I was able to pull 500whp at 9psi on 93oct, same gtm Stage II. Also ported the miscut gtm exhaust manifolds to a true 2" outlet. Oh and I'm at sea level.. I could see those numbers maybe on e85 but 91oct, nah...

There was a number I remember him showing something like I put down 512 to the dyno totally uncorrected or something but he wanted me to these sheets lmao

Kudos to a guy at high altitude who is willing to admit that. I have argued it to the death with several people. The dyno I used the other day used to belong to me.. And back then I had dyno'd plenty cars that had some pretty bold graphs produced at altitude and their owners were let down to see what it did on a typical dynojet at near sea level.

Dynojets read a tad high, but no wear near as high as other dynos that are configured to "emulate" dynojet! And man those altitude "corrections" are through the roof!

Thanks Phunk. After I got enough experience I realized those numbers are way high.

And WTH? 671?? Did i miss a thread or something? Thats a record. Plus you have more boosted miles on this platform than anyone I know!

his torque numbers are still pretty dang far from his hp, reading the chart he is making 74 less ftlbs than he is hp. My guess is the torque scale is on the right of the graph so you can't see it but is set differently as in the hp is scaled to 700 and the torque is scaled to 600. but yeah generous dyno due to elevation. Bring it down the mountain and you will have more power and lower numbers.

Edit: His tune also seems aggressive for safety one would probably tune to 11.8-11.7 at wot and high rpms with that much pressure but then again with the elevation he isn't getting as much air so it may work out.

I think the uncorrected number for hp on the first run was 512 which sounds more believable didn't see torque.

Elevation definitely does play a role though, just not 15-20% like most cf's are. Id say add about 5% more to be realistic. So add 25 to that number.