A friend of mine owns a MB Tuning shop and says that he has Renntech Software for the beast that
10-12-2007, 08:06 PM
#121
There is a difference between asking questions and acting like you already know the answer...
and calling them inacurate. But there you go assuming again Dave. Still no response to this??? Big surprise. Keep avoiding Dave...<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/rs4b7/msgs/66863.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/rs4b7/msgs/66863.phtml</a</li></ul>
10-12-2007, 08:09 PM
#122
Again Dave. Avoiding a simple question...
My post was not to the original poster Dave. YOu see my post was under your post where you said dynos were all inacurate. And then I showed you how one could get good results to which you stated that is not the case and the example I showed was inaccurate or loaded. So again Dave. Stop skirting the original question with all these useless posts in which you have provided not a single link/piece of evidence to support your notion. Anything Dave?<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/rs4b7/msgs/66863.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/rs4b7/msgs/66863.phtml</a</li></ul>
10-12-2007, 08:10 PM
#123
Nope, yet another useless post. Three posts to answer me here and still not one...
addresses my ORIGINAL post to you here. You ever going to answer it or just create more posts and issues. Sucks when I try and keep you to one statement you make and try and keep you from using the smoke and mirrors doesnt it? ...<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/rs4b7/msgs/66863.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/rs4b7/msgs/66863.phtml</a</li></ul>
10-12-2007, 08:58 PM
#124
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you just won't let it go, will you? your need to be vindicated is troubling, but
i will put forth some questions about your dyno method just to shut you up.
1. so this was your A4 2.0T with an MTM software flash and then an APR flash, with full program/mode options. the significance of the 200 miles driving time post flash and pre dyno being? i understand the desire to allow for the ECU to adjust fully, but how did you arrive at 200 miles as being appropriate?
2. introducing data on the upgraded Bilstein suspension tells me that you anticipated it affecting the dyno results. can you explain why? the tire PSi is self explanatory.
3. unfortunatley you are going out of your way to try and show some element of control over the entire dyno testing procedure(ambient temp adjustments, straps and location of straps, fuel supply(although 2 different stations and considerable elapsed time between testing(the 3 dyno runs). another variable that you have no control over.
4. if there was significant fluctuation in ambient temp among the 3 tests, your placement of the fan(s) at the radiator may have influenced the results to a certain degree...on a cooler day, you may have lowered the engine temp further, thereby benefitting the turbo.
5. were you measuring the coolant/engine temp AFTER start, in addition to your reading of 90 at start of dyno?
6. the 10 degree timing advance but stock boost level tells me that the software was not working properly, or that it was perhaps designed to protect the turbo, despite what they may have said in that regard.
7. you determined a winner based on your dyno power results??? this is exactly the problem with this kind of testing. you do realize that there are plenty of B6 and B7 A4 owners who have tried APR, not been satisfied, and tried GIAC...or MTM...or Revo. and vice versa, take your pick.
the real issue here, which you still are not willing to accept, is the numbers, the specific power numbers. here you admit that some uncontrolllable and unexpected condition seemed to be affecting the MTM equipped car, and you then look around at the gas as one possibility(and it was) and then boost, and then you consider that the MTM flash may have been defective, or incomplete(timing advance, but no boost increase).
aside from all this, you have shown NOTHING here about dyno inefficiences which are well documented. why is that? simply maintaining consistency of one dyno machine at one location does not solve that problem.
there are so many variables that you failed to control, or at least made no mention of.
actual ambient temp and humidity
dyno machine condition
dyno machine calibration
software function/integrity
technician proficiency
drivetrain power losses
spikes and dips due to shifting gears
basically, telling the originator of this thread to do what you did really isn't a help at all. it may get some basics taken care of if he wasn't aware. but, it wouldn't help him verify that 40 HP claimed gain, any more than it verifies any of your results, which obviously did not happen by looking at your example here.
one more time, you can't claim a specific HP number based on this kind of testing. no one expected no gains after the reflashes, but where's your top HP number making any sense here?
that's the only issue i have with dyno testing, the CLAIMS...the posted HP CLAIMS. i have no problem with people using dynoes for testing or diagnosis, but when you buy a product based on the promise of a specific HP gain, and have no real data to back it up, don't then go and tell anyone who will listen that your car now has X amount more HP. that is BS.
1. so this was your A4 2.0T with an MTM software flash and then an APR flash, with full program/mode options. the significance of the 200 miles driving time post flash and pre dyno being? i understand the desire to allow for the ECU to adjust fully, but how did you arrive at 200 miles as being appropriate?
2. introducing data on the upgraded Bilstein suspension tells me that you anticipated it affecting the dyno results. can you explain why? the tire PSi is self explanatory.
3. unfortunatley you are going out of your way to try and show some element of control over the entire dyno testing procedure(ambient temp adjustments, straps and location of straps, fuel supply(although 2 different stations and considerable elapsed time between testing(the 3 dyno runs). another variable that you have no control over.
4. if there was significant fluctuation in ambient temp among the 3 tests, your placement of the fan(s) at the radiator may have influenced the results to a certain degree...on a cooler day, you may have lowered the engine temp further, thereby benefitting the turbo.
5. were you measuring the coolant/engine temp AFTER start, in addition to your reading of 90 at start of dyno?
6. the 10 degree timing advance but stock boost level tells me that the software was not working properly, or that it was perhaps designed to protect the turbo, despite what they may have said in that regard.
7. you determined a winner based on your dyno power results??? this is exactly the problem with this kind of testing. you do realize that there are plenty of B6 and B7 A4 owners who have tried APR, not been satisfied, and tried GIAC...or MTM...or Revo. and vice versa, take your pick.
the real issue here, which you still are not willing to accept, is the numbers, the specific power numbers. here you admit that some uncontrolllable and unexpected condition seemed to be affecting the MTM equipped car, and you then look around at the gas as one possibility(and it was) and then boost, and then you consider that the MTM flash may have been defective, or incomplete(timing advance, but no boost increase).
aside from all this, you have shown NOTHING here about dyno inefficiences which are well documented. why is that? simply maintaining consistency of one dyno machine at one location does not solve that problem.
there are so many variables that you failed to control, or at least made no mention of.
actual ambient temp and humidity
dyno machine condition
dyno machine calibration
software function/integrity
technician proficiency
drivetrain power losses
spikes and dips due to shifting gears
basically, telling the originator of this thread to do what you did really isn't a help at all. it may get some basics taken care of if he wasn't aware. but, it wouldn't help him verify that 40 HP claimed gain, any more than it verifies any of your results, which obviously did not happen by looking at your example here.
one more time, you can't claim a specific HP number based on this kind of testing. no one expected no gains after the reflashes, but where's your top HP number making any sense here?
that's the only issue i have with dyno testing, the CLAIMS...the posted HP CLAIMS. i have no problem with people using dynoes for testing or diagnosis, but when you buy a product based on the promise of a specific HP gain, and have no real data to back it up, don't then go and tell anyone who will listen that your car now has X amount more HP. that is BS.
10-12-2007, 09:02 PM
#125
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
look above
and unknot your shorts while your at it. i am sick of your accusations just because i didn't ask the questions you attempted to hand pick for me.
check the post above titled "you just won't let this go..." and then figure it out. you don't have a leg to stand on in your running argument on this subject, Mike. and the fact that you can't accept that is becoming annoying.
check the post above titled "you just won't let this go..." and then figure it out. you don't have a leg to stand on in your running argument on this subject, Mike. and the fact that you can't accept that is becoming annoying.
10-13-2007, 04:38 AM
#127
WEll, finally some questions (more you making statements) but kind of questions....
i will put forth some questions about your dyno method just to shut you up.
1. so this was your A4 2.0T with an MTM software flash and then an APR flash, with full program/mode options. the significance of the 200 miles driving time post flash and pre dyno being? i understand the desire to allow for the ECU to adjust fully, but how did you arrive at 200 miles as being appropriate?
ANSWER: Good question. It has been generally accepted here that adaptation can occur within 50 miles and a few cycles of the ignition. I opted to go beyond this to give the best opportunity for adaptation. Of course, we also verify this with datalogging.
2. introducing data on the upgraded Bilstein suspension tells me that you anticipated it affecting the dyno results. can you explain why? the tire PSi is self explanatory.
ANSWER: This is a variable that probably has minimal impact on results BUT we want to exercise as much control as possible. A loose suspension versus tight setup could conceivably affect contact with tire and roller on the dyno throughout a high speed run. Not likely a big deal but why not control for it as long as you are able to right?
3. unfortunatley you are going out of your way to try and show some element of control over the entire dyno testing procedure(ambient temp adjustments, straps and location of straps, fuel supply(although 2 different stations and considerable elapsed time between testing(the 3 dyno runs). another variable that you have no control over.
ANSWER: I'm not sure what this question is. It doesnt make sense the way it was written. If you could reword it i'd be happy to try and address.
4. if there was significant fluctuation in ambient temp among the 3 tests, your placement of the fan(s) at the radiator may have influenced the results to a certain degree...on a cooler day, you may have lowered the engine temp further, thereby benefitting the turbo.
ANSWER: Fan placement and location is kept constant. This is because dynamic variables like ambients are controlled for to SAE specification via the ambient SAE correction in the dyno computer. This was listed in the article.
5. were you measuring the coolant/engine temp AFTER start, in addition to your reading of 90 at start of dyno?
ANSWER: The car is fully datalogged at all times.
6. the 10 degree timing advance but stock boost level tells me that the software was not working properly, or that it was perhaps designed to protect the turbo, despite what they may have said in that regard.
ANSWER: Please re-read the article. The MTM software was RETARDING up to 10 degrees (known as IKC or knock retard). THis was a problem as explained in the article and BECAUSE of the dyno testing MTM was able to see the problem and enlist their techs to fix the problem in their US programming before it became widely distributed. THis really shows the utility of the dyno.
7. you determined a winner based on your dyno power results??? this is exactly the problem with this kind of testing. you do realize that there are plenty of B6 and B7 A4 owners who have tried APR, not been satisfied, and tried GIAC...or MTM...or Revo. and vice versa, take your pick.
ANSWER: NOt sure what you wanted here. THe program that actually worked properly won out over the programming that had issues for the US. If you prefer it the other way there is more than enough data there to choose your own results.
DAVE:
the real issue here, which you still are not willing to accept, is the numbers, the specific power numbers. here you admit that some uncontrolllable and unexpected condition seemed to be affecting the MTM equipped car, and you then look around at the gas as one possibility(and it was) and then boost, and then you consider that the MTM flash may have been defective, or incomplete(timing advance, but no boost increase).
ANSWER: Fuel was ruled out since we were able to run the car fine on the exact same fuel under OEM conditions and it was fine. WE took good care to do that. And fuel being a variable has NOTHING to do with the accuracy of dyno testing. YOU WANT the dyno to measure problems with fuel Dave.
I'm cant believe i'm trying to get you to learn one of the basic prinicples of running an experiment Dave, but you should no that the first thing they teach in beginner science class is taht there is NO WAY to run a PERFECT experiment. There is NO WAY to control for EVERYTHING. That includes SAE procedures for published bhp figures Dave. Do you know how many cars have had to be re-rated before? The point here as you can see is that your claim that dynos are "completley unverifiable" is BS Dave.
They are accepted by SAE, they are also accepted by your own OEM, AUDI and also PORSCHE.
there are so many variables that you failed to control, or at least made no mention of.
actual ambient temp and humidity (see above and read the article again. SAE industry standard ambient corrections were used and are industry accepted)
dyno machine condition (the dyno is calibrated and conditioned every single month Dave)
software function/integrity (I have no idea what you are looking for here. As you can see the MTM software had an admitted problem and I followed through the process with MTM to fix it. The dyno was actually invaluable in them indentifying a problem. THe APR software performed almost EXACTLY as their website claims for gains. Guess that was an accident according to you.)
technician proficiency (the technician is published in multiple worldwide publication magazines, has been accepted as an expert witness in court cases regarding auto, and holds the ASE master technician certification)
drivetrain power losses (umm, the results were in whp Dave and the drivetrain was held constant)
spikes and dips due to shifting gears (Ummm, what? This was a run through one gear)
one more time, you can't claim a specific HP number based on this kind of testing. no one expected no gains after the reflashes, but where's your top HP number making any sense here?
ANSWER: I dont know what you mean DAVE. THe APR chip performed almost exactly as advertised. You saw a gain of 34whp and 50wtq over stock.
that's the only issue i have with dyno testing, the CLAIMS...the posted HP CLAIMS. i have no problem with people using dynoes for testing or diagnosis, but when you buy a product based on the promise of a specific HP gain, and have no real data to back it up, don't then go and tell anyone who will listen that your car now has X amount more HP. that is BS.
ANSWER: Well now you are changing your argument which is smart of you. YOu see that ISNT what you said Dave. What you said was that chassis dynoing is "completely unverifiable"
What you now know is that when properly used they can be very verifiable. To the extend that they are accepted by the auto industry as a whole Dave.
1. so this was your A4 2.0T with an MTM software flash and then an APR flash, with full program/mode options. the significance of the 200 miles driving time post flash and pre dyno being? i understand the desire to allow for the ECU to adjust fully, but how did you arrive at 200 miles as being appropriate?
ANSWER: Good question. It has been generally accepted here that adaptation can occur within 50 miles and a few cycles of the ignition. I opted to go beyond this to give the best opportunity for adaptation. Of course, we also verify this with datalogging.
2. introducing data on the upgraded Bilstein suspension tells me that you anticipated it affecting the dyno results. can you explain why? the tire PSi is self explanatory.
ANSWER: This is a variable that probably has minimal impact on results BUT we want to exercise as much control as possible. A loose suspension versus tight setup could conceivably affect contact with tire and roller on the dyno throughout a high speed run. Not likely a big deal but why not control for it as long as you are able to right?
3. unfortunatley you are going out of your way to try and show some element of control over the entire dyno testing procedure(ambient temp adjustments, straps and location of straps, fuel supply(although 2 different stations and considerable elapsed time between testing(the 3 dyno runs). another variable that you have no control over.
ANSWER: I'm not sure what this question is. It doesnt make sense the way it was written. If you could reword it i'd be happy to try and address.
4. if there was significant fluctuation in ambient temp among the 3 tests, your placement of the fan(s) at the radiator may have influenced the results to a certain degree...on a cooler day, you may have lowered the engine temp further, thereby benefitting the turbo.
ANSWER: Fan placement and location is kept constant. This is because dynamic variables like ambients are controlled for to SAE specification via the ambient SAE correction in the dyno computer. This was listed in the article.
5. were you measuring the coolant/engine temp AFTER start, in addition to your reading of 90 at start of dyno?
ANSWER: The car is fully datalogged at all times.
6. the 10 degree timing advance but stock boost level tells me that the software was not working properly, or that it was perhaps designed to protect the turbo, despite what they may have said in that regard.
ANSWER: Please re-read the article. The MTM software was RETARDING up to 10 degrees (known as IKC or knock retard). THis was a problem as explained in the article and BECAUSE of the dyno testing MTM was able to see the problem and enlist their techs to fix the problem in their US programming before it became widely distributed. THis really shows the utility of the dyno.
7. you determined a winner based on your dyno power results??? this is exactly the problem with this kind of testing. you do realize that there are plenty of B6 and B7 A4 owners who have tried APR, not been satisfied, and tried GIAC...or MTM...or Revo. and vice versa, take your pick.
ANSWER: NOt sure what you wanted here. THe program that actually worked properly won out over the programming that had issues for the US. If you prefer it the other way there is more than enough data there to choose your own results.
DAVE:
the real issue here, which you still are not willing to accept, is the numbers, the specific power numbers. here you admit that some uncontrolllable and unexpected condition seemed to be affecting the MTM equipped car, and you then look around at the gas as one possibility(and it was) and then boost, and then you consider that the MTM flash may have been defective, or incomplete(timing advance, but no boost increase).
ANSWER: Fuel was ruled out since we were able to run the car fine on the exact same fuel under OEM conditions and it was fine. WE took good care to do that. And fuel being a variable has NOTHING to do with the accuracy of dyno testing. YOU WANT the dyno to measure problems with fuel Dave.
I'm cant believe i'm trying to get you to learn one of the basic prinicples of running an experiment Dave, but you should no that the first thing they teach in beginner science class is taht there is NO WAY to run a PERFECT experiment. There is NO WAY to control for EVERYTHING. That includes SAE procedures for published bhp figures Dave. Do you know how many cars have had to be re-rated before? The point here as you can see is that your claim that dynos are "completley unverifiable" is BS Dave.
They are accepted by SAE, they are also accepted by your own OEM, AUDI and also PORSCHE.
there are so many variables that you failed to control, or at least made no mention of.
actual ambient temp and humidity (see above and read the article again. SAE industry standard ambient corrections were used and are industry accepted)
dyno machine condition (the dyno is calibrated and conditioned every single month Dave)
software function/integrity (I have no idea what you are looking for here. As you can see the MTM software had an admitted problem and I followed through the process with MTM to fix it. The dyno was actually invaluable in them indentifying a problem. THe APR software performed almost EXACTLY as their website claims for gains. Guess that was an accident according to you.)
technician proficiency (the technician is published in multiple worldwide publication magazines, has been accepted as an expert witness in court cases regarding auto, and holds the ASE master technician certification)
drivetrain power losses (umm, the results were in whp Dave and the drivetrain was held constant)
spikes and dips due to shifting gears (Ummm, what? This was a run through one gear)
one more time, you can't claim a specific HP number based on this kind of testing. no one expected no gains after the reflashes, but where's your top HP number making any sense here?
ANSWER: I dont know what you mean DAVE. THe APR chip performed almost exactly as advertised. You saw a gain of 34whp and 50wtq over stock.
that's the only issue i have with dyno testing, the CLAIMS...the posted HP CLAIMS. i have no problem with people using dynoes for testing or diagnosis, but when you buy a product based on the promise of a specific HP gain, and have no real data to back it up, don't then go and tell anyone who will listen that your car now has X amount more HP. that is BS.
ANSWER: Well now you are changing your argument which is smart of you. YOu see that ISNT what you said Dave. What you said was that chassis dynoing is "completely unverifiable"
What you now know is that when properly used they can be very verifiable. To the extend that they are accepted by the auto industry as a whole Dave.
10-13-2007, 08:17 AM
#128
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you're still missing the point entirely, Mike. let me explain and answer YOUR questions...
1. so this was your A4 2.0T with an MTM software flash and then an APR flash, with full program/mode options. the significance of the 200 miles driving time post flash and pre dyno being? i understand the desire to allow for the ECU to adjust fully, but how did you arrive at 200 miles as being appropriate?
ANSWER: Good question. It has been generally accepted here that adaptation can occur within 50 miles and a few cycles of the ignition. I opted to go beyond this to give the best opportunity for adaptation. Of course, we also verify this with datalogging.
< then this is irrelevant and should be removed from your 'advisory' dyno testing link. why? because there is no need to put 200 miles on the flashed car and it's a wasted effort >
2. introducing data on the upgraded Bilstein suspension tells me that you anticipated it affecting the dyno results. can you explain why? the tire PSi is self explanatory.
ANSWER: This is a variable that probably has minimal impact on results BUT we want to exercise as much control as possible. A loose suspension versus tight setup could conceivably affect contact with tire and roller on the dyno throughout a high speed run. Not likely a big deal but why not control for it as long as you are able to right?
< it's just another variable that you would need to account for in a direct comparison(with another car for example)...although the weight of the car on the rollers should be sufficient as there is none of the typical road motion or uneven surfaces that could alter contact >
3. unfortunatley you are going out of your way to try and show some element of control over the entire dyno testing procedure(ambient temp adjustments, straps and location of straps, fuel supply(although 2 different stations and considerable elapsed time between testing(the 3 dyno runs). another variable that you have no control over.
ANSWER: I'm not sure what this question is. It doesnt make sense the way it was written. If you could reword it i'd be happy to try and address.
< the point is that you attempt to control variables, but leave several out, which i touched on in that list. >
4. if there was significant fluctuation in ambient temp among the 3 tests, your placement of the fan(s) at the radiator may have influenced the results to a certain degree...on a cooler day, you may have lowered the engine temp further, thereby benefitting the turbo.
ANSWER: Fan placement and location is kept constant. This is because dynamic variables like ambients are controlled for to SAE specification via the ambient SAE correction in the dyno computer. This was listed in the article.
< The correction method in the dyno, this is where things can go wrong...again, the dyno software >
5. were you measuring the coolant/engine temp AFTER start, in addition to your reading of 90 at start of dyno?
ANSWER: The car is fully datalogged at all times.
< good >
6. the 10 degree timing advance but stock boost level tells me that the software was not working properly, or that it was perhaps designed to protect the turbo, despite what they may have said in that regard.
ANSWER: Please re-read the article. The MTM software was RETARDING up to 10 degrees (known as IKC or knock retard). THis was a problem as explained in the article and BECAUSE of the dyno testing MTM was able to see the problem and enlist their techs to fix the problem in their US programming before it became widely distributed. THis really shows the utility of the dyno.
< i understand, and the utility of dynos is not something i have ever questioned. just look at several of my posts here stating that(for diagnostic purposes, etc). >
7. you determined a winner based on your dyno power results??? this is exactly the problem with this kind of testing. you do realize that there are plenty of B6 and B7 A4 owners who have tried APR, not been satisfied, and tried GIAC...or MTM...or Revo. and vice versa, take your pick.
ANSWER: NOt sure what you wanted here. THe program that actually worked properly won out over the programming that had issues for the US. If you prefer it the other way there is more than enough data there to choose your own results.
< You still chose a winner knowing that the MTM was defective? i guess you can do that, it's your prerogative. but, i think it would have been best to cite the problems with the MTM(as you did) AND leave the findings inconclusive...until you could retest the one product aginst the other again. your call, but it doesn't help anybody by doing it that way. >
the real issue here, which you still are not willing to accept, is the numbers, the specific power numbers. here you admit that some uncontrolllable and unexpected condition seemed to be affecting the MTM equipped car, and you then look around at the gas as one possibility(and it was) and then boost, and then you consider that the MTM flash may have been defective, or incomplete(timing advance, but no boost increase).
ANSWER: Fuel was ruled out since we were able to run the car fine on the exact same fuel under OEM conditions and it was fine. WE took good care to do that. And fuel being a variable has NOTHING to do with the accuracy of dyno testing. YOU WANT the dyno to measure problems with fuel Dave.
< i have to disagree that fuel as a variable has "nothing" to do with accuracy. the dyno, no. but your results, yes. these separate dynos were not run on the same tank of fuel, although that's not uncommon. but, if one or more tests had bad fuel, what does it do to your numbers, your findings? just another variable in the neighborhood dyno testing method. >
I'm cant believe i'm trying to get you to learn one of the basic prinicples of running an experiment Dave, but you should no that the first thing they teach in beginner science class is taht there is NO WAY to run a PERFECT experiment. There is NO WAY to control for EVERYTHING. That includes SAE procedures for published bhp figures Dave. Do you know how many cars have had to be re-rated before? The point here as you can see is that your claim that dynos are "completley unverifiable" is BS Dave.
They are accepted by SAE, they are also accepted by your own OEM, AUDI and also PORSCHE.
< still missing the point. or deliberately ignoring it. you don't need to explain the basics of science to me, but you DO need to read my posts again. the accuracy i am concerned with is the results, the specific HP/torque numbers(on your graphs if you want)...and any other dyno. so, understand once and for all, Mike, that you and others can test all you want, and more power to you. BUT, you should refrain from claiming ceertain power numbers based on Chassis dynos...or at least relaize that they are not absolute. you want to compare to the mfgrs bench dyno HP/torque numbers, and claim that those aren't perfect? well, they are conducted under a much more controlled environment with MANY more important criteria met than what you have here with your runn-of-the-mill dyno test. you do realize that, don't you? anyway, when any car company decides to go with an independant chassis dyno for their power figures, you let me know. >
finally, the dyno machine may be calibrated on a regular basis, but it needs to be properly calibrated. this is a problem, readily ackowledged, which you need to be made aware of, evidently.
as for the software, you miss the point(again). i was talking about the integrity of the software program in the dyno. this is also where things can go wrong, or even be manipulated. as with any software, they are routinely releasing new versions(better control, correcting problems) for dynos as the need arises. so, this is a very real issue on any given dyno machine.
drivetrain power losses, ummm...the ones i'm talking about ARE at the wheel. you mentioned one type earlier.
once again, if you attempt to claim a specific HP number based on independant and poorly controlled chassis dyno testing, then you are blowing smoke...anybody who does so.
i have never changed my argument about chasssis dynos anywhere here, this thread or others. it has always been about the numbers...numbers that people like to toss around. either an outright HP number or a claimed gain based on this mod and/or this dyno run. YOU keep changing what you accuse me of. it won't work, just read my posts here...in their entirety. you have a completely screwed idea of the word 'verifiable'. WHAT is verifiable? YOUR results? that what you saying? yes, your HP/torque numbers and otyher findinsg for YOUR car were verifiable on that dyno machine, which is completely meaningless. it's exactly what i'm talking about when i say they are not verifiable. against what measure? what accepted std(or official HP/torque)?
a lesson in science for you, Mike. when you are attempting to verify something, you need to have a known value to measure against, or a predictable outcome. but you say your dyno reults are 'verifiable' because you were watching over them and attempted to control a few things??? i don't think so.
ANSWER: Good question. It has been generally accepted here that adaptation can occur within 50 miles and a few cycles of the ignition. I opted to go beyond this to give the best opportunity for adaptation. Of course, we also verify this with datalogging.
< then this is irrelevant and should be removed from your 'advisory' dyno testing link. why? because there is no need to put 200 miles on the flashed car and it's a wasted effort >
2. introducing data on the upgraded Bilstein suspension tells me that you anticipated it affecting the dyno results. can you explain why? the tire PSi is self explanatory.
ANSWER: This is a variable that probably has minimal impact on results BUT we want to exercise as much control as possible. A loose suspension versus tight setup could conceivably affect contact with tire and roller on the dyno throughout a high speed run. Not likely a big deal but why not control for it as long as you are able to right?
< it's just another variable that you would need to account for in a direct comparison(with another car for example)...although the weight of the car on the rollers should be sufficient as there is none of the typical road motion or uneven surfaces that could alter contact >
3. unfortunatley you are going out of your way to try and show some element of control over the entire dyno testing procedure(ambient temp adjustments, straps and location of straps, fuel supply(although 2 different stations and considerable elapsed time between testing(the 3 dyno runs). another variable that you have no control over.
ANSWER: I'm not sure what this question is. It doesnt make sense the way it was written. If you could reword it i'd be happy to try and address.
< the point is that you attempt to control variables, but leave several out, which i touched on in that list. >
4. if there was significant fluctuation in ambient temp among the 3 tests, your placement of the fan(s) at the radiator may have influenced the results to a certain degree...on a cooler day, you may have lowered the engine temp further, thereby benefitting the turbo.
ANSWER: Fan placement and location is kept constant. This is because dynamic variables like ambients are controlled for to SAE specification via the ambient SAE correction in the dyno computer. This was listed in the article.
< The correction method in the dyno, this is where things can go wrong...again, the dyno software >
5. were you measuring the coolant/engine temp AFTER start, in addition to your reading of 90 at start of dyno?
ANSWER: The car is fully datalogged at all times.
< good >
6. the 10 degree timing advance but stock boost level tells me that the software was not working properly, or that it was perhaps designed to protect the turbo, despite what they may have said in that regard.
ANSWER: Please re-read the article. The MTM software was RETARDING up to 10 degrees (known as IKC or knock retard). THis was a problem as explained in the article and BECAUSE of the dyno testing MTM was able to see the problem and enlist their techs to fix the problem in their US programming before it became widely distributed. THis really shows the utility of the dyno.
< i understand, and the utility of dynos is not something i have ever questioned. just look at several of my posts here stating that(for diagnostic purposes, etc). >
7. you determined a winner based on your dyno power results??? this is exactly the problem with this kind of testing. you do realize that there are plenty of B6 and B7 A4 owners who have tried APR, not been satisfied, and tried GIAC...or MTM...or Revo. and vice versa, take your pick.
ANSWER: NOt sure what you wanted here. THe program that actually worked properly won out over the programming that had issues for the US. If you prefer it the other way there is more than enough data there to choose your own results.
< You still chose a winner knowing that the MTM was defective? i guess you can do that, it's your prerogative. but, i think it would have been best to cite the problems with the MTM(as you did) AND leave the findings inconclusive...until you could retest the one product aginst the other again. your call, but it doesn't help anybody by doing it that way. >
the real issue here, which you still are not willing to accept, is the numbers, the specific power numbers. here you admit that some uncontrolllable and unexpected condition seemed to be affecting the MTM equipped car, and you then look around at the gas as one possibility(and it was) and then boost, and then you consider that the MTM flash may have been defective, or incomplete(timing advance, but no boost increase).
ANSWER: Fuel was ruled out since we were able to run the car fine on the exact same fuel under OEM conditions and it was fine. WE took good care to do that. And fuel being a variable has NOTHING to do with the accuracy of dyno testing. YOU WANT the dyno to measure problems with fuel Dave.
< i have to disagree that fuel as a variable has "nothing" to do with accuracy. the dyno, no. but your results, yes. these separate dynos were not run on the same tank of fuel, although that's not uncommon. but, if one or more tests had bad fuel, what does it do to your numbers, your findings? just another variable in the neighborhood dyno testing method. >
I'm cant believe i'm trying to get you to learn one of the basic prinicples of running an experiment Dave, but you should no that the first thing they teach in beginner science class is taht there is NO WAY to run a PERFECT experiment. There is NO WAY to control for EVERYTHING. That includes SAE procedures for published bhp figures Dave. Do you know how many cars have had to be re-rated before? The point here as you can see is that your claim that dynos are "completley unverifiable" is BS Dave.
They are accepted by SAE, they are also accepted by your own OEM, AUDI and also PORSCHE.
< still missing the point. or deliberately ignoring it. you don't need to explain the basics of science to me, but you DO need to read my posts again. the accuracy i am concerned with is the results, the specific HP/torque numbers(on your graphs if you want)...and any other dyno. so, understand once and for all, Mike, that you and others can test all you want, and more power to you. BUT, you should refrain from claiming ceertain power numbers based on Chassis dynos...or at least relaize that they are not absolute. you want to compare to the mfgrs bench dyno HP/torque numbers, and claim that those aren't perfect? well, they are conducted under a much more controlled environment with MANY more important criteria met than what you have here with your runn-of-the-mill dyno test. you do realize that, don't you? anyway, when any car company decides to go with an independant chassis dyno for their power figures, you let me know. >
finally, the dyno machine may be calibrated on a regular basis, but it needs to be properly calibrated. this is a problem, readily ackowledged, which you need to be made aware of, evidently.
as for the software, you miss the point(again). i was talking about the integrity of the software program in the dyno. this is also where things can go wrong, or even be manipulated. as with any software, they are routinely releasing new versions(better control, correcting problems) for dynos as the need arises. so, this is a very real issue on any given dyno machine.
drivetrain power losses, ummm...the ones i'm talking about ARE at the wheel. you mentioned one type earlier.
once again, if you attempt to claim a specific HP number based on independant and poorly controlled chassis dyno testing, then you are blowing smoke...anybody who does so.
i have never changed my argument about chasssis dynos anywhere here, this thread or others. it has always been about the numbers...numbers that people like to toss around. either an outright HP number or a claimed gain based on this mod and/or this dyno run. YOU keep changing what you accuse me of. it won't work, just read my posts here...in their entirety. you have a completely screwed idea of the word 'verifiable'. WHAT is verifiable? YOUR results? that what you saying? yes, your HP/torque numbers and otyher findinsg for YOUR car were verifiable on that dyno machine, which is completely meaningless. it's exactly what i'm talking about when i say they are not verifiable. against what measure? what accepted std(or official HP/torque)?
a lesson in science for you, Mike. when you are attempting to verify something, you need to have a known value to measure against, or a predictable outcome. but you say your dyno reults are 'verifiable' because you were watching over them and attempted to control a few things??? i don't think so.
10-14-2007, 02:56 PM
#129
Verifiable is this Dave...
When you take vehicles like the one in my link and put on APR stage 1 programming and do both a baseline and a modified run and assuming you control for as much as possible you WILL get verifiable results just as I did. What I am saying is that assuming the vehicle does not have any mecahnical malfunctions (which you would want to measure anyways) you WILL see from 25whp to 35whp gains and from 40-60wtq gains. Just like if you should be seeing. This is pretty darn accurate and not "completely unverifiable" as you say. YOu stated "when any car company decides to go with an independant chassis dyno for their power figures, you let me know." I already have Dave. Both Audi and Porsche (as well as many others) use these to arrive at power figures frequently.
10-14-2007, 04:36 PM
#130
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but, verifiable against what, Mike?
you have a result, one that occurred, and was measured. but, what is the purpose of your dyno testing? simply a result, with no accomodating for accuracy? accuracy in the sense that the software produces the gain, reaches their claimed HP, or exceeds stock HP...which is the whole purpose of the mod.
this is where the dyno proves flawed. there are thousands of dyno runs done on A4's, for example. that's why most people respect and rely on the factory HP number as being at least uniform, achieved under adequately controlled and accepted conditions.
i really don't understand the whole basis for your argument here? what is it you're trying to prove exactly? you conducted a dyno test of your chipped A4 to the best of your abilities(and the tuners) and that's all. it will not give you accurate or accepted HP numbers. aside from the many uncontrollabe variables, you are trying to determine HP numbers as compared to stock/factory numbers(typically)...or in your case, one product over another.
if you do everything the same, and test your car on another dyno down the road, you get a widely varying result. you know this to be the case. and don't say that's why you tested only on the one dyno, it still doesn't resolve anything. it only gets you a number that you can then compare with others. and what's the point to that? that a chipped car is faster? we know that. that this chip is better than others, well maybe. but, if you're looking for a verifiable HP number, it will never happen.
the only thing supporting your findings that one chip performs better than the other is your power graphs. but they are not an accurate measure because an identically equipped car at another dyno will get a different result, maybe less of a gain, maybe more, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.
this is the problem with using dynos to prove a result, or a specific number.
this is where the dyno proves flawed. there are thousands of dyno runs done on A4's, for example. that's why most people respect and rely on the factory HP number as being at least uniform, achieved under adequately controlled and accepted conditions.
i really don't understand the whole basis for your argument here? what is it you're trying to prove exactly? you conducted a dyno test of your chipped A4 to the best of your abilities(and the tuners) and that's all. it will not give you accurate or accepted HP numbers. aside from the many uncontrollabe variables, you are trying to determine HP numbers as compared to stock/factory numbers(typically)...or in your case, one product over another.
if you do everything the same, and test your car on another dyno down the road, you get a widely varying result. you know this to be the case. and don't say that's why you tested only on the one dyno, it still doesn't resolve anything. it only gets you a number that you can then compare with others. and what's the point to that? that a chipped car is faster? we know that. that this chip is better than others, well maybe. but, if you're looking for a verifiable HP number, it will never happen.
the only thing supporting your findings that one chip performs better than the other is your power graphs. but they are not an accurate measure because an identically equipped car at another dyno will get a different result, maybe less of a gain, maybe more, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.
this is the problem with using dynos to prove a result, or a specific number.