#149
Rotary Enthusiast
not all porting is alike. look at data:
Gorden posted a few ported non-seq dyno runs (pg3). Look at low end torque, where boost is 'max possible' and not regulated:
_____ ernie __ cw __ Rikki
3500.....220.....200...~175
4000.....240.....225......210
and where hp had peaked
pkhp....6300....6800...7500
rikki's run appears to hit 11 psi at about 4500 rpm, with torque peak at 6000 rpm. CW's torque curve was very flat, but ernie's peaked at 5300.
my conclusion would be that these 3 are not ported the same, and rikki's was most aggressive.
example: just holding same torque at 6500 rpm to 7500 will get you 15% more hp than occured at 6500. mabe jump from 310 to 350 hp at 11 psi.
Gorden posted a few ported non-seq dyno runs (pg3). Look at low end torque, where boost is 'max possible' and not regulated:
_____ ernie __ cw __ Rikki
3500.....220.....200...~175
4000.....240.....225......210
and where hp had peaked
pkhp....6300....6800...7500
rikki's run appears to hit 11 psi at about 4500 rpm, with torque peak at 6000 rpm. CW's torque curve was very flat, but ernie's peaked at 5300.
my conclusion would be that these 3 are not ported the same, and rikki's was most aggressive.
example: just holding same torque at 6500 rpm to 7500 will get you 15% more hp than occured at 6500. mabe jump from 310 to 350 hp at 11 psi.