Pimp,

You really have too much time on your hands. These are real dyno graphs.

 

How many Dynos have you tuned your car on? I have hundreds of dyno pulls on a Dyno Jet. The correction used was STD corrected for both runs so the runs will be comparable because it calculates what the HP and TQ are based on barometric pressire, temp and humidty. The corecction factor changes because the temp changed. The runs are comparable. STD corrected allows you to run on different dynos in different weather and compare the runs accurately.

 

I will also say that I was not there when these were done, but I have talked extensively with Michael on the phone and I do not believe he is anything other than honest.

I did not post this on this forum, I was not looking to have a huge argument on the merits of the Dyno. I choose to believe Michael and and Im very excited that our system was able to help him achieve those numbers.

David

 

Cpoevo


1000's of pulls over 32+ years of high performance work.

By the way STD is not the same as SAE they are both determined by SAE. But STD (assuming the typical J607)has a much larger divergence correction. If you remember your collage algebra go grab your graphing calc and plot both correction factors and you will see the divergence. And the graphs show STD and they ARE NOT comparable due to the large swing in Temp, along with the inherent divergence (from SAE J1349 formula) due to the STD (Assuming they are using the J607)correction factor. Also of note there is more then 1 SAE corection factor, and there is more than 1 STD factor as well.


If you are not up on SAE vrs STD check out http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tec...horsepower.htm

Then start doing some calc’s and see for your self exactly what I am referring to. Then you will see using a STD factor with a wild swing in temp will only give bogus numbers. Hell your better off calculating the HP based off of fuel flow and VE then that.

 

Whether you were there or not is a non issue. You put it on you site and made it as a statement of fact to HYPE you products. Hence you ARE RESPONCIBAL for your actions and words.

 

customers want to see PROOF of what a kit can do. We are a company and yes we need to "hype" our products. We believe this DYNO to be REAL and ACCURATE. If I ever found out otherwise I would remove it. I believe that not to be the case.

Yes I am "RESPONCIBAL". I agree.

 

That’s my point EXACTLY!! What you have provided is NOT proof. It is at BEST corrupted data from a faulty test sequence. And it is by no means accurate by any reasonable stretch of the word. Any other Reputable manufacture would look at the data and take a look at the accusations leaved at that data. And withdraw their claims OR make an argument as to why this data is valid, normally based on a technical/scientific argument.

However you do not. You ALWAYS resort to your old mantra “I believe it so it must be true” completely denying the basic truth. Hell that can even be seen in this thread alone, where you started out with distancing your self from the data, by saying over and over again that you were not there. And now you on the “I believe it so it must be true” kick. So given information as to why the data is invalid and you completly dismiss it and keep on with your mantra. how am I to think any thing other then your a crook and a theif?


It’s always the same old crap. No matter how valid the argument some one points out, you go right along with your used car sales man marketing tactics. And it’s the people you defraud with your claims that suffer from it.


Let me ask you this: why is it none of the other manufactures get this response from people? And you are treated like a pariah every where ever you go.


Awnser: The vast majorty of them are Reputable and Honest.

 

Pimp,

You made your point. Nothing I say is going to change your mind. I dont know what to tell you.

You dont have to believe it, I really dont care. Also, I have never, ever done anything in my business that was dishonest. I work very hard for my customers, its them I care about, not you.

 

After rereading my first post I believe I was overly harsh with my assertion that your products are junk, and for that I apologizes. Your products are not junk. However most of them are no better than what some one could coble together from a hardware store.

 

I know you dont care and that the point. I on the other hand do care.


By the way your being dishonest right now by touting thoes dyno results as being accurate. Since you have been shown why they are not.

 

coolingmist FTL

 

Well there my 2 pieces of humble pie. I stand corrected sir. Thank you for that link because I have not been able to find anything explaining STD, I always run across SAE.

 

They are doing a 2nd dyno in about a month or 2. In this dyno they are going to add a 4th nozzle. I will be interested to see the results once that takes place to compare the 2 dynos. They will have the "temp" issue resolved at that time.

 

You are very welcome. I am glad I could help.

With out knowing in advance how the various formulas differ from each other there was no reason for you to doubt the graphs. Unfortunately the only way to see the difference is to plot them out in comparison, and over lay each graph on one another. If you do that you will see that the J607 (STD) formula is not liner even with in the normal operational range for a gasoline engine, granted with in the normal operation range it’s pretty close. Just remember that the J607 formula was designed for gasoline engines. There are some important dynamics in a diesel engine that differ. Such as parasitic drag, VE (volumetric efficiently), BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) and others. But these differences mostly only address the total accuracy of the numbers put out, and not the comparability of 2 dyno runs done back to back. This is assuming we are talking about a drum "inertia" type dyno, if we were talking about an eddy current (engine) dyno then these differences would be much more important.


The real problem arises when you operate out side of the normal ranges. That’s when the figures go nuts and become wildly inaccurate. Let me explain: the J607 formula is centered on 60F and the further you get off of the centered temp the less accurate the formula becomes (in total). But you do have to get pretty far off the centered value before the formula gets stupid. (Assuming the other variables stay constant)

Now an ambient temp of mid 90’s is on the ragged edge of reasonable total accuracy. If I did my math right at that temp there is an error of +- 12%. (I’m not totally confident on the error percent but its close)

Now with an ambient temp of mid 120’s!!! Never mind you would proly be DEAD!! Lets for a minute assume the dyno operator is alive and kicking. The error from the formula blows up. +- 44% (not real confident of the error percent because the formula gets stupid with negative square roots)

Now add into the fact that the engine was not breathing the quoted ambient temp. Remember its cold in PA LOL. And the heater was close to the dyno operator so it’s reasonable to assume the rest of the dyno cell/room was not that warm. And some of the differences between gasoline engines and diesel you can quickly see how this comparison is no where near being comparable.


This is the whole reason auto manufactures use the newer SAE J2723 formula. It’s the same formula from the J1395 and J1995 with restrictions on the testing sequence and conditions.

 

Good, I would be happy to see a nice honest test.