[ba] Re: [s-cars] 80tq: 20v Project Update, 415whp, 12.25, etc
JShadzi at aol.com
JShadzi at aol.com
Fri Nov 12 00:10:50 EST 2004
I just wanted to clarify (and speak for myself), that I didn't post here to
attack anyone or call anyone into question - I just wanted to share some
excitement with other Audi-turbo-heads about my project, that's all! =) (really
big, bad-tone defying smile)
In my original post, I stated that I was quoting an "uncorrected figure".
I'm of the opinion that SAE correction figures for turbocharged motors are not
valid, nothing personal against you, I'm not the only one in the "tuning
community" that feels this way, and I've taken the advice of tuners/engineers
with much more experience and understanding of this topic than I do. Do a
little research, you'll quickly find I'm not the only one saying this.
I also have to admit that I know very little about your project or its
results - care to share your experiences? I'm sure you have plenty with the S-car
list in the past, but I'd love to hear about it, sounds like you've got a
project with a lot of passion and energy invested into it.
In a message dated 11/11/2004 8:03:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, Djdawson2
Sorry, but you need to go back to school. If the air is being forced in or
not, the conditions, if not standardized, do have an impact. They may have a
different impact (as a percentage), but to say they don't apply to turbo
engines is absolutely and unquestionably inaccurate. Does your car run the same
on a 100 degree day as a 30 degree day? Of course not. That means that
some sort of correction is REQUIRED to normalize the tests. Otherwise, we can
just wait for that 20 degree day, test the car "uncorrected," and claim
victory because Brett said that temp, pressure, and humidity don't matter to turbo
I can appreciate your list of typical dyno tricks, but we're not quite that
stupid. There are a few of us here, interested in taking a scientific
approach to engine tuning. The "cheating" concepts that you've spoken of don't
pertain to my concept of scientific, and an exaggerated number doesn't provide
me any benefit. If you had looked at my latest graph, you'd see 72 F, 24.4
in Hg, and 7% humidity... all very reasonable, no tampering.
Seems like some of you think there is a conspiracy theory WRT dyno testing
by us Denver folks. Well, there isn't a conspiracy, more likely an interest
in finding what correction is reasonable... and one is required. Anyone
claiming that there is no difference between uncorrected power at altitude vs.
uncorrected at sea level just because there's a turbo involved, needs to revisit
To satisfy my curiosity, I'll go to a sea level dyno and see just exactly
what the difference is... but I'm going to guess someone will still "cry foul."
BTW, I'm not interested in confrontational speculation, just real results.
So don't take my comments personally. However, don't just throw "stuff" out
there as fact, that simply isn't fact. The conditions surrounding the test
ALWAYS have an impact, and to claim that they don't, is ignorant.
Remember, I'm in this for the fun... so let's have fun, damn it!
Dave in OH, today
More information about the ba-group