Thread: SC confused !
View Single Post
      11-06-2012, 04:06 AM   #308
BimmerPost Supporting Vendor

Drives: Slow
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Luton, Bedfordshire

Posts: 1,062
iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS View Post
According to your math Sal on the correction difference between your Dyno Dynamics and a Dynojet your customers will see about 600 whp on a Dynojet with your kit as the whp numbers you have posted for your kit on your dyno are around 520. You just posted that a Dynojet will add another 15% to that number. I look forward to these customer independent 600 whp dyno's on Dynojets as that would be very impressive IMO for the Rotrex with only 7.75 psi. According to the dyno below done of the Rotrex C38 by Active you would need 10 psi and water meth to get to around 550 whp on a similar air/air supercharger system. There must be something you are doing that is very different than Active is or your using different math, please keep us posted.
When people start using the STD correction method with positive upwards correction it is indeed around 13-15%. This optimistic method has almost become the norm now. That is what I am referencing. I should not need to reference every single thing I say but if I have to then so be it.
If my maths is wrong on this then I guess we will just find out. I'm not afraid to be wrong.

When both dyno's are used properly without trying to prop up the numbers and using SAE when it's not over or under correcting too much we see them much closer together but still there is a difference.


There are lots of ESS cars making 550-590+ STD (especially in the early days) where this was being achieved with low boost.

The actual point I am trying to make is not being understood here. My posts are not about my kit, your kit, etc etc. This is not the relevance here.

Blower 1 vs Blower 2. I am showing how they differ in their compressor maps and that a Rotrex vs Vortech gives the same power at 6.5 PSi on the S65 and then also spun to approx the same percentage out of their max speed on the S62 on the exact same setup.

It shows how one one platform they differ quite qlot but give similar HP and on another they give about the same pretty much everywhere.

The point here is that they are similar and this theory of the Vortech being so superior is simply not true on stock engines.

If the mind set is not to believe it then there is nothing I can say to convince and nor am I bothered. I have put the information up, it is up to the readers to make of it what they see fit.

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS View Post
Independent dyno files "one direct from Active" below not a vendor made dyno comparison. Same correction factor used on both, ambient temps 10 degrees lower on the vortech dyno. This is the only independent data that exists until more files are made available.
Over so many years now our dyno delta's from our own machine have been exactly that of what independent tests. This can be seen time and time again on multiple forums and many models of car. You can verify that for yourself.
It makes absolutely no sense for us to create 'hype' and then it won't deliver.
The graphs I have put up were data tests for us only. We could have put this up ages ago in these debates. However, after being convinced that there is nothing wrong with putting data up we decided it's fine.

Blue Vortech V3 @ 8.5 psi Red Rotrex C38 @ 10 psi with water / meth.

You are still comparing apples with oranges on this example with respect to the type of blower.
Two different dyno's, different correction factor (method maybe the same but that is still irrelevant) and two totally different setups.

This is so far from a definitive test of Rotrex vs Vortech.

The test in the dyno's I have posted with boost logs are far more of a better comparison.

I have also made one thing very clear which again people seem to miss.
The setup and how the blower is used.
Try to setup a Rotrex like a Vortech and the Rotrex will fail... miserably.
I have already explained why in an earlier post. The Rotrex takes way more attention to detail due to it's much higher step up ratio (this is not a positive feature btw).

My comparisons above are between two setups which are very close in their efficiency - placement of filter, internal smoothness of inlet tract etc etc, minimal belt slip.

Last edited by Sal@Evolve; 11-06-2012 at 04:13 AM.
Sal@Evolve is offline  
Reply With Quote