|
|
|
06-10-2014, 11:19 PM | #1 |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 41
Posts |
High Altitude PTF Custom Tune
Almost 6000ft ASL, 77F, 91 Octane fuel. Stage 2+ FMIC, PTF e-tune.
340/380. Anyone else at high altitude have a comparable dyno for me to perform a comparison with? [IMG][/IMG] |
06-11-2014, 09:53 AM | #3 |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 41
Posts |
Virtual Dyno is like any other tool and depends greatly on accuracy of the input numbers, especially weight. It also requires a flat stretch of road with no bumps. As you can see two separate pulls are almost identical. I used it on my Evo VIII and when I dyno'd it the numbers were withing 5hp/5tq which is about the margin of error from one pull to the next.
I don't believe in corrected numbers as the SAE correction factor doesn't take into account forced induction engines. I agree altitude will make the turbos work harder (more heat) for a given boost pressure, but nowhere near what the correction formula implies. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-11-2014, 06:16 PM | #4 | |
Captain
59
Rep 913
Posts |
Quote:
If those are uncorrected numbers, that is very good at your altitude - though it is tough comparing dyno numbers at the best of times. I'd be curious to see what you put down on a dyno compared to the virtual dyno. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-11-2014, 09:21 PM | #6 |
Captain
59
Rep 913
Posts |
Seems a little high to me. 420/470 would definitely be at the upper end of FBO. Probably even a bit beyond, especially with 91 octane.
But whatever, car is running well and dynos are meant as tuning tools, even though they are often used for bragging rights. Did you get any baseline numbers? The delta tells the story. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-11-2014, 09:57 PM | #7 |
Captain
59
Rep 913
Posts |
It looks like the dynojet profile on virtual dyno auto applies a 9% correction factor? Not sure what that 9% is vs. checking off the SAE checkbox.
At any rate, I plugged in my numbers. I don't know what the total weight would be so I used the same 3618 as you. As per my dynojet file, the in/Hg was 26.6 and air temp 89F With these parameters I put down dynojet uncorrected numbers of 357/411 and corrected of 404/465. So indeed, very close to what the actual dynojet said. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-12-2014, 12:00 AM | #8 |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 41
Posts |
The multiplier is to bring the calculated numbers inline with a dynojet, as is the multiplier for lower reading mustang dynos. This was based on a lot of empirical virtual dyno vs actual dyno comparisons.
Going by your higher octane and slightly lower elevation it seems that my lower hp/tq numbers are about in line with expectations. |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|