First dyno run chart
Originally posted by fractaldragon
Never said they were accurate, but they are the only way to normalize to a certain temp and pressure. Otherwise, no one could compare at all to anyone else
Never said they were accurate, but they are the only way to normalize to a certain temp and pressure. Otherwise, no one could compare at all to anyone else
My question to Red03SVT was; what was the Temperature and humidity. Your response was; that's what we have correction factors for.
Looking at that statement one would think that the SAE #'s are an accurate way of comparing our supercharged engines, sorry if I misunderstood you.
SAE #'s are only accurate on normally aspirated internal combustion engines. To my knowledge there is no correction factor for forced induction engines.
So when you say you see typically 340-350, and B-Man's #'s are within 2% of that, how can you say they are low? Being that the SAE correction factor could be the reason for the discrepancy. His uncorrected peak # is 341 RWHP. (341 X .98CF=334)
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Originally posted by Sharpshooter
My question to Red03SVT was; what was the Temperature and humidity. Your response was; that's what we have correction factors for.
Looking at that statement one would think that the SAE #'s are an accurate way of comparing our supercharged engines, sorry if I misunderstood you.
SAE #'s are only accurate on normally aspirated internal combustion engines. To my knowledge there is no correction factor for forced induction engines.
So when you say you see typically 340-350, and B-Man's #'s are within 2% of that, how can you say they are low? Being that the SAE correction factor could be the reason for the discrepancy. His uncorrected peak # is 341 RWHP. (341 X .98CF=334)
Please correct me if I am wrong.
My question to Red03SVT was; what was the Temperature and humidity. Your response was; that's what we have correction factors for.
Looking at that statement one would think that the SAE #'s are an accurate way of comparing our supercharged engines, sorry if I misunderstood you.
SAE #'s are only accurate on normally aspirated internal combustion engines. To my knowledge there is no correction factor for forced induction engines.
So when you say you see typically 340-350, and B-Man's #'s are within 2% of that, how can you say they are low? Being that the SAE correction factor could be the reason for the discrepancy. His uncorrected peak # is 341 RWHP. (341 X .98CF=334)
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Originally posted by fractaldragon
believe it or not STD is ALSO a correction factor itself...just a different temp and pressure....
believe it or not STD is ALSO a correction factor itself...just a different temp and pressure....
Here's my stock dyno run from a month ago - a 2002 with 2700 miles on it. Only non-stock item is a K&N drop-in - no airbox mods. Temp was 61 in the garage, very low humidity (middle of winter in Chicago).
I wouldn't hope that our difference is the K&N. Now I wish I had made a pull with the paper filter. I was pretty happy with my 353 rwhp 425 rwtq.
I wouldn't hope that our difference is the K&N. Now I wish I had made a pull with the paper filter. I was pretty happy with my 353 rwhp 425 rwtq.
All I am trying to say is there is no correction factor that is accurate enough on supercharged engines to make fair comparisons. I feel the #'s are a great way to compare your progress, but for me to try and compare my #'s to someone where the air is cooler and dryer, it just will not work.
-Mike
-Mike
I read on-line that on a "proper" dyno chart, the torque and HP plots should cross at roughly 5250 RPM.
Could someone explain why the graph ILLINI-SVT posted doesn't cross like mine does ?
Thanks in advance for any info you can provide...
Could someone explain why the graph ILLINI-SVT posted doesn't cross like mine does ?
Thanks in advance for any info you can provide...
Originally posted by B-Man
I read on-line that on a "proper" dyno chart, the torque and HP plots should cross at roughly 5250 RPM.
Could someone explain why the graph ILLINI-SVT posted doesn't cross like mine does ?
Thanks in advance for any info you can provide...
I read on-line that on a "proper" dyno chart, the torque and HP plots should cross at roughly 5250 RPM.
Could someone explain why the graph ILLINI-SVT posted doesn't cross like mine does ?
Thanks in advance for any info you can provide...
B-Man
The HP and Torque each have their own legend on his graph. (HP on left side, TQ on right side).I think you are assuming that they are sharing a legend. If you look at the Right side the Tq legend starts at 350 and the power # starts at 250. They still meet at the right place.
Mike
The HP and Torque each have their own legend on his graph. (HP on left side, TQ on right side).I think you are assuming that they are sharing a legend. If you look at the Right side the Tq legend starts at 350 and the power # starts at 250. They still meet at the right place.
Mike
Last edited by Sharpshooter; Feb 25, 2004 at 07:36 PM.
I read on-line that on a "proper" dyno chart, the torque and HP plots should cross at roughly 5250 RPM.
Hmmm. I hadn't heard that before. Does anyone have an answer to that? If those jobbers screwed up my dyno runs, I'm gonna be pissed.
I did 2 pulls that day, and on my other chart (351/421) they cross around 4350.
B-Man
The HP and Torque each have their own legend on his graph. (HP on left side, TQ on right side).I think you are assuming that they are sharing a legend.
Mike
The HP and Torque each have their own legend on his graph. (HP on left side, TQ on right side).I think you are assuming that they are sharing a legend.
Mike
Ahh, now I remember why I didn't pursue that trigonometry degree.
Actually, yes, it looks like they are actually the same number around 5250 now.
Thanks Sharpshooter!


