What did everyone @ the bash dyno?
178whp on the dyno dynamics, afr's climbing to 13's very fast. This was on only 5-6 psi opposed to usual 8psi, and without the nitrous. I didnt even get any dynojet numbers which they said were "fake" but it would have been around 210-211 with the 18% increase they were saying. That dyno did not like automatics either lol.
I'll prolly make a thread in p&m for just the dyno videos I took.
6.0psi 161 first run
182 2nd run
and 225 on third run with the dynojet numbers.
i had the 9psi spring in there and i the first run was due to an exhaust leak. after that one we did another run and hit the second number just by letting it seal up by expanding haha. also the operator of the dyno said i had a junk tune and was hitting 10.5 throughout the whole pull. so im gonna head down to visit imphat2200 and fetter and let them have their way with my car by the end of summer haha. then he think i can get about another 20 out of it just by tuning then i expect a few more once i get the exhaust leak fixed for sure. i cant wait.
Whats this BS with "two regular pulls and one pull with a recalibrated Dynojet reading"???
Some of the #'s i've heard form this "dynojet" pull seem unrealistic.
- 93 mph in the 1/8 mile
Member of J-Body Of Michigan.
My Z made 189.6hp and 170 ft/lbs @ 6psi. I had a steady 11.5 to 12 A/F during each pull
My DynoJet number was 212hp and 218tq
Thanks to JimmyC for the great tune
Jason
99 Z24 Supercharged
157hp/171tq - NA
190hp/170tq @ 6psi
LD9 for Life
Skilz10179 wrote:Whats this BS with "two regular pulls and one pull with a recalibrated Dynojet reading"???
Some of the #'s i've heard form this "dynojet" pull seem unrealistic.
idk how it worked but they used a dyno dynamics dyno and kept saying true power and dyno jet number's...
to me all the dyno jet numbers seemed real and normal..
when their dyno was running it would put huge loads on the crs to where some cars would actually bog down real hard...
LE61T PTE6262 Powered 
QBE(Qwibby Soon to be Boosted) wrote:Skilz10179 wrote:Whats this BS with "two regular pulls and one pull with a recalibrated Dynojet reading"???
Some of the #'s i've heard form this "dynojet" pull seem unrealistic.
idk how it worked but they used a dyno dynamics dyno and kept saying true power and dyno jet number's...
to me all the dyno jet numbers seemed real and normal..
when their dyno was running it would put huge loads on the crs to where some cars would actually bog down real hard...
I noticed exactly what QBE said and agree with him on the dynojet numbers seeming about right..
From my understanding all that was changed to simulate the "dynojet" readings was the box where you enter into the dyno the ambient air temp was changed to 140 something degrees. Ask Imphat0260 he knows for sure.
Are you thinking the recalibrated dynojet numbers are are reading higher than a dyno jet or lower or do some seem higher and some seem lower to you?
I am quickly loosing faith in dyno's numbers all together. Unless you dynoed on the same day at the same time on the same dyno with the same dyno settingd it is a joke. Is there no @!#$ standard? No way to calibrate them? I am not saying this because I am unhappy with how my car did, infact I think it did well all things considered. It is just the variation between dynos gets on my @!#$ nerves. XXX amount of whp should be the same no matter what brand dyno it is. To me it is straight up
!!
Edited 4 time(s). Last edited Monday, July 28, 2008 7:32 PM
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
Vincent Morris wrote:6.0psi 161 first run
182 2nd run
and 225 on third run with the dynojet numbers.
i had the 9psi spring in there and i the first run was due to an exhaust leak. after that one we did another run and hit the second number just by letting it seal up by expanding haha. also the operator of the dyno said i had a junk tune and was hitting 10.5 throughout the whole pull. so im gonna head down to visit imphat2200 and fetter and let them have their way with my car by the end of summer haha. then he think i can get about another 20 out of it just by tuning then i expect a few more once i get the exhaust leak fixed for sure. i cant wait.
definitely, You can pick up an easy 20 from just cleaning up your fuel tables and spark tables.
I did 2 dynojet ones since that seems to be what everyone compares and that is what my previous pulls were.
1st pull 217.9whp @6450rpm 165tq@3900rpm "Dynojet"
2nd pull 212.7whp @6000rpm 160tq@4100rpm "Dynojet"
3rrd pull 184.1whp @5900rpm 110tq@4500rpm "Real number"
AFR on all three was around 11.5 but climbed to low 12's just before redline. No alky spraying resulting in160's for IAT temps. 5spd Getrag F23
The setup:
WAI-90 degree elbow from tb to filter located between trans case and radiator
Eagle H beam rods, Wiseco 9.5:1 pistons
Gm charger P&P by stiegmeier with 2.7 pully seeing 3.5 according to both my stewart warner boost gauge and the dyno
Mild P&P on a 2.4 head with secret cams, new 2.4 springs and lifters, stock size stainless steel valves
Pacesetter armour coated 4-1 header, stock cat, stock piping, stock muffler with magnaflow tip welded on the end.
HPT modified GM reflash
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, July 28, 2008 8:18 PM
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
my car was 398 on the dyno dynamics #s and 486 on the dyno jet, ill test the theory out for everyone and go back to the dyno jet at stiegemeiers
R.I.P. Brian Klocke, you will never be forgotten
Wade Jarvis wrote:QBE(Qwibby Soon to be Boosted) wrote:Skilz10179 wrote:Whats this BS with "two regular pulls and one pull with a recalibrated Dynojet reading"???
Some of the #'s i've heard form this "dynojet" pull seem unrealistic.
idk how it worked but they used a dyno dynamics dyno and kept saying true power and dyno jet number's...
to me all the dyno jet numbers seemed real and normal..
when their dyno was running it would put huge loads on the crs to where some cars would actually bog down real hard...
I noticed exactly what QBE said and agree with him on the dynojet numbers seeming about right..
From my understanding all that was changed to simulate the "dynojet" readings was the box where you enter into the dyno the ambient air temp was changed to 140 something degrees. Ask Imphat0260 he knows for sure.
Are you thinking the recalibrated dynojet numbers are are reading higher than a dyno jet or lower or do some seem higher and some seem lower to you?
I am quickly loosing faith in dyno's numbers all together. Unless you dynoed on the same day at the same time on the same dyno with the same dyno settingd it is a joke. Is there no @!#$ standard? No way to calibrate them? I am not saying this because I am unhappy with how my car did, infact I think it did well all things considered. It is just the variation between dynos gets on my @!#$ nerves. XXX amount of whp should be the same no matter what brand dyno it is. To me it is straight up !!
Agreed. You have to take certain things into account when dyno'ing and they apparently don't think the same.
Proud member of Jbody of Kentucky ... Click on sig to go!
Yea I was kinda upset I didnt get to do a dynojet and pretty much wasted a few runs due to my afr's jumping up. They said an 18% increase or so on the dynojet, which would have been around 210whp give or take a few between my few runs; this is without nitrous.
I also found today I had a vacume leak which was is why I was only seeing 5-barely 6psi as opposed to the 8 Ive been seeing. Also had a bad iac sensor which was causing the car to stall.
Wade you get your alchy kit worked out yet? I still have to talk to cooling mist to figure out my nozzle size situation.
I agree that a dyno is a dyno. Who's to say what number is actually right? Maybe the dynojet is the correct number and other dyno's aren't as accurate. Or maybe vice versa. I don't see why you can just multiply a dyno dynamics reading by 18% and call that your hp number for a dynojet. That is saying that either dyno dynamics is completely accurate and dynojet intentionally calibrates their numbers "18%" higher than normal, or dynojet is more accurate and dynodynamics reads "18%" lower. IMO, dynojet is more expensive than a dynodynamics so I would expect a more accurate reading. But all in all, its just a guestimate regardless... true power is shown at the track.
Street-Legal 2003 Sunfire 10.58 @ 139 MPH
278.8hp 261tq? Torque is kinda hard to read (dynojet)
240.1hp
239.8hp
I think the important thing to keep in mind concerning dynos is that when your trying to tune with them or establish points of reference always use the same one. If you go on one and establish a baseline, dont make changes then go to a different one and expect to have accurate comparisons.
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
icemike89(not turbo) wrote:Yea I was kinda upset I didnt get to do a dynojet and pretty much wasted a few runs due to my afr's jumping up. They said an 18% increase or so on the dynojet, which would have been around 210whp give or take a few between my few runs; this is without nitrous.
I also found today I had a vacume leak which was is why I was only seeing 5-barely 6psi as opposed to the 8 Ive been seeing. Also had a bad iac sensor which was causing the car to stall.
Wade you get your alchy kit worked out yet? I still have to talk to cooling mist to figure out my nozzle size situation.
I do not see a auto 2.4 with a GM charger putting down 210 at the wheels without help from juice. The auto tranny just sucks sooo much power.
FU Tuning
Wade Jarvis wrote:
I am quickly loosing faith in dyno's numbers all together. Unless you dynoed on the same day at the same time on the same dyno with the same dyno settingd it is a joke. Is there no @!#$ standard? No way to calibrate them? I am not saying this because I am unhappy with how my car did, infact I think it did well all things considered. It is just the variation between dynos gets on my @!#$ nerves. XXX amount of whp should be the same no matter what brand dyno it is. To me it is straight up !!
I agree 100%. I lost faith in dyno numbers a long time ago for reasons just like this one.
There is a standard and there is a way to calibrate them but it will cost the shop money to do so and shops often like to give higher BS results to makes customers happy. I really wish all manufacturers would work together with an industry standard and all shops would have to use that standard for a recalibration at least once a year, but it won't happen.
Either way, dynos are a tool used for tuning not for bragging rights.
- 93 mph in the 1/8 mile
Member of J-Body Of Michigan.
John Higgins wrote:icemike89(not turbo) wrote:Yea I was kinda upset I didnt get to do a dynojet and pretty much wasted a few runs due to my afr's jumping up. They said an 18% increase or so on the dynojet, which would have been around 210whp give or take a few between my few runs; this is without nitrous.
I also found today I had a vacume leak which was is why I was only seeing 5-barely 6psi as opposed to the 8 Ive been seeing. Also had a bad iac sensor which was causing the car to stall.
Wade you get your alchy kit worked out yet? I still have to talk to cooling mist to figure out my nozzle size situation.
I do not see a auto 2.4 with a GM charger putting down 210 at the wheels without help from juice. The auto tranny just sucks sooo much power.
There was another auto m45 that ran and made 170 something on the dynojet, and Im pretty sure all they had were the m45,intake,and full exhaust.
The auto does suck, but I have a ttr trans mount, ATI, and have played with trans settings just a bit in HPT which help some. Not to mention I have quite a bit more done than the other car as well. I think with a good tune alone and stepping up to a full 2.5" exhaust over my 2.25" I should get about 20 more out of it. Then I'll also be a bit safer for the spray when I richen it up, but I know I need to put in a smaller shot. I just wanted to see what it could do if it could stay together lol.
icemike89(not turbo) wrote:John Higgins wrote:icemike89(not turbo) wrote:Yea I was kinda upset I didnt get to do a dynojet and pretty much wasted a few runs due to my afr's jumping up. They said an 18% increase or so on the dynojet, which would have been around 210whp give or take a few between my few runs; this is without nitrous.
I also found today I had a vacume leak which was is why I was only seeing 5-barely 6psi as opposed to the 8 Ive been seeing. Also had a bad iac sensor which was causing the car to stall.
Wade you get your alchy kit worked out yet? I still have to talk to cooling mist to figure out my nozzle size situation.
I do not see a auto 2.4 with a GM charger putting down 210 at the wheels without help from juice. The auto tranny just sucks sooo much power.
There was another auto m45 that ran and made 170 something on the dynojet, and Im pretty sure all they had were the m45,intake,and full exhaust.
The auto does suck, but I have a ttr trans mount, ATI, and have played with trans settings just a bit in HPT which help some. Not to mention I have quite a bit more done than the other car as well. I think with a good tune alone and stepping up to a full 2.5" exhaust over my 2.25" I should get about 20 more out of it. Then I'll also be a bit safer for the spray when I richen it up, but I know I need to put in a smaller shot. I just wanted to see what it could do if it could stay together lol.
I know of a auto 2.4 with charger and 2.6 with alky that got 190at the wheels, with a ported blower, exhaust, intake. Also custom tune, but I still do not see a 2.4 auto getting 210, or more with the M45.
FU Tuning
icemike89(not turbo) wrote:John Higgins wrote:icemike89(not turbo) wrote:Yea I was kinda upset I didnt get to do a dynojet and pretty much wasted a few runs due to my afr's jumping up. They said an 18% increase or so on the dynojet, which would have been around 210whp give or take a few between my few runs; this is without nitrous.
I also found today I had a vacume leak which was is why I was only seeing 5-barely 6psi as opposed to the 8 Ive been seeing. Also had a bad iac sensor which was causing the car to stall.
Wade you get your alchy kit worked out yet? I still have to talk to cooling mist to figure out my nozzle size situation.
I do not see a auto 2.4 with a GM charger putting down 210 at the wheels without help from juice. The auto tranny just sucks sooo much power.
There was another auto m45 that ran and made 170 something on the dynojet, and Im pretty sure all they had were the m45,intake,and full exhaust.
The auto does suck, but I have a ttr trans mount, ATI, and have played with trans settings just a bit in HPT which help some. Not to mention I have quite a bit more done than the other car as well. I think with a good tune alone and stepping up to a full 2.5" exhaust over my 2.25" I should get about 20 more out of it. Then I'll also be a bit safer for the spray when I richen it up, but I know I need to put in a smaller shot. I just wanted to see what it could do if it could stay together lol.
I honestly would not expect a noticeable gain from going from a 2.25" to a 2.5" exhaust. Keep in mind my exhaust is mostly still stock.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:34 AM
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
The Sky (stock except for cranking on the wastegate rod nuts,maybe a 3lb. gain in boost) made 223.7 in their numbers,265 on the dynojet setting.
"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"
John Higgins- What kind of dyno were they on? As said different dyno's could give completely different numbers, and cant realy tell which one is correct. All I know is that a timeslip is only the real way to tell, which I dont have any new ones due to the problems with the track sitution at the bash. Like said I didnt make any dynojet runs, but everyone else saw about an 18% increase; even the other auto that ran went from about 150whp to 178 on the dynojet I believe.
Wade- Yea I know the exhaust wont make a world of a difference, but a full 2.5" exhaust is better than my hacked up exhaust that goes from 2.5" to 2.25". Ive talked to sc'd and n/a people that went from 2.25" to 2.5" that said theres a noticeable difference in the upper rpm.
icemike89(not turbo) wrote:John Higgins- What kind of dyno were they on? As said different dyno's could give completely different numbers, and cant realy tell which one is correct. All I know is that a timeslip is only the real way to tell, which I dont have any new ones due to the problems with the track sitution at the bash. Like said I didnt make any dynojet runs, but everyone else saw about an 18% increase; even the other auto that ran went from about 150whp to 178 on the dynojet I believe.
Wade- Yea I know the exhaust wont make a world of a difference, but a full 2.5" exhaust is better than my hacked up exhaust that goes from 2.5" to 2.25". Ive talked to sc'd and n/a people that went from 2.25" to 2.5" that said theres a noticeable difference in the upper rpm.
I am not sure there is a noticable differance with exhaust with the small GM SC. My numbers were similar to Wade's and I have a full 3" exhaust and a stock motor.
There should be more power if I add some alky and work on the timing tables
Jason
99 Z24 Supercharged
157hp/171tq - NA
190hp/170tq @ 6psi
LD9 for Life
Well considering your mods with a full exhaust, and wades mods with stock exhaust, and your numbers were pretty close, Im sure that the full exhaust isnt hurting you. Im not expection a whole lot from going bigger exhaust, but much more when I get my lsj injectors in and get some tuning done.
im willing to bet wade's car can get to the infamous m45 230whp with the current basically stock exhaust.
he has mike's pulleys, of which mike has dyno proof that they actually do free up some power yet to put on. he also has yet to get his alcohol injection working.
wade's was also still making power when the dyno guy shut it down at around 6700. its blatantly obvious on the graph
