Dyno day Results! (The one @ Deman in NY)
07-01-2003, 02:10 PM
#61
Banned
Ken and I ran after the S2. Take a look at wormholes chart at his link. He ran 106mph at 4896 rpms than look at Kens chart above. He ran 121 mph at 4963 rpms. 15 mph difference and only 67 rpms. Thats why the stock turbo cars look just as good and better. I would like to see timms chart to compare as well.
The shorter the distance the higher the hp.
4th gear tops out at about 140mph (from experience) Why was I at 161mph At 6600 rpms?
I think Deman owes us a True dyno pull.
The shorter the distance the higher the hp.
4th gear tops out at about 140mph (from experience) Why was I at 161mph At 6600 rpms?
I think Deman owes us a True dyno pull.
07-01-2003, 02:56 PM
#62
Race Director
Here's a copy of Timm's charts:
<img src="http://www.gururacing.net/CustomerCars/Dyno-TimmBaldauf-HPTQ_030629.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.gururacing.net/CustomerCars/Dyno-TimmBaldauf-BoostAFR_030629.jpg" alt=" - " />
One thing people are getting mixed up here is BHP-crank HP versus RWHP as measured at the rear wheels. Most dynos will give you a RWHP number since they can measure that directly. The DynaPacks appear to have a correct factor that guesses your drivetrian loss and gives you a "flywheel" HP/TQ figures. At least that's what I assume from the heading of the dyno-charts when it says "flywheel".
In that respect, taking an average of the runs, Timm got 282bhp and 270lb•ft TQ at the flywheel. Using the standard 15% drivetrain-loss assumption, that's 240rwhp and 230lb•ft TQ. Which is actually low for a TurboS.
If you look at Jim Huizenga's TurboS chart (from GURU Racing's <a href="http://forums.gururacing.net/viewforum.php?f=7" target="_blank">Dyno Forum-Chips</a>):
<img src="http://www.gururacing.net/CustomerCars/Dyno-JimH-TurboS030617.jpg" alt=" - " />
You'll see that he got 286.5rwhp and 338.2lb•ft TQ which would be more like 337bhp and 397lb•ft at the flywheel on the DynaPacks.
Also note that he's got the same air-fuel ratio as you. It's just that the horizontally-compressed format of the DynaPack printouts make it look worse than it is. Just compare the actual numbers. I've intentionally made the 3000-4000rpm lean spot to get hotter exhaust gasses to spool up the turbo faster and reduce lag. Then the rich dip around 4500 is to coincide with the torque-peak and max-boost curves and provides a little bit of detonation resistance. From then on, it's a flat 12.0:1 to redline.
Not all cars are the same and there appears to be variations in AFM voltage response-curves as well. Anyone who'd like their GURU chips revised, please email me your dyno-charts and I'll provide an updated chip at no charge. Please read the version# off your DME label so I know which maps to modify.
As for 951s generating more HP than TQ, that's a sign of good high-end breathing! Most of the time, the high-end is so restricted by too-small of a turbo for the boost and the inefficient 2-valve heads that the engines make max-torque really down low around 4000rpm. But the torque drops quickly as well, in a lot of cases down 20-30% from its peak by redline. That's why you have such low HP figures.
A car that's well-tuned will have a wide and flat torque curve to give the best performance (integrate area under the curve to get overall acceleration). Such as John Caldwell who's beta-testing our GURU-364 kit (from GURU Forums <a href="http://forums.gururacing.net/viewtopic.php?t=32" target="_blank">Dyno-Charts:Upgraded turbos</a>):
<img src="http://www.gururacing.net/CustomerCars/Dyno-Caldwell_030627.jpg" alt=" - " />
Initial tuning was done at 16psi boost (we'll crank it up to the design-spec of 20psi in stages). Notice the wide and flat torque-curve that's even on both sides of the peak. The torque drop-off isn't dramatic and max-HP is made near redline. In fact, power doesn't drop off at all. This is a sign there's still some overhead in flow and breathing with this configuration. We'll be turning up the boost next.
<img src="http://www.gururacing.net/CustomerCars/Dyno-TimmBaldauf-HPTQ_030629.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.gururacing.net/CustomerCars/Dyno-TimmBaldauf-BoostAFR_030629.jpg" alt=" - " />
One thing people are getting mixed up here is BHP-crank HP versus RWHP as measured at the rear wheels. Most dynos will give you a RWHP number since they can measure that directly. The DynaPacks appear to have a correct factor that guesses your drivetrian loss and gives you a "flywheel" HP/TQ figures. At least that's what I assume from the heading of the dyno-charts when it says "flywheel".
In that respect, taking an average of the runs, Timm got 282bhp and 270lb•ft TQ at the flywheel. Using the standard 15% drivetrain-loss assumption, that's 240rwhp and 230lb•ft TQ. Which is actually low for a TurboS.
If you look at Jim Huizenga's TurboS chart (from GURU Racing's <a href="http://forums.gururacing.net/viewforum.php?f=7" target="_blank">Dyno Forum-Chips</a>):
<img src="http://www.gururacing.net/CustomerCars/Dyno-JimH-TurboS030617.jpg" alt=" - " />
You'll see that he got 286.5rwhp and 338.2lb•ft TQ which would be more like 337bhp and 397lb•ft at the flywheel on the DynaPacks.
Also note that he's got the same air-fuel ratio as you. It's just that the horizontally-compressed format of the DynaPack printouts make it look worse than it is. Just compare the actual numbers. I've intentionally made the 3000-4000rpm lean spot to get hotter exhaust gasses to spool up the turbo faster and reduce lag. Then the rich dip around 4500 is to coincide with the torque-peak and max-boost curves and provides a little bit of detonation resistance. From then on, it's a flat 12.0:1 to redline.
Not all cars are the same and there appears to be variations in AFM voltage response-curves as well. Anyone who'd like their GURU chips revised, please email me your dyno-charts and I'll provide an updated chip at no charge. Please read the version# off your DME label so I know which maps to modify.
As for 951s generating more HP than TQ, that's a sign of good high-end breathing! Most of the time, the high-end is so restricted by too-small of a turbo for the boost and the inefficient 2-valve heads that the engines make max-torque really down low around 4000rpm. But the torque drops quickly as well, in a lot of cases down 20-30% from its peak by redline. That's why you have such low HP figures.
A car that's well-tuned will have a wide and flat torque curve to give the best performance (integrate area under the curve to get overall acceleration). Such as John Caldwell who's beta-testing our GURU-364 kit (from GURU Forums <a href="http://forums.gururacing.net/viewtopic.php?t=32" target="_blank">Dyno-Charts:Upgraded turbos</a>):
<img src="http://www.gururacing.net/CustomerCars/Dyno-Caldwell_030627.jpg" alt=" - " />
Initial tuning was done at 16psi boost (we'll crank it up to the design-spec of 20psi in stages). Notice the wide and flat torque-curve that's even on both sides of the peak. The torque drop-off isn't dramatic and max-HP is made near redline. In fact, power doesn't drop off at all. This is a sign there's still some overhead in flow and breathing with this configuration. We'll be turning up the boost next.
07-01-2003, 05:40 PM
#63
Burning Brakes
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">One thing people are getting mixed up here is BHP-crank HP versus RWHP as measured at the rear wheels. Most dynos will give you a RWHP number since they can measure that directly. The DynaPacks appear to have a correct factor that guesses your drivetrian loss and gives you a "flywheel" HP/TQ figures. At least that's what I assume from the heading of the dyno-charts when it says "flywheel".</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I'm really not sure about this. My chart peaks at 120HP at 6000rpms. I would hope that's not flywheel or else I'm in big trouble. The guy who did my run even said "This is to the wheels. And we assume 25% loss through the drivetrain." Unless they did me different than everyone else? This whole thing is strange.
07-01-2003, 05:45 PM
#64
Nordschleife Master
Thread Starter
I'm going to post a response to Danno's post later on tonight...but the Dynapack numbers are at the rear wheels. If the dyno operator would plug in a TCF number other than 1.00, it would give flywheel numbers.
Jimbo,
I have no issues with anything Deman has done and I am not about get on the phone with him on your behalf. Like I said before, if you have any issues...by all means give Deman a call.
Also, I would like to finally know what size injectors your car has?
Jimbo,
I have no issues with anything Deman has done and I am not about get on the phone with him on your behalf. Like I said before, if you have any issues...by all means give Deman a call.
Also, I would like to finally know what size injectors your car has?
07-01-2003, 06:08 PM
#65
Drifting
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 2,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Ken:
<strong>This whole thing is strange.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">thats how i feel <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />
<strong>This whole thing is strange.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">thats how i feel <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />
07-01-2003, 06:30 PM
#67
Nordschleife Master
Thread Starter
ANYBODY that has ANY questions regarding the dyno...PM me and I'll give you my cell number...
Now...
Danno, what is extremely important for Timm's runs is that boost increased from the first run to the 3rd run...WHY? This has nothing to do with the dyno.
Also I hope that you understand that Timm's a/f curve definetely needs some work. It's back up to 13.25:1 by redline..
The a/f plot on Jim Huizenga's chart is too small to be usefull IMO.
Raj, I think enough people got done. I asked him about it and he agreed. I guess give him a call and see if he even deposited your check already...
JIMBO, Deman's number is 845-727-3070
Now...
Danno, what is extremely important for Timm's runs is that boost increased from the first run to the 3rd run...WHY? This has nothing to do with the dyno.
Also I hope that you understand that Timm's a/f curve definetely needs some work. It's back up to 13.25:1 by redline..
The a/f plot on Jim Huizenga's chart is too small to be usefull IMO.
Raj, I think enough people got done. I asked him about it and he agreed. I guess give him a call and see if he even deposited your check already...
JIMBO, Deman's number is 845-727-3070
07-01-2003, 07:37 PM
#68
Nordschleife Master
Thread Starter
I just got off the phone with Rick...
The first thing they did when the car get on the dyno, was to do make sure the RPM on the tach correlates to the RPM that the machine calculates.
The MPH differences are because the dynapack uses tire diameter to calculate this. The tire diameter is 100% irrelevant to the actual power/RPM numbers. They did not sit there and calculate the tire diameter so that the MPH numbers would be accurate. The MPH numbers simply DO NOT matter.
Like I said before, the dyno numbers you were all given are RWHP numbers. They are NOT flywheel numbers. The transmission loss percentage number is open for dispute and always will be IMO.
JIMBO, Rick told me your car is running 62# injectors. Is this true? Is it also true that your car is running chips that are not designed for 62# injectors? Is it true that your car showed 10psi of fuel pressure using the gauge that was previously installed in your car? This is FAR from an ideal setup and no surprise to me that you laid down less than impressive horsepower numbers.
I would ask that everybody involved in this thread read it from begining to end before posting.
There is NO reason to be badmouthing Rick's shop (Deman motorsport) online...I can think of nothing but good things to say about him. Before anybody starts to criticize someone's work, they need to first get in touch with the person that did the work and seek an explanation.
Rennlist is a great place, but please think about the consequences of what you write BEFORE hitting the "Add Reply" button.
To those reading this thread, I apologize about all the confusion...I will try to structure it better. I may even go ahead and start another thread with the FACTS, rather than all the garbage thats been floating around this one.
Here's are John(wormhole)'s dyno charts.
He has autothority MAF/Chips, AFPR, 3" downpipe back exhaust and upgraded intercooler pipe from turbo to IC. I do not know the boost level, but I believe it was around 16-17psi.
<img src="http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~adrialk/dynocharts/JohnC/hptorque.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~adrialk/dynocharts/JohnC/hptorqueAFR.jpg" alt=" - " />
The first thing they did when the car get on the dyno, was to do make sure the RPM on the tach correlates to the RPM that the machine calculates.
The MPH differences are because the dynapack uses tire diameter to calculate this. The tire diameter is 100% irrelevant to the actual power/RPM numbers. They did not sit there and calculate the tire diameter so that the MPH numbers would be accurate. The MPH numbers simply DO NOT matter.
Like I said before, the dyno numbers you were all given are RWHP numbers. They are NOT flywheel numbers. The transmission loss percentage number is open for dispute and always will be IMO.
JIMBO, Rick told me your car is running 62# injectors. Is this true? Is it also true that your car is running chips that are not designed for 62# injectors? Is it true that your car showed 10psi of fuel pressure using the gauge that was previously installed in your car? This is FAR from an ideal setup and no surprise to me that you laid down less than impressive horsepower numbers.
I would ask that everybody involved in this thread read it from begining to end before posting.
There is NO reason to be badmouthing Rick's shop (Deman motorsport) online...I can think of nothing but good things to say about him. Before anybody starts to criticize someone's work, they need to first get in touch with the person that did the work and seek an explanation.
Rennlist is a great place, but please think about the consequences of what you write BEFORE hitting the "Add Reply" button.
To those reading this thread, I apologize about all the confusion...I will try to structure it better. I may even go ahead and start another thread with the FACTS, rather than all the garbage thats been floating around this one.
Here's are John(wormhole)'s dyno charts.
He has autothority MAF/Chips, AFPR, 3" downpipe back exhaust and upgraded intercooler pipe from turbo to IC. I do not know the boost level, but I believe it was around 16-17psi.
<img src="http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~adrialk/dynocharts/JohnC/hptorque.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~adrialk/dynocharts/JohnC/hptorqueAFR.jpg" alt=" - " />
07-01-2003, 07:44 PM
#69
Race Director
"what is extremely important for Timm's runs is that boost increased from the first run to the 3rd run...WHY? This has nothing to do with the dyno."
That's something I noticed but figured it was just you guys playing around with the boost. So we've got runs at 16.5psi, 17.0psi and 17.5psi. Did the slipping clutch have anything to do with this? It would certainly take load off the engine and drop boost as it started to slip (usually around peak torque). And how did Ken get such a flat boost-curve in the high-RPMs with a stock wastegate, eh???
"The a/f plot on Jim Huizenga's chart is too small to be usefull IMO."
At 300dpi it's not <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . Yeah, the AF ranges from 14.0:1 to 11.0:1 is bigger than I anticipated, was really aiming for 13.0-11.5:1. Haven't had much testing of TurboS chips, then all of a sudden I pump out 7 kits in one week... The really bizarre ones were the two TurboS guys with 24-pin chips... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
"Timm's a/f curve definetely needs some work."
I'll get him a revised chip. This kind of feedback really helps with fine-tuning our products, thanks!
One thing I wonder about is why the great variations between multiple dyno runs? Like in different shapes of the power and TQ curves? One other dynos when I do back-to-back runs and change only fuel or boost, the shape of the curve is still the same, just scaled entirely up or down.
That's something I noticed but figured it was just you guys playing around with the boost. So we've got runs at 16.5psi, 17.0psi and 17.5psi. Did the slipping clutch have anything to do with this? It would certainly take load off the engine and drop boost as it started to slip (usually around peak torque). And how did Ken get such a flat boost-curve in the high-RPMs with a stock wastegate, eh???
"The a/f plot on Jim Huizenga's chart is too small to be usefull IMO."
At 300dpi it's not <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . Yeah, the AF ranges from 14.0:1 to 11.0:1 is bigger than I anticipated, was really aiming for 13.0-11.5:1. Haven't had much testing of TurboS chips, then all of a sudden I pump out 7 kits in one week... The really bizarre ones were the two TurboS guys with 24-pin chips... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
"Timm's a/f curve definetely needs some work."
I'll get him a revised chip. This kind of feedback really helps with fine-tuning our products, thanks!
One thing I wonder about is why the great variations between multiple dyno runs? Like in different shapes of the power and TQ curves? One other dynos when I do back-to-back runs and change only fuel or boost, the shape of the curve is still the same, just scaled entirely up or down.
07-01-2003, 07:59 PM
#70
Nordschleife Master
Thread Starter
Danno, I dont think the slipping clutch caused the variations in boost. If you look at John(wormhole)'s chart...you see the big dips in the curves...this is the effect of a slipping clutch. I think Timm's curves are far too smooth for a slipping clutch. I have at least the first pull on video and it looked like a clean pull. All the cars that had slipping clutches, the engine was shaking all over the place. Also, for the clutch to grip BETTER as the runs progressed is the opposite of what I usually see, if the clutch's performance changes at all.
As for the boost curve, it is nice.
My car drops to 12psi (on the street) while his held ~14psi thanks to the shimmed wastegate. I expect a dual port would help hold the boost even better, but who wants to spend all that cash?
So the varying boost levels is the only thing I dont understand. I'll post a link to a video of at least his first dyno pull ASAP.
I am glad that the dyno results will help fine-tuning your chips.
My intent wasn't to bash you and your chips. I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was only trying to point out that Timm's chips needed some work. I was also trying to say that I recommend that those buying your chips get an a/f readout. Then email the charts to you if the a/f curve isn't what was expected.
Thanks for remaining professional
As for the boost curve, it is nice.
My car drops to 12psi (on the street) while his held ~14psi thanks to the shimmed wastegate. I expect a dual port would help hold the boost even better, but who wants to spend all that cash? So the varying boost levels is the only thing I dont understand. I'll post a link to a video of at least his first dyno pull ASAP.
I am glad that the dyno results will help fine-tuning your chips.
My intent wasn't to bash you and your chips. I'm sorry if I came off that way. I was only trying to point out that Timm's chips needed some work. I was also trying to say that I recommend that those buying your chips get an a/f readout. Then email the charts to you if the a/f curve isn't what was expected. Thanks for remaining professional
07-01-2003, 08:08 PM
#71
Even though I remain convinced the Dynapack isn't giving me accurate data, I'm totally behind Rick for his professionalism and courtesy. I just think there must be an error in the ring and pinion ratio, or gear ratio, or something (I don't know what) that consistently gives every 968 he tests such low hp readings. Do stock Turbo S's give up 25% in driveline loss to end up at 187hp on this dyno? I'd like to know.
07-01-2003, 08:29 PM
#72
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
For the record, TomR did not dyno his car. I was afraid to hook the firebird up to the dyno for fear of twisting the thing like a pretzel.
The run order if i recall correctly was
Yellow 968 Cab - Damian
Blue 968
Black 951S - Timm
White 951 - John
Black 951 - Dan
Yellow 911 -
Yellow Miata -
Grey S2 - Andrew
Red 951 - Jimbo
Silver 951 -
Black NA - Ken
I want to thank Rick for his gracious hospitality, extremely clean bathroom, and most importantly the brake fluid he let me grub for the Pontiac.
If it weren't for the distance I would have had Rick fix my head gasket/rebuild the motor. His shop looks extremely organized, is very clean, and his crew is very professional. Me thinks they knows what they are doing.
The run order if i recall correctly was
Yellow 968 Cab - Damian
Blue 968
Black 951S - Timm
White 951 - John
Black 951 - Dan
Yellow 911 -
Yellow Miata -
Grey S2 - Andrew
Red 951 - Jimbo
Silver 951 -
Black NA - Ken
I want to thank Rick for his gracious hospitality, extremely clean bathroom, and most importantly the brake fluid he let me grub for the Pontiac.
If it weren't for the distance I would have had Rick fix my head gasket/rebuild the motor. His shop looks extremely organized, is very clean, and his crew is very professional. Me thinks they knows what they are doing.
07-01-2003, 08:38 PM
#73
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ALBANY N.Y
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danno,
Could the fact that the car was not up to operating temp. be a factor in the boost increase?
What about the cycling valve? That is still in place.
Rick said my clutch was not hooking up 100%
There was a little engine vibration but not as bad as a few of the others.
The run order I thought the white 951 came before me,I could be wrong,check the film!
Timm
Could the fact that the car was not up to operating temp. be a factor in the boost increase?
What about the cycling valve? That is still in place.
Rick said my clutch was not hooking up 100%
There was a little engine vibration but not as bad as a few of the others.
The run order I thought the white 951 came before me,I could be wrong,check the film!
Timm
07-01-2003, 08:45 PM
#74
Rennlist Member
How about we try a dynojet 3248C next time. That is twice teh hp and torque numbers have been too low for the 968s.
No offense to Deman or nothing against them, but I think it would interest a lot of people who wanted to see higher numbers to see what another type of dyno shows. Also 248C are the most widely used dyno's out there and are very popular with the tuner market and car magazine guys.
Some thing is definitely not right. I am almost glad I did not dyno my car or else I would have had a very depressing weekend.
Atleast guys that own stock cars have a basic idea what numbers they should see. People that have modded their cars expect to see accurate numbers as they don't really have any other way of knowing what their car is really doing.
I might have a contact for dynojet and I can pass along the info if needed.
Raj
No offense to Deman or nothing against them, but I think it would interest a lot of people who wanted to see higher numbers to see what another type of dyno shows. Also 248C are the most widely used dyno's out there and are very popular with the tuner market and car magazine guys.
Some thing is definitely not right. I am almost glad I did not dyno my car or else I would have had a very depressing weekend.
Atleast guys that own stock cars have a basic idea what numbers they should see. People that have modded their cars expect to see accurate numbers as they don't really have any other way of knowing what their car is really doing.
I might have a contact for dynojet and I can pass along the info if needed.
Raj
07-01-2003, 09:24 PM
#75
Nordschleife Master
Thread Starter
Damian, if any of the numbers you mentioned were wrong, it would be obvious. When Rick would check the RPM's on the tach against the RPM's on the dynapack prior to the actual dyno pull. Any errors in the entry of gearing info would be revealed.
As you may recall, my car laid down 220 lb/ft of torque to the wheels along with 235hp IIRC when it was bone stock at the last dyno day 1 year ago. This does not go along with the 25% drivetrain loss, but this is a 944 not a 968. I understand that the numbers you received are not the numbers typically seen on a dynojet, but I cannot explain the error.
Tom, that run order is correct I believe. Except that John's white 951 ran before Timm's black 951S.
Timm, The cycling valve may be an issue. I don't see how it would cause what its causing, but plumbing the lines to get rid of the cycling valve just makes sense. The cycling valve is no longer serving a purpose with the reliaboost plumbed into the lines. If you need any help with this, I'm more than willing to drive up and help ya out with it.
(woops just realized that wasn't directed towards me, oh well)
Raj,
I would like to stick with the dynapack only because that is what I used when I did my baseline runs a year ago.
The numbers that I have seen for 944's and 944 turbo's have been accurate.
The numbers that I have seen for 968's, while low...have been extremely consistent. Perhaps we need to stick the temp sensor in hot water to get some higher numbers??
If the 968 guys want to get on a dynojet for the sake of comparing numbers to other people, I understand. I think that if one person gets their 968 dyno'ed on a dynojet (after it was already done on deman's dynapack)...and see's higher numbers. Then we will be able to take that spread (preferably as a percentage) and apply it to modified 968's to get an approximate dynojet number.
Everybody,
Everybody that I've talked to that runs a dynapack says that it is the most accurate dyno they have used....that must mean something...right? This "everybody" that I've talked to spans to 2 or 3 people on rennlist that use the dynapack and love it. If anybody else that has operated a dynapack would like to add their opinions of the dynapack, feel free.
Thanks everybody for your attitude
--Adrial
As you may recall, my car laid down 220 lb/ft of torque to the wheels along with 235hp IIRC when it was bone stock at the last dyno day 1 year ago. This does not go along with the 25% drivetrain loss, but this is a 944 not a 968. I understand that the numbers you received are not the numbers typically seen on a dynojet, but I cannot explain the error.
Tom, that run order is correct I believe. Except that John's white 951 ran before Timm's black 951S.
Timm, The cycling valve may be an issue. I don't see how it would cause what its causing, but plumbing the lines to get rid of the cycling valve just makes sense. The cycling valve is no longer serving a purpose with the reliaboost plumbed into the lines. If you need any help with this, I'm more than willing to drive up and help ya out with it.
(woops just realized that wasn't directed towards me, oh well)
Raj,
I would like to stick with the dynapack only because that is what I used when I did my baseline runs a year ago.
The numbers that I have seen for 944's and 944 turbo's have been accurate.
The numbers that I have seen for 968's, while low...have been extremely consistent. Perhaps we need to stick the temp sensor in hot water to get some higher numbers??
If the 968 guys want to get on a dynojet for the sake of comparing numbers to other people, I understand. I think that if one person gets their 968 dyno'ed on a dynojet (after it was already done on deman's dynapack)...and see's higher numbers. Then we will be able to take that spread (preferably as a percentage) and apply it to modified 968's to get an approximate dynojet number.
Everybody,
Everybody that I've talked to that runs a dynapack says that it is the most accurate dyno they have used....that must mean something...right?
This "everybody" that I've talked to spans to 2 or 3 people on rennlist that use the dynapack and love it. If anybody else that has operated a dynapack would like to add their opinions of the dynapack, feel free. Thanks everybody for your attitude
--Adrial