Dyno run soon

[lastyear4gt]

Injectors are stock, and no headers. Only engine work done is the thermostat and EGR delete if ou want to consider that engine work. If I put down 220 WHP, I will be more than happy with that as a starting point.

[AaronGTR]

Well, I made 235whp at 8psi also with the stock injectors, although they were maxed and it was starting to run lean at redline. I think you'll want to upgrade those,especially since you can tune it. I also had rsm's ported heads and 62mm TB, and TOG headers at that time, but still the stock cam and MAF. I don't think 220whp is unrealistic for your setup. We'll have to see how big a diff the manifolds make. I made 190whp though with just the kit running stock boost and a K&N filter and SLP cat-back and no tuning, so I'm sure you'll be over 200.

[2003SCT]

Originally Posted by AaronGTR

Yeah, you'd think so, but I've found that doesn't always mean something wasn't wrong. I've seen way too many GA's dyno'd to believe that an average one makes 154whp and that the drivetrain loss is 12%. Like I said, maybe a factory freak, or unusual test conditions (really cold dry air or something).

Yes...I do work for Dynojet and the great thing about a Dynojet dyno is that you really can't screw it up. Literally pull the car on, strap down, closest 1:1 gear ratio and GO.
My car was dynoed in 3rd gear in 80degree temps with 12K miles and ONLY a K&N Filter and Mobil1. In addition, this was using the SAE correction factor here in Las Vegas at 2200ft. The SAE correction factor will take care of any altitude, temp or humidity variances.
Now not saying that mine isn't a factory freak...it very well may be BUT based on what I made in relation to what the factory says, its a 12% loss.....the new Z06s that we have done have been about the same 455rwhp and they are rated at 505hp.
Keep in mind this is our R&D dyno which as far as accuracy is just as spot on as ANY of our dynos at shops that have bought them from us.
I agree that its unlikely that my 4speed auto is THAT efficient but with the info I have, its all we have to work with. have seen a few other GAs make similar power stock....it was awhile ago though.


And I wasn't saying that a blown car should make 170fwhp.....his car with the headers and tune etc..should make that N/A.

I have been thinking about dynoing my car again now that Borla hooked me up with the cat back. I would like to see what gains I have made....oh and by the way my daily driver 2000 S10 2.2L Auto made 88rwhp. I knew it was weak....but now my dynoruns confirm it. I am the laughing stock of the workplace full of 400-800+whp cars.


CHRIS
CHRIS

[gectek]

but the Z06 has a completely differnt drive train, which will change the efficiency of the output, you cannot compare the two at all really. i have heard similar 16-20% loss in the auto FWD and about that on the regular RWD cars, and i say regular because the corvette uses a completely different drive train than normal RWD cars due to the IRS and the torque tube. so that being said, they are prob alot more efficient due to the trans being hooked directly to the rear diff. and i dont think that the factory rated HP is right at all, i think it may be a little closer to 180 or a little up, but thats just my opinion. just like with trying to compare one dyno to another, you cannot compare one car to another when they are obviously different. i was going to say apples and oranges, but i don think i will...

[2003SCT]

O.K. Well pay attention to everything else I have in my post EXCEPT the Z06 reference. I wasn't comparing a Z06 drivetrain to a Grand Am. HOWEVER what I was saying is that 12% drivetrain loss WHEN COMPARED TO FACTORY NUMBERS isn't that wierd. All a manufacturer has to do is sandbag....look at BMW or the 03+ Cobras.
Again, I wasn't making a comparison.

Here's another thing you have to take into consideration. As different dynamometer companies have different hp results for the same car, same with engine dynos. One engine dyno will read different than another. Since we don't make an engine dyno...which one most directly relates to ours? Manufacturers dynos, DTS Dynos, Superflow engine dynos? This is the reason that crank horsepower and wheel horsepower shouldnt be compared....ever...in my opinion. Who cares what you make at the crank, its what you are able to put down to the ground that gets you going.


CHRIS

[2003SCT]

By the way if you guys want to see our dyno that I use, check out the links on our site below

http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dy...yno/index.aspx

http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dy...yno/index.aspx


Those are just a couple of our quicker and prettier employee cars



CHRIS

[gectek]

well there is an easy way to look at the CHP, with the same automotive industry standard that you used to correct for sea level conditions, then added in your altitude...the SAE net factor. that is the standard, and just like you posted the corrected HP of your car, then you can also give the corrected hp at the crank, making a level playing field...but that is not a fair comparison or representation of the HP your car is really making, what it makes shouldnt be corrected...just like when you post ET and MPH they arent considered proven unless they are uncorrected. but to show the 3400 engine in that same factor, it would have to be re dyno'd using the factors that SAE says to use now, then we can know what the power output would be corrected to level the field as to what the stock output should be

i also said that the engines were prob underrated, or that GM had used a different scale or dyno, or any combination of variables, but that 12% seems a bit too low even with TCC lockup and slippage at a minimum. im not knocking your HP claims on your car, if you say that, then i believe you, i was just tryin to point out that the claims from what you said about the Z06 are not the same for any other car, but in that case you did not compare the z06 to the 12% you posted, they showed more like 10%, so im sorry i read a few more words than what you put in there...

[SpyhunteR]

Originally Posted by gectek

well there is an easy way to look at the CHP, with the same automotive industry standard that you used to correct for sea level conditions, then added in your altitude...the SAE net factor. that is the standard, and just like you posted the corrected HP of your car, then you can also give the corrected hp at the crank, making a level playing field...but that is not a fair comparison or representation of the HP your car is really making, what it makes shouldnt be corrected...just like when you post ET and MPH they arent considered proven unless they are uncorrected. but to show the 3400 engine in that same factor, it would have to be re dyno'd using the factors that SAE says to use now, then we can know what the power output would be corrected to level the field as to what the stock output should be

i also said that the engines were prob underrated, or that GM had used a different scale or dyno, or any combination of variables, but that 12% seems a bit too low even with TCC lockup and slippage at a minimum. im not knocking your HP claims on your car, if you say that, then i believe you, i was just tryin to point out that the claims from what you said about the Z06 are not the same for any other car, but in that case you did not compare the z06 to the 12% you posted, they showed more like 10%, so im sorry i read a few more words than what you put in there...

your bad.

[gectek]

yah, oh well. its been a long month already

[SpyhunteR]

Originally Posted by 2003SCT

By the way if you guys want to see our dyno that I use, check out the links on our site below

http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dy...yno/index.aspx

http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dy...yno/index.aspx


Those are just a couple of our quicker and prettier employee cars



CHRIS

can i come over and play?

[2003SCT]

Originally Posted by SpyhunteR

can i come over and play?

Sure


CHRIS

[2003SCT]

Gectek,

No problem. And as far as the SAE correction factor, we recommend ALL of our dyno shops to use SAE...if they arent doing that, their repeatability may be at risk. If we didnt do that, people in Denver would never be able to compare dyno runs to anyone at sea level and vice versa. We use that so that we can do runs on our WRX in the summer and in the winter and with all other factors the same....it should make the same power run after run after run regardless if its the hot midday or cool evening.



CHRIS

[gectek]

well that is the same as the engine dyno industry now, i think the SAE factor finally levelled the field like the chassis dyno industry has used...but still that is a good representation of the HP of a car in ideal conditions, but when are we ever in those conditions...? the DA here runs worse than in denver, about 5500 during the day alot and even up to 6k feet! terrible. oh well just gotta push more power then

[AaronGTR]

Originally Posted by 2003SCT

Here's another thing you have to take into consideration. As different dynamometer companies have different hp results for the same car, same with engine dynos. One engine dyno will read different than another. Since we don't make an engine dyno...which one most directly relates to ours? Manufacturers dynos, DTS Dynos, Superflow engine dynos? This is the reason that crank horsepower and wheel horsepower shouldnt be compared....ever...in my opinion. Who cares what you make at the crank, its what you are able to put down to the ground that gets you going.


CHRIS

Excellent point. It really doesn't matter what the whp is relative to the chp. The only possible use for this I can see is if you know certain parts on an engine might be prone to failing at a certain hp level so you might want to know how stressed the engine is. Overall though, all you really want is to test the whp when doing modifications and tuning so you can get the results and see how effective they are. And yeah, you can't really compare different kinds of dyno's with a whole lot of accuracy.

[jackal2000]

so.....when exactly are dynoing your car?

[gectek]

itll be a few weeks hopefully, then everything will be in for me to go the next week and dyno it with the new stuff on. the car has body damage right now from the accident, so i have to fix that first, and it is taking forever because i have to find an impact bar from GM and they are on backorder, and no one in the country has one...and a header panel also, but as soon as i get that worked out and my leaking injector(which i hope will be this weekend if it stops blowing), then in a few weeks

[jackal2000]

bah, body damage can wait. fix the injector and dyno away!

[timberwoof]

Originally Posted by jackal2000

bah, body damage can wait. fix the injector and dyno away!

x2

[gectek]

haha, well its the fender that is gone, te bumper and impact bar and headlight, plus they wont dyno it like that and it isnt street legal right now.

[gectek]

ok so update, i have alot of stuff to tell. i now have almost everything to put the car back together but good weather. anyway, i have almost all of the body panels in. start that next week. now to the perf side of things. i have these items ready to go in as soon as i get my cam and pushrods, but i can get the rods any time i just need the cam first (custom ground). anyway so throwing all this on will hopefully see a good HP increase. i have all of these, so am going to reiterate in case i missed anything or added something, 65mm TB, ported UIM/LIM to match TB also, 04 heads shaved .006 with 3 angle seats and valve job, LS seats with LS6 yellow springs, stock locks and retainers, autolite copper plugs 1 range colder, QT elec exhaust cutout, LC-1 wideband(on order already paid), DHP PT with A/D upgrade(comming soon), flowmatched injectors, poly/rubber front mount, trans will be ready soon. and add on some BFG DRs and some steel rims off the GASE. how im guessing HP at the wheels of about 160 due to a higher stall converter, but not that much higher than stock, IIRC stock stall speed is 1895 and my converter is 2385, so about 500 RPM diff. anyway add in the 3.91 gears, and maybe that will help.... anyway i found a better dyno(its a mustang) and they will do 3 pulls for $80. no too bad. so in light of all of this, does anyone wish to revise their HP bids and throw in a little estimated track times as well?