Correction Factors the same as bench racing?
It is a lovely marketing ploy to try and make a dyno "appear on the surface" to be a "low reading" dyno when lightweight race cars are being used to demonstrate the benefits of shaving WEIGHT which in turn increases the MPH at the track.
This can be a whole other thread of its own.
It's not running 42psi all the way to redline.....guess you missed that part. I'm running a HTA3582 with a .82ar.....it's out of breathe at 40+psi anyways. But any moron can interpolate what the whp would be at 42psi had I been able to run that much boost at 8000+RPM.
Still waiting for the real response as to why your car is slow.
Still waiting for the real response as to why your car is slow.
I guess I missed the part in the Mustang Dyno training about the user being able to self interpolate magical non-existant dyno numbers.
I suppose we can put in our signature 926iwhp @ 10,000rpms 64psi of interpolated boost pressure.
Just one more quick comparison.
Ryu's car maks almost 600 whp on Scotts dyno. Runs 10.3 @133
04whiteRS makes about 450 whp on my dyno and runs 10.7@130.
My Evo makes 650 whp on mine and Buschurs dyno and runs 9.6@156
Almost 150 whp more and solid driving should gain you about 10-13 mph or so, even with the weight difference.
-Em
Ryu's car maks almost 600 whp on Scotts dyno. Runs 10.3 @133
04whiteRS makes about 450 whp on my dyno and runs 10.7@130.
My Evo makes 650 whp on mine and Buschurs dyno and runs 9.6@156
Almost 150 whp more and solid driving should gain you about 10-13 mph or so, even with the weight difference.
-Em
I don't have any data on what altitude, temperature, humidity this "04whiteRS" dynoed at, frankly you have not even provided a dynosheet with smoothing factor.
By the screen name alone, its evident that it is a 2004 RS model lightweight Evo which solidifies my point about light cars and trapspeeds being higher.
For those that are interested I have gone over quite a few of Dave's dyno sheets for similar builds to ones we have done and this does seem to be a constant. I am not saying it is a constant, but its very close.
Yeah I did the math backwards, I went 921/800 and got 1.151 when I suppose I should have gone the other way (800/921) and got .868 since we know what DJ's do and just need to math it out to what BR's mustang is.
For those that are interested I have gone over quite a few of Dave's dyno sheets for similar builds to ones we have done and this does seem to be a constant. I am not saying it is a constant, but its very close.
For those that are interested I have gone over quite a few of Dave's dyno sheets for similar builds to ones we have done and this does seem to be a constant. I am not saying it is a constant, but its very close.
Dunno, Occham's razor would seem to indicate otherwise however.
Enough about cars though, I want on of these (saw it here https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/7854908-post45.html ):
I need to get myself over to FantasyLand Motorsports and pick it up. Get this, it makes 2 horsepower and I have heard with correction factor its 2.6hp. I bet in the cold NW air I can get it to make almost 3 uncorrected though.
Enough about cars though, I want on of these (saw it here https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/7854908-post45.html ):
I need to get myself over to FantasyLand Motorsports and pick it up. Get this, it makes 2 horsepower and I have heard with correction factor its 2.6hp. I bet in the cold NW air I can get it to make almost 3 uncorrected though.
Ryu ran 10.80 with 443whp on stock turbo.
I don't have any data on what altitude, temperature, humidity this "04whiteRS" dynoed at, frankly you have not even provided a dynosheet with smoothing factor.
By the screen name alone, its evident that it is a 2004 RS model lightweight Evo which solidifies my point about light cars and trapspeeds being higher.
I don't have any data on what altitude, temperature, humidity this "04whiteRS" dynoed at, frankly you have not even provided a dynosheet with smoothing factor.
By the screen name alone, its evident that it is a 2004 RS model lightweight Evo which solidifies my point about light cars and trapspeeds being higher.
What was the trap speed? I know Ryu can drive so that may be where the 10.8 came from.
So we do not need dyno's at all? Is that why you no longer work at Mustang because people would get tuned at 37psi, and could magically self-interpolate what 5 more psi of boost would print out on a dynosheet in whatever gear they choose? Sales got curbed from the new dyno number interpolation feature and business slowed?
I guess I missed the part in the Mustang Dyno training about the user being able to self interpolate magical non-existant dyno numbers.
I suppose we can put in our signature 926iwhp @ 10,000rpms 64psi of interpolated boost pressure.
I guess I missed the part in the Mustang Dyno training about the user being able to self interpolate magical non-existant dyno numbers.
I suppose we can put in our signature 926iwhp @ 10,000rpms 64psi of interpolated boost pressure.
1. I can gaurantee you from 7000RPM up its not making more than 40psi of boost. So any difference there is moot.
2. Yes you can "magically self-interpolate" pretty well what a turbo car is going to make at different boost pressures as long as you are still in the efficient part of the compressor map. A lot of people have been doing this for a while. If you've never heard of it, maybe you should find a new profession.
Here let me show you. Here's some quick interpolation of my car based on the horsepower I've seen at 29, 37 and 39psi. The numbers in red are what was actually made, the numbers in black have been interpolated. I interpolated allllllllll the way down to 29psi and wow, there's a 1.6% margin of error between what was interpolated and what actually happened on the dyno. I think interpolating works pretty well.
3. I always laugh at how you insinuate that I was fired from Mustang or was incompetent or something like that when you really have no idea what happened. I gave them a 3 week notice that I was quitting, was given a letter of recommendation from the VP of sales, was asked to go and work at SEMA with them even though I was no longer an employee and provided them with the name and contact info of the person who ultimately took my place. I then proceeded to move on to a new job that payed substantially more money and allowed me to no longer have to deal with unintelligent people like yourself.
So we do not need dyno's at all? Is that why you no longer work at Mustang because people would get tuned at 37psi, and could magically self-interpolate what 5 more psi of boost would print out on a dynosheet in whatever gear they choose? Sales got curbed from the new dyno number interpolation feature and business slowed?
I guess I missed the part in the Mustang Dyno training about the user being able to self interpolate magical non-existant dyno numbers.
I suppose we can put in our signature 926iwhp @ 10,000rpms 64psi of interpolated boost pressure.
I guess I missed the part in the Mustang Dyno training about the user being able to self interpolate magical non-existant dyno numbers.
I suppose we can put in our signature 926iwhp @ 10,000rpms 64psi of interpolated boost pressure.
Mike
You cannot interpolate a dynosheet accurately period and you just proved that.
You are wanting to compare an Evo that has not been dynoed as it has run at the track and use hypothetical imputed fake estimates to try and compare the car with another Evo that has ACTUALLY been dynotested with documented numbers?
You cannot discuss correction factors on a car that actually has not been dynoed as it is run so your comparison and references to E.T. and MPH are moot.
Very illogical and makes no sense, period.
There is no datalogging to support the boost level at 7000rpms, nor does it even matter as you appear to be "one of those guys" that takes the lowest boost level the car tapers to at redline and claim it as the boost level you ran the car at.
You could very well be peaking at 48psi like some others I know with that turbo, yet claim to run the "tapered" psi level at redline to make it sound as if you make the most power at the least amount of boost.
No one has brought up your terms of employment at MD, only the fact that you no longer work there with humor about interpolation and non tested whp rating. Whatever your personal deal is with them is your business.
You are wanting to compare an Evo that has not been dynoed as it has run at the track and use hypothetical imputed fake estimates to try and compare the car with another Evo that has ACTUALLY been dynotested with documented numbers?
You cannot discuss correction factors on a car that actually has not been dynoed as it is run so your comparison and references to E.T. and MPH are moot.
Very illogical and makes no sense, period.
There is no datalogging to support the boost level at 7000rpms, nor does it even matter as you appear to be "one of those guys" that takes the lowest boost level the car tapers to at redline and claim it as the boost level you ran the car at.
You could very well be peaking at 48psi like some others I know with that turbo, yet claim to run the "tapered" psi level at redline to make it sound as if you make the most power at the least amount of boost.
No one has brought up your terms of employment at MD, only the fact that you no longer work there with humor about interpolation and non tested whp rating. Whatever your personal deal is with them is your business.
You are seriously dense.
1. I can gaurantee you from 7000RPM up its not making more than 40psi of boost. So any difference there is moot.
2. Yes you can "magically self-interpolate" pretty well what a turbo car is going to make at different boost pressures as long as you are still in the efficient part of the compressor map. A lot of people have been doing this for a while. If you've never heard of it, maybe you should find a new profession.
Here let me show you. Here's some quick interpolation of my car based on the horsepower I've seen at 29, 37 and 39psi. The numbers in red are what was actually made, the numbers in black have been interpolated. I interpolated allllllllll the way down to 29psi and wow, there's a 1.6% margin of error between what was interpolated and what actually happened on the dyno. I think interpolating works pretty well.
3. I always laugh at how you insinuate that I was fired from Mustang or was incompetent or something like that when you really have no idea what happened. I gave them a 3 week notice that I was quitting, was given a letter of recommendation from the VP of sales, was asked to go and work at SEMA with them even though I was no longer an employee and provided them with the name and contact info of the person who ultimately took my place. I then proceeded to move on to a new job that payed substantially more money and allowed me to no longer have to deal with unintelligent people like yourself.
1. I can gaurantee you from 7000RPM up its not making more than 40psi of boost. So any difference there is moot.
2. Yes you can "magically self-interpolate" pretty well what a turbo car is going to make at different boost pressures as long as you are still in the efficient part of the compressor map. A lot of people have been doing this for a while. If you've never heard of it, maybe you should find a new profession.
Here let me show you. Here's some quick interpolation of my car based on the horsepower I've seen at 29, 37 and 39psi. The numbers in red are what was actually made, the numbers in black have been interpolated. I interpolated allllllllll the way down to 29psi and wow, there's a 1.6% margin of error between what was interpolated and what actually happened on the dyno. I think interpolating works pretty well.
3. I always laugh at how you insinuate that I was fired from Mustang or was incompetent or something like that when you really have no idea what happened. I gave them a 3 week notice that I was quitting, was given a letter of recommendation from the VP of sales, was asked to go and work at SEMA with them even though I was no longer an employee and provided them with the name and contact info of the person who ultimately took my place. I then proceeded to move on to a new job that payed substantially more money and allowed me to no longer have to deal with unintelligent people like yourself.
His numbers all math out at his boost to calc hp using the formula that most of those hp calculators are based on. 645whp for a 9.91 in a car that weighs 3175 with driver. I had always thought those things reflected a dynojet number more than anything but now I am wondering if thats the formula that Mustang uses to calc hp.