Thericker

The Correction Factor corrects to sea level at a set temperature and humidity.. SAE correction tends to be more accurate than Standard (STD) correction... The uncorrected number tells you how much your car is actually making in your location at the time of the run. Smoothing smooths out spikes in the dyno chart, It has nothing to do with the function of the dyno, only how your chart is displayed and printed. A high smoothing factor is good for showing your buddies, a low SF is best for tuning...

Since the OP used SAE CF etc etc It removed the 100 degree handicap, also adding meth lowering iat's further than the SAE CF of 77 deg F skewed these results = to running same car/dyno in LESS than 77 degrees ambient.. IE to get a correct reading of what his car really puts down in 100 degree ambient heat w/meth he just needs to redyno UNCORRECTED..

biggking

So posted a 'corrected dyno' with the correct 'CF Factor' means that all readings can be compared to one another since they have been adjusted for bias. So what has everyone else been saying..

blackbenzz

All I said was the dyno has SAE correction and 5 smoothing to answer a question. Why he got all pissed off and in attack mode I don't know He wants to say the dyno is uncorrected, but in fact it clearly has SAE correction. It doesn't really matter to me one way or another, I was just stating facts.

He does not need to redyno to get the uncorrected figures. Send me the dynojet file or have the dyno operator go back to your dyno graph and click uncorrected on the pulldown menu instead of SAE. Anybody wanna bet that the UNCORRECTED graph will be much lower than the SAE if the temps in the shop were indeed 100? It's basic math...

Thericker

Anyone in the know realizes his results will be far less when UNcorrected.. Good points on simply having dyno operator correct this dyno file.. IF the OP really wants real world facts etc etc.. His irrational anger is another issue altogether..

EREBUS

Funny you say that. I just checked about 10 dyno graphs on this forum and the all say SAE CF 3 & 5. And yet, on those threads......no one mentions any correcting or smoothing call outs. What gives? That's called an agenda by a few members. No? Let's see your graph, sir.

Thericker

Wow... The ONLY reason we brought it up on your dyno thread is due to your exclaiming it made huge power in 101 degree F.. When in reality your Dyno was Corrected to sea level at 77 degrees... What part/parts of this simple info can't you understand?

Perhaps you should try wearing the "Tin Foil hat?"

99lightning

I always leave my dynojet on std smoothing 5 mainly when I was tuning a lot of lightnings that were on jdm's dynojet in nj our numbers were always the same on both dynos. my car makes 496hp std uncorrected is 504hp

RaceHorse

Hey, O.P. would you happen to know the model number of those filters? I'm wondering if they'd fit on my car. I like the idea of ducting fresh air from under the car, its just too bad you don't have a louvered hood for it to escape creating air flow up and over the filters. The gasket around the engine seems to hold all that heat under the hood, but at least its open on the bottom.

Dyno boys: Is it safe to say if you dyno at a 77 degrees there is little to no correction? That's what I did with filters and 93 octane.

BlownV8

Dynojets have weather stations. It compensates for altitude/barometric pressure, humidity, and temp. If the weather station is working properly, you should be able to dyno a car in any location and any weather type and it should produce the same results if no other changes were made other than location of the dyno. If you run the chart as uncorrected, you would see the variances caused by the altitude, temps, and humidity.

BI-Performance

Relax fellas, can't wait for the mile coming up. It will walk the walk

e55amgrocket

Geez I've been working to much and missing all the Nice numbers. Any idea what your compression is?

blackbenzz

Why is it funny? None of those people claimed uncorrected when it is. Are you finally realizing that your graph is corrected? No call outs here either. Just stating facts. No agenda. I don't put any stock in dyno's but you don't want to see my dyno graphs on a STOCK motor. Make you ashamed of the money you spent to make less power. All you need to know is in my sig. Go run the 1/4 and show us all how much power your car really makes.

chawkins2001

As a FYI Anthony did not start the thread, I did. Dont listen to all the haters brotha, everyone has some kind of agenda.

If your schedule permits, get this monster out to the 1/4 track once the weather cools down and conditions improve. There is no doubt in my mind your car will run the fastest documented CLS55 time right off the bat.

blackbenzz

What haters and what agenda?

If he runs the fastest CLS55 time right off the bat that's great . Doesn't change the fact that he's claiming uncorrected dyno numbers when they are clearly SAE corrected. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Maybe you can set the record straight. Is the dyno he posted corrected or not? I already know the answer, but maybe if you say it he will believe it since you have no agenda and aren't a hater.

Jimshorts

I had an intake similar to this and lost alot of power compared to the stock one while on the road for those exact reason. Tested and proven at the track.

The intake temps will be way over ambient with the hood closed.

Edit: Didn't read the rest of the thread before I posted, I dont mean to stir up any ****.

hpV12

This is why no one shares much around here. Anytime someone comes out with a dyno sheet, new build, some numbers.. inevitably instead of congrats and awesome he gets ridiculed about inaccurate dyno #s or mods are wrong or spent too much money... everyone always knows everything. Around here anyways.

No one can really just sit back and be happy about someone elses ride without telling him a thing or two about why its wrong.

Let the man enjoy his car and his numbers, dont see why everyones got to give him ****. Frankly, I'm more annoyed at the people who ruined this thread then the OPs alleged lack of insight regarding dynos.

But alas... always someone there to tell you you arent making the power you think are.

biggking

Yes, dumbass that's why it's called 'correction factor'. Now whether or not people use the CF correctly is on them, simply setting the CF to 5 is not the correct way, as you need to measure actual values when dynoing.

I think by far out of everyone's comments yours are true to facts. But let me as you this, is it easier to sprint 1000m in 70* weather or 105* weather. You will of course get a faster time in 70* weather. All CF does is give you 'points' for working harder. Your body has to do way more work in 105* than in 70*, so why wouldn't you get extra points for working harder????

Honestly with the setup I saw, meth and super cooling I was thinking this was some mexican drug cartel desert racer. Can't wait to see this thing walk all over everyone on the mile.

Sir, I have no choice but to call you a DUMBASS, straight dumbass (as Randy Moss says). CF simply corrects for the fact that the work his engine did is HARDER.

Let me put it to you in 6th grade terms as best as I can since you seem a little slow. You and me go ride bikes, your bike has a 100lb weight attached and mine has a 500lb weight attached to it. We ride one mile together and get the same time of 5 minutes. Who's got more power? Who rode faster? Every post you've made here points to the idea that you in the bike with 100lbs are faster than me with the 500lbs weight or 'just the same'.. Hmm does that make sense to you???

Please go and Google 'dynamo-meter correction factor' and get a basic idea of what the hell it is before you try and clown on something.

If I am not explaining something right please let me know so that we can get this 'CF' issues dealt with. Seems like people I would have thought to know what they are doing don't have a clue.

EREBUS

I have a factory blower in a low compression m113k motor. Your pieced together Frankenstein N/A motor and after market blower produces more power than mine? No sh*t? lol

Besides your car starts off @600 lbs lighter than mine.......and that's before you Honda civic gutted it for the track.

Money spent? What about all the down time and money spent on blown motors? Yeah, you the man. You win......

Thericker

What SAE CF does is simply change the weather to an equal standing for ALL who choose to use SAE CF, so everybody who uses the SAE Corrected #'s can compare results apples to apples.. IE points to remember here are the OP's car WILL make 602 whp 625 tq at sea level in 77 degrees, NOT in 101 degrees, his results will be less when the SAE CF is REMOVED in 101 degree heat. Simple end of debate

The car has more than ample stock & aftermarket cooling to deal w/101 ambient heat.. It's NOT working harder in the heat, it's ONLY THE AIR QUALITY/WEATHER & O2 DENSITY changing his rwhp output (Cooler denser air carries far more O2 which makes the horsepower increase dramatically, especially in Supercharged/Turbocharged applications) Adding weight to a car/bicycle in your analogy would make the engine work harder IE like towing a fixed load.. This isn't what's happening here

Thericker

Harry, you're an intelligent kat, we're NOT hating etc I tried helping discuss a better CAI design as did multi others.. The Dyno discussion should be MORE than clear now..

blackbenzz

I answered the question about correction factor and smoothing. Then he gets all butt hurt and goes off on a rant and attacking me... Did I say he wasn't making the power? Nope. All I said was that he was running a correction factor when he said he wasn't. Bunch of ignorant people around here

You make no sense. I know exaclty what I'm talking about. A correction factor CORRECTS to the parameters in said correction factor (No, weight is not one of the variables). In this case the dynos were run in 100+ degree temps. In this case when using SAE correction it will ADD power to the uncorrected values to simulate as if it was dyno'd in those predetermined temps. If it was run in 40 degree temps and SAE correction was used it would SUBTRACT power to simulate the predetermined temp in the correction factor. This isn't rocket science. I'm wrong? Go to any dyno and change correction factors and see what happens. All the people that don't know anything resort to name calling to make a point haha.

You have a built motor correct? You could've chosen any compression you wanted. Don't blame me. Uhh Frankenstein motor? It was a JUNKYARD 100+K mile NA motor. Stock crank, rods, pistons, etc. AND STILL MADE MORE POWER THAN YOU! Which part of it was Frankenstein? Please tell me LOL. Wait until I actually build a motor and we can compare who knows what they are doing if you want.

Ummm what does weight have to do with dyno? Car ran 10.2 FULL weight. Put race seat in and ran 10.0. How is that gutted? Last time I checked a Honda Civic comes with full interior, you aren't making any sense. You've never even seen my car to be talking

I can buy a complete motor and have it in the car in a weekend for less money than you paid for sleeves alone. Not only did you have more down time but you spent tons more for the engine. You want to rethink your point?

Keep believing what the people who are taking your money feed you. Don't come crying to me for advice when you go to the track and your **** is slow

biggking

Yes my weight analogy might not be the best but it sorta puts things in layman terms. But the fact of the matter is the air density/heat/humidity all factor into the dyno run and a 1/2 miles run. People are discounting the fact that these 3-4 factors MAKE A HUGE difference and that if that handicap was not in affect it would make MORE POWER in better conditions right? Not sure why everyone's talking **** when the OP did nothing wrong other than post a 'corrected time' LMAO.

My buddy just got a dyno, we ran a few cars on the dyno and another question I have is how to distinguish actual power down vs crank power. I keep reading about 15% drive train loss to 30% for AWD.

blackbenzz

"Yes understood, SAE correction USED CORRECTLY will be accurate will ALL dyno'd vehicles. I understand he will make 602 at sea level and not at 101 I am not lost here."

So much stupidity...

First off sea level is an altitude NOT a temperature genius. So yea you are pretty lost

Nobody is discounting anything. You're just getting your panties in a bunch when someone tells you the truth.

Read what I bolded in your comment. Look up what correction factor actually "corrects" for. You might be surprised that it includes what you said (not weight). So you're saying after the run is corrected for the variable you mentioned it will magically make more power? Just as an FYI, he did not post a "corrected time". Dynos read hp and torque. Time is not an output.

The OP did nothing wrong when he posted. It's his constant denial of not using a correction factor that is incorrect. Doesn't matter what insults you use or what illogical explanation you use, the bottom line is it has SAE correction. How someone can even debate that is beyond me.

Wait a second. You just went from a dyno expert to asking for advice? Your buddy buying a dyno doesn't make you an expert. We are talking about dynos here. Unless you pull the engine out and use an engine dyno you will not get an accurate crank hp value

Thericker

No his car wont make more rwhp in better air than 101 F.. Don't forget he's running Meth too, it was further reducing those SAE CF calculations to BETTER than the sea level 77 degree standards.. Im not talking **** here.. These Calculations are here for good reason, they explain in GREAT detail why cars make such varied results from dyno to dyno and SAE is meant to correct that.. Im over this debate enjoy fellas..

hpV12

Bunch of ignorant people? I say to give the man a break and let him and his numbers be and I'm ignorant now?