Julian@MRC

iTrader: (28)

Why would he not want to use this correction? 99.9% of the DJ in the US use it....Are you implying that his dyno is overcorrected?

Chris@SP

Awesome numbers and setup!

Put the car back further on the rollers and you'll be fine.

Chris

BriGuyMax

iTrader: (4)

I'm not implying it. I'm flat out saying it is. This was BEAT TO DEATH in his last dyno thread. There are no correction factors for forced induction cars at elevation like there are for N/A cars. Applying an SAE or STD correction factor to a dyno preformed at a significantly higher elevation than SL (1500msl or greater) will produce inflated numbers. End of story. It sucks, but it's nearly impossible to make an accurate comparison number wise to a forced induction vehicle dyno'd at SL vs one at a relatively high elevation correction factor or not. If you want to further discuss this topic in a reasonable manner we can open another thread or do it over PM. However, I suggest you fully read over the previous thread beforehand, because we're basically beating a dead horse here.

Here's a link to the thread:
https://my350z.com/forum/forced-induction/251273-sfr-turbo-system-640whp-14psi.html

TurboTim

iTrader: (11)

Bri,

We understand what you are saying but there is now two more dynos that are in-line with Kevins results.One of these cars dynoed at Jotech(very close to sea level) @ 18 psi.It made 639 at 5800 rpms and had some other issues that popped up so they stopped the tuning.We dynoed a G35 at the Dyno Shop(750ft elevation) and it made 531@ 12.8 psi vs. Kevins 541@12.2 psi. Kevins also has cams and our car does not. So I think Kevins numbers are not off as far as some people might like to beleive. I am not saying they are completely accurate but I think they are close and we will have some more dyno numbers at sea level very soon so we can make some accurate comparisons.

Julian@MRC

iTrader: (28)

I tell you what..As soon as I get my darn intercooler, Ill show you a real SEA LEVEL 800whp dyno..

hr2burn

iTrader: (1)

Seriously...let's do the debate on a different thread. Some of you guys are like bad roomates.
On another note that's interesting about pulling the car back some on the rollers to stop the tires from breaking loose.
Alright Kev, I thinks it's time for drag slicks for that monster but then you would HAVE TO change axles etc....
Jman

kevinapex

iTrader: (22)

I'm all for it man!!! Thanks for the support.

PORTUGEE

iTrader: (2)

Check out my Dyno run today in Albuquerque NM. 5800ft above sea level. Why is the uncorrected number so low vs other cars at sea level with the same set up.

JWT TT stock motor, stock cats = 300 rwhp? The only thing I can think of is altitude.

PORTUGEE

iTrader: (2)

Uncorrected

PORTUGEE

iTrader: (2)

Corrected. This dyno is more in line with normal JWT TT on stock block numbers.

z33boi

iTrader: (21)

im assuming this was 740rwhp with no sleeves from reading your sig. thats amazing

hr2burn

iTrader: (1)

So Portugee you went Turbo? I bet you wished you had that JWT clutch now!
It's working great for me!
What is the altitude there in NM?
Sean

PORTUGEE

iTrader: (2)

Yeah man, I'm gonna need that clutch back. j/k

Glad it's workin out for ya, I'll probably be buying another one pretty soon here. Did you install on a stock flywheel?

We are at 5800 feet above sea level.

TurboTim

iTrader: (11)

Be careful because some of these guys will flat out say that the Dynojet correction factor is sraight up wrong! Actually one of them already did! Its not exact and nothing in life is but it is pretty close, in my opinion. So anyways............you are at 300WHP so deal with it

TurboTim

iTrader: (11)

I told Kevin to turn it up to 24psi, 28psi and see what happens

PORTUGEE

iTrader: (2)

This altitude is a b!tch

Enron Exec

+1

Using that high of a correction factor on an FI vehicle at alt is overcompensation. Since every other shop at alt uses a different correction factor, it would be more honest to just compare uncorrected numbers. Either way, gratz on the successful build.

TurboTim

iTrader: (11)

Then how come the vehicle with the JWT kit made 369 horsepower corrected at sea level and 367 horsepower corrected at 5800 altitude, if the SAE correction factor is, indeed too high? Someone please explain this to me since the proof is right here and as far as I see it, the proof is undeniable.Especially when you cannot change the SAE correction on the Dynojet.

BriGuyMax

iTrader: (4)

I don't see a Dyno sheet that shows what he made at SL corrected or not. He claimed that GT motorsports told him that's what it made, but you're acting like there's proof sitting here. Not to mention we don't know what's changed between the two dyno runs...if there was ever even a first one.

Enron Exec

What vehicle is that? I dont know anything about it so i cant honeslty comment.

Without going into details, static compression < dynamic compression at alt. A turbine is going to feed an engine way better then some reciprocating pistons at alt. Look at propeller planes and jets. Who flies higher and why?

Your car made 595 rwhp at 5800 ft, thats all you have to say. Thats pretty impressive all by itself. Again, my hat off to you. But if you honestly think using a correction factor designed for NA aplications on an FI car, your butt is gonna sorely be mistaking when you line up to a true 740 rwhp car.