Dyno results from tuning with Technosquare and Motordyne!
01-22-2006 | 06:04 PM
#22
Originally Posted by ChurchAutoTest
He only gained a few hp from the plenum mod (4 hp I think). The rest of the gains from his previous visit were from the vastly improved TS tune.
SC
SC
The "4HP plenum mod" that Shawn is referring to is a Port and Polish of the lower collector runners.
The 4HP yeild is similar to Zillinois Port and Polish 4-5 HP dyno test result.
01-22-2006 | 07:39 PM
#24
Originally Posted by Hydrazine
Just so everyone knows what Rick and I were pre/post testing, the TS reflash and 5/16" spacer is what yeilded the 292 HP plot shown in Ricks dyno chart.
The "4HP plenum mod" that Shawn is referring to is a Port and Polish of the lower collector runners.
The 4HP yeild is similar to Zillinois Port and Polish 4-5 HP dyno test result.
The "4HP plenum mod" that Shawn is referring to is a Port and Polish of the lower collector runners.
The 4HP yeild is similar to Zillinois Port and Polish 4-5 HP dyno test result.
01-22-2006 | 08:19 PM
#25
Originally Posted by fahrenheit350
Every HP counts! Did you get the rev-up and 287 mods in before Church closed?
01-22-2006 | 08:41 PM
#26
Your car never fails to amaze me Rick! Those are awesome numbers for N/A. Now find someone to give you high compression pistons and throw some cams in there!
Thats one hell of a power to weight ratio too.
Thats one hell of a power to weight ratio too.
01-23-2006 | 08:34 AM
#27
Originally Posted by 350ZNV
Your car never fails to amaze me Rick! Those are awesome numbers for N/A. Now find someone to give you high compression pistons and throw some cams in there!
Thats one hell of a power to weight ratio too.
Thats one hell of a power to weight ratio too.
2 crazy stripped Z's representing the best color of them all, CS! 
I want to maximize the power as much as I can before going internal, although I know that I wll definitely gain a lot of power up top with some nice cams
01-23-2006 | 08:52 AM
#29
Come by my place some time Rick and we'll make a velocity stack for your ARC box. It just might be enough to push you over the 300 mark.
Having a sharp edge inlet really trashes the inlet coefficent. ...But I must also add that having such a sharp edge inlet right up against the MAF and being calibrated to it at TS, it may also require another visit to TS for A/F corrections if we put on a velocity stack... The velocity stack will make the MAF measure a lower air flow rate, when the flow rate is actually going up!
I think you might be able to squeek another 4 HP out of it.
Having a sharp edge inlet really trashes the inlet coefficent. ...But I must also add that having such a sharp edge inlet right up against the MAF and being calibrated to it at TS, it may also require another visit to TS for A/F corrections if we put on a velocity stack... The velocity stack will make the MAF measure a lower air flow rate, when the flow rate is actually going up!
I think you might be able to squeek another 4 HP out of it.
01-23-2006 | 09:03 AM
#30
Originally Posted by Hydrazine
Come by my place some time Rick and we'll make a velocity stack for your ARC box. It just might be enough to push you over the 300 mark.
Having a sharp edge inlet really trashes the inlet coefficent. ...But I must also add that having such a sharp edge inlet right up against the MAF and being calibrated to it at TS, it may also require another visit to TS for A/F corrections if we put on a velocity stack... The velocity stack will make the MAF measure a lower air flow rate, when the flow rate is actually going up!
I think you might be able to squeek another 4 HP out of it.
Having a sharp edge inlet really trashes the inlet coefficent. ...But I must also add that having such a sharp edge inlet right up against the MAF and being calibrated to it at TS, it may also require another visit to TS for A/F corrections if we put on a velocity stack... The velocity stack will make the MAF measure a lower air flow rate, when the flow rate is actually going up!
I think you might be able to squeek another 4 HP out of it.
I'm going over to Sun Auto today to hopefully have the right product in hand, so i'd like to dyno test that as well 
01-25-2006 | 11:23 AM
#35
Originally Posted by raptorbh12
you got your car tuned at technosquare?? i still dont see how a reflash and plenum spacer provide 30 hp where a Utec only provides 15....
01-25-2006 | 11:24 AM
#36
Originally Posted by lukesnyder
That dyno isnt load based correct? Was there a correction factor??
From the dyno graph "SAE corrected" Look at the first page where Shawn Church chimes in to explain a bit:
The graph says flywheel no matter whether you apply a transmission correction or not. Dynapack's idea of a transmission correction is a straight percentage. This is applied through the transmission correction factor, or "TCF". Note the box at the bottom of the printout. It says "TCF 1.00". This indicates that no correction was applied. If the TCF was 1.15, then a 15% correction factor would be applied.
At Church Automotive Testing we do not use a TCF other than 1.0 unless specifically requested by a customer (even then we don't like to because it can be used to mislead people).
In our experience, a RWD car loses about 30-35 hp from flywheel to hubs on our dyno. This has been very consistent. FWD cars are in the 25 hp range.
A stock 287 hp Z puts down 255 hp +/- a few on our Dynapack. The 296 put down by RickDogg is a full 40 hp above the average. It is also higher than a E46 M3 with an aftermarket exhaust. It is a full 25+hp above the new 298-300 hp VQ motors.
Shawn Church
At Church Automotive Testing we do not use a TCF other than 1.0 unless specifically requested by a customer (even then we don't like to because it can be used to mislead people).
In our experience, a RWD car loses about 30-35 hp from flywheel to hubs on our dyno. This has been very consistent. FWD cars are in the 25 hp range.
A stock 287 hp Z puts down 255 hp +/- a few on our Dynapack. The 296 put down by RickDogg is a full 40 hp above the average. It is also higher than a E46 M3 with an aftermarket exhaust. It is a full 25+hp above the new 298-300 hp VQ motors.
Shawn Church
Its not a roller dyno - that's why losses are lower. You're not spinning up close to 100 lbs of wheel and tire. On a Dynojet, dropping 5 lbs of wheel and tire weight per side can net you several hp worth of gains since more energy is available to accelerate the dyno rollers. Now imagine dropping it all. On a Dynojet, his car should have been in the high 270's-low 280's hp range to the wheels depending upon wheel weight.
As for the gains, his initial Technosquare tuneup was _way_ off. It was richer than what we'd tune a forced induction car for. He only gained a few hp from the plenum mod (4 hp I think). The rest of the gains from his previous visit were from the vastly improved TS tune.
SC
As for the gains, his initial Technosquare tuneup was _way_ off. It was richer than what we'd tune a forced induction car for. He only gained a few hp from the plenum mod (4 hp I think). The rest of the gains from his previous visit were from the vastly improved TS tune.
SC
Last edited by Rickdogg; 01-25-2006 at 11:26 AM.
01-25-2006 | 11:41 AM
#37
Originally Posted by Rickdogg
Ask Mr. Church. Maybe he can chime in
From the dyno graph "SAE corrected" Look at the first page where Shawn Church chimes in to explain a bit:
From the dyno graph "SAE corrected" Look at the first page where Shawn Church chimes in to explain a bit:
Yah I just read through everything and looked it up .. Dynojet 2000 isnt load based. The SAE corrected shows up on all dynopaks dyno sheets.
Whats your elevation around?
01-25-2006 | 12:13 PM
#38
Originally Posted by Rickdogg
Look at the original dyno and you can see why. Reading is fundamental!
were you talking about the differences in the A/F readings being what im looking for in the original dyno?
01-25-2006 | 01:00 PM
#39
Originally Posted by raptorbh12
i must have been absent that day of school...
were you talking about the differences in the A/F readings being what im looking for in the original dyno?
were you talking about the differences in the A/F readings being what im looking for in the original dyno?
Rickdogg, what is your complete list of mods? Nice numbers btw.
01-25-2006 | 01:38 PM
#40
Originally Posted by raptorbh12
i must have been absent that day of school...
were you talking about the differences in the A/F readings being what im looking for in the original dyno?
were you talking about the differences in the A/F readings being what im looking for in the original dyno?