Notices
964 Forum 1989-1994
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

1990 Carrera 4 Dyno Runs

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-18-2013, 09:24 PM
  #1  
August West
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
August West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 483
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Default 1990 Carrera 4 Dyno Runs

So I finally got my car dynoed after a year plus of putting it off...my car has the regular SW chip in it, Euro RS valves, Elgin Super C2 cams, Fabspeed Sport Cat, Cup Airbox w/ K&N filter, and a G-pipe.

My intentions are to send these results to Steve Wong and get a custom chip made, but I thought I'd float the results with all you guys and perhaps get some opinions as to if it'll be worth $675 to get a new chip made or not. The AFR seems a bit rich but I don't know offhand how askew it is...thoughts?

Also wondering what you guys use for estimating power at flywheel given it's a C4? I've heard 15% for 2WD and anywhere from 20-25% for AWD...thoughts?

Thanks in advance!
Attached Images   
Old 02-18-2013, 11:21 PM
  #2  
-nick
Three Wheelin'
 
-nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cambridge/Boston, MA
Posts: 1,781
Received 104 Likes on 80 Posts
Default

I'm going to say that you're much too lean. The AFR on my bone stock '91 C4 was down to 11.6 at ~6300rpm. With the 93octane Wong chip it was down a bit more to 11.4.

I'm not sure how the injection compensates for all of the extra breathing that you've given the motor. Using a carb example- when you make the engine breathe more air, you have to go up a jet size so that it also gets more fuel. There could be some analog of that going on.

Here are the results from my dyno runs, with and without the SW chip, otherwise 100% stock. This was on a Mustang dyno in 3rd gear.

https://rennlist.com/forums/964-foru...ve-w-chip.html

*edit, looks like photobucket is down at the moment so the plot isn't coming up, but my numbers are in there. Hope this helps!
Old 02-19-2013, 12:06 AM
  #3  
Cosmos99
Pro
 
Cosmos99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by -nick
I'm going to say that you're much too lean. The AFR on my bone stock '91 C4 was down to 11.6 at ~6300rpm. With the 93octane Wong chip it was down a bit more to 11.4.

I'm not sure how the injection compensates for all of the extra breathing that you've given the motor. Using a carb example- when you make the engine breathe more air, you have to go up a jet size so that it also gets more fuel. There could be some analog of that going on.

Here are the results from my dyno runs, with and without the SW chip, otherwise 100% stock. This was on a Mustang dyno in 3rd gear.

https://rennlist.com/forums/964-foru...ve-w-chip.html

*edit, looks like photobucket is down at the moment so the plot isn't coming up, but my numbers are in there. Hope this helps!
14.7 is stiochiometric anything with a lower first number is rich and a higher first number is lean. So if you are running 11.6 your car is running rich as stock and even richer with the chip ( which it will usually ). To the OP I would ask the guru Steve Weiner from Rennsport Systems or Geoffry. They can help you interpret your dyno figures.
Old 02-19-2013, 12:28 AM
  #4  
-nick
Three Wheelin'
 
-nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cambridge/Boston, MA
Posts: 1,781
Received 104 Likes on 80 Posts
Default

Stoichiometric is great for a emissions, but not for power (nor fuel economy).

But I do agree about just sending the curve to the experts. I'm sure that Steve will tell you directly if he thinks that the arf is very far off in his experience. I'm guessing that it is.

Last edited by -nick; 02-19-2013 at 12:46 AM.
Old 02-19-2013, 12:39 AM
  #5  
provoste
Rennlist Member
 
provoste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southern Indiana
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

FYI- 964's don't make good power running rich. Low 13's AFR are generally Steve's targets. 11-12 is RICH.
Old 02-21-2013, 01:08 PM
  #6  
August West
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
August West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 483
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Okay, I've stared into the rabbit hole of differences between dyno machines and it seems that Mustang dynos typically report horsepower readings that are around 12% lower than what dynojet dynos report. Differences lie between the way the machines load up the chassis.

I was a little let down that after all my engine upgrades that the Mustang dyno only showed a max of 211 rear wheel horsepower coming from my car. Once I corrected the reading, conservatively using 10% for the differences between dyno machines, and then conservatively using 20% drivetrain loss in an AWD C4, I arrived at a more respectable number:

211/.90 equals 234, then dividing by .80 equals 292 flywheel horsepower. The final number can vary substantially depending on what factors one uses for drivetrain loss and conversion factor between the two dyno machines.

It seems that the Mustang dynos are better for actually tuning the car because it tries to mimic real world loadings with car weight and wind speed, etc. It seems that most people prefer the dynojet readings because the numbers come out more robust!

I'm gonna go ahead and get Steve to burn a new chip... I've already spent boatloads on engine upgrades, so what's another $675 dollars, huh? My AFR needs to be smoothed out and brought closer to 13.2:1...I'll let you all know how it goes.

Last edited by August West; 02-21-2013 at 01:14 PM. Reason: erroneous statement
Old 02-21-2013, 01:23 PM
  #7  
D.C.
Instructor
 
D.C.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Fairfax Virginia
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I have a stupid math question for everyone.

Seems there are 3 ways to calculate this.

211/.90 equals 234, then dividing by .80 equals 292 flywheel horsepower.
or
211/.8 equals 263, then dividing by .90 equals 293.
or do we add the 20% and the 10% together and do it this way.
211/.7 equals 301

Not really that much difference, but 8hp might make you feel even better.

I think 211/.7 = 301hp is the correct way to do the math.

Congrats, and nice work

Dave
Old 02-21-2013, 01:24 PM
  #8  
Lorenfb
Race Car
 
Lorenfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,045
Likes: 0
Received 61 Likes on 54 Posts
Default

"My intentions are to send these results to Steve Wong and get a custom chip made"

Don't waste your time and money!

Read here;
https://rennlist.com/forums/911-foru...-the-myth.html
Old 02-21-2013, 01:35 PM
  #9  
-nick
Three Wheelin'
 
-nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cambridge/Boston, MA
Posts: 1,781
Received 104 Likes on 80 Posts
Default

I've never trusted a dyno to measure anything except differences in output on the same car and with the same dyno. Ultimate numbers seem to be a ballpark at best.

I am now enlightened in regards to target afr for our 3.6's. I thought my numbers were pretty rich but I didn't have a reason to doubt them. Now I'm wondering if I've got an air/vacuum leak someplace.

Anyway, I would be curious to see what Steve W. thinks of your afr curve. And how the dyno curves compare if he burns you a new fuel map.

For the math- it would be a 10% correction between dynos first, then the correction for flywheel power. But there is a lot of wiggle room in those numbers.
Old 02-21-2013, 02:41 PM
  #10  
provoste
Rennlist Member
 
provoste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southern Indiana
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Lorenfb
"My intentions are to send these results to Steve Wong and get a custom chip made"

Don't waste your time and money!

Read here;
https://rennlist.com/forums/911-foru...-the-myth.html
Again? Please let's not revisit this argument once again.
Old 02-21-2013, 04:07 PM
  #11  
Lorenfb
Race Car
 
Lorenfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,045
Likes: 0
Received 61 Likes on 54 Posts
Default

"Please let's not revisit this argument once again."

But we continue to see the naive get sucked into 'taking the snake oil'!
Old 02-21-2013, 04:11 PM
  #12  
KaiB
Banned
 
KaiB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Deep Downtown Carrier, OK
Posts: 5,297
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Lorenfb
"Please let's not revisit this argument once again."

But we continue to see the naive get sucked into 'taking the snake oil'!
Time and time again, you only pop up to spew your venom regarding this subject. Do us all a favor and leave it alone; your point(s) have been made and taken...no need to regurgitate the same old.

If you really feel the need to do so, perhaps OT would be the best spot.
Old 02-21-2013, 09:41 PM
  #13  
August West
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
August West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 483
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

I'm remapping because of the extensive upgrades that I've done to the engine and it only makes sense to address the fuel mapping in these instances...it's not a matter of naivete or drinking snake oil.

Lorenfb's reputation precedes him... 'nuff said on that.
Old 02-21-2013, 10:36 PM
  #14  
Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems
RL Technical Advisor
 
Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 11,871
Likes: 0
Received 64 Likes on 48 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Lorenfb
"My intentions are to send these results to Steve Wong and get a custom chip made"

Don't waste your time and money!

Read here;
https://rennlist.com/forums/911-foru...-the-myth.html
BS.

For the benefit of others following this thread,...

A GOOD chip improves throttle response and torque provided good premium fuel is used.

Naturally, the success or failure lies with the experience and knowledge of the person doing this and E-bay software is to be avoided like the plague (Loren knows this).

Mister Wong is one of the best at this.
Old 02-22-2013, 01:41 AM
  #15  
Lorenfb
Race Car
 
Lorenfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,045
Likes: 0
Received 61 Likes on 54 Posts
Default

"BS."

And where are your data and references to refute it?
Have yet to see any of your personal data or dyno runs!

Have to love those that promote 'tuning' are also the ones that profit off the naive.


Quick Reply: 1990 Carrera 4 Dyno Runs



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 04:59 PM.