[UnfocusedST]

So many intercoolers... But what to do with them?

You can send me one. I don't care as long as it's better than my oem one.

Sent from my Galaxy S3.

 

[NCspecV81]

What time is the dyno

 

[n8sst]

So many intercoolers... But what to do with them?

also which FMIC is the one on the far right? that thing is a monster compared to the others

 

[EdgeAutosport.com]

also which FMIC is the one on the far right? that thing is a monster compared to the others

That is the mountune on the far right. But size isn't everything...

Dyno results are back in. So far no one has guessed correctly but a few have gotten sorta close. No one has come close to guessing the corrected numbers so we are going to go off of uncorrected.

 

[gringoloco]

That is the mountune on the far right. But size isn't everything...

Dyno results are back in. So far no one has guessed correctly but a few have gotten sorta close. No one has come close to guessing the corrected numbers so we are going to go off of uncorrected.

Waiting patiently in suspense, lol post the numbers up!!!!

 

[DesertST]

oh, i thought we were supposed to be guessing uncorrected based on what your base run sheets were

 

[MCLMM]

how accurate are the altitude corrected results? i never looked into the conversion but those are some big numbers.

i'd love to see those logs.

 

[NCspecV81]

while we wait lets play "identify the **** tease".


Said with tons of love~!

 

[gringoloco]

Ah they posted on their FB page, great numbers! Time to post up the graph

"We ended up at 334whp/331wtq!!! Our corrected numbers are 410whp/407tq!"

 

[go46ball]

NICE.....stock injectors?

I have a feeling I am right around 365-375whp 380-400 wtq now that I am mixing in the 104 with the 93 and boost up at 25lbs on this file. (.64 though}

Great work guys!

 

[gringoloco]

NICE.....stock injectors?

I have a feeling I am right around 365-375whp 380-400 wtq now that I am mixing in the 104 with the 93 and boost up at 25lbs on this file. (.64 though}

Great work guys!

I think they are running the stock injectors still, not sure if they went with the Mountune ones or not. But here is what they said "GTX2867R running 25psi in the mid range, 20psi up top, all bolt-ons, and 91 pump gas with a custom tune."

 

[hemiCouple@Stratified]

334/331 on 91? oh my

aren't they at like 30,000 feet?

 

[NCspecV81]

334/331 sounds about right for GTX2867 with the stock injectors. I think Edge is doing the respectable thing and claiming the 334whp. A correction factor of 1.23 sounds REALLY off.

 

[Justin@FreekTune]

334/331 on 91? oh my

aren't they at like 30,000 feet?

Ya 6000 ft. Lol. It's up there

 

[Justin@FreekTune]

334/331 sounds about right for GTX2867 with the stock injectors. I think Edge is doing the respectable thing and claiming the 334whp. A correction factor of 1.23 sounds REALLY off.

Average cf up there is 17-20% lol

 

[DesertST]

wow. great numbers. beat my guess by 7 hp. 4 short on the tq though

 

[Justin@FreekTune]

Here is some food for thought too. Assuming 17-20% cf, and when he was stock turbo, his ST would have made about 210ish whp uncorrected (it was 250 SAE corrected). Bolt on a 2867 up there in the clouds and re-tune... add 130hp. lol.

 

[EdgeAutosport.com]

NICE.....stock injectors?

I have a feeling I am right around 365-375whp 380-400 wtq now that I am mixing in the 104 with the 93 and boost up at 25lbs on this file. (.64 though}

Great work guys!

Yes we are still on stock injectors but not for long. We'll be putting in the mountune's next week most likely then scheduling another dyno session. By the way, do you have any dynographs you could post up in here? Would be cool to see how the different hot sides (.64 vs .86) compare when it comes to spool and flow up top.

As for corrected vs uncorrected, that is a debate that can never be won by either side. That's why we post up both.

We made 193whp uncorrected on stock turbo with a stage 1 tune. With the standard correction factor, it was 237. In this case the corrected numbers were right on par with what everybody else is making across the country. With the upgraded turbo, our uncorrected number is 334whp. This is actually on a pretty aggressive tune running 12.5 afr and 25psi and would likely be higher at a lower elevation. Our corrected numbers are at 410whp. Now we all know that the Focus ST doesn't have the fuel capabilities to push that kind of power on the stock injectors. Probably not even running as lean as Go46ball is running. But up here where there is less air, the fuel system isn't pushed as hard and that's why it comes out higher. The correction factor can't take into account the physical limitations of the car.

So for comparing across the country, 410whp on our Focus ST will seem extravagant due to the limitations everyone knows are there. However, in Colorado where everyone is up here in the clouds the 410hp dyno is the one that is going to be compared to. All the cars here are dyno'd with the same correction factor so for our local area it works. If someone here says they have a 400whp STI, we are right there with them

Uncorrected:

Corrected:

 

[NCspecV81]

Just a heads up. SAE J1349

https://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm

Section 5.5.2

An easier link

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...U4rZAoK90gHI44DwDw&usg=AFQjCNE9df2FYPHkj-8bxHQv4EwZv21lig&bvm=bv.64507335,d.dmQ

5.5.2 - On any engine where the power output is automatically controlled to compensate for changes in one or more of the listed inlet air and fuel supply test conditions, no correction for that test parameter shall be made. For example, boosted engines with absolute pressure controls shall not be corrected for ambient barometric pressure.

 

[EdgeAutosport.com]

Just a heads up. SAE J1349

https://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm

Section 5.5.2

An easier link

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...U4rZAoK90gHI44DwDw&usg=AFQjCNE9df2FYPHkj-8bxHQv4EwZv21lig&bvm=bv.64507335,d.dmQ

We completely understand why you can't use correction factors in the same way with boosted cars, it's a volumetric efficiency equation that can't be compared apples to apples. However, you have to consider the facts of what implies a correction factor for a boosted car at altitude. Garrett has a great article about how pressure ratios work on their site. They even reference Denver as the city, using 5,000 feet of altitude. Here's a link: Pressure Ratio | Turbobygarrett.

Without going into too much detail, here's how pressure ratio is calculated. I'm not using difference in pressure after air travels through the intake system. I'm just using simple numbers but staying apples to apples.

(psia + psig) / psig = pressure ratio (or turbo pressure/boost)

psia = absolute pressure, or atmospheric pressure
psig = gauge pressure, or amount of pressure ABOVE atmospheric that the turbo is producing

Taking our 25psi max boost pressure, here's what sea level pressure ratio is compared to our pressure ratio.

Sea Level (SAE calculated condition) Pressure Ratio -

(14.7psi + 25psi) / 14.7psi = 2.7

Denver Altitude Pressure Ratio

(12.4psi +25psi) / 12.4psi = 3.0

If you go backwards and try to achieve the same pressure ratio up here in Denver as you have at sea level, you would just reverse the equation.

2.7 = (12.4psi + x) / 12.4psi

33.48 = 12.4 + x

x = 21.08

This basically means that in Denver, our turbo at 21.08 psi is working just as hard as your turbo at 25psi. That's a huge difference in efficiency. On the other hand, if the sea level car were at 3.0 pressure ratio, it would be running 29.4psi. That's how much more air there is at sea level. So for the sake of how volumetric efficiency works, it's not a linear relationship from NA cars to boosted cars for the correction factor because of the variables in a boosted car (intercooler, size of turbo, etc). That's why you can't use correction factors in the same way. But there is a correction factor somewhere.

As far as our actual correction factor used, it's not just a made up number. The DynoJets basically have a weather station attached to them that calculate the correction factor based on the conditions. One of our runs was actually 1.22 CF and the other 3 were 1.23 CF. That same correction factor is used for any NA car on that dyno as well.

I personally had a Mazdaspeed 3 that, on this exact dyno, made 291whp/334wtq CORRECTED with around the same correction factor with stock turbo at 20psi. I moved to WA state and Cobb Tuning Surgeline tuned my car and made 284whp/330wtq UNCORRECTED at 18psi. That's a perfect example that when I went to almost sea level I really did make the power that the corrected dyno in Denver said I would have made if I went to sea level AND AT LESS BOOST!!!

JP