Sure...I order my turbo kit and now Jim wolf decides to release his kit soon.

 

definatly a valid concern... something only testing could determine... and I am no engineer, but personally I am not visualizing that problem happening.

 

JWT should have/will put alot of time into the development and testing. Lets just hope they've done their homework, and come out w/ a complete kit.

btw, wtf are we doing @ 3:15am posting? lol

 

funny cause I was wondering the same thing in my head... 2:15 for me... g/f is passed out on the couch next to me... and i think i woke up at 3pm today (had a long b/d party for a friend friday night) so i still got a while to go!

 

yah...crazy isnt it

 

Can anybody comment on what it would sound like? JWT says there is no blow off valve, instead they will have dual bypass valves that recirculate. Will this make any noise at all like a blowoff valve or will it be quiet as hell? My friend's GTI has a stock bypass valve and he bought a diverter for it. When he put the CAI on it sounds like he has a blowoff valve on there. When he revs the engine it lets out a loud wooooshhhh.

 

Sorry, off the topic but Underpressure what kind of trailer do you have for your Z? I would pm you but I kept getting an error

 

Got rid of that trailer long ago. I have a 16ft Featherlight for work and a 28ft enclosed for play.

 

I know that Greddy stock fuel system has left much to be desired in either completeness or quality, but I tought that the APS TT has taking care of this on their fuel system.

Cesar
Orlando FL
Soon power by APS

 

Thanks

 

i just wanted to post this link in case anyone missed it - it's the G35 version of the JWT design

http://www.jimwolftechnology.com/TTINFO/ttindex.htm

and here's an overlay graph I made of the APS kit at 9.2 psi with test pipes and exhaust vs stock JWT TT that I posted in another thread

 

Greddy doesnt even come with a fuel system to complain about.

 

Comparing dyno pulls from different dyno mfgs is not an valid comparison. The only way to compare the 2 runs would be is they were done on the same mfg dyno, and even then, unless they were run w/ the same parameters the runs would not be comparable.

What would be more telling would be to look @ the boost vs rpm graph. This would show response and performance.


Good work on overlaying the graphs though.

 

The dyno plot for the JWT indicates a boost pressure of 7.4-8.2 PSI which is higher than the production spec of 6.8 psi.

 

yeah I know the dynos are different and in different climates etc - CA vs Australia, but thought it was interesting to look at nonetheless. Makes you wonder what the JWT graph would look like with test pipes and exhaust at 9.2 psi...

 

The telling information would be to look @ boost vs rpm. Those are numbers that any dyno can measure and are not able to be manipulated by the end user. Well @ least not easily. That would be more of an apples to apples comparison.

 

This has always been one of my major defenses for the Dynojet 248 graphs... the dynojet may not be the most high tech dyno out there... its actually the most LOW tech dyno, but there is not a user adjustable setting here that will allow me to effect its output, the only thing i can do is change around correction factors. There are no parameters that you speak of on the dynojet, which is why its the dyno for preference when it comes to internet based comparisons between one car or another.

There was a thread where you mentioned that dynojets have higher numbers compared to the standard settings defaulted in these load dynos, which i bet is true coming from someone as qualified as you. But then at the end of that post you made you commented on how all the high tech load dyno operators can easily effect the output numbers to their favor, which is why I try not and put too much consideration into graphs produced on those type of dynos when I want to compare it to the performance of my own car.

Even looking at the graph that JWT posted, there is no freaking way that car is making 380ft lb of torque at 2000 rpm!! That is why in my post above where i mentioned this graph I only commented on at what RPM you can see that it acheived max boost.... just like how the SGP racing dynopack graph of Abdullas car shows it climbing 210lb ft from 4000rpm to 4500rpm... and that is just NOT AT ALL the boost profile of a greddy kit car, on their dynojet graph of that car you see it climb only 50lb ft from 4-4.5. This is much more realistic as to how that car will drive on the road... On the road you have your load coming from 3 major sources... the weight of the car (which is STATIC), the drivetrain, and the aero... on the dynojet you get 2 of those.... you get the weight of the rollers (A high STATIC load) instead of the weight of the car (which for most cars is actually less load and will make the turbos spool up slower and produce less boost then they do on the road), the drivetrain (including how your wheels/tires and alignment are effecting the power your putting down.. most people do not understanding how much HP you can really eat up with an aggressive alignment and sticky tires... my car looses a lot of power when I run it on the dyno with the drag radials versus my street tires).... the only thing the dynojet doesnt include is the aero but the resistence of that is not something you should judge against your vehicles output to the wheels.

The load based dynos have no mass to them at all, meaning the load provided is by a programmed brake and its not NEARLY static. I have witnessed pulls on a load based dyno and its almost annoying how you can hear the load change thruout the run... while tuning this is probably very useful, but when you want to get a realistic output graph from the car there is no way to possible have a less accurate graph then to be having the load constantly changing. There is a LOT OF WORK done by the load dyno before you get some type of calculated output number which may or may not even mean anything at all. With a dynojet there is nothing but a massive weighted roller and there is no arguement that it takes a given ammount of energy to spin that up to speed at a given rate. Therefore there is absolutely nothing one can do to effect the numbers.... other then putting the atmospherical temp sensor in an oven so that your SAE numbers overcorrect... but thats a lot more work then a few wrong keystrokes by a dyno operator that probably never read the 300 page manual for his load dyno.

Underpressure... being that you are a sales rep for a Dyno Dynamics, I would love to get in a nice long dyno arguement with you, maybe we should take it PM or voice. I have never tried to preach that the dynojet is a very nice dyno... but I will argue to the death that there is no better dyno to use for comparisons purpose and for consistencies sake... but maybe YOU could teach me a few things... I have known for a long time the benefits of ease you get when TUNING a car on a load dyno... but in every dyno arguement I get in, consistently and compariability (is that a word?) are what I defend.

 

I dont agree, I have watched a load based dyno start a run, then hold the car at a specified RPM for a few moments (which would be like brake boosting a laggy turbos to spool it before you race) and then "release" for the run. There is no doubt in my mind that this is going to build up turbine speed at unrealistic rates and taint the output graph.

 

I agree with some of what you say and disagree w/ some other items.
I'll be happy to talk dyno w/ you off thread.

The only points I have made in this thread are just about the comparison between dynos, and to make sure that people do not misread/misinterpret graphs. Just trying to educate people, not saying anything is better or worse.

Back to the thread, sorry for the hijack.

Charles, Check your PM's

 

sounds good... ill PM you later about it.

aww, i love hijacking.