Kenne Bell Vs. Whipple Who Wins?

[thalilbear02]

Originally Posted by Total_Perf_Eng

Dont even bother..

This is how it works, He makes a post like this, then either him or his buddy copy's it, and then they go over to another site where they all giggle like little school kids about how they got away with making posts like this.

So no matter how much you engage them, all it does is give them more giggles.

I would be willing to bet, that both your and his posts have been coped, and they are already gigling about it..

So just report it, and be done.. Otherwise, it gives them something to talk about. Eventually, the mods will see their patterns, and block their IP.

I'll make note of that

In the meantime though, if you've got prices, shoot a PM my way if you don't mind

[rtkjadams]

looking for pricing as well..... PM please.........


Ray

[EDISKRAD EHT]

Originally Posted by Total_Perf_Eng

We FINALLY have a GTO being transported to us from FL. I thin its gonna start on its way next week, provided the owner follows through on his proise..
Sorry for the hijack.

Shoot. If I weren't so far away you could have my car right now. I'd be tempted to hold on to my GTO for a little bit longer if I were running a Twin Screw as opposed to my 112 Maggie.

I'll shoot you a PM anyway.

[Total_Perf_Eng]

I just thought I'd point something out.

Recently, I was looking at the whipple dyno graphs (in Lethals thread), and noticed that they are using STD as the correction factor. It is common accepted knowledge that the correction factor most tuners around he country use, is SAE.

The reason for this, is because STD is very generous with the numbers. At a minimum, if you put SAE next to STD, the STD will be higher by a little more than 4%. Although 4% doesnt sound like alot, 4% of 500rwhp is approx 20rwhp.

So when your seeing a 530rwhp dyno graph, the actual SAE is around 509rwhp.

The reason I am pointing this out, is that its important to know that KB only uses SAE. So when comparing an STD graph, to an SAE graph, take the STD number, and multiply by .96. This will give you the SAE number. Essentially, your taking 4% away from the STD graph.

Preferrably, it would be nice to just post up SAE, so when there are threads like this that compare kits, the end user can compare apples to apples, and not oranges.

[Z_Rocks]

Originally Posted by Total_Perf_Eng

I just thought I'd point something out.

Recently, I was looking at the whipple dyno graphs (in Lethals thread), and noticed that they are using STD as the correction factor. It is common accepted knowledge that the correction factor most tuners around he country use, is SAE.

The reason for this, is because STD is very generous with the numbers. At a minimum, if you put SAE next to STD, the STD will be higher by a little more than 4%. Although 4% doesnt sound like alot, 4% of 500rwhp is approx 20rwhp.

So when your seeing a 530rwhp dyno graph, the actual SAE is around 509rwhp.

The reason I am pointing this out, is that its important to know that KB only uses SAE. So when comparing an STD graph, to an SAE graph, take the STD number, and multiply by .96. This will give you the SAE number. Essentially, your taking 4% away from the STD graph.

Preferrably, it would be nice to just post up SAE, so when there are threads like this that compare kits, the end user can compare apples to apples, and not oranges.

Good point on comparison Jeff. Thanks!

[Mike@KB]

Originally Posted by Total_Perf_Eng

I just thought I'd point something out.

Recently, I was looking at the whipple dyno graphs (in Lethals thread), and noticed that they are using STD as the correction factor. It is common accepted knowledge that the correction factor most tuners around he country use, is SAE.

The reason for this, is because STD is very generous with the numbers. At a minimum, if you put SAE next to STD, the STD will be higher by a little more than 4%. Although 4% doesnt sound like alot, 4% of 500rwhp is approx 20rwhp.

So when your seeing a 530rwhp dyno graph, the actual SAE is around 509rwhp.

The reason I am pointing this out, is that its important to know that KB only uses SAE. So when comparing an STD graph, to an SAE graph, take the STD number, and multiply by .96. This will give you the SAE number. Essentially, your taking 4% away from the STD graph.

Preferrably, it would be nice to just post up SAE, so when there are threads like this that compare kits, the end user can compare apples to apples, and not oranges.

Good catch Jeff.

[nfamous209]

Originally Posted by Total_Perf_Eng

I just thought I'd point something out.

Recently, I was looking at the whipple dyno graphs (in Lethals thread), and noticed that they are using STD as the correction factor. It is common accepted knowledge that the correction factor most tuners around he country use, is SAE.

The reason for this, is because STD is very generous with the numbers. At a minimum, if you put SAE next to STD, the STD will be higher by a little more than 4%. Although 4% doesnt sound like alot, 4% of 500rwhp is approx 20rwhp.

So when your seeing a 530rwhp dyno graph, the actual SAE is around 509rwhp.

The reason I am pointing this out, is that its important to know that KB only uses SAE. So when comparing an STD graph, to an SAE graph, take the STD number, and multiply by .96. This will give you the SAE number. Essentially, your taking 4% away from the STD graph.

Preferrably, it would be nice to just post up SAE, so when there are threads like this that compare kits, the end user can compare apples to apples, and not oranges.

and yet that same baseline showed 315 whp? come on now. t the dyno graphs i've seen on the L99 cars using SAE have been 318s so its w/in margin of dyno differances nice try

[nfamous209]

oh and look here at l99 dynos and u'll see first one is SAE and what it put down 330+whp hmmmmm so STD puts down more huh? yeeeeaaahhh OK??

and regardless look at the gain over all. thats a 200+whp, thats what u should be looking at.

[Geneus]

LOL...dyno a car in 100 degree heat with 100% humidity at 5000ft and then tell me the STD numbers will be higher than the SAE.

[Total_Perf_Eng]

Look, we ALLLLL know that based on your posting history, you are a whipple fan, and thats ok. Im not trying to change your opinion.

I am mearly pointing out, that in order for 2 graphs to be comparible, they need to have the same correction factor. STD is virtually ALWAYS higher. This is because the calculations for atmospheric conditions ar different.

An STD graph will almost ALWAYS show a higher number. I worked for Dynojet Research for 3 1/2 years, in the dynamometer department. I am aware as to the correction factors, and what they do to numers.

If the SAME graphs were shown in SAE, Id be willing to bet a hundred bucks to St Judes, that im right.

SAE (Society Of automotive Engineers) Is the standard for virtualy every magazine, and manufacturer out there. It is also the STANDARD in which GM measures their power output.

So again, you can argue until your blue in the face, in order to defend your preferred vendor, but FACTS do not lie.
I am not saying anyone is doing anything devious, I am mearly saying that if were gonna compare numbers, then we need to compare with the same correction factors. Otherwise, the comparison will not be accurate.

I can guarantee you that if we posted the exact same graph as our SAE graph, that it will be higher. But that is something we do not do. Mainly, because the industry does not recognize STD as an accurate depiction of the real power.

About SAE J1349 Certified Power



Power and torque certification provide a means for a manufacturer to assure a customer that the engine they purchase delivers the advertised performance. This SAE Standard has been written to provide manufacturers with a method of certifying the power of engines to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995. Document SAE J2723 specifies the procedure to be used for a manufacturer to certify the net power and torque rating of a production engine according to SAE J1349 or the gross engine power of a production engine according to SAE J1995. Manufacturers who advertise their engine power and torque ratings as Certified to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 shall follow this procedure. Certification of engine power and torque to SAE J1349 or SAE J1995 is voluntary, however, this power certification process is mandatory for those advertising power ratings as "Certified to SAE J1349".



SAE Engine Rating Standard Prevents Numbers Fudging (an article on how GM will use SAE J1349 Certified Power, AEI May 2005, Vol 113 No.5, p 59 )



General Motors has become the first manufacturer to certify an engine's power and torque ratings using a newly adopted SAE standard (J2723), James Queen, GM Vice President, Global Engineering, announced during his keynote address at the SAE World Congress and Exhibition in April 2005. The world's largest automaker plans to certify all of its engines to the voluntary standard, and is encouraging its competitors to do the same. The LS7 engine for the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 was certified under the new standard this month. The 7.0-L V8 unit produces 505 hp (377 kW) at 6300 rpm and 470 lboft (637 Nom) at 4800 rpm. "The new voluntary SAE power and torque certification procedure ensures fair, accurate ratings for horsepower and torque as it uses third-party certification," said Queen. "SAE technical standards level the playing field, and this certification procedure is just the latest example of the value SAE has offered over the past century." To tout power and torque ratings as "SAE-certified," engine manufacturers must have an SAE qualified witness watch over the entire testing procedure to ensure that it is conducted in conformity to SAE standard J1349. Third-party witnessing is the main provision of J2723. An existing SAE standard, J1349, spells out how the actual testing is to be done. J1349 was updated last year to eliminate some ambiguities that allowed engine makers to cite power and torque ratings higher than the engine's actual capabilities. Engine makers are free to cite power and torque figures drived from testing conducted outside the scope of the SAE standards, but they may not claim the figures are SAE-certifed. "We feel that both the consumer and industry are well served by having accurate, consistent ratings from all manufacturers," said David Lancaster, a Technical Fellow in GM Powertrain and Chairman of the SAE Engine Power Test Code Committee that updated J1349 and wrote J2723. Data from a wide array of parameters (e.g., air:fuel ratio) will be collected during testing conducted to the SAE standards. SAE will create a database and offer it to industry in different packages and at different price points.

Originally Posted by nfamous209

oh and look here

Originally Posted by nfamous209

at l99 dynos and u'll see first one is SAE and what it put down 330+whp hmmmmm so STD puts down more huh? yeeeeaaahhh OK??

and regardless look at the gain over all. thats a 200+whp, thats what u should be looking at.

[Total_Perf_Eng]

Better yet, how about you tell us what YOUR tuner uses.. I know what they use, and its SAE. But you dont care about that, you have proven from EVERY post that you have made thus far, that your only reasoning for posting is to try to talk negative about TPE/KB. But the reality is "Geneus" , is you are only making yourself look ignorant.. Het, I have an idea, how about we dyno a car in 120* heat, 200% humidity, and 15000 feet above sea level..:troll:

And for future reference, you keep spelling your "Geneus" wrong. Its supposed to be "Genius".

I have posted a REALLY LONG description off of "Land and Sea Dynamometers" website. Hopefully this will give you a little more insight. In the future, you might not want to debate something that is soooo heavily searchable on any search engine.. 2 minutes worth of sarching would have shown you the differences between STD and SAE.

What is Corrected Horsepower?

We have all seen and made claims of an engine’s horsepower. However, this stated horsepower is almost never what the engine actually made for power. How can that be? Most of the stated horsepower numbers are “Corrected” values. The correction standards were developed to discount the observed horsepower readings taken at different locations and weather conditions. It is obvious that an engine builder in Colorado could not produce as much horsepower as a shop at sea level. There is just less oxygen for the engine to burn at the higher altitude. What are less obvious are the other weather condition effects on the engine. So in order to compensate for this all advertised horsepower is “corrected” to several different industry standards.
Most of you know about Atmospheric Correction Factors that are used to compare an engines power output for one day or location to another. However, these factors can be rather confusing and even deceptive. Everybody seems to declare there engine’s horsepower as “etched in stone” number, however we also know that the engine will make very different power on different days. Excluding other factors like engine temperature and quality of fuel used, the engine output is very dependant on the amount of oxygen in the air. So the only way to compare an engine’s horsepower is to correct the output on a given day to some standard.
The most common are the SAE standards. The older J607 standard considers that the engine was run on a 60°F day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.92 in-Hg or the newer SAE J1349 standard of 77°F (25°C) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.234 in-Hg (99 KPa). Also the ECE standard is the same as the SAE J1349, but does not use mechanical efficiency in the calculations. The DIN standard which corrects to 68°F (20° C) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.92 in-Hg (101.3 KPa) and the JIS standard corrects 77°F (25° C) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.234 in-Hg (99 KPa), but uses different correction curves than the others (as a substitution for using mechanical efficiency factors). Further, we have the J1995 corrects 77°F (25° C) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.53 in-Hg (100 KPa).
Since very few engines are actually run in these conditions we apply these correction factors so that it is possible to compare the results taken on different days. First lets just look at the weather correction, we will see the second section dealing with mechanical efficiency later. Consider if you take a baseline run of a normally aspirated four stroke V-8 engine on a sultry day in late August, say 85°F and 85% humidity and 28.85 in-Hg and the engine produced 400 Hp. Then after you finished making all your modifications you retest the engine in late September when it is 55°F and 35% humidity and 30.10 in-Hg, the engine now makes 442 Hp. That’s almost an 11 percent increase in Hp, however the engine is actually producing the exact same amount of horsepower according to the J607 correction values of 400 Hp * 1.1005 ≈ 440 Hp and 442 * 0.994 ≈ 440 Hp. If you had retested the engine in the same weather conditions it would have made 400 Hp again.

There are many different correction “Standards” out there, but here is the SAE J1349 formula:

cf is the final correction factor multiplier
Pd is the pressure of dry air in hPa
(990 hPA = 99 kPa)
Tc is the air's temperature in degrees Celsius

One more source of confusion about the SAE J1349 is all the different values quoted for the Barometric Pressure in inches of Mercury. If you search around you will find the base values are different. Some will quote 29.234 in-Hg and others 29.318 and others 29.380. How can they all be correct? Well the calculations are done in KPa or millibars. These units are all true pressures, however inches of mercury, although considered a pressure unit, changes with temperature. This is because mercury expands as it gets warmer. Therefore 99 KPa at 32°F is 29.234 in-Hg and 99 KPa at 60°F is 29.318 in-Hg.
Now this may sound confusing, but these formulas were developed to attempt to allow standardize advertised hp ratings and comparisons. The formulas are based on the amount of oxygen that is found in the air that the engine is breathing. The greater oxygen the more fuel can be burned and thus more horsepower. However, these formulas are not perfect. They were developed empirically and are a good approximation for the variables of humidity, temperature, and absolute pressure. However, internal combustion engines develop power on many other variables and although it is possible to have the same correction factor at high temperature and pressure as low temperature and pressure, the engine will make different power. The wetting effect and temperature differences are not perfectly compensated for. This gives rise to the “purist” touting that all engines must be tested at the same atmospheric conditions or else the results are useless. In a prefect world this would be true, but this would be ludicrous. The cost of building an environmentally standardized test cell is well beyond the capabilities and cost of even large OEM companies and would give rise to even more deception in horsepower advertising.
Now lets consider the next effect on the SAE standard that some other industrial standards do not include, the “Mechanical Efficiency” of the engine. Which is basically the amount of energy the engine got from the fuel versus how much energy actually was produced at the flywheel. This is a measure that includes the frictional torque, viscous effect, etc. required to rotate the engine. If we take the SAE standard that a four stroke normally aspirated engine consumes 15% of its’ developed horsepower to rotate the engine. This is another huge point of debate, but it does make sense. If we want to correct the observed horsepower to a standard condition, it make sense that the friction required to rotate the engine does not change with added oxygen in the air. So in the last example the engine produce 400 Hp on that hot August day. This time consider the SAE J1349 correction standard which has a correction factor of 1.0634. According to the SAE 15% standard it took 70.58 Hp (400 / 0.85 – 400 = 70.58) to overcome the friction from ring drag, bearings, valve train, etc. Since this is a constant value no matter where the dyno test was taken, we know that the energy produced by the engine was actually 400 + 70.58 = 470.58 Hp. Now if we want to compensate for the atmospheric condition then we should use the amount of energy that the engine got from the fuel supply. So we take the 470.58 Hp * 1.0634 = 500.42 and then subtract out the constant Hp reading of 70.58. 500.42 – 70.58 ≈ 430 Hp.
Now it does make sense that the frictional torque is almost constant no matter how much oxygen was in the air, but the SAE flat rate 15% does not accurately cover all internal combustion engines. It is a compromise. In the example above we used a normally aspirated 4 stroke V-8 engine, but what if it were a two stroke V-8 outboard engine. It is quite obvious that the two stroke has much less frictional drag. It has no camshaft, timing chain, valves and springs, oil in the crankcase, etc. Comparing these two engines with the same 15% friction losses does not work. That is why some higher end dynoing software calculate the friction losses on many different variables, like the displacement, stroke for piston speed, type of aspiration, number of strokes, type of fuel, and RPM. Using this information will yield much greater accuracy in calculating a mechanical efficiency and therefore a much greater accuracy for in house comparisons between pulls. However, in order to advertise the value as SAE J1349 compliant you must usually use the SAE mechanical efficiency number.

Another way to get accurate mechanical efficiency is to use a dyno that can “motor” the engine, like an AC dyno. Just measure the amount of power it takes to drive the engine and then use those values for your own custom mechanical efficiency. Once again though, you will need a high-end software package that will easily allow you to use the new efficiency or else you will be doing a lot of tedious and time-consuming hand calculations. But once again, this solution is not perfect either. Many will argue correctly that motoring the engine is not the same because there was no heat, bearing loads, metal deformation, etc.
Some companies who are working on a particular engine family will actually test the same engine under many different conditions and develop their own correction table. To these companies it is vital to know how their engines will perform under specific varying conditions. Consider snowmobiles that will operate at many different altitudes and temperatures, but they can pretty much discount the effects of humidity because the engine will almost always operate at temperatures below freezing. However, it is critical that their engines perform well at extremely different barometric pressures. An exhaust designed to run at sea level will not perform well at all in the mountains. Further, the opposite is true for marine engines. These engines are run most often at sea level, warm temperatures, and high humidity. Or a waste gated turbo engine that is pretty much impervious to even large barometric pressure changes. Thus the one size fits all SAE approach does not work well.
The debate over the validity of correction factors still lingers on, but they are the only way to make realistic comparison of your engines on different days. There are, and always will be, unscrupulous competitors who advertise inflated horsepower gains by manipulating the correction factors, however they are eventually exposed at the races where it counts to the customer. In order to perform accurate and credible results you must use some factors and try to conduct your tests under “similar” test conditions. In fact, SAE requires that the corrections be less than ± 7%. So in the example above we would not be allowed to use the STD or standard J607 SAE factor of 1.1005 because it is correcting by more than 10%, however the SAE J1349 factor of 1.0634 could just barely be used.

Originally Posted by Geneus

LOL...dyno a car in 100 degree heat with 100% humidity at 5000ft and then tell me the STD numbers will be higher than the SAE.

[Total_Perf_Eng]

And to seal the deal on my explanation, here is a post I found from the manufacturer STEEDA. The reason I posted this is because it clearly gives the correction values, and shows WHY STD is higher.

Originally Posted by Steeda

SAE .vs. STD Dyno Numbers

A lot of people have been asking about SAE .vs STD Dyno numbers so I thought this would help. Most people know that showing STD numbers read higher but not many know why. SAE represents more realistic standard conditions, STD artificially boosts numbers.

Identifying Your Correction Factor:
Dynojet:
If you look at a dynojet graph in the upper right corner, you will see where it says the correction method being used. The options are SAE, STD, Uncorrected and a few not needed for discussion. You will also notice a smooth factor (up to 5) which dyno operators use to make the power curves and any other data displayed, such as AFR, seem more accurate and smooth. You will also see AFR graphs scaled DOWN to hide flaws in the curve.

MD:
A Mustang Dyno ONLY uses SAE Corrections. Smoothing can also be controlled as well as scale for the Graphical Outputs.


Overview:
Most of the stated horsepower numbers are “Corrected” values. The correction standards were developed to discount the observed horsepower readings taken at different locations and weather conditions. It is obvious that an engine builder in Colorado could not produce as much horsepower as a shop at sea level. There is just less oxygen for the engine to burn at the higher altitude. What are less obvious are the other weather condition effects on the engine. So in order to compensate for this all advertised horsepower is “corrected” to several different industry standards.

SAE:
"SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), USA. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25°C). This SAE standard requires a correction for friction torque.

STD:
STD is Another power correction standard determined by the SAE. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5°C). Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 4 % higher than the SAE power numbers. Friction torque is handled in the same way as in the SAE standard."



Here is some quick math (using assumptions and round numbers):

STD:
Air Temperature: 60F
Absolute Pressure: 29.92 inches Hg
Relative Humidity: 0%

Relative Horsepower : 104.8%
Air Density: 1.223kg/m3
Relative Air Density: 99.8%
Density Altitude: 67feet
Virtual Temperature: 60F
Vapor Pressure: 0 inches Hg


SAE:
Air Temperature: 77F
Absolute Pressure: 29.23 inches Hg
Relative Humidity: 0%

Relative Horsepower : 100%
Air Density: 1.157kg/m3
Relative Air Density: 94.4%
Density Altitude: 1952feet
Virtual Temperature: 77F
Vapor Pressure: 0 inches Hg

__________________
STEEDA.CA
866.STEEDA.7

[EDISKRAD EHT]

To lighten up this thread a bit.

I checked with the local registry here because I wanted to get the personalized licence plate "2SCREWS" when I put the KB kit on my Camaro. They rejected it because of the word screw. It's on their forbidden list.

[nfamous209]

Originally Posted by Total_Perf_Eng

Look, we ALLLLL know that based on your posting history, you are a whipple fan, and thats ok. Im not trying to change your opinion.

I am mearly pointing out, that in order for 2 graphs to be comparible, they need to have the same correction factor. STD is virtually ALWAYS higher. This is because the calculations for atmospheric conditions ar different.

An STD graph will almost ALWAYS show a higher number. I worked for Dynojet Research for 3 1/2 years, in the dynamometer department. I am aware as to the correction factors, and what they do to numers.

If the SAME graphs were shown in SAE, Id be willing to bet a hundred bucks to St Judes, that im right.

SAE (Society Of automotive Engineers) Is the standard for virtualy every magazine, and manufacturer out there. It is also the STANDARD in which GM measures their power output.

So again, you can argue until your blue in the face, in order to defend your preferred vendor, but FACTS do not lie.
I am not saying anyone is doing anything devious, I am mearly saying that if were gonna compare numbers, then we need to compare with the same correction factors. Otherwise, the comparison will not be accurate.

I can guarantee you that if we posted the exact same graph as our SAE graph, that it will be higher. But that is something we do not do. Mainly, because the industry does not recognize STD as an accurate depiction of the real power.

Jeff I have no preffered vender if n e thing right now i'd go w/ a maggie why cuz its out. my point was ur bashing whipple for using standard and i pointed out to look at dyno's that all the L99's were within a few horse power, and thats givin on any dyno. regardless of SAE or standard. every dyno is different. and like i stated previously look at the over all gain, 200+whp, thats what u should be looking at. but obviously since u sell Kenne bell. ur going to defend them and find anything and everything to pick on.

and to be quite honest, i can give a rats ass who produces what cuz i dont have a 2010 camaro, i have an 02, and currently no one has a kit for my car nor a tuner kit either. so looks like that leaves me to procharger or vortec doesnt it. so until i see a PD blower for my car either it be a tuner kit or a complete kit I could care less. all I want to see is more options out for the cars plain and simple.

oh yeah and as far as u calling me a whipple nut swinger, go look on ls1tech, i was all for you guys coming out w/ KB f-body kit. but it looks like that flopped didnt it.