|
|
02-28-2010, 08:02 AM | #683 | |
Automotive Industry Insider
462
Rep 1,948
Posts |
Quote:
There is a diehard SAE corrected camp...and a diehard STD correction camp. The two camps argue about which dyno interpretation method is technically 'correct', nothing gets resolved, and then everyone goes home convinced the other guy is clueless.
__________________
The best is yet to come...
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-28-2010, 08:41 AM | #684 | |
Banned
43
Rep 2,406
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-28-2010, 10:04 AM | #685 | |
Automotive Industry Insider
462
Rep 1,948
Posts |
Quote:
Temperature Humidity Barometric Pressure Correction factors used (SAE, STD, DIN, kW, etc.) Dyno brand and model used (ex. a 224x dynojet vs. 224xLC dynojet) Dyno type (hub/brake, inertial roller/drum) Last time the dyno was properly calibrated? Premium fuel octane limits in different states (91,92,93) Regional differences in unleaded fuel quality* *The quality of unleaded fuel brand used, combined with the State requirements for detergent additives and the % of ethanol used to dilute the fuel. (which varies from state to state) In other words...91 octane premium unleaded is not the same in every state. And thus, the power output of your engine mods will reflect those slight differences. (especially with an FI engine) A few other things that affect the dyno power numbers you see posted: Chassis dynos have the ability to record 'actual' (STD) horsepower numbers. No extra mathematical calculations are required to come up with that number. Your car turned the drum/roller and made 'X' amount of horsepower and torque. (based on the angular velocity of drum/roller which is a known variable) Now the 'actual' power on someone else's car, should never be compared to your car. (as a true apples-to-apples comparison) Here's why... The power your car made on that dyno...on that day...in a specific set of atmospheric conditions....is not directly comparable to any other car. Yes, the HP/TRQ numbers on the same dyno type (and model), using the same correction factors, with the same type of car, in the same atmospheric conditions should be similar. SAE is the 'corrected' power figures for that day, and they only represent the power output for that one day. Dynos (at least the newer ones) have a weather station connected to them. They measure relative humidity, ambient air temperature, barometric pressure, elevation (to correct for how many feet you are above sea level) etc., and a correction figure is applied based on these readings. (to your actual HP number) In theory, these HP & TRQ numbers can then be compared to any other SAE HP number anywhere, anyplace, anytime. Now I'm not saying that the SAE correction factor is foolproof... Many dyno operators have found that if they move the weather station to more favorable location...then they get higher SAE numbers. Also, some of the older dynos don't even have a weather station, so the dyno operator can actually "key in" the weather conditions from a hand-held weather station. Or in the worst case scenario...no weather data input is made at all. (resulting in useless power numbers that are not valid in real world conditions) At the end of the day, I really do think SAE corrected numbers are the way to go...otherwise even similar dyno power comparisons are not even possible. There would be no quantifiable way to compare the power output of your engine modifications. Regardless of how anyone feels about making dyno chart comparisons, the most important thing that I can advise is this: You really want to stay at the same dyno facility as you are modifying your car. (from it's bone stock configuration to the ultimate power goal you have in mind) That will at least give you some indication of how much power you started with, and how much power you are making now. Dynos are useful tools, but they have several limitations. You will be able to tell for sure whether your mods are performing as advertised...or if the manufacturer is blowing smoke up your tailpipe. Different dynos (even the same brand/model) can read higher or lower than another dyno. That's not uncommon. (which is why you should try using the same one every time) The only time I would advise someone to seek out a different dyno shop (as opposed to the one they normally use)...is if the have a strong suspicion the dyno shop operator is manipulating the numbers on purpose to show a higher or lower number. To verify or debunk whether the numbers you got are actually legit, you really need to use the same brand/model dynomometer used at the first shop. You must make sure the dyno operator (at the second shop) applies exactly the same correction factor that your normal shop uses. If you don't know what that correction factor is...then find out. Now the weather conditions will be largely out of your control, so careful scheduling will be very important to get similar atmospheric conditions as the first runs. (to acheive the most favorable conditions possible to make an honest comparison) In that situation, (and ONLY in that situation) would I advise you to go somewhere else to get an impartial third-party to verify the earlier power numbers. The third-party dyno shop in question should not be involved in this process. They must not be affiliated (or buddies) with the owner of the original shop either. I would seriously question those results as well. Find a third party shop on your own, and don't even mention it to the original shop if you really want to hear the truth. Remember, you are trying to verify the earlier power numbers you were told, so telling the shop that you essentially want a "second opinion" may not go over very well... If you don't follow these rules, then any "independent dyno numbers" are completely worthless. Also... Actual HP numbers (STD) are typically used (instead of SAE corrected numbers) so that the customer leaves their shop happy. Then again, some of the dyno operators out there are just dumb asses, and they don't know the difference anyway. Anyway, I hope this helps. This is why the dyno power numbers you see, are always going to be different. (depending on where you live)
__________________
The best is yet to come...
Last edited by Lemans_Blue_M; 02-28-2010 at 10:21 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-28-2010, 11:16 AM | #686 |
391
Rep 3,149
Posts |
It is always best to have the same dyno do your before and after. It is also best to use the same type of fuel from the same location if you can. Delta gains are what really matter as overall numbers will always vary based on the many variables listed by Lemans. Our 91 octane in AZ is really bad. It is common for us to get better numbers from cars running our products in Europe and other US states based on fuel quality alone.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-28-2010, 11:53 PM | #687 |
Banned
115
Rep 2,682
Posts |
call me crazy but i always used shell Vpower ( which is what i filled my car up with when shipping to ESS ) , but after using sunoco 93 i got better MPG and felt stronger
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-01-2010, 12:54 AM | #688 |
Brigadier General
342
Rep 3,574
Posts |
650 to wheel and 560 to crank! God damn!!! I wonder if the 6mt transmission would need a re-build.
__________________
2015 Porsche 991.1 GT3 2015 F80 M3 -- Individual; Space Grey |
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2010, 03:29 AM | #693 |
Enlisted Member
7
Rep 47
Posts |
Just got my car back yesterday,holy !@#$,is not super super fffast,but it is very fast,i hit 100mph just 2 1/2 gear,in a few second. I love the performance ,the kit not only strong n powerful ,also a good looking kit,nice job ESS, thank you Roman,thank you for updated me everything in the past week, so i know whats going on. Hey ,i'm already waiting for the next stage, keep it up ESS.
Hey, LV E92,U got a companies in vegas now. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2010, 10:25 AM | #694 | |
391
Rep 3,149
Posts |
Quote:
We are already working on a stage 3 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2010, 10:32 AM | #697 |
Lieutenant Colonel
167
Rep 1,659
Posts |
You have to rememberthe GPower includes the full Akrapovic Evo exhaust system included in the price.
__________________
M3 E93 DCT, Space Grey,BC HB29 Forged Deep Concave Wheels, Ericsson Amuse F/R Bumper, Evolve Full Exhaust System, INTRAX Coilovers, STOPTECH BBK, Performance Steering Wheel,Custom Red/Black Leather Seats,///M3 ||Bimmerpost M3 Car Of The Month May - 2010SOLD
2010 R35 GTR |
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2010, 05:37 PM | #700 |
Bulldog
482
Rep 3,355
Posts |
Stage 3.... Wow! I can't wait to see what that is and how much power it is going to put down!
__________________
Prev: Individual F80 M3 - Fjord Blue/Silverstone(interior) | Fashion Grey(exterior)
GTS |
Appreciate
0
|
03-06-2010, 03:25 PM | #703 |
Automotive Industry Insider
462
Rep 1,948
Posts |
Meth/H20 injection is not a necessity to make big power or a safe tune...
Meth/H20 injection is the 'easy' band-aid approach to fix poorly tuned FI performance upgrades, increase the rwhp numbers, or to overcome some hardware engineering defect in the kit. (such as high IAT's) A poorly engineered hardware design will lead to a number of performance related issues. The last thing the tuner wants to see...is a poorly designed and engineered hardware package. Why? Because that means he's going to have his work cut out for him, in order to tune that car properly. In other words, he'll have TUNE AROUND the bad or ill-conceived hardware design. (in order to get the kit working properly) This will be necessary to prevent detonation and overheating issues from cropping up. Methanol is not good for your engine (long term), so if you CAN avoid using this toxic chemical to tune your car, you should certainly do that... All you need is one hiccup and bye-bye engine. It's too risky in my book if your kit REQUIRES the use of Meth/Water to function properly. The less elaborate you can make the tuning, the better. Pump fuel only is a far safer route to take, unless you have a spare 25k to replace your existing 4.0 V8 engine. 50/50 isn't terrible, but the hardcore guys that are using 90%-100% Meth are completely nuts. When you tune an engine using methanol injection, you have to adjust the tuning parameters accordingly. Methanol has a low stoich AFR of (6.4), and it has a very high latent heat value compared to unleaded gasoline. Keep in mind that OEM 02 sensors are designed for production cars that use Unleaded gasoline ONLY. Meth/Water injection is just another potential failure point with the FI kit, which decreases the overall reliability. If someone wants a 'free' power bump (without having the ECU re-tuned) for their FI M3, just throw in some 100-octane unleaded race gas instead. The M3's factory ECU is sophisticated enough to adapt the tuning, so that it can take advantage of the better fuel grade in a boosted application. (even more than it can when the engine was still naturally aspirated) You can realistically gain 30rwhp or more by going that route. It's also completely safe for the engine, and there are no hardware or software concerns to worry about. Just my .02...
__________________
The best is yet to come...
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-06-2010, 03:56 PM | #704 | |
Brigadier General
503
Rep 4,033
Posts |
Quote:
However, there's another way to look at it. As we all know, the S65 was never intended to run FI. I think the main goal when you design the hardware for this setup is to keep IAT's in check, WM is a GREAT safety feature in this regard. It will also help with the poor quality of 91 octane gas, especially with the CR on the S65. So it's a win win if you run it that way. As you correctly pointed out, if you tune for the WM and it relies on it for appropriate AFR's, to higher timing, etc., then no doubt your points are even more valid, because if the WM fails the the motor may as well. There are safety features for this though. However running it on a FI S65, if you choose, I think is a good idea at least they where with my FI experiences on the S54, that being near 40K (not all of it on WM) with as much as 11psi in it's latter stages. BTW, a member on M3forum, is having ESS tune his VT3 E46 M3 for water meth, so I don't think AJ hates it that much.
__________________
16 F82 M4 DCT - ZCP - JB4 - 556WHP / 570WTQ
08 E92 M3 DCT - Bolt Ons - 60-130MPH 10.71s - 11.88 @ 118MPH - 377WHP ESS VT2-625 SC 60-130MPH 6.80s - 11.30 @ 129.3 MPH 586WHP / 379WTQ ESS VT3-750 - 60-130MPH 6.14s - 10.81 @ 135.13 MPH 690WHP/463WTQ Shift-S3ctor E92 M3 - 1/2 Mile Trap Speed WR - 174.13 MPH |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|