Quote:
Originally Posted by Maks///M2
Thanks so much for the help bud!
|
Yeah man! Glad they uploaded to the thread without any degradation. I checked, with right click, save image as, back to my computer and they are good. For example pic 1 is 1591 x 1048 pixels and 772 KB.
I looked for boost information in the drf and did not find any.
Looking some more at just map 1 pulls I noticed that pull 2 was actually a hair higher than pull 3 so I think tonight I'll screenshoot that comparison.
If anybody wants to see some other comparison let me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanWRT
My comments:
1) Map 1 isn't really quicker. Look closer, it's a dip on red curve at 6k rpm that makes it 391whp.
2) Map 2 actually has a fatter torque curve all the way from 3200rpm.
|
Yes I agree. Map 2 would be my choice. This is why I don't just go by the "Max values" numbers you see at the top of these charts. The max values come from the highest point of some bump somewhere.
At these conditions the correction factor is very close to 1. Nice. That's what we almost always see at ER, I suppose because of the low altitude and moderate ambient temps.
Looking right now at how much lower the numbers would be if graphed in SAE, hmmm, it's about 2.5% lower at these conditions. Based just on the max power value from map 2 pull 3, it's:
STD 381.88 max power
SAE 372.45 max power
SAE shows the correction factor as 0.99 whereas STD shows the correction factor as 1.01.