1.02

 

That explains everything you have a happy Dyno your numbers were x 1.02 so you made 490whp with 1.0 correction factor std then take 5 who changing to sae and you got 485whp right where everyone else is full full bolt ons

 

it made 502whp but lets call it 500whp, so what you are saying its really 490whp?

 

Do you have the Dyno sheet with all the information on it? What was the temps and baro pressure? We all want that ,500whp car but on my Dyno you would be lucky to break 470whp I've done runs in 85 weather and only got 1.01 cf

What day did u Dyno so I can look up the weather ?

 

It was done on May 19 around 4-5:30pm EST. I will get all that information when I do the re-runs on June 12.

 

It was done on May 19 around 4-5:30pm EST. I will get all that information when I do the re-runs on June 12.

 

That does sound about right. I know half of us want to believe, and half of us don't for some reason. I personally don't care, cos Im not putting headers on my car, doing my heads etc. This does sound about right though.

 

 

 

Sounds like a bad Dyno sensor or someone heated it up to inflate the numbers

The​​​​ conditions on that day were EXCELLENT to Dyno a car. High baro pressure,low humidity and 57 degrees air temps

​​​​your cf should of been to lower the numbers not raise them.

There is no such thing as a magic prototype tune lol c63 don't make 450whp stock lol

 

Skratch77: If the above are indeed the environmental conditions under which the "500 hp" run was made, then I can verify that the results were inflated.

A conversion formula I grabbed years ago from one of the engine dyno sites gives the following results:

SAE versus STD Dyno Correction Factors

Temperature 57
Bar Pressure 30.14
Humidity 49

SAE correction factor = 0.943012087
STD correction factor = 0.961352131
Percent STD vs SAE 1.019448365

Note that under BOTH STD and SAE standard correction, the reported raw dyno results get REDUCED via the correction to either STD or SAE standard conditions, because yes, the conditions were remarkably favorable - way better than either the STD or SAE standard conditions.

As you can see, the correction to STD standard conditions is a MINUS 3.9%, and the correction to SAE standard conditions is a MINUS 5.7%.

Under these favorable conditions, the difference between the SAE and STD correction results is only 1.94%.

But, do we actually have a dyno chart, or raw Dynojet file, somewhere in this thread showing that these were indeed the ambient conditions? if so, I guess I missed it.

I'm also disappointed in the incomplete way the "500hp claim" was presented by the OP. Normally, when you claim a "breakthrough" result, you should post "the proof" - a dyno chart showing:

- The actual true ambient conditions for the dyno run (temperature, humidity, barometric pressure)

- The uncorrected rwhp versus rpm curve

- The rwhp corrected to standard ambient conditions, either STD or SAE, but preferably SAE as that is the more realistic standard for street vehicles, and the one used by all the auto manufacturers and most tuners.

I realize that the dyno operator might initially offer only a printout of the corrected power and torque curves, but anyone claiming a breakthrough needs to also provide the raw Dynojet file (which can be easily emailed from any Dynojet dyno to any customer - don't let any dyno operator tell you anything different), so that anyone with the Dynojet software (easily downloaded for free onto any Windows computer, but not a Mac) can open the file, see the raw and corrected data, and verify that the claim is legitimate.

If a raw file is not made available,then naturally the claim will be viewed with suspicion.

Note too that even if all this is done, if an unscrupulous dyno operator / tuner looking for instant fame and sales of his tune simply puts his 98.4 degree fingers on the temperature sensor to inflate the apparent "ambient" temperature, he can make a run look much better than it actually was. That's why it is always wise when claiming a breakthrough result to have a surprisingly good result verified on a guaranteed independent dyno. Otherwise, this kind of contentious thread is what you get.

Finally, don't forget that the STD and SAE formulas assume that an engine is 100% capable of producing exactly the same corrected horsepower, when the correction formulas are applied, no matter how bad or how good the actual raw ambient conditions were at the time it is tested. This is obviously NOT true for all engines, and never true when taken to extreme ambient conditions. Real engines just are simply not that "adaptable". We all know that virtually all engines produce less power under really hot conditions. We also know that many engines will produce unusually high power under really cool conditions with almost perfect humidty and barometric pressure conditions. So, if a normally 480 rwhp engine is run at 57 degrees, 49% humidity, and 30.14 barometric pressure, yeah, it might flash a particularly good result better than the normal corrected 480 rwhp. But has the tuner actually achieved a breakthrough, or has he simply taken advantage of extreme ambient conditions to make his client feel good?

Jim G

 

I asked for the raw files and the conditions to be printed on the sheet a few times but go no answer .op said that they used 1.02 the other day and I looked up the data myself and could be wrong but there is no way in hell that if those conditions I ran for that day were correct that the Dyno would add 1.02 cf it should like you say lower the numbers because those conditions were ideal to Dyno the car.

If we had the raw files it would be easier to see but I'm sure those will never come to light.

Jim the op said it was 1.02 so how is the Dyno inflating numbers? On top of ideal excellent Dyno conditions they got it to also add 1.02 to there numbers

We have 2 things going on here.

1 really good weather conditions
2 a cf that inflated those really good conditions to begin with.

 

I've never in my life seen someone say so little using so many words. It's like your superpower. This one's a keeper.

 

It's all true.

Jim G

 

You could have used more than 3 words to say that.

I'm not mad, just disappointed...

 

What is "truth"? The Socratic concept of truth claims that the elenchus is a method that generally leads to truth, and suggests that Socrates was convinced that he himself would gain in wisdom and clarity from elenctic exchanges with others, even if they were not as wise as he. People mean what others can take them to mean; to learn what we mean is to learn what others we talk with mean. The understanding of others, agreeing with them on basic concepts, clarity about what we mean, come — to the extent that they do — together. The elenchus is a model of our only method for promoting these ends.

Another reading of the Socratic elenchus is that Socrates is not just concerned with the reply of the interlocutor but is concerned with the interlocutor himself. According to this view, Socrates is as much concerned with the truth or falsity of propositions as he is with the refinement of the interlocutor’s way of life. Socrates is concerned with both epistemological and moral advances for the interlocutor and himself. It is not propositions or replies alone that are refuted, for Socrates does not conceive of them dwelling in isolation from those that hold them. Thus conceived, the elenchus refutes the person holding a particular view, not just the view. For instance, Socrates shames Thrasymachus when he shows him that he cannot maintain his view that justice is ignorance and injustice is wisdom. The elenchus demonstrates that Thrasymachus cannot consistently maintain all his claims about the nature of justice. This view is consistent with a view we find in Plato’s late dialogue called the Sophist, in which the Visitor from Elea, not Socrates, claims that the soul will not get any advantage from learning that it is offered to it until someone shames it by refuting it.

 

WORD.

 

I would...

 

Sorry no time to read entire thread.... when can I order the new super tune! I want 500rwhp with tune only....... 1.3 cf is cool with me as long as I can have a dyno sheet to show my posse'!

 

Its a strangely hypnotic photo.


And, hell yeah.

 

Sorry for the OT. That was probably my fault.

 

Alright guys, I got an update for you all.

We tuned my car last week at Euro Charged Toronto, wanted to live with the car for a few days before posting.

Note - I have a 2010 / NON PP / Full Bolt On Car.


Numbers:

Modified V5 Tune - 465 WHP / 433 LB TQ (Dyno Run April 2016)
V6 Tune - 465 WHP / 411 LB TQ
Unicorn Tune - 467 WHP / 419 LB TQ

Just based on pure numbers, my modified V5 tune (Dyno Tuned) from last year was the strongest the car performed with the EC software. On EC Toronto's Dyno-Jet

From what I gather, Jerry and the team at EC are constantly trying to improve the M156 Software. Some decent gains were made on a select few cars over the last few months. This beta tune is geared towards cars with LTH's. The tune did not make any significant power increases on my car.

Driving Dynamics

This is where things get interesting, the car feels noticeably faster (Power delivery are VERY linear. (God what this car could be with a proper DCT or Manual Transmission). The responsiveness of the engine is the best it has ever been.

Noticeable difference from the V6 Tune? - Minimal, difference. The car feels more responsive to throttle input. This is the biggest difference.

Trap speeds will determine any gains - if any thing my experience is that Dyno's are not the best way to determine power delivery / driving dynamics. Don't let it be the end-all.

As for the OP's Car - I trust in the EC dyno and the guys at EC Toronto were just as surprised with the numbers as we are. I will maintain that the OP's car is a factory freak motor. His results are not to be taken as the norm, nor has EC stated that it will be.

That being said - I will always appreciate EC pushing the platform forward. Its nice to see an attempt being made.

 

My car would be a factory freak with a 1.03 cf in 57 degree weather also.

 

Throttle response is easy to change programmatically on most cars. The programmer simply changes how much the throttle body opens per degree of throttle pedal movement. It can also be programmed to be "front end heavy" (more throttle body opening per degree of pedal movement at lower throttle pedal settings).

This is a relatively easy and effective way to make a car feel notably quicker without actually increasing its horsepower, and for a sporty car it makes sense to do.

This is in fact one of the things that the car manufacturers alter programmatically when you select a "rain" or "winter" driving setting, except they REDUCE the throttle body opening per degree of pedal movement for those rain or winter selections, to make it less likely that a driver will accidentally lose traction when the roads are slick.

Back around 2000 or 2003, there was an SAE paper on this made available on The Web.

Jim G

 

Ok Kris,

Correct me if I'm wrong, you are still running the agency power headers?
The 507 dyno' d had MBH headers?
Not that it's worth much but on the LS7 headers with 2" primaries vs 1 7/8" make another 7-12rwhp up top. So if the cyclinder heads flow enough to make use of the 2 inch primary then there would in fact be a difference there as well.

I will see how I make out on a dyno jet 224x independent from eurocharged. Dyno before and after if I get the updated file before then.
Otherwise hitting the strip hopefully June 23 as long as nothing else comes up.