MG's dyno #1...

 

Dyno 2....

 

Guyz - Not exactly sure how Dyno Tom & I got the dynorun numbers out of sequence? HE was punching the buttons on the console, NOT me!! It don't matter - dynorun.003 is the best stock Iridium pull & dynorun.002 is the best TM run. Never really noticed that until I saw the runs online. Props go to Bit for posting them for us. Every time I tried to post them as a jpeg U couldn't read them. Must have the "scanner from Hell!!" :eek:

 

Your files were in .xif format, which I'd never even heard of. I scaled the images down a bit in size and converted them to JPEGs.

You can't just rename and upload I'm afraid if that's what you tried.

You scanned the paper I think - in Charlotte we just had the dyno place give us the files and you can download the free viewer online.

 

Just wanted to make sure everyone interested in the plug group buy saw this...


The Torquemaster Plug group buy will end on July 3. If you're interested in getting a set of the plugs, please check the Group buy section in the Classified forum of CL.

Thanks,
D

 

Don't know if it really matters but did anyone notice that the TM dyno graph has a bit more small peaks and valleys especially at the higher rpm? The stock dyno is abit more smoother. Could it be that the TM is more responsive and show these irregularities more?

Chu...

 

Just my personal opinion, the jaggedness is translated into detonation. The car does not like the extra timing at that rpm because the air/fuel was not adjusted for the extra timing. Since Mean Gene didn't let the ECU to relearn the new add-on (according to the guy at SRT, it takes around 200 miles), perhaps the jaggedness will be smoother later. Or you can tune the ignition timing which I was just talking about that with my buddy for a solution earlier today.

 

Bit - Yep, I didn't have Dyno Tom download the results to a floppy like I intended so I had to scan the printouts into my "confuser" via Pagis software & my Xerox Workcentre flattop. Anyway, I knew someone on the website could make up for my shortcomings!!

 

Well... I wasn't going to post anything under the premise of "If you don't have anything nice to say..." but since you brought it up. Just so you understand my bias: I'm going in having a general dislike of these types of products (Sorry Percy).

[biased opinion]
I read that dyno graph as being incomplete combustion(burn) through the RPM range. It would seem you are seeing the effects of the spark not being delivered in a consistent manner. The *only* reason I go for this is it's the same dyno on the same day that we see the smooth and then not.

I believe that Torquemasters emit a corona discharge which though nice and bright to the eye is not as good at inginiting an air/fuel mixture as a dim very highly concentrated spark.
[/biased opinion]

So can I explain the dyno graph? To my dismay no. Do I have some ideas? Yes. As RacingAristo says perhaps the ECU didn't have time to relearn properly, so should the ECU have been reset before the stock run?!?

Grand scheme of things, kudos for the dynos Mean Gene but I still wouldn't use these in my car.

Perhaps Mo can dyno a set of new plugs and TM @ his SRT meeting (You listening out there?)

 

Peter - I'm glad that U decided to post your opinion on those small spikes! Kinda opens the eyes & mind up ( for myself, anyway ). I guess I got so caught up in the results that I overlooked the "big picture" & didn't pick up on those until ya'll called them to my attention. I saw 2 ( actually 4 with all the runs ) very similar power curves with the TM ones being the one that really caught my eyes. Upon closer examination I see the spikes & HOPE that RA's explaination is correct. I didn't notice any detonation either on the drive home ( albeit I did take it easy because I was more concerned with comparing mpg notes ) nor on the "play time" I spent on the streets of Baton Rouge before heading back home. I just got an E-beam from SRT/UPS that my "Race" ECU has been shipped so I need to get a game plan in place. Don't have the time or mileage to run the GS 200+ miles between ECU "dumps" every time I make a change so I'll have to decide what works best for me. I guess since Dave has a "before & after" ECU swap dyno sheet then I'll just install the new ECU & dyno things. Afterwards I'll change to the TM's & since I work for Shell Oil ( sometimes out of our New Orleans office which is roughly 85 miles from BR ), I COULD leave the dyno shop & head to the Big Easy for the day. Then on the way back home I could redyno things back in BR ( with almost the magic 200 miles on the new ECU memory ). Let me see IF I can make that work. As far as not putting too much stock in "snake oil" types of claims, I agree to a point because I tend to be skeptical about large claims of performance gains. In fact, when I opened the TM envelope & saw them up close, they reminded me of some old "crap" that JC Whitney marketed under the name of "Firespitters" ( or something to that effect ). I was young & dumb ( still dumb, at least ) so I bought them for my Z-28. Only thing I got from that was a valuable lesson & skepticism!! :eek:

 

Above is the dyno from SRT. If you look at SRT's dyno, you will also see the jaggedness specially at higher RPM. Now look at Mean Gene's dyno, those spikes aren't really that "bad". Since most of CL members don't have forced induction in their vehicles, I think the chance to blow the engine is relatively small (I hope). Anyway, I placed the order with Steve Ganz yesterday. If things don't work well, I will just put the plugs on my mom's car. J/K.

 

Mean Gene,

Could you also mention the jaggedness produced by the new plugs to Mo and see what he wants to commend?

 

I've got more than ten thousand miles on my Torquemasters and I've experience nothing but (factual) better gas mileage, (SOTP) better acceleration and (general feel) a smoother idle. This is one man and one voice.

 

Guyz - I've been staring at printouts of the various dyno sheets on our website ( think I'm goin' blind!! ) & I'm just beginning to wonder about some of the "spikes" being attributed to the individual dynos themselves? If ya'll go to Ethan's dyno shootout sticky, I don't see any spikes of the magnitude as those of my friend's car. Maybe some of them R more sensitive than others ( although that doesn't explain why Loyd's car registered them with the TM's & NOT with the factory plugs - same day/same dyno ). I looked at my 2 year old sheets ( from the same dyno ) & neither of the 2 runs showed any spikes on my totally stock GS ( at that time ). Even had a single run with my old RMM muffs ( a gain of 3.7 RWHP on the same day ) & still no spikes. It's got to be an ignition thing. I recall Mo saying that the stock fuel system would only support 400 flywheel HP BUT it looks like maybe there's some leaning out at higher rpms ( that seems to be where the most radical spikes are occuring ). It's possible that the ECU is retarding the timing slightly up the powerband to prevent detonation. Sorry I didn't think to try some octane booster but I'll have a bottle the next trip to BR. Might as well PM Mo or Marken for their input to maybe clear things up. BTW - go look at all the various sheets & look at the range of power from car to car. In Ethan's testing the baseline stock run showed less torque than HP although the GS4 engine's rated to have 310 TQ versus 300 HP. Then look at GS430's dyno test ( no spikes - also done on SRT's dyno, I recall ) with a SRT intake & improved "Race" ECU - "only" 254.9 HP ( compared to Loyd's 249.8 HP w/TM's but stock intake ) but 430's TQ numbers R staggering - 291.0 foot/lbs!!:eek: which smokes Loyd's 264.4. I realize that these engines aren't built to IROC tolerances but what a variance!!:eek: I guess I might need to get a baseline run w/o TM's then install them, drive 200+ miles then re-dyno ( to allow for the ECU resetting ). I'll contact Marken & ask him to check with Mo about those spikes. This is an AWFUL lot of work for 5 HP!!!

 

Who cares about HP? I want TORQUE - GOBBETS of it.