Notices
ECU Flash

Datalogging guesstimate HP

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 8, 2007 | 06:34 PM
  #31  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Well your airflow starts to drop off at 1720hz @ about 7300 rpm and 330whp. Remember and I cant emphasize this enough this is a tool for approximating and showing changes either gained or lost in your tune and setup. Do you have 330whp? I dont know and wont venture a guess unless you have a dynosheet but I know of plenty of IX's that can do that with your current mods. I have tuned a couple that made 334 real world whp with stock cams and the supporting mods you listed (maybe a few more) and high boost on pump gas.

Also it appears that you have it basing the calculations of calculated load and not 2 byte load (least from the tag) which will be inaccurate if that is the case.

Edit---sorry didnt mean for that to sound rude, that was not my intention.
Reply
Old Oct 8, 2007 | 06:46 PM
  #32  
blackdemon's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: Bronx, NY
pm sent
Reply
Old Oct 8, 2007 | 07:08 PM
  #33  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Nope there it was right where you said it was. My mistake, ever have one of those days where things are hiding in the open? Maybe it was too much excel today or maybe too much of something with dinner. I apologise for my confusion.

JB
Reply
Old Oct 8, 2007 | 07:57 PM
  #34  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
PLEASE NOTE

If you decide to help this project by contributing logs it would be awesome if we can all use the same correction factor (9.15) unless you have dyno'd on something other than a Mustang and have a dyno sheet for that particular model.

If you have done this (used another correction) that is great but please make mention of that, as well as boost, mods (not just generic if at all possible), and temps if you dont log them. Other things such as altitude and humidity would be great but arent a requirement. Thanks again for everyones help in making this easier to use and as accurate as possible.

JB
Reply
Old Oct 9, 2007 | 09:07 AM
  #35  
blackdemon's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: Bronx, NY
Correction factor changed to 9.15. Evo IX with tbe, testpipe, intake. The first log is with a older map, the last one is with my current tune. Please review.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...kWXjy-glT0SPXg

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...kWWAzxIe_qwkXQ
Reply
Old Oct 9, 2007 | 09:58 AM
  #36  
roger smith's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
From: Ventura County, CA
Originally Posted by blackdemon
Correction factor changed to 9.15. Evo IX with tbe, testpipe, intake. The first log is with a older map, the last one is with my current tune. Please review.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...kWXjy-glT0SPXg

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...kWWAzxIe_qwkXQ
Look good. Looks like you hold more torque around 3500 rpm area with the changes you made. You should be able to up your torque though, right? What boost are you running?
Reply
Old Oct 9, 2007 | 10:00 AM
  #37  
blackdemon's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: Bronx, NY
Originally Posted by roger smith
Look good. Looks like you hold more torque around 3500 rpm area with the changes you made. You should be able to up your torque though, right? What boost are you running?
Im running stock boost. I am planning on getting a better tune once I install my wideband.
Reply
Old Oct 9, 2007 | 12:09 PM
  #38  
Jeff_Jeske's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (66)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 7
From: On the track
I think this calculation is closer to being realistic than it was before but thats about where it ends. Heck even same model dyno's provide different results.

Back in the DSMLink days with my 2G we would use airflow and our 60-90 times to determine if a mod helped or hurt. Find a nice flat stretch of road and start testing. DSM gearing is different than EVO gearing so 60-90 might not be the hot ticket but something close to it might be.

If EVOScan reports fast enough to measure the actual speed changes, the above two items alone should be enough to determine a before and after result.
Reply
Old Oct 9, 2007 | 12:12 PM
  #39  
l2r99gst's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,499
Likes: 4
From: CA
I did the same, 60-90 times.

I think the Evo gearing would favor 50-80 times.


Eric
Reply
Old Oct 12, 2007 | 09:06 AM
  #40  
TouringBubble's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 3
From: Chelsea, AL
Thanks JB, this new calculation is great ...

I'm showing:
345 WHP @ 7200
37.76 lb/min
2-byte AF of 1887

This makes me want to change my intake and see if an open element makes a difference at these power levels. I think it will, especially if we're basing calculations on flow.
Reply
Old Oct 12, 2007 | 09:34 AM
  #41  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Touring, is that the RPM where the plateau starts to happen? Seems a little high compared to some of the other logs I have seen. If it is thats great, but remember its not gospel its just a close guess.
Reply
Old Oct 12, 2007 | 10:13 AM
  #42  
TouringBubble's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 3
From: Chelsea, AL
Plateau is around 6000 ... 6031 in the log.

1775.35
1785.47
1798.35
1793.82
1806.40
1805.42
1818.39
1820.85
1819.77 <-- I'd call this the peak ... not sure though.
1826.45
1832.94
1832.25
1829.70
1848.57
1844.14

I know that the numbers are just estimates, but they are repeatable and that's the beauty of it. The other calculations I've used were so picky about terrain and I could rarely get comparable runs. Your method is much less volatile.

Last edited by TouringBubble; Oct 12, 2007 at 10:16 AM.
Reply
Old Oct 12, 2007 | 10:15 PM
  #43  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
TB, that very well could be, though I would think it actually happened at the 1818 mark or maybe a little sooner. Hard to say and I havent figured out a 100% foolproof way of testing other than having a dynosheet for the same car, same tune, same conditions to compare to one of these logs.
Reply
Old Oct 13, 2007 | 12:00 AM
  #44  
recompile's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (38)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,745
Likes: 10
From: New Hampshire, USA
Originally Posted by JohnBradley
TB, that very well could be, though I would think it actually happened at the 1818 mark or maybe a little sooner. Hard to say and I havent figured out a 100% foolproof way of testing other than having a dynosheet for the same car, same tune, same conditions to compare to one of these logs.
I'll be on a Dyno Dynamics on November 24th, and I'll have my laptop complete w/ JB Dyno Logs
Reply
Old Oct 13, 2007 | 12:03 AM
  #45  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Awesome
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:13 PM.