Looks like last minute rushing to me. Look at the graphs on page 73 and page 93. 100% WRONG too. The horsepower and the torque graphs are backwards.

So my question is did the Tomei 290's make about 420 foot pounds like the graph suggests, or was it scaled wrong? And my big question is was it sloppy editing or lying?

 

You know, I wanted to say it was sloppy editing at first. But when I noticed the photoshop of the 5 in the graph for the 290 I realized it was deliberate.

 

I hope it was just a typo.. Which is still unacceptable because people are making big pocket book decisions from this test and their magazine is not cheap lol

If I was a betting man I would go with typo and guess they made a "fat finger" and meant to type in 422.53. I work with a 10 key all day long and it is easy to hit a 5 over a 2.

 

Man, i'd love to say that.

Go to page 101 and calculate out some of the HP numbers for the TQ reported in the max tq column. Some cam numbers just do not add up.

 

Which ones did you find?

The GSC S2 numbers aren't coming out right for me. 416 ft. pounds X 6400/5252= 506 horsepower at 6400 RPM, but according to the columns at 6500 RPM the S2's are making 494.69

However, I believe this could be just dyno noise as the graph looks choppy and there doesn't appear to be a lot of smoothing.

 

From what I saw the numbers in the tables did not match the numbers on the plots when blown up. I wrote dsport and got a instant reply that they would be looking into this tomorrow. Assured me it must be a mistake. I just feel that photoshop of the 5 is quite a mistake.

 

No numbers were made up! There was no Photoshop done to any graphs either. The time, effort and money spent in trying to produce this editorial was insane. Keith's car and the curveballs it through us were enormous. We put together three engines before we tracked down the dented oil pan as the culprit.

I've attached the dyno image that was run in the magazine. As you can see, it states that the maximum torque for the TOMEI 290 camshaft was only 419.42 lb-ft. There was no Photoshop done to the graph in an attempt to change the number. The blurriness that you are referring to was an error on the part of the printer that caused the image to go out of register. When there is a 4-color black used and the cyan, magenta, yellow and black plates shift, the 4-color black text becomes fuzzy and hard to read.

Now where the incorrect 452.33 lb-ft of torque at 7,000RPM came from will be discovered on Monday when our Managing Editor Jun Chen gets back to work. I'm not sure if he used the wrong dyno or simply transposed the wrong number into the torque figures. This is our mistake and we’ll print a retraction and make people aware through our Facebook.

You also mentioned that some other numbers didn't match up. Which were they? I'll have Jun review all of the data and we'll print corrections for any errors found.

Just FYI, over $20,000 was invested in building the engine and conducting the testing for these 18 camshafts. We do not produce Advertorial like other publications or websites. While we strive for producing error-free content, mistakes will sometimes happen. In this case, we'll figure out how it happened and change our procedures to eliminate the possibility of a like error occurring in the future.

We appreciate everyone that supports DSPORT with a subscription or by purchasing DSPORT on the newsstand. Anyone posting the entire article in a dropbox is not only putting themselves and the forums that they post on in a criminal position, they hurting the very people that worked their asses off to bring you quality information.

You can expect a post from our Managing Editor Jun Chen soon.

Thank you

 

To: Neogeo 64

Please remove this link to copyrighted material immediately in post #67. Thank you.

 

I'm going to pick the easy ones and math them out.

GSC R2 415.09 FT-LB @ 6000 RPM
474.21HP based on this TQ number @ 6000
470.18HP @ 6000 reported on page 93
-4 HP

Cosworth M1 409.05 TQ @ 6000
467.3 HP @ this TQ
Reported on page 77 459.21
-8 HP

Kelford 264 397.3 @ 6000
453.88 based on this TQ number
448.64 reported on page 75
-5

Kelford 272 411.3 @ 6000
469.88HP based on this TQ number
459 reported on page 83
-10

Tomei 270 407.05 @ 6000 RPM
465.02 based on this TQ number
464.16 reported
less then 1hp variance.

From what I can see the dyno plots are all correct its just the numbers got doctored in the tables.

 

CammedEvo and others,

My name is Jun and I'm from DSPORT Magazine. I was the one in charge of building all of the dyno graphs, charts, tables etc. for the EVO 8 Camshaft test that we published in Issue #137/138.

You did catch an error (a horrendous one at that) that I take full responsibility for. The 452.33 lb-ft torque figure is obviously way off from all of the other camshafts. I don't know how that figure got there and again, I apologize for that. However, we did not "photoshop" anything. We never do. You can clearly see it says 419.42 lb-ft on the graph attached above. I hope this clears things up.

You also mentioned that some of the numbers didn't match up as well, and I can explain why. The dynographs / powercharts were all built using WinPep7 (the Dynojet software). Wiseguy9 is right. We always use an SAE smoothing of 1 that yields less extrapolated/averaged data. Many people increase the smoothing to manipulate the dynograph. However, we do not. You may have realized that the lack of smoothing also results in a choppier graph. The discrepancy that you are seeing is because we rounded the RPMs for the max figures to the nearest 100 RPM. This can yield a slight variance because we do not smooth our dynographs.

When I built the power / torque charts, I utilized the export function within Winpep7. This function takes the data from the dynograph and exports it to a text file with power figures at a set RPM interval. I utilized this method as a systematic way to build the charts while avoiding any type of human error (as demonstrated by the incorrect torque figure). Note: when the final chart was built on Page 100/101, I referenced the data on the previous pages. Thus, the Max Torque figure for the Tomei 290 is incorrect again.

As Wiseguy9 noted, the dyno graphs are indeed swapped on pages 73 and 93 (another error on my part). However, they are the respective graphs for those cams and the numbers are correct.

Aside from the torque figure, another mistake on my part was on the Tomei 270s. On page 84, the chart indicates a claimed duration of 242.0/241.5. This was a copy error on my part, it should have read 227.5/226.5.

Hopefully this clear things up a bit. Again, I apologize for my mistakes.

Thank you,

Jun

 

CammedEvo,

I see what you're talking about here. However, we did not doctor any data. All of the torque figures have RPMs that were rounded to the nearest hundred RPM. Thus, yielding the variance that you're seeing. If you would like, I would be more than happy to provide you with the exact RPMs for each torque figure on Monday when I get back into the office.

Thanks,

Jun

 

That would be a good start, although I'd like to have the actual charts.

 

Link is now dead per DSPORT Request.

 

CammedEvo,

As previously mentioned, we will publish corrections in our next issue of DSPORT magazine (Issue #141). We will cover the difference in torque numbers that you've mentioned in addition to the other errors found. The specific RPMs that you're looking for will be published in that as well. They won't help you verify the numbers, but as I've mentioned, the discrepancies do exist because a.) the max torque RPMs are rounded and b.) the lack of smoothing creates a choppier graph. Although we strive to deliver the best, most-correct error-free content, mistakes do sometimes happen and we will always address them when they do.

Thank you,

Jun Chen
DSPORT Magazine

 

The rounding of the RPM make sense as to why the numbers don't exactly match up. It seems that if data is altered like that it should be noted somewhere for the reader. I hope you can understand how I was a little put off to see the fictitious Tomei 290 tq number then realize the rest of the numbers didn't exactly add up.

I'm not super pleased to find out that I'll need to purchase another copy of the magazine to get the corrections.