MSD intake dyno results - Page 3

JDP Motorsports · 03-31-2016, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSloper

You are missing the point

I completely understand what you're talking about but in previous test we've been within 3-4 WHP from our Dynojet to a Dynojet at sea level on many occasions....

Kind regards,

Jordan Priestley
801-545-4215

TSloper · 03-31-2016, 10:02 AM

In the time you have take to respond and defend you could have simply uploaded the log and clicked insert. The data will speak for itself.

The1DoubleN · 03-31-2016, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSloper

In the time you have take to respond and defend you could have simply uploaded the log and clicked insert. The data will speak for itself.

But that would hurt sales

TSloper · 03-31-2016, 11:38 AM

Actually it would help sales if I'm right. If the loss can be mitigated with tuning then it's a nonissue for many. The loss isn't even that big really.

The1DoubleN · 03-31-2016, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSloper

Actually it would help sales if I'm right. If the loss can be mitigated with tuning then it's a nonissue for many. The loss isn't even that big really.

Yes but not everyone wants to void their warranty on their brand new car with a custom tune in order to realize gains from what should be a bolt on part, which makes rather large power claims WITHOUT a tune....

JDP Motorsports · 03-31-2016, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSloper

In the time you have take to respond and defend you could have simply uploaded the log and clicked insert. The data will speak for itself.

It won't allow me to upload an .hpl file... I'd be happy to email it to you, just shoot me a PM..

Kind regards,

Jordan Priestley
801-545-4215

TSloper · 03-31-2016, 02:22 PM

Here is the data from the JDP log vs my log. As expected there is a significant timing advance delta between their car at ~4300 ft and a car that is close to sea level.

Name: Timing.jpg
Views: 645
Size: 129.3 KB

Name: Timing.jpg
Views: 645
Size: 129.3 KB

TSloper · 03-31-2016, 05:14 PM

I had a two hour flight to look at things a bit closer. There is some advantage coming from the timing table itself but the bulk of the timing delta is coming from the IAT adder table. The JDP was around 50 degrees IAT which would be ~2.8 degrees added across the board. Timing work is definitely needed to get the midrange maximized.

03-31-2016, 10:02 AM	#30
TSloper Drives: 2016 Camaro SS Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Mount Dora, FL Posts: 779	In the time you have take to respond and defend you could have simply uploaded the log and clicked insert. The data will speak for itself.

03-31-2016, 11:38 AM	#32
TSloper Drives: 2016 Camaro SS Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Mount Dora, FL Posts: 779	Actually it would help sales if I'm right. If the loss can be mitigated with tuning then it's a nonissue for many. The loss isn't even that big really.

03-31-2016, 02:22 PM	#35
TSloper Drives: 2016 Camaro SS Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Mount Dora, FL Posts: 779	Here is the data from the JDP log vs my log. As expected there is a significant timing advance delta between their car at ~4300 ft and a car that is close to sea level.

03-31-2016, 05:14 PM	#36
TSloper Drives: 2016 Camaro SS Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Mount Dora, FL Posts: 779	I had a two hour flight to look at things a bit closer. There is some advantage coming from the timing table itself but the bulk of the timing delta is coming from the IAT adder table. The JDP was around 50 degrees IAT which would be ~2.8 degrees added across the board. Timing work is definitely needed to get the midrange maximized.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password