I was there, RSS Plenum Dyno Day
#76
06-06-2008, 12:08 AM
Zero gain? (There is nothing left to scavenge from running rich, according to 1999?)
The same peak hp gain? (+12 whp)
The same % hp gain? (+4%)
A smaller gain?
And why? I guess what I'm saying, is lets be hypothetical and say maybe the 997S in the dyno was running poorly in the first dyno (305 whp). Now the plenum is installed and it pulls 317 whp - is it possible some of the change was due to resetting the ECU? 1999 claims this was done, but I don't recall reading for sure it was - but if it was, is it possible some or most of the gain was due to the ECU instead of the plenum?
Let me put it another way - if someone who starts at 305 gets 317 after, what should someone who starts at 317 expect? 329? 317? Somewhere in the middle? The point being, if the best dyno of a plenum install is equal to what I have stock, is my hp/$ ratio likely to be much lower than the guy who got +12 peak hp? And why did they dyno differently (yes, I know about all the variables - just hypothetical here) - is it possible the lower dyno is due to an underperforming car and the plenum and/or ECU resolve some issues rather than adding new hp (and therefore have less to offer a car that is already performing well/at peak)?
No digs or dings here, just theorizing.
Last edited by gravedgr; 06-06-2008 at 12:12 AM.
#77
06-06-2008, 10:55 AM
again, RSS provided dynos, did the good work. we have no other "good work" to refute this new set of information/data that we got from their efforts. for all this typing engineering textbook crap out there by 1999..... at the end of the day, he will NEVER EVER do anything to back up his claims that the thing doesn't add power.
what's really convoluted is that 1999 has said that the plenum changes the power curve, that they somehow can't back up their 20+hp peak claim that RSSGREG says he never claimed in the first place.... yet the change in power curve absolutely points to a healthy increase in area under the curve stock v. plenum. and like i pointed out earlier, he's accepting the dyno results where it's convenient for him.... he doesn't see a 20+hp peak hp claim that he made up per the dyno and takes it as fact... then continues to ignore the gains throughout the rev range of the very same set of dyno charts for multiple porsche models.
So what he's admitting to is, it's surely adding power to which we are actually all in agreement then, except 1999 is now sitting in his own damn grave.
where the fuq do these idiots like 1999 come from?
Last edited by Benjamin Choi; 06-06-2008 at 11:04 AM.
#78
06-07-2008, 03:27 AM
All this still gets us absolutely nowhere.
Who's right? AWE who have 'proved' the plenum gains nothing over most of the rev band and loses power over some or RSS who have equally 'proved' it gains power right across the rev band?
Lets assume for a moment that both sets of results are valid insofar as they accurately reflect the actual changes seen on the dyno on the day. Then we must ask just what is being done differently to obtain such differing results. If both results are 'real' then there must be some difference in methodology to account for them. The most salient question then becomes which methodology more closely reflects real road conditions - this will be the one that most closely reflects the real gains or otherwise we will see when driving our cars.
At this time we simply don't have enough detailed information to answer this conundrum so the whole plenum debate is still where it was 12 months ago.
Until we have comparisons that show power, coolant temperature, intake air temperature, airflow in CFM, lambda and ignition timing for each run the debate cannot be resolved. All these parameters can be measured in realtime with ODB-II software and would prove once and for all if the plenum improved the efficiency of the engine as a pump at certain rpms (which will show as increased, measured airflow) in which case it will give power at those rpms. Conversely it would prove whether the changes were due to differences in timing / lambda (as can happen after a computer reset). It would also identify false positives due to variations in temperatures forcing changes in lambda and timing.
If AWE and RSS will please give us this information (assuming they ever measured or recorded it) we can make a scientific and informed choice. Without it, all the debate is simply uninformed and meaningless opinion.
Who's right? AWE who have 'proved' the plenum gains nothing over most of the rev band and loses power over some or RSS who have equally 'proved' it gains power right across the rev band?
Lets assume for a moment that both sets of results are valid insofar as they accurately reflect the actual changes seen on the dyno on the day. Then we must ask just what is being done differently to obtain such differing results. If both results are 'real' then there must be some difference in methodology to account for them. The most salient question then becomes which methodology more closely reflects real road conditions - this will be the one that most closely reflects the real gains or otherwise we will see when driving our cars.
At this time we simply don't have enough detailed information to answer this conundrum so the whole plenum debate is still where it was 12 months ago.
Until we have comparisons that show power, coolant temperature, intake air temperature, airflow in CFM, lambda and ignition timing for each run the debate cannot be resolved. All these parameters can be measured in realtime with ODB-II software and would prove once and for all if the plenum improved the efficiency of the engine as a pump at certain rpms (which will show as increased, measured airflow) in which case it will give power at those rpms. Conversely it would prove whether the changes were due to differences in timing / lambda (as can happen after a computer reset). It would also identify false positives due to variations in temperatures forcing changes in lambda and timing.
If AWE and RSS will please give us this information (assuming they ever measured or recorded it) we can make a scientific and informed choice. Without it, all the debate is simply uninformed and meaningless opinion.
#79
06-07-2008, 07:01 AM
All this still gets us absolutely nowhere.
Who's right? AWE who have 'proved' the plenum gains nothing over most of the rev band and loses power over some or RSS who have equally 'proved' it gains power right across the rev band?
Lets assume for a moment that both sets of results are valid insofar as they accurately reflect the actual changes seen on the dyno on the day. Then we must ask just what is being done differently to obtain such differing results. If both results are 'real' then there must be some difference in methodology to account for them. The most salient question then becomes which methodology more closely reflects real road conditions - this will be the one that most closely reflects the real gains or otherwise we will see when driving our cars.
At this time we simply don't have enough detailed information to answer this conundrum so the whole plenum debate is still where it was 12 months ago.
Until we have comparisons that show power, coolant temperature, intake air temperature, airflow in CFM, lambda and ignition timing for each run the debate cannot be resolved. All these parameters can be measured in realtime with ODB-II software and would prove once and for all if the plenum improved the efficiency of the engine as a pump at certain rpms (which will show as increased, measured airflow) in which case it will give power at those rpms. Conversely it would prove whether the changes were due to differences in timing / lambda (as can happen after a computer reset). It would also identify false positives due to variations in temperatures forcing changes in lambda and timing.
If AWE and RSS will please give us this information (assuming they ever measured or recorded it) we can make a scientific and informed choice. Without it, all the debate is simply uninformed and meaningless opinion.
Who's right? AWE who have 'proved' the plenum gains nothing over most of the rev band and loses power over some or RSS who have equally 'proved' it gains power right across the rev band?
Lets assume for a moment that both sets of results are valid insofar as they accurately reflect the actual changes seen on the dyno on the day. Then we must ask just what is being done differently to obtain such differing results. If both results are 'real' then there must be some difference in methodology to account for them. The most salient question then becomes which methodology more closely reflects real road conditions - this will be the one that most closely reflects the real gains or otherwise we will see when driving our cars.
At this time we simply don't have enough detailed information to answer this conundrum so the whole plenum debate is still where it was 12 months ago.
Until we have comparisons that show power, coolant temperature, intake air temperature, airflow in CFM, lambda and ignition timing for each run the debate cannot be resolved. All these parameters can be measured in realtime with ODB-II software and would prove once and for all if the plenum improved the efficiency of the engine as a pump at certain rpms (which will show as increased, measured airflow) in which case it will give power at those rpms. Conversely it would prove whether the changes were due to differences in timing / lambda (as can happen after a computer reset). It would also identify false positives due to variations in temperatures forcing changes in lambda and timing.
If AWE and RSS will please give us this information (assuming they ever measured or recorded it) we can make a scientific and informed choice. Without it, all the debate is simply uninformed and meaningless opinion.
I think at this point no matter how many times someone dyno's this product someone else will contradict the results. My advice is to buy one and try it, if you don't like it then return it and get your money back.
Ed
#80
06-07-2008, 08:28 AM
At least if the parameters I suggested were measured alongside just power / torque, we'd have a proper, clear picture of what's really going on with this item. Otherwise, I think that plenum could be on my shelf for a long time!!!
#81
06-09-2008, 11:05 AM
All this still gets us absolutely nowhere.
Who's right? AWE who have 'proved' the plenum gains nothing over most of the rev band and loses power over some or RSS who have equally 'proved' it gains power right across the rev band?
Lets assume for a moment that both sets of results are valid insofar as they accurately reflect the actual changes seen on the dyno on the day. Then we must ask just what is being done differently to obtain such differing results. If both results are 'real' then there must be some difference in methodology to account for them. The most salient question then becomes which methodology more closely reflects real road conditions - this will be the one that most closely reflects the real gains or otherwise we will see when driving our cars.
At this time we simply don't have enough detailed information to answer this conundrum so the whole plenum debate is still where it was 12 months ago.
Until we have comparisons that show power, coolant temperature, intake air temperature, airflow in CFM, lambda and ignition timing for each run the debate cannot be resolved. All these parameters can be measured in realtime with ODB-II software and would prove once and for all if the plenum improved the efficiency of the engine as a pump at certain rpms (which will show as increased, measured airflow) in which case it will give power at those rpms. Conversely it would prove whether the changes were due to differences in timing / lambda (as can happen after a computer reset). It would also identify false positives due to variations in temperatures forcing changes in lambda and timing.
If AWE and RSS will please give us this information (assuming they ever measured or recorded it) we can make a scientific and informed choice. Without it, all the debate is simply uninformed and meaningless opinion.
Who's right? AWE who have 'proved' the plenum gains nothing over most of the rev band and loses power over some or RSS who have equally 'proved' it gains power right across the rev band?
Lets assume for a moment that both sets of results are valid insofar as they accurately reflect the actual changes seen on the dyno on the day. Then we must ask just what is being done differently to obtain such differing results. If both results are 'real' then there must be some difference in methodology to account for them. The most salient question then becomes which methodology more closely reflects real road conditions - this will be the one that most closely reflects the real gains or otherwise we will see when driving our cars.
At this time we simply don't have enough detailed information to answer this conundrum so the whole plenum debate is still where it was 12 months ago.
Until we have comparisons that show power, coolant temperature, intake air temperature, airflow in CFM, lambda and ignition timing for each run the debate cannot be resolved. All these parameters can be measured in realtime with ODB-II software and would prove once and for all if the plenum improved the efficiency of the engine as a pump at certain rpms (which will show as increased, measured airflow) in which case it will give power at those rpms. Conversely it would prove whether the changes were due to differences in timing / lambda (as can happen after a computer reset). It would also identify false positives due to variations in temperatures forcing changes in lambda and timing.
If AWE and RSS will please give us this information (assuming they ever measured or recorded it) we can make a scientific and informed choice. Without it, all the debate is simply uninformed and meaningless opinion.
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but you asked for more data, so I am providing it.
We captured intake air temperatures and MAF signal, and simply monitored coolant temps to ensure stability.
Intake Air Temps below:
Notice that we consistently held IATs to within 4 degree F during our testing due to strategically placed cooling fans and a proper cool down cycle between tests.
MAF graph below (also was posted by us in the original thread):
And here is an example of what happens to Intake Air Temps when careless controls are conducted with cooling fans. Notice how IATs skyrocket when no cooling fan is used on the engine bay, and how susceptible these cars are to proper cooling. Without careful controls, it VERY easy to get false dyno data:
I just want to make sure the community knows how rigorous our testing was and how scientifically we approach all our dyno testing.
A chassis dyno is an integral part of our product development, as opposed to a bookable money making tool for our clients. Because we use it for development, we have ensured that our results are not corrupted by operator error. In the case of this testing, over 60 runs were done to ensure data validity.
It pains me to see how dyno data is being both dismissed and readily accepted here.
Yes, without proper operator experience and dyno cell controls, data can be easily corrupted, even more so on a modern Porsche, but that does not mean *all* dyno data should be dismissed.
And conversely, dyno data should not be so easily accepted by the community without serious questions about what sort of practices were used to ensure validity.
#82
06-09-2008, 12:13 PM
I asked Greg in a different thread to address the conflicting dyno results, ie: Todd/AWE's findings of no gain. I got no response amidst the host of self-congratulatory "Plenum Day" postings. While I am happily running my plenum and not losing any sleep there is a real issue here folks. How about giving us all a hand here Greg? A little open dialogue on this matter would seem to be called for. Gerry
#83
06-09-2008, 02:29 PM
Todd, looks like there is a serious dip in air flow with the Plenum in the Mass Air Flow graph at around 4800-5300 rpm's. Am I reading this correctly? It does not seem that the air flow is any better at the other rpm's with the stock vs IPD plenum. Am I reading this correctly?
thanks! Mike
thanks! Mike
#84
06-09-2008, 06:58 PM
That's why I pay suckas like you to do the menial jobs for me. WAHHAHA the keyboard jockey brings up a totally irrelevant point to somehow support his baseless claims. don't quit man don't quit keep it comin
again, RSS provided dynos, did the good work. we have no other "good work" to refute this new set of information/data that we got from their efforts. for all this typing engineering textbook crap out there by 1999..... at the end of the day, he will NEVER EVER do anything to back up his claims that the thing doesn't add power.
what's really convoluted is that 1999 has said that the plenum changes the power curve, that they somehow can't back up their 20+hp peak claim that RSSGREG says he never claimed in the first place.... yet the change in power curve absolutely points to a healthy increase in area under the curve stock v. plenum. and like i pointed out earlier, he's accepting the dyno results where it's convenient for him.... he doesn't see a 20+hp peak hp claim that he made up per the dyno and takes it as fact... then continues to ignore the gains throughout the rev range of the very same set of dyno charts for multiple porsche models.
So what he's admitting to is, it's surely adding power to which we are actually all in agreement then, except 1999 is now sitting in his own damn grave.
where the fuq do these idiots like 1999 come from?
again, RSS provided dynos, did the good work. we have no other "good work" to refute this new set of information/data that we got from their efforts. for all this typing engineering textbook crap out there by 1999..... at the end of the day, he will NEVER EVER do anything to back up his claims that the thing doesn't add power.
what's really convoluted is that 1999 has said that the plenum changes the power curve, that they somehow can't back up their 20+hp peak claim that RSSGREG says he never claimed in the first place.... yet the change in power curve absolutely points to a healthy increase in area under the curve stock v. plenum. and like i pointed out earlier, he's accepting the dyno results where it's convenient for him.... he doesn't see a 20+hp peak hp claim that he made up per the dyno and takes it as fact... then continues to ignore the gains throughout the rev range of the very same set of dyno charts for multiple porsche models.
So what he's admitting to is, it's surely adding power to which we are actually all in agreement then, except 1999 is now sitting in his own damn grave.
where the fuq do these idiots like 1999 come from?
#85
06-09-2008, 07:30 PM
1999's argument makes sense to me... AWE showed no gain and RSS proved there was a gain... hmmm.... then why didn't AWE's test show a gain? bahahahah.... well... I'll let you figure it out...
you've already been banned from rennlist Choi... do you enjoy getting the boot?? !!
is that something you strive hard for ... you get an A+ for effort... 
#86
06-10-2008, 02:09 AM
Ian,
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but you asked for more data, so I am providing it.
We captured intake air temperatures and MAF signal, and simply monitored coolant temps to ensure stability.
Intake Air Temps below:
Notice that we consistently held IATs to within 4 degree F during our testing due to strategically placed cooling fans and a proper cool down cycle between tests.
MAF graph below (also was posted by us in the original thread):
And here is an example of what happens to Intake Air Temps when careless controls are conducted with cooling fans. Notice how IATs skyrocket when no cooling fan is used on the engine bay, and how susceptible these cars are to proper cooling. Without careful controls, it VERY easy to get false dyno data:
I just want to make sure the community knows how rigorous our testing was and how scientifically we approach all our dyno testing.
A chassis dyno is an integral part of our product development, as opposed to a bookable money making tool for our clients. Because we use it for development, we have ensured that our results are not corrupted by operator error. In the case of this testing, over 60 runs were done to ensure data validity.
It pains me to see how dyno data is being both dismissed and readily accepted here.
Yes, without proper operator experience and dyno cell controls, data can be easily corrupted, even more so on a modern Porsche, but that does not mean *all* dyno data should be dismissed.
And conversely, dyno data should not be so easily accepted by the community without serious questions about what sort of practices were used to ensure validity.
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but you asked for more data, so I am providing it.
We captured intake air temperatures and MAF signal, and simply monitored coolant temps to ensure stability.
Intake Air Temps below:
Notice that we consistently held IATs to within 4 degree F during our testing due to strategically placed cooling fans and a proper cool down cycle between tests.
MAF graph below (also was posted by us in the original thread):
And here is an example of what happens to Intake Air Temps when careless controls are conducted with cooling fans. Notice how IATs skyrocket when no cooling fan is used on the engine bay, and how susceptible these cars are to proper cooling. Without careful controls, it VERY easy to get false dyno data:
I just want to make sure the community knows how rigorous our testing was and how scientifically we approach all our dyno testing.
A chassis dyno is an integral part of our product development, as opposed to a bookable money making tool for our clients. Because we use it for development, we have ensured that our results are not corrupted by operator error. In the case of this testing, over 60 runs were done to ensure data validity.
It pains me to see how dyno data is being both dismissed and readily accepted here.
Yes, without proper operator experience and dyno cell controls, data can be easily corrupted, even more so on a modern Porsche, but that does not mean *all* dyno data should be dismissed.
And conversely, dyno data should not be so easily accepted by the community without serious questions about what sort of practices were used to ensure validity.
Given the above, I just think there was simply a fault in the methodology used on the 'plenum dyno day' that has led to the results published. If there is no more airflow anywhere in the rpm band there is, de facto, no more power if all the other parameters of the engine are kept the same.
#87
06-10-2008, 08:43 AM
Todd, looks like there is a serious dip in air flow with the Plenum in the Mass Air Flow graph at around 4800-5300 rpm's. Am I reading this correctly? It does not seem that the air flow is any better at the other rpm's with the stock vs IPD plenum. Am I reading this correctly?
thanks! Mike
thanks! Mike
#88
06-10-2008, 08:58 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,134
Rep Power: 122 
I never looked at the RSS Video until today and the first thing I noticed was that in the parts where you can see the fan behind the car, each and every time, the fan was moved between base runs and runs with the RSS intake. This alone will dramatically affect dyno results.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vFmLlwKD69w
It sure appears that little, if any proper controls were followed. Sure looks like a blatant attempt to affect results or, at minimum, sloppy work..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vFmLlwKD69w
It sure appears that little, if any proper controls were followed. Sure looks like a blatant attempt to affect results or, at minimum, sloppy work..
#89
06-10-2008, 11:04 AM
Far as I'm concerned this proves what I felt when driving my car with the plenum - Loss of torque above 4000rpm. I think there can be no doubt in anyone's minds now that AWE use their dyno correctly and have all the necessary parameters under control.
Given the above, I just think there was simply a fault in the methodology used on the 'plenum dyno day' that has led to the results published. If there is no more airflow anywhere in the rpm band there is, de facto, no more power if all the other parameters of the engine are kept the same.
Given the above, I just think there was simply a fault in the methodology used on the 'plenum dyno day' that has led to the results published. If there is no more airflow anywhere in the rpm band there is, de facto, no more power if all the other parameters of the engine are kept the same.
Last edited by Gpjli; 06-10-2008 at 11:07 AM.
#90
06-10-2008, 11:53 AM
Generally, results on the dyno differ from those on the road if the coolant and intake air temps aren't very tightly controlled on the dyno. The basic problem is that, short of using a wind tunnel, it's more or less impossible to recreate the amount of air flow seen over a car at say 80mph in the road in a dyno cell - even 3 or 4 massive air conditioning fans can't get close!
If these temps aren't kept to within a (very) few degrees of what is seen on the road, the ECUs on modern engines are designed to instantly pull timing and richen the mixture to prevent detonation of the fuel/air charge (knocking). Burning a sub-optimal mixture later in the cycle reduces power considerably and this is what is often seen on a dyno.
The best dyno operators will establish a baseline set of temps, lambdas, airflows, timing etc by running the car on the road and collecting data. They will then ensure all their dyno runs are done within the parameters derived from the road runs. As temps rise quickly on the dyno, plenty of time has to be left between runs for the temps to cool. The power runs then need to be done as the temps rise into the 'road' zone and discontinued as soon as they rise above it. Additionally monitoring the ignition timing and lambda ensures these are the same as when the car was on the road. If they're different, the run is invalid.
There are VERY few dyno operators that follow this rigid a methodology so many dyno runs are less than meaningful. The Champion car probably fits this exactly - temps too high on the dyno (particularly intake air temps on the 911) and power lower than expected. Back on the road and the temps are lower - more timing, leaner mixture, more power.
I find 1999's comments above regarding the fan placement on the plenum dyno day very interesting indeed. If the conditions of the test weren't very strictly controlled, then were the results valid? At least AWE went most of the way - if their temps were consistent then the lambda and timing should have been the same between runs. I'm not sure if they were measured directly.
The only way to make absolutely sure you have valid results is to make sure the coolant temp, intake air temp, lambda and timing are consistent between runs and correspond to real, measured, roadgoing conditions. If all these parameters are kept constant, then a tuning part that works will show an increase in power (often only across part of the rpm band) both on the dyno and on the road.
Lastly, if a tuning part really works, it will show an increase in airflow at those parts of the rpm band where it's increasing performance. Airflow at full throttle can be measured both on and off the dyno. I've often thought that comparing before and after airflows at full throttle on the road (they can be captured using Durametric or similar software) can be a more accurate measure of the effectiveness of a tuning part than a dyno (assuming all the other parameters are kept constant - if only). That wouldn't work for remaps though - they dont affect airflow one bit but give you more bang for the same amount of air/fuel. But that's a whole different ball game.....
If these temps aren't kept to within a (very) few degrees of what is seen on the road, the ECUs on modern engines are designed to instantly pull timing and richen the mixture to prevent detonation of the fuel/air charge (knocking). Burning a sub-optimal mixture later in the cycle reduces power considerably and this is what is often seen on a dyno.
The best dyno operators will establish a baseline set of temps, lambdas, airflows, timing etc by running the car on the road and collecting data. They will then ensure all their dyno runs are done within the parameters derived from the road runs. As temps rise quickly on the dyno, plenty of time has to be left between runs for the temps to cool. The power runs then need to be done as the temps rise into the 'road' zone and discontinued as soon as they rise above it. Additionally monitoring the ignition timing and lambda ensures these are the same as when the car was on the road. If they're different, the run is invalid.
There are VERY few dyno operators that follow this rigid a methodology so many dyno runs are less than meaningful. The Champion car probably fits this exactly - temps too high on the dyno (particularly intake air temps on the 911) and power lower than expected. Back on the road and the temps are lower - more timing, leaner mixture, more power.
I find 1999's comments above regarding the fan placement on the plenum dyno day very interesting indeed. If the conditions of the test weren't very strictly controlled, then were the results valid? At least AWE went most of the way - if their temps were consistent then the lambda and timing should have been the same between runs. I'm not sure if they were measured directly.
The only way to make absolutely sure you have valid results is to make sure the coolant temp, intake air temp, lambda and timing are consistent between runs and correspond to real, measured, roadgoing conditions. If all these parameters are kept constant, then a tuning part that works will show an increase in power (often only across part of the rpm band) both on the dyno and on the road.
Lastly, if a tuning part really works, it will show an increase in airflow at those parts of the rpm band where it's increasing performance. Airflow at full throttle can be measured both on and off the dyno. I've often thought that comparing before and after airflows at full throttle on the road (they can be captured using Durametric or similar software) can be a more accurate measure of the effectiveness of a tuning part than a dyno (assuming all the other parameters are kept constant - if only). That wouldn't work for remaps though - they dont affect airflow one bit but give you more bang for the same amount of air/fuel. But that's a whole different ball game.....