Mach V Dyno Day preliminary results [long]
04-14-2001, 09:54 PM
#21
Elder Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 22,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not looking to get you "torqued off", but lets try this one more time . . .
Forgetting about the Fwd variable for a minute.
You posted the following results:
180TTQ with APR and MTM 154hp
180TTQ with Garrett and Borla 154hp
How could two totally different chips and exhausts have the SAME results? BUT!
2 225TTQ's with MTM and Forge-Milltek have two different hp and torque results?
Please explain that to everyone!
That is too big of a discrepancy to ignore. Please don't say the rpms were different, because they should be all getting tested teh SAME! That is the entire reason why you have a dyno day and bring similar cars. you want to be able to compare each setup to one another. If each rading is being taken at different rpms and different gears then these people have all wasted their time and money and your companies time.
Can you please answer the above? Thanks.
You posted the following results:
180TTQ with APR and MTM 154hp
180TTQ with Garrett and Borla 154hp
How could two totally different chips and exhausts have the SAME results? BUT!
2 225TTQ's with MTM and Forge-Milltek have two different hp and torque results?
Please explain that to everyone!
That is too big of a discrepancy to ignore. Please don't say the rpms were different, because they should be all getting tested teh SAME! That is the entire reason why you have a dyno day and bring similar cars. you want to be able to compare each setup to one another. If each rading is being taken at different rpms and different gears then these people have all wasted their time and money and your companies time.
Can you please answer the above? Thanks.
04-14-2001, 09:55 PM
#22
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 5,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding 6Hp difference between Dave and Michael...
That's not an unreasonable number considering that there are manufacturing differences between the cars. Meaning it is highly unlikely either car's engine and drive train tolerances are exactly the same or identical. These differences can easily account for the 6Hp difference between the two.
04-14-2001, 10:19 PM
#25
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 5,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't explain the diff or lack of but I was just pointing out it could easily be caused by something
of the sort. I do agree 100% that in order for the results to be comparable all the cars had to be tested exactly the same way or method.
But just for comparison’s sake the best way of comparing the results would be to import the data into a spreadsheet and plot Hp vs rpm for each car in the same graph then you can see the performance difference across the rpm range.
But just for comparison’s sake the best way of comparing the results would be to import the data into a spreadsheet and plot Hp vs rpm for each car in the same graph then you can see the performance difference across the rpm range.
04-14-2001, 10:47 PM
#30
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 5,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha-ha :-) Come to think of it, since all the sheets are from the same dyno...
hence the same physical size, you can probably just scan them and overlay them in multiple layers using Adobe Photoshop or something. You can probably do a little bit of non-symmetric scaling or stretching of the axes to match them exactly. That should be a lot easier to do