Man I can honestly say that those are good numbers! But I would like to point out a few things and I am not trying to start **** I just want everyone to know everything you did to make sure you dynoed at lets just say optimal conditions. So why don't you tell them about how on the first pull it did 477rwhp which IMO is good for a H/C car. Blowing on the dynojet PC netted you a whoping 509rwhp with nothing done except blowing on the dynojet controller and then taking it outside the dyno room etc... Those are called dyno tricks or atleast manipulation the results at minum. I don't care what you call it that is what it is if you do something that is different from the way everyone dyno's on that particular dyno that is what it is called. But hey those are great numbers I am going to do the same with my car and see what it does cause if that blowing on it to raise the humidity and changing the correction factor is not bending the rules a little I am all in for it! I still remember the video that HPE put out a few years ago about "How to make 450rwhp with a cam only car" LOL! They put a fan blowing on the controller and put 60lbs in the rear tires BAM @450 all back to normal the car did 380rwhp. Anything you do out of the ordinary can and will cause the numbers to change and you should be very aware of that. I believe that this site was about sharing information and I just want it to be factual information is all please. Sorry if it makes you mad. I wasn't trying to. I just see everyone asking for details and I wanted you to share ALL of the info and I didn't see where you were getting to that yet.
Jeff

 

I'll let Patrick respond to Inspector12, but everything we did in Victoria was with out dyno tricks.

Since I have a mustang dyno I can't know exactlly what it will do on a dyno jet, but based on my personnal testing on my mustang and a dyno jet, the numbers I saw would be 499-507rwhp on a dyno jet.

 

Jeff (Inspector12),

To set the record straight, my car was dyno-tuned in Victoria on a very accurate Mustang Dyno. This dyno has compared very favorably with Dynojets in Houston and San Antonio. The night before I left to Houston, my car laid down 8 dyno runs that would have been 499-507 on a Dynojet.

The first run on G-Force's dyno netted 479.79 rwhp. Since there was no way it could have been that low, we checked the weather station. The barometer was right at 30.02, the temperature was right at 90.06, but the humidity only read 34%. There's no way it could be that low at 10am in Houston on a day that it had just rained. It's difficult to get under 50% humidity in the AC indooors.

We checked 2 different weather stations and they both confirmed humidity was around 76%. The correction should have been 1.03 or 1.04, not 1.00. Since we could not manually input the correct humidity correction, we blew on the weather station until the humidity read 76%. You can call that dyno tricks if you want, but all I did was correct the weather station to actual conditions during the run. There were no belts removed, no air filter removed and no loosening of straps. The car was run as delivered and Jonathon from G-Force made the pulls.

Think about it...
My car laid down 475rwhp on 2 different dynos with my old heads, 223/227 110LSA cam, 11.6:1 compression, and catted y-pipe. Wouldn't it be odd that I added heads that flowed 20 cfm more in the low and mid-range, added a much larger 238/242 112LSA cam, bumped my compression to 11.92:1, and ran a no-compromise y-pipe only to add 5 rwhp? Get real! My car ran the number and would run the same number on any other dyno with an accurate weather correction. This is the entire reason why I showed the other 2 dyno sheets. They too, fell in the 499-507 range of the Mustang Dyno in Victoria. When I have an opportunity to visit other dynos, I will post up backup numbers. As soon as I make it to the track, I will post some 1/4 mile times.

 

LMFAO!!!!!

 

good numbers man

hmmm....I need a 4" cutout, didn't know they had one....lol

 

What was the uncorrected numbers on the 479 pull and the 507 pull. Uncorrected will tell what power the car made regardless of puffing the box or not. I honestly woudn't have posted numbers with that much manipulation behind them due to the fact it doesn't prove anything. Not saying the car doesn't make the number, as I'm sure it makes killer power with the parts you have. Just gotta have a sheet with no room for doubters on here, and there will still be questions.

 

Doesn't prove anything? Are you kidding me? The uncorrected number was 479.79. Temps on the 4 runs varied between 90.06-95.89, baro varied between 29.99 and 30.01 and humidity was 76%. Elevation was probably 50 ft. You do the math. You don't get a 1.00 correction with those conditions, sorry. The runs with the humidity at the correct 76% had a 1.03-1.04 correction. The 508 number had the highest temps and the highest humidity (correction factor of 1.06).

 

Hey Pat, you did a good job on your car. Now ask yourself this question, what is a haters job ? Answer is to hate. So let the haters hate. Stay cool brother.

 

It's the nature of gear headed horsepower freaks, especially bench racers.

 

I'm not hating at all. Just questioning the blowing on the box to change the humidity. To each their own. I personally own a new dynojet and we don't blow on our weather stations in order to adjust the humidity. Regardless of what the humidity is supposed to be in another area.

 

The box said it was 34% humidity. Obviously, it was not working properly as the ACTUAL humidity at the time in THAT AREA was 76%. How would you propose we get an accurate dyno run with a messed up weather station? The machine would not let us key in the correct humidity figure so we manipulated the hydrometer until it read 76%, then we did our pulls. If your new dynojet was giving you inaccurate readings because of a messed up hydrometer, I think you would have it looked at (and fixed) pretty fast.

 

I am not a hater Patrick so don't confuse me with that I am just about accuracy. Hence the name Inspector as I am very meticulous and don't miss much usually when working on a car or what ever, but I am not perfect. I was just wanting this information to be understood so that someone reading ,and puts together the same package as a lot of guys do on here, and they maynot want to do all the work it takes to pick the correct parts themselves would not be disappointed caue there car only did 479 bla bla bla. I never really cared about dyno numbers it is a tunning tool and yeah everyone wants to have high numbers so don't get me wrong I like mine that I have made with all my setups in the past, but I have never adjusted the weather station on anyone's dyno. I guess I just might have to cause no telling what my correct numbers might be if this is the case and G-forces weather station is off that much or atleast was on this day. Great numbers as I stated before! This is a good thing for people to look at from now on when they dyno there cars to make sure the weather station matches the actual weather conditons cause I never really payed attention to it as I like most always assumed it was correct.

 

I didn't mean to bash the numbers as it seems to be a sensitive subject and I honestly don't care. Take it to the track and lets see what it puts down mph. If the car isn't set for the dragstrip then it might not et great, but the mph will be the indication of the power. We will see if it runs 470 rwhp times or 508 rwhp times, as there is a difference. I've ran mine hot and cold, so I know what a full weight car with that kinda power should mph in both. Again, sorry if I fluffed your feathers, just feel that the numbers should be done on a calibrated dyno then instead of manipulating a defective one if we are gonna show the potential of the parts.

 

All I got to say is you better go read that when will my 10 bolt die sticky. Cause that bitch is on borrowed time.

 

Good numbers, BUT WTF good is 480-508rwhp with a 10bolt? road/track/DDing.. with a stick car its only a matter of time before it goes... BOOM!

 

Wow, blowing on the weather station netted nearly 30rwhp? Somehow that information was conveniently omitted in the first post.

In all fairness 477 rwhp is still killer numbers from a h/c setup even with a M6 (lightweight flywheel?), and 10-bolt. You should have at least mentioned there was a "weather station recalibration procedure" done.

 

Not that Patrick G. would ever need my back-up. Meteorology is my profession. He is dead on the relative humidity (76%) on that day. The day started off at 100% RH, and stayed high all day.

And dynoing with that much humidity, as he says would have given you the exactly the numbers he posted.

It's a shame that Dyno weather stations probably don't go through the same frequent calibrations that regular weather stations must go through.

I always double-check elevation, pressure, temp, humidity on dyno days. It is surprising how they are not always reading the correct weather.

In any case, congrats on your set-up. WeathermanShawn..

 

That is all I was saying. I don't believe that most shops really check that stuff and maybe they should. I just know that I never have. I just wanted everyone to know what was done and not to say the numbers are wrong, but I do have to wonder how many times me or someone else dynoed with out making this type of adjustment etc... I thought the same thing 477 was great numbers IMO! Althought that makes me wonder what the H/C car G-force just finished on the GTO that did @505 rwhp with out the weatherstation being calibrated etc... Could be higher as well as my own.

 

Patrick,

Blow, schmo. Good results and good data. Any guess as to the source of the funky dip in the midrange torque "plateau"?

I've done a LOT of searching on streetable mods for my 02 Z06, and dug up all sorts of posts you've made in the past. It's amazing how far you've come from the CheatR/AFR/manifold goals of old.

However, you spent a lot of time and money recently, and got about 25rwhp more. Do you feel it was worth it, or do you sometimes think the very tame 420rwhp setup of old was more the way to go, since it was probably so much quieter and streetable? I went more extreme on my 1991 Mustang of old, and now I want it quiet and fun, with an occassional 1/4mi pass or road race school/event.

IF you ever want to spend more money , I would LOVE to see a back to back comparison of the worked on AFR205's vs a similar milled set of stock TFS-215s, to see if these heads are REALLY any better. Some data seems to indicate so, but most of these guys run such huge cams, that it is hard to really tell.

I don't want to sidetrack your post here, but what do you think of this list of low maintenance 02 Z06 mods(save valvesprings every 15k = 5yrs for me ) Am I dreaming and fooled by the math, or is this really possible:

1) TFS215s milled for 11.5 compression (+33rwhp)
2) Ported/Matched FAST 90 (+22rwhp)
3) LS2 CheatR 215/230, .63/.59,117 (+20rwhp)(Hopefully 0 driveability issues)
4) Dyno Tune (+10rwhp)
4) Stock manifolds/cats/Ti (quieter and no O2 issues), stock pulley (no charging/cooling issues), stock airbox(no stinkin Vararam fitment and lean issues)

Net Gain = 33+22+20+10 = 85rwhp

Total RWHP = 355rwhp + 85rwhp = 440rwhp

And if I think I could tolerate the increased valvetrain noise and volume, I would consider adding say LG Pros/Cats, and go for another 25rwhp, to put me at 465rwhp.

 

Well I am sure Patrick will be able to give you his answer soon I have to say I have been impressed with the TFS heads on my car ofcourse it is a lot different than a N/A car, and I was also happy with the AFR's on the black car also. I think the TFS are a tiny bit better, but both of my cars are to different to make an accurate decision. I do know the difference would be noticed in a N/A application way more than any FI setup. Just a little more time and I believe a number of people will be doing some of this testing so you may have a good comparison soon.