Case Study # 123 - Most Powerful Evo IX (so far) - 375 whp ! exhuast, intake & MBC!!
I agree Warr and if i wanted to just get the base tuned up a little, remove the fuel cut and redline, and fine tune the rest with a AFC then i could justify the cost with the Mail in flash, BUT, my friend took time to drive to Chicago to get the "Custom Tune" and paid a lot more. The point i was making is when i tuned my '03 i was a amature and i put down that much more power on the same dyno
Last edited by Nez136; Dec 9, 2005 at 01:58 PM.
everyone is getting to excited..... all dynos read different. and pruven's reads very high....
i've seen other evos dyno places and one evo strikes my memory right now that is dyno'd 50 whp more on pruvens dyno...... so nobody get to excited....
i've seen other evos dyno places and one evo strikes my memory right now that is dyno'd 50 whp more on pruvens dyno...... so nobody get to excited....
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,941
Likes: 0
From: Danville/Blackhawk, California
IF I do it SAE or STD it will also INDICATE THAT FACT DIRECTLY ON THE SHEET ITSELF - there is nothing uunderhanded or manipulated - the correction or lack of correction is just as promently displayed
If you come over to post on mine - expect a dose of reality in exchange - YOU are the guy who was caught boasting and braging about your dyno results and then SPARCO posted proof postive that YOU were manipulating the results by inflating the air temp figure - THAT is dyno maipulation - I dont care who's car it was
-shiv
Originally Posted by Nez136
I agree Warr and if i wanted to just get the base tuned up a little, remove the fuel cut and redline, and fine tune the rest with a AFC then i could justify the cost with the Mail in flash, BUT, my friend took time to drive to Chicago to get the "Custom Tune" and paid a lot more. The point i was making is when i tuned my '03 i was a amature and i put down that much more power on the same dyno
LOL Wonder how safe it was?
Originally Posted by kmcconn9
To crush a bov (usually the 1 gen bov) you simply have to either use a vise to crush down the top hat of the bov, or use a hammer/wrench to push down the top of the bov. This will limit the amount of space for the diaphram inside the bov, thus helping to hold boost better...So, you are SLIGHTLY crushing/denting/ the top of the bov..
This does not work on all bov's
Evolving Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
From: milfort ct
Originally Posted by Black05evo8
everyone is getting to excited..... all dynos read different. and pruven's reads very high....
i've seen other evos dyno places and one evo strikes my memory right now that is dyno'd 50 whp more on pruvens dyno...... so nobody get to excited....
i've seen other evos dyno places and one evo strikes my memory right now that is dyno'd 50 whp more on pruvens dyno...... so nobody get to excited....
Thread Starter
Account Disabled
iTrader: (91)
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 16,850
Likes: 0
From: 2003 Evo VIII - Silver
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
But the question still remains... why do you change around your desired correction factor (or use none at all) instead of sticking to one way of doing it and letting the true results speak for themselves?
Al-- once gain, you get on beating a dead horse as I didn't set up the my car on XS Engineering's dyno. No go re-read the last sentence again so it sinks in
-shiv
Al-- once gain, you get on beating a dead horse as I didn't set up the my car on XS Engineering's dyno. No go re-read the last sentence again so it sinks in
-shiv
I find it comical that a person with as much time spent in this business as your self apparently does not understand much about what a SAE correction factor is
The SAE standard was NOT created for turbo charged vehicles
This is from one authorotaive source :
Other things to watch are correction factors applied for altitude, barometric pressure and temperature. These factors are NOT the same for atmo and turbo engines. Using atmo factors inflates the true, corrected HP figures on a turbo engine. In fact, look at the correction factor applied on your dyno sheets and see if they make sense. Many shady dyno operators simply enter a phantom correction factor to make the customer happy. This is a case where the dyno sheet DOES lie. Chassis dynos are essentially for tuning purposes, they are not well suited to giving an accurate hp figure.
Be aware that SAE correction factors do not apply to turbocharged engines! If your dyno sheet lists SAE corrected HP, ignore it as it is incorrect. You are better off getting an idea of where you stand by looking at observed hp with a turbo engine.
Be aware that SAE correction factors do not apply to turbocharged engines! If your dyno sheet lists SAE corrected HP, ignore it as it is incorrect. You are better off getting an idea of where you stand by looking at observed hp with a turbo engine.
Based on formulas developed by SAE, this number is derived from plugging in the uncorrected (measured) torque numbers to an algorithm that takes into account barometric pressure, vapor pressure, and carburetor air temperature. SuperFlow dynos also factor in a friction horsepower-loss factor. Most race dynos correct the measured data to 29.92 inches of mercury, standard dry air, and 60 degrees F air temperature. SAE net-power correction factors, as used by major automotive manufacturers, use a less favorable correction factor and on average yield 5 percent lower torque and power numbers.
It is important to remember that the correction procedure is really only intended to compensate for small pressure and temperature differences. In reality, it merely approximates what the power would be if you actually tested under those conditions. The correction procedure only compensates for changes in air density. It ignores coolant-and oil-temperature differences. Humidity also has a variable effect on power because it affects the point at which detonation occurs. And the theoretical correction factor can't compensate for real-world anomalies such as the engine having the same cylinder-block temperature regardless of the ambient air temperature. If the block temperature is constant, air entering the cylinder head is heated more on a cold day than it would be on a hot day!
There's no doubt that corrected power yields more valid numbers than uncorrected power, but there's no real substitute for testing under the same conditions when you have to make close comparisons. For best results, try to maintain constant air temperature, fuel temperature, oil temperature, coolant temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. For example, if the test facility is in a high-humidity area, try to test early in the morning.
It is important to remember that the correction procedure is really only intended to compensate for small pressure and temperature differences. In reality, it merely approximates what the power would be if you actually tested under those conditions. The correction procedure only compensates for changes in air density. It ignores coolant-and oil-temperature differences. Humidity also has a variable effect on power because it affects the point at which detonation occurs. And the theoretical correction factor can't compensate for real-world anomalies such as the engine having the same cylinder-block temperature regardless of the ambient air temperature. If the block temperature is constant, air entering the cylinder head is heated more on a cold day than it would be on a hot day!
There's no doubt that corrected power yields more valid numbers than uncorrected power, but there's no real substitute for testing under the same conditions when you have to make close comparisons. For best results, try to maintain constant air temperature, fuel temperature, oil temperature, coolant temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. For example, if the test facility is in a high-humidity area, try to test early in the morning.
Dyno Correction Factor and Relative Horsepower
So what's all this correction factor stuff anyway??
The horsepower and torque available from a normally aspirated internal combustion engine are dependent upon the density of the air... higher density means more oxygen molecules and more power... lower density means less oxygen and less power.
The relative horsepower, and the dyno correction factor, allow mathematical calculation of the affects of air density on the wide-open-throttle horsepower and torque. The dyno correction factor is simply the mathematical reciprocal of the relative horsepower value.
What's it good for?
One common use of the dyno correction factor is to standardize the horsepower and torque readings, so that the effects of the ambient temperature and pressure are removed from the readings. By using the dyno correction factor, power and torque readings can be directly compared to the readings taken on some other day, or even taken at some other altitude.
That is, the corrected readings are the same as the result that you would get by taking the car (or engine) to a certain temperature controlled, humidity controlled, pressure controlled dyno shop where they measure "standard" power, based on the carefully controlled temperature, humidity and pressure.
If you take your car to the dyno on a cold day at low altitude, it will make a lot of power. And if you take exactly the same car back to the same dyno on a hot day, it will make less power. But if you take the exact same car to the "standard" dyno (where the temperature, humidity and pressure are all carefully controlled) on those different days, it will always make exactly the same power.
Sometimes you may want to know how much power you are really making on that specific day due to the temperature, humidity and pressure on that day; in that case, you should look at the uncorrected power readings.
But when you want to see how much more power you have solely due to the new headers, or the new cam, then you will find that the corrected power is more useful, since it removes the effects of the temperature, humidity and atmospheric pressure and just shows you how much more (or less) power you have than in your previous tests.
There is no "right" answer... it's simply a matter of how you want to use the information.
If you want to know whether you are going to burn up the tranny with too much power on a cool, humid day, then go to the dyno and look at uncorrected power to see how exactly much power you have under these conditions.
But if you want to compare the effects due to modifications, or you want to compare several different cars at different times, then the corrected readings of the "standard" dyno will be more useful.
How's it calculated?
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has created a standard method for correcting horsepower and torque readings so that they will seem as if the readings had all been taken at the same "standard" test cell where the air pressure, humidity and air temperature are held constant.
The equation for the dyno correction factor given in SAE J1349 JUN90, converted to pressure in mb, is:
where: cf = the dyno correction factor
Pd = the pressure of the dry air, mb
Tc = ambient temperature, deg C
The pressure of the dry air Pd, is found by subtracting the vapor pressure Pv from the actual air pressure. For more information about pressures and calculation of the vapor pressure, see Air Density and Density Altitude.
The relative horsepower is simply the mathematical reciprocal of the correction factor.
Horsepower and Torque:
Power is the rate at which work is done. When the engine torque is turning the crankshaft and power is being delivered, the resulting horsepower may be expressed as:
which can be simplified as
where: hp = horsepower, hp
t = torque, ft-lbs
rpm = engine speed, revolutions per minute
This is a great formula. Basically it says that if you can keep the same amount of torque, then the more rpm you can turn, the more horsepower you get!
That's why Formula One and CART and IRL engines all turn incredible rpm. The faster the engine turns, the more power it can make (when it's properly tuned to operate at that speed).
Consider for example: a normally aspirated internal combustion engine typically produces about 1 to 1.5 ft-lbs of torque per cubic inch when it is properly tuned to operate at any specific rpm. With a 2 litre (1 litre is about 61 cubic inches) engine, producing 1.5 ft-lbs of torque per cubic inch, you would expect to get about 180 hp at 5200 rpm... but you will get a whopping 415 hp if you can get it to run at 12,000 rpm.
The 3.5 liter IRL engine is reported to produce about 650 hp at 10,700 rpm. That would be about 1.5 ft-lbs per cubic inch.
The Ferrari 3.0 liter Formula One engine is rumored to produce about 860 hp at 18,500 rpm. That would be about 1.33 ft-lbs per cubic inch.
And at the other end of the rpm spectrum, one model of the 360 cubic inch four cylinder Lycoming IO-360 aircraft engine produces 180 hp at 2700 rpm, which is 0.97 ft-lbs per cubic inch.
In general, production automobile engines that have a broad torque band will produce about 0.9 to 1.1 ft-lbs per cubic inch. Highly tuned production engines, such as the Honda S2000 or the Ferrari F50 are in the range of 1.1 to 1.3 ft-lbs per cubic inch. Highly tuned race engines such as NASCAR, IRL and Formula One are often in the range of 1.3 to 1.5 ft-lbs per cubic inch.
Conversion Factors:
To convert to other units, try the DigitalDutch or NIST web sites.
enjoy..
Richard Shelquist
Longmont, Colorado
So what's all this correction factor stuff anyway??
The horsepower and torque available from a normally aspirated internal combustion engine are dependent upon the density of the air... higher density means more oxygen molecules and more power... lower density means less oxygen and less power.
The relative horsepower, and the dyno correction factor, allow mathematical calculation of the affects of air density on the wide-open-throttle horsepower and torque. The dyno correction factor is simply the mathematical reciprocal of the relative horsepower value.
What's it good for?
One common use of the dyno correction factor is to standardize the horsepower and torque readings, so that the effects of the ambient temperature and pressure are removed from the readings. By using the dyno correction factor, power and torque readings can be directly compared to the readings taken on some other day, or even taken at some other altitude.
That is, the corrected readings are the same as the result that you would get by taking the car (or engine) to a certain temperature controlled, humidity controlled, pressure controlled dyno shop where they measure "standard" power, based on the carefully controlled temperature, humidity and pressure.
If you take your car to the dyno on a cold day at low altitude, it will make a lot of power. And if you take exactly the same car back to the same dyno on a hot day, it will make less power. But if you take the exact same car to the "standard" dyno (where the temperature, humidity and pressure are all carefully controlled) on those different days, it will always make exactly the same power.
Sometimes you may want to know how much power you are really making on that specific day due to the temperature, humidity and pressure on that day; in that case, you should look at the uncorrected power readings.
But when you want to see how much more power you have solely due to the new headers, or the new cam, then you will find that the corrected power is more useful, since it removes the effects of the temperature, humidity and atmospheric pressure and just shows you how much more (or less) power you have than in your previous tests.
There is no "right" answer... it's simply a matter of how you want to use the information.
If you want to know whether you are going to burn up the tranny with too much power on a cool, humid day, then go to the dyno and look at uncorrected power to see how exactly much power you have under these conditions.
But if you want to compare the effects due to modifications, or you want to compare several different cars at different times, then the corrected readings of the "standard" dyno will be more useful.
How's it calculated?
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has created a standard method for correcting horsepower and torque readings so that they will seem as if the readings had all been taken at the same "standard" test cell where the air pressure, humidity and air temperature are held constant.
The equation for the dyno correction factor given in SAE J1349 JUN90, converted to pressure in mb, is:
where: cf = the dyno correction factor
Pd = the pressure of the dry air, mb
Tc = ambient temperature, deg C
The pressure of the dry air Pd, is found by subtracting the vapor pressure Pv from the actual air pressure. For more information about pressures and calculation of the vapor pressure, see Air Density and Density Altitude.
The relative horsepower is simply the mathematical reciprocal of the correction factor.
Horsepower and Torque:
Power is the rate at which work is done. When the engine torque is turning the crankshaft and power is being delivered, the resulting horsepower may be expressed as:
which can be simplified as
where: hp = horsepower, hp
t = torque, ft-lbs
rpm = engine speed, revolutions per minute
This is a great formula. Basically it says that if you can keep the same amount of torque, then the more rpm you can turn, the more horsepower you get!
That's why Formula One and CART and IRL engines all turn incredible rpm. The faster the engine turns, the more power it can make (when it's properly tuned to operate at that speed).
Consider for example: a normally aspirated internal combustion engine typically produces about 1 to 1.5 ft-lbs of torque per cubic inch when it is properly tuned to operate at any specific rpm. With a 2 litre (1 litre is about 61 cubic inches) engine, producing 1.5 ft-lbs of torque per cubic inch, you would expect to get about 180 hp at 5200 rpm... but you will get a whopping 415 hp if you can get it to run at 12,000 rpm.
The 3.5 liter IRL engine is reported to produce about 650 hp at 10,700 rpm. That would be about 1.5 ft-lbs per cubic inch.
The Ferrari 3.0 liter Formula One engine is rumored to produce about 860 hp at 18,500 rpm. That would be about 1.33 ft-lbs per cubic inch.
And at the other end of the rpm spectrum, one model of the 360 cubic inch four cylinder Lycoming IO-360 aircraft engine produces 180 hp at 2700 rpm, which is 0.97 ft-lbs per cubic inch.
In general, production automobile engines that have a broad torque band will produce about 0.9 to 1.1 ft-lbs per cubic inch. Highly tuned production engines, such as the Honda S2000 or the Ferrari F50 are in the range of 1.1 to 1.3 ft-lbs per cubic inch. Highly tuned race engines such as NASCAR, IRL and Formula One are often in the range of 1.3 to 1.5 ft-lbs per cubic inch.
Conversion Factors:
To convert to other units, try the DigitalDutch or NIST web sites.
enjoy..
Richard Shelquist
Longmont, Colorado
Finally and most intestingly - quoting our beloved Shiv himself
Corrected or Uncorrected
Dynojets can read corrected or uncorrected horsepower. Because different weather conditions can result in different air densities and different oxygen concentrations, the weather can have a significant effect on power output. The SAE has a standard set of correction factors that can be used to normalize all power outputs to what they would be at sea level, on a 60 degree day, with 0 percent humidity. Every Dynojet has a small weather station built in to feed the appropriate temperature and barometric pressure readings to the computer so it can calculate this factor. The difference between 0 percent and 100 percent humidity is about a seven percent correction. A temperature change from 60 to 90 degrees, on the other hand, will have an effect of about a 2.8 percent. A difference in elevation from sea level to 5000 feet is worth a whopping 20 percent!
If you use uncorrected data, the changes in power output due to weather conditions could be misconstrued as being a result of something else. For example, if you have a dyno sheet showing that a header made a 15-hp gain, but the runs were done on different days and the plot was made with uncorrected data, you can't be sure if that is really a 15-hp header, or an 8-hp header and a 7-hp weather change.
Corrected numbers, on the other hand, can be suspect in certain cases as well. Turbocharged cars running at high altitude, for example, might be more accurately represented by uncorrected numbers. Say you are testing an FD3S RX-7 in Denver, where the elevation is approximately 5,000 feet. Shiv Pathak, master of our FD3S RX-7 project, reports that he always sees higher boost levels at high altitude. The reason is simple. The wastegate opens when boost is 12 psi higher than the normal sea-level reference air behind the wastegate actuator diaphragm (air that has been stuck in there ever since the diaphragm was sealed somewhere in Hiroshima). As the air density drops at high altitude, the actual pressure in the boosted intake manifold remains constant. The boost gauge, though, reads pounds of boost over ambient pressure. If the ambient air pressure in Hiroshima was 14.5 psi when that diaphragm was sealed, but it is only 13.5 psi when Shiv drives through the mountains, his boost gauge will read 1 psi higher than normal.
The SAE correction factor used by Dynojet assumes that lower air pressure at the sensor box means lower air pressure in the intake manifold, though, so at 5,000 feet the dyno is applying a 20-percent correction factor to compensate for a loss of air density that the engine never sees. This is fine if you are doing all your tests in Denver, but if you do one test in Denver and one test in New Orleans (the highest mountain in New Orleans is 12 feet above sea level) uncorrected numbers will be more accurate.
The SAE correction factors are only accurate over a relatively limited range, and the Dynojet software is smart enough to warn you when two runs with wildly different correction factors are being compared. The software in New Orleans can't check your glovebox for that last dyno printout from Denver, though, so you'll have to warn yourself.
Dynojets can read corrected or uncorrected horsepower. Because different weather conditions can result in different air densities and different oxygen concentrations, the weather can have a significant effect on power output. The SAE has a standard set of correction factors that can be used to normalize all power outputs to what they would be at sea level, on a 60 degree day, with 0 percent humidity. Every Dynojet has a small weather station built in to feed the appropriate temperature and barometric pressure readings to the computer so it can calculate this factor. The difference between 0 percent and 100 percent humidity is about a seven percent correction. A temperature change from 60 to 90 degrees, on the other hand, will have an effect of about a 2.8 percent. A difference in elevation from sea level to 5000 feet is worth a whopping 20 percent!
If you use uncorrected data, the changes in power output due to weather conditions could be misconstrued as being a result of something else. For example, if you have a dyno sheet showing that a header made a 15-hp gain, but the runs were done on different days and the plot was made with uncorrected data, you can't be sure if that is really a 15-hp header, or an 8-hp header and a 7-hp weather change.
Corrected numbers, on the other hand, can be suspect in certain cases as well. Turbocharged cars running at high altitude, for example, might be more accurately represented by uncorrected numbers. Say you are testing an FD3S RX-7 in Denver, where the elevation is approximately 5,000 feet. Shiv Pathak, master of our FD3S RX-7 project, reports that he always sees higher boost levels at high altitude. The reason is simple. The wastegate opens when boost is 12 psi higher than the normal sea-level reference air behind the wastegate actuator diaphragm (air that has been stuck in there ever since the diaphragm was sealed somewhere in Hiroshima). As the air density drops at high altitude, the actual pressure in the boosted intake manifold remains constant. The boost gauge, though, reads pounds of boost over ambient pressure. If the ambient air pressure in Hiroshima was 14.5 psi when that diaphragm was sealed, but it is only 13.5 psi when Shiv drives through the mountains, his boost gauge will read 1 psi higher than normal.
The SAE correction factor used by Dynojet assumes that lower air pressure at the sensor box means lower air pressure in the intake manifold, though, so at 5,000 feet the dyno is applying a 20-percent correction factor to compensate for a loss of air density that the engine never sees. This is fine if you are doing all your tests in Denver, but if you do one test in Denver and one test in New Orleans (the highest mountain in New Orleans is 12 feet above sea level) uncorrected numbers will be more accurate.
The SAE correction factors are only accurate over a relatively limited range, and the Dynojet software is smart enough to warn you when two runs with wildly different correction factors are being compared. The software in New Orleans can't check your glovebox for that last dyno printout from Denver, though, so you'll have to warn yourself.
In conclusion - from our auhoritative source
Be aware that SAE correction factors do not apply to turbocharged engines! If your dyno sheet lists SAE corrected HP, ignore it as it is incorrect. You are better off getting an idea of where you stand by looking at observed hp with a turbo engine.
PS - Why does the dyno come with so many possible correction factors ?
DIN, SAE, STD, etc ?
I use either STD or uncorrected - depending on which one I feel is working better to give a realistic figure - i dont use SAE - for mostly the reasons posted above
When I post dyno sheets - the correction is always listed
Originally Posted by Jim_Patterson
I say until Shiv runs 9s and drives the car daily, he cant call anyone out.
Wait I guess just until he runs 9s!
Wait I guess just until he runs 9s!
Al tends to attract the straight line junkies - not necessarily Shiv's bag.
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,941
Likes: 0
From: Danville/Blackhawk, California
Al-- 
Did you even read what you posted?!? Most of that info had to do with altitude corrections and how they don't apply to turbocars. Unless Pruven's dyno now resides in Colorado, I dont think it really applies to you. But thanks for answering my question regarding your decision on when/how you decide to use STD, SAE or Uncorrected numbers. 
Did you even read what you posted?!? Most of that info had to do with altitude corrections and how they don't apply to turbocars. Unless Pruven's dyno now resides in Colorado, I dont think it really applies to you. But thanks for answering my question regarding your decision on when/how you decide to use STD, SAE or Uncorrected numbers.
Last edited by shiv@vishnu; Dec 9, 2005 at 06:38 PM.
Originally Posted by meanmud
I could give a rats a$$ about running 9's or 11's for that matter - to me it's just like dyno bragging.
Al tends to attract the straight line junkies - not necessarily Shiv's bag.
Al tends to attract the straight line junkies - not necessarily Shiv's bag.
How about 3 or 4 of you get together for a magazine shootout with the new IX somewhere to give everyone an idea of who really puts together the better tune?
Each of you would start with identical IXs
Reflash the ECU only
Have a non-biased professional driver standing by to run each car
Datalog the results when doing multiple runs with equal cool downs down the 1/4 mile (timing, knock, A/F, etc.)
Then you could each install an identical Turboback exhaust, reflash again, datalog the 1/4 mile, and run the 1/4 mile
Report the final results
Works, Dynoflash and Vishnu could all participate. I think this would be wonderful PR for everyone involved and settle alot of the bickering I see going back and forth with some tuners.
I would buy that magazine in a heartbeat!
Each of you would start with identical IXs
Reflash the ECU only
Have a non-biased professional driver standing by to run each car
Datalog the results when doing multiple runs with equal cool downs down the 1/4 mile (timing, knock, A/F, etc.)
Then you could each install an identical Turboback exhaust, reflash again, datalog the 1/4 mile, and run the 1/4 mile
Report the final results
Works, Dynoflash and Vishnu could all participate. I think this would be wonderful PR for everyone involved and settle alot of the bickering I see going back and forth with some tuners.
I would buy that magazine in a heartbeat!
Originally Posted by gofaster87
Well it must be Shivs bag if he decided to come on here and argue. And why would we care if YOU give a rats *** about drag racing? The world is not just about a road course, drag racing has a long history as well and many of us enjoy it.
Gotta Hemi
Hmmm. I was pointed to this thread. As all of you know Al and I are great friends and even I don't come into his forums and post much.
Personally, I'd have Shiv's posts deleted and probably have him banned if it were me, Shiv you have no business here.
Anyway. Shiv, you said I have my dyno calibrated just like yours. Uh, not sure how that would be possible as we have two different dyno types. I didn't nor did Mustang Dyno calibrate this dyno to match anything you have. The dyno is calibrated by weighing the rolls, belts, drag of bearings etc. to come up with the actual combined weight of what the car has to spin on the dyno. It wasn't calibrated to match anyone's. The two dynos, yours and mine, may spit out similar numbers (I don't know as I don't watch what you are doing or care to be honest) but my dyno was NOT calibrated to match anything you have.
Also, this entire corrected non corrected, SAE corrected stuff can get pretty hairy. When I had my Dynojet I made it a habit to just keep it set on SAE correction. When messing with it doing this seemed to keep the results from an extremely hot day more on par with what I would expect to see but for some odd reason seemed to make very little difference when it was really cold. I have no reason and don't care to learn why. It is just what I observed when I owned it. I went as far as to actually put the weather station in front of a heater once to see what would happen to the numbers. The changes in power, if I remember correctly were not that drastic.
Al put up what the car made under each correction. The TRUTH is in the conditions the car was in it made 375 whp. The TRUTH is on any particular day a car is going to be faster at the track than on another day. IF you run a car in 60 degree weather it is going to be quicker and faster than on a 100 degree day. In this case, running the car Uncorrected the car made 375 whp, which is what it actually did make. Until you can take the car to the track and run it SAE corrected and slow it down then I see no harm in showing the 375 whp which the car did actually make that day. Especially when the room temp was 60 degrees.
More knowledge. My new AWD Mustang Dyno has a weather station option. When I bought the dyno I chose not to buy it. It's pretty expensive. The MD dyno also gives you the option to input the tempurature, baro and humidity. If you don't check a box saying to use what you manually enter it does no correction. If you do check the box it will use whatever inputs you put in. I bought an aftermarket weather station that is attached to the side of the dyno. I manually enter the conditions in the room. Doing this you see how much of a correction factor the dyno corrects. It is very interesting how far you can move one number around and then another and still end up with a 1.00 correction (which is none).
More on this. We are building another BR350 and another BR330 right now. Two more brand new EVO9's. Now understand, when we get these cars they are BONE STOCK brand new. I am talking less than 10 miles on them. This is the car we build and sell through Medina Mitsubishi. The most power I have seen a new EVO9 make on our dyno is 210 whp.
Yesterday I pulled in a bone stock EVO9, I dyno them before and after the BR package is installed to make sure the buyer gets what we advertise. I manually entered the weather station parameters. If I remember right the dyno room was 30 degrees F. VERY COLD. First pull the car only made 188 whp! Holy crap I thought. I let the car sit and get warmer, double checked my inputs for the weather station. (room temps rise when we dyno from the heat of the car, we dyno with our shop door open) I get back in and run the car for awhile on the rollers. I wanted to get the fluids nice and warm as it was outside where it was -1 degree F and I was thinking it was loosing some power from the gear lubes and such being so thick. I make the second pull and the car makes 196 whp. Hmmm, not a very strong car. One more, same number. I then get out and turn the weather station inputs off, so now the correction factor is 1.00, no correction. I dyno the car again and the numbers are 211 whp. This is where I expected it to be in the first place. Keep in mind the defaults in the dyno are 70 degrees F. 40+ more degrees than it actually was and only worth 15 whp.
It will be interesting to get the car back on the dyno after the modifications. This dyno is a heartbreaker for sure.
BTW, the reason I dyno'd it with the correction on and off was this was the coldest we have run our dyno since we had it and I was concerned how the MD might be correcting, expecially when I saw that sorry 188 whp.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Personally, I'd have Shiv's posts deleted and probably have him banned if it were me, Shiv you have no business here.
Anyway. Shiv, you said I have my dyno calibrated just like yours. Uh, not sure how that would be possible as we have two different dyno types. I didn't nor did Mustang Dyno calibrate this dyno to match anything you have. The dyno is calibrated by weighing the rolls, belts, drag of bearings etc. to come up with the actual combined weight of what the car has to spin on the dyno. It wasn't calibrated to match anyone's. The two dynos, yours and mine, may spit out similar numbers (I don't know as I don't watch what you are doing or care to be honest) but my dyno was NOT calibrated to match anything you have.
Also, this entire corrected non corrected, SAE corrected stuff can get pretty hairy. When I had my Dynojet I made it a habit to just keep it set on SAE correction. When messing with it doing this seemed to keep the results from an extremely hot day more on par with what I would expect to see but for some odd reason seemed to make very little difference when it was really cold. I have no reason and don't care to learn why. It is just what I observed when I owned it. I went as far as to actually put the weather station in front of a heater once to see what would happen to the numbers. The changes in power, if I remember correctly were not that drastic.
Al put up what the car made under each correction. The TRUTH is in the conditions the car was in it made 375 whp. The TRUTH is on any particular day a car is going to be faster at the track than on another day. IF you run a car in 60 degree weather it is going to be quicker and faster than on a 100 degree day. In this case, running the car Uncorrected the car made 375 whp, which is what it actually did make. Until you can take the car to the track and run it SAE corrected and slow it down then I see no harm in showing the 375 whp which the car did actually make that day. Especially when the room temp was 60 degrees.
More knowledge. My new AWD Mustang Dyno has a weather station option. When I bought the dyno I chose not to buy it. It's pretty expensive. The MD dyno also gives you the option to input the tempurature, baro and humidity. If you don't check a box saying to use what you manually enter it does no correction. If you do check the box it will use whatever inputs you put in. I bought an aftermarket weather station that is attached to the side of the dyno. I manually enter the conditions in the room. Doing this you see how much of a correction factor the dyno corrects. It is very interesting how far you can move one number around and then another and still end up with a 1.00 correction (which is none).
More on this. We are building another BR350 and another BR330 right now. Two more brand new EVO9's. Now understand, when we get these cars they are BONE STOCK brand new. I am talking less than 10 miles on them. This is the car we build and sell through Medina Mitsubishi. The most power I have seen a new EVO9 make on our dyno is 210 whp.
Yesterday I pulled in a bone stock EVO9, I dyno them before and after the BR package is installed to make sure the buyer gets what we advertise. I manually entered the weather station parameters. If I remember right the dyno room was 30 degrees F. VERY COLD. First pull the car only made 188 whp! Holy crap I thought. I let the car sit and get warmer, double checked my inputs for the weather station. (room temps rise when we dyno from the heat of the car, we dyno with our shop door open) I get back in and run the car for awhile on the rollers. I wanted to get the fluids nice and warm as it was outside where it was -1 degree F and I was thinking it was loosing some power from the gear lubes and such being so thick. I make the second pull and the car makes 196 whp. Hmmm, not a very strong car. One more, same number. I then get out and turn the weather station inputs off, so now the correction factor is 1.00, no correction. I dyno the car again and the numbers are 211 whp. This is where I expected it to be in the first place. Keep in mind the defaults in the dyno are 70 degrees F. 40+ more degrees than it actually was and only worth 15 whp.
It will be interesting to get the car back on the dyno after the modifications. This dyno is a heartbreaker for sure.
BTW, the reason I dyno'd it with the correction on and off was this was the coldest we have run our dyno since we had it and I was concerned how the MD might be correcting, expecially when I saw that sorry 188 whp.
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
