any plans for another dyno day?

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:46 am

Stephen Westerfield wrote:

Off topic....did anyone see Jeff on "Pinks" on the speed channel? Just curious if he mentioned that experience during the dyno day.

OH yes.... That's was a great lunch time conversation. Jeff has a great write up the CAM web page.

As for the high numbers, most of the cars that ran we're modded, I know what Steve, Mitch, John and myself have modded the car with intakes, exhaust and software. I was actually hoping for a higher number myself.

Kevin Butler · **Posted:** Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:01 pm

I think the humidity definitely affected the results. Sat humidity was 100%. Yesterday's was 37%. I distinctly experienced knock yesterday with the car the same as it was Sat. I cured by dialing in 4 more degrees of retard. Probably the ambient temp had an impact also.

Rich Anderson · **Posted:** Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:28 pm

Kevin Butler wrote:

I think the humidity definitely affected the results. Sat humidity was 100%. Yesterday's was 37%. I distinctly experienced knock yesterday with the car the same as it was Sat. I cured by dialing in 4 more degrees of retard. Probably the ambient temp had an impact also.

So those are uncorrected numbers? I understand that correction factors are not perfect (especially involving boost, lack of airflow over charge air coolers and limited octane) but I would imagine that wouldn't allow for every result to be notably higher than is expected.

Patrick Wellenius · **Posted:** Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:52 pm

MikeWhitney wrote:

Patrick - you sure that M3 is stock?

Everything is stock as far as I know save for one thing - the clutch driven fan is gone b/c it blew up on me and I didn't have one on hand to replace it. I've been driving without one since. It should give *some* gains, but nothing extraordinary. It's definitely got the stock s/w because the limiter kicked in at 6500 rpm. To me, 208/210 didn't seem way out of line for a near-stock obd2 unless I'm missing something. I guess chalk up a couple whp to the fan.

Adam Ligon · **Posted:** Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:09 pm

Rich Anderson wrote:

Kevin Butler wrote:

I think the humidity definitely affected the results. Sat humidity was 100%. Yesterday's was 37%. I distinctly experienced knock yesterday with the car the same as it was Sat. I cured by dialing in 4 more degrees of retard. Probably the ambient temp had an impact also.

So those are uncorrected numbers? I understand that correction factors are not perfect (especially involving boost, lack of airflow over charge air coolers and limited octane) but I would imagine that wouldn't allow for every result to be notably higher than is expected.

No those are corrected numbers, Jeff's set up does it automatically according to his "weather station" set up. But yes corrections can be a bit off. That being said all the numbers look right on to me.

Adam Ligon · **Posted:** Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:11 pm

Michael Westerfield wrote:

When my car was dyno'd with old and new engine at CAM I always thought the numbers were a little too strong. My old motor dyno'd 10hp stronger (completely stock) than any other stock motor I had seen numbers on. Not saying there's a problem, but I know what you mean Mike.

Every dyno will read different on the same car, even the same types of dynos. Comparing dyno numbers from one dyno to another dyno are really pretty meaningless. The best bet to see actual gains on a particluar car is to run on the same dyno everytime.

Wes Eargle · **Joined:** Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:47 am **Posts:** 3683

Adam Ligon wrote:

No those are corrected numbers, Jeff's set up does it automatically according to his "weather station" set up. But yes corrections can be a bit off. That being said all the numbers look right on to me.

I believe that the software corrects for temperature, humidity and barometric pressure.

Michael Westerfield · **Posted:** Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:19 pm

Adam Ligon wrote:

Michael Westerfield wrote:

When my car was dyno'd with old and new engine at CAM I always thought the numbers were a little too strong. My old motor dyno'd 10hp stronger (completely stock) than any other stock motor I had seen numbers on. Not saying there's a problem, but I know what you mean Mike.

Every dyno will read different on the same car, even the same types of dynos. Comparing dyno numbers from one dyno to another dyno are really pretty meaningless. The best bet to see actual gains on a particluar car is to run on the same dyno everytime.

I understand that... But the numbers I made were pretty much the highest I've ever seen for a stock motor. I don't think there was anything special about my motor.

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

if anybody is curious, my numbers (for a stock mazda3) are exactly in line with other dynos I've seen of a stock MZR motor with a 5-spd (I've seen from 140-144), and my wifes were pretty much in line with what we would expect for her car as well. You must remember, manufacturer hp ratings are pretty much bs unti the new SAE standards took effect recently, so BMW citing the old M3 as 240 hp may have been conservative (considering the european version made over 300 if I'm not mistaken).

Sean Korb · **Posted:** Mon May 22, 2006 7:59 pm

Just in case anyone was curious about my Cougar's irritable upper GI problems, I have a small write-up at http://www.pleasurizer.com/2006/05/off_ ... heads.html

The heads aren't warped, so it should go back together okay for the next dyno run

THSCC Forums

any plans for another dyno day?

Who is online