Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday December 25, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > Proven Power Bragging

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-02-2005, 11:24 AM   #26
RiftsWRX
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6124
Join Date: Apr 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Glendale Hts, IL, USA
Vehicle:
2000 NFR AP1 S2000
'07 Honda FIT sport (5MT)

Default

Heh...

It's kinda funny... I always tell my customers the same thing.

A dyno is a tool... curves, trends, and consistency are what matter. If it so happens to produce a hard-on inducing number in the process.... so be it!

Jorge (RiftsWRX)
www.ProjectWRX.com
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
RiftsWRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2005, 11:28 AM   #27
Tdc Tuning
Vendor
 
Member#: 70993
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Vehicle:
only AWD Dyno in NH
AP, Utec, Hydra etc.

Default

The Mustang, in theory, has the best possible simulation. It does both a static load (weight of the rollers), a dynamic weight (based on the vehicle weight, as set by the user), and a second dynamic weight based on the aerodynamic drag (specified as hp@50mph). This allows the dyno to provide a load that is similar to what would be seen on the street.

MY Land and sea does the same thing and has an RPM hold

it saves raw data as well so you can go back and change whatever factors you want
and see the results of the changes (correction, inretial compensatio, weight, etc etc)

For instance

Last edited by Tdc Tuning; 11-02-2005 at 11:42 AM.
Tdc Tuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2005, 01:56 PM   #28
Freon
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 88322
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Vehicle:
2009 BMW 135i

Default

Due to the core differences of how different types of dynos operate, I doubt you're ever going to get numbers that are comparable from dyno to dyno. However, I think a truly conscientious operator will do their best to make sure their dyno is consistent to itself. I don't think it is out of the question that two of the same model or brand/type dynos in different locations read reasonably close if both operators communicate.

Disclosure seems to be a big issue. The market doesn't demand enough disclosure from vendors on so many subjects, and often I see those who ask what are (IMHO) very valid questions be discouraged. But this applies to a lot more than dynos. Much of this thread is completely new to me, but after reading this, I'd certainly think the load parameters on DD and Mustang dynos should be disclosed with dyno numbers, just like fuel type and A/F.

Altitude will effect turbocharged cars that are controlled by gauge boost, which I think is the most common control of Subarus. You can figure, probably very accurately, the amount of air you lose due to barometric pressure. But the less predictable problem is the turbocharger is operating at a different efficiency point, which is not very predictable. But even a dirty airfilter changes this...
Without monitoring pressure directly before and after the turbo, you may never know exactly where it is ending up. You can guess a trend (higher PR, slightly lower mass airflow), but actually putting pins on the compressor map and saying "this is sea level, and this is our altitude" is probably futile.

Another question is, is it even possible to make a high altitude dynograph comparable to a low altitude one? Again due to the above points, I can easily see the same car producing *differently shaped* graphes on the same type of dyno, setup the same, same gauge boost, but at different altitudes. I don't think the same should be true, or nearly as evident, for a naturally aspirated or roots-blown car.

Good read guys.
Freon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2005, 04:42 PM   #29
PHATsuby
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 13617
Join Date: Dec 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: MN
Vehicle:
2001 Legacy GT back
to stock is a project too

Default

wouldnt it theoretically be possible to get them the same using the same cal files, roller weights, hp@50, sweep rate and car weight? then with corrections ON you would have the same corrections(even if using them for turbo is not correct).

I might still be missing something.

Ben
PHATsuby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2005, 10:06 PM   #30
hotrod
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 14141
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: 13.239@102.85 @ 5800 ft on 13T
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza WRX

Default

The problem is there are other "undocumented variables" that you have no way of knowing. For example take a car and put it on a chassis dyno (not a hub type) and do a dyno run right after you drive the car in with 38 psi in the tires. Go get a soda and let the car cool off (transmission lube, differential grease, engine oil cool off) do the run again and the power will be down (provided you left the hood open so the engine did not heat soak.

Now take the tire pressure down to 28 psi and run it again --- power will drop again.

Now go cinch up the tiedown straps a couple notches and try it again --- power will be down again.

Now do several pulls so all the oil/lube temps come back up and and your power will come up, as friction drops due to thinner lube oil.

Then as mentioned above, put a good strong fan on the intercooler (which is now hot) and redo the pull, power will go up. As the tires heat up and tire pressures climb rolling resistance will drop.


What does this mean to the average user ?

You take you car into "Joes ripoff dyno tune shop". Your scheduled appointment is at 11:00, you get there at 10:30. Park your car in the lot and he tells you he's running a bit late, grab a magazine and he'll get you on the dyno right after lunch.

12:30 your car has been cooling for 2 hours. he pulls the car into the shop, straps it down and sets things up. Does a couple quick pulls and shows you your base line pull. He then notices your intercooler is a bit hot, so he throws a fan on it or sprays it down a bit to cool it. Adjusts the tie down straps a bit. Starts the car up and twiddles with the tune, (actually he does nothing to the car), just makes several pulls to get it up to temp, then turns up the intercooler fan to its highest setting and makes an "after tune pull" power is up --- you pay him money everyone is happy.

I am NOT saying every dyno operator does this, I am NOT saying any adjustments the dyno operator makes on the setup are a sign of bad intent, what I am saying is an operator that knows his equipement ( or is incompent ) can give you a before and after pull that shows improvement without changing a thing on the car itself.

All those variables are totally undocumented -- tire pressure, tie down force, cooling fan setup, engine and oil temps, tire types, etc. etc. etc. do not show up on the dyno printout. That means that it is physically impossible for even the same dyno with the same operator to produce the same actual readouts for the same actual power produced on two different dyno sessions.

In the big doller professional racing world they DO monitor and document all those little things, or use very consistant setup such as tie down procedures, but you would not be willing to pay the bill for their level of attention to detail. It would double or quadruple the cost of a dyno session.

You would be surprised how difficult to get truely repeatable results in automotive testing.

Take a simple example, I would be willing to bet if you did 2 compression tests on your engine and made every attempt to do everything exactly the same you would not get the same compression numbers in all cylinders. Pro's watch engine coolant temps for example and only do a dyno pull when the engine coolant temp is within a 10 deg F window. You can cook the results of a dyno session by doing things as simple as opening or closing a door to the dyno cell. If the building ventilation system creates a postive or negative pressure in the dyno cell with the doors closed if someone opens a door the air pressure will change. This is more important to the NA guys, but it is a power change that is detectable on the dyno.

Larry

Last edited by hotrod; 11-06-2005 at 10:21 PM.
hotrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2005, 03:51 PM   #31
macaws
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 58433
Join Date: Mar 2004
Default

"Turbocharged cars need not apply. The use of the standard SAE air density corrections for turbocharged applications is plain wrong. As stated in the standard, without any need for additional clarity, “For example, boosted engines with absolute pressure controls shall not be corrected for ambient barometric pressure”. It need not be any clearer. You will notice by the way that all of the PDXTuning posted data is non corrected. Further in the document, the use of intercoolers is discussed, and there are changes to the air temperature corrections based on the efficiency of these intercoolers."

Hear hear. Now the big question is--will the tuners change their ways ?
macaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2005, 11:28 PM   #32
sleepy98
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 96084
Join Date: Sep 2005
Vehicle:
98 obs
green

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macaws
"Turbocharged cars need not apply. The use of the standard SAE air density corrections for turbocharged applications is plain wrong. As stated in the standard, without any need for additional clarity, “For example, boosted engines with absolute pressure controls shall not be corrected for ambient barometric pressure”. It need not be any clearer. You will notice by the way that all of the PDXTuning posted data is non corrected. Further in the document, the use of intercoolers is discussed, and there are changes to the air temperature corrections based on the efficiency of these intercoolers."

Hear hear. Now the big question is--will the tuners change their ways ?
Being around some tech geeks here at Boeing, I think they are more concerned with consistent results and consistent testing procedures. I asked one Tech "what if your doing it all wrong"....the answer was..."as long as it's consistent then there is no such thing as bad data."

That was an interesting way to look at it.

Mike
sleepy98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2005, 01:28 AM   #33
hotrod
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 14141
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: 13.239@102.85 @ 5800 ft on 13T
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza WRX

Default

Quote:
“For example, boosted engines with absolute pressure controls shall not be corrected for ambient barometric pressure”. It need not be any clearer.
That reference does not apply to the typical automotive configuration. It refers to the turbo-normalized engine, such as used in small general aircraft or industrial diesel construction equipment Turbo-normalized equipment is designed to at all times deliver a sea level absolute pressure to the manifold as long as the engine is below the systems critical altitude.

As configured on most automotive applications, we use a relative boost control. We deliver (or at least try to ) a specific amount of boost above local atmospheric pressure to the manifold.

That is precisely the problem with the SAE standard for our use. The dyno's as I understand it, give you hard options, you can use raw data no correction of any kind, or you can use their internally coded correction algorithms which do not even consider and have no way of knowing the engine is supercharged or turbocharged.

Quote:
"as long as it's consistent then there is no such thing as bad data."
I would agree with that if eveyone posted complete dyno condition data with the dyno plots. But for that to meaningful you would to include at least the following:


Type of dyno
current firmware/soft ware version
load/calibration and rpm sweep rate information
Absolute air pressure at the air intake of the engine at the air filter
humidity
temperature of the intake air at the air filter

hood open or closed
exact fan configuration on the intercooler ( ie air mass flow through the intercooler)
temperature of the air blowing through the intercooler
intercooler type
(nice to have -- air temp out of intercooler, and air temp into intercooler to figure true effeciency)


(Nice to have -- turbocharge type and configuration ie what trim hot, side housing etc.)
Mass air flow into the engine at max torque and max power rpm or true absolute temperature and pressure in the intake manifold at max torque and max power.
Absolute manifold pressure at max torque and max power rpm.

Coolant temp of the engine at a consistant sensor location (ie as it leaves the engine as reported by OBDII)
Cylinder head temp at a consistant location (a nice to have double check)
oil weight / type run in the engine.
oil temp in the engine at a consistant measuring location.
oil type in the gear box
oil temp in the gear box
oil type and weight in the rear diff.
oil temp in the rear diff

tire type on the car
air pressure in the tire
weight of the car
tie down load
percent wheel slip on the rollers if any is detectable.

total final gear ratio the run was made in (diff + trans) ( ie 4th gear in a RA spec C 5mt {0.972 and diff of 4.11} is not the same as 4th gear in a USDM WRX {0.972 and diff 3.90 } etc.)

Fuel type / octane

That is just what comes to mind off the top of my head.

Without that level of detail it is physically impossible to even be consistanly wrong.

It is obvious, that two dyno runs on the same car months apart on different dynos are only mildly related to each other perhaps plus or minus 5%-10% margin for error.

Larry
hotrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2005, 06:09 AM   #34
macaws
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 58433
Join Date: Mar 2004
Default

You know that that level of detail is impossible at least for purposes of sharing info which is what these forums are all about.

How about a compromise---dyno type and ambient temp ? With no correction we should start to see a genuine (albeit rough) trend with which to measure performance .
With SAE correction its just hopeless.
macaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2007, 01:42 PM   #35
fourmicah
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 128760
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Over there>
Vehicle:
2012 Ruckus/WRX
Red&White/Gray

Talking

This is awesome information. I find it interesting that this post is two years old and only has 34 replies to it. Is that an indictator that (most) peope are not interested in how the numbers are evaluated, created or possibly manipulated, but only interested in what they are? Interesting. This answered so may of the questions I had about how correction factors are used and the importance (or lack thereof) in the numbers.
fourmicah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2007, 06:20 PM   #36
AZScoobie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 8785
Join Date: Jul 2001
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Vehicle:
02 c_turner@ix.
netcom.com

Default

Most only care about the end number. They cannot tell the difference in 50whp on the road and do not even care. They want a good running car and a number to brag with. Some are very imformed and study the graph and all aspects of the tuning.

Clark
AZScoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2007, 06:34 PM   #37
modaddict
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 95840
Join Date: Sep 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Pasco, WA
Vehicle:
sold to a good bud
awaiting next car

Default

seems like most CF's are 15-25% these days.
modaddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2007, 12:01 PM   #38
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZScoobie View Post
They cannot tell the difference in 50whp on the road and do not even care.


pretty insensitive butt dyno!
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2007, 12:48 PM   #39
AZScoobie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 8785
Join Date: Jul 2001
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Vehicle:
02 c_turner@ix.
netcom.com

Default

Mine is highly tuned and calibrated.. I can feel 1 degree of timing

Clark
AZScoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2007, 01:19 PM   #40
Blackpantherwrx
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70855
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Whittier
Vehicle:
2004
Air Spencer... Squash.

Default

someone tell Al this
Blackpantherwrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2007, 04:36 PM   #41
z&cobb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 12344
Join Date: Nov 2001
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Mountains of Maryland
Vehicle:
2002 2JC
blue

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrod View Post
The problem is there are other "undocumented variables" that you have no way of knowing. For example take a car and put it on a chassis dyno (not a hub type) and do a dyno run right after you drive the car in with 38 psi in the tires. Go get a soda and let the car cool off (transmission lube, differential grease, engine oil cool off) do the run again and the power will be down (provided you left the hood open so the engine did not heat soak.

Now take the tire pressure down to 28 psi and run it again --- power will drop again.

Now go cinch up the tiedown straps a couple notches and try it again --- power will be down again.

Now do several pulls so all the oil/lube temps come back up and and your power will come up, as friction drops due to thinner lube oil.

Then as mentioned above, put a good strong fan on the intercooler (which is now hot) and redo the pull, power will go up. As the tires heat up and tire pressures climb rolling resistance will drop.


What does this mean to the average user ?

You take you car into "Joes ripoff dyno tune shop". Your scheduled appointment is at 11:00, you get there at 10:30. Park your car in the lot and he tells you he's running a bit late, grab a magazine and he'll get you on the dyno right after lunch.

12:30 your car has been cooling for 2 hours. he pulls the car into the shop, straps it down and sets things up. Does a couple quick pulls and shows you your base line pull. He then notices your intercooler is a bit hot, so he throws a fan on it or sprays it down a bit to cool it. Adjusts the tie down straps a bit. Starts the car up and twiddles with the tune, (actually he does nothing to the car), just makes several pulls to get it up to temp, then turns up the intercooler fan to its highest setting and makes an "after tune pull" power is up --- you pay him money everyone is happy.

I am NOT saying every dyno operator does this, I am NOT saying any adjustments the dyno operator makes on the setup are a sign of bad intent, what I am saying is an operator that knows his equipement ( or is incompent ) can give you a before and after pull that shows improvement without changing a thing on the car itself.

All those variables are totally undocumented -- tire pressure, tie down force, cooling fan setup, engine and oil temps, tire types, etc. etc. etc. do not show up on the dyno printout. That means that it is physically impossible for even the same dyno with the same operator to produce the same actual readouts for the same actual power produced on two different dyno sessions.

In the big doller professional racing world they DO monitor and document all those little things, or use very consistant setup such as tie down procedures, but you would not be willing to pay the bill for their level of attention to detail. It would double or quadruple the cost of a dyno session.

You would be surprised how difficult to get truely repeatable results in automotive testing.

Take a simple example, I would be willing to bet if you did 2 compression tests on your engine and made every attempt to do everything exactly the same you would not get the same compression numbers in all cylinders. Pro's watch engine coolant temps for example and only do a dyno pull when the engine coolant temp is within a 10 deg F window. You can cook the results of a dyno session by doing things as simple as opening or closing a door to the dyno cell. If the building ventilation system creates a postive or negative pressure in the dyno cell with the doors closed if someone opens a door the air pressure will change. This is more important to the NA guys, but it is a power change that is detectable on the dyno.

Larry
Very good, I'm not technically proficient outside of Physical Chemistry, but I have been in several race shops set up with http://www.superflow.com/dynamometers/index_291.cfm
full attention to detail. I was blown away with how precisely fitted the test cells were. Even the water brake reservoir was monitored. This is way beyond what it needed for tuning a subie for a fistful of dollars.
z&cobb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2007, 12:27 AM   #42
jradams38
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 92318
Join Date: Jul 2005
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: DFW
Vehicle:
2006 IS350
Silver

Default

Even after all of this, people still find comparisons in dyno numbers still misleading. Has anyone ever entertained the idea of throwing out dyno data altogether? "The track" is the common response for most people, but unfortunately, it takes into account the driver and it's a terrible strain on your car. This is alright for competition, but when you want to know if you paid the right amount of money for your 20g, you want to see just the results of the car. How about accelerometers? Can't we derive the horsepower / torque via an accelerometer from the car's weight (with driver)? It seems like it would be a cheap, easy way to get fair figures. Besides, isn't this the most direct way to quantify the all-important "butt-dyno"?

I think the equation goes something like: Power = Acceleration x Mass x Velocity

If it's easier to measure 1) Acceleration, 2) Mass, and 3) Velocity -- which I think it is -- then why aren't we doing it? Are accelerometers unreliable? Most people have decently accurate speedometers, right? Mass isn't too terribly difficult to figure out.

I may be wrong, and as usual, I'm sure someone will point it out if that turns out to be the case.

EDIT: Oh, and I agree that it's futile to try to compare things too closely because of atmospheric conditions and the car's temperature of various parts.

J

Last edited by jradams38; 09-25-2007 at 12:34 AM. Reason: Needed to put flame-suit on
jradams38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2007, 02:27 AM   #43
SaabTuner
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67608
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SoCal
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponaugle View Post
Consider first the simpliest case, the dynojet. The dynojet dyno uses a simple inertial method of measuring power output, and uses the engine rpm to down calculate the torque produced.
Actually, based on the formulas you laid out later in this same post, it should be clear that the dynojet initially measures "drum torque", by rate of change in speed (or moment of inertia, depending) of the drum.

If it did not know the absolute speed of the drum surface, via diameter and rotations/second, it could not calculate power. However, if it knew only the change in moment of inertia for the drum, without knowing the speed, it could still calculate "drum torque" ... despite not being able to calculate any sort of power.

The fact that you can remove one element of its measurement and still calculate torque, but not horsepower, should be the key to showing that it measures torque on a more basic level and then calculates power thereafter.

But it IS fair to say it measures engine power before calculating engine torque. (not referring to either at the flywheel, obviously)

Hopefully, this doesn't confuse anyone. It also does not necessarily apply to any other dyno type.

-Adrian

Last edited by SaabTuner; 09-25-2007 at 02:36 AM.
SaabTuner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2007, 07:06 AM   #44
ride5000
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32792
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: lincoln, ri
Vehicle:
2003 GGA MBP
12.9 / 105+

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jradams38 View Post
How about accelerometers? Can't we derive the horsepower / torque via an accelerometer from the car's weight (with driver)? It seems like it would be a cheap, easy way to get fair figures.
i use delta rpm per unit time from the datalogs when i tune.

no need to arrive at a "power" figure which is 50% arbitrary anyway.

same sections of road (couple of on ramps, one truck weigh station), same gear. bigger delta = bigger torque = better tune.
ride5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2007, 01:11 AM   #45
Redline8k
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 2968
Join Date: Nov 2000
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Elgin,Illinois
Vehicle:
Beat it to fit,
Paint it to match!

Default

which will read higher (more correct) SAE or uncorrected?
I have 2 plots taken almost 1 year from another and the uncorrected is lower by about 20 or so HP and about 45 tq.....nothing changed but a better boost controller (avcr) and some boost leak fixes???
-nick
Redline8k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2007, 01:24 PM   #46
bgd73
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 125088
Join Date: Sep 2006
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: maine
Vehicle:
1987

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrod View Post
Unfortunately due to all the interactions, as you say a dyno operator/tuner can get just about any number they want from a car. Some do it with full knowledge and fore thought in order to sell a specific product or service. Others not so well educated on how all these inputs effect the output, do it out of simple ignorance. They don't even have a clue they are cooking the numbers. Last are the ones that due to pressures from miss-educated consumers bow to the pressure of the market place, and tweak the setup to give numbers comparable to what the consumer expects. Not because he wants to, but because he must in order to stay in business. Especially in the case of a tuner who's work is frequently judged on peak power not percentage of change in peak power, its a question of survival to produce "commonly expected" results on the dyno.

It would be interesting for someone to take a car and publish a comparison showing the wide range of numbers that they can get from an unchanged car with simple and not so obvious changes in the dyno setup. Ie tie down tensions, tire pressures, tire types, oil temps, gear box temps, changes in lube oil and gear lube viscosity, over cooling the intercooler, under cooling the intercooler, pressurizing the dyno cell with ventilation fans, etc. etc.

The real problem here is that the buying public is for the most part totally ignorant about dyno variablity and actually believe a dyno printout is a hard and fast "proof" of a specific power level. Until the average consumer quits looking at a dyno output as a hard and fast number, and starts seeing it as a relative number I suspect the problem will not go away.

Larry
after reading the initial thread....
this is the best answer for me and my questions. I am not a tuner, but seem to be just old enough to remember 300hp of a certain time frame is like a wrx at 650 hp and torque today. A bridge of reality has fallen somewhere, and your post helps nail it.
In the simple real world, no dynos......
it seems the right gears for the right engine and the right tune with the right weight and real performance will never be correct on a dyno to compare to something else accurately. I am glad there is a standard pros are acheiving and hope it gets mastered. I do not trust it and the hundreds or thousands of variables.
bgd73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2007, 02:49 PM   #47
DerFahrer
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30727
Join Date: Dec 2002
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Orlando, FL
Vehicle:
2000 Legacy B4 RSK
*Formerly subyluvr2212*

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgd73 View Post
after reading the initial thread....
this is the best answer for me and my questions.
Then I know the information to be false

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgd73 View Post
I am not a tuner
You're exactly right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgd73 View Post
but seem to be just old enough to remember 300hp of a certain time frame is like a wrx at 650 hp and torque today.
Even though it's been proven time and time again that the 300hp WRXs are faster than the 650hp machines of that "certain time frame."

And that many of those big-HP claims in the 50's and 60's would have only been achieved if the engine sitting on the dyno were already making 100hp before they were even turned over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgd73 View Post
A bridge of reality has fallen somewhere
You ain't kiddin!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgd73 View Post
and your post helps nail it.
You mean YOUR post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgd73 View Post
In the simple real world, no dynos......
Good idea. Let's just street race instead...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgd73 View Post
I do not trust it and the hundreds or thousands of variables.
... because there are NO variables in street racing whatsoever!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgd73 View Post
it seems the right gears for the right engine and the right tune with the right weight and real performance will never be correct on a dyno to compare to something else accurately. I am glad there is a standard pros are acheiving and hope it gets mastered.
Blah blah blah something something about me having no idea what I'm talking about blah blah something blah...
DerFahrer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2007, 03:22 PM   #48
panapower
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 158467
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: NOLA
Vehicle:
2011 several
several cars

Default

good info on this thread
panapower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 11:33 PM   #49
AZScoobie
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 8785
Join Date: Jul 2001
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Vehicle:
02 c_turner@ix.
netcom.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackpantherwrx View Post
someone tell Al this
It wont help. Al is lost in a sea of marketing. It will catch up with him. Things like claiming 470whp on a stock 2.5 with 22 psi.. You know.. Things that are impossible.

SAE on a dynojet will typicaly read lower then Uncorrected Redline.

Clark
AZScoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 12:07 AM   #50
RiftsWRX
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6124
Join Date: Apr 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Glendale Hts, IL, USA
Vehicle:
2000 NFR AP1 S2000
'07 Honda FIT sport (5MT)

Default

Nick, here's the simple answer. In hotter weather corrections make the numbers inflate. In colder weather it makes them go down.

Case in point, want to know just how much your corrected plot was inflated? Simply look at the correction number at the bottom of the plot by the run info. It'll say something like 1.03, etc. Meaning the "uncorrected" number was inflated by 3%.

HTH
-Jorge
RiftsWRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proper use of the handicap placard. Harv_ Off-Topic 119 07-31-2012 01:41 PM
Proper use of Me and I bobafett Off-Topic 22 07-21-2005 09:48 AM
proper use of lie Subie Doobie Off-Topic 7 05-02-2005 11:04 PM
Proper use of Spacers to Effect Handling ... makofoto Motorsports 18 01-28-2005 01:25 PM
Proper use of the Photoshop trademark kleinfreak Off-Topic 10 05-26-2004 07:01 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.