first dyno run with results
10-18-2007, 01:40 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: long island
Posts: 194
first dyno run with results
I figured I should post this dyno sheet. It was my first time with any car on a dyno. I am not exactly sure what it all means except for the torque and hp numbers. The guy said to have it re-tuned with "5% more fuel across the board".
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?i...no95z28ac2.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?i...no95z28ac2.jpg
10-18-2007, 01:49 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: PORTLAND, OR, MULTNOMAH
Posts: 3,499
I guess you'd better have a tuner get the A/F to around 12.9:1 or 13:1. Guess that's why they said you need a little more fuel, i.e. less air and more fuel.
What are your mods? Those numbers and the graph look pretty good, but perhaps with a tuneup you'd even do better. Mods?
What are your mods? Those numbers and the graph look pretty good, but perhaps with a tuneup you'd even do better. Mods?
10-18-2007, 02:04 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: PORTLAND, OR, MULTNOMAH
Posts: 3,499
Duh! I see your mods. Anyway there may be something someone else can explain as to why the A/F is showing lean. PCM most likely did not program for that lean. Anyway, seems like pretty normal numbers for your mods. JMHO
10-18-2007, 03:35 PM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: long island
Posts: 194
The heads are AFR 180's out of the box. I figure maybe its lean b/c of the ram air.
-For those of you that have used a dyno, what are you revving it up to?
-What are those squiggly lines on the hp part of the graph? Is that from stock ignition/ wires?
-For those of you that have used a dyno, what are you revving it up to?
-What are those squiggly lines on the hp part of the graph? Is that from stock ignition/ wires?
Last edited by afr lt1; 10-18-2007 at 03:40 PM.
10-19-2007, 08:19 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lake Grove.LI
Posts: 251
I figured I should post this dyno sheet. It was my first time with any car on a dyno. I am not exactly sure what it all means except for the torque and hp numbers. The guy said to have it re-tuned with "5% more fuel across the board".
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?i...no95z28ac2.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?i...no95z28ac2.jpg
You should get lt1 edit and let Carmen tune it,no one touches my car but the vette doctors...
10-19-2007, 09:04 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Austin,TX
Posts: 17
Those are really great numbers for such a mild set-up. A slightly bigger cam and longtubes could probably net you another 30-40HP but we all have different ideas on what is streetable and you seem to have come up with an excellent solution. If you added more fuel it would probably give you a bit more torque.
I would rev your combo up to about 6500RPM but that's about it. Any more on a stock bottom end and I'd question the longevity of your engine - some people never break but why chance it.
AS for the squiggly lines, that's pretty normal. Partly because at a certain RPM you'll start to produce some turbulence in the intake as each runner seeks to steal some air from the other runners and the result is what you see. New plugs and wires could help out a little as could an MSD box but I doubt you would feel the difference.
Good luck tweaking some more from that set-up. Also you should try an electric water pump, its about the only thing missing from your mod list that would give you a little more power without hurting drivability.
-Geo
I would rev your combo up to about 6500RPM but that's about it. Any more on a stock bottom end and I'd question the longevity of your engine - some people never break but why chance it.
AS for the squiggly lines, that's pretty normal. Partly because at a certain RPM you'll start to produce some turbulence in the intake as each runner seeks to steal some air from the other runners and the result is what you see. New plugs and wires could help out a little as could an MSD box but I doubt you would feel the difference.
Good luck tweaking some more from that set-up. Also you should try an electric water pump, its about the only thing missing from your mod list that would give you a little more power without hurting drivability.
-Geo
10-19-2007, 09:14 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,800
This is a good example of the fact that what is said to be best is often FAR FAR from it.
As said above those numbers are near what I would have expected cam only, have to consider this is M6 and STD rated so these are as generous a numbers as you will find.
There is actually a current thread on a custom cammed car that made more than this cam only.
You will gain some power with more fuel, not an earth shattering amount though.
Had you done RESULTS based research instead of marketing based then you could easily have another 30-40rwhp without compromise and for similar money.
I know none of that is what you want to hear but I fail to see how anyone is helped by being told a weak setup is good, all that will lead to is more people making the same mistakes and you never getting the fast car you want.
As said above those numbers are near what I would have expected cam only, have to consider this is M6 and STD rated so these are as generous a numbers as you will find.
There is actually a current thread on a custom cammed car that made more than this cam only.
You will gain some power with more fuel, not an earth shattering amount though.
Had you done RESULTS based research instead of marketing based then you could easily have another 30-40rwhp without compromise and for similar money.
I know none of that is what you want to hear but I fail to see how anyone is helped by being told a weak setup is good, all that will lead to is more people making the same mistakes and you never getting the fast car you want.
10-19-2007, 02:53 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 312
well, i being as i have a very similar setup(i have le1's where you have afr's) I have yet to dyno but this makes me slightly depressed. of course, you can't race on a dyno so maybe we are still decently fast 
i am subscribed to this thread to see where it goes
i am subscribed to this thread to see where it goes
10-19-2007, 08:02 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Downey, CA
Posts: 1,406
Without knowing the actual conversion it's only an approximation, but to
ball park the STD to SAE you would reduce the STD by 4%. This would
put you at about 332/326 SAE.
Here is more info:
SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), USA. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25 C). This SAE standard requires a correction for friction torque. Friction torque can be determined by measurements on special motoring dynamometers (which is only practical in research environments) or can be estimated. When estimates must be used, the SAE standard uses a default Mechanical Efficiency (ME) value of 85%. This is approximately correct at peak torque but not at other engine operating speeds. Some dynamometer systems use the SAE correction factor for atmospheric conditions but do not take mechanical efficiency into consideration at all (i.e. they assume a ME of 100%).
STD or STP. Another power correction standard determined by the SAE. This standard has been stable for a long time and is widely used in the performance industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5 C). Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 4 % higher than the SAE power numbers. Friction torque is handled in the same way as in the SAE standard.
ball park the STD to SAE you would reduce the STD by 4%. This would
put you at about 332/326 SAE.
Here is more info:
SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), USA. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25 C). This SAE standard requires a correction for friction torque. Friction torque can be determined by measurements on special motoring dynamometers (which is only practical in research environments) or can be estimated. When estimates must be used, the SAE standard uses a default Mechanical Efficiency (ME) value of 85%. This is approximately correct at peak torque but not at other engine operating speeds. Some dynamometer systems use the SAE correction factor for atmospheric conditions but do not take mechanical efficiency into consideration at all (i.e. they assume a ME of 100%).
STD or STP. Another power correction standard determined by the SAE. This standard has been stable for a long time and is widely used in the performance industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5 C). Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 4 % higher than the SAE power numbers. Friction torque is handled in the same way as in the SAE standard.
10-20-2007, 09:00 AM
#14
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: long island
Posts: 194
This is a good example of the fact that what is said to be best is often FAR FAR from it.
Had you done RESULTS based research instead of marketing based then you could easily have another 30-40rwhp without compromise and for similar money.
I know none of that is what you want to hear but I fail to see how anyone is helped by being told a weak setup is good, all that will lead to is more people making the same mistakes and you never getting the fast car you want.
Had you done RESULTS based research instead of marketing based then you could easily have another 30-40rwhp without compromise and for similar money.
I know none of that is what you want to hear but I fail to see how anyone is helped by being told a weak setup is good, all that will lead to is more people making the same mistakes and you never getting the fast car you want.
- I tried to do some RESULTS research. I saw that AFR heads flowed better than all the others I looked at(out of the box, mind you). I was also looking for a cam just a bit more powerful than a Lt4 cam. Nobody told me this setup was good/bad. I just wanted to make a car a bit better than stock. This is my first build and I did it when I was 21, so I had nothin to compare to. Looking back I would have bought the cc503 and sent the heads out.
WS6GEO,
thanks for the compliment
REALQUICK,
nice page on the build!