Consolidation of mods, dynos, and track times

[RockyMtnTitan]

Originally Posted by sapper1971

RockyMtnTitan, What kind of gain, if any, did you see with the K&N drop in filter over the stock air filter??

It is a considerable gain in cfm. I'll post all the numbers after installing the Volant, hopefully in a couple days.

[RockyMtnTitan]

Originally Posted by Finnattic

Heck I'll prob dyno again too just cause I can't help myself.

Hi, my name is Mike, and yes.....I'm a Dynoholic

Thanks, for posting the dyno results......nice numbers!

[Finnattic]

Originally Posted by RockyMtnTitan

Hi, my name is Mike, and yes.....I'm a Dynoholic

Thanks, for posting the dyno results......nice numbers!

[Finnattic]

I went back and dynoed with a cooler engine did better:

It was about 10 degrees cooler and about 15% more humidity today during testing. Pretty similar conditions...

Since it seems that I'm not conforming with Nascar and the National Hotrod Association Rulebook and causing such uproar among the ranks and Controversy I'll post the corrected SAE numbers as well as they kick just as much Azz..


286.51 rwhp

352.93 torque

[Mike Up]

Originally Posted by GETSOMZ28

Here is a little project I am working on to better consolidate/track all the differences performance mods make. I will keep a master excel spreadsheet of all of this. If anyone would like to update some of the info or add to it, either post it in this thread or pm it to me.

Seems like there are some discrempancies in STOCK measurements.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1

titan929rr 256.43 Hp & 289.99 ft/lbs Torque

JetTech 256 Hp & 301 ft/lbs Torque
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 2

Steve04SE 273 Hp & 339 ft/lbs Torque

lizardking 273 Hp & 336 ft/lbs Torque

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some pretty huge differences between group 1 and 2 on dyno findings.

With a 20% driveline loss group 1 would have an average flywheel power of 320 Hp & 369 ft/lbs of Torque

Group 2s flywheel power average is 341 Hp & 422 ft/lbs Torque

I believe group 1's findings are more accurate as group 2's findings in stock form are higher than many people's "mods" findings.

So I'm thinking driveline loss is really about 25%. Based on group 1's flywheel averaged power, that would be 341 Hp (similar to Hemi's rating) and 394 ft/lbs of Torque. I'm betting this is really our truck's "true" ratings compared to Nissan's under rated specs.

Group 2's flywheel power averaged base on 25% driveline loss would be 364 Hp and 450 ft/lbs of torque.

Have a good one.

[Mike Up]

Originally Posted by Mike Up

Seems like there are some discrempancies in STOCK measurements.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1

titan929rr 256.43 Hp & 289.99 ft/lbs Torque

JetTech 256 Hp & 301 ft/lbs Torque
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe group 1's findings are more accurate as group 2's findings in stock form are higher than many people's "mods" findings.

So I'm thinking driveline loss is really about 25%. Based on group 1's flywheel averaged power, that would be 341 Hp (similar to Hemi's rating) and 394 ft/lbs of Torque. I'm betting this is really our truck's "true" ratings compared to Nissan's under rated specs.

Have a good one.

I believe the above is correct as the Hemi is rated at 345 Hp and 375 ft/lbs of torque. A performance modification site has the Hemi dynoed almost the same as Group 1's findings. The Hemi dynoed at 261 Hp & 288 ft/lbs Torque. See here.

I truly now believe are 'true' ratings are 341 Hp & 394 ft/lbs Torque and there is a 25% driveline loss.

Thanks guys for the good information on the compilation.

Have a good one.

[Finnattic]

Originally Posted by Mike Up

I believe the above is correct as the Hemi is rated at 345 Hp and 375 ft/lbs of torque. A performance modification site has the Hemi dynoed almost the same as Group 1's findings. The Hemi dynoed at 261 Hp & 288 ft/lbs Torque. See here.

I truly now believe are 'true' ratings are 341 Hp & 394 ft/lbs Torque and there is a 25% driveline loss.

Thanks guys for the good information on the compilation.

Have a good one.

With a 25% loss I can see where you come to your conclusion. I think it's pretty damm close from what we have seen...

I'm definitely with you on the 25% loss....

[RockyMtnTitan]

Keep in mind that driveline loss is more for 4X4 than 4X2. Beltronics FX2 literature recommends using 25% driveline loss for 4X4 w/ AT, and 20% loss for 4X2 w/ AT. Not sure what the losses for each drive train type are for our Titans, but just wanted to point out the fact that the difference in these groups 1 & 2 numbers could be drive train types. Not sure who's got what, but just a thought.

[GETSOMZ28]

Guys, this is mainly to show you the gains (or losses) the different modifications make. Everybody's baseline will be a little different since some dynos are more generous than others (different calibrations). Case in point, we have two dyno jets here in Abq, and they are off by about 6hp from each other, but the gains are consistent.

[Finnattic]

Originally Posted by RockyMtnTitan

Keep in mind that driveline loss is more for 4X4 than 4X2. Beltronics FX2 literature recommends using 25% driveline loss for 4X4 w/ AT, and 20% loss for 4X2 w/ AT. Not sure what the losses for each drive train type are for our Titans, but just wanted to point out the fact that the difference in these groups 1 & 2 numbers could be drive train types. Not sure who's got what, but just a thought.

Yeah maybe I'll give myself an extra 5%

[RockyMtnTitan]

Originally Posted by GETSOMZ28

Guys, this is mainly to show you the gains (or losses) the different modifications make. Everybody's baseline will be a little different since some dynos are more generous than others (different calibrations). Case in point, we have two dyno jets here in Abq, and they are off by about 6hp from each other, but the gains are consistent.

Good Point! I've been told, though, that the dynojets are more consistent than other dynos because of the wheel drums are a consistent weight (1600lbs, I think) as opposed to a water wheel or dynos that use an electric brake to simulate load. But any two dynos will be off a bit as Z has pointed out, because of calibration factors as well as the dyno operators techniques. That's why I believe, whenever possible, you should use the same dyno and operator to verify your gains.

[Finnattic]

I found this dyno of SAE results after I installed the Gibson. This is pre volant as I've yet to post those SAE results yet.

After all the discussion I thought it would be informative to post this as well as when I post the after Volant SAE it seems that's going to be the most accurate representation of how much the Volant gained.


Having said all this for you more experienced out there what is the difference between "corrected" and SAE? I noticed the two have different results.

I realize the difference between "uncorrected" and "corrected" but not "SAE" and "corrected." From what I can see the SAE results are lower than the "corrected."

"Uncorrected" being the highest which I've already posted.


Now here is a question I hope someone knows the answer too. To be fair here:

What method do manufacturers use when posting flywheel horsepower? ie Nissan Titan: 305HP
379 torque
Do they use corrected, SAE, uncorrected?


Now since some have made the point SAE is the real "Industry Standard" I'm gonna go with what I think is a more "real" driveline loss for this 4 wheel drive of 25%.
If anyone see's it different please chime in.

So with a 25% loss where at 330.45 rwhp after Gibson SAE results
383.85 torque SAE after Gibson results

Enjoy Gearheds

[KL99SEA]

I honestly don't know what the difference between corrected and SAE are. I just knew there was a difference in uncorrected being that it was not ajusted to remove variances in humidity and temp when the dyno was done. I thought there was the actual data IE:uncorrected, and then the dyno would run correction factors into this to standardize the temp/humidity(elevation?) so comparisons between locations could be made. Did you ask the dyno operators anything about it? They should know. I'm sure someone here can answer this. I may stop by my local dynoshop and talk a little to them about it.

[Finnattic]

Originally Posted by KL99SEA

I honestly don't know what the difference between corrected and SAE are. I just knew there was a difference in uncorrected being that it was not ajusted to remove variances in humidity and temp when the dyno was done. I thought there was the actual data IE:uncorrected, and then the dyno would run correction factors into this to standardize the temp/humidity(elevation?) so comparisons between locations could be made. Did you ask the dyno operators anything about it? They should know. I'm sure someone here can answer this. I may stop by my local dynoshop and talk a little to them about it.

Thanks for the reply, I remember talking a little about this at the shop and I remember them telling me about how many different results the DynoJet could spit out: example: uncorrected, corrected, SAE and a few more. I do remember him saying SAE is what the standard is...

[celfon]

Here's a link to an article about it:

http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm