03.5 6 Spd Sedan Owner with Feedback on 05 6 Spd Sedans
I'm with ya Corgidog...
I don't know what they are, but would like to see them.
Yes Dave B. That is what I'm saying as well. The Dyno's are far from conclusive.
I think we'll just have to wait for the mags/reviewing sites to see what they come up with.
This has been an informative and exciting debate. Thanks for everyone for the discussion.
Yes Dave B. That is what I'm saying as well. The Dyno's are far from conclusive.
I think we'll just have to wait for the mags/reviewing sites to see what they come up with.
This has been an informative and exciting debate. Thanks for everyone for the discussion.
Originally Posted by DaveB
But everyone still fails to catch that the correction factors for that particular dyno day were huge hence the reason ALL the Gs and Zs dynoed that day were making numbers way above the norm, regardless if it was an 05 or not. High correction factors, skew the data into your favor. The closer you are to a 1.00 correction factor, the more accurate the numbers because less correcting is involved. The correction factor program is far from perfect.
Sigh. Ok. Let me break this down for you nice and slow Dave. You question everything. Don't believe anything. Everyone is wrong. Nothing is ever set. Everything is far from perfect.
All that being your opinion, why don't you let all the rest of us at least enjoy what we do. Your repeated criticism of over 5 years on all the various forums you've been on has really become sort of a bother. Just your posts on this forum (not to mention Maxima.org) have really been a downer. So please, **** off from at least one thread.
All that being your opinion, why don't you let all the rest of us at least enjoy what we do. Your repeated criticism of over 5 years on all the various forums you've been on has really become sort of a bother. Just your posts on this forum (not to mention Maxima.org) have really been a downer. So please, **** off from at least one thread.
Here's my real world experience...this has been posted before, but is applicable here...
roneski's 04 Coupe 5AT vs my 05 Coupe 6MT
My 05...bone stock 1700 miles
roneski's 04...Crawford plenum, Crawford high flow cats, Fuji Exhaust, Z tube, K&N
Ran head to head last Thursday 8+ times. His best-14.66 at 96.2MPH. My best-14.73 at 96.37. Track is at 2200 ft. above sea level. Conclusions...he launches more consistantly because of the AT, I can pull on him at 70+ MPH.
Both were dynoed Sunday...His 04...230HP RWHP. My 05...245 RWHP and 222 ft/lbs of torque (not sure what his torque numbers are)
This is real world performance, not butt dyno.
So what does this say? At stock with 115+ more lbs on the car and 70+ lbs. on the driver, my 05 is vitually dead even at the track with an 04 with significant bolt on mods. The power increase comes at the top of the RPMs, not at the bottom. The bottom is where butt dyno convinces you that a car is faster. You feel the pull of a car more at 0-40 than you do from 40-100. And the 40-100 is where the new engine shines.
I'm hoping to run against an 03 or 04 stock just so I can see how big the difference really is.
roneski's 04 Coupe 5AT vs my 05 Coupe 6MT
My 05...bone stock 1700 miles
roneski's 04...Crawford plenum, Crawford high flow cats, Fuji Exhaust, Z tube, K&N
Ran head to head last Thursday 8+ times. His best-14.66 at 96.2MPH. My best-14.73 at 96.37. Track is at 2200 ft. above sea level. Conclusions...he launches more consistantly because of the AT, I can pull on him at 70+ MPH.
Both were dynoed Sunday...His 04...230HP RWHP. My 05...245 RWHP and 222 ft/lbs of torque (not sure what his torque numbers are)
This is real world performance, not butt dyno.
So what does this say? At stock with 115+ more lbs on the car and 70+ lbs. on the driver, my 05 is vitually dead even at the track with an 04 with significant bolt on mods. The power increase comes at the top of the RPMs, not at the bottom. The bottom is where butt dyno convinces you that a car is faster. You feel the pull of a car more at 0-40 than you do from 40-100. And the 40-100 is where the new engine shines.
I'm hoping to run against an 03 or 04 stock just so I can see how big the difference really is.
Last edited by scoobybri; Apr 5, 2005 at 04:03 PM.
Nothing's changed. People still question and criticize the 05s ever since Infiniti released the specs last June; whether it's looks, performance, or whatever. These people are usually 03/04 owners...probably with "newer model envy". 
As one famous forum member once said...
DON'T B HATEING

As one famous forum member once said...
DON'T B HATEING
Originally Posted by scoobybri
Here's my real world experience...this has been posted before, but is applicable here...
roneski's 04 Coupe 5AT vs my 05 Coupe 6MT
My 05...bone stock 1700 miles
roneski's 04...Crawford plenum, Crawford high flow cats, Fuji Exhaust, Z tube, K&N
Ran head to head last Thursday 8+ times. His best-14.66 at 96.2MPH. My best-14.73 at 96.37. Track is at 2200 ft. above sea level. Conclusions...he launches more consistantly because of the AT, I can pull on him at 70+ MPH.
Both were dynoed Sunday...His 04...230HP RWHP. My 05...245 RWHP and 222 ft/lbs of torque (not sure what his torque numbers are)
This is real world performance, not butt dyno.
So what does this say? At stock with 115+ more lbs on the car and 70+ lbs. on the driver, my 05 is vitually dead even at the track with an 04 with significant bolt on mods. The power increase comes at the top of the RPMs, not at the bottom. The bottom is where butt dyno convinces you that a car is faster. You feel the pull of a car more at 0-40 than you do from 40-100. And the 40-100 is where the new engine shines.
I'm hoping to run against an 03 or 04 stock just so I can see how big the difference really is.
roneski's 04 Coupe 5AT vs my 05 Coupe 6MT
My 05...bone stock 1700 miles
roneski's 04...Crawford plenum, Crawford high flow cats, Fuji Exhaust, Z tube, K&N
Ran head to head last Thursday 8+ times. His best-14.66 at 96.2MPH. My best-14.73 at 96.37. Track is at 2200 ft. above sea level. Conclusions...he launches more consistantly because of the AT, I can pull on him at 70+ MPH.
Both were dynoed Sunday...His 04...230HP RWHP. My 05...245 RWHP and 222 ft/lbs of torque (not sure what his torque numbers are)
This is real world performance, not butt dyno.
So what does this say? At stock with 115+ more lbs on the car and 70+ lbs. on the driver, my 05 is vitually dead even at the track with an 04 with significant bolt on mods. The power increase comes at the top of the RPMs, not at the bottom. The bottom is where butt dyno convinces you that a car is faster. You feel the pull of a car more at 0-40 than you do from 40-100. And the 40-100 is where the new engine shines.
I'm hoping to run against an 03 or 04 stock just so I can see how big the difference really is.
What matters is how you feel about your own vehicle anyway. The guy driving a SMART that got tipped over is still pissed...people may be laughing at him driving around, but its his pride and joy....I love my car, and I hope me adding the Vortech will make it a wee bit more exciting anyway....
Originally Posted by BrianV
Let's not even START comparing auto's to manuals and especially 03's to 05's with differing tranny's. The cars perform completely different, neither one necessarily better, but for comparison purposes your testing is more confusing than it is helpful.
So what your saying is there's no way to compare these 2 cars? I thought for all intensive purposes an AT gives a driver an advantage at the track because of consistancy. This was on the same track, same temp, same humidity, same elevation. So the question is...does $2500 worth of mods only offset the powertrain losses of the AT vs the 6MT? Because if this was true and the engines of the 04s and 05 are completely even, there is one hell of percentage of powertrain loss! Not to mention that my car weighs almost 100lbs. more.
So the argument that I see here is modded 04 AT versus stock 05 6MT = even because of transmission difference. A person with an '04 AT needs mods to run even with an 05 6MT...and this is strictly due to powertrain loss....hmmm. And this post was started because of a butt dyno review. Someone starts throwing around real world numbers and of course, they are instantly cast off as heresy. What year was your G again? If the '06 comes out and is faster than my '05, I'll be the first to admit it. But never on butt dyno...once I get back from the track.
I refer back to the original line in this post....
Last edited by scoobybri; Apr 5, 2005 at 06:01 PM.
Originally Posted by G35Alex
Sigh. Ok. Let me break this down for you nice and slow Dave. You question everything. Don't believe anything. Everyone is wrong. Nothing is ever set. Everything is far from perfect.
All that being your opinion, why don't you let all the rest of us at least enjoy what we do. Your repeated criticism of over 5 years on all the various forums you've been on has really become sort of a bother. Just your posts on this forum (not to mention Maxima.org) have really been a downer. So please, **** off from at least one thread.
All that being your opinion, why don't you let all the rest of us at least enjoy what we do. Your repeated criticism of over 5 years on all the various forums you've been on has really become sort of a bother. Just your posts on this forum (not to mention Maxima.org) have really been a downer. So please, **** off from at least one thread.
It's your right to think that high/low correction factors don't influence the numbers. I'm just applying what I know and what I've seen 3 dynos shops in Kansas City. I'm refering to your post on 2/27/2005. See my comment in response #13. The correction factor for that day was a whopping 1.09. Normal is 0.99-1.01. 1.09 is way off the scale. That's all I'm saying.
Not to change the subject, but I just had an Auto loaner overnight, and that thing was screaming FAST off the line. Seems like 90% of it's power is in the first 1/2 inch of the gas pedal. Dramatically different drive between the auto and the 6mt. Love them both for different reasons ... but man, the auto can really snap your neck off the line.
Originally Posted by DaveB
Well I'm sorry I **** you off and I question everything. Your not the first nor last that will say this exact thing. Maybe this site needs some people that question things?
It's your right to think that high/low correction factors don't influence the numbers. I'm just applying what I know and what I've seen 3 dynos shops in Kansas City. I'm refering to your post on 2/27/2005. See my comment in response #13. The correction factor for that day was a whopping 1.09. Normal is 0.99-1.01. 1.09 is way off the scale. That's all I'm saying.
It's your right to think that high/low correction factors don't influence the numbers. I'm just applying what I know and what I've seen 3 dynos shops in Kansas City. I'm refering to your post on 2/27/2005. See my comment in response #13. The correction factor for that day was a whopping 1.09. Normal is 0.99-1.01. 1.09 is way off the scale. That's all I'm saying.
Granted 1.09 is high, but having attended dozens of dynos, having rented a mobile dyno, and perusing the 30+ dyno pulls from my old car, I have personally seen from .98 to 1.08 used as a correction factor with great results.
Questioning for the sake of hearing yourself type or to convince people of your "expert" status (as you yourself said) helps NO ONE on this site.
Now slag off.
Ditto ^ Either way, if it was that high, numerous people have posted similar numbers (some higher, some lower), so in GENERAL, our dyno numbers were in the RANGE that most NORMAL dynos show.
Taken directly from Dynojet and also Superflo:
I did a little research and found some interesting things concerning this Arizona dyno day and so that I can prove to ChicagoX that I'm not talking out of my butt like he thinks I do. Utilizing the SAE correction factor equation (http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm) utilized by Superflo, Dynojet, and Mustang from the website and using the weather conditions for Phoenix/Gilbert, AZ (1150') on Feb 26, 2005 http://www.wunderground.com/history/...lyHistory.html, the calculated correction factor for that day should have been 1.001 (basically 1.00) and not 1.09. The conditions were quite favorable and even the 1150' in elevation didn't affect the numbers due to the conditions. It appears that something must have been wrong with the on-site weather station at this particular dyno shop. All the Dynojet CF program does is multiply the real numbers by the computed CF (ie .97, 1.09, whatever). If a car made 236whp with a 1.09 CF, then it should make around 215whp with a 1.0 CF. The 255whp "freak" 6 speed 350Z would make around 235whp.
Should I still "slag off"?
The power correction procedures used in the Dynojet dynamometer was not developed by Dynojet, but rather by authorities such as the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineering) or DIN so that data could be compared. It was intended for use with normal automotive engines and for only small pressure and temperature differences. It is at best, only an approximation of what the power would be if you actually tested under those conditions. These standards actually accept corrected data only within a narrow window of test conditions, typically +/- 7% of the standard values.
The problems arise from the fact that "power correction" fails to address anything except the change in density of air. For example, on a cold and a hot day the engine may have the same cylinder block temperature. This means that air entering through the head will be heated more on a cold day than it will on a hot day. The correction factor does not take this into consideration. It also ignores coolant temperature and oil temperature, which have been shown time and again to have a substantial effect on the measured power. Humidity also has a variable effect on power because it affects the point at which detonation occurs.
While corrected power will probably give you better numbers than uncorrected power, there is still no substitute for testing under the same conditions when you have to make close comparisons. For the best results, you should try to maintain constant air temperature, fuel temperature, oil temperature, coolant temperature humidity, and barometric pressure. For many reasons, this cannot be accomplished completely, but sometimes you can design your test cycle to minimize the change.
The problems arise from the fact that "power correction" fails to address anything except the change in density of air. For example, on a cold and a hot day the engine may have the same cylinder block temperature. This means that air entering through the head will be heated more on a cold day than it will on a hot day. The correction factor does not take this into consideration. It also ignores coolant temperature and oil temperature, which have been shown time and again to have a substantial effect on the measured power. Humidity also has a variable effect on power because it affects the point at which detonation occurs.
While corrected power will probably give you better numbers than uncorrected power, there is still no substitute for testing under the same conditions when you have to make close comparisons. For the best results, you should try to maintain constant air temperature, fuel temperature, oil temperature, coolant temperature humidity, and barometric pressure. For many reasons, this cannot be accomplished completely, but sometimes you can design your test cycle to minimize the change.
Should I still "slag off"?
Last edited by DaveB; Apr 7, 2005 at 03:44 PM.
Now what does that prove in comparison to what I have said? Nothing. If that's the case (correction factors being "WRONG" in either direction), every dyno ever done may as well be thrown out the window. The POINT IS, many people have used the same correction factor, some higher, some lower, but AGAIN, it falls within what people would consider an acceptable range of power output.


