It can be seen but it will be an artifact. It is possible to see gains even with no mod at all.

The ECU is constantly playing games with the timing and this is why ECU resets are mandatory before each test condition. When you reset the ECU, it always reverts back to a baseline condition for spark timing. And a reset typically puts it to the most agressive timing.

When you do comparative dyno testing it is best to eliminate the ECU as a variable. And doing resets is the only way to insure against timing changes.

First line edited.

 

When I am doing development testing on the dyno, I am always fighting against the ECU making random changes (changes with no aparent reason)

You have to hold coolant temperature exactly constant before each pull. Air inlet temperature is a big variable. Ping on regular street gas is also a big (and random) variable.

The ECU even monitors gas tank fuel temperature and adjusts spark timing based on that!

It can be very difficult to keep the ECU's spark timing exactly constant. And if its not constant, dyno results can move all over the place.

 

Yeah, its messed up, but that's our ECU.

The only way to totally kill the variability is to use a stand alone like an FCON V PRO. FCON will lock down timeing and A/F.

 

yea the arch bishop guy does have a point , but this was common knowledge before with hydra expalining it


you guys are also leaving out the 1/2 spacer/ with the mrev2 which actually does provide top end on top of the stock revups already great top end. Extra volume i guess but it does come at a sacrifce of tq which we are already customer to on the revup. The revup seems to be a top end motor with the runners etc designed for top end performance. I really think thats why this engine is all about peak hp then anything tq.

The 5/16 has alway been known to hinder the revups top end but hydra never said it wouldve increased it nor was its purpose, with tuning this is possible to correct but i think this was really designed for the ample amount of tq you get mid range by changing where the power comes in at a earlier rpm. Thus giving a nice bump in tq mid range.

However every 1/2 spacer has shown a little less mid range but ample peak hp uptop. Which is actaully a direct beenfit to those who enjoy top end power. Ala the crawford setup aswell.

Im actually trying to find a strut bar that clears the 1/2 because im really intrested in the 1/2 spacer which to me is the best adder for what the car does in its top end. But most races do not go where the revup shines thats why we get alot of 287 owners who doesnt get its perfermance gap.

But if hydra can note any strut bars that would clear the 1/2 that would be great. The 5/16 is nice for mid range but if u want top end from an improvement from stock the 1/2 is the answer with the mrev2

 

You can certaintly use the 1/2" spacer on the MREV2. I posted dynos of it almost a year ago but I don't have them now.

It basically did the same thing you see on the Sport Z Magazine dyno shoot out. More HP up high and less area under the curve.

As for aftermarket strut bars, there is the Crawford Z, Stillen and APS. They all work with the larger spacers/plenums.

 

hydra question is this, less area under the curve in comparision over the stock revup plenum setup. Or just in comparision to the 5/16. I could imagine the amount of questions these damn spacer give ya. But dont both spacers and mrev2 give increased numbers either way over the stock revup setup across the band . Or are the setups have minus and pros against a stock revup setup. thanks.I can imagine the confusion lol thanks for the strut bar im gonna look into the aps strut bar when i get a chance.

 

I was referring the 1/2" spacer relative to the 5/16" spacer.
---
With the MREV2/spacer combo, the gain is not across the whole band, but the average within the rev range of any gear you shift, it will be higher.

The average is greater if you shift at redline and the difference only increases if you shift at anything less than redline.

So no matter how you shift, the average power will be greater with the MREV2/spacer combination.

 

So no Dynos of the 1/2 spacer? You say it works the same way the crawford does?

 

Oh here we go again..

 

A 1/2" spacer on a MREV2 on a REVUP engine? Yes, I posted the plots here about a year ago.

As far as 1/2" spacer performing the same as the Crawford plenum, or differently than the 5/16" spacer, you only need to see the results of the SZM shootout.

 

can u prove it doesnt look at the shoot out.

 

What? I don't even understand that.

The shootout was on a 287hp, not a rev up, and thus, I wouln't be able to correctly gauge the results.

 

Arch, you are just making yourself look worse and worse. You have already been proven time and time again that you have no clue what your talking about.

And what he said was:

Can you prove it doesn't? Look at the shoot out!

Obviously you can't.

 

damn man, are you that dense , ...the revups the mrev2 and spacer on a 287 do not yeild the same numbers as a revup. For a none revup you would just use the spacer. Puff puff pass brotha. You have a point but your also lacking in understanding something thats been proven over a year ago when hydra came out with the regular mrev.

 

The SZM shoot out was done on a 287 engine, but you can still guage the results. Plenum mods affect the function of the lower 287 plenum. Not the REVUP plenum.

The 1/2" spacer has been tested on a REVUP lower plenum and it did absolutely nothing for HP. In fact, it very slightly reduced the TQ and area under the curve. (with all other variables held constant).
I also posted these dyno results about a year ago.

The performance of a 1/2" spacer is effectively identical to a Crawford plenum on a 287 engine, and if a 1/2" spacer has effectively zero effect on a REVUP lower plenum, the Crawford plenum will do the same.

Additionally, the flow clearance geometry and total internal volume of the 1/2" spacer and Crawford plenum are also effectively identical.

I already know what the results will be, but if you think the Crawford plenum can magically do any differently on a REVUP, I have a Crawford plenum I can send you for your own independant dyno testing.

 

whatwe need is this mystical exhaust someones been talking abuot to appear

 

The final R&D prototype was the easy part.
OTOH Manufacturing for production is a bigger homework project but I'm making progress!

 

Wow, you are a tool. More than two other people pointed out how ignorant you are being.

I posted the Dyno TWICE in this thread, and I will post it again.

This is a Crawford manifold ona Rev-up motor.

 

Who was arguing that it couldn't? I Asked if it produced the same gains, and it seems, that spacers do nothing for the rev-up motor on thier own.

 

PM me the details, I might take you up on that offer.