Chipped S6 Part 2, Dyno Results
12-11-2001, 12:45 PM
#11
Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck - AVDH's chart and your numbers are correct but what adjustment would you use for altitude?
AVDH's chart is correct. At altitude his base is 214 and with the mods it's 242 (+13%) Adjusting both these figures by 16.9% would get you to the base 250 and modified 283 numbers. At altitude his base horsepower is 291 and modified to 329. Assume he is correct with a 17% adjustment and you would feel around 340 base horsepower and 385 modified horsepower at sea level. Still a 13% increase and still a kick in the ***!!!!! Now no more numbers!!! 
12-11-2001, 12:57 PM
#14
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Industry standard! 1% for each 100 metres, thus 1753m = 17% or rather 17.53% to be precise,
the dyno give two tables, one of which has a mutliplying factor of 1.17, which is apparently based on atmospheric pressure compensation in this case being 2.9 psi. or there about.
That's not my invention
That's not my invention
12-11-2001, 01:02 PM
#15
Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Game, set and match to avdh!!!
Good work. Very thorough. For us in the States what we need to keep in mind is that the increase was 13% or around 45 horsepower. Still a kick in the "butt dyno"
12-11-2001, 02:30 PM
#19
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to agree with Bimmer-boy, but...
I've always heard 3%/1000' calculated as .97 ^ X
where X is the # of 1000s of feet.
That's not out of line with avdh's 1%/100m number, so taking his ~1700m altitude gives: .99^17=0.843 or more like 15.7% loss.
<i>"So Andre's being conservative, right?"</i> you say.
Well, yes and no. You'd need to *DIVIDE* the measured HP by .843 to get real HP... which would be a multiplier of 1/.843 or about 1.186.
<i>"See! Andre IS being conservative!"</i> you say.
No, Andre's vendor's methodology is completely suspect, IMHO. If the explanation was a 17% multiplier for 1%/100m at ~1700m, the math just doesn't work.
The correction factor of 1.17 <b>*MAY*</b> well be accurate for the altitude, but it does <b>NOT</b> correspond to a 1%/100m HP loss.
where X is the # of 1000s of feet.
That's not out of line with avdh's 1%/100m number, so taking his ~1700m altitude gives: .99^17=0.843 or more like 15.7% loss.
<i>"So Andre's being conservative, right?"</i> you say.
Well, yes and no. You'd need to *DIVIDE* the measured HP by .843 to get real HP... which would be a multiplier of 1/.843 or about 1.186.
<i>"See! Andre IS being conservative!"</i> you say.
No, Andre's vendor's methodology is completely suspect, IMHO. If the explanation was a 17% multiplier for 1%/100m at ~1700m, the math just doesn't work.
The correction factor of 1.17 <b>*MAY*</b> well be accurate for the altitude, but it does <b>NOT</b> correspond to a 1%/100m HP loss.
12-11-2001, 02:39 PM
#20
Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upon further review the play..........
stands, or is it overruled? Either way, the S6 kicks maximus buttus and I for one agree with Muhammad in seeing what an actual sea level dyno reading would be, before and after modification.