715 Rwhp Stock Bottom End Ws6
07-03-2007 | 05:48 PM
#121
Originally Posted by EGash
I'm not going to get into the nitrous debate on this thread, but I did notice on these (F2) data sheets across the top where it says X:1.17
That means the dyno operator manually added in 17% of extra correction factor on top of the air temp, humidity and baro corrections, which were A:1.027, or 2.7%, typical for a hot day. Why was 17% added? Were they trying to simulate a dynojet power reading? AFIK the dynojet "inflation" number for a DynoDynamics Dyno is 13%, not 17%. In my opinion, if you subtract 17% from all of the dyno plot numbers you'll arrive at a more accurate power output for that car on that run on that day. You can end this debate if you can get the dyno shop to reprint the dyno sheets, minus the Extra correction.
Dyno Dynamics USA AKA Aussie Imports LLC is located about 5 miles from the shop where I work. The owner is a good friend of mine. We have a DD chassis dyno almost identical to the one in the video. I use it almost daily, so I'm very fimiliar with the software.
That means the dyno operator manually added in 17% of extra correction factor on top of the air temp, humidity and baro corrections, which were A:1.027, or 2.7%, typical for a hot day. Why was 17% added? Were they trying to simulate a dynojet power reading? AFIK the dynojet "inflation" number for a DynoDynamics Dyno is 13%, not 17%. In my opinion, if you subtract 17% from all of the dyno plot numbers you'll arrive at a more accurate power output for that car on that run on that day. You can end this debate if you can get the dyno shop to reprint the dyno sheets, minus the Extra correction.
Dyno Dynamics USA AKA Aussie Imports LLC is located about 5 miles from the shop where I work. The owner is a good friend of mine. We have a DD chassis dyno almost identical to the one in the video. I use it almost daily, so I'm very fimiliar with the software.
interesting
07-03-2007 | 06:06 PM
#122
Originally Posted by EGash
I'm not going to get into the nitrous debate on this thread, but I did notice on these (F2) data sheets across the top where it says X:1.17
That means the dyno operator manually added in 17% of extra correction factor on top of the air temp, humidity and baro corrections, which were A:1.027, or 2.7%, typical for a hot day. Why was 17% added? Were they trying to simulate a dynojet power reading? AFIK the dynojet "inflation" number for a DynoDynamics Dyno is 13%, not 17%. In my opinion, if you subtract 17% from all of the dyno plot numbers you'll arrive at a more accurate power output for that car on that run on that day. You can end this debate if you can get the dyno shop to reprint the dyno sheets, minus the Extra correction.
Dyno Dynamics USA AKA Aussie Imports LLC is located about 5 miles from the shop where I work. The owner is a good friend of mine. We have a DD chassis dyno almost identical to the one in the video. I use it almost daily, so I'm very fimiliar with the software.
That means the dyno operator manually added in 17% of extra correction factor on top of the air temp, humidity and baro corrections, which were A:1.027, or 2.7%, typical for a hot day. Why was 17% added? Were they trying to simulate a dynojet power reading? AFIK the dynojet "inflation" number for a DynoDynamics Dyno is 13%, not 17%. In my opinion, if you subtract 17% from all of the dyno plot numbers you'll arrive at a more accurate power output for that car on that run on that day. You can end this debate if you can get the dyno shop to reprint the dyno sheets, minus the Extra correction.
Dyno Dynamics USA AKA Aussie Imports LLC is located about 5 miles from the shop where I work. The owner is a good friend of mine. We have a DD chassis dyno almost identical to the one in the video. I use it almost daily, so I'm very fimiliar with the software.
But you sir have spoiled everyones fun.
Why did you have to go ahead and find something that make perfect sence. 
Vinny
07-03-2007 | 06:26 PM
#123
Originally Posted by 383LQ4SS
Thats the point Im trying to get across. To think this thread is a good thing is *** backwards and a dnagerous myth to hype. Thanks for the reply.
There is NOTHING good about getting a different outcome from the intended jetting!
I dont want to lock this thread just yet because I am hoping some of the people that replied here thinking that getting a 300 shout out of 150 pills is a great thing will begin to understand otherwise.
There is NOTHING good about getting a different outcome from the intended jetting!
I dont want to lock this thread just yet because I am hoping some of the people that replied here thinking that getting a 300 shout out of 150 pills is a great thing will begin to understand otherwise.
Hopefully this guy's **** lives and he doesn't have to learn the lesson the hard way, but it's not looking hopeful if he's going to make another dyno pull.
07-04-2007 | 01:06 AM
#124
Thread Starter
Launching!
iTrader: (55)
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
From: Valley Center, CA
Originally Posted by EGash
I'm not going to get into the nitrous debate on this thread, but I did notice on these (F2) data sheets across the top where it says X:1.17
That means the dyno operator manually added in 17% of extra correction factor on top of the air temp, humidity and baro corrections, which were A:1.027, or 2.7%, typical for a hot day. Why was 17% added? Were they trying to simulate a dynojet power reading? AFIK the dynojet "inflation" number for a DynoDynamics Dyno is 13%, not 17%. In my opinion, if you subtract 17% from all of the dyno plot numbers you'll arrive at a more accurate power output for that car on that run on that day. You can end this debate if you can get the dyno shop to reprint the dyno sheets, minus the Extra correction.
Dyno Dynamics USA AKA Aussie Imports LLC is located about 5 miles from the shop where I work. The owner is a good friend of mine. We have a DD chassis dyno almost identical to the one in the video. I use it almost daily, so I'm very fimiliar with the software.
That means the dyno operator manually added in 17% of extra correction factor on top of the air temp, humidity and baro corrections, which were A:1.027, or 2.7%, typical for a hot day. Why was 17% added? Were they trying to simulate a dynojet power reading? AFIK the dynojet "inflation" number for a DynoDynamics Dyno is 13%, not 17%. In my opinion, if you subtract 17% from all of the dyno plot numbers you'll arrive at a more accurate power output for that car on that run on that day. You can end this debate if you can get the dyno shop to reprint the dyno sheets, minus the Extra correction.
Dyno Dynamics USA AKA Aussie Imports LLC is located about 5 miles from the shop where I work. The owner is a good friend of mine. We have a DD chassis dyno almost identical to the one in the video. I use it almost daily, so I'm very fimiliar with the software.
That would make a lot more sence about the 17 vs the 13. What would be a real number then? Are you saying that the 13 % is to calculate what it would be on a dyno jet? Or would it be 4 % less then what I got? Let me know because I don't know how I got something like that when I didn't change anything but the PSI and air cleaner.
HAIGHTER
07-04-2007 | 04:21 AM
#125
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,875
Likes: 1
From: Naperville, IL
Originally Posted by haighter
If you have any questions or comments feel free to let me know. I also swear that I only have a 150 TNT F2 shot in the car. If the numbers are high, it is not me doing it. I never drove the car on the dyno or worked the computer on the dyno.
The old block is being rebiult as of today. If anyone wants to buy my old set up, heads, cam, and suspension, I also have PRC LS6 stage 2.5 head with six miles on them, BMR fully adj. lower controle arms, adj. phb, blower cam, Dynatech headers and a Corsa exhaust for sale.
I have never taken the car to the track with its current setup. I am not going to because I'm putting my TSP 408 Iron block into it and when I do I plan on taking it to the track all the time. I run the car on the street all of the time. I always go to shows there are a lot of people that have ridden in the car or driven the car that can contest how fast it is.
The old block is being rebiult as of today. If anyone wants to buy my old set up, heads, cam, and suspension, I also have PRC LS6 stage 2.5 head with six miles on them, BMR fully adj. lower controle arms, adj. phb, blower cam, Dynatech headers and a Corsa exhaust for sale.
I have never taken the car to the track with its current setup. I am not going to because I'm putting my TSP 408 Iron block into it and when I do I plan on taking it to the track all the time. I run the car on the street all of the time. I always go to shows there are a lot of people that have ridden in the car or driven the car that can contest how fast it is.
Now it's all starting to make sense.. fudged dyno numbers backed up by Dial- in GTO claiming to be the tuner, appearing to be some kind of wonder engine so you can get a better price for what you're selling. No track results = no real proof.. just a piece of paper with some numbers on it, the "miracle numbers" you guys came up with for people to see. I hope no one falls for your little scam.
07-04-2007 | 04:27 AM
#126
Originally Posted by haighter
That would make a lot more sence about the 17 vs the 13. What would be a real number then? Are you saying that the 13 % is to calculate what it would be on a dyno jet? Or would it be 4 % less then what I got? Let me know because I don't know how I got something like that when I didn't change anything but the PSI and air cleaner.
HAIGHTER
HAIGHTER
So, 594rwhp on that dyno
& 671rwhp corrected for a dynojet...?
Check out your other dyno sheet from the other time you dynoed and compare.
Last edited by 99Silverado5.3; 07-04-2007 at 01:35 PM. Reason: Math error. :( LOL
07-04-2007 | 09:06 AM
#127
Originally Posted by haighter
That would make a lot more sence about the 17 vs the 13. What would be a real number then? Are you saying that the 13 % is to calculate what it would be on a dyno jet? Or would it be 4 % less then what I got? Let me know because I don't know how I got something like that when I didn't change anything but the PSI and air cleaner.
HAIGHTER
HAIGHTER
Silverado got it correct above: 715x83=594hp,
However, you would want to add 13% to the correct number, instead of subtracting 4% from the inflated number. 594x1.13=671 DynoJet inflation factor rwhp.
Also, I noticed in the data sheets a Gear ratio setting of 58.3:1. Now I think that number will show up regardless of how the tach input is setup. However, if they Dyno operators were using a roll speed converstion based on wheel speed in a particular gear to determine RPM, that can also cause the Tq and power readings to be off, if the wheel speed/rpm ratio is calibrated EXACTLY. Now I do use this wheel speed conversion sometimes when I cannont pickp a good tach signal with the Inductive clamp, or injector intercept prodes, however I've never once not been able to get a good tach signal off an LSx Engine. If you go back to get your uninflated dyno sheets ask them if they used a roll speed converstion to determine RPM or the inductive clamp.
07-04-2007 | 01:16 PM
#128
Thread Starter
Launching!
iTrader: (55)
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
From: Valley Center, CA
Originally Posted by Asmodeus
Now it's all starting to make sense.. fudged dyno numbers backed up by Dial- in GTO claiming to be the tuner, appearing to be some kind of wonder engine so you can get a better price for what you're selling. No track results = no real proof.. just a piece of paper with some numbers on it, the "miracle numbers" you guys came up with for people to see. I hope no one falls for your little scam.
Just to clear things up. I didnt have anything to to with running the dyno nor did Dail in GTO. He and I were there and watched the dyno pull. He is not my tuner and he only data logged the pull for me. He also doesnt work there he was there with his laptop and said that he could do it if I would like.
I am not selling the "Wonder engine" I am pulling it out and putting the 408 that I have into it. The car that is for sale is my collectors eddition and that is stock. This is not a scam. I didn't know how I got numbers like that. If I was trying to scam someone you would think that I know something about correction numbers and would not of posted all of the data. Right? The argument that I had was, that people didnt belive me when I said that I had 150 jets in there and what was done with the engine. So, this goes to show that what I have been saying the whole time is true. The thing that was wrong is that they used a larger correction factor on it. I didn't even know they did that to their dyno because other people that got their car dynoed were getting lower numbers then they usually got.
EGash,
Thank you for pointing this out. Makes TOTAL sence. Wish someone would of pointed this out sooner. I didn't know how I could of gained so much power out of +200 PSI. This is one reason that I posted this, I didn't know how I get these numbers. Thank you for your help.
HAIGHTER
07-04-2007 | 01:33 PM
#129
Originally Posted by EGash
Silverado got it correct above: 715x83=594hp,
However, you would want to add 13% to the correct number, instead of subtracting 4% from the inflated number. 594x1.13=671 DynoJet inflation factor rwhp.
Well, I should know that. LOL....my excuse is it was 4 in the morning. Corrected.
07-06-2007 | 12:58 AM
#131
TECH Resident
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by haighter
Just to clear things up. I didnt have anything to to with running the dyno nor did Dail in GTO. He and I were there and watched the dyno pull. He is not my tuner and he only data logged the pull for me. He also doesnt work there he was there with his laptop and said that he could do it if I would like.
I am not selling the "Wonder engine" I am pulling it out and putting the 408 that I have into it. The car that is for sale is my collectors eddition and that is stock. This is not a scam. I didn't know how I got numbers like that. If I was trying to scam someone you would think that I know something about correction numbers and would not of posted all of the data. Right? The argument that I had was, that people didnt belive me when I said that I had 150 jets in there and what was done with the engine. So, this goes to show that what I have been saying the whole time is true. The thing that was wrong is that they used a larger correction factor on it. I didn't even know they did that to their dyno because other people that got their car dynoed were getting lower numbers then they usually got.
EGash,
Thank you for pointing this out. Makes TOTAL sence. Wish someone would of pointed this out sooner. I didn't know how I could of gained so much power out of +200 PSI. This is one reason that I posted this, I didn't know how I get these numbers. Thank you for your help.
HAIGHTER
I am not selling the "Wonder engine" I am pulling it out and putting the 408 that I have into it. The car that is for sale is my collectors eddition and that is stock. This is not a scam. I didn't know how I got numbers like that. If I was trying to scam someone you would think that I know something about correction numbers and would not of posted all of the data. Right? The argument that I had was, that people didnt belive me when I said that I had 150 jets in there and what was done with the engine. So, this goes to show that what I have been saying the whole time is true. The thing that was wrong is that they used a larger correction factor on it. I didn't even know they did that to their dyno because other people that got their car dynoed were getting lower numbers then they usually got.
EGash,
Thank you for pointing this out. Makes TOTAL sence. Wish someone would of pointed this out sooner. I didn't know how I could of gained so much power out of +200 PSI. This is one reason that I posted this, I didn't know how I get these numbers. Thank you for your help.
HAIGHTER
i dont thing its about people believing u about the 150 jest-more so how can 150 hp jets net a hp gain like that-
never the less the correct power is still good-
how come the pull is low in rpm-why not like 6500-6800-was the shop scared to take it to that rpm-or is it not efficent at that rpm-
07-07-2007 | 11:00 AM
#132
Thread Starter
Launching!
iTrader: (55)
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
From: Valley Center, CA
Originally Posted by njc.corp
i dont thing its about people believing u about the 150 jest-more so how can 150 hp jets net a hp gain like that-
never the less the correct power is still good-
how come the pull is low in rpm-why not like 6500-6800-was the shop scared to take it to that rpm-or is it not efficent at that rpm-
never the less the correct power is still good-
how come the pull is low in rpm-why not like 6500-6800-was the shop scared to take it to that rpm-or is it not efficent at that rpm-
No the car was not on ebay. I bought it at a dealer last Sept.
The car tops its power out at about 6400 to 6500 and it is on stock rod bolts and I would like to not stretch my luck to far.
HAIGHTER
07-07-2007 | 04:04 PM
#133
Teching In
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by EGash
Subtract 17% to arrive at the correct power on that run, that dyno that day. add 13% back to that to come up with a dynojet number, (however I personally still feel that the 13% inflation is high, especially with cars over 500rwhp)
Silverado got it correct above: 715x83=594hp,
However, you would want to add 13% to the correct number, instead of subtracting 4% from the inflated number. 594x1.13=671 DynoJet inflation factor rwhp.
Also, I noticed in the data sheets a Gear ratio setting of 58.3:1. Now I think that number will show up regardless of how the tach input is setup. However, if they Dyno operators were using a roll speed converstion based on wheel speed in a particular gear to determine RPM, that can also cause the Tq and power readings to be off, if the wheel speed/rpm ratio is calibrated EXACTLY. Now I do use this wheel speed conversion sometimes when I cannont pickp a good tach signal with the Inductive clamp, or injector intercept prodes, however I've never once not been able to get a good tach signal off an LSx Engine. If you go back to get your uninflated dyno sheets ask them if they used a roll speed converstion to determine RPM or the inductive clamp.
Silverado got it correct above: 715x83=594hp,
However, you would want to add 13% to the correct number, instead of subtracting 4% from the inflated number. 594x1.13=671 DynoJet inflation factor rwhp.
Also, I noticed in the data sheets a Gear ratio setting of 58.3:1. Now I think that number will show up regardless of how the tach input is setup. However, if they Dyno operators were using a roll speed converstion based on wheel speed in a particular gear to determine RPM, that can also cause the Tq and power readings to be off, if the wheel speed/rpm ratio is calibrated EXACTLY. Now I do use this wheel speed conversion sometimes when I cannont pickp a good tach signal with the Inductive clamp, or injector intercept prodes, however I've never once not been able to get a good tach signal off an LSx Engine. If you go back to get your uninflated dyno sheets ask them if they used a roll speed converstion to determine RPM or the inductive clamp.
First 594 x 1.17 does not equal 715
611.12 x 1.17= 715.01
611.12 x 1.13= 690.56 on nitrous
373.00 x 1.13= 421.50 on motor
Difference = 269.06 at the back tire as read by the dyno.
Since all pulls are done with the same "X" multiplier
you are still looking at around 300 hp flywheel gain on nitrous according
to the readings. The multiplier change only affects the difference 9 rwhp.
Second I was told by the store manager at JBA prior to
the C5(I tuned) getting there. They told me they are calibrated
about 1% lower than dynojet numbers.
The C5 was dynoed at a dyno day in santee on a dynojet
and made 521.x both pulls rwhp about a month ago. This car dynoed 516.x both pulls on this dyno(no changes/very consistant). His dyno sheet is also using the same "X" calculation. I went ahead and double checked the info.
Third the dyno operator confirmed actual rpm with my scanner
and it was on to within 2 digits (63xx). I am posting only because
in my opinion he deserves the back up. I donot even know the
owners name.
FYI
Gary
07-07-2007 | 05:59 PM
#134
Originally Posted by Dial In GTO
Many Points to make on this.
First 594 x 1.17 does not equal 715
611.12 x 1.17= 715.01
611.12 x 1.13= 690.56 on nitrous
373.00 x 1.13= 421.50 on motor
Difference = 269.06 at the back tire as read by the dyno.
Since all pulls are done with the same "X" multiplier
you are still looking at around 300 hp flywheel gain on nitrous according
to the readings. The multiplier change only affects the difference 9 rwhp.
Second I was told by the store manager at JBA prior to
the C5(I tuned) getting there. They told me they are calibrated
about 1% lower than dynojet numbers.
The C5 was dynoed at a dyno day in santee on a dynojet
and made 521.x both pulls rwhp about a month ago. This car dynoed 516.x both pulls on this dyno(no changes/very consistant). His dyno sheet is also using the same "X" calculation. I went ahead and double checked the info.
Third the dyno operator confirmed actual rpm with my scanner
and it was on to within 2 digits (63xx). I am posting only because
in my opinion he deserves the back up. I donot even know the
owners name.
FYI
Gary
First 594 x 1.17 does not equal 715
611.12 x 1.17= 715.01
611.12 x 1.13= 690.56 on nitrous
373.00 x 1.13= 421.50 on motor
Difference = 269.06 at the back tire as read by the dyno.
Since all pulls are done with the same "X" multiplier
you are still looking at around 300 hp flywheel gain on nitrous according
to the readings. The multiplier change only affects the difference 9 rwhp.
Second I was told by the store manager at JBA prior to
the C5(I tuned) getting there. They told me they are calibrated
about 1% lower than dynojet numbers.
The C5 was dynoed at a dyno day in santee on a dynojet
and made 521.x both pulls rwhp about a month ago. This car dynoed 516.x both pulls on this dyno(no changes/very consistant). His dyno sheet is also using the same "X" calculation. I went ahead and double checked the info.
Third the dyno operator confirmed actual rpm with my scanner
and it was on to within 2 digits (63xx). I am posting only because
in my opinion he deserves the back up. I donot even know the
owners name.
FYI
Gary
1. he really is making 300 extra hp and the kit is messed up and the motor will pop.
2. the dyno operator is messing with the numbers or it malfunctioned
3. the owner had bigger jets in and did not want to admit he was wrong.
no reason to keep arguing this.
If the car makes 300 on a "150 shot" its not a 150 shot its a 300 shot. and 300 extra hp on an already stout bottom end will not last.hell a 300 shot will kill some built bottom ends!
07-07-2007 | 08:17 PM
#135
+1 to what Shiz said
Go dyno it on a dynojet if you want to get a number to compare. Until then this estimate of HP is worthless. Too many things do not add up. Stop trying. Im not trying to be a dick...but this entire thread is so riddled with innacuracies it would be best to start over.
But once again...and most importantly....WHY IS IT A GOOD THING IF YOUR WERE TO GET 275 FROM A 150????????????? ITS DUMB!!!
The title to this thread should be:
" HELP! My Kit is so fucked up Im getting 275 HP from my 150 pills!!"
Go dyno it on a dynojet if you want to get a number to compare. Until then this estimate of HP is worthless. Too many things do not add up. Stop trying. Im not trying to be a dick...but this entire thread is so riddled with innacuracies it would be best to start over.
But once again...and most importantly....WHY IS IT A GOOD THING IF YOUR WERE TO GET 275 FROM A 150????????????? ITS DUMB!!!
The title to this thread should be:
" HELP! My Kit is so fucked up Im getting 275 HP from my 150 pills!!"
07-08-2007 | 12:21 AM
#136
TECH Resident
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by haighter
No the car was not on ebay. I bought it at a dealer last Sept.
The car tops its power out at about 6400 to 6500 and it is on stock rod bolts and I would like to not stretch my luck to far.
HAIGHTER
The car tops its power out at about 6400 to 6500 and it is on stock rod bolts and I would like to not stretch my luck to far.
HAIGHTER
okay-fair enought but why is the dyno pull so low in the rpms-
like u say power tops out at 64-6500 rpm?
so why was the dyno pull way before that-
stock rod bolts do hold up @6500+
from your camp their is so input-i think they are even lost in what they are trying to say-
get yourself a good tune from a respected tunner-to many stories from your camp-
this thread should be closed-
