Quote:
Originally Posted by Enough
The humidity and temperature are quite different between the two runs. Plus the torque is shifted up for the entire K&N run. I'm sure it is a nice intake as all K&N products are I just think the dyno runs are sort of strange.
|
Those are SAE corrected numbers so that's what's the correction factor is for, plus they have the torque on a different graph than hp where normally they displayed on the same graph. I would like to see the A/F for both runs.
The real question (holds true for all CAI testing) is was the ECT and IAT2 the same or similar between the two runs to get a real back to back comparison? I mention this because when I dyno'd mine bone stock it picked up 24 rwhp (511 vs 535) and 10 ft-lbs of torque just by letting it cool down.