Dyno results

[donniekak]

Just a bit and all over the place on aftermarket cams As little as 1.5* to as much as 8* off!

He hits the torque peak decently early in rpm range for cams and 16gs. Wonder what timing looks like? Maybe not ramping up enough in upper rpms? Also could be spiking boost a bit as it hits his mark at 17psi.

edit: Found a few more 16g charts that have very similar tq curves just not as pronounced. All have the weird peak, drop quickly, level and drop again at 6k.

vs

Probably has something to do with the super long stock runners, and small plenum. On my current 2.0 liter/16g setup, I'm shifting at around 7300 rpms, with some comp 272's.

Whoever does the testing to get a 6g72 manifold/port/cam to make torque at 7-8,000 rpms, is going to have something special.

[pat3000gt]

familyman is right I did have boost spiking. they tried to reduce the spiking but it still did it just not as bad.
now I have a question, I wanted to pass emissions testing but that still showed high hc on the test. so I still think I am running rich.

[familyMAN]

Found an old 3si thread from Gene where he tested a GTPRO mani. The old "budget" mani (shortened runner/big plenum) was tested at only 12.5 boost on 16gs and picked up 32hp when the fuel was richened to compensate for increased airflow. But it looked like it still took a dive around 6k (chart didn't show rpm). Showed gains overall, especially midrange. Maybe the runners were still too long or stock cams (or overlap) were still holding it up.

Wish they would've tested at higher boost. I remember seeing results, I believe on a dsm, where at higher boost on a particular mani, the results gap narrowed vs lower boost.

[J. Fast]

Cool! Turn it up! I made 590whp/575tq on 91 octane pump gas on Evo's with stock heads and cams. My torque curve did the same thing. 3sx chart is an excellent comparo.

Have fun, Cheer's!

[donniekak]

Would be cool to have tests like these on the 6g7x cars.
Intake manifold dyno tests and facts only.

AMS Infamous DSM Camshaft test | HKS | Crower| Jun | Web | Eagle Talon | 4g63 Cams

[familyMAN]

Cool! Turn it up! I made 590whp/575tq on 91 octane pump gas on Evo's with stock heads and cams.

If dynoed in elevation and corrected, what correction factor though J? My understanding is that correction can be pretty optimistic on turbo cars in high elevation.

Would be cool to have tests like these on the 6g7x cars.
Intake manifold dyno tests and facts only.

AMS Infamous DSM Camshaft test | HKS | Crower| Jun | Web | Eagle Talon | 4g63 Cams

The Buschur intake testing is awesome. Read that thread many times. Too bad the cam testing wasn't done with a large enough turbo, but I have seen other back to back on a couple cams with big turbos. Back to back cam testing would be more work obviously on a 3S, but intake mani testing requires only a little intercooler piping changes. Disappointing that no vendors have stepped up.

Just to post something on topic...pat3000gt, what's next for the car???

BTW, IPS dual (or quad) tip is very nice quality and nice tone. Looks great, pretty quite, but probably as heavy as stock and only 3" to muffler and 2.5" to other tip.

[J. Fast]

I think my SAE correction factor was 1.2X. It was on a dyno jet tho . My uncorrected number was like 515whp. I said "Nope", and swapped them out for billets a month later LOL. SAE is good for comparison tho. Results guys get in the Carolina's, Cali, Washington, and New York are quite often unattainable here in Colorado. The SAE CF is definitely a very unrealistic glimpse of performance at elevation. The SAE CF is almost always somewhere between 1.15 and 1.3X. We average about 20-25% down on power vs. sea level if you compared uncorrected pulls.

[familyMAN]

Exactly. You know that saying you made 590 on 91 with 16gs, stock heads, cams, etc is not accurate and shouldn't be used as a basis for comparison.

Not good advice to tell someone to crank up the boost and reference your highly corrected, dynojet numbers vs his mustang numbers. Hell he may not be too far off of your hp number now. Any track times to corroborate either the 590 or 515 when you had the 16gs in?

[J. Fast]

Exactly. You know that saying you made 590 on 91 with 16gs, stock heads, cams, etc is not accurate and shouldn't be used as a basis for comparison.

Not good advice to tell someone to crank up the boost and reference your highly corrected, dynojet numbers vs his mustang numbers. Hell he may not be too far off of your hp number now. Any track times to corroborate either the 590 or 515 when you had the 16gs in?

So your saying if I drive thru Missouri next month and go to ET Tuning and my boost gauge still reads 27psi the SAE results will be different? Ofcourse the data is accurate for comparision its SAE corrected. As is every dyno chart linked into the thread.

You can't modify the CF on a dynojet it basis it's own correction on real time inputs. If I drove to New York and all the way back across the US to Cali the SAE numbers would be identical and I would likely have zero correction. In actuality I would likely make more uncorrected power than SAE corrected in a few places.



Sorry, no slips or anything legal to post.

[familyMAN]

If you throw some better octane in there...yes you probably would make the 590 I am questioning that you would hit the 590 on 91 at sea level with stock heads, cams, intake. Maybe you would, maybe you won't. My point is, it's not fair to say to crank the boost because you did x, when the comparison is not the same (mustang vs dynojet for one, even if you believe you would hit the 590 on 91)

I posted the charts not to compare numbers, only to compare tq curves and add to the discussion/questions on why it looked the way it does. Just pointing out that many of the 16g dyno's look similar for some reason. Maybe you could post your chart too? It would be interesting to see the tq curve as well.