Notices
2003-2009 Nissan 350Z

Check out my disappointing dyno results :(

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-11-2006 | 12:25 PM
  #1  
koolzero's Avatar
koolzero
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
From: Overland Park, Kansas
Default Check out my disappointing dyno results :(

Here is my original dyno that I had done about 3 years ago with only a Nismo exhaust and grounding cables:


Here is one I just did today with the following mods:

Pop-Charger
Nismo Exhaust
Ultimate Racing High Flow Cats
Top Speed Headers
Nismo flywheel
UR Pulley
AAM Plenum Spacer



I'm really depressed that all of the stuff I've done has made the numbers only go up by a few... Something doesn't seem right. The guy said that the headers could be the reason it's low. I don't understand how that could be though.

Does this make any sense to you?


Thanks
Old 03-11-2006 | 12:44 PM
  #2  
Category5's Avatar
Category5
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
From: South Miami, FL
Default

Adding high-flow intake/exhaust doesn't get you the same pop it did 20/30/40 years ago. These engines today are designed differently. You can actually loose power. Enjoy the great sound/looks of your car...but that's about it.
Old 03-11-2006 | 12:44 PM
  #3  
thezedsled's Avatar
thezedsled
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix, AZ
Default

Was it the same dyno and operator?
Old 03-11-2006 | 12:48 PM
  #4  
Nexx's Avatar
Nexx
New Member
iTrader: (41)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,654
Likes: 8
From: DFW
Default

your first dyno was amazingly good, maybe too good if you know what i mean. nismo exhaust breaths just a tiny bit better then the stockers. i see most people putting down 230ish stock.
Old 03-11-2006 | 01:38 PM
  #5  
nashjam's Avatar
nashjam
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
From: Lorton, Va (Northern VA)
Default

looking at those dyno runs I'm kinda surprised as well. Have you thought about adding some kind of engine management such as a UTEC or Emanage Ultimate? I think you might see better numbers with a good tune. I've seen people hit around 270-275 with those mods and some engine management.
Old 03-11-2006 | 04:47 PM
  #6  
koolzero's Avatar
koolzero
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
From: Overland Park, Kansas
Default

Originally Posted by nashjam
looking at those dyno runs I'm kinda surprised as well. Have you thought about adding some kind of engine management such as a UTEC or Emanage Ultimate? I think you might see better numbers with a good tune. I've seen people hit around 270-275 with those mods and some engine management.
I did these tests on the same dyno as before, but it had upgraded software. I was considering going with the technosquare ECU anyone know if this would help things out?
Old 03-11-2006 | 05:08 PM
  #7  
steela2110's Avatar
steela2110
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 491
Likes: 1
From: Bay Area
Default

There was something wrong with your first dyno... I do not believe it should have been that high in the first place
Old 03-11-2006 | 05:11 PM
  #8  
BobbyRitz's Avatar
BobbyRitz
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
From: Fallston, MD
Default

Were conditions different? Was the initial dyno done in cooler temp or was humidity different?

Are both dynos SAE corrected numbers?
Old 03-11-2006 | 05:24 PM
  #9  
zmegoby's Avatar
zmegoby
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
From: Westminster, CO
Default

I imagine that the CF was higher(maybe too high) on your first dyno run then your second. Compare them both uncorrected.
Old 03-11-2006 | 05:54 PM
  #10  
koolzero's Avatar
koolzero
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
From: Overland Park, Kansas
Default

Originally Posted by BobbyRitz
Were conditions different? Was the initial dyno done in cooler temp or was humidity different?

Are both dynos SAE corrected numbers?
That I don't know how can I tell?

Originally Posted by BobbyRitz
Were conditions different? Was the initial dyno done in cooler temp or was humidity different?

Are both dynos SAE corrected numbers?
The dates for the first one is in August of 03, so definitely hotter and probably more humid.
Old 03-11-2006 | 05:58 PM
  #11  
BobbyRitz's Avatar
BobbyRitz
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
From: Fallston, MD
Default

When I dyno, it lists temp and humidity and sae correction factor.

Ask your tuner, he should be able to hook you up with specifics.
Old 03-11-2006 | 06:06 PM
  #12  
southern_info's Avatar
southern_info
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,216
Likes: 0
From: SC
Default

Get rid of those high flow cats and get test pipes seriously.
Old 03-11-2006 | 06:38 PM
  #13  
koolzero's Avatar
koolzero
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
From: Overland Park, Kansas
Default

Originally Posted by southern_info
Get rid of those high flow cats and get test pipes seriously.
I had test pipes and hated the way the sounded.
Old 03-11-2006 | 06:39 PM
  #14  
koolzero's Avatar
koolzero
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
From: Overland Park, Kansas
Default

Originally Posted by BobbyRitz
When I dyno, it lists temp and humidity and sae correction factor.

Ask your tuner, he should be able to hook you up with specifics.
He told me with their new software it only prints out one page but I'll ask them if they have the correction.

*Edit* it says Correction Factor: SAE Smoothing: 3 <-- does this mean anything?

Last edited by koolzero; 03-11-2006 at 06:41 PM.
Old 03-11-2006 | 06:44 PM
  #15  
BobbyRitz's Avatar
BobbyRitz
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
From: Fallston, MD
Default

http://www.moto-one.com.au/performan...onfactors.html

Hope this helps...
Old 03-12-2006 | 12:03 AM
  #16  
alex12's Avatar
alex12
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
Default

Did you exclude non-performance mods such as wheels and brakes? More rotational mass usually means less hp
Old 03-12-2006 | 12:43 AM
  #17  
thawk408's Avatar
thawk408
Registered User
iTrader: (16)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
From: Nashville, TN
Default

Originally Posted by koolzero
I had test pipes and hated the way the sounded.
Then get resonated ones. Testpipes will give more power then highflows.
Old 03-12-2006 | 06:19 AM
  #18  
Speedracer's Avatar
Speedracer
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 1
From: West Springfield, MA
Default here's the explanation.....

Intake......does nothing. Can you really think of an intake design that is better than stock: straight tube, air source outside the engine bay, non heat conducting plastic tubing.

Normal variation: I have had many cars dyno'd. On the same day, in the same car, with all the same air temp, intake temp, humidity conditions, I have had as much as 15hp variation in the results between runs. That is the limit of accuracy on a dyno.

Was it a hub dyno or a wheel dyno? If a wheel dyno, did you use tires that were different? Even if the same tires, greater treadwear will lead to increased rolling resistance which will decrease you calculated power numbers.

What octane gasoline? Any less than 93 and you really aren't going to see the gains from these bolt-ons which are minimal to begin with.

In terms of additive power gains with a stock ECU, the following are realistic expectations with 93 octane fuel:

Intake = 0hp
Plenum = 2hp
headers = 8hp
cats = 4hp
exhaust = 6hp

.....or about 20 engine hp or about 16rwhp. Not too far off from what you got. Cams and ECU reflash could get you to about 35 engine hp
Old 03-12-2006 | 07:03 AM
  #19  
Osix350Z's Avatar
Osix350Z
Banned
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 977
Likes: 0
From: Pasadena MD
Default

get test pipes.. but its all about what you like, if you're willing to give up hp for sound then thats your thing.
Old 03-12-2006 | 07:04 AM
  #20  
A_16's Avatar
A_16
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
From: Kansas City Kansas
Default

MCRACING........the home of disappointing dynos


dont worry about it man, I honestly believe their dyno is screwy. When I had my spec-v i was somehow making 10hp less than my friends spec v, but I pulled on him like a bat out of hell

MCRACING = teh suxors

btw, i dynod 235whp stock, so be happy with 257


Quick Reply: Check out my disappointing dyno results :(



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:39 PM.