: Dyno'd my V tonight



justintiime
09-01-11, 12:53 AM
Was at the dyno with a friend and before we left for the night I asked if we could strap on my car for a baseline. They used a superflow dyno


My car:

2005 V
61,000 miles
K&N CAI
Magnaflow X Pipe
Magnaflow catback

I was running 87 octane. It was a nice cool night with good air.

My first pull was 367rwhp (not sure of the torque)

Second pull was 374rwhp and 341? torque.

This was on a stock tune and running fat around 13.0:1 AFR. The tuner thinks I have maybe 10-15hp with good gas and a tune. I have the graphs of my runs, and the program to open them but apparently my operating systems wont play nice with the program. It was done with windyn on a box running windows 98. If someone thinks they can open it for me I can try to send all the files your way. I'd love to get my graph printed! The hp and torque curves looked real good :)

iwantactsv
09-01-11, 08:25 AM
Why would you run 87? What you will end up paying for when that engine seizes will be way more than the 30 cents per gallon difference between 87 and 93.

M5eater
09-01-11, 08:35 AM
Why would you run 87? What you will end up paying for when that engine seizes will be way more than the 30 cents per gallon difference between 87 and 93.

I never understood it either.. It's litertally $5-6 extra per fillup, or ~ $220-230/year. If you want to consider that fuel economy probally drops a bit too on 87.. the cost savings is even less.

justintiime
09-01-11, 08:41 AM
because I wanted to try it and see how it did. I just got the car and wasnt sure how it would run. I've also put in 89 and im not really liking that either, so I guess I'll just stick to 93 from now on. No biggie, just a couple tanks of lower octane :)

M5eater
09-01-11, 08:45 AM
because I wanted to try it and see how it did. I just got the car and wasnt sure how it would run. I've also put in 89 and im not really liking that either, so I guess I'll just stick to 93 from now on. No biggie, just a couple tanks of lower octane :)

no problems with dat. :thumbsup:

Aurora40
09-01-11, 08:53 AM
What?? So on a totally stock car with exhaust and a tune, you expect to put down 390 wheel horsepower on a Superflow (eddy current like a Mustang)? Doesn't that seem impossibly high?

Also, you think 13.0:1 is rich?

justintiime
09-01-11, 09:19 AM
no, I said 374hp. And yes 13.0:1 can be leaned out a little for some extra power :) I sent my files to a board member that thinks he can make a pdf for me to post :)

D.K
09-01-11, 09:39 AM
Awesome numbers! I wouldn't lean it out any further though. 13.0:1 is pretty good as it is, plus you want to leave at least a little room for changes in gas and temperature.

JDB
09-01-11, 09:50 AM
Stop putting anything but 91+ in it! You're not saving any money.

Interesting, never heard of a Superflow dyno... wonder if its like a Mustang dyno.
http://www.superflow.com/

justintiime
09-01-11, 03:38 PM
the tuner said the superflow is what all the "big guys" like afr, edelbrock etc use for all their testing. he said the dyno alone was like $75k not including installation, training, etc so thats maybe why a lot of people aren't familiar with it...its just too expensive! lol

justintiime
09-01-11, 04:42 PM
Thanks to ODTHETRUTH for help in the conversion of the files!

odthetruth
09-01-11, 05:08 PM
I sent you the updated ones that have the engine RPM instead of speed. It was a bit difficult to find, since I had no idea how the software worked, and I had snatched it up from google. LOL So yeah...

bjv
09-01-11, 06:43 PM
Why would you run 87? What you will end up paying for when that engine seizes will be way more than the 30 cents per gallon difference between 87 and 93.

I always understood that the PCM would manage whatever octane you put in there.

I've read that higher octane gave better economy. I've kept good records of my fillups for the entire time I've owned my car and I ran 91 for quite a few consecutive tankfulls. I could not tell any difference in mileage depending on what fuel I put in it. It does bother me a bit to put 87 octane in so I usually put in the mid grade 89 octane.

quikss
09-01-11, 07:15 PM
Why would you run 87? What you will end up paying for when that engine seizes will be way more than the 30 cents per gallon difference between 87 and 93.

What???? Since when will dropping a few octance sieze an engine? Does the 4 octance drop somehow remove oil from the engine? A drop in octane in older engines would require a set back in engine timing, or the engine will knock, and if it gets bad enough can pop a piston. In new cars, the timing is all set by the computer, thats why we have knock sensors on them. If the knock sensor hears the engine knocking, it retards the timing automatically.

Worst case by running 87 instead of 91 or better is performance will be down because of retarded timing. Nothing more, nothing less. You can not sieze your engine in your CTS-V by running 87 octane.

Jeff

justintiime
09-01-11, 08:38 PM
agreed. The engine had some valve chattering when I first used 87. By the second tankful the chattering was gone but performance seemed down a little.

Ive since run a couple tanks of 93 through it and it seems to be picking up a bit. Weird lol

justintiime
09-01-11, 08:39 PM
oh, I've since updated the dyno graphs to show RPM instead of MPH

Aurora40
09-02-11, 08:08 AM
no, I said 374hp. And yes 13.0:1 can be leaned out a little for some extra power :) I sent my files to a board member that thinks he can make a pdf for me to post :)
Right, and then you said you think there's another 15 in there from a tune. 374 + 15 = 389, which I rounded the one horsepower up to 390.

Aurora40
09-02-11, 08:11 AM
Interesting, never heard of a Superflow dyno... wonder if its like a Mustang dyno.
http://www.superflow.com/
Yes, it is like a Mustang in that you can control the speed of acceleration. They tend to read a bit lower than a Dynojet.

PISNUOFF
09-02-11, 08:18 AM
374 rwHp on 87 with a stock tune? I don't buy it. It sounds to me that the SAE correction factor is off a little bit. Those numbers are at least 10% high. LS2's haul ass at 13.0:1 but LS6's tend to like more fuel. If you lean it out too much more you might want to start saving for a rebuild, because the #7 cylinder will be running way leaner than that.

rand49er
09-02-11, 09:02 AM
374 rwHp on 87 with a stock tune? I don't buy it. It sounds to me that the SAE correction factor is off a little bit. Those numbers are at least 10% high. LS2's haul ass at 13.0:1 but LS6's tend to like more fuel. If you lean it out too much more you might want to start saving for a rebuild, because the #7 cylinder will be running way leaner than that.Yup. Something's a bit off.

Just ask Gene about that #7 cylinder getting a little lean.

Claimslngr
09-02-11, 10:07 AM
I can also tell you about #7 and it ain't no fun. Knock sensors are fine until they are your only safety net. If you push your tune and then get a bad batch of gas or let sit to long the sensors may not be able to save it. Pay the price and go with the better fuel. The cost is lot less than a rebuild!
Mod Hell is fun!
By the way, I am in the camp that that dyno is reading 10% high. Great numbers though.

justintiime
09-02-11, 10:48 AM
the car did come with a wait4me tune but I was told the stock ecm was put in the car for some warranty work. I wonder if maybe the mail order tune is actually in the car? no way to tell since we didnt scan anything

justintiime
09-03-11, 11:54 AM
MY BAD! I talked to my friend that was at the dyno with me and I thought my AFR was 13.0:1 but it was 10.5:1 my mistake! I'm new to this stuff. :)