Originally Posted By: Tommiee
@gathermewool
We always use crank hp. The superflow always corrects to 1000mbar ambient pressure and 20 degrees celsius so yes the conditions are always thesame. Is was measured 1 day after eachother and the weather was thesame as the day before.
The power was reproducable every time again so it was a fair measurement.
Thanks for the reply.
Sounds like you guys did everything right, if the results were repeatable (I assumed a single-run-to-single-run comparison - sorry). This shows a massive change! Some guys spend hundreds just to tune their ECM/ECU for this kind of gain. It seems almost inconceivable how such little carbon buildup in a forced-induction engine can have such a drastic effect on output.
I'm still not understanding why you guys use CHP over WHP. Why calculate drive-train losses when the rollers and measuring equipment can simply measure what the wheels are outputting (i.e., what you're actually producing for usable power, to the road)? Is CHP a European thing or just where you are (I guess it could be big here, for all I know - I'm not super knowledgeable, which is why I'm asking)? Seems like it's only good for bragging rights, whereas WHP will offer numbers for direct comparison to other vehicles (e.g., one car COULD BE faster than another, if the area under the usable curve is better suited for a specific type of driving and it does not weigh more or have some other detractor, such as AS tires vs super stick Summers, etc.)
Finally, I'm not familiar with dyno software correction tables, but I've seen some instances in other fields where it's best to maintain conditions as close to the same as possible, because a significant amount of error could be introduced from converting using correction factors. Any idea of the practical error in dyno correction factors?