| Message |
and Im quite certain there were no boost leaks or fouled plugs accounting for the difference in HP. They are simply different dynos and not all dynos are as well calibrated or as frequently calibrated as they should be. I went with the lesser one as being the "real" reading as it is known to be accurate, whereas I found the original one is known to shoot a little high. Remember also the same is occuring for those submitting their dynos to make up your stage 5 average also. It was discussed some time ago how higher altitude dynos correction is off for turbo cars. The correction factor is calculated for NA engines having less atmospheric pressure with altitude, not for forced induction engines, hence the results are always higher. Any mechanic will tell you same dyno same day is the only way to really compare cars. Your average is a great guide but not necessarily spot on unless every car used the same dyno to get their numbers. Thats why I think things are a little different. Either way, I know myself the engine was in good condition and running well when it dynod. It was taken apart soon after and it was visually inspected to be in good condition. Myself, I know that the graph for the stock turbos is accurate for that particular dyno, hence the PE1420s which follow the same line are also doing the exact same thing as my stocks. Your right though, if you want proof I will go back to the original dyno when I get time. Waste of $50 though IMO :)
 |
 |
