Close

Page 8 of 26 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 254
  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by NOLAjeeper View Post
    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.
    That would be AWSOME. A cross reference would be great.

    Pickles, what do you say to dynoing your rig to give a stage 1 number?
    Last edited by JeepLab; 08-05-2014 at 05:43 AM.

  2. #72
    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!

  3. #73
    Does Jesse's Girl's 4.88 Gearing shorten the power band?

  4. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by boosted1 View Post
    Then all three should be compared with the same correction factors on the same dyno
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by boosted1 View Post
    I would like to answer any questions you guys may have. Let me know!
    Where is the "Huge low end power" that your brochure boasts?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TURBO BRO 2.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	81.1 KB 
ID:	950

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	stage2_dyno.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	96.5 KB 
ID:	951

  5. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by UselessPickles View Post
    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?
    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.

  6. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by JeepLab View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rexx19 View Post
    Does Jesse's Girl's 4.88 Gearing shorten the power band?
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by JeepLab View Post
    Pickles, what do you say to dynoing your rig to give a stage 1 number?
    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!

  7. #77
    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.

  8. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by boosted1 View Post
    We designed our turbo system to cruise in vacuum to avoid surging or excessive acceleration at highway speeds.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by boosted1 View Post
    Especially in the midrange, where Jeeps need it the most contrary to most beliefs.
    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.

  9. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by boosted1 View Post
    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.
    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.

  10. #80
    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
    Last edited by UselessPickles; 08-07-2014 at 02:08 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •