CFM+ on stock truck...dyno'd
02-11-2008, 11:45 PM
#31
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Avondale,AZ
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the horn was $350, the AEM cold air intake was $250 and $50 to remove the muffler. The 15 HP is from all 3 combined.
I dont plan on any more mods for power. It has plenty for my usage. I just wanted to see what the cheap and easy bolt-ons would net me.
These guys seem to know their diesels. They have an even mix of diesels,race cars, sand rails, muscle cars and RVs in their shop.
I dont plan on any more mods for power. It has plenty for my usage. I just wanted to see what the cheap and easy bolt-ons would net me.
These guys seem to know their diesels. They have an even mix of diesels,race cars, sand rails, muscle cars and RVs in their shop.
02-12-2008, 12:15 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Marshfield, Missouri
Posts: 2,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-12-2008, 05:28 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NH
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to bad you don't have a graph of before and after with the same parameters... Who cares about Peak power if it gives you more power at 1800 rpm (like 40HP) that IS a huge difference...
It's the difference in the graph that's useful.. not the peak numbers... To bad this got so messed up.. I would love to see a before and after with the grid heater in done so you can SEE the differences in the HP and torque curves.. HOW MUCH do you get in the usable RPM range?
Info I have been looking for for a long time but this is useless to me. You should print the run with and with out the horn on the same graph... the area between the two lines is the power the horn gives you.
Unless the print out 2/11/08 at 10:46:37 is the before and after (2 runs each) showing what I am looking for.
IF so than the difference at 31-34 MPH is excellent.
It's the difference in the graph that's useful.. not the peak numbers... To bad this got so messed up.. I would love to see a before and after with the grid heater in done so you can SEE the differences in the HP and torque curves.. HOW MUCH do you get in the usable RPM range?
Info I have been looking for for a long time but this is useless to me. You should print the run with and with out the horn on the same graph... the area between the two lines is the power the horn gives you.
Unless the print out 2/11/08 at 10:46:37 is the before and after (2 runs each) showing what I am looking for.
IF so than the difference at 31-34 MPH is excellent.
02-12-2008, 07:33 PM
#34
DTR 1st Sergeant
John in NH,
Find the thread I mentioned above where the CFM and other horns were dyno'd before and after... erik@tvp wrote the thread and did the tests...
Those dyno comparisons convinced me to install the cfm and it made a noticeable difference. Worth the money.
Find the thread I mentioned above where the CFM and other horns were dyno'd before and after... erik@tvp wrote the thread and did the tests...
Those dyno comparisons convinced me to install the cfm and it made a noticeable difference. Worth the money.
02-13-2008, 01:43 AM
#35
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Avondale,AZ
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-13-2008, 09:52 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hershey, PA
Posts: 1,250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have the dyno shop print both runs on one chart. You can then compare the HP curves for various RPM's. As mentioned above peak HP is not where these intake horns shine, its in the 1600-2200 RPM range.
02-13-2008, 11:28 AM
#37
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Avondale,AZ
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to assume at this point that either you guys need glasses or cant see my dyno charts
The first chart in post #20 has the before and after runs superimposed
The first chart in post #20 has the before and after runs superimposed
02-13-2008, 01:24 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hershey, PA
Posts: 1,250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-13-2008, 01:35 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah we havent done back to back Intake horns yet but we did do a 5" Magnaflow back to back with a smarty and 64/13 and the peak number was nothing more but it made 15hp more through out the upper RPM band.
02-13-2008, 07:45 PM
#40
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Avondale,AZ
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the torque numbers most of you guys think you have are not real numbers.
It is extrapolated. Dont believe me, change tire size and see if the # changes
or you have to calculate for tire size to get the #s. I would think you all would be more interested in torque at ground anyhow. especially since it is a bigger number.
Regardless whether you think the operator didnt know what he was doing, My test was apples to apples
02-13-2008, 10:27 PM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NH
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Find the thread I mentioned above where the CFM and other horns were dyno'd before and after... erik@tvp wrote the thread and did the tests...
Those dyno comparisons convinced me to install the cfm and it made a noticeable difference. Worth the money." ----- I read all of the posts there but what was missing was a before and after WITH the grid heater in both runs. Erik's runs with the horn also are w/o the heater. I NEED my heater! (I live in NH)
"Go back through the thread from the beginning.
Read all my text and then look at the first chart of post #20" --- Thanks for the clarification... This IS the info I am looking for... The before and after WITH the grid heater in place
Looks like I will get one.. All in my quest to make my truck get the most MPG and a real highway rig. If the CFM horn gives me 30-40 HP and similar torque increase in the 1650 - 1900 RPM range it will make a huge difference.
Those dyno comparisons convinced me to install the cfm and it made a noticeable difference. Worth the money." ----- I read all of the posts there but what was missing was a before and after WITH the grid heater in both runs. Erik's runs with the horn also are w/o the heater. I NEED my heater! (I live in NH)
"Go back through the thread from the beginning.
Read all my text and then look at the first chart of post #20" --- Thanks for the clarification... This IS the info I am looking for... The before and after WITH the grid heater in place
Looks like I will get one.. All in my quest to make my truck get the most MPG and a real highway rig. If the CFM horn gives me 30-40 HP and similar torque increase in the 1650 - 1900 RPM range it will make a huge difference.
02-14-2008, 10:48 AM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Belgrade, Montana
Posts: 2,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 HP on a load dyno is not repeatable not to mention that dyno operator is very dangerous to say the least. If he was saying that's torque at the rear wheels then he didn't pay attention in class. That might be tractive force but even then it's skeptical to believe anything that guy is doing with that dyno. You have to have RPM somewhere in the mix to get either HP or TQ. Each one is a function of the other. Typical load dynos measure TQ and/or tractive force but need gear ratio or RPM to display TQ at the output shaft of the motor and then from there they can calculate HP using the output TQ and RPM but the diameter of the roll along with speed and RPM are required measurements. To calculate either you take whatever the measured number is times the RPM and divide by 5252 or multiply the measured number by 5252 and divide by the RPM. By him saying he needed to "run each gear" to feel what one pulled the hardest is ridiculous. That's why dynos were invented for crying out loud.
Dynojet dynos are 100% repeatable which is why most people use them. It is a big weight that gets spun up. Nothing the operator can mess up in that calibration unless you use a torch and cut some of the drum off that would change the weight. The inertia doesn't allow false or high numbers it just measures HP and calculates TQ while all load dynos typically measure TQ and calculate HP. The calculation used by Dynojet is Newton's second law, pretty simple and hard to screw up. Basically you have the weight of the rolls or mass and then the distance which is the circumference of the rolls and the time which is provided by the vehicle. As you can see it's a very easy principal but extremely accurate. The only issue comes in when the weight isn't enough to achieve max boost. However, as most everyone who runs on a Dynojet knows, the numbers are still 100 % repeatable as is my truck. Dynojet makes load control dynos too but for purposes of comparing smal increases or decreases an inertia dyno is the only way to go and nobody can argue the other side of that point. Load cells need calibrated daily like the ones use on the Mustang, Superflow, etc. Not to mention the gazillion parameters and factors that have to be accounted for. Dynojet has none of those on their inertia dyno so they remain consistent, repeatable and very popular. It's so simple but most try to complicate matters.
In the end, what you use for a measuring stick really shouldn't matter in the hands of a competent dyno owner. Whether it reads high, low or indifferent doesn't really mean anything. As long as the parts you are putting on are showing gains then you are moving in the right direction as long as the calibration of the load cell and all factors and parameters are being accounted for. Although an inertia dyno is really the best for measuring smaller gains and/or losses whichever the case.
Dynojet dynos are 100% repeatable which is why most people use them. It is a big weight that gets spun up. Nothing the operator can mess up in that calibration unless you use a torch and cut some of the drum off that would change the weight. The inertia doesn't allow false or high numbers it just measures HP and calculates TQ while all load dynos typically measure TQ and calculate HP. The calculation used by Dynojet is Newton's second law, pretty simple and hard to screw up. Basically you have the weight of the rolls or mass and then the distance which is the circumference of the rolls and the time which is provided by the vehicle. As you can see it's a very easy principal but extremely accurate. The only issue comes in when the weight isn't enough to achieve max boost. However, as most everyone who runs on a Dynojet knows, the numbers are still 100 % repeatable as is my truck. Dynojet makes load control dynos too but for purposes of comparing smal increases or decreases an inertia dyno is the only way to go and nobody can argue the other side of that point. Load cells need calibrated daily like the ones use on the Mustang, Superflow, etc. Not to mention the gazillion parameters and factors that have to be accounted for. Dynojet has none of those on their inertia dyno so they remain consistent, repeatable and very popular. It's so simple but most try to complicate matters.
In the end, what you use for a measuring stick really shouldn't matter in the hands of a competent dyno owner. Whether it reads high, low or indifferent doesn't really mean anything. As long as the parts you are putting on are showing gains then you are moving in the right direction as long as the calibration of the load cell and all factors and parameters are being accounted for. Although an inertia dyno is really the best for measuring smaller gains and/or losses whichever the case.
02-14-2008, 12:53 PM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Eastern Shore of Maryland
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 HP on a load dyno is not repeatable not to mention that dyno operator is very dangerous to say the least. If he was saying that's torque at the rear wheels then he didn't pay attention in class. That might be tractive force but even then it's skeptical to believe anything that guy is doing with that dyno. You have to have RPM somewhere in the mix to get either HP or TQ. Each one is a function of the other. Typical load dynos measure TQ and/or tractive force but need gear ratio or RPM to display TQ at the output shaft of the motor and then from there they can calculate HP using the output TQ and RPM but the diameter of the roll along with speed and RPM are required measurements. To calculate either you take whatever the measured number is times the RPM and divide by 5252 or multiply the measured number by 5252 and divide by the RPM. By him saying he needed to "run each gear" to feel what one pulled the hardest is ridiculous. That's why dynos were invented for crying out loud.
Dynojet dynos are 100% repeatable which is why most people use them. It is a big weight that gets spun up. Nothing the operator can mess up in that calibration unless you use a torch and cut some of the drum off that would change the weight. The inertia doesn't allow false or high numbers it just measures HP and calculates TQ while all load dynos typically measure TQ and calculate HP. The calculation used by Dynojet is Newton's second law, pretty simple and hard to screw up. Basically you have the weight of the rolls or mass and then the distance which is the circumference of the rolls and the time which is provided by the vehicle. As you can see it's a very easy principal but extremely accurate. The only issue comes in when the weight isn't enough to achieve max boost. However, as most everyone who runs on a Dynojet knows, the numbers are still 100 % repeatable as is my truck. Dynojet makes load control dynos too but for purposes of comparing smal increases or decreases an inertia dyno is the only way to go and nobody can argue the other side of that point. Load cells need calibrated daily like the ones use on the Mustang, Superflow, etc. Not to mention the gazillion parameters and factors that have to be accounted for. Dynojet has none of those on their inertia dyno so they remain consistent, repeatable and very popular. It's so simple but most try to complicate matters.
In the end, what you use for a measuring stick really shouldn't matter in the hands of a competent dyno owner. Whether it reads high, low or indifferent doesn't really mean anything. As long as the parts you are putting on are showing gains then you are moving in the right direction as long as the calibration of the load cell and all factors and parameters are being accounted for. Although an inertia dyno is really the best for measuring smaller gains and/or losses whichever the case.
Dynojet dynos are 100% repeatable which is why most people use them. It is a big weight that gets spun up. Nothing the operator can mess up in that calibration unless you use a torch and cut some of the drum off that would change the weight. The inertia doesn't allow false or high numbers it just measures HP and calculates TQ while all load dynos typically measure TQ and calculate HP. The calculation used by Dynojet is Newton's second law, pretty simple and hard to screw up. Basically you have the weight of the rolls or mass and then the distance which is the circumference of the rolls and the time which is provided by the vehicle. As you can see it's a very easy principal but extremely accurate. The only issue comes in when the weight isn't enough to achieve max boost. However, as most everyone who runs on a Dynojet knows, the numbers are still 100 % repeatable as is my truck. Dynojet makes load control dynos too but for purposes of comparing smal increases or decreases an inertia dyno is the only way to go and nobody can argue the other side of that point. Load cells need calibrated daily like the ones use on the Mustang, Superflow, etc. Not to mention the gazillion parameters and factors that have to be accounted for. Dynojet has none of those on their inertia dyno so they remain consistent, repeatable and very popular. It's so simple but most try to complicate matters.
In the end, what you use for a measuring stick really shouldn't matter in the hands of a competent dyno owner. Whether it reads high, low or indifferent doesn't really mean anything. As long as the parts you are putting on are showing gains then you are moving in the right direction as long as the calibration of the load cell and all factors and parameters are being accounted for. Although an inertia dyno is really the best for measuring smaller gains and/or losses whichever the case.
Good Post..
02-14-2008, 02:40 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the dyno did not have an optical pickup for rpm. thats why the torque number is so high. It is the actual torque that the tires apply to the dyno drums, not the extrapolated "internet" torque.
the torque numbers most of you guys think you have are not real numbers.
It is extrapolated. Dont believe me, change tire size and see if the # changes
or you have to calculate for tire size to get the #s. I would think you all would be more interested in torque at ground anyhow. especially since it is a bigger number.
the torque numbers most of you guys think you have are not real numbers.
It is extrapolated. Dont believe me, change tire size and see if the # changes
or you have to calculate for tire size to get the #s. I would think you all would be more interested in torque at ground anyhow. especially since it is a bigger number.
but hey, at least you will gain a little hp
