Think it's about time to spin some rollers (Aaron's dyno)

[Billybo455]

hey you little douche. do you want me to tell you some tricks on tuning your car? how to make your turbo spool a little quicker. i'm 99.8888999988989889% sure you don't know what i know. all you have to do is ask and i'll help you make your car a better car.

let me know :bootyshake:

[p8ntman442]

horray for the dyno.


your 50% done your build now.

[Shaun41178(2)]

Good numbers. Crazy correction factor. Aaron do you have the raw data file on disk? I want to see what hte curve is without the correction factor. If you do send it to me, I have the dynojet software to change things around.

But yea it looks like its correcting for altitude.

What was your timing at max tq and what was it at redline?

Your a/fs are horrible but you already know that. For you to be dropping power that bad, you gotta be well below 10:1 I am guessing for it to drop like that you have to be in the 5:1 area So its obvious you know where you need to pull fuel. 4200-5200 needs work as well as above that as well.

Makes me wonder what sort of numbers it would do at sea level with a different baro pressure. Of course your 9% humidity pales to our avg of 85% here in florida.

Get your fuel computer worked out and go back. I am guessing you didn't want to tune while on the dyno and just wanted to get several pulls? I would have opted to do some tuning with it being that bad since you were already there. Thats what credit is for.

[Series8217]

I have the dynojet software too. He doesn't have the files..

[Aaron]

Get your fuel computer worked out and go back. I am guessing you didn't want to tune while on the dyno and just wanted to get several pulls? I would have opted to do some tuning with it being that bad since you were already there. Thats what credit is for.

I could get the files, I just don't see the point I guess.

It's pretty sad when Shaun is the only one with something nice, or productive, to say.

I tried to tune a bit on the dyno, but the RPM pickup issue was making it hard. It didn't dawn on me to just change the cells that my car was reading, but I've since done that, and it looks a bit better, though I've yet to do any 3rd/4th gear pulls.

So they corrected for altitude. So basically, everytime I go to the dyno, I should have him dyno it like I'm not at altitude? You all do realize that even though it is turbocharged, it is still affected, negatively, by altitude, correct? It just isn't as much (To the tune of about half). So my 417whp is 334 uncorrected, and realistically, about 376whp. Still better than every other car on this forum if I'm not mistaken. Lastly, I'm pretty sure every other turbo dyno was corrected for altitude. Of the 3 Dynojets I've been to in Colorado, all 3 did, even on the turbo cars, and the factor hovered right around 1.25. One was 1.19 (It was much lower than we are here), the other 1.28.

[whipped]

If you were running at sea level, maybe it wouldn't be so GD rich :la:

[Aaron]

Shit. I gots so much fuckin money, I can afford the gas. That's why I made it so damn rich. Just to show all da fools how much money I got. Yo.

[p8ntman442]

Shit. I gots so much fuckin money, I can afford the gas. That's why I made it so damn rich. Just to show all da fools how much money I got. Yo.

what were you saying about shaun being the only one with anything producive to say?

[Aaron]

My thread, I'll say whatever the fuck I want to.

Why aren't you working on your car?

[Billybo455]

i didn't say anything negative. i just simply asked if you wanted to know some tricks on making your car work better. obviously i was mistaken. btw, even with that huge correction i still put down more, and so has x.

[Aaron]

i didn't say anything negative. i just simply asked if you wanted to know some tricks on making your car work better. obviously i was mistaken. btw, even with that huge correction i still put down more, and so has x.

I know how you think you could make my car run better. I've already tried it, and it didn't work.

[Shaun41178(2)]

by driving it off a cliff? j/k

Sonow that you have your cells corrected you gotta get back and actually tune it on the dyno to get that fuel curve straightened out

GEt them to give you the files and we can see your graph with no correction among other things.

Whats your timing at at peak tq and what is it at redline? You might need to adjust it along with yoiur fuel.

[Aaron]

by driving it off a cliff? j/k

Sonow that you have your cells corrected you gotta get back and actually tune it on the dyno to get that fuel curve straightened out

GEt them to give you the files and we can see your graph with no correction among other things.

Whats your timing at at peak tq and what is it at redline? You might need to adjust it along with yoiur fuel.

I don't have them corrected, I have it good enough for temporary. The FTC1 is still only getting a 50% rpm reading, and I want to fix that before I go back, then I have adjustments every 500rpm, instead of 1000.

I'm not sure, I didn't have my scanner. However I checked today, and still no knock counts. I'm not going to run anymore timing, I don't want there to be any knock at all, and I've got that now, plus it gives me some safety room. If I need more power, I'll run more boost. But the car is fast enough at just 9psi.

[Series8217]

Just to keep things in perspective here... On a Dynojet, Matt Hawkins put down 385 whp on 13.5 psi with an undersized turbo with a 1.02 SAE correction factor. He was tuned to around 12 AFR.

So they corrected for altitude. So basically, everytime I go to the dyno, I should have him dyno it like I'm not at altitude?

It doesn't change how he "dynos it", just tell him to set it to uncorrected when he prints out a copy for you.
SAE correction factor is not for altitude correction. Actually, not even for NA cars. You can read this in the SAE correction spec. I put a link in a previous post in this thread. It especially doesn't apply to turbocharged motors at high altitude. Unfortunately, you're just going to have to drive your car down to California or the east coast and get it dynod.

You all do realize that even though it is turbocharged, it is still affected, negatively, by altitude, correct? It just isn't as much (To the tune of about half). So my 417whp is 334 uncorrected, and realistically, about 376whp. Still better than every other car on this forum if I'm not mistaken. Lastly, I'm pretty sure every other turbo dyno was corrected for altitude. Of the 3 Dynojets I've been to in Colorado, all 3 did, even on the turbo cars, and the factor hovered right around 1.25. One was 1.19 (It was much lower than we are here), the other 1.28.

Yes, but you don't really know how it is affected without analyzing the turbo efficiency chart to see where you are at the pressure ratio you're running to get the same MAP at high altitude as you would at sea level.

What we do know is you would make somewhere between 333 and 417 hp at sea level, but unlikely more than 376.
Still, you now have a baseline for testing mods off of, and getting it tuned to see how much it makes, so it sounds worth it to me.

[Aaron]

It doesn't change how he "dynos it", just tell him to set it to uncorrected when he prints out a copy for you.
SAE correction factor is not for altitude correction. Actually, not even for NA cars. You can read this in the SAE correction spec. I put a link in a previous post in this thread. It especially doesn't apply to turbocharged motors at high altitude. Unfortunately, you're just going to have to drive your car down to California or the east coast and get it dynod.

I know that. If there was no CF, every dyno in the world would be absolutely worthless, unless you were using it to tune, or compare mods. I'm not. I'm using to get numbers to compare it to other builds. Meaning, in order to make that useful, there needs to be an altitude correction. The SAE CF has been proven accurate time and time again, and is used on every Dynojet around. EVent he ones in CA have a SAE CF.

Yes, but you don't really know how it is affected without analyzing the turbo efficiency chart to see where you are at the pressure ratio you're running to get the same MAP at high altitude as you would at sea level.

What we do know is you would make somewhere between 333 and 417 hp at sea level, but unlikely more than 376.
Still, you now have a baseline for testing mods off of, and getting it tuned to see how much it makes, so it sounds worth it to me.

My max efficiency island is pretty wide, I think it'd be safe to say I'm still in it. However, I haven't, and don't plan on, actually calculating it. In fact, before I do that, it'd be more advantageous to find out the exact VE of a stock setup, and my setup. Again, not about to do that.

I don't plan on adding any more mods, in fact, I plan on lowering the output.

[Series8217]

I'm using to get numbers to compare it to other builds. Meaning, in order to make that useful, there needs to be an altitude correction. The SAE CF has been proven accurate time and time again, and is used on every Dynojet around. EVent he ones in CA have a SAE CF.

Did you read the SAE paper J1349, which actually defines the standard you're talking about? SAE CF has been deemed inaccurate for altitude correction by the engineers who created it (see section 5.16). It is accurate when used what its designed for: from 0.950 to 1.010 bar, and from 288.5 to 316.3 K.
SAE is accurate when used down at sea level in CA because its not for altitude correction, and conditions stay within the limitations. SAE, the organization that designed the correction factor (hence the name), says it is NOT for altitude correction, and it is non-standard (i.e. no longer corrected, i.e. inaccurate) when used for correction over 3% for air.

Unfortunately, you can't compare your numbers to other builds because you have a non-standard test according to the organization that creates the horsepower standards. There is NO accurate altitude correction, especially for turbocharged engines. You would have to have it dynoed under the same or similar conditions to the other builds to be able to compare them.

If you look at most of the other builds you would be comparing to, such as Matt Hawkins' turbo 3.4 DOHC, you can see that the correction factors are less than 6%. Matt's was 2%.

My max efficiency island is pretty wide, I think it'd be safe to say I'm still in it.

That means your power will be even less affected by altitude.

[Aaron]

Unfortunately, you can't compare your numbers to other builds because you have a non-standard test according to the organization that creates the horsepower standards. There is NO accurate altitude correction, especially for turbocharged engines. You would have to have it dynoed under the same or similar conditions to the other builds to be able to compare them.

If you look at most of the other builds you would be comparing to, such as Matt Hawkins' turbo 3.4 DOHC, you can see that the correction factors are less than 6%. Matt's was 2%.

I have dynoed a number of different cars, at 6000-7000ft, all put down numbers very inline with expected. If SAE was not accurate, dyno shops wouldn't exist in most of the states. I'm not saying it's accurate to 1whp, but within a couple percent or so, I'd say yes. I made a dyno at 6800ft, with a stock Z34, and put down 178whp. That's exactly what I was expecting, and exactly what you'd expect out of a stock 3.4.

[Shaun41178(2)]

with a 1.25 correction factor? still got that sheet with the correction factor on it you could post?

SAE states that you can't use altitude as a factor and expect accurate results, yet aaron wants to argue that you can. Ddin't you read the links posted? I mean its not like the SAE guys know what they are talking about. They have no experience in the matter.

[SappySE107]

.

[Atilla the Fun]

So, are these wrong?: "4 percent HP loss per 1000 feet, except turbo is 2.5 percent"