We ran a coulple of cars on an independent dyno,
Same conditions, same test procedure on a Mustang AWD dyno.
PSI 550 car and a stock car for comparison, both on 91 octane.

 

stock car

 

Very nice.

P.S. - Did the owners want their names posted on the internet?

 

The boost frequency valve is all over the place. Was it hitting knock control? Looks like it from the dyno. What gear were the runs made in. Timed or sweep?

 

Neil I thought you were saying this 550 would beat a GT640 Kit? Looking at that curve I think it would have trouble beating a Stage III or a Stave IV. In fact, I think the Upsolute with a Fabspeed exhaust does around the same HP/TQ. When you were telling me on Saturday that the car was making 550 AWHP, I think you were talking about crank HP?

A flashed K24 car with an exhaust puts down this type of HP if not more.

Here's a stage IV from KPV on a Mustang AWD dyno (same as the one you guys were on) from two years ago:
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...light=AWD+dyno

504.4 wheel hp and 486.3 ft-lbs wheel torqueIt should be smooth like this one... This is a 2.5 year old dyno from KPV's stage IV (he since put down 504AWHP and 487TQ) on the same Mustang AWD dyno.

 

That's weird, here is a stage 4 dyno. Judging form other close to stock cars tested on the site, the results still seem optimistic.

http://www.ktrperformance.com/servic...t_Evo_stg4.htm

Also, not all dynos are calibrated properly:

http://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/2186231.phtml

Streetwerke dyno is calibrated properly. Also, running the car in 2WD and 4WD form will change the numbers.
Always test a stock car using the same procedure for accurate results.

 

I would be interested to see the back up information for that claim. Those are some awesome numbers from a flash.

 

Flash, GT1 turbos and exhaust Similair to what your kit has except for the Intake Plenum and 5 bar fuel pressure regulator....

 

i think the streetwerke dyno reads low.

when i dyno'd my car there a few weeks ago, it only measured 400awhp w/ the mods in my signature. i'm confident it's just as fast as my 500rwhp supra on the top-end.

of course, that still means the PSI 550 is faster than my car which, per my mods, shouldn't be the case.

given how many troubles i've had in such a short span of time, it could just be the car has a problem somewhere... and b/c i'm new, i don't know what to expect or to look for yet.

- chuck

 

We are looking at a Mustang, not a DynoDynamics. Two totally different dynos. Bottom line is the comparison being made here is on a Mustang. We know what they read. I know just a little about them. You need to compare apples to apples.

As far as being calibrated. All Mustangs are done so before they leave the factory. If they print screen the parasitic page I can tell you if it is in the ballpark.


Regardless of the numbers that run has something wrong. The chart is all over the map. If I had to make a guess I would say the frequency valve is closed for too long then is overshooting to compensate for the overshoot.. Hence the hump then the dip and the hump and dip again. This is the valve modulating when it is requested to do something beyond its limit. You could scope the valve if you have a 200Mhz scope and compare that to the RPM signal and see what it is doing. It should produce a square wave to the falling edge of the RPM. You can count the pulse widths or cycles that it is moving

 

Do a search here and on Rennlist. Better yet track down Stephan Ti. He can fax you his sheets. This is an old subject.

They are ok, the concern is the curve. Something is not right with the car.

 

The other concern is these dynos don't actually mean all that much since they are not from the same car. A different 996TT that was stock and then another that is modded... Not really a good way to show the effects of mods;( Ah well...

 

Based on the dyno curves posted, I really don't understand how you can immediately determine such things. Only datalogs/test measurement can tell what engine parameters and actuator conditions are.

All Power Curve pulls were done in 4th gear using the Vehicle Simulation mode with simulated inertia enabled (not a controlled sweep or manual load pull). Parasitic value is 1.00 on our dyno. The rpm window method was used to capture the data. We also have all of the trace data on file (A/F ratio, boost, etc.) for internal use, but it's not my position to offer that data to the public. I believe the SAE correction factor ranged from .998-1.004 during the PSI550 pulls. Peak uncorrected power on the PSI550 was actually 463awhp on a couple runs.

I think people should take note of the fact that California 91 octane was used. This is very important. The actual octane performance of that fuel is very close to east coast 89 octane. If the PSI550 car was dynoed on east coast 93/94 fuel, I'm sure the power curve would be higher for sure. Considering the cars that we've seen on our dyno, I was impressed with the PSI550 numbers.

Anyway, feel free to ask any questions about the dyno or test conditions. We welcome other cars to come down and be tested. 650-739-0820 or jason@streetwerke.com will put you in touch with me.

 

Thanks for posting that info. That is helpful.

How could I know...Honestly, because I have over 500 runs with TTs on the dyno. I steady state tune on average 5 cars a month just from the motor builds we do then anything else that walks in the door. I have been through the years of development with the TT since the beginning and know its behavior. I can tell a lot by a chart. I have flown all over the country to work on TTs and tune them properly. It is not that hard truly after hundreds of TT tuned. Only two conditions can exist to cause that dip. We only have 91 here in KC and tune cars for CA on 91 as well. So I am well aware of what the octane can do. On a curve like that something is incorrect. If one really wants to know what the valve is doing. Like I said scope it. I would be willing to bet that it is all over the place. I use a Tectronix 2012 for scoping. It would work fine in this application as well.

All your dyno parameters are on spot. We have the same PV. SAE corrected value of 1.005. Again, the numbers wee fine, the curve was not.

 

You're welcome.

If you have any other questions Stephen, just give me a call.

Realistically, I think that specific PSI550 car needs to be tested again. I'd like to spend more time on the car, since the first time around I didn't really get too involved with the "why" behind the dyno curve. Clearly that dip needs to be addressed, "if" it's a reoccurring issue. Overall, the results seemed promising to me. I've seen a lot of TTs come through here, and it's always nice to see a car make the claimed power like that PSI550 car did. In fact, I looked at the MAHA dyno runs as provided by PSI and the wheel hp is spot on with our Mustang. That alone was refreshing.