[Insider]

When's Terry coming back?

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by hotrod182

Do you know if they used the corrections for the difference between the ambient test conditions between the tunes? Otherwise, there is a pretty big DA difference between the two. 61F vs 66F, 30.39" vs 30.26", and 23% vs 43%. This coupled with intercooler efficiency, etc, etc, could amount to a good 5hp or so.

Warren, in the case of these dynos, the fact the JB2 was tested at 5 degrees would be offset by the fact it was also more humid.

I thought less humidity would be better, but Terry himself told me that he's always seen better dyno numbers in higher humidity conditions.
He said it acts like a "wet injection" system to a degree.

So the conditions could of possibly favored the JB2 a bit.
But overall I'd say they are as equal as it gets.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Jeff@Eurobahn.us

Nice comparison runs there. I will have to keep that Dyno in mind when we run the third party tests on the upgrade unit when we are ready.

Jeff
Eurobahn

Jeff, did SS intentional pull boost or power a bit between 5000-6300 rpms in the Turbo Tuner?

It seems like the TT and JB2 make identical power with the exception of that 1300 rpm range where the SSTT dips in power a bit.
I'd also think the SSTT makes a bit more power down low though, due to a bit higher boost (not shown in this dyno since they started the SSTT run way late and should of been done below 2000 rpms).

But overall the SSTT and JB2 seem to be similiar, one with a slight advantage down low, one with a slight advantage up high.

If the SSTT is capable of "tuning" out that dip in the 5000-6300 rpm range, it might be something to consider doing.

Later

[BzzzBom]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Jeff, did SS intentional pull boost or power a bit between 5000-6300 rpms in the Turbo Tuner?

It seems like the TT and JB2 make identical power with the exception of that 1300 rpm range where the SSTT dips in power a bit.
I'd also think the SSTT makes a bit more power down low though, due to a bit higher boost (not shown in this dyno since they started the SSTT run way late and should of been done below 2000 rpms).

But overall the SSTT and JB2 seem to be similiar, one with a slight advantage down low, one with a slight advantage up high.

If the SSTT is capable of "tuning" out that dip in the 5000-6300 rpm range, it might be something to consider doing.

Later

I am interested to see if the SSTT can add enough fuel to "tune out" the 5,000-6300 dip. Apparently the SSTT has only a limited ability to adjust the AFR maps through the TMAP sensor. Regardless, the ease of installation and removal of the SSTT and the significant power gain make it a very cost effective and desirable tuning option for our cars.

[5soko]

maybe it was bad gas? i have seen two SSTT cars get dyno'd and i didnt see or feel this dip. like i said it can be a number of things, if this was a consistent occurance, it would show on more dynos.
def very equal and both good tunning options. sstt is just so simple to install and uninstall its just amazing.

[RMRC]

Originally Posted by Driver72

If the SSTT is capable of "tuning" out that dip in the 5000-6300 rpm range, it might be something to consider doing.

Later

I'm with Driver here. Due to the ease of install I would prefer the SSTT over JB2 if this could be fixed. As it is though I prefer JB2. Even so it's tough to go wrong with either at these performance and price points.

I've felt this power plateau from 5000-6000 ever since I got the TT. It's also been present with Shell, Chevron and 76 gas. Is it possible I have a bad TT?

Also, are the richer AFRs in the midrange necessarily better/safer than the TT's?

[BzzzBom]

Originally Posted by reb03

I'm with Driver here. Due to the ease of install I would prefer the SSTT over JB2 if this could be fixed. As it is though I prefer JB2. Even so it's tough to go wrong with either at this performance and price points.

+1

[hotrod182]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Warren, in the case of these dynos, the fact the JB2 was tested at 5 degrees would be offset by the fact it was also more humid.

I thought less humidity would be better, but Terry himself told me that he's always seen better dyno numbers in higher humidity conditions.
He said it acts like a "wet injection" system to a degree.

So the conditions could of possibly favored the JB2 a bit.
But overall I'd say they are as equal as it gets.

Higher humidity or temp raises your DA, higher barometric lowers your DA.
If indeed the car is on the verge of knocking, you can make a case for higher humidity being a benefit. Otherwise, higher humidity means less air/fuel density can be supported, which means less horsepower. If they ever test again, do the opposite. Test the JB2 when it is 5 degrees cooler, 20% less humidity, and higher barometric, I really think it would be a 5hp difference. But the point here, is, if the TT was tested with the less ideal conditions, you really show double the difference that shows on that comparison graph.
Kind of like carrying a 200 lb passenger. It hurts your perfomance. Now take that 200lb passenger out of your car and put him in the other car. Now its a 400lb switch in performance advantage. So no matter what the small advantage, remember in this case, it might be quite significant if you reverse the factors. My initial question was whether or not these graphs represent values corrected to the particular ambient conditions? And if not,it would be interesting to see what the corrected results are.

[2e9x's]

Originally Posted by reb03

I've felt this power plateau from 5000-6000 ever since I got the TT. It's also been present with Shell, Chevron and 76 gas. Is it possible I have a bad TT?

If at some point you want to borrow either my car or my SSTT to try to determine whether you have a faulty TT, let me know.