Z

STD correction, SAE correction, and G-Tech results from my normally aspirated, stock displacement '88 S4 A/T.

pmotts

My 90GT w/ 145k. Ott X & 2 1/2" exhaust. Corrected 1st, uncorrected 2nd

shaaark89

well here's the best i have though you have to calculate the hp as the curve is f*cked up. hp=(torque*rpm)/5252

mark kibort

how did you get this kind of power out of a normally aspirated 5 liter, auto to boot???? thats great.

i think we all NEED to put down mods here as well. NEW RULE: list mods

mk

mark kibort

something really wrong with this. i get near 600hp for your graph, if the torque curve is correct. they should intersect at 5250, so at that rpm, torque and HP are equal. (as long as you are talking rpms and ft-lbs of torque)

mk

shaaark89

the torque curve is correct, and yes it is 597 rwhp at 7000 rpm.
6.4 liter, 12:1 compression, 52mm throttle bodies (courtesy of louie ott), b1 cams, ported heads, etc.

AO

I'll call BS on that one Tom , only becasue you don't have proper dyno chart. That's like me showing a time slip that says 13.9, but saying I really did it in 12.0 flat. Although I'm sure your beast can do it, you just don't have the "proof."

Get us a proper dyno sheet... c'mon man... or better yet, drive it to SITM and we'll hook up my G-tech!

shaaark89

andrew,
the dyno sheet came from louie ott and unfortunately i don't have the hard data file to try to fix it. the car will be back on the dyno at some point for more tuning so i'm sure there will be more postings.
for those who don't know, this is from don hansons race car that i bought a few months back, so driving it to sitm would pose a bit of a problem. it's very real data though. remember that a dyno only measures torque and calculates the hp using the above mentioned formula.

i'm actually more impressed with z's numbers from the s4 auto. i know he has tweeked alot of things but i would be curious to see exactly what.

Imo000

As promised, pics of the time slips. Right is the best ET (12.872) and the other two are the highest mph (109.98 & 110.42). The ink on the slips is petty faint, I hope they are visible enough.

Louie928

That dyno graph is from a raw file Don Hanson emailed me. It's from when the shop that built his engine ran it and did some minimal amount of tuning. Opening the file with the Dynojet run viewer gave the flattened hp curve, but did display the torque. I checked here and I don't have the raw data file anymore. Like Tom said, the hp is calculated from the torque so you can check what the hp would be. The correction appears to be to Standard day, not SAE. The results are not out of line with what it should be. More tuning time should get another 15 - 20 hp.

mark kibort

as louie said, its very accurate (if the torque curve is real). I think your analogy below would be more like if you ran the dyno test to 5000rpm and saw 500hp and then estimated the curve projecting that it would be 600hp at 7000rpm. However, he has the hard torque number at 7000rpm which is near 600hp!

thats an amazing engine. you could run the engine to 5200rpm and shortshift during a race and still be putting down 20 more hp than Mark Andersons monster!

mk

AO

Mark... you're ruining it for me... I have no doubt that that engine is a monster, I'm just trying to get Tom to bring a beast down to SITM so we have some REAL fun!

mark kibort

sorry about that

Here is the comparison of the dyno runs with the only change going from 4.7 liter to 5.0 liter. all euro stuff both runs, but new engine has correct offset pistons. (like an S4 for better rod to pison angles)

MK

John Veninger

Still needs a bit more tuning........

Z

The exhaust setup is fairly standard stuff and ceramic coated. Tuning is with a Dastek. Besides that, a lot of measuring, tweaking, and experimenting. Cams are the stock S4 ones, and I've never had the heads off. I think a little more could be gained without going into the engine, but it hardly seems worth the time and effort to mess around with a lot of the stuff for a few horsepower, when boost can be added in a few hours and give well over 100 more horsepower. It might be interesting to see what some intake manifold stuff I've been thinking about might do though, and maybe some '85-'86 cams, but again for the time, effort and money, it wouldn't be worthwhile compared to other options now available. It'd be more out of curiosity.

Tom, I'm not bashing your numbers, like that Andrew Olson character is, but there are at least two things that are making them look somewhat high when people look at them. The chart is using the STD correction factor, which gives higher numbers than the SAE correction that seems to get used more often. Another thing is that the data file is being displayed with the old DynoJet Runviewer software that they used to have available for free download from their web site. For whatever reason, that software gives higher numbers than if the same run data file is looked at with the DynoJet WinPEP software that the dynos use. To illustrate the difference it can make, here's the exact same run that Tim posted earlier for his car, only this time the data file is displayed with that Runviewer software and the STD correction: