Consolidation of mods, dynos, and track times

[Finnattic]

Differences of "SAE" and "Standard Corrected"

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

It seems I've answered my own question. Long story short:

"SAE" : This standard makes it seem that the test was conducted at 77oF, 29.23 in. of Hg pressure, and a humidity of zero.

"Standard Corrected" : is popular with aftermarket manufacturers because it uses a higher pressure and a lower temperature (denser air), thus inflating the horsepower numbers.


I found a little more info that seems consistent from what has been noted in this discussion...

This is a really informative good read...

It seems SAE is more for naturally aspirated engines and not for say a engine with a turbo. Learning more and more. That's what's it's all about...

"Once the test is complete, the computer "corrects" the data. Environmental conditions such as temperature and atmospheric pressure have a significant effect on the horsepower that an internal combustion engine produces. Fortunately, this effect is well understood and easy for a computer to account for. In order to make useful horsepower comparisons, most test results are tweaked so that it appears that the test was conducted at a specific temperature, pressure, and humidity. In the United States, the most common correction factor is SAE J1349. This standard makes it seem that the test was conducted at 77oF, 29.23 in. of Hg pressure, and a humidity of zero. If you want your horsepower corrected to a different standard, such as EEC (popular in Japan), DIN (popular in Germany), or "standard corrected," you must let me know before I print the results. Remember, the standards use different atmospheric conditions and they will all return different horsepower values. "Standard corrected" is popular with aftermarket manufacturers because it uses a higher pressure and a lower temperature (denser air), thus inflating the horsepower numbers. If you want bragging rights over your peers, make sure all of you use the same standard. You certainly don't want to be seen whipping out your calculators before you go street racing.

You will receive a printout of your vehicle's test results which will consist of a graph plotting horsepower and torque vs. engine rpm (or speed, if you choose.) You will receive a graph plotting your air / fuel ratio vs. rpm if you elected to do such a run, and you will also receive a text printout of the hp and torque vs. rpm or speed for each run."


http://www.bristoldyno.com/info/procedure.htm

http://www.sdsefi.com/techdynojet.htm

[Finnattic]

Originally Posted by celfon

Here's a link to an article about it:

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

Appreciate it celfon, I almost missed your post it was down at the bottom.

Very good read...

[Titan4x4Aggie]

Date: 12/19/2004

I made 8 runs at the Houston Raceway Park on Sunday with eric the head (he was on his bike though).

I averaged around 15.5 sec @ 87.5 mph, with my best 15.485 @ 88.69 mph (shown below). Not bad for a big 4x4 truck with BFG's, but for some reason it always feels faster around town. Guess that's how it always is.

Still, I beat a stock '04 Ford F150 CC 4x2 w/ tow package He said his best was 15.85 sec.

I tried multiple launch techniques, and here is my opinion of the different ones:

1) power brake launch at 2500 - 3000 rpm: too much wheel spin. gained about 1 sec on my average time.

2) power brake launch at 1500 - 2000 rpm: what i used to get my average time; about the same results as a normal stop-light launch.

3) regular launch (punch and go): the way i got my best time.

4) regular launch w/ manual trans mode: slow shifts, gained about 1 sec on my average time.

I also checked my weight on the scales. Said I weighed 5520 lbs WITHOUT me in the truck. My cargo: subwoofer & bandpass box (~40 lbs), 24 pack of water (~25 lbs). That weight seems too high (about 300 lbs too much), even for 4x4 w/ offroad.

Scales could have been off.

Current Mods:

Exhaust: 2 1/2" tubing all the way, Husker X-pipe before the muffler, Flowmaster 50 series (dual in / dual out)

Intake: Fram Air Hog high-flow drop-in filter, stock air box mod (shortened snorkel)

Suspension: Superior Helper Springs for rear leaf springs.

[Finnattic]

Originally Posted by Titan4x4Aggie

Date: 12/19/2004

I made 8 runs at the Houston Raceway Park on Sunday with eric the head (he was on his bike though).

I averaged around 15.5 sec @ 87.5 mph, with my best 15.485 @ 88.69 mph (shown below). Not bad for a big 4x4 truck with BFG's, but for some reason it always feels faster around town. Guess that's how it always is.

Still, I beat a stock '04 Ford F150 CC 4x2 w/ tow package He said his best was 15.85 sec.

I tried multiple launch techniques, and here is my opinion of the different ones:

1) power brake launch at 2500 - 3000 rpm: too much wheel spin. gained about 1 sec on my average time.

2) power brake launch at 1500 - 2000 rpm: what i used to get my average time; about the same results as a normal stop-light launch.

3) regular launch (punch and go): the way i got my best time.

4) regular launch w/ manual trans mode: slow shifts, gained about 1 sec on my average time.

I also checked my weight on the scales. Said I weighed 5520 lbs WITHOUT me in the truck. My cargo: subwoofer & bandpass box (~40 lbs), 24 pack of water (~25 lbs). That weight seems too high (about 300 lbs too much), even for 4x4 w/ offroad.

Scales could have been off.

Current Mods:

Exhaust: 2 1/2" tubing all the way, Husker X-pipe before the muffler, Flowmaster 50 series (dual in / dual out)

Intake: Fram Air Hog high-flow drop-in filter, stock air box mod (shortened snorkel)

Suspension: Superior Helper Springs for rear leaf springs.

Thanks for posting all this Titan4x4Aggie

Nice runs, 5220lbs, that's more than I thought.

I know the manual says don't go above 55 or somewhere close( I can't remember exactly) would you make a run in 4wd or is wheel spin not THAT much of an issue for you. It is for me.

I'm wondering why heads times are faster than yours ( hi 14's) with no NOS and being he has a CC which I would think weighs more. Mods maybe?

Thanks for describing all your launch technique. When I go I'll have a heads up( no pun intended )...

[Finnattic]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm gonna post this in this thread as well as it's applicable...


Here is the best SAE dyno result.

After much discussion, lively at times here is the SAE best dyno ( Gibson mod and Volant), this is the best way to determine gains from mods in naturally aspirated internal combustion engines because it takes all variables out of the equation, altitude, weather, ect.

SAE with just Gibson was a best of 264.36 rwhp = 330.45 bhp
308.47 rwtq = 385.58 btq

SAE after the Volant was a best of 275.86 rwhp = 344.825 bhp
341.59 rwtq = 426.98 btq

Take away all possible variables it is now safe to say I gained

14.375 rwhp = 17.96 bhp
41.155 rwtq = 51.443 btq

The gains are significant, accurate and are proven, there is nothing left to dispute finally...

I find it interesting that I gained pretty much exactly what Volant claims as far as the max torque gain of 40. Add flywheel to that and where looking at 51 btq at the engine. Nice, 18 HP at the engine. Right about what Volant claims.

So it has been PROVEN that Volants claims are factual in my situation with the Gibson mod. I as many have always been skeptical what manufactures claim on their dyno's but this has been substantiated in my independent testing as far as the Volant in my case.

I hope all this info helps and it has been very interesting and I am grateful for everyones contributions. I hope this discussion inspires some to mod it up...... Hope to test something new soon.

[RockyMtnTitan]

Originally Posted by Finnattic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it interesting that I gained pretty much exactly what Volant claims as far as the max torque gain of 40. Add flywheel to that and where looking at 51 btq at the engine. Nice, 18 HP at the engine. Right about what Volant claims.

So it has been PROVEN that Volants claims are factual in my situation with the Gibson mod. I as many have always been skeptical what manufactures claim on their dyno's but this has been substantiated in my independent testing as far as the Volant in my case.

Here's a quote from Joe at Volant that I posted on the main Volant thread earlier this month regarding the actual dyno numbers for the Titan.

"Lastly, the dyno came back at 9.7 hp. Now keep in mind they couldn't run the scoop on it. Also remember those are real numbers, not some crap pulled out of the sky. A lot of dyno guys, when you go in, will ask you how much you want to make? Our guy always runs straight numbers, no bull. So don't believe the other companies with their 20 hp gains."

Here's the second response from Joe after requesting info on torque numbers and whether or not the dyno/torque numbers were corrected.

Hi Steve,

I have been told that those numbers should of already been corrected. They were actually run locally here in California. The kit made 8+ pounds of Torque. I will let you tell me if that is a good number or not. The dyno guys seemed to like it. As you can tell I'm not a motor head. Most I could do is tune up, brakes and oil. So I am not sure if 8+ pounds is good or not. Mostly Steve I am here to help answer unanswered questions. Hope I helped.

Joe


Just more FYI for everyone interested. Not disputing Finns results, as results will vary with each vehicle. I'm sure this was on a Titan with stock exhaust, so obvioustly much more of an increase will be seen with modded exhaust. Also these numbers are at the wheels and are SAE corrected. So, 9.7hp and 8+ lbs is what Volant claims for the Titan, according to Joe, and this seems about right.

[Finnattic]

Originally Posted by RockyMtnTitan

Here's a quote from Joe at Volant that I posted on the main Volant thread earlier this month regarding the actual dyno numbers for the Titan.

"Lastly, the dyno came back at 9.7 hp. Now keep in mind they couldn't run the scoop on it. Also remember those are real numbers, not some crap pulled out of the sky. A lot of dyno guys, when you go in, will ask you how much you want to make? Our guy always runs straight numbers, no bull. So don't believe the other companies with their 20 hp gains."

Here's the second response from Joe after requesting info on torque numbers and whether or not the dyno/torque numbers were corrected.

Hi Steve,

I have been told that those numbers should of already been corrected. They were actually run locally here in California. The kit made 8+ pounds of Torque. I will let you tell me if that is a good number or not. The dyno guys seemed to like it. As you can tell I'm not a motor head. Most I could do is tune up, brakes and oil. So I am not sure if 8+ pounds is good or not. Mostly Steve I am here to help answer unanswered questions. Hope I helped.

Joe


Just more FYI for everyone interested. Not disputing Finns results, as results will vary with each vehicle. I'm sure this was on a Titan with stock exhaust, so obvioustly much more of an increase will be seen with modded exhaust. Also these numbers are at the wheels and are SAE corrected. So, 9.7hp and 8+ lbs is what Volant claims for the Titan, according to Joe, and this seems about right.

Rock-n-Roll RMT,

That's interesting. It has been discussed that with a Volant ALONE your not going to receive optimal performance gains until you replace the restrictive stock exhaust or if one replaces exhaust and not the restrictive intake same thing.

The two almost need one another and I'm going as far as too say if you don't do both your not concerned with the maximum potential of the advantages one could achieve with intake and exhaust modification.

SAE don't lie. I PMed Z to ask all who have posted dyno's to PLEASE post SAE since I was called out on this so heavily and rightly so.(so everyone can be on the same playing field and have accurate truthfully comparisons as this has been covered in great length.) I don't believe all the posted dyno's are all SAE corrected.

[RockyMtnTitan]

Originally Posted by Finnattic

Rock-n-Roll RMT,

That's interesting. It has been discussed that with a Volant ALONE your not going to receive optimal performance gains until you replace the restrictive stock exhaust or if one replaces exhaust and not the restrictive intake same thing.

The two almost need one another and I'm going as far as too say if you don't do both your not concerned with the maximum potential of the advantages one could achieve with intake and exhaust modification.

SAE don't lie. I PMed Z to ask all who have posted dyno's to PLEASE post SAE since I was called out on this so heavily and rightly so.(so everyone can be on the same playing field and have accurate truthfully comparisons as this has been covered in great length.) I don't believe all the posted dyno's are all SAE corrected.

Yeah, SAE is the only way to go, although I posted both just for those that wanted to see them. It's kinda like any scientific experiment where you must have a "control" or a constant to compare with to keep the results from becoming skewed. The SAE is that control because it is un-wavering.

What throws people off, I think, is the whole "actual" vs "corrected" thing. They want to see "actual" because they think it is more accurate, as opposed to "corrected" because.....well hey, it's been corrected! Know what I mean..... it's deceiving. Once you understand that the SAE standard is used as the "control", if you will, then you understand that just the opposite is true. We obviously can't control the weather and barometer, thus the SAE correction factor. Of course, this factor is only as good as the measuring equipments accuracy, but hek.....nothings perfect, right?

Thanks for all your posts on this subject........there's a lot of good stuff goin on with this thread.

[Finnattic]

Originally Posted by RockyMtnTitan

Yeah, SAE is the only way to go, although I posted both just for those that wanted to see them. It's kinda like any scientific experiment where you must have a "control" or a constant to compare with to keep the results from becoming skewed. The SAE is that control because it is un-wavering.

What throws people off, I think, is the whole "actual" vs "corrected" thing. They want to see "actual" because they think it is more accurate, as opposed to "corrected" because.....well hey, it's been corrected! Know what I mean..... it's deceiving. Once you understand that the SAE standard is used as the "control", if you will, then you understand that just the opposite is true. We obviously can't control the weather and barometer, thus the SAE correction factor. Of course, this factor is only as good as the measuring equipments accuracy, but hek.....nothings perfect, right?

Thanks for all your posts on this subject........there's a lot of good stuff goin on with this thread.

Thank you just the same. Couldn't have put it any better me self

I think as it's been suggested to post it all. It's nice to have all the information to disseminate and digest it any way you like. To come to your own conclusions.

Differences-

"Uncorrected"- what HP and Torque made at that time of the dyno with those conditions that were present - weather at that time and altitude, atmospheric pressure.
Environmental conditions such as temperature and atmospheric pressure have a significant effect on the horsepower that an internal combustion engine produces.

Also we need to claify that their IS a difference with "standard corrected" or "corrected" as most refer it as and "SAE":

"SAE" : This standard makes it seem that the test was conducted at 77oF, 29.23 in. of Hg pressure, and a humidity of zero. Note "SAE" is only for naturally aspirated internal combustion engines. A turbo or supercharged engine wouldn't be accurate with this standard...as of now that's not a concern for us though I wish it was

"Standard Corrected" : is popular with aftermarket manufacturers because it uses a higher pressure and a lower temperature (denser air), thus inflating the horsepower numbers.

In the interest of consistency it has been suggested that everyone use "SAE "results.

[GETSOMZ28]

Numbers have been updated.

[graytitan4x4]

the next thing i want is the volant with the ram air scoop. hey have u guys heard of nismos super chager and all. it is said 490 hp i seen pics and damn its huge

[jtmvol]

Just fyi... bone stock, 1,600 miles. I made 3 passes, two 10.20's and one 10.19. CC LE 2 wheel drive... it sure feels like it needs a gear...it's a pig off the line.

[the head]

OK well I give up on trying to label my nitrous jetting. My so called 50hp jets are really cranking out 100hp.

Z28, would you please add this to my data on your spreadsheet.

[the head]

OK I have tried putting the dyno sheet scan on here and the upload keeps telling me it it too big. See my sig for the results.

[the head]

ok trying again