Greddy Twin Turbo Kit! We've got NEW Numbers!!
04-16-2004, 11:35 AM
#62
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, you gained big time in the low-mid range between the two from tuning.
"a little over 20hp" came from exhuast.
"a little over 20hp" came from exhuast.
Originally posted by spz33
This is not the same dyno as the one i'm referring to. hahahaha!! You guys are good. This is the dyno with 91 octane. The next day was when we acheived 423.
This is not the same dyno as the one i'm referring to. hahahaha!! You guys are good. This is the dyno with 91 octane. The next day was when we acheived 423.
04-16-2004, 12:28 PM
#64
New Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Riyadh, SA
Posts: 1,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Jon@ptp
But where does this tuner get the target a/f ratio??
From experience with certain cars and/or other people who have already done it.
Different cars are tuned for different air/fuel ratios depending on the strength of that particular car. Saying that 11.5-12.5 is good is not always true.
But where does this tuner get the target a/f ratio??
From experience with certain cars and/or other people who have already done it.
Different cars are tuned for different air/fuel ratios depending on the strength of that particular car. Saying that 11.5-12.5 is good is not always true.
This reminds me of "E=WTF"
that is if Albert Einstein was thinking the same way your thinking, then we all be in trouble. Az
04-16-2004, 03:43 PM
#65
Wow...a bunch of very good investigators on this site. 
After looking at the graph I know exactly what you did to "tune" your car. You did NOTHING to it!
What you did do is slap on a Walbro 255lph fuel pump without a regular (dumb), and left the fuel map alone! I bet you guys don't even have the Greddy eMnaage support tool...and if you did...you certainly didn't make any changes to the fuel map. You are running absurdly rich...that is not good tuning....that is non-tuned.
This is BS. You have lost all credibility with me...and this board. You guys should stick to tuning Supras.
After looking at the graph I know exactly what you did to "tune" your car. You did NOTHING to it!
What you did do is slap on a Walbro 255lph fuel pump without a regular (dumb), and left the fuel map alone! I bet you guys don't even have the Greddy eMnaage support tool...and if you did...you certainly didn't make any changes to the fuel map. You are running absurdly rich...that is not good tuning....that is non-tuned.
This is BS. You have lost all credibility with me...and this board. You guys should stick to tuning Supras.
04-16-2004, 03:56 PM
#66
Originally posted by IceY2K1Max
BTW, you may have missed my question:
BTW, you may have missed my question:
04-16-2004, 04:09 PM
#67
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAE correction is for NA cars, not FI cars though.
SAE over corrects on FI cars, especially the further you get away from the standard conditions. However, as long as you guys all post your correction factor, it's still easy to compare apples-to-apples. As dead set as some of you guys are with X-psi = XXXwhp/wtq, I'd have thought you guys would have stuck with uncorrected numbers by now. Hmmmn.
I've seen CO guys at super high altitudes with a CF of 1.27 that really skewed the numbers.
SAE over corrects on FI cars, especially the further you get away from the standard conditions. However, as long as you guys all post your correction factor, it's still easy to compare apples-to-apples. As dead set as some of you guys are with X-psi = XXXwhp/wtq, I'd have thought you guys would have stuck with uncorrected numbers by now. Hmmmn.
I've seen CO guys at super high altitudes with a CF of 1.27 that really skewed the numbers.
Originally posted by gq_model_626
Most people on this board are posting SAE Corrected numbers...even on F/I cars. I do the same thing. Not sure if it really matters, as long as their is some consistency between the numbers. The SAE numbers tend me a tad lower than Standard HP.
Most people on this board are posting SAE Corrected numbers...even on F/I cars. I do the same thing. Not sure if it really matters, as long as their is some consistency between the numbers. The SAE numbers tend me a tad lower than Standard HP.
04-16-2004, 04:37 PM
#68
On my last two dyno runs, the correction factor was 1.01 SAE. Not sure what that means.
I still dont understand why it's not better to correct for temperature and pressure/elevation.
either way, its a mute point, since everyone on here likes to post SAE Corrected.
I still dont understand why it's not better to correct for temperature and pressure/elevation.
either way, its a mute point, since everyone on here likes to post SAE Corrected.
04-16-2004, 09:32 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: clearh2o, FL
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gq_model_626
On my last two dyno runs, the correction factor was 1.01 SAE. Not sure what that means.
On my last two dyno runs, the correction factor was 1.01 SAE. Not sure what that means.
say you were spinning 500 rwhp, STD
the 1.01 SAE CF makes it 500 X 1.01 = 505 rwhp.....
meaning the CF on yours was very insignificant.....
1.28 CF on a 500 hp readout yields 640 hp!!
thats some craaazy elevation, im betting........
04-16-2004, 09:45 PM
#71
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A CF = 1.01 means you're only adjusting 1%, which is nothing to worry about. If you had an uncorrected 300whp, you'd have SAE corrected 303whp.
However, the farther you get away from SAE ideal conditions, the more SAE correction on a FI car will skew the dynos. For example, a guy in CO using a CF = 1.27 due to extreme high altitude was SAE corrected to ~298whp, when your car at the *SAME* psi would have dyno'd 236whp with your CF = 1.01.
Turbos w/boost regulated wastegates compensate for altitude. Basically, the turbo spins faster to produce the SAME PSI as if you were at sea level, however the SAE correction compesates based on how much power a NA engine would have lost at altitude due to less air density, in his and your case ~26% assuming temperature and humidity were the same. The FI engine didn't lose 26% of its power like a NA engine would, because the turbo wastegate stayed closed until it sees the same boost, allowing the turbo to cram in additional air equivalent to what was lost due to altitude. Spining the turbo faster does somewhat affect turbo efficiency, ie heat the air, but with an intercooler that's going to be minimal.
That's a considerable difference in my opinion when trying to compare two FI cars withOUT knowing what CF they're both using. IMO...FI cars should just use uncorrected numbers or correct ONLY for temperature and humidity. At a minimum, display it on the dyno sheet like some places do.
However, the farther you get away from SAE ideal conditions, the more SAE correction on a FI car will skew the dynos. For example, a guy in CO using a CF = 1.27 due to extreme high altitude was SAE corrected to ~298whp, when your car at the *SAME* psi would have dyno'd 236whp with your CF = 1.01.
Turbos w/boost regulated wastegates compensate for altitude. Basically, the turbo spins faster to produce the SAME PSI as if you were at sea level, however the SAE correction compesates based on how much power a NA engine would have lost at altitude due to less air density, in his and your case ~26% assuming temperature and humidity were the same. The FI engine didn't lose 26% of its power like a NA engine would, because the turbo wastegate stayed closed until it sees the same boost, allowing the turbo to cram in additional air equivalent to what was lost due to altitude. Spining the turbo faster does somewhat affect turbo efficiency, ie heat the air, but with an intercooler that's going to be minimal.
That's a considerable difference in my opinion when trying to compare two FI cars withOUT knowing what CF they're both using. IMO...FI cars should just use uncorrected numbers or correct ONLY for temperature and humidity. At a minimum, display it on the dyno sheet like some places do.
04-16-2004, 09:48 PM
#72
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you mean "STD", that's another correction factor.
You want uncorrected or raw numbers.
You want uncorrected or raw numbers.
Originally posted by gq_model_626
That is intersting. When he pulled up my standard numbers, they were actually higher than the adjusted numbers. So how could that be?? The elevation of the dyno shop is about 500 feet or so above sea level.
That is intersting. When he pulled up my standard numbers, they were actually higher than the adjusted numbers. So how could that be?? The elevation of the dyno shop is about 500 feet or so above sea level.
04-16-2004, 10:29 PM
#73
Guys
THis is pretty typical from SP. I am not gonna repeat what GQ hasbeen saying, but I agree with him 100%.
I once took my car there to get a baseline dyno, they said $9x (don't remember the actual price). I was thinking, "ok, that's a rip off but let's do it anyways". So i gave the guy my keys to drive the car around their building into the stall. I asked if I can reset the ECu (the pedal method) between runs to see if there is a difference, they said that I cannot be in the garage for "insurance purposes" I said, ok, let me jus tshow how to do it. He said no. I said ok, can i stand outside of the garage and watch the car being dynoed. They said no, even though that is not in violation of their insurance agreement, their "policy" that the only place that I am premitted to be the front office!
I said @&*& &(#$, and got out of their.
I know I digressed in a major way from the topic, I apologize; obviously creating a new thread about this is stupid... so i decided to voice my opinion of them here. They do NOT work with you, at least in my experience.
On topic, 104 octane on stock timings, 8.8 psi boost... My grandma can tune a Z to make that much power.
Gurgen
THis is pretty typical from SP. I am not gonna repeat what GQ hasbeen saying, but I agree with him 100%.
I once took my car there to get a baseline dyno, they said $9x (don't remember the actual price). I was thinking, "ok, that's a rip off but let's do it anyways". So i gave the guy my keys to drive the car around their building into the stall. I asked if I can reset the ECu (the pedal method) between runs to see if there is a difference, they said that I cannot be in the garage for "insurance purposes" I said, ok, let me jus tshow how to do it. He said no. I said ok, can i stand outside of the garage and watch the car being dynoed. They said no, even though that is not in violation of their insurance agreement, their "policy" that the only place that I am premitted to be the front office!
I said @&*& &(#$, and got out of their.
I know I digressed in a major way from the topic, I apologize; obviously creating a new thread about this is stupid... so i decided to voice my opinion of them here. They do NOT work with you, at least in my experience.
On topic, 104 octane on stock timings, 8.8 psi boost... My grandma can tune a Z to make that much power.
Gurgen
04-16-2004, 11:47 PM
#74
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now a days I won't believe what the dyno graph reads, I trust quarter mile trap speed more than anything. I have seen numerous iffy charts and those who can back it up with time slips win.
Recently more than one shop started this "I can make more power than you with the same kit" threads. Doesn't matter it's a vortech supercharged Z or Greddy Turbocharged Z. There is so many factors contributing to the add power. It could of been a set of better breathing cams, a totally gutted exhaust, a little play with timing aided with higher octane fuel, a bump in boost ( unless the chart shows a pressure graph) or simply false corrected dyno graph. Talk about dyno. There is so many ways to achieve better number just in the setup and procedures itselves.
I think the most important part consumer should look in tuning is safety. Those who can tune a maximum safe reliable horsepower get the thumb up. Those who only care about the highest producing power with no care of what's going on with the tune will eventually show signs of weakness. It's just matter of time.
Recently more than one shop started this "I can make more power than you with the same kit" threads. Doesn't matter it's a vortech supercharged Z or Greddy Turbocharged Z. There is so many factors contributing to the add power. It could of been a set of better breathing cams, a totally gutted exhaust, a little play with timing aided with higher octane fuel, a bump in boost ( unless the chart shows a pressure graph) or simply false corrected dyno graph. Talk about dyno. There is so many ways to achieve better number just in the setup and procedures itselves.
I think the most important part consumer should look in tuning is safety. Those who can tune a maximum safe reliable horsepower get the thumb up. Those who only care about the highest producing power with no care of what's going on with the tune will eventually show signs of weakness. It's just matter of time.
04-18-2004, 08:07 PM
#78
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Carrollton TX
Posts: 963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spz33:
I think your numbers are great but not for 104 octane. there are a couple of guys here in dallas pushing 450rwhp + on pump gas so showing your a/f is not a big deal. I have found out that by messing with the a/f the car seems to really love an a/f of 11.4 for anyone interested. I recieved the best numbers there (hp and tq with a safe a/f)
I think your numbers are great but not for 104 octane. there are a couple of guys here in dallas pushing 450rwhp + on pump gas so showing your a/f is not a big deal. I have found out that by messing with the a/f the car seems to really love an a/f of 11.4 for anyone interested. I recieved the best numbers there (hp and tq with a safe a/f)
