FLY BY Z

Except that off the dyno, the results are different.

mcduck

FLY BY Z...

That's exactly why we (my mechanic and I) think something is wrong with the TechnoSquare flash... maybe it didn't get flashed right or the timing wasn't set or whatever... my runs against the Mach1 were done prior to dynoing today and prior to the TechnoSquare upgrade. On the stock ECU with all my mechanical upgrades, the Mach1 and my Z were on pretty even ground. I was happy with this because I was as quick as the Mach1 and still had him all day long on curvy roads.

Now, today, he pulls 275 and I pull 252??? If we're pulling about the same and his car weighs a few hundred pounds more, shouldn't my hp have been about the same... of just a very small amount less. He literally came off the dyno right before I went on.... hell, maybe he broke it!

Maybe I should have the ECU low leveled by Nissan to go back to stock settings and re-dyno it that way.

rodH

iTrader: (2)

a few intersting things to me

1. a 996 is dynoed at 20 HP less???? my guess is that it is a pre 02 996 (296hp vs 315hp)

2. you beat a Mach1 (I am surprise it was that close to 80)

HFM mentions that some people tend to claim that the 287 crank # is inflated. I am not so sure, looking at other cars with similar power to wt ratios it seems to be about right considering 1. it is NOT rear engine or mid-engine (like a 996 @ 296-315 or an NSX at 290, but then again these cars are much lighter and along with having more wt in the rear also will have less drivetrain loss). Maybe it is a little low, but I am not so sure how much.

mcduck

everyone... thanks for your thoughts... please continue to post any ideas you have on what I maybe should check into. I'm going to catch some Zs for my flight tomorrow.

I'll try to check in on the thread while I'm out of town, but I may be a little quiet until I get back in town Wednesday... depends on how much time I have to surf the net.

Xeinth

What do you think is more likely:
1) A dyno was correct for everyone else, then screwed McDuck 4 times?

2) The run against the Mach1 was with a driver that had issues, or something else was in play that scewed that 'measurement'

X

mcduck

1. The 996 was an auto. Not sure about the year, but I want to say its an '02. I'll find out from Mark the next time we talk. Either way (296 or 315), it still pulled 20hp lower than mine. Compensate an extra 5hp for the auto... does that mean mine is roughly 310 or 330 at the crank? That would sound more accurate to me.

2. the Mach1 gets pulls a length to two off the line. Once my motors revving good, particularly in 2nd gear and beyond, I'm reeling him slowly back in. By 85, I'm typically next to him and continuing to pull slowly on him. They're very closely matched... or at least were the last times we ran.

okay... I'm really outta here this time....

rodH

iTrader: (2)

HFM maybe right that no matter what you do, you wont get much more than 265 (now we just have to find the cheapest way to get there )

I think Ducks disatisfaction is that he is NOT there (265ish) nad he has almost every mod you can buy.

makes you wonder if some things are decreasing the HP and torque??

CAI?? Headers?? Computer??

ALSO, I wonder what the graph looks like??

if the old graph is much more of a peak and the new graph shows a flater line and higher gains at lower RPMs, that may be what makes you car faster yet not have as much PEAK HP.

spazpilot

iTrader: (2)

mcduck:

I have actually heard of the AEM CAI losing HP. The piping has a tendency to heat up thuss giving you lower numbers. You may want to try putting the stock intake back on or the JWT popcharger which has shown gains. Just a thought. Found this out with a guy that was pinging with his stillen SC and the aem was the cause.

rodH

iTrader: (2)

also makes me wonder a few other things?

1, was the guy who built your car a good mechanic?

2. did you use the exact same dyno machine? (I assume this is yes)

3. are you absolutly sure that you were in the same gear both times?? (I assume yes)

rodH

iTrader: (2)

that would be hte 1st place I look as well, followed by the computer

rodH

iTrader: (2)

so for the experts out there, looking at those #s and my mods, what would you do with my car?? I am thinking Pulleys, Borla TD and maybe computer????

CAI??=maybe lose power
Headers??=unless I get some ultra expensive ones (which I cant afford), maybe I dont get much here since I already have test pipes.
Cams??=too much $$ for me for a long time

LSs1Power

I didnt read the whole two pages, but here is pointers u can check:
1- Check ur timing.
2- Whats ur A/F ratio? Should be between 12.4-13.1
3- What gear did u dyno ur car? Should be in a 1:1 ratio gear.
4- How long did u drive ur car after the cams install? Give it 1000 miles and change oil and dyno again. I gained 7rwhp 12rwtq just by doing this after changing my cam.
5- Whats the psi in your rear tires at the time of the dyno? If u have anything less than 25psi it will affect ur numbers. U should have 32-35psi in the rear tires on the dyno if u want a accurate reading.


Good luck.

joust75

iTrader: (1)

Strange to me....

If you are pulling 20 more than the porsche I would be happy. Porsches have very little drivetrain loss of power and I dont think 911 automatics lose much HP to the manual. Since both your car and the porsche are showing low numbers that means its a dyno problem. Try a different dyno.

If the dyno has no prob, that is sad news. All that money for those mods and nothing to show for it.
I am starting to view cams as a horrible mod!

zillinois

iTrader: (6)

If your car is idling well and pulling strong without pinging or knocking, pulling the timing will not likely make up for 10-15hp. If it is running rough then yes.

Did your pulls all come within a few hp of each other?

Another thing, make sure you are running the highest octane available from a mobil station. You could have gotten a bad tank of gas.

Could you feel the difference after you installed the TS ECU. I was able to detect improvement in off-idle response and increased pull immediately. My clutch engaged more forgivingly because of the added tq down low.

I think the cams and cats should be good for a guaranteed 10hp on almost any car. You said you made solid 8-10hp gains throughout the range. Increasing the area under the curve is no small feat. Check your graphs and compare them to others'. Did the others just have a high peak hp, but less increase elsewhere.

Take the headers off. Nobody want's to hear this, but you have not increased airflow by enough to warrant headers. Or try removing the cats. Flame retardant suit on.

Mcduck, something is seriously wrong with that dyno result. I just checked my dynojet dyno results from last week and with just crank pulley got 242.78hp and 239 tq! I don't care if you can't compare dynos, thats retardo. If a guy has modded his car in excess of several thousand dollars the dyno should show it, within a few percent error, given approximately same environmental settings. I agree you should be in the high 250's to mid 260's WTF?

zimbo

iTrader: (4)

I'm not saying the numbers are right or wrong but I will say that you cannot simply add up the number of expected extra HPs from each mod and think that's going to show up in your max HP number. It simply does not work that way.

If you added 5 mods that each increased the power by 5 HP at different RPMs then the total HP gain on the dyno would only by 5 HP. However, your car would be much faster in "real life" because your car pulls its way all along the RPM curve several times as you're increasing your speed.

--Steve

hfm

iTrader: (1)

Sorry mcduck, I'm sure you're quite upset and dissapointed by your dyno so I'll only post a few thoughts and leave your thread.

My first question is, did you obtain air/fuel ratios with your dyno? If so, you can check to see if you were running to rich, or more likely, too lean during the dyno. [Nevermind, I see your a/f was 12.5]

Next, but for the Mach 1 dyno run, I would question the accuracy of the dyno. It's more money but for your peace of mind, a dyno on another dynojet would be worthwhile in view of how much you've spent.

I honestly believe that 265 to 270 is the high end range of a n/a Z for bolt on parts. Boring out the cylinder, doing port polish, changing piston/rods and compression or putting on a stroker kit is probably the only way to get more power on a n/a set up.

[You are correct, I would expect you to be in the 260s. My final thought is, adding numbers thrown out for any given part will not add up to much real gain. I had no base line. I assume my motor was at 238-240 which is where most stock Zs come in. At 255, the gain was 15-17 hp. Certainly this is speculative but seems right for general intake and exhaust work. Where I feel you should have hit the 260s is from the cams.]

Good luck mcduck. Sorry you're upset.

[Edit]

johnlotusboy

iTrader: (1)

Here's a couple other things that can negatively effect dyno results:
rear wheel toe in too high/rear end alignment scrubbing power,
squaring of car to dyno,
If you have a clutch type limited slip versus the viscous/stock one.l

flynnibus

12.5 is a rich A/F for a N/A car. You don't need that much fuel. I'd be checking your spark plugs right now for build up.. they might be pretty fouled which would explain part of your results as well.

And we all know Mod HPs don't just add up.. when people claim '5hp' you need to look at what part of the range that is in.. and if the 'fix' from Mod A is the same 'fix' Mod B does.. they aren't going to add up either. So overlapping mods, plus gains in different RPM ranges.. plus net effect of other factors (like loss of back pressure) all correlate to why 1+1 does not equal 2.

If the shape of the graph is near identical to the stock one.. thats a good thing. That means the high RPM only gains of the plenum have been balenced by the low-end gains of the headers.

I would have hoped the cams would have done more for you though.. it really seems like the cams and ECU have been negated on your setup..

This is why I don't believe in 'canned' ECU programs. You car needs to be tuned to your specifics. I'd be curious to see what your A/Fs are without the ECU..

zzzya

iTrader: (2)

Your A/F ratio is a little rich for an N/A car at 12.5 which could be hindering your numbers a little. From what I have researched and been told around 13 - 13.5 is better for N/A whereas FI you would want to be lower. You said that after the cam install you had the timing adjusted, was TS aware of this and have you questioned them to see if they adjusted it with the reflash? With your current mods I would expect to see little gains in lower rpms but major gains above 3500 rpms all the way to redline. I can only speculate but still wonder if the Borla headers are the main culprit here. Jim Jones was also a bit dissapointed and he has the Borla headers. The Borla design is really not that great and could be causing exhaust flow issues when combined with cams and an opened up exhaust.

mcduck

a few more responses before I catch my flight...

Let me clarify ... I am not upset at the absolute dyno number per se... I could live with, and possibly be happy with, the 252rwhp reading... IF my baseline reading had been 225-230rwhp. My problem is, for all said modifications, I'm showing an improvement of only 7.3rwhp (????).

For the mods in question here is my take...
<15hp gain - simply unacceptable. The mods are good for more power than that. It's just a matter of IDing what the problem is.

15-20hp gain - I would not be happy, but would accept these figures

20-25hp gain - I would be very happy. This is where we anticipated the car being

>25hp gain - absolutely estatic... not that this is likely, though

Really, the area under the curve is not that impressive either. Torque is, at best equal to before and now that I look at it, my peak horsepower is higher, but overall the new line is mostly slightly lower than my Borla TD-only run... significantly lower from 4500-5000rpm.

I have heard this from 3 people now. This will be the second thing we look at after the ECU & timing. Thanks.

RodH said...
1. Yes the mechanic is top notch... that is definitely not a factor here.
2. same dyno
3. same gear... we did 4th for 4th comparisons AND 5th for 5th comparisons with basically the same overall gain posted.

LS1Power said...
1. The timing is probably the first thing we will look at, but thanks for confirming that thought!
2. A/F is right at 12.5 all the way through the dyno run. So, at least that is dead-on
3. We did runs in 5th (1:1) gear and 4th. The difference in the numbers was small... I think 3rwhp. Comparisons to prior run are using 5th gear.
4. I have almost 1000 miles on the cams and the oil was changed about 150miles after reassembly, but not since.
5. Hmm... we didn't check the wheel pressure. I'll make sure we look at that, too.

My issue with this is I'm really trying to measure the change, not the absolute HP number. So, changing the dyno won't do a lot for me since my baseline run was on a different dyno.

Yes... I believe they were all within 10hp range. Remember a couple were done in 4th gear and a couple in 5th. SO the range was pretty tight.

This is where I'm not sure. At first, my butt dyno said it was pulling a little harder and I can definitely hear a throatier exhaust note. But this leaves me wondering...
1 - Did it just seem to pull harder because I wanted to believe the TQ would/should improve performance? After not driving the car for a week, it's hard to say since I was not driving back to back with pre-TS driving. Based on what I know now, I'm beginning to think it feels about the same after TS as it did before.
2 - Why would the TS flash make the car sound deepier and louder??? Can anyone explain this? This is true without question. The car is definitely louder than it was a week ago prior to TS.

While I agree with this to a point... it may not be required, but these mods should not hurt performance... at worst, they should be a wash. These were put on in anticipation of going for boost next year.

Hmm... can I agree and disagree at the same time? In many cases you are right. If I only added exhaust and cams, let say, I'd say you're right. But when you are replacing a whole system, my experience has been the sum of the parts is equal to or greater than the parts individually. In this case, we have basically replaced the car's entire respiratory system. We should see cumulative improvements. Not to mention, as I noted above, I was looking at the graphs backwards, I'm most seeing losses across the powerband vs just the Borla TD alone, according to the dyno.

More importantly, I'm not trying to add max or even average gains for these mods. I was majorly lowballing it with my estimate of 22rwhp above.

I think this is a given, though I'm not sure what it will tell me without a baseline to compare against... except that dyno A read low and dyno B reads high.

Okay, guys... thanks for all your thoughts... at this point it sounds like...
1 - We should still plan on checking the ECU/timing questions first.
2 - Try swapping back on the stock intake to see if that makes improvements.
3 - check the wheel pressure
4 - maybe wait and go back to the same dyno on a day with conditions approximately the same as the first run (though all numbers are SAE corrected, I'll be willing to try this at this point... though it still would not explain why Morris is so close to my numbers with just exhaust upgrades)
5 - Check numbers again after a little more mileage and another oil change.

Most likely, I will only do one or two more dynos, not 5.

From what I have read here on my350z.com, it sounds like I should have felt a noticeable difference in the way the car drive with the TS upgrade. In hindsight, I think I perceived a gain that may not actually be there. So I still think something screwy is going on there. My mechanic will be talking to them early this week. Hopefully they can put their collective heads together and determine what's not as it should be.

Thanks again everyone. I'll let you know if we find a culprit or if my numbers are the end-all be-all of the upgrades... I sure hope not!