Stage II Jet chip dyno vs. w/o chip part 2

[eggr]

I took the car back to the dyno today. It was at the dealer earlier in the day, so I had to take the chip out.

I ran the car w/o the chip for two runs and then with the chip for two runs. The best run with the chip was 390 rwhp and 388.7 rwtq. The best run w/o the chip was 381.4 rwhp and 379.7 rwtq.

Now, these are NOT corrected numbers. They can only be used to gauge the effectiveness of the chip on my car with dyno runs 10 minutes apart. The car temp. was about 208-210 for all four runs.

8.4 rwhp and 9 rwtq? I'll take it.

[cbutler32]

eggr,
you last sentence sums it up perfectly...
you're happy and that's all that matters...
good info!
thanks for sharing...
thread dead if anyone wants to thread drift...

[WhiteDiamond]

Why can't you post the corrected numbers for your runs!!??? If you are using the same shop to dyno test at, they should easily be able to print you out SAE corrected dyno numbers for ALL OF YOUR RUNS!! Your posts on the JetChip or lack of it are basically worthless without you giving us complete weather data or the SAE numbers.....Oh yeah, weather data can conflict BIG TIME with IN THE SHOP conditions....

Todd

[eggr]

Actually Todd, I really don't care what you want. If you don't like how I test the car, do it yourself. By the way, an anger management class might help.

[SRTEight]

I think that even though they are not "corrected" numbers it DOES help. It shows that the chip added 8hp and 9lbft of torque. It shows that the chip will add a small amount of hp to anyones SRT. And if someone thinks thats worth the price then fine, pony up!
Thanks for the info eggr.

[WhiteDiamond]

Originally Posted by eggr

Actually Todd, I really don't care what you want. If you don't like how I test the car, do it yourself. By the way, an anger management class might help.

It is up to you, but I am only trying to point out that weather conditions play a VERY important role in the actual numbers you put down to the ground on a given day. I have about 150 dyno pulls sitting in my various folders for the cars I have mod'd over the last 10 years. While living in Phoenix and testing on one specific dyno all the time, I have correction factors from .95 to 1.11 to get the SAE numbers. That spread of correction factors from one specific location and dyno MORE THAN explains your differences in RWHP and RWTQ.

If you go to any hard core mod site, they won't even accept SAE corrected dyno numbers, they just want actual track results....but, yep, they correct them to SAE standard conditions for comparison.

Your car, your money and your testing, I am only hoping to point out to those reading your numbers that your numbers really prove nothing without giving us shop conditions or the correction factors(best to just give the SAE corrected numbers).

Anger management....For what?? Only trying to give you info to help everyone understand and compare your numbers. You just don't want to play ball....

Todd

[Meister]

Originally Posted by eggr

I took the car back to the dyno today. It was at the dealer earlier in the day, so I had to take the chip out.

I ran the car w/o the chip for two runs and then with the chip for two runs. The best run with the chip was 390 rwhp and 388.7 rwtq. The best run w/o the chip was 381.4 rwhp and 379.7 rwtq.

Now, these are NOT corrected numbers. They can only be used to gauge the effectiveness of the chip on my car with dyno runs 10 minutes apart. The car temp. was about 208-210 for all four runs.

8.4 rwhp and 9 rwtq? I'll take it.

Thanks for both testing and posting, eggr.

It should be pointed out that the sequence in which the tests were run was to the distinct disadvantage of the Jet Chip. Heat soak is a major power robber with our LX Hemis - particularly with only 10 minutes between runs. Your car was essentially losing power each run due to heat soak, all other factors being equal. And yet, despite that, your car showed an approximate 9 hp gain on the later, hotter, runs.

And, as Superchips has been hitting us hard with the past few days, "don't just look at the horsepower figures - the driveablity increase alone is a huge benefit". This is so true of the Jet Chip. It's, in fact, what I appreciate most about it.

[maneval69]

Originally Posted by Meister

Thanks for both testing and posting, eggr.

It should be pointed out that the sequence in which the tests were run was to the distinct disadvantage of the Jet Chip. Heat soak is a major power robber with our LX Hemis - particularly with only 10 minutes between runs. Your car was essentially losing power each run due to heat soak, all other factors being equal. And yet, despite that, your car showed an approximate 9 hp gain on the later, hotter, runs.

And, as Superchips has been hitting us hard with the past few days, "don't just look at the horsepower figures - the driveablity increase alone is a huge benefit". This is so true of the Jet Chip. It's, in fact, what I appreciate most about it.

Good grief, Give eggr a break.

This is the first good test I have seen for the chips.
If the engine temp was the same for all four runs then the test is as good as it is going to get.
I would like to see the best runs for each on a chart with A/F included. Just to see what the chip actually does to get that extra power. But the test results should be as accurate as you can hope to be.

Thanks for taking the time to post the numbers eggr.

[eggr]

Todd,

Maybe you should have paid closer attention to my initial post in this thread. I'm sure I mentioned that the testing pertained to my car ONLY. Should someone glean some information from my testing that assists them in some way, then I am glad to be of service.

As far as your immature, boastful and unnecessary remarks on this thread (and many others) I would suggest that no one is interested.

[eggr]

Maneval69,

I did have the two aforementioned runs placed on the same graph with their A/ F ratios for comparison purposes. I thought that might be helpful. I will scan it and post it tomorrow.