Proof that SAE correction for turbo diesels is more wrong then right???
05-16-2007, 06:26 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MD
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proof that SAE correction for turbo diesels is more wrong then right???
I posted this on another forum earlier, so some of you have probably already seen this. For those that haven't...
Both charts show the same 4 pulls, all made on the exact same dyno, with the exact same truck with the exact same setup. The runs labeled Chris Hoofnagle 001 and Chris Hoofnagle 002 were done in NC (approx 650' elevation, 79*, 75% humidity), and the runs labeled Chris H 001 and Chris H 012 were done in MD (approx 50' elevation, 60*, 35% humidity). Both graphs show the same exact four pulls, the two from NC and the two from MD.
The first graph shows the runs corrected.
The second graph shows the same runs uncorrected.
The corrected runs show a spread of 21+hp and 50+ ft lbs tq difference from the two locations. The uncorrected runs were all within 3hp and 9 ft lbs tq, regardless of location.
I still believe hot, muggy air takes away power and makes it harder to light the charger, etc., but the correction factors are way off on our trucks... more wrong then right i think.
Chris
Both charts show the same 4 pulls, all made on the exact same dyno, with the exact same truck with the exact same setup. The runs labeled Chris Hoofnagle 001 and Chris Hoofnagle 002 were done in NC (approx 650' elevation, 79*, 75% humidity), and the runs labeled Chris H 001 and Chris H 012 were done in MD (approx 50' elevation, 60*, 35% humidity). Both graphs show the same exact four pulls, the two from NC and the two from MD.
The first graph shows the runs corrected.
The second graph shows the same runs uncorrected.
The corrected runs show a spread of 21+hp and 50+ ft lbs tq difference from the two locations. The uncorrected runs were all within 3hp and 9 ft lbs tq, regardless of location.
I still believe hot, muggy air takes away power and makes it harder to light the charger, etc., but the correction factors are way off on our trucks... more wrong then right i think.
Chris
05-16-2007, 11:38 PM
#3
Muted User
exactly, i dont like correction factors, cause that adds in human "error" as a factor, run them straight up and dont rely on a computer to make up for your short comings.
05-17-2007, 12:26 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fredericksburg, virginia
Posts: 3,465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is different correction factors besides SAE but none seem to fit a turbo diesel.
Here's the general rule of thumb though- post the higher number corrected or uncorrected
=P
Here's the general rule of thumb though- post the higher number corrected or uncorrected
=P
Trending Topics
05-17-2007, 07:51 AM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Magnolia, TX
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-17-2007, 11:37 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if they were accurate for a turbo diesel, it would be nice for an individual to tune their rig and always have it compared to a certain 'baseline' of weather/environment conditions. that way, no matter what day you tune and what the weather conditions are, you could see if you really are gaining or losing power (a 100* day vs. a 55* day with the correction factor should yield the same dyno #). BUT that dyno number would be relative to that certain 'baseline' condition in the weather/environment.
and your daily driving power would still be determined by the weather/environment of the day you are driving.
for tuning its helpful. for bragging rights, its not justified.
and your daily driving power would still be determined by the weather/environment of the day you are driving.
for tuning its helpful. for bragging rights, its not justified.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Plumb Wild
24 Valve Engine and Drivetrain
12
03-23-2010 08:26 PM