New Bolt in turbo... FP White Rabbit.
Agreed, I bought all my parts used except for the cams. I also got KILLER deals as well as the deal of the century on a barely used Buschur 3" TBE(I basicially got it FREE!!). As such, I have $1000 into my car for every part INCLUDING my custom tune 
.
.
Originally Posted by Ludikraut
Just multiply the uncorrected number by your favorite correction number ... and presto!! ... you have your "corrected" sheet. IMO correction factors are just as silly as trying to compare dyno numbers from different dynos. I'll take uncorrected numbers any day of the week.
l8r)
Yeah you are totally right, uncorrected is absolutely the way to go...
Originally Posted by EVO8LTW
And, according to www.switzerperformanceinnovation.com/, you get a $45 coupon if you order a WR turbo from them 
(I have no affiliation whatsoever with either shop.)
(I have no affiliation whatsoever with either shop.)hmmm wonder whats this $45 coupon for and i wasnt informed about it today
Originally Posted by Fenris Ulf
Or why don't we just dyno a stock turbo in Siberia and post uncorrected 400 awhp numbers?
Yeah you are totally right, uncorrected is absolutely the way to go...
Yeah you are totally right, uncorrected is absolutely the way to go...
400 awhp I just found that in the article someone posted on page 16. Is this statement true? I quoted you Fenris just because I want to know if youre right or this quote I posted is correct.
Where SAE correction really gets goofy is at high altitude. For a N/A car, you lose a lot of breathability when you get up there. A forced induction car isn't as susceptible to this, but the SAE correction factor was calculated with N/A cars in mind.
I prefer my number NCFS (Not Corrected For $hit).
But hey, these dyno numbers are just propaganda until we see actual real world results. It's very easy to manipulate a dyno graph, but kind of hard to fake a 127mph trap.
Joe
I prefer my number NCFS (Not Corrected For $hit).
But hey, these dyno numbers are just propaganda until we see actual real world results. It's very easy to manipulate a dyno graph, but kind of hard to fake a 127mph trap.
Joe
White rabbit
Has anyone installed theirs yet besides the R&D groups and made it to the dyno?
I am eagerly waiting to see some results. The only dyno day I know of is early July for the vishnu tune. I would like an update, please..
Sigfrid
I am eagerly waiting to see some results. The only dyno day I know of is early July for the vishnu tune. I would like an update, please..
Sigfrid
I felt the opposite about the correction factors when I had the Dynojet. The SAE correction keeps things on a level playing field. Not using it makes you chase you tail constantly.
For example. Weather in Ohio changes day to day 20 degrees atleast every month except maybe in summer. Over the fall/winter I made right at 450 dyno pulls on my RS. I'd make a change one day dyno the car, then make another round the next day. Using the uncorrected numbers if you don't pay attention closely to the tempuratures you could see huge gains or losses from a part that you know shouldn't effect what you are making by more than a few. Change the temps by 20 degrees and dyno'ing uncorrected will make a big difference. Using the SAE correction factor on the Dynojet will keep things at a VERY level playing field for testing (even though the Dynojet is useless for accurate tuning, it is very repeatable for testing parts).
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
For example. Weather in Ohio changes day to day 20 degrees atleast every month except maybe in summer. Over the fall/winter I made right at 450 dyno pulls on my RS. I'd make a change one day dyno the car, then make another round the next day. Using the uncorrected numbers if you don't pay attention closely to the tempuratures you could see huge gains or losses from a part that you know shouldn't effect what you are making by more than a few. Change the temps by 20 degrees and dyno'ing uncorrected will make a big difference. Using the SAE correction factor on the Dynojet will keep things at a VERY level playing field for testing (even though the Dynojet is useless for accurate tuning, it is very repeatable for testing parts).
David Buschur
www.buschurracing.com
Originally Posted by Zeus
... I can't stand "JDM Goodness" as it comes at a price that should include two 18 year old "JDM", lesbian ******... with performance little better if at all.
and point taken on the SAE correction for testing and repeatability on the same dyno.
l8r)
Originally Posted by ruzs
Has anyone installed theirs yet besides the R&D groups and made it to the dyno?
I am eagerly waiting to see some results. The only dyno day I know of is early July for the vishnu tune. I would like an update, please..
Sigfrid
I am eagerly waiting to see some results. The only dyno day I know of is early July for the vishnu tune. I would like an update, please..
Sigfrid
Originally Posted by Ludikraut
ROFLMAO!!!! Funniest statement on EvoM yet ... mind if I quote you on that?
and point taken on the SAE correction for testing and repeatability on the same dyno.
l8r)
and point taken on the SAE correction for testing and repeatability on the same dyno.
l8r)
Since it was mentioned in this thread, I feel it necessary to let everyone know that all of our test results and posted dyno charts are ALWAYS posted in SAE format. This accepted standard of correction from the Society of Automotive Engineers was established to maintain consistency in test results from location to location with relatively repeatable results from one atmospheric condition to another. Although this standard of correction also corrects for altitude as well, our dyno is located very near sea level which keeps our results relatively uncorrected for altitude. Testing centers located at higher elevations would obviously have SAE corrections applied that would be more aggressive.
For comparison sake, please note the following screen shots from our dyno computer of the same 441awhp SAE corrected dyno pull posted earlier in this thread. The first pic shows the SAE corrected results which show you the awhp/awtq numbers posted. The second shows the UNCORRECTED results. The third and final screenshot shows the results in STD corrected format. Since it was 87 degrees in the dyno bay during testing that day, the engine was obviously not in an ideal environment for producing its best numbers, so the uncorrected numbers are lower.
Although we could have posted the results with the higher net numbers from the STD corrected curves or the lower numbers from the uncorrected curves, we adhere strictly to posting with the SAE correction applied. This maintains as much consistency as possible from test session to test session. Had the uncorrected numbers been higher than the SAE numbers, we still would have posted the results in SAE.
For what it is worth, I have seen many inaccurate dyno results of components tested over the years. It is not always the case that a dyno operator might post results with a more advantageous correction. You can for example achieve higher torque and horsepower numbers while dynoing a 2wd configuration (i.e. Evo’s dyno tested in fwd, Supras with their lack of weight over the rear end) simply from the initial tire spin on the rollers as the vehicle tested approaches peak torque. At the point where the tires hook and yank the roller up to speed more aggressively, you will read an increase in displayed values. This is not always immediately recognizable on the chart if the tire spin is gradual enough on the way up in the curve. I have observed that I can expect a 20-30whp difference in an Evolution tested on a FWD vs. AWD Dynojet. As this may be the result of the tire spin/hook scenario I just mentioned, it is likely also attributed to the fact that you have eliminated a substantial amount of driveline loss. The parasitic loss reduced by removing the large ring and pinion of the Evolution’s transfer case along with the multi-section driveshaft, and rear end assembly is considerable. While we are at it, we could also include the mass of the rotating axle shafts, brake rotors, wheels and tires at the rear of the vehicle. All of these things play into the results of a chassis dyno evaluation. This is why I prefer to conduct dyno testing of AWD vehicles on AWD dynos. However, even the type of dyno can play into the comparisons. Some dynos such as the Mustang units use a software package that requires accurate vehicle data to be entered before testing. If this vehicle data is entered incorrectly, it can affect the results of the testing considerably. Garbage in, garbage out. You can see where this may result in power numbers that are inaccurate at best and may be biased toward the results that the operator seeks to achieve. One reason we chose to purchase an AWD Dynojet is because of the consistency in test results and our ability to compare results with other Dynojet chassis dynos. It makes it much easier for our customers to compare their data with data aquired on the same make dyno. This could turn into its own technical discussion, which was not my intention. I hope the information allows all of you to make sense of any data that we may publish now and in the future. I look for repeatability in my tuning efforts and testing. I fully expect anyone who leaves our facility with test data to be able to dyno on another AWD Dynojet and achieve similar results.
Also, although the results of our testing of the turbo were not meant to be any standard benchmark or a maximum effort, I believe some posts have alluded to that. This is not the case. The testing was meant to hold as much control to the testing as possible without the influence of other performance components. Since I tuned the EMS to get our peak AWHP pumpgas number in only 7 pulls (which were incidentally only about 5 minutes apart on average), I feel confident that I can most certainly achieve better pump gas numbers, especially with the appropriate supporting mods. I am sure that many of you will also do just that.
I believe in the quality, design, and results of the White Rabbit turbocharger that FP has produced and that is why I am willing to endorse and offer support for it. I appreciate and respect that everyone is asking questions in an effort to educate themselves regarding this product. There are an enormous amount of products saturating the Evo performance market. The more you know about what you are purchasing, the better off you are… but you knew that already or you wouldn’t be digesting all of this, right?
For those of you that have been dealing with our shop, we sincerely appreciate your business and we look forward to working with you in the future.
Take care,
For comparison sake, please note the following screen shots from our dyno computer of the same 441awhp SAE corrected dyno pull posted earlier in this thread. The first pic shows the SAE corrected results which show you the awhp/awtq numbers posted. The second shows the UNCORRECTED results. The third and final screenshot shows the results in STD corrected format. Since it was 87 degrees in the dyno bay during testing that day, the engine was obviously not in an ideal environment for producing its best numbers, so the uncorrected numbers are lower.
Although we could have posted the results with the higher net numbers from the STD corrected curves or the lower numbers from the uncorrected curves, we adhere strictly to posting with the SAE correction applied. This maintains as much consistency as possible from test session to test session. Had the uncorrected numbers been higher than the SAE numbers, we still would have posted the results in SAE.
For what it is worth, I have seen many inaccurate dyno results of components tested over the years. It is not always the case that a dyno operator might post results with a more advantageous correction. You can for example achieve higher torque and horsepower numbers while dynoing a 2wd configuration (i.e. Evo’s dyno tested in fwd, Supras with their lack of weight over the rear end) simply from the initial tire spin on the rollers as the vehicle tested approaches peak torque. At the point where the tires hook and yank the roller up to speed more aggressively, you will read an increase in displayed values. This is not always immediately recognizable on the chart if the tire spin is gradual enough on the way up in the curve. I have observed that I can expect a 20-30whp difference in an Evolution tested on a FWD vs. AWD Dynojet. As this may be the result of the tire spin/hook scenario I just mentioned, it is likely also attributed to the fact that you have eliminated a substantial amount of driveline loss. The parasitic loss reduced by removing the large ring and pinion of the Evolution’s transfer case along with the multi-section driveshaft, and rear end assembly is considerable. While we are at it, we could also include the mass of the rotating axle shafts, brake rotors, wheels and tires at the rear of the vehicle. All of these things play into the results of a chassis dyno evaluation. This is why I prefer to conduct dyno testing of AWD vehicles on AWD dynos. However, even the type of dyno can play into the comparisons. Some dynos such as the Mustang units use a software package that requires accurate vehicle data to be entered before testing. If this vehicle data is entered incorrectly, it can affect the results of the testing considerably. Garbage in, garbage out. You can see where this may result in power numbers that are inaccurate at best and may be biased toward the results that the operator seeks to achieve. One reason we chose to purchase an AWD Dynojet is because of the consistency in test results and our ability to compare results with other Dynojet chassis dynos. It makes it much easier for our customers to compare their data with data aquired on the same make dyno. This could turn into its own technical discussion, which was not my intention. I hope the information allows all of you to make sense of any data that we may publish now and in the future. I look for repeatability in my tuning efforts and testing. I fully expect anyone who leaves our facility with test data to be able to dyno on another AWD Dynojet and achieve similar results.
Also, although the results of our testing of the turbo were not meant to be any standard benchmark or a maximum effort, I believe some posts have alluded to that. This is not the case. The testing was meant to hold as much control to the testing as possible without the influence of other performance components. Since I tuned the EMS to get our peak AWHP pumpgas number in only 7 pulls (which were incidentally only about 5 minutes apart on average), I feel confident that I can most certainly achieve better pump gas numbers, especially with the appropriate supporting mods. I am sure that many of you will also do just that.
I believe in the quality, design, and results of the White Rabbit turbocharger that FP has produced and that is why I am willing to endorse and offer support for it. I appreciate and respect that everyone is asking questions in an effort to educate themselves regarding this product. There are an enormous amount of products saturating the Evo performance market. The more you know about what you are purchasing, the better off you are… but you knew that already or you wouldn’t be digesting all of this, right?
For those of you that have been dealing with our shop, we sincerely appreciate your business and we look forward to working with you in the future.
Take care,
Originally Posted by Tym Switzer
-Has the standard 2.5" inlet horn as the stock turbocharger, larger I.D. for the compressor wheel.
Thanks.
Mario
Originally Posted by Mario
What is the diameter of the compressor wheel? Tym? Robert? Zeus?
Thanks.
Mario
Thanks.
Mario
Why ask this question, you think after all the hard work FP and Switzer have done, they will divulge the info for you. Heck it is a BADD *** turbo period...
