Nice!, you carried your peak torque higher than my stock SD cam and made more HP, but we both got that 330 torque.
Who says stock iron can't make power??????????
Who says stock iron can't make power??????????
finally got dynoed
- Thread starter 94gtslow
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Scans are often done in bitmap form (bmp) and if you convert it to a jpeg or even gif format the size of the file will be much smaller.
legalize420
Active Member
95Vert
New Member
Hey 94gtslow, we have almost the idetical combo and you're pulling 50+hp/tq more than me. This damn tranny is killing me.
legalize420
Active Member
what would be a good shift point based on that graph? it looks like max power is at about 5200-5300. is that what you go by?
The curves look pretty good. 
This is a bit different than what is usually seen.
I see the word Dynojet at the top of the page.
Does this mean the dyno was a Dynojet?
I see SAE used in the top right hand corner with the word smoothing.
SAE is also used in the foot notes.
I wonder if these values are uncorrected or SAE values?
Grady
This is a bit different than what is usually seen.
I see the word Dynojet at the top of the page.
Does this mean the dyno was a Dynojet?
I see SAE used in the top right hand corner with the word smoothing.
SAE is also used in the foot notes.
I wonder if these values are uncorrected or SAE values?
Grady
They are SAE corrected Grady - the correction value of 1.13 is in the info at the bottom of the graph.
tmoss said:
Hey Tom
A little knowledge from you if you please.
When looking over the charts I wondered about the SAE value of 1.13
I know it is used to alter the actual results to try and keep things equal or make it appear that the pull was done under optimum conditions.
This value is > 1.00
Would that mean his actual results were multiplied by this value and be greater than those results?
If the value were < 1.00 you'd have the opposite?
Grady
The SAE corrects for conditions............
"Most of the standards that are presently used are defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). When something is corrected to those standards it is often said that this run was “SAE Corrected.” Now, one of the problems with this is that SAE has a few different standards which are frequently used in the industry. So, if I say that this is SAE corrected how do you know which one? One of the main differences between the various specs is what they consider to be a “normal environment.” After all, that is all that these formulae do. They correct the numbers coming out of the dyno for the environment. There are many factors that go into these calculations. Among them are temperature, humidity, pressure, and altitude. The J607 specification uses a temperature of 60 F as “normal” compared to J1349 (or J1985) which used 77 F. SAE J816B uses 85 Degrees, 29.00 Barometer. This means that if you use these factors with the same set of data you will get higher results for HP/TRQ with the J607. That means you cannot compare corrected data from the different correction factors".
"Most of the standards that are presently used are defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). When something is corrected to those standards it is often said that this run was “SAE Corrected.” Now, one of the problems with this is that SAE has a few different standards which are frequently used in the industry. So, if I say that this is SAE corrected how do you know which one? One of the main differences between the various specs is what they consider to be a “normal environment.” After all, that is all that these formulae do. They correct the numbers coming out of the dyno for the environment. There are many factors that go into these calculations. Among them are temperature, humidity, pressure, and altitude. The J607 specification uses a temperature of 60 F as “normal” compared to J1349 (or J1985) which used 77 F. SAE J816B uses 85 Degrees, 29.00 Barometer. This means that if you use these factors with the same set of data you will get higher results for HP/TRQ with the J607. That means you cannot compare corrected data from the different correction factors".
tmoss said:
Thanks for the great info Tom.
I now remember a large thread a long time ago about this very thing.
That is most likely why I was thinking there was some kind of gotcha about this topic.
I do try and make sure the dyno being used is a Dynojet and the values are SAE when comparing combos.
however
I can see now see how a Speed Shop Guy with a Dyno could pick between the various SAE formulas to give the highest values displayed of the pull.
Grady
Hey 94gtslow
I had the time to look more closely at your pull today.
I gotta tell ya, 300 lbs or better from 3200 to 5100 ain't bad.
I like how things look here.
Did your dyno guy provide for you numerical values that went along with your chart results?
The reason I ask is because
The display tick marks are split at values of 20
Taking a look at your hp side of the chart ........
You plainly see the peak rwhp listed at 294
but yet
It looks like about 299
I usually can get real close (within 1 or 2) with a chart that is as clean and straight as the one you provided for us
but
this method of display is somehow different and I can't even get close with the hp values.
The Torque side of the chart seems to be about like I would expect based upon the listed torque value of 330.
I'm at a loss of why the HP displays the way it does
Anyway, I was looking forward to putting your pull next to several others
but
my normal method of guess ta mating is not as accurate as usual
Again, the curves look like it would be a lot of fun to drive around on the street.
Grady
I had the time to look more closely at your pull today.
I gotta tell ya, 300 lbs or better from 3200 to 5100 ain't bad.
I like how things look here.
Did your dyno guy provide for you numerical values that went along with your chart results?
The reason I ask is because
The display tick marks are split at values of 20
Taking a look at your hp side of the chart ........
You plainly see the peak rwhp listed at 294
but yet
It looks like about 299
I usually can get real close (within 1 or 2) with a chart that is as clean and straight as the one you provided for us
but
this method of display is somehow different and I can't even get close with the hp values.
The Torque side of the chart seems to be about like I would expect based upon the listed torque value of 330.
I'm at a loss of why the HP displays the way it does
Anyway, I was looking forward to putting your pull next to several others
but
my normal method of guess ta mating is not as accurate as usual
Again, the curves look like it would be a lot of fun to drive around on the street.
Grady
Similar threads
