From March 18th:

Procedure:

Just prior to the dyno, I disconnected the 2 main grounding clusters on the plenum and taped them together. The engine to transmission wire and the ECU to TCU Hyper-Ground connection inside the car remain intact. Though in this may make some difference to the results, I didn’t think it should greatly influence the results, based on the current theories that GroundingGear Ltd is using to determine ground points. The distal ends of all wires also remain connected, including to the battery, chassis, and single end-points on the engine. I then did the ‘quick’ ECU reset and drove the car to the dyno facility doing a few WOT applications.

The runs done on March 18th were done when the senior partner who normally runs the dynos wasn’t there (looking for a new house or something). The 2 technicians that did the hook-ups took quite a bit of time reading through the screen menus, etc., so I don’t know how much experience they have in doing dynos as they are the guys that usually assist Travis, the senior partner I believe, and are the ones that do much of the work on overhauling the other cars in the shop, undergoing major mods. I believe these posts may be read by the ppl at the dyno facility as they are interested in the feedback. (All Runs shown SAE corrected)


<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

213469-1,2,3,4 Base Runs, 2nd Gear copy.jpg

 

The first 2 runs were mainly them setting up, and the 1st run was only done in 1st gear?? #2 was done in all gears, #3 ran up to 3rd gear, #4 in all gears. Run # 5 was aborted and deleted as one of the sensor wires was dislodged when I connected the GroundingGear™ which caused funky readings. One of the H-G wires was moved slightly to prevent further interference with the sensor wire. Run 6 was the first run recorded with GroundingGear™ connected. If I were to compare #6 to #7 as valid runs with GroundingGear™, #7 shows higher values and #3 without only ran to 3rd gear and is similar factoring variance to #4. Run #2 is quite a bit below #3 and #4. I could use #7 to skew the results to show a bigger gain, but I think it’s only fair to use #4 and #6 as they are the closest runs, and I think show the most valid and conservative readings.

<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

213470-3,4,6,7_3rd & 4th Merged.jpg

 

To restate, I could show more of a gain if I compared #2 and #7, but even with #2 and #6, the results:

In second gear:
Max TQ difference is 221 vs. 205 for a <font color=blue>16 ft-lb Gain</font color=blue>
Max HP difference is 197.5 vs. 188 for a <font color=blue>9.5 hp Gain</font color=blue>

3rd gear at about 4.87 (x1000 rpm)
Max TQ 262 vs.244 = <font color=blue>18 ft-lb Gain</font color=blue>
Max HP 192 vs. 183.5 = <font color=blue>8.5 hp Gain</font color=blue>


4th gear at about 4.86 (x1000 rpm)
Max TQ 206.5 vs. 197.5 =<font color=blue> 9 ft-lb Gain</font color=blue>
Max HP 191 vs. 182.5 = <font color=blue> 8.5 hp Gain</font color=blue>


<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

213472-2,6 2nd & 3rd Gear Merged.jpg

 

Let’s look at the more modest #4 vs. #6 runs

In 4th gear at about 4.85 to 4.9
Max TQ 206.2 vs. 230.1 = 3.1
Max HP 191.8 vs. 187.9 = 3.9


<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

213475-Run 4,6 Merged.jpg

 

Prior to the March 20th dyno, I removed the JWT Pop-Charger and re-installed the stock box and K&N drop-in filter. I also disconnected the GroundingGear™ and did the quick ECU reset, just as I had done prior to the last set of dyno runs. I ran the car with a few WOT applications getting to the Dyno place, to make sure the ECU figured out the reconfiguration.

The senior partner ran the dynos on my car March 20th. He looked at the previous dynos that I ran on Thursday, and tossed the results that indicated I had the 7 and 7 gain. Said they weren’t valid as they were based on max values on runs 3 and 6. Laughed when I told him about the other guy saying initially re the 17 HP gain (caused by the shift point I think). Said the only really valid runs he could see were #4 and #6 for before and after GroundingGear™. (see analysis above).

He tried #8 ,the 1st run of the day, as an all-gear run and compared with the previous runs. He was disappointed in the manumatic mode of the tranny, saying it would be difficult to get consistent run-to-run results since there is some variance introduced by the shift points of the computer from run-to-run. Stated he felt that 4th gear was probably the best to run for reliable results, though I think Max HP was in 3rd. Ran #9 as the W/O run in 4th, and #10 as the GroundingGear™ Equipped run. Said the most important thing to look for in a mod was the consistency of increased HP and TQ across the run rather than any ‘Max’ values. He felt he eliminated most of the ‘Margin of Error’ by choosing the runs that he did. (All Runs shown SAE corrected)

Run #9 was without, and #10 was GroundingGear™ Equipped. Unfortunately, he didn’t reset the dyno runs to read with and without, and I didn’t notice until the end. Luckily I jotted down notes, but you’ll have to believe me. They are also consistent with the values and runs from Mar 18. I’m not sure why, but #11 was blown and only recorded a 1st gear and funky results which I got them to save anyway. #12 is without as is #13, and #14 with. #14 was run only in 1st gear (I didn’t notice until I got home, so I’m not sure why), and the compared results obviously can’t be used. #15 shows an even bigger improvement than #10, but may actually be more accurate, but of course, you guys wanted me to compare runs as close together as possible . This shows consistent gains across the entire range in 4th gear, with a [b]HP gain of 208.59 vs. 204.97 = <font color=blue>3.62</font color=blue> and a TQ gain of 214.98 vs. 207.86 = <font color=blue>7.12</font color=blue>


<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

213478-Run 9 & 10 copy.jpg

 

Another closer up.

<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

213479-9,10 Merge.jpg

 

The faulty #11 run that only showed this in 1st Gear, and nothing else!

<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

213483-#11 Trashed run copy.jpg

 

I think the gains are fairly consistent, just not the larger gains I saw on Thursday. It’s also possible of course that the margin of errors went against me in reading a slightly higher than actual reading for the stock run vs. the GroundingGear™ equipped run. I’m thinking that Thursday’s runs may be fairly representative of the gains on my car at least, though the results may vary on other cars. They seem to be consistent in repeated runs, even across 2 days of testing, and I think I took the most conservative results.

I just noticed the post of the dynos on the Injen Intake showing a gain of 12 HP from comparing the differences for run 5 (Baseline) to Run 15 (Injen) taken almost 2 ½ hours apart. If you guys want to compare gains of various mods, maybe everyone should post the procedures and conditions of the dynos, just as I did to rule out posting slightly skewed data as well.


<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

213485-Scan Max Power, Runs 4&6, 9&10.jpg

 

Bigger gains shown here, but I won’t use the results as they are not back to back.

<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

213486-Max Gains 9,15, Merge.jpg

 

The shop owner was pleased that the runs showed a consistent gain throughout the range. He thought the gains, though I thought they showed much less than I’d hoped, were significant enough that he’d like me to do a kit for his modded car. He said that it was difficult to get a better picture of the gains on my car since every on every run, the auto tranny shifted a bit differently which affected the curves. He’d like to do a dyno on a G35 that has a manual tranny as well as on his car to get a better picture which he thought should reflect a bit more improvement. I think we were particularly hard on critiquing my runs and not simply comparing the ‘BEST MODDED vs. the ‘WORST STOCK’ runs that some dyno places do just to make the customer happy. Over all, he was quite happy with what GroundingGear™ did and may provide me with future run data with the customers that are getting modded at the shop and he’ll recommend GroundingGear™ as part of the mods offered.


I think I’d like to find a local G35 6MT, do a kit for what the dealer sells for to off-set my costs, and arrange to do the dyno to see the results. The dyno guy says the results on a manual tranny would be more consistent and repeatable, without having to do as many runs.

Anyway, you guys tell me what you think about the results. Do I claim victory, pay Steve back, or do we split the cost of this experiment?


<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

 

Whoops, my # 11 didn't show. The faulty #11 run that only showed this in 1st Gear, and nothing else!

<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

213490-#11 Trashed run.JPG

 

What the heck?? I can't get the thing attached properly. I tried resizing twice. I'll play with it later.

BTW, here’s how the JWT Pop-Charger (#6 & #7, March 18th) and the Stock-box with K&N drop-in (#10 & #15, March 20th). The dyno guy said that unless the mod was done on the car the same as we ran my dynos (ie. Ideally with the car still tethered to the dyno), the variability of the position of the car on the rollers, position of the cooling fan, etc, the results would be ‘iffy’. So read into the benefits of the Pop-Charger as you will. Remember, a couple of weeks ago, I consistently gained 2 to 3 10ths of a second on my 7 or 8 0-60 runs (each) as indicated by my Passport G-Timer with the Pop-Charger installed. ie, my runs were faster with the stock box!

You can see that of the runs, my # 6 is the lowest result <font color=blue>GroundingGear™ Equipped</font color=blue>, and used in the initial runs since I'm trying to post the most conservative gains.

<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

213492-Day 1, 2 Comparo copy.jpg

 

Great job of testing your grounding kit. Your results are consistant with most I have read in magazines and with the results I got when I did my own dyno testing.

Keep up the good work.

350Z Brickyard 5AT, CAI, Slotted rotors, Clear SideMarkers w/LEDs, Badges w/LEDs, Billet dipstick, Infinity speakers, 1200W Amp, 2 10” JL Subs, tint, custom exhaust, leather seats, polished intake.

 

Thanks. I'm hoping to appease the skeptics. BTW, feel free to make a <font color=blue>LINK </font color=blue>to this thread to show the results.

I still can't post the funny # 11 run, but I'll link it instead.

The faulty #11 run that only showed this in 1st Gear, and nothing else:



<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>

 

I've tried to compile the data in a reasonably scientific way to answer the skeptic in all of us, including myself. I can't understand how some, including the magazines, have dyno'd with increases of more than 10 HP with Hyper-Grounding. I would have loved to have gotten close to that 15.8 HP increase shown in one of the magazines. But of course, it varies with every car, and also mods (theory that more mods create a bigger demand on the information to the ECU and injector response). I think I have all the information for you all to make up your own minds. Some of you may be disappointed that the mod didn't produce more gains, and some will still question the resulting gains and will still refuse to believe that H-G systems do anything at all, but will readily accept claims from the manufacturer's of intakes, plenums, exhausts, etc. since they all look like they SHOULD work, and since they SOUND like they are doing something.....[img]/w3timages/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Remember, users of this mod have consistently reported smoothness and increased throttle response which are harder to quantify, so it's not just about horse-power and torque increases.


<font color=blue>Please note that the following is representative of GroundingGear™ only as installed on my 2003 G35, during this particular set of test runs and results may vary in other cases. Also, as I don't want this reproduced by other Hyper-Ground kit makers, <h2>All printed material and pictures are Copyright © 2003/04 GroundingGear Ltd. and may not be reproduced nor distributed without prior written consent.</h2> </font color=blue>

It's already been claimed by someone that one of my client's supplied me with data from another source (indicating MUCH higher gains). Though I doubt some of this claim due to various reasons, I don't want the possibility of controversy occuring with these results.

<font color=blue>[i]GroundingGear™ Equipped </font color=blue>