I thought Miaplaya is right. Dynapack numbers always give lower numbers than a dynojet. Not the other way around like you said. I may be wrong though. Can someone correct us?

Also, on the JWT website with that dyno charts was this paragraph. Why do they say 310.9hp????

Below is the first dyno session above the 6.8psi production boost, which shows off the incredible drivability of the kit. This is a kit that is specifically designed to puts all of the power exactly were it can be used! Note the amazing mean hp of 310.9, this is the most important HP number for comparison as it represents the total area under the curve for the run. A somewhat useless "Brag Number" just before the rev cut, will never make you smile as much as a high mean overall HP and torque value. Keep in mind that this is still with all of the catalyitic convertors in place! We will let you know when the emission testing is finished.

 

That was the point I'm trying to make ... the 'Flywheel' reference is technically misleading unless you are actually using TCF function of the software. I've plenty of experience operating DynaPaks. To this day I don't know of any DynaPak operator(s) who actually took the time running through the process of approximating drivetrain loss for EACH vehicle then inputing them into the TCF slot. It's far simpler to simply leave TCF (on a different page) at 1.0 for zero correction. I'm reasonably sure Jim Wolf's done exactly that. The founder/designer of DynaPak is a particularly stubborn individual who refuses to changes the 'look and feel' of his software/GUI upon many insistances from the people who runs his equipments.


I can believe that. Perhaps that was presumptuous on my part for assuming same run settings used by everyone. Because DynaPak is a 'load base' and variable (as oppose to DynoJet's 'inertial based' and fixed setup), it depends on what load setting you used when you made your DynaPak runs. I'm accustomed to using ramp-up time is set at 10sec. (from 1500rpm to redline), keeping the intertial effect of all mass bearing parts in the drivetrain to a minimum. It sounds like you may have used a much lower ramp-up time, which would surely rob you some power. In theory ... you can make readings on the DynoJet and DynaPak to be within just a few hp from each other by using ramp up time that is similar to what it would have taken the same car to pull on a DynoJet. I haven't test that theory out myself.

 

Thank you that explaines a lot. I am familiar with load based dynos (not as an operator but rather as a customer) and am well aware of the huge difference variances can cause. The first dyno I ever did was on a Mustang dyno and was sad to see such low number for the mods I had on that car. A test later on a Dynojet proved to be more telling. It was only then that I noticed the operator had incorrectly entered the weight of my car...

 

Here's a pic I found of a fairly recent Dyno Plot from JWT ... showing TCF is indeed, as I believed, sitting at 1.0 (no correction). In this case, the term 'Flywheel' (which you can't remove form the software) will have been incorrectly interpreted.

DynaPack ... if you're reading this ... please fix the damn thing!

 

Ahhh Mustang Dynos ... that is a whole another deal. Those almost ALWAYS read very very low! And there's nothing wrong w. that ... just a matter of differing design philosophy in how power should be measured (read: different calibration methodology) from one manufacture to the next.

There was a SoCal dyno day just a few weeks ago where a Mustang Dyno was used. Bone stock 6mt G35 read in the 195-200rwhp range and a basic Vortech setup read 320rwhp. Although the figures are relative, there were lots of pissy owners!

 

I did notice this on their page.... above the dyno graph:

Also the chart says it is 7.4 to 8.2.. They are releaseing it at 6.8 right?

 

Neat! I'm not sure why I didn't catch this the first time around, but Jim's made note (a good sign that him knows how to operate the machine correctly) of his run configs on that plot. He's allowing the engine to settle at 2000rpm for 4sec. then 'ramping up' to redline in 8 seconds. That's pretty close the settings I use (10-sec.)


Also, that's very interesting news about JW dropping the ECU reprogramming route in favor of a piggy-back unit. Then again I'm not too surprised. At this point, I'm not aware of anyone (other than Nissan engineers and possibly 1 or 2 JDM developers) that has FULL working knowledge of the latest gen VQ ECU. You can be sure they won't let the whole cat out of the bag, because the amount of effort that is involved in reverse engineering such a beast. So far all that's been let out are the locations of a few key maps and variables in the ECU ROM that allows for a very basic fuel adjustment, ignition timing, rev limiters and such. Those are the same basic tools that Jim has had for the past year (from TechnoSquare) ... not enough to reliably tune a FI setup IMHO. Not untill more is understood inside the box.

I will let just a little bit of something else out of the bag for now becuase it's so tough to hold it in. I'm in the initial phase of fully cracking the ECU. I've already managed to retrieve the ECU ROM dump and have already begun the 1st phase of decompiling the codes (one line at a time ). As of now ... this is purely a hobby on the side and I haven't yet fully committed myself to the task/project, as I've got a very decent day time job. It won't be easy either and will require lots of time that I don't have for the R&D. Once I complete studying how the ECU thinks and interpret the 50+ various maps/variables ... all the questions will be answered.

 

Well I know Clark Steppler can do some amazing things with ECUs..I'm just waiting for him to do it.

 

THX723, if there is anything a non-EE can do to help decode the maps, let me know. I know what its like to have a project and not have enough time to complete it. It may not be something that you can split up, but if I can help, let me know.

 

Clint thanks for clearing all that up. Clint your DA Man!!!

I want to know WHY a Jim Wolf representative is not on the forums like APS/Turbonetics/etc.. I feel better knowing that these companies are trying to put out the information on there products. JWT doesn't even have email to contact them to ask them questions about there TT. If I'm spending 7k I want someone who will be there for ME the customer!!!

 

If you go to the JWT site you can click CONTACT US and send them an email. The email is: contact@jimwolftechnology.com I agree though that their marketing team needs to get fired. What marketing team?? Peter does a good job making the APS kit sound good. He could convince half of us on this board to buy a Yugo if he wanted to. lol

 

Well, you must admit, Peter has had some help from MIAPLAYA making the APS kit sound good. MIAPLAYA sells another APS unit everytime he posts.

 

Someone should send them an email to this thread because I agree there marketing team should be fired. There going to be carb certified and no one is selling this kit, sad. On any forum there are people guessing and wondering what this kit is all about, not cool.

 

Well I'm sure APS has never talked down about another company either right...sure whatever...can't make everybody happy...

 

So is it coorect to say that according to this dyno sheet that the JWT TT @ ~8psi put ~415whp & ~420wtq?

 

Yes I would say so....

 

Anybody got any new news on the Jim Wolf TT for the 350Z (release date, etc.)?

 

Bump

 

if they need a dummy to get one at a discount put me on the lsit!!!!

 

here's an email I sent them last night and their response:
At 10:48 PM 3/28/2005, you wrote:

Hi there
I am about to purchase a twin Turbo Kit for the 350Z. Right now the APS kit is on the top of my list but since I am in California and the APS kit is not yet CARB certified I am concerned.
I have heard nothing but good about your company so I am eager to know that you have a valid product on the market.

Do you have a release date yet and an estimated price for you your TT kit Also will it work on a 2005 350Z

Thanks
Thomas Hornig

Hi Thomas,
We do not have an official release date on our twin turbo system yet. We are in the certification process for the 2003-2004 model 350Z and the certification for the 2005 will potentially begin after that. We are anticipating to have our system ready to sell around the last part of Spring before Summer. Keep an eye on our news and info page of our web site as we are continually updating that turbo info on a regular basis.