5 replies to this topic

[Shipwright]

This past September I finally installed my 2.3L 2.5 inch pullied VMP TVS and VMP tune. The blower and elbow had also been ported by MRL in Wainwright, Alberta. The supporting mods consist of:

C&R radiator and heat exchanger.
MOROSO large capacity radiator and heat exchanger coolant tanks.
JLT 127 mm CF CAI.
FRPP twin 65 mm CJ throttle body.
VMP 90 mm idler pulley.
Bosch 70 lb fuel injectors
NGK spark plugs.
Dynatech long tube headers and high flow cats (2-1/2 inch).
MMS mufflers.
McLeod twin disc ceramic clutch (RXT).
PST one piece CF drive shaft.

After installing the blower and associated parts and pieces and VMP tune I dynoed the car and got the following results.

The conditions in which the pulls where taken.

1) The pulls where done on an in-floor (permanent) dynojet.
2) The air temperature was 67.93 F.
3) The atmospheric pressure was 14.47 psi.
4) The relative humidity was 57%.
5) The fuel used was 91octane summer blend pump gas.


The results are.



First pull, 639.16 wheel hp, 633.71 wheel tq.
Second pull, 640.42 wheel hp, 632.58 wheel tq.

Using 15% for driveline loss that gives me a maximum of 736.48 Crank HP and 727.47 Crank TQ.


Please ignore the A/F readings at the bottom. The shop was using a sniffer and the readings are 1.0 higher than what my AEM wideband was showing.


While I was at the dyno shop I did some dataloging and sent the results to Justin at VMP. He analyzed the data and told me that the engine was running lean in some areas and rich in others, he then e-mailed me a revised tune which I loaded in my Shelby. As it was getting late in the season I planned on storing the car and postponing the dyno pulls using the new tune until next spring. However, about a month ago there was a "Guy Show" held at the Exhibition Park in Halifax where a dyno was set up (owned by the same individual who helped me datalog my car), so I thought what the hell I'll strap'er down and see what she's got with the revised tune.

Now before I give you the numbers I have to give you the conditions in which the pulls where taken.

1) The pulls where done on a portable dynojet in the great outdoors.
2) The air temperature was 47.4 F (Brrrr).
3) The atmospheric pressure was 14.68 psi.
4) The relative humidity was 40%.
5) The fuel used was 91octane winter blend pump gas.


The results are.




Best run alone.




So you can see other than using crappy gas I'm running in almost ideal conditions. When the first (best) pull was done and the operator gave me the numbers I looked him square in the face and asked him "are you shitting me?" he had to show me the dyno sheet before I would believe him. The results are.

First pull, 703.34 wheel hp, 692.74 wheel tq.
Second pull, 656.90 wheel hp, 662.88 wheel tq (I got off the throttle early).
Third pull, 661.06 wheel hp, 654.85 wheel tq.

Using 15% for driveline loss that gives me a maximum of 808.84 crank HP and 796.65 crank TQ.

I'm at a loss to understand how I got such big numbers on the mods I've got, but I'm sure that when warmer weather comes around next year I'll get lower, more reasonable numbers, probably in the 750 range.

What say you all?

[BlackShelby]

Very Nice.
Just something to consider. Your dyno graphs are displaying uncorrected numbers. Uncorrected #'s depending on weather can be higher or lower depending on the conditions when the pull was actually made.
The only real way to compare dyno numbers is with a sae correction display.
More than likely your correct #'s will be lower since the weather sounded like it was good for those pulls.

Edited by BlackShelby, 06 December 2012 - 06:01 AM.

[Shipwright]

BlackShelby, on 06 December 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

Very Nice.
Just something to consider. Your dyno graphs are displaying uncorrected numbers. Uncorrected #'s depending on weather can be higher or lower depending on the conditions when the pull was actually made.
The only real way to compare dyno numbers is with a sae correction display.
More than likely your correct #'s will be lower since the weather sounded like it was good for those pulls.

Thanks for the information.

[rdrawkit]

Great numbers any which way anyone looks at the results.... ...On the drag strip we experience the same results in performance based on  ALL CONDITIONS same as your  DYNO DAYS....  More runs ===slower times..Heat soak ....Alot of times we base  (guess)  our ET's because of conditions..,, DYNO's show actual potential.....Racing conditions provide actual RESULTS....1st runs in the AM  best results.....After that I'm always trying to reach that 1st ET...Same as your 1st DYNO run... Congrats on your build.....

[Shipwright]

rdrawkit, on 07 December 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Great numbers any which way anyone looks at the results.... ...On the drag strip we experience the same results in performance based on  ALL CONDITIONS same as your  DYNO DAYS....  More runs ===slower times..Heat soak ....Alot of times we base  (guess)  our ET's because of conditions..,, DYNO's show actual potential.....Racing conditions provide actual RESULTS....1st runs in the AM  best results.....After that I'm always trying to reach that 1st ET...Same as your 1st DYNO run... Congrats on your build.....

The reason I'm suprised of my results is because when researching aftermarket blowers, TB, CAI etc.. manufacturers make statement on estimated power increases and often including Dyno sheets. But, the one piece of vital imformation often not found is what grade of gas was used in those runs, and if it is disclosed it's usually 93 or 104 race gas. I'm very impressed that the results that I got where with crappy winter blend 91 octane gas.

[rdrawkit]

Greatl....EVEN BETTER.....