I stole this quote from Neffster

"Disclaimer… The numbers from the dyno sheets are for informational purposes only. I have only published data that was recorded in a single setting. If you have problems with the results, please do not attack or question the methods of gaining the data. The end results apply only to the subject test group for the specific date and times the data was recorded. This write-up is for entertainment purposes only.

OK, now that the BS disclaimer is over let’s get to the good stuff."

The Golden Gate G35 Club held its first Dyno Day on August 14th at ModaCar in Livermore. An in-ground dynojet, model 224x was used. All 6MT cars were dyno'ed in 4th gear and all 5AT cars were dyno'ed in 3rd gear.

Below is the chart for everyone's dyno. The actual dyno print-out with A/F readings will be posted once we obtain the files from ModaCar. None of us knew how to get the files off their computer

Also take note of the 350Z numbers.

Golden Gate G35 Club

323846-323815-GGG_DynoDay_081404.gif

 

Post deleted by drsifu1

 

Here's the Coupe numbers.

I must say that these dynos prove that not all engines are created equal..at least I hope so.

Look at David's numbers and his stock coupe does just as well as the two coupes that have Injen CAI.

You look at Ken's numbers and compare them to mine and some may think my mods was a waste of money, seeing that I only gained 4-5 extra RWHP with the Fujitsubo exhaust and y-pipe.

It would have definitely paid off to have a baseline run. Oh wells...live and learn.

Comments and feedback are welcome. Again, I hope to have the actual dyno graphs posted within a week or two once we get the files.



Golden Gate G35 Club

323874-Coupe Dyno.jpg

 

Here's a breakdown of the numbers for the sedans.

Note the following:

-Eloy's car check engine light came on during the dyno. He suspects there is something wrong with his car...or so he says

-Andy's car with the TS ECU had serious detontation problems above 5000 RPM for the first two runs. They took his car off the dyno, added 100 octane racing fuel to a 1/4 tank of 91 octane and he re-dynoed his car later on in the day. His 3rd run is with the 100 octane gas added. Detonation problems went away. Looks like Andy will have to talk to TS about this issue


Golden Gate G35 Club

323897-Sedan Dyno1.jpg

 

AWESOME POST AND GREAT SOURCE OF INFORMATION! Sorry if I'm sticking my $.02 in where it doesn’t belong being a SE Forum member, but I have a few comments none the less...

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Look at David's numbers and his stock coupe does just as well as the two coupes that have Injen CAI.

<hr></blockquote>
This is the same thing we found at the Central FL Dyno Day. Apparently there is some consistency with the findings. THIS IS GOOD NEWS!!! (at least for the non-Injen CAI owners).

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You look at Ken's numbers and compare them to mine and some may think my mods was a waste of money, seeing that I only gained 4-5 extra RWHP with the Fujitsubo exhaust and y-pipe.

<hr></blockquote>
I have an e-mail from Ben@JIC-MAGIC.COM and I asked him what I could expect from a JIC Y-Pipe, his answer was ~5rwhp. This shows that the stock exhaust, after the y-pipe, is designed VERY WELL. I suppose you've helped prove that point too.

One or two more group dynos ought show several things…

1. It should put a nail in the coffin for the Injen CAI
2. It should also tell us whether the TS ECU is really worth the money.
3. It should prove the stock exhaust is really a good exhaust.
4. It should show that the cats and y-pipe are really restrictive.

Another thing I’d really like to see is a header shoot out on our cars with an intake setup, high flow cats & a y-pipe. That would also be a very valuable bunch of information.

Good job and thanks to everyone in CA who showed up and gave the time and money to help collect this data.

<font color=blue>The above statements are only my take on the issue. If you disagree with anything I typed then you are 100% right!</font color=blue>

 

Neffster,

About the INJEN CAI thing or any CAI for that matter, I believe there wouldn't be much of a difference between that and a WAI (ie. Popcharger) or even the stock airbox. On the dyno the hood is open and the fans are blowing directly onto the engine bay. So any temperature differences a CAI would give in a real life situation when the car is at speed is negated. This is my theory on why the stock coupe had almost the same numbers as the other coupes with the INJEN CAI.

Also I would have to agree with your comment on how the stock exhaust after the Y-pipe is pretty well designed. If you look at my mods and numbers you can see that I bascially replaced the Y-pipe on my sedan with a NFC Y-pipe, replaced the stock sedan resonator and welded in a Magnaflow 22", and left the stock muffler. I was putting down numbers that were up in the area of the coupe guys. Goes to show you don't have to spend tons of money on an expensive exhaust to get the small gains a catback system will provide.

04' G35S 6MT Ivory Pearl, Willow, Premium
Z-Tube / NFC Y-Pipe / Custom Mid-Pipe / 350 EVO Rear Sway/ '03 350Z Shocks and Springs

 

I think a couple of other IMPORTANT variables need to be examined before too many conclusions are drawn. Specifically:
1) There was a significant ambient temperature difference between the runs done early in the morning (by dklau33) and those in the afternoon. Take a look at the numbers from Kurtis (4drskyline) - first run of the day, vs. Andrew (Motop). We never had near identical cars run back-to-back. Note: The stock 350Z (posted not very impressive numbers) run was done late in the afternoon, for example. I also suspect there may well have been some mechanical differences in the dynojet drum itself between the first few runs (when it was cool) vs. after being beaten on by nearly 40 runs toward the end of the day. I don't know if the dynojet has any automatic temp. correction (didn't see any type of temp. probe). Anyone who's run their car early in the morning when the air is cold (and denser) can attest to a significant difference in "feel".
2) There were 2 different revs. of ECU - ULEV, and ULEV2. Clearly, based on my dyno A/F results, Nissan has significantly changed the mapping with ULEV2 to reduce emissions. The dyno operators were a bit puzzled by the diffs. in my A/F numbers, until I remembered that I've got a ULEV2 ECU. One noticeable diff. here was that, although my A/F dropped to about the same level as everybody else at higher RPM, in the 3-4k range it was significantly leaner. The techs. suggested that was a way for Nissan to "cheat" the system by running cleaner (leaner) in the RPM range in which the CARB tests are done. They also said that they see fat (rich) A/Fs at upper RPMs on Nissan, as a measure to keep engine failure low (they said Subaru is even worse). So, this brings up the BIG issue...
Clearly huge HP/TQ numbers are achievable by doing two things: a) running a bit leaner at upper RPMs, b) advancing the timing at higher RPMs. Chenga's numbers (and detonation) were due, most likely, to the combo of these two. This hypothesis was further tested by his switch to a 100 octane mix. (guessed to be about 95 equivalent octane due to residual pump gas). I wasn't there for his final run, but it seems that the detonation problem went away. Of a) and b), I'd suspect that b) is more significant (i.e. noticeable HP gains from timing advance alone are likely achievable). The real question is this: What are the longevity implication of the TS ECU? In other words, is 10-15HP worth the risk? As James (supercharged eclipse) mentioned, methanol injection helps cure the detonation problem!
3) We're only looking at PEAK numbers, and only above 3000 RPM! As any tuner will attest, it's always possible to trade a broad power band for a higher peak HP. The desirability of that in every day driving situations may be questionable. As has been explained numerous times on this board, a dyno measures torque only (HP is calculated from TQ and RPM).

2004.5 G35 Sedan | Garnet Fire + Willow | 6MT | Z-Tube

 

After looking at my previous dyno when I had 9000 miles and didn't have the UR crank pulley this was my best run.
HP 226.9 and torque 238.7
after adding the pulley with 22000 miles
HP 235.28 and torque 219.53
Even though I gained HP I lost torque.

2003 Blk/Blk Premium w/navigation
Tinted Windows (20%)
Chrome Wheels
BRM Catback Exhaust
Injen CAI (blue)
Unorthodox Crank Pulley (blue)
Clear Corners
Grounding Wires (blue)
255/45ZR17's rear

 

smokinG - you just reminded me of my 4th (less) important detail that can also explain some of the variation we saw. Namely, mileage. As bearings wear, mechanical friction is reduced (until it starts to climb again with too much play/wear) and HP numbers will increase. Your better HP numbers are most likely just a function of different dyno's, different days. But...could also be due to your engine being a bit more "loose" with 22k miles. I'm not sure where the "optimal" point is, but suspect it might well be >10k miles. I really doubt a pulley could account for the differences you've seen.
Thanks again for bringing drinks Linda!

2004.5 G35 Sedan | Garnet Fire + Willow | 6MT | Z-Tube

 

At Modacar they had told me that different dyno's will have different readings. It really doesn't matter. I tryed to get anyone to find out who was really the fastest, but I couldn't get any volunteers. HeHe
No problem with bringing the drinks, I had a great time and learned so much.

2003 Blk/Blk Premium w/navigation
Tinted Windows (20%)
Chrome Wheels
BRM Catback Exhaust
Injen CAI (blue)
Unorthodox Crank Pulley (blue)
Clear Corners
Grounding Wires (blue)
255/45ZR17's rear

 

Actually from talking to the techs there they said that those with a cai would be at a disadvantage due to the environment.. although you have fans blowing directly into the engine bay, the fans are running at ~10mph.. and how many of us actually drives at that speed?

I don't really take the dyno numbers at face value, although it was a little disappointing that the sedans were doing better than the coupes.. if I were to dyno again, these are the things that I would do:

1. oil change
2. convert cai to wai

But then again I might lose hp.. who knows.. for $35 it was nice to see what the car is supposedly making.. I'll probably do another one later on after installing hfc and y pipe and hopefully plenum

 

gokart: You are right in that any solid conclusions cannot be drawn as there are so many variables and factors with dynos. Only educated observations and guesses. Plus these are just peak numbers and what really matters most is the area under the curve. Hopefully we get those files from Modacar soon. So here are my questions and observations:

1) Does the dynojet dyno at modacar use SAE corrections regarding weather conditions and alititude? Or does it not take those factors into account? From what I've read some shops put up weather stations to take constant readings which in theory should negate any factors with tempearture, barometric pressure, humidty, etc.

2) This may be quite obvious but the torque curves on our G's are just really good. The torque gets up to peak pretty quickly after 3K RPM and stays up there throughout the powerband and drops off gradually at the upper limits. That is why the VQ35 has such useable street power and low end grunt.

3) According to your dyno sheet how is your torque curve? I'm surprised the peak torque numbers weren't higher with your Stillen True Dual Catback system.

04' G35S 6MT Ivory Pearl, Willow, Premium
Z-Tube / NFC Y-Pipe / Custom Mid-Pipe / 350 EVO Rear Sway/ '03 350Z Shocks and Springs

 

To all those speculating about weather, all your numbers are SAE corrected (upper right hand corner of your printouts)based off the DynoJet's weather station. From DynoJet.com regarding the DynoJet 224x's features: "Automatic Conditions Measurement (absolute pressure, air temp, etc.)".

Personally, I think the VQ engine needs to be warmed up a bit to get optimal power readings. Notice how almost everyone got their highest numbers on either run 2 or 3 (after they'd warmed up)? Since I went first, my car may have been in the engines ideal status where it was warmed up enough without being heat soaked.

P.S. Don't be hatin' cause I got good numbers. :-p

 

I talked to Tadashi at Technosquare and he says that the dyno isn't loading the car enough to get to the right ignition timing map. This is possible in theory. The timing map is three-dimensional and as RPM increases timing increases. As engine load increases, timing retards.

Casey (Modacar tech) agrees with Technosquare and me that this could be a reason for the detonation. He stands firm in the belief that the car shouldn't detonate on the dyno anyway though. Different road surfaces will give the engine a different load and it's better to be safe than stranded w/a broken car. I'm tending to side with Casey on this point.

Everyone (Tadashi, Casey, and I) is in agreement that my A/F ratio of 13.08 (tailpipe, which would put it richer up front) is not the cause of the problem here.

Technosquare did a great job advancing the timing, and if I lived outside of CA where they have 93/94 octane gas I would have ZERO problems. I did enjoy living in Michigan and having cheap 93 octane gas for this car. Unfortunately, I'll have to go easy on the gas pedal (Watch out after 5500rpm) and/or toss in a few gallons of 100 octane to keep my engine safe.

I'm going to head back to Modacar sometime this week (hopefully) after I burn off the 100 octane left. I'm going to try Unocal 76's premium fuel. Casey is going to hook up a microphone in the engine bay and we're going to take the car for a spin on the road and settle this load issue once and for all. Hopefully I won't have any detonation on the road. That would tell me that Tadashi at Technosquare was right or 76 has better gas (at least this batch) than Chevron.

I'll post again when I have the results.

>Chenga's numbers (and detonation) were due, most likely, to >the combo of these two. This hypothesis was further tested >by his switch to a 100 octane mix. (guessed to be about 95 >equivalent octane due to residual pump gas). I wasn't there >for his final run, but it seems that the detonation problem >went away. Of a) and b), I'd suspect that b) is more >significant (i.e. noticeable HP gains from timing advance alone >are likely achievable). The real question is this: What are the >longevity implication of the TS ECU?
>

 

gokart,
Did you guys use SAE correction factors? If so, this factors in temp, pressure, humidity, etc… Initially I thought I read you used a Dynojet that was only 1 year old, so there should have been the ability to eliminate that source of error. That way it would not matter what car ran at a cooler, dryer time of day.

<font color=blue>The above statements are only my take on the issue. If you disagree with anything I typed then you are 100% right!</font color=blue>