Unbiased, Independent Dyno Test: VQ35DE RevUp + Plenum Spacer
12-13-2009 | 01:45 PM
#41
I understand what you are saying, but what would have been all of our response if we saw that there was a consistent 10hp gain with each spacer that then disappeared, or at least dropped when they were removed? There is value in proving what we already "know" because sometimes what we "know" turns out not to be true.
I see this all the time professionally, where research usually proves what we think is going on, but occasionally gives us some real surprises.
The other advantage is that we have a whole new series of dyno plots on a stock Revup motor. This can be added to all the others out there to give folks additional baselines to see what kind of power these cars are making under various conditions, keeping in mind however that there is variation day to day, dyno to dyno.
Anyway, my hat is off to anyone that increases the amount of information available to us. Maybe it is just in the Geek in me?
Dave
I see this all the time professionally, where research usually proves what we think is going on, but occasionally gives us some real surprises.
The other advantage is that we have a whole new series of dyno plots on a stock Revup motor. This can be added to all the others out there to give folks additional baselines to see what kind of power these cars are making under various conditions, keeping in mind however that there is variation day to day, dyno to dyno.
Anyway, my hat is off to anyone that increases the amount of information available to us. Maybe it is just in the Geek in me?
Dave
that said, we've see a thousand stock dyno plots on the Revup and thousand of them with spacers, MREVs, intakes, headers, et al... anyone who's been on this forum for more than 3 years has seen the ebb and flow of the gambit of plenum spacers and N/A mods... if there had of been a true hp gain using a plenum spacer on a Revup, then we all would have known that it was a trap... it's been proven far too many times that they make no gains for it to arbitrarily start doing so...
12-13-2009 | 04:23 PM
#42
Thread Starter
Retired Admin
iTrader: (95)
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,337,017,813
Likes: 78
From: Dallas / Chicago
The spikes at the end make it hard to know exactly what is going on, but it does like the spacers added power. The baseline went from around 260 (267 looks to be a spike at the end of the dyno) to 267+/- So a solid 7whp gain. Of course, someone will argue that it was dyno variance, even though the dyno shows once back to stock, the car wasn't able to replicate the numbers.
Looks cut and dried to me.
Looks cut and dried to me.
What if I were to take the lowest stock plenum dyno numbers and compared it to the highest spacer run? Do you think that's proof enough that the spacer makes power beyond the margin of error? If so, how would you explain the highest stock plenum number to the lowest?
I'm not sure if Motordyne took anything, per se, but yes it did get the highest number of the day.
The car was also pulling timing (as you can see the dip) for some reason. Weird, considering we reset the ECU before each session. Perhaps we should have reset the ECU before every run.
wait. all of this just to prove what we already knew? i have known this since June of 2006 when i put Motordyne's 5/16" spacer on my 2005 G35 with revup motor. i had to swap the lower collector from the revup to the non-revup to make any power. (what was then known as the MREV+)
seriously? all this trouble to (re)prove what was already known? what next? independent dyno tests to prove turbos actually DO make more power?
seriously? all this trouble to (re)prove what was already known? what next? independent dyno tests to prove turbos actually DO make more power?
Last edited by 3hree5ive0ero; 12-13-2009 at 08:34 PM. Reason: .
12-13-2009 | 05:27 PM
#43
One way to avoid the "ECU Learning" variable would be to use an UPREV Flashed car and load the same RTT(Real Time Tuning) Map That way the ecu uses the same fuel and timing maps on every run.
12-13-2009 | 07:31 PM
#44
Here are some charts that I created after picking the best runs from each group and cleaning the data to include only the portion that is represented in the Dyno Graphs (however I did remove anything above 7000rpm and below 3000rpm). I used Kernel Smoother regression for easier viewing.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that "38 spacer1.csv" was not included in the zip so I used the second best one for the Powerlab runs.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that "38 spacer1.csv" was not included in the zip so I used the second best one for the Powerlab runs.
Last edited by gabe3d; 12-13-2009 at 07:36 PM.
12-13-2009 | 08:03 PM
#45
These are probably better to look at since it takes all three runs (except for the PL one since there are only two) in each group for the regression. Also they are higher resolution, so it's easier to distinguish each subgroups.
12-13-2009 | 08:29 PM
#46
I've done similar testing where no changes were made to the engine and the plots can still move around.
That is one reason why I installed an Fcon onto my NA engine. Just one more set of variables taken out of the equation... and even with an Fcon on an NA engine with moderate boltons, the dyno results still moved around.
Even with a full Osirus reflash and FCON together with the intent of locking down the pertinent variables... it didn't matter. The results still moved around.
Oil temperature is a factor.
MAF heat soak is a factor. (But in this case it was well regulated.)
Variable cam actuator hysteresis is a factor. (this cannot be controlled 100% under any practical circumstance but that is why it was measured for this test.)
There is a degree of variability to dyno testing this engine that cannot be fully controlled or fully understood. Like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, there is nothing that can be done about it but we can understand that it exists, work within it and make accommodations as needed.
12-13-2009 | 08:36 PM
#47
Thread Starter
Retired Admin
iTrader: (95)
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,337,017,813
Likes: 78
From: Dallas / Chicago
Tony, I didn't mean to put that paragraph under your quote. I intended it to be part of my response to KA24DE, but I copied and pasted wrong and it ended up under your quote. It's been fixed.
12-13-2009 | 08:39 PM
#48
Here are some charts that I created after picking the best runs from each group and cleaning the data to include only the portion that is represented in the Dyno Graphs (however I did remove anything above 7000rpm and below 3000rpm). I used Kernel Smoother regression for easier viewing.
....
EDIT: Forgot to mention that "38 spacer1.csv" was not included in the zip so I used the second best one for the Powerlab runs.
....
EDIT: Forgot to mention that "38 spacer1.csv" was not included in the zip so I used the second best one for the Powerlab runs.
That's awesome. I was going to plot all that up tomorrow during the flight back to Ca.
I'll try to see if there are any correlations to the dyno results. With just a brief look, its kinda hard to say if there are any clear correlations. I'll keep looking. *EDIT: There may a correlation between the cam angles and the MAF flow rate that "may" correlate to the dyno results.
PS - the data from 38 spacer1.csv was vaporized when Cipher crashed before the data was saved to the hard drive. So there is no Cipher data for that particular run.
Last edited by Hydrazine; 12-13-2009 at 08:44 PM.
12-14-2009 | 04:37 PM
#49
Tony, here are some interesting correlation matrix plots. Tell me what you see. By the way, is there a way for you to give me the dyno runs in csv format? I can't read those DYNORUN.xxx files.
12-14-2009 | 09:03 PM
#50
I'm not exactly sure of how the matrix is setup in your attachment above, but I'm getting the feeling the dyno drift is predominately determined by the variable cam angles.
Cam angles seem to follow the trend and can have a direct effect on mass flow rate.
PS - The dyno data is only available in the format posted by Chris. It can only be opened by the Dynajet program Winpep7.
Cam angles seem to follow the trend and can have a direct effect on mass flow rate.
PS - The dyno data is only available in the format posted by Chris. It can only be opened by the Dynajet program Winpep7.
Last edited by Hydrazine; 12-14-2009 at 09:04 PM.
12-14-2009 | 09:21 PM
#51
It's basically like a multiplication table.
Take the IGN TIMING cell for example, anything above it and below it will have IGN TIMING as the X variable. Anything to the left or right of it will have IGN TIMING as the Y variable. To find the variable on the other axis, all you need to do is either go horizontally or vertically until you meet a cell that has a variable name in it.
That's too bad, it would be interesting to do some analysis by using the the dyno numbers as response.
Take the IGN TIMING cell for example, anything above it and below it will have IGN TIMING as the X variable. Anything to the left or right of it will have IGN TIMING as the Y variable. To find the variable on the other axis, all you need to do is either go horizontally or vertically until you meet a cell that has a variable name in it.
That's too bad, it would be interesting to do some analysis by using the the dyno numbers as response.
Last edited by gabe3d; 12-14-2009 at 09:24 PM.
12-15-2009 | 09:26 PM
#52
i think Tony understands that the majority of my post was sarcasm.. well, facetiousness...
that said, we've see a thousand stock dyno plots on the Revup and thousand of them with spacers, MREVs, intakes, headers, et al... anyone who's been on this forum for more than 3 years has seen the ebb and flow of the gambit of plenum spacers and N/A mods... if there had of been a true hp gain using a plenum spacer on a Revup, then we all would have known that it was a trap... it's been proven far too many times that they make no gains for it to arbitrarily start doing so...
that said, we've see a thousand stock dyno plots on the Revup and thousand of them with spacers, MREVs, intakes, headers, et al... anyone who's been on this forum for more than 3 years has seen the ebb and flow of the gambit of plenum spacers and N/A mods... if there had of been a true hp gain using a plenum spacer on a Revup, then we all would have known that it was a trap... it's been proven far too many times that they make no gains for it to arbitrarily start doing so...
It may be old news to you and me and some other forum old timers but this is new and contradictory news to many others.
If you look in the classified section you will see there have been a lot of revup owners that purchase spacers for their REVUP lower plenum. Many of them aren't regular forum participants.
For some time now, those people have been forking out $$$ for imaginary performance claims.
12-16-2009 | 10:02 AM
#53
Well done gentlemen. Hopefully this issue can be put to rest once and for all.
After I started doing dyno pulls on my own, I realized why Tony allows others to substantiate gains from his products rather than self-proclaiming it. Any dyno operator can produce data that demonstrates an alteration in performance from one run to the next. In fact it takes conscious effort to ensure precision and accuracy - key factors need to be kept constant. Too many manufacturers stop the moment they document something as a "gain" and regurgitate it as marketing fodder to sell a product. The kinetix intake is a fine example, among others...
After I started doing dyno pulls on my own, I realized why Tony allows others to substantiate gains from his products rather than self-proclaiming it. Any dyno operator can produce data that demonstrates an alteration in performance from one run to the next. In fact it takes conscious effort to ensure precision and accuracy - key factors need to be kept constant. Too many manufacturers stop the moment they document something as a "gain" and regurgitate it as marketing fodder to sell a product. The kinetix intake is a fine example, among others...
12-16-2009 | 12:38 PM
#54
Thread Starter
Retired Admin
iTrader: (95)
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,337,017,813
Likes: 78
From: Dallas / Chicago
Well done gentlemen. Hopefully this issue can be put to rest once and for all.
After I started doing dyno pulls on my own, I realized why Tony allows others to substantiate gains from his products rather than self-proclaiming it. Any dyno operator can produce data that demonstrates an alteration in performance from one run to the next. In fact it takes conscious effort to ensure precision and accuracy - key factors need to be kept constant. Too many manufacturers stop the moment they document something as a "gain" and regurgitate it as marketing fodder to sell a product. The kinetix intake is a fine example, among others...
After I started doing dyno pulls on my own, I realized why Tony allows others to substantiate gains from his products rather than self-proclaiming it. Any dyno operator can produce data that demonstrates an alteration in performance from one run to the next. In fact it takes conscious effort to ensure precision and accuracy - key factors need to be kept constant. Too many manufacturers stop the moment they document something as a "gain" and regurgitate it as marketing fodder to sell a product. The kinetix intake is a fine example, among others...
12-16-2009 | 02:37 PM
#55
Ok so 3 worthless pages later we still know what we already knew.
1) spacers don't make power on a rev up bc of the lower collector
2) every dyno has phantom gains that are unexplainable
not intending to be a dick I just don't understand the point of this thread.
1) spacers don't make power on a rev up bc of the lower collector
2) every dyno has phantom gains that are unexplainable
not intending to be a dick I just don't understand the point of this thread.
12-16-2009 | 03:27 PM
#56
Everyone is not expected to understand I suppose. Anyway, if you read carefully, some salient points that may be helpful to you have already been posted.
12-16-2009 | 04:36 PM
#57
Lol dash I'm actually very interested in usefull information just not useless information that most alreadY knew. I'm speaking of the dyno gains and phantom gains with the rev up with just a spacer
12-16-2009 | 05:00 PM
#58
Stormcrow and Dhays,
It may be old news to you and me and some other forum old timers but this is new and contradictory news to many others.
If you look in the classified section you will see there have been a lot of revup owners that purchase spacers for their REVUP lower plenum. Many of them aren't regular forum participants.
For some time now, those people have been forking out $$$ for imaginary performance claims.
It may be old news to you and me and some other forum old timers but this is new and contradictory news to many others.
If you look in the classified section you will see there have been a lot of revup owners that purchase spacers for their REVUP lower plenum. Many of them aren't regular forum participants.
For some time now, those people have been forking out $$$ for imaginary performance claims.
but one does have to wonder, why hasn't this done well before now? if it was known that false representations were being made, why haven't we, as a community, made more of an effort to isolate the vendors making such claims and prove/disprove long ago?
i think it is because of one reason..."buyer beware". i learned my lesson by purchasing a spacer, due to misinformation, and then after having zero gains, i researched further (even spoke with you) and learned the truth.
i think it is great that we try to help the community, but i also think that we should do so much sooner rather than later. and i also think that the buyer has to have some culpability in his/her decisions on where to spend their money.
Last edited by stormcrow; 12-16-2009 at 05:03 PM.
12-16-2009 | 05:34 PM
#59
The vendors pay the bills, not the community, so they I think have more control of the content on this site than one would think. The bigger the vendor, the more authority they can exert. We as consumers ultimately have only our wallet to help dictate which vendors flourish and which do not. To ask the community to support a vendor because of business practices, R&D, customer service, honesty, integrity does work to some degree, and we should continue to do that, but so many folks will sell out to the lowest bidder or the flashiest advertiser. I agree it shouldn't stop us from trying though. Props to the OP and Tony for settling the debate and demonstrating the correct way to go about testing.
12-17-2009 | 04:26 PM
#60
The vendors pay the bills, not the community, so they I think have more control of the content on this site than one would think. The bigger the vendor, the more authority they can exert. We as consumers ultimately have only our wallet to help dictate which vendors flourish and which do not. To ask the community to support a vendor because of business practices, R&D, customer service, honesty, integrity does work to some degree, and we should continue to do that, but so many folks will sell out to the lowest bidder or the flashiest advertiser. I agree it shouldn't stop us from trying though. Props to the OP and Tony for settling the debate and demonstrating the correct way to go about testing.