Problem with Dyno Jet
09-14-2007, 01:04 PM
#1
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: POULSBO WA.
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem with Dyno Jet Last night a bunch of people put down 40 bucks each to see what kind of numbers they could put down on a dyno-jet...top honors went to a supra with a big *** turbo 391rwhp...my numbers were not that impressive 257hp @5600 and 266 tq @ 4500...with the mods in my sig is this possible? I think the tq numbers are way off. My trap speed being 102.55 I would have thought that I would have been closer to 280-290 hp. what do you guys think? I was rather embarrassed. thanks.
09-14-2007, 03:02 PM
#3
On The Tree
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cincinnati OH
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by speed_demon24
If the supra had a big *** turbo his #'s would be over 1000rwhp.
09-14-2007, 04:38 PM
#5
Originally Posted by FAD2BLK93
Last night a bunch of people put down 40 bucks each to see what kind of numbers they could put down on a dyno-jet...top honors went to a supra with a big *** turbo 391rwhp...my numbers were not that impressive 257hp @5600 and 266 tq @ 4500...with the mods in my sig is this possible? I think the tq numbers are way off. My trap speed being 102.55 I would have thought that I would have been closer to 280-290 hp. what do you guys think? I was rather embarrassed. thanks.
09-14-2007, 04:45 PM
#7
TECH Addict
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ringoes/Flemington, New Jersey
Posts: 2,852
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
94 > 93. as far as years go. 
93 was speed density (ew), bank injection (double ew), i believe a non-electronic controlled a4 as well.. and higher gearing in the rear?
93 was speed density (ew), bank injection (double ew), i believe a non-electronic controlled a4 as well.. and higher gearing in the rear?
Trending Topics
09-14-2007, 05:06 PM
#8
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Those numbers, in my opinion, are low. He has a PCM4Less tune. The TQ should be at least into the 280s (I'd say 300) and the HP I'd figure around 265-270. I've seen people on here dyno their stock car and get better numbers than that.
Advice? Get a Dynomax or Loudmouth muffler and ditch that flow-restrictive Flowmaster.
Advice? Get a Dynomax or Loudmouth muffler and ditch that flow-restrictive Flowmaster.
09-14-2007, 05:16 PM
#9
Originally Posted by ThoR294
94 > 93. as far as years go.
93 was speed density (ew), bank injection (double ew), i believe a non-electronic controlled a4 as well.. and higher gearing in the rear?
93 was speed density (ew), bank injection (double ew), i believe a non-electronic controlled a4 as well.. and higher gearing in the rear?
Speed density is easier to tune and MAFless(less intake restriction, one less thing to go wrong), bank injection is the same performance as sequential - was changed for fuel economy, the gearing for autos is the same but manuals got 3.23s instead of 3.42s, and the non electric 4l60 doesnt have to worry about "stall wall" tune problems, and it is supposedly easier on the car to run aftermarket gate shifters with. Also, the speeddensity computer hardly ever throws any codes. It is one of the most popular sertups for retro-swaps for old school muscle and restored cars.
So, why is the 94 any better then 93s, besides being able to tune without a chip burner(which takes a few seconds to burn a chip w/ a piggyback adapter)?
Back on topic:
His torque is a bit low, but his horsepower is spot on for what he has, an auto almost-stock LT1. Nothing is wrong with his setup, a stock auto LT1 will dyno between 240-260 to the wheels, very rarely any more.
Look at his track times - 13.48 with basically just a CAI is a great time, nothing is wrong with his car!
09-14-2007, 05:37 PM
#10
TECH Addict
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ringoes/Flemington, New Jersey
Posts: 2,852
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
bank is garbage. sequential gets the fuel there when its needed. not like 5 years before. and MAF actually measures the air coming in, unlike speed density which assumes air is coming in
09-14-2007, 05:46 PM
#11
Originally Posted by ThoR294
bank is garbage. sequential gets the fuel there when its needed. not like 5 years before. and MAF actually measures the air coming in, unlike speed density which assumes air is coming in
MAF systems dont make any more HP than SD either.
09-14-2007, 05:56 PM
#13
TECH Addict
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ringoes/Flemington, New Jersey
Posts: 2,852
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
im just talking in general. id rather have MAF and seq than bank and sd.
93s are like the redheaded stepchild of the 4th gens IMO.
and I dont trust many dynos. if his track time is really 13.4 @ 102... then id say kick the dyno in the nuts
93s are like the redheaded stepchild of the 4th gens IMO.
and I dont trust many dynos. if his track time is really 13.4 @ 102... then id say kick the dyno in the nuts
09-14-2007, 06:06 PM
#15
On The Tree
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cincinnati OH
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ThoR294
and I dont trust many dynos. if his track time is really 13.4 @ 102... then id say kick the dyno in the nuts
09-14-2007, 07:11 PM
#17
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
[QUOTE=ThoR294]93s are like the redheaded stepchild of the 4th gens IMO./QUOTE]
Good thing that's just your opinion
If SD sucks so much, why does your Uber-MAF car still have a MAP :O Why do quite a few people tune OUT their MAF and go back to SD? Why did GM switch from MAF TPI to SD TPI (which were the better, more powerful TPIs)?
You can keep your extra $100+ part
Good thing that's just your opinion
If SD sucks so much, why does your Uber-MAF car still have a MAP :O Why do quite a few people tune OUT their MAF and go back to SD? Why did GM switch from MAF TPI to SD TPI (which were the better, more powerful TPIs)?You can keep your extra $100+ part
09-14-2007, 08:56 PM
#18
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FASTFATBOY
Sequential is no better than batch fire, you can't tune a 94+ ecm sequentially. You can't adjust indvidual cylinders independently.
If you say so
09-14-2007, 09:11 PM
#19
TECH Addict
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ringoes/Flemington, New Jersey
Posts: 2,852
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
[QUOTE=Formula350] the map is there for DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES. it lets you read manifold vaccum on a scan tool... mmkayyy
why did GM go from a 350 to a 305? MAF > SD
Originally Posted by ThoR294
93s are like the redheaded stepchild of the 4th gens IMO./QUOTE]
Good thing that's just your opinion If SD sucks so much, why does your Uber-MAF car still have a MAP :O Why do quite a few people tune OUT their MAF and go back to SD? Why did GM switch from MAF TPI to SD TPI (which were the better, more powerful TPIs)?
You can keep your extra $100+ part
Good thing that's just your opinion
If SD sucks so much, why does your Uber-MAF car still have a MAP :O Why do quite a few people tune OUT their MAF and go back to SD? Why did GM switch from MAF TPI to SD TPI (which were the better, more powerful TPIs)?You can keep your extra $100+ part
why did GM go from a 350 to a 305? MAF > SD
09-14-2007, 09:17 PM
#20
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=ThoR294]
the map is there for DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES. it lets you read manifold vaccum on a scan tool... mmkayyy
why did GM go from a 350 to a 305? MAF > SD MAP is there for timing tables as well as a couple other things.
Originally Posted by Formula350
the map is there for DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES. it lets you read manifold vaccum on a scan tool... mmkayyy
why did GM go from a 350 to a 305? MAF > SD