Jim_H

That dyno chart looks a lot like mine. Woody's has more boost and a bit more torque.

post 173
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...&page=14&pp=15

all4woody

Sniper,
That's the point. Nobody was trying to decieve anyone. The first dyno had some strange numbers, so I went to another dyno. In the end, there was only a 10rwhp difference.

m21sniper

What were your exact before and after(revised) power numbers?

Just curious.

Lagavulin

Woody, I am a hard-core technical guy, and I'm giving you technical feedback which you may not like to hear. It is not a slam on you. But listen to what I am saying, and to what your first posted dyno sheet is saying; everything you need to know is right there in front of you.

One last time. There is no way a second dyno run can come close to an initial dyno run whose SAE Correction Factor was 1.16. Look at the atmospheric readings and SAE Correction Factor of your initial baseline run versus your 'after' run.

Go back and do the calculations yourself, that is why I always post the simple formulas so that anyone can take them and experiment with whatever numbers they choose. The numbers themselves do not lie, and the 1.16 CF stands out like a sore-thumb to those who can 'see'.

At the very least, you will learn more than you counted on prior to your post!

Fastest928

Wow,

Woody Says "That's the point. Nobody was trying to decieve anyone. The first dyno had some strange numbers, so I went to another dyno. In the end, there was only a 10rwhp difference."

That says it all!

We now have folks on the list who defy the physics of the day ... Jim H, Woody and ..... who is next??

Have fun guys.

all4woody

Lag,
There you go again cutting and pasting only what you want people to see. This puts a slant on things. Why not past my second sentence "There were some indiscretions with the dyno setup".

Anyone else, read my post on the previous page. I'm done with this BS. Woody.

Lagavulin

Okay, then let me spell this out for you.

Here is a dyno-sheet of THE BEST 928 twin-screw installation on the planet as of today, running 9lbs of boost:

http://members.rennlist.com/v1uhoh/perfnumbers.htm

Firstly, note the 'normal' SAE Correction Factor of 1.05.

Now look at the power output at 9 psi: 402 rwhp.

Tony's running an automatic, so what would he theoretically do if he had a manual?

Using 80% drivetrain loss for auto:
chp = rwhp / .80
chp = 402 / .80 = 502.5 crank hp, a very gain over stock

Now, what would the rwhp be with a manual using 85% loss?

rwhp = (crank hp) x (drivetrain loss)
rwhp = 503 x .85 = 427.6 rwhp

So somehow, you put out more power with 7.5 psi than Tony's car at 9 psi!

Taking this one step further, let's do the calcs I did earlier with your numbers using Tony's results, again, to make it simple, we'll ignore thermal losses.

First we find the Pressure Ratio (..PR)
PR = (boost + 14.7) / 14.7
PR = (9psi + 14.7psi) / 14.7psi = 1.6

Using the PR, we'll find the Forced Induction horsepower (..FI-HP)
FI-HP = (crank hp) x PR
FI-HP = 320 chp x 1.6 = 512 chp (..does that number look vaguely familiar?)

Finally, the rwhp with both an automatic and a manual:

rwhp = (crank hp) x (drivetrain loss)
rwhp = 512 chp x .85 = 435.2 rwhp for a manual
rwhp = 512 chp x .80 = 409.6 rwhp for an automatic

The bottom line: Tony's dyno clocks in with what the numbers say it should. The optimistic 410 rwhp is a near dead-ringer for his listed 402 rwhp. On the other hand, your numbers are not even close.

Concluding, it looks like we have a DYNO-GATE on our hands!

Yes, it's rather obvious.

GoRideSno

Lag,
Tony's system is the best looking, I'll give you that. Tony's setup is the best for you because it puts out lower HP per psi boost than any of my setups that have been dynoed. So I am sure you love it for that reason. I put out as much HP with The Jag/Eaton system at 8.5psi on my car as Tony's setup did. Could be his transmission, or something else.

So once again you try to use twisted information to support your belief that you you are more intelligent and superior.

For a small consulting fee you can get the proper information about the thermal efficency of the twin-screw from Corky Bell. Please do this before you develop health problems worrying about how the twin-screws can support as much power as they do.

You need to point out where I threatened you over on the other thread too.

Sincerely,
Andy Keel

Fastest928

Tony has lower compression with his setup. He machined his pistons ...quite nicely I must add!

Marc

Herr-Kuhn

Hey, maybe I should hire "Speed Racer" for my calculating needs? Next year, NC...

DR

>Next year, NC...

Already have a portable DynoJet arranged for next years Sharks in the Mountains :-)

Mark Anderson

I don't think those pistons are in his motor.

all4woody

Beating a dead horse. Is the discussion that 460rwhp can't be made, or that it can't be made by a twin-screw? The Murph kit, which was one of my other choices, put down 463 with the same setup as mine.

Jim_H

I made over 460 with a twin screw and have the dyno sheet to prove. Your sheets, however, are doctored

Sab

edited...
...comparing two cars with equal PSI at same dyno should settle HP questions and creative math...