New bone stock dyno #'s on my '09 Cad CTS-V:
10-12-2010, 05:42 AM
#1
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, Ka
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New bone stock dyno #'s on my '09 Cad CTS-V: OK, I had a bone stock re-dyno done yesterday for a new baseline at Church Automotive Testing in Wilmington, CA. They did 4 pulls, the 1st one being the best, (before any heat soak set in), 521.6 RAHP, 536.2 RATQ, 8.50 PSI boost, AFR about 14.6 at 2400 RPM, began dropping down at about 2800 RPM to about 11.7 or so and then dropping down to about 11.3? Next pull definitely pulled out timing and dropped to about 502 or so RAHP and corresponding RATQ, and then 2 more pulls of about 510 & 512 RAHP both giving me an overall average of about 510 RAHP and about 531.2 RATQ. Shawn advised that the increase on RAHP & RATQ was probably due to motor breaking in. I am at about 2300 miles on it now. Dyno was a Dynopack. This was on crappy Kali 91 octane UL. Going in the tank soon is 100 octane UL and then a re-dyno after about a month of running 100 octane UL. I will report my results. My last dyno at Church on 10-16-2009 at about 1000 miles was 498.1 RAHP & 514.9 RATQ.
10-14-2010, 06:30 AM
#3
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, Ka
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not too sure about the mods, yet, Cole, but here's some interesting food for thought:
OK, newsflash, and not necessarily a happy one. I decided to add 1 more set of dyno runs on 91 octane prior to switching over to 100 octane UL. So I had another baseline dyno run performed at Superior Automotive Engineering In Anaheim, CA. the 1st run was pretty weak at 448 RWHP & maybe 440 RWTQ. The 2nd run netted 467.9 RWHP & 449.0, while the 3rd and final run netted 465.1 RWHP & 460.2 RWTQ. However, these figures were in "STD" correction factoring. I called the dyno facility and they advised that my RWHP figure of 467.9 would net about 456.3 on "SAE" correction factoring. Really not too bad but that's considerably less than the previous runs on the Dynapack. CAT told me that they believed that a Dynapack would net about 6%-7% more than a Dynojet due primarily to the direct readings off of the axles. However, I come up with about 14% more. The scary part of this is that I know somebody else that dynoed at both places and I calculated out the differences between their 2 sets of figures, and guess what, theirs had about a 14% variation, too.
So my SAE readings when I get them will be 456.3 RWHP, and about 450 RWTQ, or about a loss of 2% from the STD readings. Filled up my car right after the dyno runs with 100 octane VP UL at a cost of $8.00 a gal. Car doesn't seem to sound any better, & doesn't seem to run any better. Disappointed.
OK, newsflash, and not necessarily a happy one. I decided to add 1 more set of dyno runs on 91 octane prior to switching over to 100 octane UL. So I had another baseline dyno run performed at Superior Automotive Engineering In Anaheim, CA. the 1st run was pretty weak at 448 RWHP & maybe 440 RWTQ. The 2nd run netted 467.9 RWHP & 449.0, while the 3rd and final run netted 465.1 RWHP & 460.2 RWTQ. However, these figures were in "STD" correction factoring. I called the dyno facility and they advised that my RWHP figure of 467.9 would net about 456.3 on "SAE" correction factoring. Really not too bad but that's considerably less than the previous runs on the Dynapack. CAT told me that they believed that a Dynapack would net about 6%-7% more than a Dynojet due primarily to the direct readings off of the axles. However, I come up with about 14% more. The scary part of this is that I know somebody else that dynoed at both places and I calculated out the differences between their 2 sets of figures, and guess what, theirs had about a 14% variation, too.
So my SAE readings when I get them will be 456.3 RWHP, and about 450 RWTQ, or about a loss of 2% from the STD readings. Filled up my car right after the dyno runs with 100 octane VP UL at a cost of $8.00 a gal. Car doesn't seem to sound any better, & doesn't seem to run any better. Disappointed.
10-14-2010, 06:48 AM
#4
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Helendale
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not too sure about the mods, yet, Cole, but here's some interesting food for thought:
OK, newsflash, and not necessarily a happy one. I decided to add 1 more set of dyno runs on 91 octane prior to switching over to 100 octane UL. So I had another baseline dyno run performed at Superior Automotive Engineering In Anaheim, CA. the 1st run was pretty weak at 448 RWHP & maybe 440 RWTQ. The 2nd run netted 467.9 RWHP & 449.0, while the 3rd and final run netted 465.1 RWHP & 460.2 RWTQ. However, these figures were in "STD" correction factoring. I called the dyno facility and they advised that my RWHP figure of 467.9 would net about 456.3 on "SAE" correction factoring. Really not too bad but that's considerably less than the previous runs on the Dynapack. CAT told me that they believed that a Dynapack would net about 6%-7% more than a Dynojet due primarily to the direct readings off of the axles. However, I come up with about 14% more. The scary part of this is that I know somebody else that dynoed at both places and I calculated out the differences between their 2 sets of figures, and guess what, theirs had about a 14% variation, too.
So my SAE readings when I get them will be 456.3 RWHP, and about 450 RWTQ, or about a loss of 2% from the STD readings. Filled up my car right after the dyno runs with 100 octane VP UL at a cost of $8.00 a gal. Car doesn't seem to sound any better, & doesn't seem to run any better. Disappointed.
OK, newsflash, and not necessarily a happy one. I decided to add 1 more set of dyno runs on 91 octane prior to switching over to 100 octane UL. So I had another baseline dyno run performed at Superior Automotive Engineering In Anaheim, CA. the 1st run was pretty weak at 448 RWHP & maybe 440 RWTQ. The 2nd run netted 467.9 RWHP & 449.0, while the 3rd and final run netted 465.1 RWHP & 460.2 RWTQ. However, these figures were in "STD" correction factoring. I called the dyno facility and they advised that my RWHP figure of 467.9 would net about 456.3 on "SAE" correction factoring. Really not too bad but that's considerably less than the previous runs on the Dynapack. CAT told me that they believed that a Dynapack would net about 6%-7% more than a Dynojet due primarily to the direct readings off of the axles. However, I come up with about 14% more. The scary part of this is that I know somebody else that dynoed at both places and I calculated out the differences between their 2 sets of figures, and guess what, theirs had about a 14% variation, too.
So my SAE readings when I get them will be 456.3 RWHP, and about 450 RWTQ, or about a loss of 2% from the STD readings. Filled up my car right after the dyno runs with 100 octane VP UL at a cost of $8.00 a gal. Car doesn't seem to sound any better, & doesn't seem to run any better. Disappointed.
but on the brightside, you have +100 hp and +90 tq then me. haha
10-14-2010, 07:37 AM
#5
Staging Lane
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You won't see the benefit of the 100 Octane unless you tune for it.
This article is a good example:
http://www.redline-motorsports.net/w...e_complete.pdf
This article is a good example:
http://www.redline-motorsports.net/w...e_complete.pdf
10-14-2010, 12:58 PM
#6
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, Ka
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a car cruise recently, one of Hennessey's top dawgs told me that just adding 93 octane as compared to 91 octane would add 16 RWHP without a tune. I have heard such things before, but decided to validate it myself on my '09 CTS-V by dynoing on 91 octane, then dynoing on 100 octane without any changes whatsoever. It would boil down to whether my car was actually pulling out timing on 91 octane due to detonation. Haven't come to a proven conclusion yet without a couple more dyno pulls, but I am skeptical, as I was before.
Trending Topics
10-14-2010, 07:48 PM
#8
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Beach, Ka
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You won't see the benefit of the 100 Octane unless you tune for it.
This article is a good example:
http://www.redline-motorsports.net/w...e_complete.pdf
This article is a good example:
http://www.redline-motorsports.net/w...e_complete.pdf
But if the car is not detonation, then yes, you are correct.
