Got the car dyno'ed today...

GTJake said:

Thanks Paul! Means alot coming from you. You were pretty much the first 94-95 guy to try this combo and you've swayed alot of people towards it, including myself. Thanks alot for all the help you've provided me and others over the years!!

Jake

Click to expand...

i can only hope, that once i find the cure to "poor college student syndrome"(ive heard its something called a diploma )that when i get around to actually buying stuff from Ed (and not just asking him questions, which he has always been happy to answer) that i can make those kinds of numbers....my plan when asking for my cam was to include "I want to hit 300rwhp" as part of my "what do you want the car to do"...but now Jake is making it seem like 300RWHP is gonna be slow lol


Edit: Paul has indirectly convinced me to go Edelbrock/FTI/AFR as well


Anthony

Thanks Jake and Anthony! I couldn't be happier with my combo...

Jake, I may be looking to you for help now. I have a chance to get a fox 70mm t-body as well as the cable and such because a guy I know is swapping to a carb setup. I need to look into the J cal for my eec tuner i guess too.

Killercanary said:

Thanks Jake and Anthony! I couldn't be happier with my combo...

Jake, I may be looking to you for help now. I have a chance to get a fox 70mm t-body as well as the cable and such because a guy I know is swapping to a carb setup. I need to look into the J cal for my eec tuner i guess too.

Click to expand...

no prob, your the one who should be thanked, for doing so much with that combo, and helping me decide against original plans that may have not been the best route.....

im still waiting for a back to back dyno test of the fox setup...i really think(i could be wrong) that there is some real power in the fox setup, im pretty convinced thats where the difference in power between similar combos on Foxes and SN's....


Anthony

Holy beegeeeezuz !! That's incredible ! Those are 347 stroker numbers or close to it in many circumstances. I know of a local fellow that just dyno'd 330 rwhp on his 347, so with a 347 on average making 330-350 rwhp you're not far off the mark. Torque is a little higher but who cares. Very nice !

I have to ask you, do you have all the smog equip't on there ?

Way to go !!

Grn92LX said:

STD is the way to go, its what YOUR car made under the given conditions it was in at the time. I only use STD when I dyno. STD is the Real #'s, SAE is just corrected for a certain temp and such for "equal" comparisons. Seeing how not all dynos read the same, comparing still isn't "equal".

Click to expand...

EXACTLY

Edit: LEts clear up some misconceptions about SAE correction factors.......

.................This discussion is meant to give you an idea of why we do corrections and when we apply them, not to actually discuss the specifics of the different standards. A lot of this comes down to definitions and terminology. For example, 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. This means that if you use both systems 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 two different systems.

This leads to the next point. Many of you have noticed that on cool days it seems like your car runs faster than on hot days. That is because it does. If you had a perfect driver on a perfect course and the only difference in the world was the temperature you would run faster times on the cold day. That is because you are making more power on the cold day. This is why I asked when you want to correct. You want to correct when you are doing before and after comparisons or when you are comparing different cars. This is because you need an equalized way of telling if there is a difference. If I ran my car at 50 F and you ran yours at 90 F, I will physically be making more power than you. That does not tell me however if we had both of our cars side by side in the same environment who would have better results. Now, if you wanted to know how fast your car was running on a particular day, you would not want to correct. For example, if I were going to race today I might want to know what my “real” output is so that I can be prepared for how the car will perform.
The thing to remember is your “real” results are the uncorrected numbers. That is what your car was actually doing during the dyno run. But, for the purposes of the Dynoperformance d-base for example, we only want corrected numbers because we are looking at before and after situations and trying to compare different cars and we need a way of taking out the environmental variations. If we couldn’t equalize the test environment, then we would never be able to tell if something made a difference.

89 blue lx said:

wow thats great man i new that port matching the lower would make a difference but i didnt know that it would be that much congrats man!

Click to expand...

There is more to it than that!

tmoss said:

EXACTLY

Click to expand...

I agree as well and so does Bob Kennedy who did my tune and has been in the business for over 40 years and is a serious racer and goes by STD number on his dyno. We don't adjust our ET's at the track for weather conditions etc, so why should the dyno numbers be adjusted?

Sweet results! I"m always amazed at the torque the Ed C. combo's put out. Very Very nice street/strip power there IMO.

Now, what do you say about getting to the track???

Thanks for agreeing with me Tmoss and for the std vs sae explanation! Now, on to where it counts, the TRACK!

Grn92LX said:

Thanks for agreeing with me Tmoss and for the std vs sae explanation! Now, on to where it counts, the TRACK!

Click to expand...

I still say its crap. I understand the premise you are debating upon. In fact, I'm not even disagreeing with your facts.

What I disagree with is you saying STD is the way to go..that is an opinon. If you prefer to use STD, feel free...but to compare apples to apples, usinig a similar SAE conversion is the best way to compare two cars dynoing that could and most likely are in two different atmospheric conditions.

If you want to use STD, go dyno your car on a 105 degree temp day in Denver...then go brag about how your car put down 272/301 when the SAE numbers would put it at 302/334 etc...

I don't want to hijack Jake's thread (maybe too late?) so if you want to discuss this more, start a new thread or something. Like I said before...every dyno operator I have every come across uses SAE numbers...and I'm sure there are a few that don't...opinion.

I get a print out of both SAE and STD when I go. The software just uses a correction factor/curve interpolation for the SAE line and numbers.

tmoss said:

I get a print out of both SAE and STD when I go. The software just uses a correction factor/curve interpolation for the SAE line and numbers.

Click to expand...

Yep I do the same. It's as simple as selecting SAE or STD on the the dyno computer and it translates each pull. Then just click print.

Uncorrected, STD, SAE, who gives a ****?

Jake's car made more power in uncorrected form than 99% of the cars on this board.

I'm retarding my cam 10 degrees and installing it on a 98 degree centerline. She'll spit out dyno numbers you won't believe.

Joe

Best of luck man. Set the bar!

GTJake said:

See sig...



Jake

Click to expand...

What track are you going to on those dates?

JFYI- I just found my dynojet run viewer files tonight and my STD numbers were 301.2rwhp/335.7rwtq, SAE they were 293.8rwhp/327.3rwtq.

Cedar Falls is the "Hall of Hook" isn't it? All concrete track, you should get some great numbers.

That's right...there is a weekend event there that week, right?

Was going to mention that GLD is having an event that weekend so the track should be prepped fairly well and ready to hook. I should be there for that helping some friends out.