Sam@GTM

iTrader: (7)

I think Tim is talking about this thread .

https://my350z.com/forum/forced-induction/264712-jwt-tt-dynos-at-5800ft-corrected-and-uncorrected.html

There is is a lot of miss information in that thread, I will need to clarify few things later today, and I will post the first and the last dyno charts .the car did not leave with 369 to the wheels.sorry for the short explanation ,I got get back to work .

Sam

GT MOTORSPORTS

TurboTim

iTrader: (11)

Thanks Sam. At least then we can have some data to make some comparisons with.

Kenk2

iTrader: (7)

I would like to know what is it that is going to make everyone happy here? What is it that Kevin and Tim or whomever can post up that will have everyone saying "heck of a nice car Kevin! You did a great job with your build, esp. since you did it all on your own.." Yea it sucks, I guess, that he lives @ 5800 Ft. but isnt there supposed to be some type of system or equation or ? to take care of ths BS?? I mean seriously, this is kinda outta hand.. Even if he is pushing 650-680 it STILL a great job, PERIOD! Come on now, why all the BS??

kevinapex

iTrader: (22)

Thanks man!!, I'm happy with the car, I have met some great folks through MY350z, the hp# to me are a good rule of thumb... thats about it. Because there is no solid industry standard, and so many influencing factors on the #s. Thanks for your kind words man, they mean a lot to me.
Kevin Gilman

skidmarq

iTrader: (9)

Ditto that from me, Kevin. Any way you slice it, you have a beast of a ride!

Really, it only matters what you think anyway

Have fun with that monster and be safe!!!

Sharif@Forged

iTrader: (92)

Kevin congrats on finally getting your car where it needed to be. And looks like your fuel system problems are history. Nice work!

kevinapex

iTrader: (22)

The fuel pressure drop is history, the twin Walbro 255s push 70 psi of fuel pressure at 20 psi of boost, no dips or drops at all. I will still have to be carefull below 1/4 tank.... but thats ok.

Sharif@Forged

iTrader: (92)

Did you just run the second walbro inline? I forgot what your solution was.

kevinapex

iTrader: (22)

No, it's in the tank.

Devil Z

iTrader: (6)

I don't care what the Dyno says.

Because that car is probably powerful.

RETARDEDLY POWEFUL.

Nice car Kevin.

kevinapex

iTrader: (22)

Durning the tune, it was at 18 psi., the tuner went up .7psi. to 18.7, it gained 12hp in that .7psi increase. That's crazzy to me, I wish I could push to 23-24!!!

hr2burn

iTrader: (1)

Sometime we have to take a drive to lower elevation.
1.) they drive would be a KICK!
2.) We could see the number with no correction and blow people's minds!!

I think Kevin came accross an issue many have had and will have, suppling enough fuel.He trialed and errored different solutions. He came up with a fairly easy fix...I'm sure this will save others that search and come accross his threads a HUGE HEADACHE!
Ask yourself, "what did I bring to the my350z table"?
I gotta invent something Damn!t!!!!
Jman

GSoccer24

iTrader: (1)

sweet numbers, sick car

Kenk2

iTrader: (7)

No Problem man.. I, like yourself, installed my turbo kit, granted I didn't have a motor to pull then put a built one back in, but I know what its like trying to get your car from tore up from the floor up --> instant smilies! You have had a long road and you deff. did it the right way!

K

TurboTim

iTrader: (11)

Here is a link to the video that is not crazy huge.this video is under 3MB so it loads pretty quickly.

http://www.speedforceracing.com/videos/740dyno.wmv

TurboTim

iTrader: (11)

Here is the charts that were in question......

https://my350z.com/forum/forced-induction/264712-jwt-tt-dynos-at-5800ft-corrected-and-uncorrected-2.html


Not to be a dead horse but to prove a point about Dynojet corrections........So the car with the JWT kit did in fact make 369 at GTM! It did not leve that way like Sam said since they tuned it and it actually lost a bit of horespower for safety.It ended up at 344WHP.I can understand and accept this. So now back to the topic at hand.........the correction factor on a Dynojet and the overall results are nearly identical whether it is at sea level or at 5800 ft. If anyone wants to argue about this more........ then argue with the charts and not me Again.....I am not saying that kevins numbers are exact but they are alot closer then people are implying.Take care.

plumpzz

iTrader: (10)

Ofcourse it should be corrected. Even though the boost will read 14psi or 12psi, thats guage pressure. The atmosphere is also doing work to force air into the engine cyclinder. At higher elevations, the atmospheric pressure is lower. Im willing to be the atmospheric pressure at his elevation is in the low-mid 20's inchs of hg (accounting for 24% correction)

The standard for dynojets are these data points:
"The ICAO standard conditions for zero density altitude are 0 meters altitude, 15 deg C (59 deg F) air temp, 1013.25 mb (29.921 in-Hg) pressure and 0 % relative humidity. "

- http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm

GurgenPB

iTrader: (2)

wow Tim, I was hoping you wouldn't utter those comments out loud, it really makes you sound like am amateur. Google SAE correction, that will answer your questions, if you truly want to finally and once-and-for-all learn what it means.

And what you call "proof is undeniable" is neither proof, nor is it undeniable.

To make things simple, forget 'boost' and only look at MAP. A car developing X amount of absolute pressure(whatever boost control setting it takes) will make about the same amount of power (save 1-3% for turbo efficiency changes at altitude, which is negligible). So when you say 18psi of boost, is that reading from a MAP sensor (most likely, which ASSUMES 14.7 psi ambient)), you are running 18+14.7psi=32.7psi absolute. That means that you are ACTUALLY running 20.7psi of actual boost at ~7000' , where ambient pressure is ~12 psi and not 14.7. Boost is defined as amount over ambient. So, take your car down to sea level with the boost controller untouched (assuming it's a 'dumb' controller), and you will be making true 20.7psi of boost over an ambient of 14.7 (not 12), for an absolute pressure of 35.4psi of boost (not 32.7 you were making at altitude). That's why your car corrected numbers will not change much and show the same higher numbers you got at altitude, and that's the REAL REASON for your 369 vs 367 comparison; the car still makes 369 at sea level because of higher MAP.

Understand now?

plumpzz

iTrader: (10)

Why would MAP assume 14.7 psi? That would mean that a stock car would run overly rich at higher altitudes stock from the factory?
If your assumption IS indeed correct, then I dont see anything else wrong with your theory.
I don't think that the computer would assume 14.7 psi as being atmospheric pressure because that would throw quite a few calculations made by it off by some. The only thing wrong with my theory is that mechanical devices are not usually adjusted to have guage pressure be the actual atmospheric pressure. So to a mechanical device, guage pressure will be 14.7 psi, and if it actually is 14 psi atmospheric (at a higher eelvation), then the guage would start at -0.7 psi, and to correct this issue, would build more pressure when the turbines spin up.

On N/A cars, this is a non-issue and the correction factor should definately be used.

plumpzz

iTrader: (10)

edit: To avoid confusion, by mechanical devices i mean wastegate springs, and the coil spring in a mechanical boost guage.
A simple way we can find out is if he goes to the track and we can compare the trap speed
If hes using an electronic boost controller..then...no one knows haha.