Originally Posted by valdeztke

A few questions -

Were these heads "worked" (Port, milled, etc)?

The reason for the more mild cam I am assuming was for daily driveability, but could one go a step more aggressive and see better numbers (by better I mean an increase in power under the curve specifically MORE TORQUE MANG!).

Thanks

Originally Posted by DynoTech Engineering

Not in this case, plus smoothing only goes as high as 5, not 6....

The smoothing tool is only a function of graphical resolution, nothing more and is used to smooth out a jagged dyno curve to make the graph more legible for reading accuracy for some vehicles.

An example~
We sometimes use the higher smoothing functions when we chassis dyno big 4x4 trucks that have huge, heavy, out-of-round tires that shake on the dyno at high speed. That shaking is often picked up by the chassis dyno and shows up on the graph as an occilation, making the graph hard to read due to the waves in the graph line. Higher smoothing rates in this scenario allows us to sift the erroneous data from the good data we're after, so we can effectively read the graph accurately.

Corvette's are not that way and the driveline, wheels and tires are generally smooth in operation at high speed, therefore smoothing isn't required obtain clean dyno data. When a vehicle is properly tuned with a good combination of components, the dyno graph line will appear just as clean and linear in "0" smoothing as it does in "5" smoothing, therefore, there will not be a huge delta of results difference between one level of resolution to another. In this case, our combination produces an exceptionally clean, smooth, linear pull from beginning to redline, so any differences you may see from the hightest resolution to the lowest would only be 1-2 RWHP, *NOT* 10 as you suggest...

We only use the smoothing function to sort out erroneous data from good, accurate data and by selecting the "smoothing 5" function, you're effectively dis-arming yourself of dyno graph resolution, which is foolish if you're a professional tuner that has the equipment.

A power curve on a dyno graph should always be a smooth, linear, clean pull all the way to redline, not jagged and uneven- for *BOTH* extremes of resolution settings.

We tune our vehicles here to carry a smooth, linear pull all the way to redline- in "smoothing 0". If it's not, we find out why and correct the issue before the car leaves. When we have achieved that with our packages, we have done our jobs correctly...

Originally Posted by 5 Liter Eater

Do you guys clean up the L76 intake as part of your package?

Originally Posted by haljensen

You are correct on the smoothing of 5 not 6. I've had 14 pulls on the same Dyno, same operator and he showed me how higher numbers of smoothing give lower numbers of HP/TQ. My experience shows this on the recorded HP. Dynojet 248, SAE corrected, smoothing "O" will show higher HP numbers than the same run with a smoothing "5". My C6 experience, not a truck.

If you want the highest numbers for bragging use smoothing "O", if you want numbers for tuning use the same smoothing factor for every run.

Originally Posted by 5 Liter Eater

Was the baseline pull seriously running ~15:1?!? Am I reading that right?

Originally Posted by DynoTech Engineering

I agree, if your car did not have a smooth, linear dyno pull to where the graph was jagged in the highest graphical resolution, than yes, "smoothing 0" would provide you with falsified results. However, if that was the case, than your tuner should have sorted out whatever was causing that problem and corrected it so that it could produce a clean, linear pull in either resolution extreme.

The problem of using using a lower graphical resolution when calibrating a vehicle on the chassis dyno is that if you choose to "numb" the curve by smoothing it out too much, you effectively remove your ability to keenly observe and target minute det. events that can be tuned out with proper calibration. Using a scan tool is not the only means to witness det. and the dyno will pick up the small, discreet reductions in engine power due to det. far easier/faster than you'll ever see it on a scan tool alone. That's why we calibrate our vehicles here to obtain smooth, linear pulls with whatever smoothing method you want to choose- using the scan tool -AND- the chassis dyno tools in tandem with each other. This method of calibration takes much more time, but the end results are far better~ as demostrated here with the power this car produces with such a small camshaft.


As I also stated earlier, the common issue of increased power delta comparing between "0" to "5" was *not* the case with our performance package combination, as it *did* produce a smooth, linear pull all the way to redline and as also stated before, the difference from the highest graphical resolution of "smoothing 0" to the lowest graphical resolution of "smoothing 5" is usually only 1-2 RWHP if the car is built/tuned properly.

Our package only shows a difference of 1 RWHP/1 RWTQ between the two extremes of resolution- as it should be...


BTW- We *always* use the smoothing factor of "0" on our chassis dyno for every car we build here- whether we're "bragging" or "calibrating" the vehicle.

Originally Posted by 12oh

$6250 installed(parts,labor,tuning) for this pkg. called today and they will only sell it it if they install it, and will not sell the pkg seperately.

Originally Posted by 12oh

$6250 installed(parts,labor,tuning) for this pkg. called today and they will only sell it it if they install it, and will not sell the pkg seperately.

Originally Posted by SpinMonster

OK now, its a DTE thread and I hopped on to say.....

BRACE YOURSELF>>>>

That is the single best low end I have seen:
A-With these heads
B-With a sane cam
C-On stock displacement

Great job; you obviously have a good cam pick there alone with a great tune.

it didnt even hurt