NZ951

You the man Chris, welcome home!

PS-- ..DELETED - TW

Chris Prack

Thanks NZ. Good thread and it's good to see it's not closed!!

(notice I referred to him as "pole" )

NZ951

Yeah even through some Trolling its still here 32 pages later! Whooo Hooo! Mind you some good moderating helps

Still waiting on the 500WHP dyno chart to be posted! Its like waiting for the golden ticket to Wonka's factory tour to be found.

NZ951

Awww Teddy, that was a great call about the injector size! Dammit lol

TRWright

Don't push me.

Chris Prack

Haha!! I see you have been learning a thing or two!

Your sig gave me an idea for a new thread.

NZ951

Dyno from today Still have LOTS more to be had from tuning, still very rich top end...

RKD in OKC

Rich top end? Then crank up the boost!

NZ951

he he he I was actually there just to prove which Dynopack control software works with the 944's. And I seem to have solved a problem, which is good! See my other thread on it. I think I have another 10-15WHP easily in tuning, especially with some work in the midrange.

RKD in OKC

Hey NZ,

If you are going to post your dynopack numbers without the SAE correction, then I think I need my dynojet number bumped up a little. I posted both SAE and uncorrected dyno charts, my uncorrected chart shows 401.8 rwhp/387.9 torque. That would mean I broke 400, woo hooooo.

RolexNJ

I see that you now did a Dynapack run and posted a new chart, good for you that you made some more HP. If you don't mind, I'd like to point out a few observations.

You orginally said the following to me about posting my 548 RWHP chart. "Rolly, I cant in all good conscience add your 500+ figures to the list... This is a public forum and enough misinformation gets spread as it is. I will however add the 460 whatever if you can post the chart and type of dyno."

If you don't mind, maybe you can help to clarify some things for me, for I'm totally confused here. Your Dynapack chart doesn't show it as SAE, no TQ cuve, and it says "Hp" not "Powerflywheel HP"? Nor do you have any scaling measurements on that chart (which are avaliable), which would be on the right hand-side, like on my chart. You have the print out that shows two charts side by side, where mine is the consolidated one. And I know the Dynapack software pretty well too. Why did you go and cut out the TQ part of that print-out?

So with that all said, how is it your chart is "legit" to post, but mine isn't? I am trying to really understand your logic here, as I'm sure other people are too. When you can, kindly enlighten me as to all those observations, and then as to why my 548 RWHP doesn't make your criteria then.

And oh, to refresh your memory, I am re-attaching my properly-scaled Dynapack chart too. I look forward to hearing your responses.

Thanks in advance, your dear friend "Rolly".

hosrom_951

Good and valid points of you ask me!

NZ951

Thank you for your observations, actually I have you on ignore, so I only saw this as Horseram felt the need to copy it and quote it.

Yes the dyno is Hp, not flywheel like yours. Keen observation, and why amazingly you have 548FWHP which is 465WHP after the drive train loss of 15% is applied, this is the exact same Hp as you got on your last run and NO mods were done, gee I feel like I am repeating myself (and everyone else) here. I dont wish to bring up the fact that you need 1,000psi fuel pressure to achieve 548WHP on your 55lb injectors.

Yes there are no scaling measurements, whats your point? You have a screen dump of the application, I have a print out. Hang on dont answer that, I have you on ignore, and wont be reading it anyways.

Please find the Tq plot attached. I "cut" the Tq out as my thread is ranked by Hp, nevertheless here is the Tq, just for you.

Please refer above to answer your last question... Period.

NZ951

Hey, my chart is corrected... but if you want me to bump yours up, thats fine, we just have to make sure its consistent for everyone though. I am not sure many have even got uncorrected numbers.

hosrom_951

Andrew,
Just because it is printed Flywheel doesn't mean that it is measured that way, some cases it isn't. The only way one could resolve this is to contact the dyno shop, as i recall it, Robert gave all the details for the dyno shop, and the shop also confimed that it is measures at the wheels, but prints flywheel.

With that out of the way, you mentioned 'no modifications' and running the same 55lbs injectors. There was an issue on this very thread about how much boost and what mofifications one does to get on the list, and after pages of dispute, it comes out to having guts to push more boost and engine size. The engien size is the ONLY thing you have made very clear to everyone, being precise to the CC am i right or wrong here?

Then why bring up the issue of what mods did Rob do??

Also, if you have a problem with Rob running 55lbs (and anyone else having this problem), then how come you (and everyone else) is so cool with Joe (DFASTEST951) doing 460+whp on 55lbs injectors as well?????

Finally, you cut out the sheet reading torque since the thread is on HP? this is copied straight from YOU'RE own thread on September 23rd 2005 at 11:40pm +4GMT:

"Rennlist Top 10 HP/TQ "

Don't get me wrong, Robert gave some very valid points which deserved valid explanation, all you did was bash him on his car for modifications, dyno print outs (which he has solid proof of), injector size (where as you support another rennlister and not Rob) and misleading you're own thread, nothing valid from you're side at all there.........sorry