Any new news? Dyno day happen yet?

Maybe I am a bit lost here...didn't Innovation do a header dyno test already on a HP500? How would that test cross referance to the 496?

More Tests? = More Consumer Education!
 

I think that too may boaters, especially here on the forum are getting to test crazy! You've got lots of tests on 496's with various manifold and header styles and brands. God knows we have done to many of them and I have the dyno bills to prove it! Let us as an industry and group never think that individual tests alone are the sole determining factor for a high performance boater to make his exhaust upgrade choice. There are so many different motor types, horsepower and model types, that what works for one will not always work for another. The boaters that are interested in changing their exhaust systems should use reliability, cost, looks, ease of installation, useful life and personal preferences in making their choices as well as how the systems really performed on their type and model of motor. No smart industry professional will guranty how a given boat is really going to perform with some addtional power added with exhaust changes. It just to much of a moving target with each boat size, weight, hull type, setup, water condtions, driver skills, etc. to sit here and say that someones boat is going to go exactly this much faster with some engine , hull or drive change! Manufacturers of header and quality manifold systems should substantiate there improvements with independant tests and correct published data. some have, most have not, therein lies another factor that potential exhaust system buyers should use to make an informed decision. If a manufacturer cannot or is not willing to prove his claims or results then "Buyer Beware" Its just that simple, game over!

Regards,

Ray @ Raylar

Well said.. Jamie / Lakeside

.

I'm sorry to say it, but the tests I've seen are pretty much meaningless, because the manufacturers of the headers refuse to post baseline data. They also run their tests and correct them for non-standard conditions for pressure and temperatures, which inflates the horsepower readings. They often run dyno tests "on the fly", which gives higher horsepower readings than steady state, and then compare them to manufacturer tests run steady state. They put performance equipment on an engine which has already been modified, so, of course, the horsepower increases are higher than if if they were put on a stock engine. They change spark timing and fuel, but never test the same changes on the baseline engine. Consequently, people are skeptical, and they should be. The aftermarket industry as a whole has a horrible reputation for fudging data, and making outlandish horsepower increase claims. Then they wonder why people don't believe them. Personally, I believe nothing that is posted by the aftermarket as far as horsepower gains anymore, and that includes these so called performance magazines, unless I see testing done using OEM industry test procedures (which will probably be a cold day in...well, you get the idea).

Ray, I don't think we are "test crazy". We are just skeptical.

Michael

Well Michael, you have a good right to be skeptical. I can only speak for my aftermarket company and not any of the others. I can tell you we test to an SAE standard which has been adopted by most companies who want to have comparible data. We do our tests with a baseline before tests and we then test the new changes with the same dyno, same day same conditions and we also use some steady state tests as part of our tests and we also use these steady state tests for our durability testing. We don't adjust the figures with different offsets, we only correct the outputs on the dyno for fuel specific gravity, atmosheric pressure at the time of each test as well as ambient temperature and humidity. We bring the engines in our dyno tests up to nearly the exact same operating temperatures on both coolant temp and oil temp before we make the pulls. We are usually conservative on our figures and we try to error on the low side. I feel our tests are about as correct as we can reasonably make them and of course we have a lot of boats and customers demonstrating in the water that the power increases we see in testing are actually expierenced in performance gains on the water. So all I can say is that there are other aftermarket companies that use a similar level of "correctness" in their testing and obviously there are others who use the "dart board" approach or just flat massage the numbers where they want them to be. In a perfect world this would not exist and all I can say is I hope more aftermarket companies adopt an "honest" policy and procedures for their tests. Until then I guess everyone will just have to by their performance products from those who do. This is the best way to send a message to those who don't or won't!!

Best Regards,

Ray @ Raylar

Well said, Ray! Thank you.

Michael

Ok guys, we're on our way. Just completed all the base line testing on the test boat. We made 5 different runs with GPS. Different directions and even different drivers. We went from a slowest of 62.6 to a fastest of 63.5. All but one run was under 63. I just finished prop shaft dyno testing the engine. Again I made 3 pulls and they were within 1 HP of each other. So, what did it make at the prop you ask???? 387 HP at 5000 RPM!!! That is a solid 10% loss through the drive.

Another bit of trivia. THe boat has 2 gas tanks. One has 87 octane and the other has 93 octane. I switched to the 87 for one pull and it didn't change the HP one bit.

So, we have our baseline data. We'll get the exhaust switched in the next couple of days and dyno it again.

nice bob.....keep us posted. What exhaust sets are you going to run?

Bob:
Nice start to a great series of eye opening tests! Glad to see my statement about octane not making more power is here in black and white to close that old wives tale! Keep it com'in!

Regards,
Ray @ Raylar

I agree Indeed.. :) Jamie

This is good stuff! :D

What temperature and pressure are you correcting the horsepower to?

I can't wait to hear about the next set of tests. Don't forget to put it all back to stock at the end to be sure nothing changed with the powertrain during the tests.

Michael

I have an electronic weather station. We are at 800' elevation. Ambient air temp was upper 70's. However I placed the weather station right by the flame arrestor to get a more accurate inlet air temp. That temp was 88 degrees. I'm using the "standard" correction method. The final correction factor was 5%, uncorrected HP was 360.

Excellent test data and test method to insure effects of engine compartment air temperature at flame arrestor versus the general ambient air temperature that these weather stations usually are reading is accounted for. That 10% drive loss hp answers a lot of questions for me.

Anything new? Is the testing still going to happen?

It's currently in process. You should have some finite answers soon :cool:

anymore new test information ?

Should have some definite numbers this week. Still waiting on a set of risers from Dana.

It's been about 3 weeks. Any results yet?

Results

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=156444

octane
 

It's surprising to me that all the "experts" here (I'm not talking to you professionals) don't know, that high octane fuel is less volatile than lower octane fuels. HIGH octane fuel has a more controlled conflagration rate (it burns slower) than lower octane fuels. Low octane fuel is more volatile and and less controllable than high octane fuel. The reason you get detonation problems from low octane fuel, is from an uncontrolled burn AKA pre ignition!! (the fuel starts to burn under compression or a spark /hot spot in the cylinder ) HIGH octane fuel "burns slower and is less volatile", so you can more precisely determine the "EXPLOSION" point of the fuel in the combustion chamber.

You are quite estute & knowledgable for a "little girl".. :D :evilb:


You would also be correct ;) Jamie / Lakeside

Enough of the Chit chat.. Time for some noise... :yes: :eek!: :bonk: ...

Here is a clip of the Dana exhaust we installed on a clients boat.
Undertaker's new Dana 496 Exhaust running on the hose(click here)

:) Jamie / Lakeside Restorations

.

Dana's are finally on the boat. I hope to test them on the water this week sometime and I will post real world results after the testing. I must tell you, I also removed the Silent Thunder from the boat, so there are two variables that are changed at one time. There was some weight savings by getting rid of the Silent Thunder...I would guess about 100lbs with all the water that was trapped in it.

Good Luck keep us posted on your results.....



Undertaker:D

sweet....keep us posted. What are your before GPS and speedo #'s?