Notices
VQ35HR Mods and Support related to the 2007/08 High Revving VQ

My HR Dyno Numbers...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-26-2009, 03:15 PM
  #21  
03threefiftyz
350Z-holic
iTrader: (25)
 
03threefiftyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 9,848
Received 118 Likes on 63 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by crg914
Another reason is because you used SAE correction factor (which is actually the proper CF), and if you search, everybody that posts on here uses Standard correction factor which is always higher. Just changing the CF would probably give you 7-10whp on your graph.
Huh? SAE are the only results I pay attention too, and I would say most don't post STD.
Old 10-26-2009, 04:09 PM
  #22  
Italianjoe1
New Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Italianjoe1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by crg914
Another reason is because you used SAE correction factor (which is actually the proper CF), and if you search, everybody that posts on here uses Standard correction factor which is always higher. Just changing the CF would probably give you 7-10whp on your graph.
Do you understand what SAE correction factors do? They may be higher, lower or exactly the same as the standard (raw) power, depends only on the weather conditions at the dyno.
Old 10-26-2009, 04:19 PM
  #23  
crg914
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
 
crg914's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Italianjoe1
Do you understand what SAE correction factors do? They may be higher, lower or exactly the same as the standard (raw) power, depends only on the weather conditions at the dyno.
Yes I do, maybe you didn't understand my post. I was comparing Standard to SAE. The correction factors in the "Standard" CF will yield higher hp numbers than will the correction factors in the "SAE" CF. When I dynoed my car the second time, I ran the dyno. I changed between all the correction factors in the computer on the same run and Standard CF give the highest numbers. My run using SAE CF was 257/238, but with Standard CF was 264/246.
Old 10-26-2009, 04:36 PM
  #24  
Italianjoe1
New Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Italianjoe1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by crg914
Yes I do, maybe you didn't understand my post. I was comparing Standard to SAE. The correction factors in the "Standard" CF will yield higher hp numbers than will the correction factors in the "SAE" CF. When I dynoed my car the second time, I ran the dyno. I changed between all the correction factors in the computer on the same run and Standard CF give the highest numbers. My run using SAE CF was 257/238, but with Standard CF was 264/246.
No.

Standard is the power the car put down to turn the rollers.

SAE CF adjusts that for temperature/baro to give a more "accurate" number. If it's really cold out, the car "should" make more power. Standard will be higher, SAE will adjust to what the power should be at normal conditions, which will be lower. SAE is a way of being fair, trying to equalize the numbers to eliminate changes from the atmospheric conditions, but it is only a math thing, it multiplies the values reported by the dyno (standard numbers) by the percentage of the actual value vs. SAE standard.

If your dyno was done in the same lab that the SAE tests are done in, in the same temperature/pressure/humidity air they consider "standard", both the standard number and the SAE number would be the same, as it would not correct to anything, the values would match.
Old 10-26-2009, 04:37 PM
  #25  
crg914
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
 
crg914's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 03threefiftyz
Huh? SAE are the only results I pay attention too, and I would say most don't post STD.
I did a little searching and it looks like GTM always uses STD. Other shops use dynos I'm not as familiar with, (Mustang, DD, etc) and the CF is not displayed on the graph so I don't know how those are calibrated. Perhaps is seemed like it was more common than it is
Old 10-26-2009, 04:41 PM
  #26  
crg914
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
 
crg914's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

That is incorrect. The "uncorrected" number is what the car put down to turn the rollers that day, under those weather conditions, at that altitude, with those mods, etc. Standard and SAE are both correction factors. You are confusing standard with uncorrected. If the conditions that day were exactly the same as SAE uses, the uncorrected and SAE numbers would be the same. That has nothing to do with Standard CF.

All CF adjust for different weather conditions, they just use different calculations to do it.


Originally Posted by Italianjoe1
No.

Standard is the power the car put down to turn the rollers.

SAE CF adjusts that for temperature/baro to give a more "accurate" number. If it's really cold out, the car "should" make more power. Standard will be higher, SAE will adjust to what the power should be at normal conditions, which will be lower. SAE is a way of being fair, trying to equalize the numbers to eliminate changes from the atmospheric conditions, but it is only a math thing, it multiplies the values reported by the dyno (standard numbers) by the percentage of the actual value vs. SAE standard.

If your dyno was done in the same lab that the SAE tests are done in, in the same temperature/pressure/humidity air they consider "standard", both the standard number and the SAE number would be the same, as it would not correct to anything, the values would match.

Last edited by crg914; 10-26-2009 at 04:43 PM.
Old 10-26-2009, 05:24 PM
  #27  
Italianjoe1
New Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Italianjoe1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by crg914
That is incorrect. The "uncorrected" number is what the car put down to turn the rollers that day, under those weather conditions, at that altitude, with those mods, etc. Standard and SAE are both correction factors. You are confusing standard with uncorrected. If the conditions that day were exactly the same as SAE uses, the uncorrected and SAE numbers would be the same. That has nothing to do with Standard CF.

All CF adjust for different weather conditions, they just use different calculations to do it.
Right you are sir, my mistake.

What are the values for standard vs. SAE, the actual 'target' it corrects to?
Old 10-26-2009, 05:31 PM
  #28  
crg914
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
 
crg914's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Italianjoe1
Right you are sir, my mistake.

What are the values for standard vs. SAE, the actual 'target' it corrects to?
SAE is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25°C). This SAE standard requires a correction for friction torque which assumes 85% mechanical efficiency.

STD is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5°C). Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 4 % higher than the SAE power numbers. Friction torque is handled in the same way as in the SAE standard.


This is a pretty good read on dyno basics for anyone who wants a quick lesson or needs a refresher.

http://www.drdyno.com/AIM_2006-07.html
Old 10-26-2009, 11:30 PM
  #29  
aloh
New Member
iTrader: (26)
 
aloh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: socal
Posts: 4,190
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Heres my dynosheet like i promised. These two were done in 3rd gear. This is an 07 5AT with Greddy Ti-C dual (2.75"), and Injen intakes.

CIMG6576.jpg?t=1256628594
Old 10-28-2009, 04:51 AM
  #30  
lee_dfw
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
lee_dfw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Snooping around the net:

STD:
Air Temperature: 60F
Absolute Pressure: 29.92 inches Hg
Relative Humidity: 0%

Relative Horsepower : 104.8%
Air Density: 1.223kg/m3
Relative Air Density: 99.8%
Density Altitude: 67feet
Virtual Temperature: 60F
Vapor Pressure: 0 inches Hg
Dyno Correction Factor: .955

SAE:
Air Temperature: 77F
Absolute Pressure: 29.23 inches Hg
Relative Humidity: 0%

Relative Horsepower : 100%
Air Density: 1.157kg/m3
Relative Air Density: 94.4%
Density Altitude: 1952feet
Virtual Temperature: 77F
Vapor Pressure: 0 inches Hg
Dyno Correction Factor: 1

That would put my 254 rwhp / 222 ft-lbs SAE up to 266 rwhp / 232 ft-lbs STD.
Old 10-28-2009, 12:27 PM
  #31  
Manjot
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
Manjot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CA-FReMoNT
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

my 08 AT dyno'd 240hp stock and 250hp with the bassani on a dynojet
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
silverbullet_Z
NA Builds
24
11-14-2015 02:52 AM
seagrasser
Zs & Gs For Sale
6
10-11-2015 03:27 PM
NissanZcrazy
Forced Induction
4
09-23-2015 07:59 AM



Quick Reply: My HR Dyno Numbers...



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:49 PM.