That was a good dyno run. I can't wait to get my car dyno'd after installing that cam. I'm hoping that with a good set of heads, I might see some higher numbers.

 

Sorry, there is someone who is running 4.33s i think.

If you look at my responses to people shift questions i usually advise shifting higher as well. Your HP curve being flat and staying up there IS a good thing. That is the shape that maximizes the area under the curve. 320 hp is 320 hp whether its at 4k or 5k rpms. Now if you would look at tq then 300 tq is better at 5k rpms then 300 tq at 4k rpms. Since RPM is already factored into the equation for HP along with TQ, you can look at just the HP and ignore rpms. If you add up all the area under the HP curve under the graph for the RPM range or each shiftpoint, that will determine the trap speed, or power put to the ground. If you gear the car appropriately then you could have a 3k rpm tq monster finish the same as a 10k rpm ricer as long as the hp is the same holding weight, traction, ect constant.

Your car may edge mine beaust your HP cuve is so flat, but i'm happier not spinning that high.

I also only have the jack removed. Well, a fiberglass hood too, but thats peanuts.

What was the DA for your runs of 115 trap?

-brent

 

BTW, 4.10s would put my car EXACTLY at redline at the end of the quarter, and 4.33s would also have you maxing out 4th right at the finishline, so we are both *slightly* overgeared

 

Great numbers man! Congratulations.

I will be dynoing my car tomorrow morning...with the new tune, I should put down similar numbers.

Get some track times!

 

Your times, a slighlty less powerfull LT1/M6 backed with 3.73s make me really confident thanks man. Good luck on your dyno and squeezing some more HP out! Who did you go with for tuneing?

-brent

 

We'll see about the "slightly less powerful LT1" come tomorrow. JK Thanks man. I'm sure you'll post similar track times.

I went with PCMforless and an OBD1 conversion. Totally different car. I'll post the numbers tomorrow.

 

it was around 50 degrees the track is at 400 above see level.
I finish the 1/4 in 4th at around 5800

 

Nice #'s for sure.. but I hate to be the one to point out that those arent SAE...

Not according to either the graph or table you posted anyway .

Still, good #'s, probably 335-345rw SAE, which you certainly cant complain about with that lil cam

 

Good catch! I didn't notice until just now that the dyno graph says "STD" on the left side. Still good numbers though.

 

Ouch, really, sorry to give out misinformation, what the hell, i asked specifically about that when i saw 346 the first time and they said everything was corrected!

Is the dynojet correction different then the sae corrected? Please tell me more phil, how exactly does that stuff work? I undertstand the correction factor is similar to DA. I thought the "correction factor 1.04 STD" meant that they took the raw numbers and inflated them by 4% becasuse the 90 deg heat was working against std conditions.

They are calulated the same as everyone elses dynojet numbers right, please don't blow up my spot and tell me they inflated my numbers somehow!

 

Ok, sorry about that i think i got this figured out. Dynojet numbers are typically adjusted using the STD standard adjustment. I was under the impression that they all used the SAE correction. I just threw SAE up there because i thought that was what was used and I just wanted to make it clear i wasn't trying to inflate the numbers by using uncorrected numbers as someone had a while back when the correction factor was less than 1. I actually did inflate my numbers though by accident, the opposite of my intent! Didn't seem like anyone but you noticed though phil Thanks for catching that phil and sorry for the confusion everyone.

It seems to me that you CAN compare these nubmers accurately to other dynojet results, correct!?!

 

LOL... take a breather buddy.. the correction factor isnt a big deal really. I'm just picky about consistency & whatnot & most people don't know any better anyway.

STD is what alot of race guys use & has been around for a long time, it's just #'s corrected to 60deg F & 29.92" vs. SAE being 77degF and 29.23 or 29.6 (cant recall offhand).

No big deal, just something that alot of people don't seem to get about dyno & flowbench stuff.. you can make the thing say just about anything you want it to . As far as comparing, yes you can compare those to other dynojet results. Usually you'll get SAE, STD, or Actual hp #'s, so as long as you know what you've got, you can compare them. You could always call the shop & ask them to send you the SAE & Actual data as well.

Still, good #'s I think. Those are what.. maybe 5-10rwhp higher than what most hotcam guys roll? So thats not bad at all, methinks .

 

Hey Phil,I think your sig needs to be SAE corrected also.

 

What'choo talkin' bout willis? You asking for #'s or somethin?! LOL

Patience is a virtue...

 

Going from SAE to STD made my car goe from 299.73 RWHP and 338.11 RWTQ to 313.94 RWHP and 354.13 RWTQ. There is no correction factor I don't think, but I'd say from the 30 or so dynos I just compared that from 4.3 - 4.8% less from STD to SAE seems to be the norm. I compared everything from an all motor civic to a supercharged mustang to a single turbo supra and did not get any more than 4.8% variance. 4.5% seemed to be the norm. Then again, you can get different numbers simply adjusting the smoothing setting. Heck my car went to 316 STD on smoothing 1. I always set it to smoothing 5 and SAE. Using the 4.5% rule, that would put your power and torque around 337, if I did the math right. Let us know what it is SAE.