WTF!!! Just dynoed....woooooooah!!!
Thread Starter
Sponsor
builtZmotors
builtZmotors
iTrader: (21)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 0
From: Albuquerque, NM
Originally Posted by IceY2K1Max
Don't SAE correct boosted cars ESPECIALLY turbos at high altitude...that's more accurately ~515whp for your 16psi dyno with a LOW 1.17 correction factor. I've seen cars at that altitude correct 20-24%, even 27% once, which is a JOKE for FI guys to use. Might as well just add 20-30% to all the sea level dynos to level the playing field. SAE correction is for NA cars wheezing at altitude NOT FI guys with wastegate regulated turbos providing their own atmospheric pressure.
High altitude FI guys that post hyper-inflated SAE numbers should AT LEAST show/post the correction factor, so we can somewhat compare you to the non-mile high club cars.
Your UNcorrected numbers would be closer to what others dyno even without the temp/humidity correction.
High altitude FI guys that post hyper-inflated SAE numbers should AT LEAST show/post the correction factor, so we can somewhat compare you to the non-mile high club cars.
Your UNcorrected numbers would be closer to what others dyno even without the temp/humidity correction.
so, again...just go back and read CAREFULLY before making accusations..thx
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 0
From: CORONA, CALIFORNIA
Im gonna ask this very important question to everyone......
has anyone seen a 450+hp dynoed z w/ the HKS FCON-VPRO? Necause as it stands, I have seen everyone either using the unichip or greddy emanage and they have been getting from 450+ steady all the time....chime in if you agree?
(dont mean to hijack)
has anyone seen a 450+hp dynoed z w/ the HKS FCON-VPRO? Necause as it stands, I have seen everyone either using the unichip or greddy emanage and they have been getting from 450+ steady all the time....chime in if you agree?
(dont mean to hijack)
Originally Posted by ZRAYGO
Im gonna ask this very important question to everyone......
has anyone seen a 450+hp dynoed z w/ the HKS FCON-VPRO? Necause as it stands, I have seen everyone either using the unichip or greddy emanage and they have been getting from 450+ steady all the time....chime in if you agree?
(dont mean to hijack)
has anyone seen a 450+hp dynoed z w/ the HKS FCON-VPRO? Necause as it stands, I have seen everyone either using the unichip or greddy emanage and they have been getting from 450+ steady all the time....chime in if you agree?
(dont mean to hijack)
Built motors...yes we have tuned the V-pro for over 550Rwhp
Thread Starter
Sponsor
builtZmotors
builtZmotors
iTrader: (21)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 0
From: Albuquerque, NM
Originally Posted by ZRAYGO
Im gonna ask this very important question to everyone......
has anyone seen a 450+hp dynoed z w/ the HKS FCON-VPRO? Necause as it stands, I have seen everyone either using the unichip or greddy emanage and they have been getting from 450+ steady all the time....chime in if you agree?
(dont mean to hijack)
has anyone seen a 450+hp dynoed z w/ the HKS FCON-VPRO? Necause as it stands, I have seen everyone either using the unichip or greddy emanage and they have been getting from 450+ steady all the time....chime in if you agree?
(dont mean to hijack)
hit me back
Thread Starter
Sponsor
builtZmotors
builtZmotors
iTrader: (21)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 0
From: Albuquerque, NM
Why do i want a caravan that's got no f$#kin VHEELZ?
Ok...here's the volk gtc's
10.5 285/35/19 rear
9.5 245/35/19 front
Dropped little less than 2" with tein flex coilovers w/ edfc
don't get lippy with me punK!
Ray's Metal Coat Finish
Thanks to Wayne @ www.nonstopmotorsports.com for the wheels!!!
Some interior shots (i'll post daylight pics)
hot rod style- stickers of what's inside!!!
thanks to SPEEDLAB in Albuquerque, NM for ressurrecting the beast!!!
10.5 285/35/19 rear
9.5 245/35/19 front
Dropped little less than 2" with tein flex coilovers w/ edfc
don't get lippy with me punK!
Ray's Metal Coat Finish
Thanks to Wayne @ www.nonstopmotorsports.com for the wheels!!!
Some interior shots (i'll post daylight pics)
hot rod style- stickers of what's inside!!!
thanks to SPEEDLAB in Albuquerque, NM for ressurrecting the beast!!!
Instead of making us all guess, WHY DON'T YOU JUST POST THE UNCORRECTED DYNO OR THE CORRECTION FACTOR? Is it that hard?
It would be a lot simpler and far more realistic.
Just post the correction factor and don't ever use SAE correction on FI cars, it is POINTLESS and skews the numbers far more then trying to correct for just temp/humidity.
It would be a lot simpler and far more realistic.
Just post the correction factor and don't ever use SAE correction on FI cars, it is POINTLESS and skews the numbers far more then trying to correct for just temp/humidity.
Originally Posted by 350zDCalb
hmmm..you should probably go back and read the entire thread before you accuse me of "inflating the numbers"....several references to estimated correction factors, F/I at high altitude, etc....the estimated actual is around 520rwhp...because as you know, being the expert that you are, 5500ft altitude robs approximately 18-23% off of NA cars...less for a F/I car...
so, again...just go back and read CAREFULLY before making accusations..thx
so, again...just go back and read CAREFULLY before making accusations..thx
Thread Starter
Sponsor
builtZmotors
builtZmotors
iTrader: (21)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 0
From: Albuquerque, NM
Originally Posted by IceY2K1Max
Instead of making us all guess, WHY DON'T YOU JUST POST THE UNCORRECTED DYNO OR THE CORRECTION FACTOR? Is it that hard?
It would be a lot simpler and far more realistic.
Just post the correction factor and don't ever use SAE correction on FI cars, it is POINTLESS and skews the numbers far more then trying to correct for just temp/humidity.
It would be a lot simpler and far more realistic.
Just post the correction factor and don't ever use SAE correction on FI cars, it is POINTLESS and skews the numbers far more then trying to correct for just temp/humidity.
what correction factor do you know of for F/I cars??? please share...these guys here who have been tuning for over 30 years at this altitude swear that a NA car loses 18-23% (which the dyno will provide these corrected numbers--the one's you insist i post)...and they also swear that a F/I vehicle will lose much less power--they theorize 10-12%....key word "theorize"...so, it is not an exact science...so that's why i didn't post those numbers...i posted the number sthat i knew..and i explained why i did so...
please share some info with us if you know better..if not... your $0.02 has been given..we don't need any more spare change
and..lately, i find myself reminding so many..this is a 350Z FORUM...key equation in that sentence is "350z"...i'm sure there is a maxima forum out there (i haven't checked-because it wouldn't apply to me---OH!!- just like this doesn't apply to you..hmmmmmm)
Last edited by 350zDCalb; Apr 17, 2005 at 06:51 AM.
Not yelling...just stressing the points intermixed with the rest of the BS. There isn't one for FI guys...that I know of. However, if a NA vehicle would lose 21% of rated power in your area, then assuming a CF of ~1.266 would mean your 603whp corrected is about 476whp uncorrected NOT including adding back temp/humidity/compressor efficiency loss.
All you should correct for is temp/humidity...maybe 2-3%(ignoring IC benefits)...then to more accurately adjust, add 1-2% loss for compressor efficiency(2nd or 3rd efficiency island), since your turbos are spinning faster to produce the SAME 16psi. If we say a 5% max correction is necessary, you'd take 476whp and correct temp/humidity/eLoss to ~500whp.
Whatever you choose, the UNcorrected numbers/chart would be FAR closer to what your "real world" numbers would be. Anytime you *ADD* 100whp or more to your uncorrected numbers via a correction factor, that should make you question/think why.
Any way you slice it, your car at sea level wouldn't hit much over 500whp@16psi, most likely, so people trying to compare your dyno to theirs aren't going to be comparing apples-to-apples and will be asking WHY. It is unfair for you slightly to not correct for the temp/humidity and some compressor efficiency loss, however it is far more unfair to compare your SAE inflated numbers against others.
Any chance you'll be taking it to the track?
All you should correct for is temp/humidity...maybe 2-3%(ignoring IC benefits)...then to more accurately adjust, add 1-2% loss for compressor efficiency(2nd or 3rd efficiency island), since your turbos are spinning faster to produce the SAME 16psi. If we say a 5% max correction is necessary, you'd take 476whp and correct temp/humidity/eLoss to ~500whp.
Whatever you choose, the UNcorrected numbers/chart would be FAR closer to what your "real world" numbers would be. Anytime you *ADD* 100whp or more to your uncorrected numbers via a correction factor, that should make you question/think why.
Any way you slice it, your car at sea level wouldn't hit much over 500whp@16psi, most likely, so people trying to compare your dyno to theirs aren't going to be comparing apples-to-apples and will be asking WHY. It is unfair for you slightly to not correct for the temp/humidity and some compressor efficiency loss, however it is far more unfair to compare your SAE inflated numbers against others.
Any chance you'll be taking it to the track?
Sponsor
Forged Internals.com
Forged Internals.com
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,566
Likes: 1
From: Valdosta, GA
Who is inexperienced enough to compare dyno's done in different parts of the country on different dyno's, in different atmospheres is what I would be asking... 
Either way...he's happy with the power it has right now...regardless of what the HP level is at sea level.
Either way...he's happy with the power it has right now...regardless of what the HP level is at sea level.
Thread Starter
Sponsor
builtZmotors
builtZmotors
iTrader: (21)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 0
From: Albuquerque, NM
Originally Posted by nis350ztt
Who is inexperienced enough to compare dyno's done in different parts of the country on different dyno's, in different atmospheres is what I would be asking...
Either way...he's happy with the power it has right now...regardless of what the HP level is at sea level.
Either way...he's happy with the power it has right now...regardless of what the HP level is at sea level.
mr maxima:
i'm sure your 4?? number is way low
...everyone here..who has been tuning probably before the nissan maxima even came out ....estimates it is making near 520-530 actual 
not sure where you get your numbers from...
yes, i will be going to the track soon
TODD
You and Ernie both have insanely fast cars now. Just enjoy them...numbers are just numbers.
Now, WTF...did you spend all your benjamins on the car???? What's up with snapping a photo of your wheel lip with your hand as a reference marker.
Slap down a C-Note brotha!!!!
Now, WTF...did you spend all your benjamins on the car???? What's up with snapping a photo of your wheel lip with your hand as a reference marker.
Slap down a C-Note brotha!!!!
Last edited by Sharif@Forged; Apr 17, 2005 at 08:11 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 430
Likes: 1
From: Nuclear Power
Gentlemen, Gentlemen.
As stated before numbers are just numbers. Todd car is insanely fast and living here at this altitude you are in much thinner air.
I dynoed at 17psi with the following and the only differences in Todd's car and mine are...
I have 8.6:1 CR, Todd has 9:1
I was running 17psi, Todd is running 16psi.
I dynoed on 19s/285s, Todd dynoed on 17s/245s
Thats it. My numbers...
564rwhp/561 ft-lbs....SAE corrected for 5500 feet, aka sea level.
468rwhp/465.4ft-lbs uncorrected
Okay, but here is the clincher...I will be doing a sea level retune in two weeks. It will be interesting to all parties here to see how my dyno numbers change at the same boost level. Grant it, it will of course be a different dynojet, but the concept of tuning at high altitude and then two weeks later tuning at sea level is going to be a great experiment to compare the two numbers!!! I will post both results in two weeks boosting at 17psi.
As stated before numbers are just numbers. Todd car is insanely fast and living here at this altitude you are in much thinner air.
I dynoed at 17psi with the following and the only differences in Todd's car and mine are...
I have 8.6:1 CR, Todd has 9:1
I was running 17psi, Todd is running 16psi.
I dynoed on 19s/285s, Todd dynoed on 17s/245s
Thats it. My numbers...
564rwhp/561 ft-lbs....SAE corrected for 5500 feet, aka sea level.
468rwhp/465.4ft-lbs uncorrected
Okay, but here is the clincher...I will be doing a sea level retune in two weeks. It will be interesting to all parties here to see how my dyno numbers change at the same boost level. Grant it, it will of course be a different dynojet, but the concept of tuning at high altitude and then two weeks later tuning at sea level is going to be a great experiment to compare the two numbers!!! I will post both results in two weeks boosting at 17psi.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 430
Likes: 1
From: Nuclear Power
Originally Posted by gq_626
You and Ernie both have insanely fast cars now. Just enjoy them...numbers are just numbers.
Now, WTF...did you spend all your benjamins on the car???? What's up with snapping a photo of your wheel lip with your hand as a reference marker.
Slap down a C-Note brotha!!!!
Now, WTF...did you spend all your benjamins on the car???? What's up with snapping a photo of your wheel lip with your hand as a reference marker.
Slap down a C-Note brotha!!!!
But, today at the car show.....
Thread Starter
Sponsor
builtZmotors
builtZmotors
iTrader: (21)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 0
From: Albuquerque, NM
Originally Posted by gq_626
Now, WTF...did you spend all your benjamins on the car???? What's up with snapping a photo of your wheel lip with your hand as a reference marker.
Slap down a C-Note brotha!!!!
Slap down a C-Note brotha!!!!
or...do you mean like this?
ok, ok...like this
Thread Starter
Sponsor
builtZmotors
builtZmotors
iTrader: (21)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 0
From: Albuquerque, NM
Originally Posted by going deep
Okay, but here is the clincher...I will be doing a sea level retune in two weeks. It will be interesting to all parties here to see how my dyno numbers change at the same boost level. Grant it, it will of course be a different dynojet, but the concept of tuning at high altitude and then two weeks later tuning at sea level is going to be a great experiment to compare the two numbers!!! I will post both results in two weeks boosting at 17psi.
i can't wait,,, maybe we can establish an accurate correction factor, once and for all...
