[6th_gen_gino]

Finally got back on the dyno with Danytech. We weren't really going for big numbers, the goal was to see how the car would react to the new Boostolator valve. Dany decided to make some adjustments and this is the results showing the first pull and last pull.

[StPeteHyper2.0]

Excellent.. we need to get a Florida meet together somewhere central

[6th_gen_gino]

Originally Posted by StPeteHyper2.0

Excellent.. we need to get a Florida meet together somewhere central

I'm down bro, which track did u have in mind

[ryansalazan24]

This is actually really great! Which pull is first and second though? Because the first pull looks like it makes more power and has stock valve while the second pull makes less power but seems to carry it out much better to redline. How are you liking the boostolator now? Also is this dyno on ethanol mix at all?

[wookwook]

nice numbers. would be good to see a list of mods though. looks to be A8 with a turbo upgrade perhaps?

[cooper1965]

Gino's car was FBO on 93 octane, and no TCM tune at that time. Stock turbo.

[wookwook]

shows the benefit of torque converter. ? Is why A8s scamper in a straight line. Huge disparity with M6. Shouldn't M6 be able to hit that TQ in first or second?

[wookwook]

I can't help but think this is a type of dyno (mustang) that does use engine rpm and charts estimated engine torque and is not the wheel tq. This is almost an exact match of my VCM sensor readings. There's a huge discourse on older wrx forums that points this out. My dynojet guy just does acceleration testing. He says add 17% for engine HP.


On https://forums.nasioc.com/forums/sho...1478091&page=2
A tuner writes:

"Actually, you don't need RPM to measure power. Only Torque. The relationship between power and acceleration is direct and only requires mass.

To get torque at the engine, you do need RPM. Remember that a dyno can estimate the torque at the rollers, but it needs the RPM/speed relationship in order to figure out the torque at the engine.

It is funny that we quote wheel torque, when we are really talking about 'estimated engine torque as derived from the torque at the wheels'. If we were really talking about wheel torque, gear ratio would be critical as well much larger.."


Isn't Apples to Apples important?

[cooper1965]

The dyno was designed to be used EXACTLY the way it is here. As a tool. You can see the car did pick up power AFTER the BOL install. The numbers themselves are completely useless to me, only the gain matters. There will never be an apples to apples. M6 guys typically are using 4 th gear. A8 guys are not using the 1:1 gear. Thats before you ever even get into the absurd amount of variables that can come from different dynos, different dyno operators, conditions, calibrations ect ect.. Its endless. But, numbers that do matter, are at the track. Gino's car ran 12.4@108MPH with this power.

[wookwook]

agreed. 3 whole pages of tuners explaining the process in excruciating detail leaves me with the same conclusion (and the same headache). have a common reference and proof your work on an actual run. though it is natural to try and read-over others' results to compare work. That's a super freaking result though for FBO only. I am just skeptical at seeing my way to low 13's at this point, using the same engine with M6. Just where in the heck is this 1 second disparity really coming from I wonder?

[cooper1965]

Right, right,... and the more you read, it just gets worse. I have honestly watched my buddy pretty much "make" the number he wanted on his dyno. (within reason) This is why I am a huge fan of the VCM scanner. A very unpopular topic with a lot of elitist types, but hands down my favorite tool. Removes a ton of "variables" from the equation, and gives me honest data if a change creates power or not. And it is nice to review others work, don't get me wrong on that, but you can see it will only get you to a point when viewing it in this form of data.

[cooper1965]

As far as your second disparity. Well, a jump from 13.6 to 12.6 is MASSIVE! A lot of that is going to be in the tune, there is no doubt on that. Other things do come into play though. Tires, driver, track/weather conditions, shift times, ect ect.. Other guys have done this on 93 though. I believe Evilbee ran a 12.6 on 93 if Im not mistaken. FBO, stock turbo. There are some other also, so its possible to do. You will get there. Keep plugging the numbers into the scanner!

[wookwook]

You know me well. Gotta have the tools. Reluctantly I concede that I can count at least a few tenths in my choice of DD tires and shift wheel spin. But dang, SS numbers on FBO. It's a great target to reach for and its good to see it can be done! I'm off now to figure out how to make power out of damp air..... Great thread.

W.

[Evil-Bee-NH]

Originally Posted by cooper1965

As far as your second disparity. Well, a jump from 13.6 to 12.6 is MASSIVE! A lot of that is going to be in the tune, there is no doubt on that. Other things do come into play though. Tires, driver, track/weather conditions, shift times, ect ect.. Other guys have done this on 93 though. I believe Evilbee ran a 12.6 on 93 if Im not mistaken. FBO, stock turbo. There are some other also, so its possible to do. You will get there. Keep plugging the numbers into the scanner!

Originally Posted by wookwook

You know me well. Gotta have the tools. Reluctantly I concede that I can count at least a few tenths in my choice of DD tires and shift wheel spin. But dang, SS numbers on FBO. It's a great target to reach for and its good to see it can be done! I'm off now to figure out how to make power out of damp air..... Great thread.

W.

When I went from DD 20" wheels and tires to my 17" Ghetto Drag Pack I instantly shaved .5s off my time. Torque converters would be nice my issue is the violent wheel hop if the track prep is garbage because of the ole open-diff on the A8.