Claimed was 600 - I dynoed level IA600 not IA600R!!

 

Stock. My rep downloaded my stock file into their system and they programmed it based off of that....like they do with all customers' files.

 

Why didn't you dyno the IV GT mode? Were you using fourth or fifth gear?

 

Sorry, I just read your whole post. That is one strange dyno. I have nothing to compare to those figures or how to convert.

 

Third gear cause the dyno could only go to 126MPH!!
I do not have 4GT...My 100 octane map is aka 4R (R for race)...
I chose to run 93 octane so I can get an accurate stock (with Fabspeed) reading.

 

Shouldn't your transmission/drivetrain losses be considered a constant rather than a percentage? If nothing has changed inside your transmission between dyno pulls than it should take the same amount of work to get the gears, etc. moving? Drivetrain losses at 400rwhp * 0.28 = 112bhp : at 600rwhp * 0.28 = 168bhp. How can a 200rwhp increase at the wheels also increase by 56rwhp the amount of work required to spin the same drivetrain that has not increased in mass?

 

Jason -I think friction and heat are what account for the losses....

 

Bill,
Thank you very much for that excellent explanation of differences between dynos. I very much appreciate it. I have always heard and believed the mechanically coupled and resistive dynos (Mustang) were good. I used AWE's Mustang Dyno for my baseline run and in the upcoming weeks will schedule another visit to see what I am now producing with the Stage 4. I will keep you guys posted of the outcome.

Jason,
I have heard what others have said, but I really don't have an answer for your question regarding losses. I was also questioning that very same thing. Although I don't think it is a true constant, I find it very hard to believe that it is a static proportion. Based on my knowledge, I would expect the loss to be closer to a constant, with some slight variation across the rpm range rather than a constant proportion.

To All,
Taking the proportionality or constant drivetrain loss argument out of the equation, particularly since a person's level of upkeep of their car, the age and condition of the transmission oil, the quality of lube in all of the drivetrain joints and wheel bearings, the age of car, etc., etc. all have big impacts on drivetrain losses, may we simply compare wheel horsepower in our online discussions as a general rule?
Arguably, it is my belief that wheel horsepower is wheel horsepower for our online comparison purposes. It still represents the horsepower being delivered to the ground. Isn't that what this is all about anyway?
Besides, just a 2 point variation in an assumed loss proportion (1.24 vs 1.26, or .81 vs .79 if you prefer to look at it the other way) will result in 5-10 horsepower in itself at the power levels we are taking about here!! So, let's not guess at losses anymore. Let's all compare wheel horsepower and state the machine on which it was determined. Since we know of the variations in the machines (2 wheel, 4 wheel mechanical, 4 wheel electronic, etc.) we have just equalled the playing field and made it that much closer to perfect comparisons by eliminating yet another source of error.

With that said, my original baseline peak wheel horsepower was 372 on a Mustang 4 wheel dyno. My only mod at that time was the Europipe Stage 2 Loud.

 

No problem.

372...wow, that's very impressive with just an exhaust. Stock 996TT were at 340-350 WHP.

 

Great numbers Congrats...Nothing like power in a TT eh

 

Thanks stephen. I couldnt agree more! Now, if I could only get my hands on some nice turbos!

After the power/suspension has been done, I'll start on the weight reduction project. Will it ever end?

 

You are asking the wrong person. I know nothing about that

 

400hp at the wheels? Is Porsche quoting 415hp at the flywheel then?

 

Is it acceptable to get JUST the Upsolute ECU chip and not the exhaust? If you are getting 559 at the flywheel and they claim 510 or thereabouts for just the chip, perhaps they are quite close with their claim.

We don't have a 'Dave' out here in S. Cal that I know of who can do the exhaust, so if the chip works as well as they say - I don't see why not to spend the $500 to get it!