[ba] Re: [s-cars] 80tq: 20v Project Update, 415whp, 12.25, etc

[JShadzi at aol.com]

Philip, where I dyno, elevation is zero, and temp is usually between 75 and 85 degrees (the reference is 77 degrees F), so the correction figures for my conditions are usually nill.

And it wasn't "a zillion HP" (is that really a number Phillip...COMON NOW!!  I  think you're pulling my leg??!!  ;) , though a million HP is my real target, working on it!

Javad

>You're certainly entitled to believe any set of numbers you wish.  The
>Society of Automotive Engineers just needed a way to make the data from one
>engine comparable to another.  When engineers create things we have to know
>how we're really doing, so all the numbers need to relate to a level playing
>field.  The original "Tuner Community" was a bunch of smart people trying to
>win WWII - they couldn't kid themselves.
>
>I applaud your efforts to mod your car, and I'm sure you're making a fun
>amount of power.  If it's important for you to believe your engine is making
>a zillion horsepower you have that right.  But for me if the number ain't
>corrected, it's wrong.
>
>P
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <JShadzi at aol.com>
>To: <Djdawson2 at aol.com>; <brett at cloud9.net>; <s-car-list at audifans.com>;
><quattro at audifans.com>; <urq at audifans.com>; <ba-group at audifans.com>
>Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:59 PM
>Subject: Re: [s-cars] 80tq: 20v Project Update, 415whp, 12.25, etc
>
>
>>
>> Hey Dave,
>>
>> I just wanted to clarify (and speak for myself), that I didn't post here
>to
>> attack anyone or call anyone into question - I just wanted to share some
>> excitement with other Audi-turbo-heads about my project, that's all!   =)
>(really
>> big, bad-tone defying smile)
>>
>> In my original post, I stated that I was quoting an "uncorrected  figure".
>> I'm of the opinion that SAE correction figures for turbocharged  motors
>are not
>> valid, nothing personal against you, I'm not the only one in  the "tuning
>> community" that feels this way, and I've taken the advice of
>tuners/engineers
>> with much more experience and understanding of this topic than  I do.  Do
>a
>> little research, you'll quickly find I'm not the only one  saying this.
>>
>> I also have to admit that I know very little about your project or its
>> results - care to share your experiences? I'm sure you have plenty with
>the  S-car
>> list in the past, but I'd love to hear about it, sounds like you've got a
>> project with a lot of passion and energy invested into it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Javad
>>
>> In a message dated 11/11/2004 8:03:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, Djdawson2
>> writes:
>>
>> Sorry, but you need to go back  to school.  If the air is being forced in
>or
>> not, the conditions, if not  standardized, do have an impact.  They may
>have a
>> different impact (as a  percentage), but to say they don't apply to turbo
>> engines is absolutely and  unquestionably inaccurate.  Does your car run
>the same
>> on a 100 degree  day as a 30 degree day?  Of course not.  That means that
>> some sort  of correction is REQUIRED to normalize the tests.  Otherwise,
>we can
>> just  wait for that 20 degree day, test the car "uncorrected," and claim
>> victory  because Brett said that temp, pressure, and humidity don't matter
>to turbo
>> cars.
>>
>> I  can appreciate your list of typical dyno tricks, but we're not quite
>that
>> stupid.  There are a few of us here, interested in taking a scientific
>> approach to engine tuning.  The "cheating" concepts that you've spoken of
>don't
>> pertain to my concept of scientific, and an exaggerated number doesn't
>provide
>> me any benefit.  If you had looked at my latest graph, you'd see  72 F,
>24.4
>> in Hg, and 7% humidity... all very reasonable, no  tampering.
>>
>> Seems like some of you think there is a conspiracy theory  WRT dyno
>testing
>> by us Denver folks.  Well, there isn't a conspiracy,  more likely an
>interest
>> in finding what correction is reasonable... and one is  required.  Anyone
>> claiming that there is no difference between  uncorrected power at
>altitude vs.
>> uncorrected at sea level just because  there's a turbo involved, needs to
>revisit
>> their textbooks.
>>
>> To satisfy  my curiosity, I'll go to a sea level dyno and see just exactly
>> what the  difference is... but I'm going to guess someone will still "cry
>foul."
>>
>> BTW, I'm not interested in confrontational speculation, just  real
>results.
>> So don't take my comments personally.  However, don't  just throw "stuff"
>out
>> there as fact, that simply isn't fact.  The  conditions surrounding the
>test
>> ALWAYS have an impact, and to claim that they  don't, is ignorant.
>>
>> Remember, I'm in this for the fun... so let's have  fun, damn it!
>> Dave in OH, today
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> S-CAR-List mailing list
>> S-CAR-List at audifans.com
>> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
>
>