Champion camaro ttix 848 rwhp
07-18-2011, 02:25 PM
#1
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto,Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Champion camaro ttix 848 rwhp Just finished re-tuning Dimetri's 2010 Camaro. Motor is completely stock except for a valve spring change and flow master mufflers. Pump gas and meth. 16lbs of boost. 14 degrees of timing. Customer wanted the 800+ dyno,but will run lower boost on the street.
Are the snails t3/t4's or t4's? 
Trending Topics
07-19-2011, 09:24 AM
#8
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto,Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-19-2011, 09:27 AM
#9
Awsome numbers,
but... why are you SAE correcting a turbo setup? I was told a while back by Dynojet themselves and if you read on how J1349 is, that a system that controls the amount of boost via pressure (wastegate) eliminates correction needs... as you obtain same amount of pressure of air regardless of elevation.
you will hit x amount of boost, lets say its 16psi regardless if your 3000ft up or sea level.
and 16psi of air contains the same weight of oxygen regardless where you are. (because it is a positive pressure) The only thing that changes is the curve, you obtain your desired boost quicker because you gather more air per impeller rotation at sea level vs high up so your power curve shifts. Uncorrected should be used for truer numbers.
Is Dan Hourigan at dynojet wrong to say No correction for turbos? No. and here is why...
SAE correction for turbo charged cars is not correct because turbo's run off wastegates and a set boost pressure. This pressure will be reached regardless of elevation. Spring pressures don't change.
The content makeup of 'air' does not change the higher you go up either, the oxygen, nitrogen, argon, co2 etc is just spread further apart... but when compressed, its the same. 16psi of air collected from 10,000ft will contain the same o2 content as 16psi of air collected from sea level. (one just takes longer to collect)
There are light factors that come into play such as turbos will spin faster at higher elevation and create more heat and possibly exit their ideal efficiency range, but overall these variances are no where near how much SAE corrects for. The other is if the turbo is maxed out, as in, not reaching boost spring pressure.
Lets see the uncorrected numbers!
It would give all of us a better comparison.
Im sure they are still impressive !
but... why are you SAE correcting a turbo setup? I was told a while back by Dynojet themselves and if you read on how J1349 is, that a system that controls the amount of boost via pressure (wastegate) eliminates correction needs... as you obtain same amount of pressure of air regardless of elevation.
you will hit x amount of boost, lets say its 16psi regardless if your 3000ft up or sea level.
and 16psi of air contains the same weight of oxygen regardless where you are. (because it is a positive pressure) The only thing that changes is the curve, you obtain your desired boost quicker because you gather more air per impeller rotation at sea level vs high up so your power curve shifts. Uncorrected should be used for truer numbers.
Is Dan Hourigan at dynojet wrong to say No correction for turbos? No. and here is why...
SAE correction for turbo charged cars is not correct because turbo's run off wastegates and a set boost pressure. This pressure will be reached regardless of elevation. Spring pressures don't change.
The content makeup of 'air' does not change the higher you go up either, the oxygen, nitrogen, argon, co2 etc is just spread further apart... but when compressed, its the same. 16psi of air collected from 10,000ft will contain the same o2 content as 16psi of air collected from sea level. (one just takes longer to collect)
There are light factors that come into play such as turbos will spin faster at higher elevation and create more heat and possibly exit their ideal efficiency range, but overall these variances are no where near how much SAE corrects for. The other is if the turbo is maxed out, as in, not reaching boost spring pressure.
Lets see the uncorrected numbers!
It would give all of us a better comparison.
Im sure they are still impressive !
Last edited by vmapper; 07-19-2011 at 09:45 AM.
07-19-2011, 10:07 AM
#10
TECH Resident
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awsome numbers,
but... why are you SAE correcting a turbo setup? I was told a while back by Dynojet themselves and if you read on how J1349 is, that a system that controls the amount of boost via pressure (wastegate) eliminates correction needs... as you obtain same amount of pressure of air regardless of elevation.
you will hit x amount of boost, lets say its 16psi regardless if your 3000ft up or sea level.
and 16psi of air contains the same weight of oxygen regardless where you are. (because it is a positive pressure) The only thing that changes is the curve, you obtain your desired boost quicker because you gather more air per impeller rotation at sea level vs high up so your power curve shifts. Uncorrected should be used for truer numbers.
Is Dan Hourigan at dynojet wrong to say No correction for turbos? No. and here is why...
SAE correction for turbo charged cars is not correct because turbo's run off wastegates and a set boost pressure. This pressure will be reached regardless of elevation. Spring pressures don't change.
The content makeup of 'air' does not change the higher you go up either, the oxygen, nitrogen, argon, co2 etc is just spread further apart... but when compressed, its the same. 16psi of air collected from 10,000ft will contain the same o2 content as 16psi of air collected from sea level. (one just takes longer to collect)
There are light factors that come into play such as turbos will spin faster at higher elevation and create more heat and possibly exit their ideal efficiency range, but overall these variances are no where near how much SAE corrects for. The other is if the turbo is maxed out, as in, not reaching boost spring pressure.
Lets see the uncorrected numbers!
It would give all of us a better comparison.
Im sure they are still impressive !
but... why are you SAE correcting a turbo setup? I was told a while back by Dynojet themselves and if you read on how J1349 is, that a system that controls the amount of boost via pressure (wastegate) eliminates correction needs... as you obtain same amount of pressure of air regardless of elevation.
you will hit x amount of boost, lets say its 16psi regardless if your 3000ft up or sea level.
and 16psi of air contains the same weight of oxygen regardless where you are. (because it is a positive pressure) The only thing that changes is the curve, you obtain your desired boost quicker because you gather more air per impeller rotation at sea level vs high up so your power curve shifts. Uncorrected should be used for truer numbers.
Is Dan Hourigan at dynojet wrong to say No correction for turbos? No. and here is why...
SAE correction for turbo charged cars is not correct because turbo's run off wastegates and a set boost pressure. This pressure will be reached regardless of elevation. Spring pressures don't change.
The content makeup of 'air' does not change the higher you go up either, the oxygen, nitrogen, argon, co2 etc is just spread further apart... but when compressed, its the same. 16psi of air collected from 10,000ft will contain the same o2 content as 16psi of air collected from sea level. (one just takes longer to collect)
There are light factors that come into play such as turbos will spin faster at higher elevation and create more heat and possibly exit their ideal efficiency range, but overall these variances are no where near how much SAE corrects for. The other is if the turbo is maxed out, as in, not reaching boost spring pressure.
Lets see the uncorrected numbers!
It would give all of us a better comparison.
Im sure they are still impressive !
07-19-2011, 10:42 AM
#11
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: LV NV
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now you just have to keep a trans/clutch in it, drive shaft, rear,and axles....probably only another 00.01 %, it should be easy.
07-19-2011, 01:22 PM
#15
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto,Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-19-2011, 02:30 PM
#17
Dynojet Research Inc. p: (702)639-1113 about all of this some time ago...
Uncorrected is always a good 11-13% less where I live, on every dyno run, every car. Have a good 60+ .drf files if you like to see... it all depends on where the Dyno is... its not all their dynos across the board.
Very impressive, none the less...
Guess there is little difference in big T.O. with humility. I was just curious how much affect there was...
thanks for posting those!
Keep up the impressive work!
Last edited by vmapper; 07-19-2011 at 02:47 PM.
07-19-2011, 02:54 PM
#18
TECH Resident
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had called... I talked to Dan- VP Dynamometer Sales
Dynojet Research Inc. p: (702)639-1113 about all of this some time ago...
Uncorrected is always a good 11-13% less where I live, on every dyno run, every car. Have a good 60+ .drf files if you like to see... it all depends on where the Dyno is... its not all their dynos across the board.
Very impressive, none the less...
Guess there is little difference in big T.O. with humility. I was just curious how much affect there was...
thanks for posting those!
Keep up the impressive work!
Dynojet Research Inc. p: (702)639-1113 about all of this some time ago...
Uncorrected is always a good 11-13% less where I live, on every dyno run, every car. Have a good 60+ .drf files if you like to see... it all depends on where the Dyno is... its not all their dynos across the board.
Very impressive, none the less...
Guess there is little difference in big T.O. with humility. I was just curious how much affect there was...
thanks for posting those!
Keep up the impressive work!
It's always been my understanding that it goes in this order:
Uncorrected>Std.>SAE
07-19-2011, 03:09 PM
#19
In this case Uncorrected and SAE are almost the same, meaning, the conditions were almost bang on for the SAE formula... im sure its -0.01.CF.
well,.. with an elevation of 3557 ft / 1084 m...where I am
how would the true power on the ground (uncorrected) be more than at sea level which is how SAE is referencing. We all know a N/A car will put more down at sea level (SAE - correcting the Uncorrected as if it was at sea level )than at high elevations.
SAE is set for: 77°F (25°C) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.234 in-Hg (99 KPa).
the dyno Pack module measures the actual and the CF is born.
we know Toronto could very well be 100kPa - so below the SAE sea level.
Raw weather station pressures need to be looked at if your curious as the weather station 'corrects' for their weather pressure as well.
e.g. where i live, the news says 100.54kPa, when reality, its only 89kpa. (and that can be verified by running Hp Tuners or similar scanner and see the Baro sensor with the engine not running) same as what the dynojet will see but in Inch/mercury
Ill Pm you a few for you to look at, I dont want to pollute ChampionMotors thread here... if you have the Winpep7 software i can send you a few files to look at too...
Last edited by vmapper; 07-19-2011 at 03:37 PM.
07-19-2011, 03:47 PM
#20
Just get in the driver seat and enjoy the power and quit worrying about how it got there or why it's what it is.
I understand some people see the need in nit picking every detail, but when you have a car with power like this car or mine or a lot of other's on this site, number's don't matter anymore, or at least for me.
I understand some people see the need in nit picking every detail, but when you have a car with power like this car or mine or a lot of other's on this site, number's don't matter anymore, or at least for me.