My point was the vagaries of numbers bandied about then held as gospel. Showing how we saw a very different curve with just a change in ramp rates AND also some wheelspin just goes to show that really a dyno is useful for tuning your own car imho. I'm sure if we put our car on a Dynojet we'd see a higher figure. Doesn't make the car go 1" faster though.

Where do you get 18% Chris?

 

My butt dyno says that my 2.5 is making 450 hp!

 

Must be a Dynojet brand butt Dyno!

 

Yes, losses are not linear. 15% is a typical 'pull it out of your butt' number! I used 18% as worst case since we seem to be using the highest numbers anybody could muster up!

 

Our local Porsche club use 32% but I've never asked why. This would be rear engine - centric as well which you'd imagine have less trans losses than us?

 

The NSW Porsche club originally used Tillys dyno to obtain that 32% figure. Tillys also has an engine dyno, where multiple Porsche engines were tested then reinstalled in the cars and then put to test on the rollers. The loss was in the 32% range. This is why we cannot compare our numbers to US numbers Patrick.

 

Right. I’d never heard that before Sean. Wonder if they’ve had a Porsche engine on the engine dyno though.
Might explain why our whp numbers have always been lower.

 

Yes quite a few 911 engines from PR.

 

Then we have to allow for engine dynos not measuring 1 to 1. They have their loadings too. Which just comes back to this whole thing of not being able to compare numbers, agreed.

 

Exactly
finally some sanity
One can see all kinds of dyno charts posted that you, if one would use the laws of physics and some common sense, would come to the proper conclusion that the numbers could not possibly be correct.
Yet: "well there's the dyno chart/numbers/graph; that's proof, it must be right"

Geez, you can practically make a chassis dyno read whatever you want it to read.

 

I liked the part about finding the O-ring missing on the compressor housing! So I now see I am not the first to have to replace that O-ring that should have been installed in the first place.

 

Intercooler is likely getting more heat soaked with the earlier one, which is why it makes more torque in the lower RPM rate, but has a slightly lower peak power number.

We think that is what happened with teh attached. When the Millers NT oil was put in, the journal bearing turbo benefited greatly, giving it an earlier spool, which led to a heat soaked intercooler, and lower peak power.

 

You just quoted the pinnacle of the snake oil pitch.....yournal bearing turbos spool faster because of your oil.....

 

That is what we are guessing is going on, can't really figure out anything else that makes sense. But yes, it uses nanotechnology, and cuts the coefficient of friction down. Here are some SAE publications about it:
http://articles.sae.org/11201/
http://articles.sae.org/12798/

That said, one of the funnier quotes I've heard about it came from a well known 911 guy who's actually built a few LeMans engines: "snake oil that really woks and we saw a 4hp increase on a 993 just by changing the gear oil." So you aren't the person to use the snake oil moniker.

 

Quite pleased with the Millers CFS 10W50 NT, been running it for a few thousand km and the engine does seem to run a bit smoother, oil consumption was always low but now it's even lower ... also gained a couple hundred of rpm in spool, but that may be due to fixing a boost leak at the same time... ;^)

Btw are we talking about snake oil in a JME engine thread? This place isn't quite what it used to be...