Originally Posted by Heminator
And for all you know, the delta is exactly what the SRT engineer is claiming.
That goes with exactly the point I'm making...neither you or I can fully know which way or what degree this has occurred to definitively call "foul" on the other. That's all I'm saying. You say a Dodge representative can say one thing, and I say they can just as easily say another thing. There is no indication of "proof" just because "somebody from Dodge" says it...that's just real world pragmatism, I suppose.
Like every engine Chrysler releases, the 392 has thousands of hours of data-logging and dyno testing. They know exactly what the TQ curve response is at every RPM between idle and fuel shut-off. Ditto for the 6.1 and 5.7.
Yes, they DO know. That doesn't mean you are privy to exactly what they found. You are only privy to what has been vetted
as officially released material suitable for exhibition and marketing activities. That's what I am trying to tell you. That is why an independent dyno test is absolutely a crucial detail to check'n'balance the whole scene.
...But ultimately it is not very useful because we all know the myriad variables which affect dyno runs.
Yes, that is absolutely true, and that is where a "twist" in my process is actually a step forward past all these issues. Dyno tests indeed do shift around a bit due to myriad factors in play, but the shape of the curve
is something that should be fairly consistent if it is a well-captured run. The scalar values that do shift around from run to run are unimportant in this process, rather an accurate representation of the relative positions of such data points is what I am pursuing. Then I take the scalar value variances and mystery drivetrain losses conundrum out of the matter altogether, and use the manufacturer's own stated pk numbers
as targets for the curve shape to hit. That's the beauty of it! Everybody's dynos get normalized to the same manufacturer numbers (whether it is a good run or bad run, and either you have faith in the manufacturer numbers or not)...hence the playing field is inherently level. The curve shape then reveals how much low end torque or top end extension or mid range peakiness is in play for those peak numbers to check-out.
Put in most simple of terms, the manufacturer goes on record with 2 data points (pk hp, pk torque), and then I figure out the curve
that lays on those points based on actual dyno runs. Is it infallible?...no. Does it circumvent a lot of the murkiness that is rampant in the more traditional processes of comparing engines?...yes, absolutely!
To be clear, I absolutely do NOT offer my material as in any way "definitive". It's just an alternative and unique piece of information that you can either choose to consider or ignore. The choice is always
up to you. I don't have an incentive to swing things "good" or "bad" to support an agenda, but I do have an incentive to make my time/effort count by seeking out "good" data, to the limits that I can discern such.
Either you feel I am worthy of consideration for that caliber of material or not.