SFR turbo system 640WHP @ 14psi
BTW...if this was done in Evergreen, CO (7040'), then the correction factor is 28.93%. So, would be 496hp/411lb-ft, just to illustrate the point.
So, where is this shop located, city/state please.
So, where is this shop located, city/state please.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: USA
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
Don't mean to take away anything from the numbers, but i can't believe no one has made a point about the SAE correction... SAE correction is NOT valid at such high elevations FOR TURBO CARS, assuming that this was done near Englewood, COLORADO (5369'), where Juztin's location is? SAE dynamometer corrections was instituted to predict (rather accurately) performance of NATURALLY ASPIRATED cars at different altitudes and temperatures, by essentially computing density altitude.
Here is the formula: CF=1.18[(990/press)xSqrt((temp+273)/298)]-0.18
(pressure is in millibars, temperature in celcius)
So, with pressure of 831 millibars at that elevation (approximately) and a temperature of about 50-55 at 3:40pm (we'll use 50degF=10degC), the correcton factor is a rather high 1.1899, or additional 19%. SO whatever number it measured, it added 19%. That's huge. So, at sea level, that's 538hp/446lb-ft and NOT 640hp/531lb-ft.
SAE correction is not an issue if you are near sea level, since it's small, and does not skew the numbers. Englewood, CO is at 5369' above sea level, with a high of 57degF on the 21st; I am assuming the temp was not much different on the 20th of February.
I am just doing this for the sake of integrity. Numbers lie all the time, and must be interpreted correctly. This is what happens on public forums, where people can come in and post things, sounding like they know their stuff, and mislead everyone. I am only saying this to bring some objectivity, that's all, my opinion of that turbo kit notwithstanding.
Now, if this was NOT done in Colorado, than that's something else, but i am sure it was.
Here is the formula: CF=1.18[(990/press)xSqrt((temp+273)/298)]-0.18
(pressure is in millibars, temperature in celcius)
So, with pressure of 831 millibars at that elevation (approximately) and a temperature of about 50-55 at 3:40pm (we'll use 50degF=10degC), the correcton factor is a rather high 1.1899, or additional 19%. SO whatever number it measured, it added 19%. That's huge. So, at sea level, that's 538hp/446lb-ft and NOT 640hp/531lb-ft.
SAE correction is not an issue if you are near sea level, since it's small, and does not skew the numbers. Englewood, CO is at 5369' above sea level, with a high of 57degF on the 21st; I am assuming the temp was not much different on the 20th of February.
I am just doing this for the sake of integrity. Numbers lie all the time, and must be interpreted correctly. This is what happens on public forums, where people can come in and post things, sounding like they know their stuff, and mislead everyone. I am only saying this to bring some objectivity, that's all, my opinion of that turbo kit notwithstanding.
Now, if this was NOT done in Colorado, than that's something else, but i am sure it was.
. Now 538, I think ya that is about right. makes sense...
Last edited by VQ-TECH; Feb 23, 2007 at 08:42 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: USA
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
BTW...if this was done in Evergreen, CO (7040'), then the correction factor is 28.93%. So, would be 496hp/411lb-ft, just to illustrate the point.
So, where is this shop located, city/state please.
So, where is this shop located, city/state please.
Originally Posted by TurboTim
With bigger turbos you move more air per psi of boost which is what makes the difference.
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
BTW...if this was done in Evergreen, CO (7040'), then the correction factor is 28.93%. So, would be 496hp/411lb-ft, just to illustrate the point.
So, where is this shop located, city/state please.
So, where is this shop located, city/state please.
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
Don't mean to take away anything from the numbers, but i can't believe no one has made a point about the SAE correction... SAE correction is NOT valid at such high elevations FOR TURBO CARS, assuming that this was done near Englewood, COLORADO (5369'), where Juztin's location is? SAE dynamometer corrections was instituted to predict (rather accurately) performance of NATURALLY ASPIRATED cars at different altitudes and temperatures, by essentially computing density altitude.
Here is the formula: CF=1.18[(990/press)xSqrt((temp+273)/298)]-0.18
(pressure is in millibars, temperature in celcius)
So, with pressure of 831 millibars at that elevation (approximately) and a temperature of about 50-55 at 3:40pm (we'll use 50degF=10degC), the correcton factor is a rather high 1.1899, or additional 19%. SO whatever number it measured, it added 19%. That's huge. So, at sea level, that's 538hp/446lb-ft and NOT 640hp/531lb-ft.
SAE correction is not an issue if you are near sea level, since it's small, and does not skew the numbers. Englewood, CO is at 5369' above sea level, with a high of 57degF on the 21st; I am assuming the temp was not much different on the 20th of February.
I am just doing this for the sake of integrity. Numbers lie all the time, and must be interpreted correctly. This is what happens on public forums, where people can come in and post things, sounding like they know their stuff, and mislead everyone. I am only saying this to bring some objectivity, that's all, my opinion of that turbo kit notwithstanding.
Now, if this was NOT done in Colorado, than that's something else, but i am sure it was.
Here is the formula: CF=1.18[(990/press)xSqrt((temp+273)/298)]-0.18
(pressure is in millibars, temperature in celcius)
So, with pressure of 831 millibars at that elevation (approximately) and a temperature of about 50-55 at 3:40pm (we'll use 50degF=10degC), the correcton factor is a rather high 1.1899, or additional 19%. SO whatever number it measured, it added 19%. That's huge. So, at sea level, that's 538hp/446lb-ft and NOT 640hp/531lb-ft.
SAE correction is not an issue if you are near sea level, since it's small, and does not skew the numbers. Englewood, CO is at 5369' above sea level, with a high of 57degF on the 21st; I am assuming the temp was not much different on the 20th of February.
I am just doing this for the sake of integrity. Numbers lie all the time, and must be interpreted correctly. This is what happens on public forums, where people can come in and post things, sounding like they know their stuff, and mislead everyone. I am only saying this to bring some objectivity, that's all, my opinion of that turbo kit notwithstanding.
Now, if this was NOT done in Colorado, than that's something else, but i am sure it was.
Looks like the slice and dice over dyno numbers is officially in effect for this thread...
It's actually kind of frustrating that instead of people taking time to learn how a shop got to a certain number, they spend all of the time cutting up the dyno, correction factor, etc. Makes the thread pointless in the end.
Anyway, I think the "norm" for dyno results on this board is DynoJet, STD correction. If you post up something using this combo, it would help to stop some of the bickering.
Just my
It's actually kind of frustrating that instead of people taking time to learn how a shop got to a certain number, they spend all of the time cutting up the dyno, correction factor, etc. Makes the thread pointless in the end.
Anyway, I think the "norm" for dyno results on this board is DynoJet, STD correction. If you post up something using this combo, it would help to stop some of the bickering.
Just my
Originally Posted by S1AMEZE
Looks like the slice and dice over dyno numbers is officially in effect for this thread...
It's actually kind of frustrating that instead of people taking time to learn how a shop got to a certain number, they spend all of the time cutting up the dyno, correction factor, etc. Makes the thread pointless in the end.
Anyway, I think the "norm" for dyno results on this board is DynoJet, STD correction. If you post up something using this combo, it would help to stop some of the bickering.
Just my
It's actually kind of frustrating that instead of people taking time to learn how a shop got to a certain number, they spend all of the time cutting up the dyno, correction factor, etc. Makes the thread pointless in the end.
Anyway, I think the "norm" for dyno results on this board is DynoJet, STD correction. If you post up something using this combo, it would help to stop some of the bickering.
Just my
It's not about "cutting up the dyno". It's about someone making a "look how much power we made on only 14lbs" post and leaving out key details like the elevation of the dyno run, which makes a HUGE difference in numbers.
If I went and fabbed up a turbo kit for some car, and dyno'd it up at a high elevation somewhere, used SAE correction and then posted the numbers on that respective car's forum without explaining that you're not going to make the same numbers in the real world...that would make potential buyers kinda pissed...don't you think?
Kudos to SFR for making a turbo kit with "potential" for huge power. Now lets see what kind of numbers this thing makes @ sea level @ 20lbs
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
Kudos to SFR for making a turbo kit with "potential" for huge power. Now lets see what kind of numbers this thing makes @ sea level @ 20lbs
I volunteer!
Due to altitude the uncorrected HP is around a 100+ less which varies as you get more power. My 500 dyno was very low 4's uncorrected. SAE vs STD is only a couple hp/tq difference. This kit would easily make BIG power at sea level as it does up here. Those turbo's flow some serious air. Of course, the purpose of correct is to estimate how much power a car up here would make at sea level. So even though I only make 400ish uncorrected if I took it down to Cali it should pump out 500 bla bla bla.
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
It's not about "cutting up the dyno". It's about someone making a "look how much power we made on only 14lbs" post and leaving out key details like the elevation of the dyno run, which makes a HUGE difference in numbers.
If I went and fabbed up a turbo kit for some car, and dyno'd it up at a high elevation somewhere, used SAE correction and then posted the numbers on that respective car's forum without explaining that you're not going to make the same numbers in the real world...that would make potential buyers kinda pissed...don't you think?
Kudos to SFR for making a turbo kit with "potential" for huge power. Now lets see what kind of numbers this thing makes @ sea level @ 20lbs
If I went and fabbed up a turbo kit for some car, and dyno'd it up at a high elevation somewhere, used SAE correction and then posted the numbers on that respective car's forum without explaining that you're not going to make the same numbers in the real world...that would make potential buyers kinda pissed...don't you think?
Kudos to SFR for making a turbo kit with "potential" for huge power. Now lets see what kind of numbers this thing makes @ sea level @ 20lbs
Originally Posted by QuadCam
seems like the only great measuring stick to see who's d!ck is bigger is the 1/4 mile. There are too many different dyno and adjustments to fairly compare.
Then all the non drivers or guys who run at less than ideal tracks get their panties in a bunch over why they run .8 slower than others, its a never ending battle....
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: USA
Originally Posted by roncfpz
+1........well said BriGuy. It's simply an issue of proper disclosure so consumers can make informed decisions. I'm glad Gurgen clarified and I still give props to SFR.
A 7000ft altitude is roughly a 130hp loss, so at sea level you get that 130hp back. So in theory his car would make 640hp at sealevel and 510 or so at 7000ft. That is going by NA numbers, turbocharged engines lose less hp at higher elevations compared to a NA engine. At my altitude wich is around 3700ft roughly i lose around 30-40hp NA.
http://5es.spreadsheets.google.com/c...59845650576187
http://5es.spreadsheets.google.com/c...59845650576187
Last edited by rocks; Feb 23, 2007 at 08:58 AM.
Thread Starter
Vendor - Former Vendor
iTrader: (11)
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
You know what guys,I think this is BS.We are talking about a car at 5000+ ft of elevation and BTW, I mentioned in this thread and a couple others that this car was dynoed up at elevation. So if you feel I didnt disclose this information,then maybe you should read more thoroughly. Take your car that has made big numbers at sea level to the dyno a mile up in the sky and see what you guys make up there and then come back and talk to me.You will make 100 horsepower less at the same boost level. Does that mean it magically disappeared somewhere? NO. It means that the air is less dense up there, hence the lower power numbers.This is why a correction factor is used and should not be disregarded,especially at elevation. Does anyone not even see the powerband is way different with this set-up then any other turbo kit available for the Z? I guess not. Its cool though because we will post some huge dynos at sea level on a Dyno Dynamices, on a Dynojet, with SAE corrected numbers, STD numbers, etc........The dyno shop we use has a Dynojet and three Dyno Dynamics
So now lets question everybodys dynos if it is going to come down to it. I will start with Phunk(Actually there is no question is my mind Phunk but I am using your dyno to make a point) Phunk made 573 @14.5 psi. Has anyone ever questioned this dyno because if you do speak up now! There was an overlay of his dyno and Kevins dyno in this thread. Phunk had some headwork and otherwise it was a very similiar set-up except he was running Greddy turbos and had slightly lower compression,I beleive. That extra psi of compression is easily worth 20 horsepower which would theoretically put Phunk at 593WHP at the same boost level. Now we are really talking about a 40 horsepower difference.YOU DONT THINK TWO 60-1 HI-FI'S WITH STAGE 3 TURBINE WHEELS AND .63AR TURBINE HOUSINGS CAN FLOW 40 MORE HORSEPOWER AT 14 PSI OF BOOST OVER THE GREDDYS with 20G's comp and their little tiny turbine wheels and hotsides? Then you better read up a little on thermal dynamics and give some Turbo manufactuers a call Like Turbonetics or Precision and see what they have to say.
It is sort of funny, no matter what we do, we are always questioned.We have customers tune their own set-ups on unbiased dynos, we get questioned. ALL of our dynos are done at unbiased shops.We dont own our own dyno for one reason........and that is because there is always going to be someone out there that beleives you will manipulate your reults to make your products appear to be btter then other companies products.So even when we have unbiased dynos,we get the same treatment.
So now lets question everybodys dynos if it is going to come down to it. I will start with Phunk(Actually there is no question is my mind Phunk but I am using your dyno to make a point) Phunk made 573 @14.5 psi. Has anyone ever questioned this dyno because if you do speak up now! There was an overlay of his dyno and Kevins dyno in this thread. Phunk had some headwork and otherwise it was a very similiar set-up except he was running Greddy turbos and had slightly lower compression,I beleive. That extra psi of compression is easily worth 20 horsepower which would theoretically put Phunk at 593WHP at the same boost level. Now we are really talking about a 40 horsepower difference.YOU DONT THINK TWO 60-1 HI-FI'S WITH STAGE 3 TURBINE WHEELS AND .63AR TURBINE HOUSINGS CAN FLOW 40 MORE HORSEPOWER AT 14 PSI OF BOOST OVER THE GREDDYS with 20G's comp and their little tiny turbine wheels and hotsides? Then you better read up a little on thermal dynamics and give some Turbo manufactuers a call Like Turbonetics or Precision and see what they have to say.
It is sort of funny, no matter what we do, we are always questioned.We have customers tune their own set-ups on unbiased dynos, we get questioned. ALL of our dynos are done at unbiased shops.We dont own our own dyno for one reason........and that is because there is always going to be someone out there that beleives you will manipulate your reults to make your products appear to be btter then other companies products.So even when we have unbiased dynos,we get the same treatment.
Thread Starter
Vendor - Former Vendor
iTrader: (11)
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by BriGuyMax
It's not about "cutting up the dyno". It's about someone making a "look how much power we made on only 14lbs" post and leaving out key details like the elevation of the dyno run, which makes a HUGE difference in numbers.
If I went and fabbed up a turbo kit for some car, and dyno'd it up at a high elevation somewhere, used SAE correction and then posted the numbers on that respective car's forum without explaining that you're not going to make the same numbers in the real world...that would make potential buyers kinda pissed...don't you think?
Kudos to SFR for making a turbo kit with "potential" for huge power. Now lets see what kind of numbers this thing makes @ sea level @ 20lbs
If I went and fabbed up a turbo kit for some car, and dyno'd it up at a high elevation somewhere, used SAE correction and then posted the numbers on that respective car's forum without explaining that you're not going to make the same numbers in the real world...that would make potential buyers kinda pissed...don't you think?
Kudos to SFR for making a turbo kit with "potential" for huge power. Now lets see what kind of numbers this thing makes @ sea level @ 20lbs
I have $1000 to put up if you are willing to bring your car upto 5200ft elevation and dyno it and see if it makes the same power as it does at sea level if you are game?