Notices
Forced Induction Turbochargers and Superchargers..Got Boost?

Function:TUNED – 563.7 DynoDynamics (REAL) RWHP - STOCK MOTOR!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 2, 2007 | 08:50 PM
  #81  
GTM's Avatar
GTM
Vendor - Former Vendor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 1
From: California
Default

Congrats on testing Dave, I am glad to see other people are testing the limits of our motors besides us There are a few things I disagree with and a few things about my car that might be unclear.

My personal G35 made 528rwhp @ 12psi on 93 octane. I drove the car for weeks on the street at 12 and 14 psi. I took the car to Willow Springs raceway with a few friends and filled it up with 100octane for added safety. The car was ran at 14psi ALL DAY. After 90+miles on the track (reset trip computer when I got there) the engine finally gave. The car was making over 550whp at this point, and I was driving the hell out of it, some where saying it seemed liked I was "trying to blow it up", which I was

If my car didn't blow at the track we were going to tune it for even higher numbers ( over 600rwhp ) and Sam felt very confident in doing so which is why I am not contesting your numbers.

What I do disagree with is how you like to call your Dyno Dynamics readings "REAL" numbers compared to a Dynojet. If anything the Dynojet's numbers should be considered "REAL" since they cannot be altered in anyway other than choosing the type of correction you would like to use.

On your Dyno Dynamics dyno you can make the numbers lower, the same, or higher than a Dynojet's readings very easily. So for you to say that your 563rwhp would be over 600rwhp on a Dynojet then you should have dyno'd it on a Dynojet. (Some people don't want to just "take your word for it" that you didn't apply any correction factors, at the end of the day only you would know the truth)

What I am getting at is there is no way for anyone to know if that car made 500whp, 560whp, or 600whp. If you want to compare numbers of the internet then a Dynojet is the BEST dyno for comparison across the internet.

Now, I do agree that the Dyno Dynamics is much easier to tune with and saves the tuner much time street tuning a car, but this does not mean that a competent tuner cannot tune a given car just as well on a Dynojet than on a Dyno Dynamics, Especially if the given tuner as been using the Dynojet for many years. Also to say that a Dynojet is not a tool tuning tool is rather inaccurate since we have been using it as a tuning tool for many years, as well as many shops for many different platforms across the country

None the less, nice job.

-George
GT Motorsports

EDIT: Here is a link to my Track day thread with video
https://my350z.com/forum/questionable-posts/250645-my-track-day-testing-results-gtm-14psi-stock-block-550whp.html

Last edited by GTM; May 2, 2007 at 08:59 PM.
Reply
Old May 2, 2007 | 08:52 PM
  #82  
GTM's Avatar
GTM
Vendor - Former Vendor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 1
From: California
Default

Originally Posted by eagletanggreen
Maybe there was issues with that tune, who knows? My tuner gave me a 400hp car and I am running 11.9's and ******* the pi$$ out of it. Mr Fcon keep A/F in check it adjust to keep running the target A/F. I might be wrong I am not a tuner, so take that and anything I say with a grain of salt. I still belive its in the tune.

Thawk now you just jinks me, Ill porbably blow my motor this weekend at the track, and its all your fault

Nope, There was nothing wrong with my car or the tune. Just the amount of stress put on the car at the track, I doubt anyones stock engine would last at 550whp on a stock block at a full day event on a road course.

-George
GT Motorsports
Reply
Old May 2, 2007 | 09:56 PM
  #83  
turismo's Avatar
turismo
Registered User
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,448
Likes: 0
From: curl lookin boy
Default

Nice numbers Function! Nice to see some more 350's pushed to the limits.
Reply
Old May 2, 2007 | 11:10 PM
  #84  
El Verdugo's Avatar
El Verdugo
New Member
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 620
Likes: 2
From: Kenner
Default

This has been a very informative thread for the FI community. Thanks for the research and work put in to the limits of the engine. Gives me a nice benchmark to shot for when I am tuning on my DD as well. Big props to your staff and may your company continue to grow in two folds.
Reply
Old May 3, 2007 | 12:20 PM
  #85  
Sharif@Forged's Avatar
Sharif@Forged
Sponsor
Forged Performance
iTrader: (92)
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 13,733
Likes: 1
From: Marietta, GA
Default

Originally Posted by George@GTM
What I do disagree with is how you like to call your Dyno Dynamics readings "REAL" numbers compared to a Dynojet. If anything the Dynojet's numbers should be considered "REAL" since they cannot be altered in anyway other than choosing the type of correction you would like to use.

On your Dyno Dynamics dyno you can make the numbers lower, the same, or higher than a Dynojet's readings very easily. So for you to say that your 563rwhp would be over 600rwhp on a Dynojet then you should have dyno'd it on a Dynojet. (Some people don't want to just "take your word for it" that you didn't apply any correction factors, at the end of the day only you would know the truth)
Hi George, I think by "real", Dave was making sure people understood that he isnt adding any DJ correction to his numbers, which some people with DD's feel the need to do. Becuase like you said, there is no way to know exactly what this car would do on a DJ, without physically taking it there on the same day.

At 19psi with C16, a stock engine at 10.3:1 CR would make far more than 560whp'ish on a DynoJet...wouldnt you agree?

To end all this debate, we are going to use shootout mode from now on. In this mod, it is IMPOSSIBLE to intentionally fudge the numbers, as the ramp rate, and all correction factors are locked out. And it also stamps the dyno as "ShootOUTMode", so people know they are true DD numbers.
Reply
Old May 3, 2007 | 12:49 PM
  #86  
GTM's Avatar
GTM
Vendor - Former Vendor
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 1
From: California
Default

Originally Posted by Sharif@Forged
Hi George, I think by "real", Dave was making sure people understood that he isnt adding any DJ correction to his numbers, which some people with DD's feel the need to do. Becuase like you said, there is no way to know exactly what this car would do on a DJ, without physically taking it there on the same day.

At 19psi with C16, a stock engine at 10.3:1 CR would make far more than 560whp'ish on a DynoJet...wouldnt you agree?

To end all this debate, we are going to use shootout mode from now on. In this mod, it is IMPOSSIBLE to intentionally fudge the numbers, as the ramp rate, and all correction factors are locked out. And it also stamps the dyno as "ShootOUTMode", so people know they are true DD numbers.
Hey Sharif,

I am not contesting the fact that he made 563whp at 19psi on C16, that is not very difficult to do. The only problem I have is the way he post this "REAL, Not Dynojet" I take that as he is putting down Dynojet readings saying they aren't "REAL" when in fact the only readings that can be questioned are ones from Dyno Dynamics machine. (not saying his numbers are inflated, just saying he shouldn't be putting Dynojet readings, don't you agree?)

Take care,

-George
GT Motorsports
Reply
Old May 3, 2007 | 01:18 PM
  #87  
Sharif@Forged's Avatar
Sharif@Forged
Sponsor
Forged Performance
iTrader: (92)
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 13,733
Likes: 1
From: Marietta, GA
Default

Originally Posted by George@GTM
Hey Sharif,

I am not contesting the fact that he made 563whp at 19psi on C16, that is not very difficult to do. The only problem I have is the way he post this "REAL, Not Dynojet" I take that as he is putting down Dynojet readings saying they aren't "REAL" when in fact the only readings that can be questioned are ones from Dyno Dynamics machine. (not saying his numbers are inflated, just saying he shouldn't be putting Dynojet readings, don't you agree?)

Take care,

-George
GT Motorsports
Well, Dave can chime in with his intentions, but I read it as a "non-DJ-corrected" number. Maybe I am wrong....since again...there is a tendancy for "some" shops to inflate their DD numbers.
Reply
Old May 3, 2007 | 01:54 PM
  #88  
failsafe306's Avatar
failsafe306
Registered User
iTrader: (38)
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,040
Likes: 1
From: OK
Default

Originally Posted by Sharif@Forged
Well, Dave can chime in with his intentions, but I read it as a "non-DJ-corrected" number. Maybe I am wrong....since again...there is a tendancy for "some" shops to inflate their DD numbers.
That's how I read it also.
Reply
Old May 3, 2007 | 02:38 PM
  #89  
mdracer76's Avatar
mdracer76
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 7,920
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Default

Originally Posted by Sharif@Forged
Well, Dave can chime in with his intentions, but I read it as a "non-DJ-corrected" number. Maybe I am wrong....since again...there is a tendancy for "some" shops to inflate their DD numbers.
Thats how I read it too.
Reply
Old May 3, 2007 | 04:42 PM
  #90  
Trav4011's Avatar
Trav4011
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
From: Houma, LA
Default

What exactly are you guys breaking? Do you have a few pics of the damage?
Reply
Old May 3, 2007 | 05:42 PM
  #91  
buzzardmountain's Avatar
buzzardmountain
New Member
iTrader: (17)
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,898
Likes: 7
From: Flying Low....
Default

Originally Posted by mdracer76
Thats how I read it too.
Me too........
Reply
Old May 4, 2007 | 07:24 AM
  #92  
DaveFunction2ND's Avatar
DaveFunction2ND
Thread Starter
Banned
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
From: Sterling, VA
Default

Originally Posted by Sharif@Forged
Well, Dave can chime in with his intentions, but I read it as a "non-DJ-corrected" number. Maybe I am wrong....since again...there is a tendancy for "some" shops to inflate their DD numbers.
This is correct. I even went to the extent of calling a DD rep to go through my system to make sure there were not any misc. correction factors outside of the norm for a DD. IE the so-called "X" factor. I actually wanted to put the car in ShootOut mode for 100% indisputable reference but we lost the motor before me could.
Reply
Old May 4, 2007 | 07:27 AM
  #93  
DaveFunction2ND's Avatar
DaveFunction2ND
Thread Starter
Banned
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
From: Sterling, VA
Default

Originally Posted by Trav4011
What exactly are you guys breaking? Do you have a few pics of the damage?
Based on my past experiance it seems to be the rods, but there is no way to completely confirm this as rod damage may occur after the piston fails. We assume it is the rods due to the holes that are generated in the sides of the blocks. I'll post up some pictures soon on the exterior. We have not torn down the motor yet.
Reply
Old Jun 5, 2007 | 06:11 AM
  #94  
wtk's Avatar
wtk
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville, Florida
Default

Niice!!! A year later, my motor is still 100% problem free!!! ...guess I'm going to have to schedule another trip for more power!

...my Function Tuned Z...
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...2/willbur2.jpg

Last edited by wtk; Jun 5, 2007 at 06:23 AM.
Reply
Old Jun 5, 2007 | 06:18 AM
  #95  
SirSpeedyZ's Avatar
SirSpeedyZ
New Member
iTrader: (10)
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 7,844
Likes: 10
From: Columbia, SC
Default

nice, the Zs are starting to get up there
Reply
Old Aug 25, 2007 | 08:57 AM
  #96  
Fluid1's Avatar
Fluid1
Registered User
iTrader: (19)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 11,953
Likes: 0
From: NOPE NOPE NOPE
Default

Originally Posted by DaveFunction2ND

The POWER

“High” Boost
  • 563.7 DynoDynamics (REAL, not DynoJet) RWHP on VP C16 116 Octane Leaded Fuel
  • After 150+ Dyno Runs!
  • 18.9PSI on 116 Octane



“Mid” Boost
  • 541.4 DynoDynamics (REAL, not DynoJet) RWHP on VP C16 116 Octane/93 Octane 50/50 Mix
  • After 120+ Dyno Runs
  • 14.1 PSI on 93 Octane/116 Octane Mix


Am I the only one who thinks that going up 4.8PSI (from 14.1 PSI to 18.9) AND going from a 93/116 mix to a pure 116 octane would yield more than 22.3whp?
Reply
Old Aug 25, 2007 | 09:43 AM
  #97  
DaveFunction2ND's Avatar
DaveFunction2ND
Thread Starter
Banned
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
From: Sterling, VA
Default

Originally Posted by Fluid1
Am I the only one who thinks that going up 4.8PSI (from 14.1 PSI to 18.9) AND going from a 93/116 mix to a pure 116 octane would yield more than 22.3whp?
Our boost was tapering off after 5500RPM to ~16psi. We were using the stock wastegate spring (6psi). We could have made more power but would needed to swap out the springs. The first and third charts show the boost pressure line.
Reply
Old Aug 25, 2007 | 12:34 PM
  #98  
srt4-no more's Avatar
srt4-no more
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
From: PHX
Default

i think that is pure badass! the ppl who put tagether the tyme and money and energy to do this only furthers my belief that when I spend the money right it will get done right!
Reply
Old Aug 27, 2007 | 04:46 PM
  #99  
nomyth46's Avatar
nomyth46
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
From: NC
Default

op- with those 3" downpipes, did they open up the dumps or were the wastegates recircuilated back in to the exhaust?
Reply
Old Aug 27, 2007 | 06:54 PM
  #100  
DaveFunction2ND's Avatar
DaveFunction2ND
Thread Starter
Banned
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
From: Sterling, VA
Default

Originally Posted by nomyth46
op- with those 3" downpipes, did they open up the dumps or were the wastegates recircuilated back in to the exhaust?
What did you say?





Open Dumps FTW!
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:08 AM.