Chad,
I have seen some rather odd numbers on the GTII. Porsche does run a whole different mapping setup with these cars and I do feel they are underrating them. The past few I have seen are supporting numbers that borderline Porsche as a Sandbagger. Most of the standard TTs I have based lined are showing near X50 power which is amazing. Once or twice I shrugged it off, but I have a folder showing this is more common then not.

The IVGT is able to produce the amount of air needed to support well over 600RWHP. Ryan's 631RWHP was not that big of a shock. There were also several other runs that were about what my car was doing (610) with 62-649RWTQ. They were very consistent.

There really is not a whole lot of calibration on the dyno jet. One could assume that the system was skewed, but the numbers were very consistent to what it did here in Dec and what it was doing up there a couple of months ago when we were there. The baselines before we started making changes again were all within 20HP between 2 dynos. It wasn't unit we made a series of changes and moved the program to compensate the midrange dip that it took off. It was a momentum effect to the program that allowed the turbos to do their job and continue to maintain its momentum. What we had before was a dip that was not allowing the turbos to do their job in the midrange, by the time they came back up the RPM range was done and the turbo could not really be used to its potential.

What we see with Ryan's car is consistent with what we have been doing the last couple of months.

Lou,
The dyno only gives RWHP, not crank.

 

Fair enough Stephen. What correction factor is the dyno reporting at? Is it SAE 1990 Revision, SAE Standard, uncorrected?

 

Stephen (Will work for HP): Is the "fix" applied to Ryans car only required for the GT2 programming, or could TT's bennifit from this also?

Mike

 

Ryan,

H'mmm...that is really amazing. I had no idea that a tuned GT-2 was pumping those sorts of numbers. You should really smoke the Upsolute car in a roll-on acceleration run now!! When can we expect to see the results for this?

 

YEA, THE DYNO MUST BE BROKEN

Shank is running Stage IV GT w/ our modified Garrett Turbos.

 

Todd,

That makes more since. KA was using Garrett modified turbo's last October with a very similar curve making similar power. I have a hard time believing stock intake and throttle body though. It really doesn't make any difference any more.

I have asked questions and it is secrets as usual. Kind of reminds me of the Stage V incident and why I no longer gave any more information about Killer Angels new motor. I'm really no longer interested in what dyno correction it was using. Not interested in playing games and prying teeth. No more questions. If you think the car has a chance against KA, bring it to California, I'll run it.

 

Zippy, The TT doesn't have the same issue as the GTII. The load is different because of the AWD.

Chad, The dynos we run on are SAE 1990. There are really no secrets on this. Heck, we were getting questioned to death at Fall Line (great guys BTW) and the Exchange. Neither Todd or I mind showing and telling what we were doing. Heck I peeled Ryan's ECU open right there in the middle of the dealer with Ryan watching me. We burned it and loaded it right there in the open. I am sorry you feel that info is being withheld. Just not the case.

 

Thanks for the reassurance Stephen. I will be up and running by the end of next week.

 

Stephen,

Sorry, but the actions don't equal the words. I asked about correction factor three times yesterday. You saw what I got. You post DIN sheets and you say it is SAE 1990 Rev. You and I both know opening a GIAC ECU which is encoded in front of the whole world isn't going to reveal a thing. And my questions went on....but not anymore. This board was really free with information until my idea of a shootout came along and certain parties decided the free exchange of information might cost them an event. I'll never forget to what depths they stooped to win. I refused to participate because of what went on. As it was, even that didn't help them win. Just like the Stage V, I have no more questions.

Ryan, personally I am very happy for what you achieved with the GT2. It is the best numbers I have seen on a GT2 to date.

 

Hey chad if you are upto it, how about a 1 on 1 shoot out. But meet me half way somewhere. If you dont mind coming to Chicago, I will put the Killer Angel in a 5 star hotel

I suggest the following:

0 to 60

0 to 100 to 0

1 mile race

Lap run at Gingerman Raceway

No restrictions to mods except no NOS.

Perhaps we can have a 6speeodnline "Excellence" or another "European Car Mag" shootout, headlined "2 Wheel Drive vs. AWD"

What do you say?

I dont care what each of our cars Dynos but rather real/true performance shootout.

Come on Killer Angel, The Shankenfelter GT2 calls you out.

 

I thought Chad only compares dyno sheets.
Are you proposing that he actually drive his car? Oh the horror!

 

Chad:

Please hang in their. I really do think Todd and Stephan really share information freely and they certainly stand behind their products. We really want your input and since it wasn't their dyno, maybe they don't have the answers to the correction factors questions you keep asking.

 

Quote cjv July 2003

"Ryan,

Remember back in May you were going to have Stephen make some mods and then bring your car out to California for a friendly run off? You really didn't have to dismantle your car and then sell it just to avoid the run off. See if you can get your GT2 ready before the end of summer. I know Stephen can do it. Ryan, I'm just having some fun. "

I say bring your car out to California, nothing has changed in my offer. We can run for best lap at Thunderhill. It's a fast track. I can see if a day right after Easter is available. Bring and use all the ponies you have, I will use whatever I choose.

 

Chad,
I am really stunned these types of things are still in your head. First off we made probably 30 pulls in two days. We did data on a Mustang and DynoJet. Some were corrected and some were not. We have the uncorrected files on disc as I said.

Lastly anyone that was at either shop can tell you exactly what it was we did. We were not looking for a numbers, we were looking to pull the midrange up. That was it. We were looking for a curve that was usable and an improvement over where we were. Anyone in either location can tell you including Ryan, what the AFRs were, what we did to the cars for improvements, what the wastegate were set at, how much timing we added in the midrange, and so on. Todd and I openly discussed what we were doing how and what. Why we tried this, what we were trying next. Even the kid from the dealer was watching me data log in the front seat. I have always explained with only a few exceptions. The night you called I shared with you what I was doing and using, heck I also told Rob and we chatted about a few things I was working on. No one has hidden anything from you. Certainly not in this case, we didn't care about the numbers, we were worried about the dip in the midrange. Same with David's car. All of his numbers were uncorrected on the Mustang. Not a one was converted. We didn't care, what we were looking for was a good range.

I am really sorry we are still have "these" type of discussions. Todd and I were an open book and I certainly was to many people I didn't even know. I spent two days working and installing things before we even hit the dynos.

 

Well put Stephen. Not sure why ALL the hostility Why is this so hard to believe??? Last month we were at 620 RWHP on our Dynojet in AZ. This is an "evolution" of what we learned last week, last month, last year, last 10 years. Next month we will be at 670 rwhp I have a car that will be getting some more "love" and I am sure we will be there and maybe beyond. Cant we all just get along?