Topic: Going to try the new Dyno in Manassas

[Uranium-238]

Elff, the numbers look good, but you forgot drivetrain loss. It's 17%, correct?

I'm gonna run some numbers myself, but I'm whooped.

[elff]

Kelu

The above comparison is for the people who already have the GMPP tune and are contemplating getting a Westers tune on top of it.

Uranium
All those numbers are rear wheel hp, so that factor is your drivetrain loss for that specific dyno.

[Uranium-238]

Ah, gotcha. I did my math a little differently.

Ok, I just crunch numbers, taking into effect a 17% drivetrain loss. If that figure is not correct, I can redo things.

OK, so with 260 crank...

260*.17=44.2 -> 215.8 at the wheels, stock.

Dyno result was 211.4

So,

211.4*X=215.8
X=1.021

So, multiplying today's dyno results by 1.021 should yield "true" HP at the wheels.

So, to calculate crank HP:

x-(.17x)=215.8
x=260

So, using Goat's results, he'd have...

Hmm, that doesn't look right. Must crunch more numbers...I'm betting somewhere something's not linear. Too bad we weren't able to get the snapshots...

Yeah yeah yeah, I enjoy math...

[lil goat]

Actually it's very important
We know Uranium's sky is supposed to have 260hp at the crank.
Knowing what the dyno showed will give us the mathematical calculation we need to get some accurate comparisons.

I don't think your 1.22 correction factor is on.  
If it is, then Uranium should only have 200 hp for his results.

You bench racers kill me THE NUMBERS DON"T MATTER! No two dyno's will show the same, EVER, a slight change in the weather will screw up a run. The only thing that matters, is AFR, the HP and Torque curves. Do you not realize how easy it is to fake numbers, the Dyno Dynamics has a compensation factor you can set to pretty much anything you want, most guys use between 9% and 12% this shop uses ZERO. I did not come up with the 1.22 number, a dyno operator in Kansas city dyno'd multiple cars on his Mustang eddy current dyno and a DynoJet. It seems a little high to me as well, on a Dynojet stock Kappa's usually are in the 240's. I think on our cars the 1.15 is a closer number to equalize to a dynojet. Remember the other thing we had very high humidity today, they had a really nice dyno room but it was hot. Causes everyone's numbers to read low. I have been reading uncompensated numbers in the 260's for a long time, should be higher now not lower he told me he had some weird setup on one of the settings so the runs didn't take as long, not sure how that effects the numbers. The torque curve looked great! and the AFR data and stuff Lyndon needs is good. The dyno operator told us he thinks he has the lowest numbers in the country, I guess he likes it that way. Again I say, BHP numbers are useless, no one knows exactly what our drive train loss is, so unless you pull the engine and dyno it any BHP number is a guess. It is just marketing crap, you can't drive a car without a drive train! What you put on the ground is what matters unless you want to be a poseur and brag about HP. DBG has the new SS tune now, when he does a 1/4 mile run we will see what improvements have been made. Due to the much flatter curve I suspect a nice improvement in the time.

[Uranium-238]

Ah, but some of us just can't help but try and crunch numbers to make things work out. I love math, and am an engineering student, so I have to try and explain why we get the numbers we do.

I remember one time in class, we spent 3 hours after class left out trying to figure out why we were getting a strange voltage reading in a circuit we had built. Even the teacher was in on it, and was stumped.

[lil goat]

I have to ask more about the 10k versus 14k setting he was talking about, not at all sure what it means, says it makes the runs take less time. I will call Monday and try and find out more, and maybe Lyndon can explain it. There were a few odd things today, he pumped the tires up to 45 pounds never had that done before, I think he had a bad gauge, I checked my pressure last night and it was 29 I have had my gauge  checked recently against a MAC Pro gauge, he said it was 25. I did some HPtuner scans I need to look at and see what boost numbers we were seeing on the dyno, also I could swear I saw a 256 run for my car and Critter saw it too, but I never got a print out of it. I will talk to there tuner Monday, and see if he can enlighten me.

[kennysabarese]

I understand why these guys want to run the numbers. I assume it's because they want to figure out what mods give the most power so they don't waste their money. That's my main reason.

Unfortunately, we all can't be like Sky888 and get every single product on the market for our cars.

There's a lot of mods out there that cost a lot but give you very little. It's good to know what to spend on.

[kennysabarese]

btw Critterman, great torque numbers Just slap a big turbo on top of the supercharger and you'll kill us all!

[Critterman]

Goat it was feet per second or something like that, he sets it at 10 instead of the normal 16.  don't ask me what it meens because I don't have a clue

[lil goat]

Goat it was feet per second or something like that, he sets it at 10 instead of the normal 16.  don't ask me what it meens because I don't have a clue

 I thought it was the other way around he set it higher, but still have no clue what it means

[Uranium-238]

Kenny, it's not so much for finding what mods do what and why, but more of a "Oooo...data...must crunch numbers for any reason whatsoever." It runs in my family...

It's also an engineering thing. Developing a formula and it's respective curve to represent a data set, and using that to predict further results is the name of the game. I'm trying to use the data I got from these pulls to develop a good formula for predicting crank HP. Yes, Elff's method is a simple way of doing that. I just feel the need to exercise some of the skills I developed in Calculus.

Here are the stock graphs:

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[lil goat]

I understand why these guys want to run the numbers. I assume it's because they want to figure out what mods give the most power so they don't waste their money. That's my main reason.

Unfortunately, we all can't be like Sky888 and get every single product on the market for our cars.

There's a lot of mods out there that cost a lot but give you very little. It's good to know what to spend on.

 I have very few mods on my car really, but I know what they do, intercoolers don't increase HP per say, they enable your car to run cooler therefore make a denser charge, it will also keep you from losing power due to heatsoak. The exhaust, well we actually have a pretty good one stock, won't see big gains from a new one but it will breath better and sound better. CAI's most of them don't waste your money, from what we saw today the GMPP is not worth the money yet, Lyndon needs to do some more work. We tested both stock and modded GMPP, Bryan has 2 ECM's The stock makes good HP, but TQ was not great, Lyndon was able to get the torque up but he lost HP doing it. Neither GMPP set up made as much HP or torque as mine or Ben's car, his is the Race tune mine is the SS, stock sensors. My downpipe vs. Ben's hi flow cat, very little difference in HP or torque, I have a much flatter torque curve and come on a little earlier. This is all stuff Lyndon will look at and it will help improve his tunes, and as far as what works and what doesn't five of us us put our money where our mouth is to get these numbers to the tune of $100 each, this is how Lyndon first created the Race tune, I think I was on the dyno 8 times to get that one, DBG was there for most of them.

[kennysabarese]

For comparison, here are my results before and after GMPP no other mods.

http://kappaperformance.com/forum/index.php?topic=1648.0

[kennysabarese]

You had mentioned something about 40hp over GMPP with Lyndon's GMPP tune... Guess that didn't happen

[elff]

Sorry Goat, but I'm not some bench racer.
What I am is someone trying to get some objective actual facts to justify these statements claiming ridiculous results about the Westers Tune and basically sh!tt!ng on the GMPP tune.
I could fill an entire page with quotes to back up the above statement

So When we get some factual results that confirm that the Westers +GMPP is only slightly better
They get dismissed as not important.

Sorry for believing objective results
I should just take the subjective seat of the pants comments as truth and ignore the Dyno Results

What was I thinking????

FYI- You should have read my second post where I actually justified your 1.22 number. 

[Uranium-238]

Honestly, after seeing all the curves and numbers from today's pulls, my money is on the normal Wester's race tune. Once all the curves have been posted I'll think you'll see why.

[LatinVenom]

It is very interesting when I tell people the true numbers are 215.8 or rounded to 216.
The GMPP is at 240.7 or rounded to 241.
I have been corrected here and on the BB a few times but a Dyno like Westers uses and others do not lie or fudge the numbers, although the real use of the Dyno is as a tuning tool.
Lyndon's numbers base on what has been posted here and by him are right about 251 or less than 260.
By the way if sky888 were to use that Dyno his numbers will be much much lower than what he has posted.
My car Dyno's at 241 to 245 on an Eddy current dyno with no compensation.
So Westers still has the best numbers with his tunes.

[kennysabarese]

Honestly, after seeing all the curves and numbers from today's pulls, my money is on the normal Wester's race tune. Once all the curves have been posted I'll think you'll see why.

And people laughed when I said I wanted to go back to stock sensors!

[Ben L]

OK, my turn.


The "10" adjustment factor was "kilometers per second."

My best pull, on a Wester's 5.22 Race tune, with a Fujita intake and pipes, Mach Shorty and Hi Flo Cat, was:

HP =  250.2 = hp @ 5000 rpm

HP was a nice linear climb up to peak with a tiny little flat spot between 3200 and 3500

TQ= 282.7 ft lbs tq @ 3200 rpm

Torque fell away to 250 at 3500, and then back up to 260-270 at 4500.

Will post my charts when I get them from Goat via e-mail.

My impressions:  The Wester's SS and Race tunes are very similar in power and torque, but the curves of the SS are a bit more refined.  Don't know that I would go along with brother Goat's "much flatter," but they are somewhat smoothed out. Frankly, I like my torque curve better, but that's just me.  The SS on a catless downpipe was good for a few more ft lbs (5), but HP was so similar as to be within the margin of error.

The comparison between the GMPP GM tune and the GMPP Wester's tune were interesting, revealing that the Wester's Race and SS tunes deliver more in every department and have way better low and mid range performance than the GM GMPP package.  Sorry, boys, but this dyno don't lie.  The Wester's GMPP tune is promising, but needs work.  After yesterday, however, I am in no hurry to add the GMPP package.

U-238's bone stock pulls compared to Goat's and mine prove that, on a turbo LNF, with stock sensors, Wester's competition tunes:

(a)  Vastly improve the stock power curves.  U's had a deep dive in the low 3000s; generally, right where you want the power and torque to come on pulling off the line or accelerating out of a corner.  The dyno guy shook his head in disbelief when he learned that was the stock GM tune.  My peak torque (over 280) is right at 3200.  That's right where I want it.  

(b)  Close to 40 more real honest to goodness rear wheel HP, measured on a very unforgiving dyno.

(c)  Loads of torque.  Over 280 at the peak.  Although I like to see my curve a bit flatter.  

Note:  Critter's twin screw blower wins the flat torque curve prize.  When those twin scrolls spool up, it pulls like a mule and the curve is flat as a pancake all the way to redline.

In closing, I am no math wiz.  I know all dynos are different and apply adjustment factors, so reported hp and tq numbers are always a bit spongy when comparing results from other people's cars on other dynos.  

But the big important takeaway from our dyno day was that it was very cool opportunity to compare the performance of multiple Kappas in various states of trim and tune on a true, no BS, apples to apples basis.

Personally, I am very satisfied where my Wester's Race tune equipped GXP posted.  The numbers are good.  Applying various conversion factors, approaching the 300 frontier.  The power delivery as displayed on the dyno results are pretty smooth and consistent.  This validates what my ass told me about the tune.  

[chuckdoc]

Sorry I missed the fun.  I just think Lyndon has not had the time to spend with the GMPP tune to get the most at of the upgraded sensors.  Knowing what I learned from your day at the dyno, I would have never gotton the GMPP tune but stuck with the race tune I had. 

If you look back in time to when I got the GMPP tune, I was disappointed.  It really was a noticeable decrease from what I had with the race tune.  Then I got the Lyndon tune of the GMPP tune and it really pulled like it had but I had no way of comparing it to the original race tune.  Now the facts are out.

I have all the parts and am thinking of going back to stock sensors with the race tune.

I do know that someday Lyndon will take advantage of the upgraded sensors.

So what does everyone think?    Go back to stock sensors with SS tune or just hold tight cause it will eventually get tweaked to surpass the SS tune with stock sensors.

[kennysabarese]

If you look at my dyno numbers stock from the link above I didn't get a big drop like U seemed to

I did get a drop with GMPP stock

[kennysabarese]

How about top end. I need more at 80mph!!!

[elff]

To compare and contrast using the lines of my Dyno session and ignoring the numbers.

My Torque curve is a nice flat 45 degree line that peaks almost exactly at 5500. 
The corresponds exactly with the hardware limitation of our stock turbo.

My HP Curve rises to 3200, plateaus until 4200, drops from 4300-4500, but then immediately rebounds up to 4700 and then slowly declines like every other car with our turbo.  The plateaus are all within 10hp of each other.  So my car hits it max hp and holds it fairly well.
Seems like other graphs are showing that Max hp is reached around 3300 and then steadily decline. 

I guess this is is why I like the tune on my car so much.  Ignoring the numbers and just looking at how the power is applied to my car.
Everyone has agreed that a nice increasing torque curve is what gives you that seat of the pants feeling of speed.   The car keeps pulling stronger until you shift.  My car seems to hang onto to it's max HP for a long period of time. 

[Ben L]

I haven't posted mine yet, but my HP graph does NOT show a peak at 3300 and decline from there. 

Far from that.  The HP curve on my chart is a steady 45 degree line (except the little flat spot at 3000-3300) till peak hp at 5000 whereupon it falls away a little to 5500, and then declines.  My torque curve is relatively flat from peak at 3200 to where it starts to fall away at 5000, but dips a bit from the peak.  These are good curves in my opinion. 

Glad you are happy with yours.  I am happy too.  Happy, happy.

[kennysabarese]

Here is a nice flat torque curve from a stock 370z

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=165406