Proof SAE Correcton Factor is BS for Turbo Diesels?? - Diesel Truck Forum - TheDieselGarage.com
Thread Details Posted by Dockboy, this thread has received 29 replies and been viewed 1885 times.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 30 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 03:05 AM Thread Starter
Diesel Nutbag
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 548
Points: 20,893
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Proof SAE Correcton Factor is BS for Turbo Diesels??

Most of you know my opinion of SAE Correction Factors when it comes to Turbo diesels. Especially when it comes to running nitrous.

Well, I had the oppurtunity to put my theory to the test in the past couple weeks. Two weeks ago I dynoed on David Dunbars Dynojet 248C in Tenn. The CF that day was 1.04. Dynoed 574 #2 only and 758 w/nitrous corrected. Uncorrected actual power put to the dyno was 551 #2 only and 727 w/nitrous.

This weekend I dynoed on Kauffmans Dynojet 248C. The CF was 1.00, or in other words, nothing. Take a guess what I put down in the same settings?? 552 #2 only and 729 w/nitrous!!!!

So you tell me..........did I mysteriously loose 22 hp on #2 and 30 hp on nitrous as the corrected numbers would indicate?? Or is it that the CF designed for naturally asspirated gas motors is not valid for forced induction diesels given the fact I put the nearly exact same hp to the ground at both locations despite the difference in alltitude and correction factor????

Lets hear what you think!!

Greg
2000 F250
"Not quite stock"
10.95 @ 125.91
Dockboy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 30 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 12:16 PM
fordt
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Points: 0 [Check]
Looks to me like your onto something here Greg!

BTW - AWESOME power! :Thumbup:
post #3 of 30 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 03:41 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 790
Points: 2,183
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think alt definatly effects the way our trucks run. I dynoed 545hp corrected on maddogs dyno (portable dynojet same as dunbars) in denver, then 2 weeks later dynoed in KC area im missouri on floor it diesels (dyno dynamics load cell) and did 551 uncorrected, then about a month or so back did 558 uncorrected in OKC on a mustang dyno. At denver i was running 13.6's and down here i run 13.1's, was ~2 mph slower in denver.

Bandimere is 5800' feet or so and i think im around 1000-1200' elevation.

Here's what the calcs have to say:

denver 7000 lbs (no tool box and low fuel)- i ran a low 101 and a high 101 mph pass so i'll use 101.5 mph = 496 hp

kansas 7300 lbs and average 103.5 mph trap = 549 hp.

just my .02
lukecline is offline  
post #4 of 30 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 04:09 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,010
Points: 40,200
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
i agree with lukecline
alldiesels is offline  
post #5 of 30 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 04:12 PM
Bouncer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Points: 0 [Check]
I agree that elevation plays a factor. How much I don't know, I am sure someone with a science background can help out here. Although to me it makes sense that more dense air "lower elevation" would net higher actual numbers than thinner air "higher elevation". So therefore you would need some sort of correction factor to try and bring the numbers back into check.
If the motor is N/A or turbo/super charged I do not think makes a difference. It still boils down to the amount of oxygen availble in X volume of air.

Why your numbers were near the same uncorrected both places I am not sure. I also think ambient air temperature, humidity, exact cetane value of the fuel, the dyno, and the dyno operator would all play into the scenario.

No matter what, congrats again on the numbers.
post #6 of 30 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 06:06 PM Thread Starter
Diesel Nutbag
Threadstarter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 548
Points: 20,893
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Luke,

I think you need to find another brand of dyno to try!!!

Comparing numbers from different types of dynos at different altitudes is like comparing apples and oranges:

Riddle me this grasshopper:

A truck setup nearly Identical to yours dynoed 484 on Dunbars 248C with a 1.04 CF

Uncorrected that is 465

You dynoed 545 on Maddogs 248C with a CF of what, 1.17?

Uncorrected that is 465

:shrug:

I can gaurantee you your truck will make 465-480 on a 248C at sea level with a 1.00 CF: :

In fact, I saw a similar one do only 422 this weekend:

Greg
2000 F250
"Not quite stock"
10.95 @ 125.91
Dockboy is offline  
post #7 of 30 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 07:35 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 251
Points: 1,516
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
kansas 7300 lbs and average 103.5 mph trap = 549 hp
Then explain that docksquirell
twildman is offline  
post #8 of 30 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 08:09 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 790
Points: 2,183
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockboy
Luke,

I think you need to find another brand of dyno to try!!!

Comparing numbers from different types of dynos at different altitudes is like comparing apples and oranges:

Riddle me this grasshopper:

A truck setup nearly Identical to yours dynoed 484 on Dunbars 248C with a 1.04 CF

Uncorrected that is 465

You dynoed 545 on Maddogs 248C with a CF of what, 1.17?

Uncorrected that is 465

:shrug:

I can gaurantee you your truck will make 465-480 on a 248C at sea level with a 1.00 CF: :

In fact, I saw a similar one do only 422 this weekend:
Comparing 3 different trucks is like comparing 3 different dynos:

I dont know what the cf was on maddogs dyno and i really dont care. You are a big fan the of trap speed/ hp calcs and they have always matched my dyno #'s. Theres too many different variables to even think about comparing my truck to james' and who ever else your talking about.:shrug:. Show me another 7300lb truck that is trapping at 103+ with 465 hp and i'll shut up....wait there isnt. Thats why all the DI trucks with MM's and bb turbos that dyno 450 are all mid/ high 13 sec trucks.
lukecline is offline  
post #9 of 30 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 08:29 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,010
Points: 40,200
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
hahaha, poor dockboy
sorry just like harassing you
robert
alldiesels is offline  
post #10 of 30 (permalink) Old 10-23-2006, 09:00 PM Thread Starter
Diesel Nutbag
Threadstarter
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 548
Points: 20,893
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Luke,

It is very simple to prove me wrong!!

Dyno on another 248C where there is a lower CF: :Thumbup:

Greg
2000 F250
"Not quite stock"
10.95 @ 125.91
Dockboy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Diesel Truck Forum - TheDieselGarage.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome