Snarf is scheduled to roll on the dyno early August.
That will be an independent stage 2 test.
Printable View
I have confirmed that the dyno operator lifted the throttle as soon as the power curve reached its peak and started falling. They were focusing on getting peak numbers. So the sudden dropoff at 6200 rpm is NOT representative of the power output of stage 2.
No explanation for the loss in tq/power below 2700 rpms yet. Just that it is not expected and that it has not yet been investigated because the focus at the time was on getting peak numbers.
While we're waiting for the "early August" dyno results, can we get some general thoughts on power delivery compared to RIPP and Magnuson? Still waiting to hear that blow-off valve too :)
I'm interested in what happens with the coolant overflow reservoir. Do you have any pics or thoughts to share on that? Is the new location reasonably accessible for checking the coolant level?
The coolant tank is black (knew you'd like that) and it mounts near the front bumper where you can check it easily. My mount was a bit more of a challenge because I have a stubby front bumper and a front skid plate. We mounted it at a slight angle and it is behind my skid for protection. Checking it is not as easy as a stock bumpered JK but it really isn't too bad to remove two bolts, drop it, and inspect.
Skid is off in this picture so it looks more exposed than it is.
Attachment 914
FIRST DYNO CHART
This was the best run today. Here are some notes you need to be aware of.
- The stock line in this chart is not Jesse's Girl, Its Sweet Pea's stock dyno line. Sweet Pea and Black Betty were dyno'd years apart (stock) and came out in the exact same spot, so I consider the line a standard.
- Humid summer day
- 4.88 gearing. - This shouldnt alter the line as far as power to the ground vs RPM but JG is geared.
- Stock Tires. All our dyno's to date are on stock 255/75R17 BFG Km1s.
Attachment 926
photo bump!
Trying to get a bigger image....
Attachment 927
Looks like the dyno operator did the same thing as Prodigy's dyno operator: lift off the throttle and stop recording after peak power, rather than running it all the way to the rev limiter :(
If the torque curve continues the same general downward slope as it does in the 5000 - 6000 rpm range, then it looks like it would be right around 240-250 ft-lbs and around 297-309 hp at 6500 rpm.
Also worth mentioning: that severe dip right at 2500 rpm seems to be an anomaly. The other dyno runs from today show a nice smooth line from 2250 to 2700 rpm, as if that entire valley was completely filled in... and as if the hump in the stock torque curve were chopped off level from 2250 to 2700 rpm. This makes me think that dip at 2500 is probably something that needs to be smoothed out in the tune.
I just altered the images, They are thumbnails now, but when you click them they should be full size.
Good?
I smell BS in that "6000 is the limit for dyno runs" rule. Sounds like an old rule of thumb from the days before electronic rev limiters existed. There's all kinds of engines out there that rev much higher than 6000 rpm. I think my wife's car revs to 8000 or 9000 rpm. You wouldn't stop the dyno at 6000 on that engine. Modern engines are designed to run safely (and often even continuously) anywhere within the rpm range all the way up to the rev limit.
Clickable images for full size seems to work nicely now. It' just missing the message that explains that it can be clicked for full size.
Pickles calls shenanigans!! Lol!
I had asked Ripp and Mag both gave me a point to hit. I remember we went past it on our Dyno. I didn't mean it as an overall Dyno rule. I remember being impressed that the Dyno guy got it up so high.
You do see the prodigy line 'crest'. It's made all the power it's gong to make by the time the line stops.
When I dyno'd my motorcycle, I was on the motorcycle operating the throttle. The dyno operator pushed the button to start when I said "go", then pushed the button to stop recording when he heard the rev limiter kick in (just over 9000 rpm). I did about 12 dyno runs that day. My engine didn't explode, nor did my balls fall off.
True story.
Pickles was correct that the dip in this run was an anomaly that was only experienced in this particular run.
I plan to get my exhaust done - AFE high-tuck or similar and re-run her on the dyno to see if we have any improvement.
During the dyno pulls, did they have high-power fans/blowers blowing through the intercooler to simulate airflow at speed on the road?
They had a large fan running, but I felt it was too low to the ground to have a large effect on the intercooler. I felt the airflow from such a low direction would be blocked a good bit by the winch and winch cover. They also stated that the relatively humid and warm weather didn't help me out.
The shop called their dyno "the heartbreaker" because they feel it is extremely accurate/conservative compared to other local shops and it was calibrated within the last 3 months.
Sounds like we might need a local owner of a stock Wrangler to volunteer to create a stock baseline dyno run at that same shop for a valid comparison.
I have 3 stock dyno runs. All at different times of year, different jeeps. different dynos.
The lines are all very close.
I've never done a dyno on any mod where the manufacturer didn't think it should have made more power.
Also the number i posted was SAE. Uncorrected would be higher.
If you are confident in the validity of the results, then let's see some stock vs RIPP vs Magnuson vs Prodigy charts!
If only dyno runs were free we'd have everyone get on a dyno to get more and more data! My runs took from 8:45 am until almost 11am. It is a time and financial commitment.
But seriously- I'm with Ross noting that stock performance is fairly well known. Sure..it may be a bit different on one dyno vs. another but the data has been corrected. I also used the same dyno brand to keep it as close to an apples-to-apples comparison.
I will run Jesse's girl again after a new tune is released and maybe after I get a more free-flowing exhaust. From what I've read and some advice I've received; it should help the entire charging process.
I have the chart prepped, Im just trying to put a JL logo on it, so I dont want to kill myself when I see it pop up elsewhere.
Ill have it up tomorrow.
As soon as prodigy ships my stage 2 upgrade and I receive it in the mail. I'll be getting it installed and have some pre and post stage 2 dyno runs. I'll do my best to video document the dyno runs. And share it with the JL community. I hope Dan can ship it out this week.
Good morning. I am Wes from Prodigy Performance. I am reading these forum posts and I am very concerned regarding the translations here. Our dyno numbers are not altered in any way. Why is there not a graph from the same vehicle, on the same dyno before and after. Also the SC guys should have the same. Then all three should be compared with the same correction factors on the same dyno etc. This should be the only way to make a comparison. Dyno runs with anomalies should be disregarded and run again. They certainly should not get posted. This only leads to misconceptions regarding the products.
The baseline should be set and there must be consistency to even begin to make a valid comparison. Dyno results without SAE correction are worthless. Choosing the highest manipulated number is a no no. We have never manipulated dyno numbers and we currently hold all power records for the JK Wrangler.
2007-11 350+ RWHP and over 400lbft of torque @ 12psi
2012- present 360RWHP and 370+lbft of torque @ 9psi
I would like to answer any questions you guys may have. Let me know!
Does Jesse's Girl's 4.88 Gearing shorten the power band?
Ross: The RIPP (Black Betty) and Magnuson (Sweat Pea) were both run on the same dyno, weren't they? Any chance we could get Jesse's Girl on that same dyno?
Where is the "Huge low end power" that your brochure boasts?
Attachment 950
Attachment 951
Betty's stock dyno is at one location, Sweet pea is at another. They are almost 2 years apart.
Their "After" dynos were done at their respective locations, and then again at the same time on the same day at the final dyno location. (most recent)
Im trying to arrange to have a stock Pentastar JK dyno'd at the same location that JG just did the dyno at.
If a stock Jeep on that dyno produces results nearly identical to your existing stock results, then we know that stage 2 dyno results from that same dyno are reasonably comparable to the supercharger results you have.
If the stock results there are significantly different, then you really need to put Jesse's Girl on the same dyno as your most recent RIPP vs Magnuson dyno runs for a valid comparison to the superchargers.
Shorter gearing does reduce dyno results when an acceleration "sweep" through the rpm range is used to record the results. How much it reduces the results depends on how fast the acceleration sweep is, the difference in gearing, and the amount of rotational inertia in the entire drivetrain prior to the axle. I would NOT expect the 4.88 gears to account for a majority of the discrepancy between Prodigy's numbers and JeepLab's numbers.
I suspect a difference in dyno type/calibration is the main culprit. For example, if the dyno has a smaller/lighter drum than the dynos used for other results, then the acceleration sweep would go faster. The faster the sweep, the more torque is lost to accelerating the internal engine components, transmission parts, driveshafts, etc, and the less torque makes it to the dyno drum.
Can we get the specs of the dyno that Jesse's Girl was run on, then maybe Wes can provide some insight on how that dyno compares to the dyno that Prodigy uses?
I'm still in debt to the household savings account (and will be for months), so I don't think I'll be going on a dyno. NOLA will be giving us both a stage 1 and stage 2 dyno chart, so he's at least giving us a valid comparison between 2 things. If I ran on a dyno, I would just have stage 1 results with nothing to compare to.
BTW, NOLA, make sure you get the raw dyno run files from your dyno operator (they should be able to email the files to you). Those files are MUCH more useful than a printout of the dyno chart!
The difference between the dyno charts is the correction factors that were used is different. The SC vehicles received no correction factor in order to deliver the highest number. Strap all the vehicles on the same dyno, on the same day and the numbers will speak for themselves. We designed our turbo system to cruise in vacuum to avoid surging or excessive acceleration at highway speeds. The Jeep comes alive and makes more HP and torque 3,000 rpms sooner than the Jeep was able to do using the entire rpm. It now delivers over 100% more power. Especially in the midrange, where Jeeps need it the most contrary to most beliefs.
So this is one of the reasons you specced out the turbo build boost above typical cruising RPMs?
It makes sense now that I think about it. If the turbo was specced to build boost at low RPMs, then you would need a good electronic boost controller (more expense, complexity and tuning effort) to avoid boost during freeway cruising, plus there's the issue of extra strain on the engine with boost at low RPM. The Wrangler is probably especially difficult in this area because it's not very aerodynamic and requires quite a bit more power than typical cars. More power required = more engine load = more exhaust flow to spool up the turbo, compared to typical cars.
Just for comparison, the Subaru Impreza WRX is just about exactly twice as aerodynamic as the Wrangler. That means it requires almost twice as much power to keep the Wrangler cruising on the freeway compared to the WRX.
For the record (and I've discussed this before elsewhere on forums), I'm of the opinion that the *need* for more low-end torque is over-rated in the Jeep community. Use gearing (transmission AND 4LO if necessary) to your advantage while off-road to keep the engine in the mid-range for more power available on demand, and a smoother/happier engine. While on-road, downshift when you need to accelerate quickly so that you can use the power of higher RPMs. People that complain about the Wrangler being too sluggish while also refusing to exceed 3000 rpms have no valid complaint.
I was never expecting the turbo to produce big low RPM gains, and I don't demand big low RPM gains. I was actually surprised when I saw "HUGE LOW END POWER" on the brochure.
It sounds to me like there was never any intent to create "HUGE LOW END POWER" with this turbo kit, and there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe the claim on the brochure was just a miscommunication between engineering and marketing?
I see 2 separate issues that need explanation:
1) Why does the brochure promise "HUGE LOW END POWER"? Based on the information available, it appears that it must be either a mistake in marketing, or false advertisement. If the turbo is not designed for big low RPM gains, then don't advertise "HUGE LOW END POWER". Advertise the strengths and benefits of the turbo. I think that section of the brochure could be easily changed to be 100% truthful by just changing the heading to "HUGE MID-RANGE POWER" (well, I would technically classify it as "huge upper-mid-range power"). The upper-mid-range is where you have a big advantage over the superchargers (more "usable" power for quick acceleration, etc).
2) Why is there a LOSS of low-end power below 2700 RPMs (according to your publicly-released dyno chart). While I don't think the Wrangler needs MORE low-end power, I also think that it is unacceptable to REDUCE low-end power. We need all the low-end power that we already have in stock form. I still think that there is *something* incorrect about your stock dyno results that is causing an incorrect (to your DISadvantage!) comparison between stock and turbo in the official Prodigy marketing material (ignoring specific numbers, the overall shape of the torque/power curves just does not at all match up with other stock dyno results; power should not peak below 6400 rpms). I really think that if you put another stock Wrangler on the dyno with its speed limiter disabled via an InTune, that you would get results that make more sense AND show an even larger increase in torque with the turbo.
Stating that we are using different correction factors is stating that we are using UNCORRECTED for one and SAE for the other, I think we are using SAE for all and Im sure Ive posted both charts UNCORRECTED and SAE for pretty much all the dynos. Thats a software thing, not a specific dyno thing. The chart I posted was SAE as Prodigy's chart is SAE. I can change it to UNCORRECTED if you want to show the difference.
Is the Dyno that Jesse ended up on broken? If the stock number comes out far off our other 9 stock dyno charts, then we'd have to put JG on a new dyno or bring her back to NJ and run her on the same dyno as the SCs.
We are comparing stock vs turbo, and will get a stock jeep on the same dyno to see the difference between that chart and the stock dyno charts used earlier in this thread.
This may sound too silly to be possible... but I noticed that the JeepLab stage 2 results have very similar peak numbers to Prodigy's stage 1 results. Is there any chance that you have the wrong wastegate spring, and are only getting about 7psi boost instead of about 9psi? A data log of full throttle in 2nd gear should be easy enough to confirm you're getting stage 2 boost levels.
Also, when do we get to hear about the rest of the install? You left off here, 4 pages ago: http://jeeplab.com/showthread.php?14...ull=1#post2200