deoxford

On a earlier thread there was some arguments on the data of a dyno run being valid or not.
So I would like to write a procedure for this test so there is not argument on the data gained.


This is what Colin posted to the question on the earlier post;

Car #1 Description
Stock engine
Stock heat exchangers
Stock exhaust or cat bypass & primary bypass

Test Car #1 (all runs to be done on same day)
Dyno car with stock chip
Dyno car with Steve Wong or other popular chip
Dyno car with MAF kit

This test will prove the MAF kit


Optional Test
Car #2 Description
Modified engine with larger injectors...other mods can also exist (cams, 3.8L, etc)

Test Car #2
Dyno car with current setup (I assume a modified engine would already have a chip of some sort)
Dyno car with MAF kit (programming should be tuned for this modified car)

This test will prove the MAF kit is better at handling modified engines

deoxford

Colin ,
I don't agree with the CAR #1 and test car part.
The car need to be the same so that any other variables can be ruled out.

The car without the set up or part , then the car with the set up or part

Then you have your blank, and sample.

I hope Paul will add some input to the correct method

Ritter v4.0

How about a (my) car with:

1. no cat, primary bypass, stock airbox + Stock Chip,
2. same plus Wong Chip
3. same plus Vitesse MAF/chip

deoxford

Ritter,
That sound good, but we need to agree on the SOP.
Adding the Steve Wong chip will only test that chip from stock.
I think each test should be the sample for the blank, then the sample are changed .

Maybe

1. no cat, primary bypass, stock airbox + Stock Chip ( Becomes the blank )

2. same plus Wong Chip ( becomes sample one against the blank) only need if testing more then one Mod . To be clear the mods need to be the same ie ; Wong Chip, Promax Chip

3. same plus Vitesse MAF/chip (become a sample against the blank ) Testing the MAF and the program to run it. , if run with more then one they need to be the same mod again.
ie, Authority MAF, Promax MAF , 993 MAF.

Ritter v4.0

To be honest Derek, and I don't mean this to sound rude, while I am happy to share my results, I only have something to prove to myself. I've been meaning to test the Wong chip so will do that over stock chip. The same for the MAF conversion.

I'm far too lazy to swap out cats and primaries at this stage. My car hasn't been stock in 140,000 miles!

But I do agree with you proposed above- good luck!

garrett376

In a week or two, I plan on doing what you suggest: two cars of same year, one stock, one not... various changes... I am just working out a deal with the dyno location to give me enough time to do all the changes.

deoxford

How do you like the Kit?
I have not heard from anyone else that bought it , I really enjoy it so far, and I can't wait till I go back to the track.

deoxford

David,
I know what you mean , I don't what to get under there and change out the cat either.
I am just saying that only one thing needs to be changed, if the cat stays on it stays on the car for all the test.
It is not necessary to run a lot of test , i was just using that for an example

I did not get in to the DE in a few weeks, I was out of town when it opened and did not get it off in time. I am really upset I going to miss it. I am lookiing on CoCo's for my first event this year.

Geoffrey

This is really only part of what would be required for a proper test. You would need to establish the testing methodology

1) The cooling methodology
2) The cylinder head temp that the test is run at
3) The engine temperature the test will be run at
4) The gear the car is tested int
5) The ramp rate at which the test will be conducted
6) The RPM range that the engine will run through
7) The tire diameter the car will be run on if on a roller type dyno
8) The tire pressure of the tires if on a roller type dyno
9) The octane of the fuel the test is run with
10) The oil viscosity used in the engine

I could contine, but you get the idea...

38D

If done with the same car on the same day, #1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10 will all be the same, so you really just have to monitor #2 and #3...correct? Also would make sense to use a dynapack to eliminate any tire slip/pressure deltas. I think the purpose of the test is to show a relative gain vs. stock chip and Steve Wong chip.

springer3

I have offered to support Garrett's test, and I am still game for running some sort of objective evaluation in Atlanta. Derek, your suggested SOP is fine with me, and I renew my offer to observe and provide an objective report to the forum.

John closed his thread after claiming our side-by-side acceleration test was biased against his product. That is not the case. I would enjoy a performance increase and wanted to buy his MAF kit. "Get a PPI" is practically a matra on this board, and we agreed on a fair and simple test to see if the MAF car would run faster than a car in basic factory tune. I deny John's allegations that my car is modified or I ran better fuel or I somehow have a bias against him.

The only concern I have over testing now is the cold weather. Derek's "before MAF" run is higher than the factory's 247 HP specification. Either the dyno is out of calibration, or the cold air is letting the engine make more power. Perhaps we should also do it again in the Summer. Timing advance in the revised chips may perform great in cold air, but will trigger the knock protection system in the hot weather.

jneteler

Springer,

The drag race didn't prove anything one way or another as to the effectiveness of the mod. The dyno results show before and after modification and are, therefore, the best data available, so far.

If the drag race had been run before and after then a comparison could be made.

It could be that your set up is "stock" and the mod did not have an effect. Or it could be that Derek's car had less power than your car before modification. The point is that without before/after testing the drag race is like the sound of one hand clapping.

Until someone presents better or additional data this is where it will have to stand with respect to the drag race.

Best Wishes in the New Year,

JNeteler

deoxford

Paul,
It should not matter if we use the same instrument for the analysis. right. Maybe the number is little high or low . But it is good for what we are doing this is not ppb. If it is high on the blank it will be high on the sample
And am I correct to say the car with the AFm is the( blank) and the MAF is the (Sample)?
It sounds like you are in the lab more then me , so maybe I am missing something, but I don't think so.


As for the Observing , are you implying I did something wrong on the dyno?

Once again this not in a disrespectful tone

deep_uv

Derek, this is going to cost you time and money. As I am interested in the results, I would be glad to chip in to help defray the costs to you. When the SOP is agreed upon and the costs can be estimated, let me know how best to do that. I'm sure others will be willing to do the same, right guys?

I personally am interested in the difference between the (1)Stock chip, (2)Steve Wong chip, (3)Vitesse MAF w/ custom tuned chip while using a cat bypass and primary bypass with each of those 3 variables.

Best regards to all and Happy New Year,

TR6

I think a well thought out dyno test on the same car on the same day changing only the mod(s) that you want to test for is extremely valuable. But I'm tire of hearing about the 'drag race' that has no real value in terms of a controlled parameter test. No offense intended, but do we have to bring that useless and tired topic into this thead also? Its time to move on....