3.2 L Dyno Results *gasp*

[KTL]

Originally posted by Souk
Another low blow from David. Man I thought you liked your CIS

I wonder what it would take to make my engine into a DME controlled 3.2 then add chip, air cleaner and exhaust? Less than a 3.4 conversion? Or would anyone be willing to swap a 3.2 for my 3.0? Neither is likely to happen....and building a 3.4 CIS engine from a 3.2 CIS is likely to be a better option for the same power...but there are other complications..like class rules, for one.

Man is it getting hot in here theres days...must be the summer heat

I know where you can find a nice 3.2 Motronic with which to play.............. Everything's always for sale at my place.

And since we're on the topic of torque and BMW's, everyone needs to drive a M5 at least once in his/her lifetime. What a hoot. Torque everywhere. An absolute blast & hardly a taxicab. Not as visceral (lacks a bit of "connected" feel) as an older 911 though. Still fast as a muthaf@#$%&.........

[Lukesportsman]

I didn't want to start a debate, just a little joking. An M5 would kill my vintage Mustangs I play with in the garage. Please, no flames......just having a little fun and encouragement to Wayne for the tranny book. I've enjoyed both books so far and hope that they are proving worthwhile for your company too.

[Steve W]

Originally posted by Lorenfb
"I spent $1200.00(this includes dyno R&D time) on my exhaust, $4.39 for the holesaw to make my airbox a "cup" airbox and 230.00+ shipping on the chip."

As usual, we don't know what really does yield what in torque or HP.
So, where's the original totally stock 3.2 graph of torque & HP? Let's
have a real reference point.

Per Loren's request:

Red: stock chip
Blue: 911Chips performance chip

No other changes in between. Same dyno, same day. Any questions?



BTW:

[Porschekid962]

hahahaha, i love the flashing banner!!

awesome increase with the mods! i cant wait to start turning wrenches on my motor with my dad

[jpahemi]

Steve,
Would it be possible for my chip to flash like the banner?
J.P.

[Wil Ferch]

One major issue I've brought up before...

This dyno can calculate HP on a number of different bases. One way...is to measure the actual HP ( through a torque calculation) based on *that day's* humidity, temperature and site elevation. I notice that someone asked that question and got an answer on that basis.

The other...and in my mind more meaningful way to quote dyno numbers...is to have them reported to SAE-standard basis. Off my head I don't recall the normalization factors, but I believe the correction would bring you back to a sea-level, 70 degF, 50% relative humidity basis. The clue would be to look at the margin of the printout and see if it says "SAE HP" or such. Also...the bottom of the graph would show a "CR" or correction-factor to bring that dyno run into compliance with the SAE standard.
I've successfully compared identically-configured cars that were each run on DynoJet 248C's at different locations in the country, and was able to find good agreement in the runs this way...even if one of the cars was in mile-high Denver or whatever.

So...what's the basis? We may have to re-adjust our thinking of how good ( or bad) these numbers are when finally corrected to SAE standards...

-- Wil

[jpachard]

Wil,
Here is a screenshot from the Dynojet run viewer showing that these runs are with SAE corrected data.

The run #4 is with a stock chip, run 6 is with the aftermarket( Steve W) chip.

Cheers, James

[MAS]

Originally posted by JackOlsen
Juan, no one believes 15% is accurate, especially over a wide range of cars and transmissions. But if it's used as an accepted figure, it at least stops the skewing of everyone's rear-wheel numbers in different directions.

Wheel horsepower figures are the most useful number, of course, but that leaves open the question of what the cars in stock configuration would have typically put out.

I'm curious, but considering the 911's engine configuration, etc, could the power difference (loss) between the crankshaft and the rear wheels be somewhat less that a car with the old front engine/rear drive layout?

I remember reading years ago, that one of the advantages that front-wheel drive cars had was that there was less power loss to the wheels. But I believe that the transverse layout of the typical FWD car also reduced driveline power loss too.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear the pros weigh in on this issue. My completely in-expert guess is that the 911 engine layout would have less power difference between the crankshaft and the rear wheels than the average car. So maybe the 15% power loss figure is on the high side?

-MAS

[Lukesportsman]

MAS,

I think that the main advantage of MOST FWD cars is that they rest the engine transversly in the drivetrain configuration. Chain driving something is definitely more efficient than running it through 90 degree beveled gears in gear oil. Beveled gears are inefficient and therefore many race transmissions go straight tooth.

So much of the fwd benefits do not apply to the 911, but we have eliminated the typical driveshaft and u joints that absorb hp.

Anyway, I'm not sure how imperative this is to the validity of a comparison with baseline or control runs if we are looking for improvement. Sure the actual numbers will be off, but the percentage wouldn't change significantly. Sure for you engineer/stats guys it may be mathmatically significant, but I'm referring to real world significance.