I guess this is where things get a bit confusing, on his baseline run his correction factor was .98 and on his y-pipe run the CF is 1.02. It doesn't sound like much, but it will influence the numbers a bit. It's far more ideal that the CFs be within .1. not .4. It does make a bit of a difference, especially when the CF is over 1.0. The math to convert is actually pretty easy to get the non-corrected numbers. Take the baseline 159fwhp and multiply it times 1.02 (since the CF was .98) which equals 162fwhp uncorrected (that's what the car really made in the conditions). Now take the y-pipe 178fwhp and multiply times 0.98 (since the CF was 1.02) which equals 174fwhp uncorrected. Now take the uncorrected numbers 174-159 and you get 12 or 12fwhp gained. Granted the math IS NOT perfect here. It is safe to assume under similar conditions, the Y-pipe gained him an honest 12-14fwhp, not 18fwhp. This comparison is great though, because it shows how much stronger the VQ runs when it's cooler outside (63 degrees vs 91 degrees).



Dave

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...VERY interesting.

 

174-159=15...

 

Thanks and you're a damn moron yourself. Get a sense of humor buddy...

 

whats the deal with cattman? if its a performance business, why does he go to a mechanic to have stuff put on? dont they have to put it on to fit it and everything?

 

But why would you use uncorrected numbers, Dave? I thought the purpose of the correction factors was to factor out differences in test conditions so that you can do a direct comparison between dynos done at different times and under different atmospheric conditions. I'm missing something here.

 

Ya got me. I meant 174-162.


Dave

 

Yes, but when the CFs vary by such a large margin, gains/looses ultimately get skewed a bit. Keeping the conditions and engine temps the same between tests is the best way to generate good numbers.


Dave