Gen ii busa - what does it really make?

[POWERHOUSE]

POWERHOUSE is a little tired of shops posting STD corrected charts and puffing out their chests. We have said time and time again that STD charts are deceiving, in that they "inflate" hp and torque numbers. Consider the following dyno chart, generated on a 2011 Busa - the lower graph is the bone stock bike - stock pipe and no tune. The upper graph is the bike with a Brock Gen 3 exhaust, and PCV with a full customer tune. Again, notice that this chart is using the STD correction:

 

[POWERHOUSE]

Here is the same chart - totally uncorrected - which means this is actually what the bike put down on our dyno on that day in those weather conditions:

 

[POWERHOUSE]

And lastly, here is the SAE corrected chart:

 

[SKnight]

I'm confused here. Uncorrected shows more power than STD or SAE. In this case why would someone not publish what the pure numbers are?

 

[POWERHOUSE]

I'm confused here. Uncorrected shows more power than STD or SAE. In this case why would someone not publish what the pure numbers are?

Uncorrected will always show more power - on a day where the conditions are favorable. This same bike on a hot, humid day will show lower uncorrected numbers, possibly even lower than SAE.

That is why the SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers - correction factor is considered the "standard" in the industry. It takes into account the existing weather conditions and corrects the numbers to their standard. SAE charts will typically read the same - or very, very close - regardless of favorable or non-favorable weather conditions. Even altitude is factored in. That is why the SAE correction factor is the only one that should be used when comparing dyno charts from different parts of the country. On a good weather day, SAE will typically show lower numbers than the uncorrected numbers; on a bad weather day (heat and humidity), SAE will show higher than uncorrected numbers. Either way, if you stick with SAE, in any weather conditions the numbers will be more consistent.

 

[GsxrBots]

I think you should tune mine so everyone can see a different one. Just sayin'...

 

[SKnight]

But the OP said that shops are showing STD charts to puff their chests, seeing this I can't imagine why they would. Honestly I've never had a chance to compare the three, it's really interesting to see them side by side.

 

[GsxrBots]

But the OP said that shops are showing STD charts to puff their chests, seeing this I can't imagine why they would. Honestly I've never had a chance to compare the three, it's really interesting to see them side by side.

Depending on altitude, temperature, humidity, etc, STD numbers could be WAY off from SAE numbers is what he's trying to say. It just isn't that much of a difference at his shop that day..

 

[kml]

Are these djhp numbers? Cause both FactoryPro and SuperFlow dynos give considerably lower numbers than what you are posting.

Cheers
ken

 

[POWERHOUSE]

Are these djhp numbers? Cause both FactoryPro and SuperFlow dynos give considerably lower numbers than what you are posting.

Cheers
ken

Yes, they are Dynojet numbers. The post was meant to illustrate how different correction factors affect the final numbers. That is why there are standards that should be followed. Regardless of what dyno your bike may be tuned on, it is the before and after numbers - and the resultant gains - that matter.

 

[Got-Busa?]

Yes, they are Dynojet numbers. The post was meant to illustrate how different correction factors affect the final numbers. That is why there are standards that should be followed. Regardless of what dyno your bike may be tuned on, it is the before and after numbers - and the resultant gains - that matter.

+1

People get so into the final readings, they are completely overlooking the important stuff.




For comparison my bike made:

Stock:
SAE: 175.90 HP 105.61 TQ
STD: 180.31 HP 108.6 TQ

Basic mods PUMP Shell 93:
SAE: 189.92 HP 111.28 TQ
STD: 194.7 HP 114.7 TQ

Basic mods MR9:
SAE: 195.65 HP 113.98 TQ
STD: 199.0 HP 117.1 TQ

I can't tell people enough, A DYNO IS ONLY A TOOL TO HELP YOU GO FASTER!

A higher dyno number doesn't mean a faster bike...

 

[StromBusa]

Any way you slice it that is a nice ~10% HP gain & ~7 1/2% torque boost. Happy Busa What I always wonder is what is the trade off, durability?

 

[SKnight]

At just basic bolt ons and tuning durability usually isn't hurt too bad. It just takes it out of emissions compliance.

 

[kml]

Yes, they are Dynojet numbers. The post was meant to illustrate how different correction factors affect the final numbers. That is why there are standards that should be followed. Regardless of what dyno your bike may be tuned on, it is the before and after numbers - and the resultant gains - that matter.

So what percentage higher are your djhp numbers inflated over the traditional standardized hp definition of 33,000 foot-pounds of work every minute?

cheers
ken

 

[GNBRETT]

im pretty impressed with the 118 ft. lbs. of Torque.... Great post Frank.

 

[POWERHOUSE]

So what percentage higher are your djhp numbers inflated over the traditional standardized hp definition of 33,000 foot-pounds of work every minute?

cheers
ken

Ken, it just so happens that Dynojet dynos are the most accurate, consistent, and repeatable dynos on the market today. The software calculates hp based on the mass of the drum- it is an INTERTIA based dyno. The mass of the drum times the rate of acceleration divided by the time elapsed equals horsepower. It is pure physics, and you can't fudge physics. Factory Pro and Superflow dynos have software that can be adjusted - the parameters can be changed to make the dyno read whatever you want it to. Their software even has a "dynojet" correction factor. FYI, Dynojet dynos are the official dynos used by NASCAR - used by big teams like Yates racing. A red light should go on when you put a Busa on a Factory Pro dyno, and you get only 140 horse. That should tell you something is not right. Regardless, I don't want to get into a pissing match about different brands of dynos - again, what really counts are the gains you see . . .

 

[Kildore]

I sure am ready for my tune. Always fun to see what the masters are doing to improve and inform the community.

 

[lankeeyankee]

Here we go with the numbers again If its not the dyno its the qaurter mile ET's maybe I am getting older but if my Busa makes me smile when I crack it WOT then I could care less with sae corrected sea level altitude perfect air pressure humidity blahhh blahh
I need to make an LED readout that gives instant HP ratings at the rear wheel..
OK carry on
09 Busa, dont have a clue to the HP numbers but its pretty fast

 

[Got-Busa?]

If you aren't racing or modding, then you really have no reason to even worry about dyno numbers....

 

[ruder]

The correction factor should be consistent between before and after readings. For example if like in the examples above a before of 0.98 and an after of 0.99 is used, it is perfectly good.

I have seen dyno slips where a 0.95 before and a 1.15 after was used. The poor guy was made to believe he gained lots of power. Secondly he lives under the false pretense that his bike makes more power than it actually does.