I know have some data for sae correction, not the j1349 its just called sae.

but the correction for that is HUGE.
the scenario is
536 measured hub power
temp sensor at 58c
din corrected to 584 hub power
sae corrected to 808 hub power !

anyone know what this sae correction relates to ? is it an old one ?

 

run with no correction




now just SAE correction applied








that is the 2008 run for my car
uncorrected torque 438.1 lbft
uncorrected power 536.1 hp.

din corrected torque 473 lbft
din corrected power 584 hp

sae adapted corrected torque 645.8 lbft !
sae adapted corrected hp 808.9 hp !

a big thank you to mark at abbey motorsport for providing me the data.
that's 272.8 hp added in correction !

here is that same plot at din correction method, it is overlayed from an older plot with a different turbo, the plot is the lap5 plot, the faded lines in the graph are the ones we are looking at and the data down the right hand side, temperatures in that plot are in Fahrenheit.





and here is the actual temperature reading for the run as a graph in celcius

 

i would ask Abbey to explain it. if they can't (which i'm sure they can), they shouldn't be operating the equipment and selling the service.

there is sae j1349 and sae std, but they're not that different, only maybe 4% ish. there's not enough data on those charts to make them understandable and therefore believable.

 

theres nothing to not be believable it is what it is, they are the exact same plot the only difference is uncorrected, din and sae, they don't have the sae j1349 software.

I will ask mark exactly what the sae correction is and where it originates from.

 

so after all of this thread, you're totally happy to accept that the data shown there is all that you need to believe it?

i'm neither saying that it is correct or not correct, just asking you to ask yourself if you have all of the information that you think you need to be happy with them. it sounds like you are.

 

believe what exactly ? you've lost me now ?

the exact terminology is sae adapted.

what I believe is that just by a dyno operator selecting a correction method that is within the dyno to use he can take my 650 ish hp car and make it appear to be an 850 hp car, that's what the thread is all about isn't it ?

I have clearly distinguished between uncorrected, din corrected and sae adapted corrected have I not ?

I think its very relevant and its real world data that's relevant to this thread, I don't see whats not to believe ? please tell me cause I don't get it ?

 

I can only assume we are talking about believing the actual corrected sae power output AGAIN ! of coarse I dont again do you think im utterly stupid ?
you must be a little slow on the uptake as weve been through this already.

il explain it again the car was run with the temp sensor hung from the bonnet.
if you want all the specifics from my plot they are

air density 0.8823
relhum 100.0
baro 29.1
amb temp 54c but I have the full plot showing upto 58c


all the power figures are above.

there is nothing to believe or not believe those are the figures it made.
I know the car makes around 650 hp at the crank due to its performance which I have measured which at the hubs it has measured between 562 - 584 din corrected hp which correlates with how it performs in the real world.

I have then shown that with this sae adapted correction it takes the hub power from 584 upto 809 with no fudgeing anywhere just using a correction that's within the dyno that will shows silly high figures if the temperature is above ambient temp, imagine if the sensor was above the manifold like one of the runs stu did at 100c it would be even more ridiculous corrected power figures.

there was a link earlier to din vs sae adapted where the figures would get massively over corrected with sae adapted correction if the temps were high this is just an example of that and the huge differences it makes and how easy a massively over inflated dyno plot can be given to a customer.

and a link to the article that explained the din vs sae corrections
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...pBbpoHXlvenOUQ

 

edited

 

due to your attitude, i can't be bothered anymore

 

don't try and put it on me, I am contributeing to the thread with some data that imo is very relevant and you just discredit everything without reason.
my attitude is merely in response to yours.

 

where? what have i discredited?

 

Good man.
For the record, it was, but your right, without that data it's impossible to say.

 

What's a great thread, this is the main reason a few tuners refuse to map/tune you car when the temp outside is to high/low due to normal running conditions right?

This alone is how back in the day cossies had 300bhp+ with just a filter? And standard rs turbos were pushing 170bhp?

Do the imitation cooling fans play a part as well as the closer they are to the car/probe it will reduce the temperature?

 

Thanks Stu, always keen to learn more, appreciate these kind of threads

 

I agree with Nick on this one!

 

that's because you know i'm always right

still waiting for a response on this after your last rudeness towards me.

 

theres nothing more to say ive posted some plots with the temp sensor at 58c for uncorrected, din and sae adapted figures just to show how ridiculously high the figures where and you came straight in asking me if the figures are believable, the point is to show how the corrected plot has been influenced by sae adapted and 58c temp sensor and they showed the power massively over the top at sae adapted.

those are the figures sae adapted will show on a dynapack at that temperature and there they are, im tired of argueing with you I have far more important things going on my daughter was born Friday 4 1/2 weeks early hence I havnt been on much in the last few days.

 

if you could just highlight on those plots where that temperature sensor reading is, that would be great as i'm having trouble seeing it with my bad eyes at my age.

i'm not arguing with you, i'm having a discussion with you and so far i've tried to be helpful to you

i hope your little baby daughter pulls through ok and has a happy and healthy childhood ahead of her

 

the temperature plot is another graph I just didn't add it to the post as I didn't think it was needed.
I do also have a graph sowing that run in din correction that shows all the data down the right hand side, when I get time il post it all and add it to the post above where I showed the sae adapted plot.

it is hugely worrying with my baby sienna tbh we have lost a boy and a girl at just under 20 weeks, shes fighting hard though and we are remaining positive, thanks for the best wishes she sure needs them right now.

in fact im gonna add them plots now at least it will take my mind of it.

 

ive now added the din corrected plot that also shows temperature and everything else and a plot of just the temperature reading.

those are simply the figures a dynapack made with the temp sensor hung under the bonnet, its a good example of how sae adapted cannot be used if the temp probe is anywhere other than hung at ambient, din and sae j1349 will add a little corrected power but sae adapted adds huge amounts for some reason ? the formula must be different somehow as the temperature rises ?

 

as i said from the beginning, those original plots posted did not have enough information on them to make them believable, but you had additional information which is why you could believe them. do you get my point? it maybe seems pedantic, but it's the whole point of the thread.

 

I understand exactly what your saying and I do see your point but please also see my point I was just adding some relevant data to the thread that I know 100% is accurate comparable data all taken from the same plot just with different correction factors and it was kind of dismissed as inadmissible evidence if you see what I mean.

I asked abbey for the data mark told me before even sending it sae adapted will be huge figures as it was back in 2008 when they used to hang the sensor under the bonnet they now hang the sensor in the cell at ambient temp.

I actually got this thread on the roll as stu was respondeing to my thread by starting a new one with data.

I had known for a while about this sae massive figures but that's all I knew, but thanks to these threads and abit more research ive now finally found out where they come from, I still cant find the formula for this sae adapted correction factor though ?
its crazy the difference its made as illustrated above.

 

because without the temperature and pressure etc data on the same plot IT IS 'inadmissable evidence'. that is the whole point

 

I fully understand what your saying where each plot could have a different temperature/pressure etc so each plot could show different corrected power that could be influenced outside the correction factor.

but it doesn't change the fact I started the original thread with the data from this same plot showing the effects of din correction at 2 different temperatures so im sure everyone can realise ive got the same plot just with different correction factors applied, why would I get plots with different temp readings etc it would make it all utterly pointless.

I made it clear what the temperature was in the first place tbh anyways, I fully understand the angle your taking on it but I don't really get why tbh I hope ive been on here long enough and generally people realise im just an honest petrol head and have some interesting data to share that's relevant not some fictitious crap i made up like a kid in his bedroom.

you can still pick the data now as every single plot doesn't show temperature etc where does it stop ? I had hoped my plots wouldn't be under scrutiny at all there just honest plots showing honest correction factor data at 58c for my car from a well respected dyno with no fudgeing involved.

 

Ken Britain of BBR told me it was impossible to get accurate figures for
bhp from a turbo car on a dyno, as it was impossible to recreate the
amount of air that you would get in the front when driving.
That was 30 years ago.

 

yours and Abbey's integrity are not in question here. i have never said that the data is not factual

but the simple fact remains that any plots that do not show any correction data (including those you have shown) should not be completely trusted. if you have the data elsewhere in any form and you trust the source, that is fine. and again, that is the whole point of this thread - to show people what information they need to get from a session, not to just be happy with a plot without all of the necessary data on it to show that it is believable. i will continue to make this point whilst you appear to continue to think that i am somehow singling out you and your data to scrutinise.

 

Stop arguing and enjoy the soundtrack guys...

 

Was that the 3.4 V8 with 2 motronic 2.5 ecus Stu ??

 

with pleasure

gotta love the soundtrack of any Ferrari

 

yes mate.

 

Best sounding car i have had on there to date... was awesome once it was up past 7000rpm!

 

Nick - only just seen the images, they didn't show on my iPad. Awesome work, thanks. Do you think you could create one that allowed you to plug in any correction formula and see the difference? IE: ATMC2 Vs DIN for example?

 

would have expected a fezza to have more grunt tbh - sounds nice though and a bloody good gain from the map.

 

Stu im really sorry to spam this interesting thread but did you get my pm regarding a -34 actutor?

Please give me a pm. Thanks alot.

 

They dont have huge outright power but the power band is epic, its got power everywhere! (Remember that powers at the wheels of course. Think in shootout mode it was 320 ish flywheel)

Replied.

 

of course, dead easy (if you have the formulae)

if you have them, either put them up on here or pm them and i'll knock something up and email it to you.

 

For you maybe mate - almost bloody impossible for me, I don't get on well with Excel.


My problem I expect, will be getting ATMC2 data from Dyno Dynamics.

I have DIN and a couple of others here.
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jbsms/v25n3/a10v25n3

 

I hope it ok to ask you this here

I have been restoring a Ferrari 348 for the last 7 years ( same engine as the one you dynoed) i purchased it and took it straight off the road so don't have a reference but having done 500 miles in her she feels slow

Today i had the suspension corner weighted and set up at Northampton motorsport and i asked them to do a few power runs on their dyno to check the fueling and to see what power it had.

They have a Superflow dyno, anyway it pulled 283bhp flywheel and 249 at the wheels. Torque was 220 fly and 201 wheels.

Book says it should have 300bhp stock, but it has a Tubi exhaust and the heads have been mildly ported, with a fresh valve seats and guides, i would have thought it would have been 310 +

Like i said it does not feel very lively, the initial say 25% throttle feel fine but then from that there is no more pull it just revs and makes noise.

Now looking at the power the mondial made it not to far off mine.

What's your take on this ? do you think a live map would help in my case ?

 

Feels slow compared to another fezza (like the one in your sig ) or doesn't feel like it has the power? Either way it would seem you've answered your own Q and stu seems more than capable......

 

Yes it does feel slow against the 430, they are both the same weight but the 430 has 183bhp more and 123 lb.ft more torque.

But it does not feel like it has the power, to be honest it is probably the torque as it does rev but just does not pull, its very hard to put into words