New kid on the block
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,894
Likes: 9
From: Tampa, FL
Originally Posted by TheMidasTouch,Sep 14 2010, 12:07 PM
You were saying?
Your failure doesn't implicate an impossibility... Narrow minded ignorant children.
This is the data log from run 7 on 11 Sep 10 while I was tuning this car.
I can provide comparable dyno runs to indicate the normalcy for how this dyno reads, if needs be.
The world is flat... please.
Your failure doesn't implicate an impossibility... Narrow minded ignorant children.
This is the data log from run 7 on 11 Sep 10 while I was tuning this car.
I can provide comparable dyno runs to indicate the normalcy for how this dyno reads, if needs be.
The world is flat... please.
Ok you want to prove how your dyno and tuning is legit? Take that car to the track and trap 140mph. ROFL
As for your snarky comments, you probably don't want to go down that road with me. I'm quite the expert of making liars look like fools over the internet. True story.
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,969
Likes: 16
From: DENVER
Damn I didn't mean to start a pissing match....but I should have known.
I honestly don't know everything about tuning or dyno's, I was just passing on the info that was told to me. I am in no way trying to inflate #'s or anything like that.
The guy running the dyno showed me the uncorrected # at one point, it was between 450-475 IIRC.
A bunch of the local S2K members (including myself) have used this same dyno in the past. My buddies 2001 AP1 put down mid 190's. After installing K-Pro on another friends 2003, he put down 220-230. My SC'd AP1 hit 356 (I think we were getting around 9psi).
Bottom line is that I'm happy with the car! It feels strong and pulls hard....that's what I wanted.
Maybe I'll get it on a different dyno just for my own piece of mind.
Scott-
I honestly don't know everything about tuning or dyno's, I was just passing on the info that was told to me. I am in no way trying to inflate #'s or anything like that.
The guy running the dyno showed me the uncorrected # at one point, it was between 450-475 IIRC.
A bunch of the local S2K members (including myself) have used this same dyno in the past. My buddies 2001 AP1 put down mid 190's. After installing K-Pro on another friends 2003, he put down 220-230. My SC'd AP1 hit 356 (I think we were getting around 9psi).
Bottom line is that I'm happy with the car! It feels strong and pulls hard....that's what I wanted.
Maybe I'll get it on a different dyno just for my own piece of mind.
Scott-
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,894
Likes: 9
From: Tampa, FL
Originally Posted by S2K-F8,Sep 14 2010, 02:19 PM
The guy running the dyno showed me the uncorrected # at one point, it was between 450-475 IIRC.
Thanks Scott. You're cool, but your tuner is a douche.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
From: Lakeland, Florida
Originally Posted by S2K-F8,Sep 14 2010, 01:19 PM
The guy running the dyno showed me the uncorrected # at one point, it was between 450-475 IIRC.
spectacle-
i couldnt agree more bro. you know. ive been sayin it on here for a while. shit like this just "dumbs-down" the whole S2K community.
facts move us forward, bs drags everyone back.
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
So your ONLY argument is that you don't understand what happened with a dyno, and other people haven't done it before... If I'm an arrogant tool, you're an ignorant one.
What are your 'facts' exactly to counter mine? I've provided dyno comparisons, data logs, and map settings (not to mention common sense).
You kids are so complacent with your normalcy that you automatically dismiss extraordinary results as impossible. It's sad, and pathetic.
At least this guy understands. But we're not talking 100hp of inflation, it's still needs correction....
dsddcd, for your arguments to be valid, tq's correlation to HP would have to be divergent. Here are a couple examples of instant (and correlating if you check the calculation's) values. The scale would have to be off between comparison runs if this was the case, but they're absolute.
And as far as the map sensor is concerned, it's still on the wastegate. We tried to increase the boost and break 600 by hitting 15-16lbs and gave up (since we're so close to the limit already). The run that's making 40lbs more torque is an example of us hitting boost cut set to 17 and quitting.
373 tq @8165rpm = 581...
385 tq @6685rpm = 490
And if you think uncorrected values at sea level would be any less then 540 at sea level you obviously have no experience with tuning. There's still basis behind SAE correction...
What are your 'facts' exactly to counter mine? I've provided dyno comparisons, data logs, and map settings (not to mention common sense).
You kids are so complacent with your normalcy that you automatically dismiss extraordinary results as impossible. It's sad, and pathetic.
Originally Posted by spdracerut
The SAE correction factor for altitude is not the correct formula for forced induction cars; it is correct for NA cars.
For forced induction cars, the SAE correction will over inflate the numbers.
But really? Who gives a f*** what the numbers are? If the car drives well, then that's all that matters.
For forced induction cars, the SAE correction will over inflate the numbers.
But really? Who gives a f*** what the numbers are? If the car drives well, then that's all that matters.
dsddcd, for your arguments to be valid, tq's correlation to HP would have to be divergent. Here are a couple examples of instant (and correlating if you check the calculation's) values. The scale would have to be off between comparison runs if this was the case, but they're absolute.
And as far as the map sensor is concerned, it's still on the wastegate. We tried to increase the boost and break 600 by hitting 15-16lbs and gave up (since we're so close to the limit already). The run that's making 40lbs more torque is an example of us hitting boost cut set to 17 and quitting.
373 tq @8165rpm = 581...
385 tq @6685rpm = 490
And if you think uncorrected values at sea level would be any less then 540 at sea level you obviously have no experience with tuning. There's still basis behind SAE correction...
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville
Originally Posted by TheMidasTouch,Sep 14 2010, 10:28 AM
And if you think uncorrected values at sea level would be any less then 540 at sea level you obviously have no experience with tuning. There's still basis behind SAE correction...
but what do i know. Ive only probably tuned more s2000s (and in more states and countries) than anyone else in the world.
