Why would they tune this way? To give people a false sense of power? To make them feel like they got their moneys worth? Here I thought the car did well??? Now I don't know.

 

huh? 341 / 1.2 = 284

 

341 is the corrected power. 1.2 is the correction factor.

corrected power divided by correction factor = uncorrected power

341 divided by 1.2 = 284

Do you have the right equation? Please post it.

 

The first time you said 248, not 284.

 

I did a lot of research on this.... English racing has a good explanation:

http://englishracing.net/tech/2009/1...e-bench-racing

If I were in "ideal" conditions, my car would have put the same thing down, or close. Elevation and temp. are both big factors. I was a mile in the air and it was 101 degrees that day.

 

I dont think you got the jist of that article. It was talking down on correction factors. Here is some quotes

"Why I feel like this system for comparing dyno # can be wrong at times. I find that Correction factors are the more wrong on turbo cars. "

"When you are at high elevations you can run more boost and timing on the same oct fuel with out Detonation. I see lots of guys in the Colorado area that make 50-100hp off correction factor."

"If you are bragging high hp # that are alot higher due to Correction, does the car even have enough fuel injector, fuel pump, ignition, strong enough hard parts to make this power for real uncorrected? "

"Correction Factors may work right on a stock all motor car, But a highly modified car they are just fake # that mean nothing."


Also, the SAE says that any correction factor more then +/- .03 is inaccurate and should not be used.

Im not trying to hate or discourage, just trying to help educate.

 

Not discouraged at all. Don't know a lot about dynos and how they work. So you think my car without a correction factor at sea level would do 285 true hp? High temps and high altitude make for lower numbers is all I'm saying. I don't take any comments as hating.

I appreciate the feedback.

 

Typo. My mistake.