Any 996 results?

 

None of the 996 guys dyno'ed.

 

all those 996 guys pussed out, I think they were afraid of the Lambo and GTR's

 

Ha .

I hung a dyno sheet on the wall from my last session there. Was it still hanging up?

 

yah, I saw one of the GTR guys grab some paper from the wall and say he was going to the bathroom, not sure if that was it but it was the only piece on the wall

 

where's the result?

 

is it dyno sheet off of 996TT Tony?
what is the number?

 

Sorry to disapoint sonny, just some white wagon

 

lol. the wagon # must scared the 996TTs....

 

Hi Tony, I did use atmospheric correction on the 79 Alfa and the Gallardo(1.28), everything else was wearing a turbo and used the same 1.15 CF. Your sheet is still up and I can scan it if you wish.



The GT-Rs were amazingly consistent amongst themselves regarding the state of tune. All were measured below 10:1 AFRs through the powerband, as well as only 14PSIg tapering to 13PSIg. Amazing spoolup too. I can't say enough about the impressive nature of these.






But the best numbers of the day came from the TT Viper. This car was a real handful, but worth every nanosecond. 1.15 CF as well. This is the lowest reading he has gotten versus the local DynoJet and SuperFlo. The first pull yielded powdered rubber all over the top of the car and back of the dyno. But we got traction after that one.


The only other cars were a couple of nice young guys in an S-4 Stage 2+ and a stage 2 STi. The owner of the S4 stated that he thought some EPL tuning was in his future here.



1.15CF too.

That was tiring and I have been passed out since coming home. I am not used to strapping down so many cars in a day. It was an honor to sit in every car today. Sorry for getting in so dirty to the last 4 folks, I usually don't have to grovel so much to find tie down points.

 

you know, I expected much more from a Lamborghini

 

Haha :-)
Harv, I thought my 'blue' line run (and from looking at it on the plot) was 363 and #2 or 3 was the 356? was i just high or reading it wrong?
(not that it really matters, just askin)

 

Either way, I did some quick correction factor calcs from the rated 520 and it lands right in the same area, so you are right on the money with what it should be putting down, pressuming about 18% loss through the awd drivetrain. which is on the more efficient end of loss for awd.

Harv, can you tell us what all the cars are putting down uncorrected? I think those are more real world seat of the pants numbers.

 

You are right, I will repost your sheet Monday reflecting the first pull's number.

I will also repost the middle GT-R sheet completely uncorrected.

 

for us guys new to altitude, it seems like we can only compare our power to other cars putting power down up at our altitude. So uncorrected numbers give us more of an indication as to street performance, since that is what we feel, seat of the pants.

In other words, comparing the uncorrected numbers for all these cars is more indicative how how their performance will vary, isn't it, since the corrected numbers are only to show how the car would behave under normal conditions in sunny California in spring

Don't get me wrong, I like the corrected values because they show us what we would be making against the rest of the world, which is good, but since we aren't about to leave gods country shouldn't they be correcting their numbers up to our altitude