First, please do not take my post as argumentative or confrontational. Just trying to gather information regarding your testing methods. I read your article and it was interesting, but it did leave me with a few questions.

You mentioned that you had a very strict process which you repeated for every single test however you didn't really specify a few things that are kind of important.

1) You mentioned in your article that you made sure your tests were all run at the same water temperature. What was that temperature?

2) Did you have a Consult II or III scan tool hooked up to the car during the tests?

3) How many runs did you do for each product that you tested? Did you just install the part and then run it once? Or did you install the product and run it multiple times until the car stopped producing more power?

4) I couldn't really see from your pictures but was there a fan blowing on the front of the car during your tests? In your pictures I could not see one and just wanted to confirm.

Again, I am not trying to be confrontational but these were just some of the questions that I had after reading the article.

Thank you very much!

1 more, was the ecu reset after the install of the part or taken out and driving for the ecu to adjust?

I'll answer the questions the best that I can,

I don't remember exactly what the temperture was, I think it was just under 100c or when the fans kick off which is also useful to equalize the electrical load. The water temp was monitored with a scan tool and yes the dyno fan was run at all times. As mentioned the car was run many times with each part installed to normalize it and the runs we counted were not cherry picked but ones taken after the power levels stabilized after several runs, usualy after about 4-5 pulls. The ECU was not reset but the car was run for several minutes to trip the short term and some of the long term trims. Normaly the short term trims start making adjustments imediatly and the long term trim will set after several minutes. Please note that the trims will not have a large effect on wide open throttle open loop operation like is seen on a dyno although they will affect transients and part throttle operation, the part a driver feels. As noted in the test, the air fuel ratios were continuosly monitored just to make sure that other factors like MAF turbulance were not skewing test results.

I was a Nissan engineer for 18 years before they moved to the deep south and I have been involved with the development of Nismo parts. I also have been activily involved with the Tuning industry for the last 22 years as an automotive engineer so I strive to be careful.

Man, I just thankful that there is an aftermarket, and that there are enthusiasts. So far, I like everything Technosquare does.

I didnt read Killerbee's numbers but Technosquare's dyno can display the data in two ways. It can attempt to correct the power to "Dynojet" numbers with an intenternal correction factor or it can use its own lesser reading native corrections.

At 370Z.com we stick with the conservative native output because reporting the higher numbers isnt true representation of a real standard. I think Killerbees results are the higher "Dynojet" corrected numbers.

There is no right or wrong, but going off the native numbers is the way I prefer to report things.

ahhh the OTHER setting, of course...next time I run my car im going to run the other setting...gonna make those Veyron owning sissys cry.

Its not a setting its a mathamatical correction. I don't understand why you seem to take personal offence to others dyno results.

Nobody's taking personal offense at others' dyno results. They're taking personal offense at being called braggards and liars for the honest testing they've done.

Not knowing the best way to sort and report data is not lying. Its just presenting the best posible picture.

No, that's wrong.

Representing the best possible picture would be if he were intentionally employing tactics he knew would manipulate the data in favor of larger numbers. If you want to claim we're all ignorant of proper testing methodology and our results are randomly inaccurate, that's fine. So far they're all randomly inaccurate in roughly the same direction though. 'Painting the best possible picture' is an entirely different thing.

:wtf2: I bet if all you guys were to meet in person, none of this would be happening. Instead, you would all probably be discussing the details and generally having a great time because you are all enthusiasts!

To make this debate more constructive, what were your testing methods?

Either that, or we'd start an impromptu demolition derby battle to the death and destroy a few Z's in the process :stirthepot:

You know exactly what the testing methods are, basically none. They're randomly inaccurate. Go to dyno shop, take a few pulls. Get more mods, go back to same dyno shop, take a few pulls. Repeat. We know they'll have random inaccuracy, but that's a completely different thing than fabricating the results or trying to ignore bad numbers and/or post ones that are known to be wrongly high.

The fact that the randomly-inaccurate dyno results of multiple members in different states are showing results in the ballpark of each other validates the general idea here, which is that it's not crazy to believe 30+ rwhp from a full exhaust on this car.

Your testing methods, while obviously more self-consistent, aren't going to be perfect either. They may be more accurate than random dyno shots, but there are always uncontrolled variables.

This quote is from the 'other' thread. I'm trying to abide by the efforts at thread consolidation here. ;)
I think I understand what you're saying, smartbomb, and it's a valid point. There's a difference between deliberate fabrication of numbers vs. 'cherry-picking' the highest ones. That's why I try to show all runs.

This is the most recent Dyno Dynamics run that I have posted (after installing the Stillen headers):
http://www.the370z.com/members/semte...209hpandaf.jpg

You can see how close all three runs are.

Here's the most recent DynoJet run I have posted (done on same day as above):
http://www.the370z.com/members/semte...09balanced.jpg

Again, you can see the consistency. So in your opinion, is there any inflating of numbers going on here? I suppose technically one could accuse me of cherry-picking because I list the highest of both sets in my signature below. But it's not like I'm taking dynos where I've got three runs with +/- 10whp deltas between each run and only publishing the highest one. And for the record, I don't have sheets from other Dyno Dynamics and DynoJet dynos that I'm suppressing because they came in with lower numbers. I've spent enough coin on dyno sessions as it is! :rolleyes: