Crackpipe: Down.
Glasses: On.

Just a couple questions:

Since those dyno pulls were done 4 months apart, are you using STD Correction or SAE Correction? Considering that one pull was done when the temperature in Bridgeport, CT was 87dF (WR) and the other was done when the temperature in Bridgeport, CT was 37dF (BB TME). All research done per Weather Underground. It should also be noted that the dyno that you used is located in Milford, CT, a mere 10.8 miles from the reporting station in Bridgeport, CT.

Noting the above, please inform the live studio audience (and, of course, my crack smoking self) what form of correction was used, if any?

Also, what difference in trap speeds between the TME BB unit and the WR? I know you mentioned he went 11.8 on the TME and 12.2 on the WR, but again, we're talking about temperature differences of 84 degrees this year and 62 degrees last year.

I respectfully and eagerly anticipate your reply.

Regards,

 

When I am at Pruven on Wed I will print out SAE and STD corrected sheets to compare.

Since you know Paul why dont you ask him which turbo he likes better ?

 

You already told us which turbo he likes better, and give the methods of acquiring data, I don't blame him for his conclusion and that's not really my issue here.

When your personal Yoda, David Buschur, posts up his dyno charts, he ALWAYS uses SAE correction, ALWAYS does back to back pulls on the same day, if possible and ALWAYS compares apples to apples, which is part of the reason why he's so highly respected on these forums.

Once you figure that part out, I was wondering if you had a chance to analyze and rebutt the following:




Bristol Dyno

Now, from Dynojet:
Now, given the fact that a Dynojet does not calculate the torque directly, but rather through an rpm pickup (which may or may not be accurate), combined with the fact that your tendency is to not provide dyno charts with rpm inputs.

In this same thread, when asked what sort of correction you used, you replied:

Reference thread here

Not to accuse you of tampering with numbers, but from past experience with not using rpm pickups, possible misread torque and just general uncorrected numbers, I am of the opinion that you could be twisting numbers here.

But, I could be wrong.

Regards,

 

UNSUBSCRIBED --- White Rabbit is a waste of time and money.

 

n00b alert! n00b alert, don't shoot! I have the following question. i might've misread something, but does the WR in scrutiny here, spool faster than stock 03-04 unit? if so, can the same spooling be achieved on stock turbo while spending less $ than the price of the WR unit? /end n00b alert thanks

 

I'll pretend.

 

That is your uneducated opinion. Thanks for it though. It keeps the dialogue very highbrow.

 

anyone else have something constructive to add without humongous pictures?
i know ppl have said the spool up is better on WR than stock 9.8. i'm more interested in quick response than hp, so i'm wondering if it'll be cheaper to buy other mods to achieve the same spool up. and i'm getting confused by all the conflicting opinions and flames. so just please bear with me.

 

In my experience, if you want some pretty kickass spoolup, get some HKS 272 cams and Acme (brand doesn't really matter, IMO) cam gears. Advance both cams two (2) degrees. This, coupled with a decent 3" exhaust, decent intake and enough fuel will get you some good power on pump gas. I use a tubular manifold, but you really don't have to do that for the spoolup. What advancing the cams does is bring the camband down to about 3-8k instead of 4.5-9.5k. Be careful, as this will make the motor MORE prone to detonation, so you may have to add fuel or (my favorite) water/methanol injection to compensate.
Just watch your knock thresholds and you'll be fine.

Can it be done cheaper than a WR? Probably, by getting a bare bones TME from FP or others for 900 or so, but I'd think the extra 600 or so without sacrificing boost threshold or partial throttle response would be worth it, at least to me.

As always, YMMV.

 

thanks for the informative post. i miss the N/A because of its predictable linear response; and when at some point i'm going to mod my evo, i want it to have response somewhat close to NA. i remember watching best motoring clip where MINE had a gtr and a supra which they dubbed "ultimate response machines". i really liked how the cars were tuned to have instant throttle response and that MINE was keeping upgrades as simple as possible to stay within the "response machine" perspective instead of just another dyno queen. for now, the power levels of my evo r sufficient, especially for curvy roads that i prefer to highway and 1/4 pulls. but eventually i want to tweak this girl to give her even better balance. also i like the idea of the stock twin scroll and prolly gonna leave the oem manifold/turbo on it. i'll have to see where my $$$ is when i finish paying the car off in 2 yrs.
anyone else wants to chime in?

 

If there is a 50F difference in ambient temps between the two tests, comparing uncorrected runs is downright stupid. The WR run could be understated by as much as 3-5% while the TME could be overstated by 3-5%. If this is the case, the tables would suddenly turn.

 

this is exactly the person the white rabbit is lookin' for in an owner. i also watch that best motoring again and again.

 

I have to agree with Shiv on this one. I never go by uncorrected dyno charts for this very reason. Even doing a baseline dyno run in the morning, swapping out a turbo, and then another dyno run in the afternoon conditions can change enough to screw up the results if you are using uncorrected dyno runs.

Keith

 

Maybe I missed something here...
Who is showing completed figures without SAE correction?
AL?

 

Normally, I wouldn't go out of my way to do such research on flaws in data acquisition, but when someone goes out of their way to skew dyno results as much as possible, someone has to sift through the BS and "toxic pollution".

So where are these SAE charts, big guy?