Twin turbo upgrade
12-14-07, 11:13 PM
#151
NYC's Loudest FD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boostn7
Chadwick: Is it possible to post an uncrorrected dyno sheet, your dyno sheets are using a 1.21 for SAE correction.
Thanks
JD
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX794
Do you guys have a dyno sheet with a normal SAE correction factor?
Ditto. Why is everybody skimming over this?
__________________
CAN ANYONE PLEASE ANSWER THIS????!!!!
Originally Posted by Boostn7
Chadwick: Is it possible to post an uncrorrected dyno sheet, your dyno sheets are using a 1.21 for SAE correction.
Thanks
JD
Quote:
Originally Posted by RX794
Do you guys have a dyno sheet with a normal SAE correction factor?
Ditto. Why is everybody skimming over this?
__________________
CAN ANYONE PLEASE ANSWER THIS????!!!!
12-15-07, 01:01 AM
#153
Not trying to **** in anyone's corn flakes here, but I can't see how this dyno plot is anything but a terrible advertisement for sequential turbos on an FD. The amount of horsepower before the ~4500 rpm transition is far from spectacular (~220 whp, not 250 whp as stated a few times) and that dip at transition is absolutely brutal. I spent several months debugging a low transition and could not imagine living with a car with this power delivery.
The entire point of the sequential system is power at low rpms and the lunacy that is the rat's nest is there to ensure a smooth transition. This car has no better low end power than any medium sized single turbo and has a completely broken transition.
Here for example is a 450 whp dyno plot from an FD with a single (from this post):
It has essentially the same power curve without the transition discontinuity - and the T04Z is not exactly optimized for low end power.
For comparison, here is the plot from earlier in this thread:
The entire point of the sequential system is power at low rpms and the lunacy that is the rat's nest is there to ensure a smooth transition. This car has no better low end power than any medium sized single turbo and has a completely broken transition.
Here for example is a 450 whp dyno plot from an FD with a single (from this post):
It has essentially the same power curve without the transition discontinuity - and the T04Z is not exactly optimized for low end power.
For comparison, here is the plot from earlier in this thread:
12-15-07, 01:32 AM
#154
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Union, NJ
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trying to **** in anyone's corn flakes here, but I can't see how this dyno plot is anything but a terrible advertisement for sequential turbos on an FD. The amount of horsepower before the ~4500 rpm transition is far from spectacular (~220 whp, not 250 whp as stated a few times) and that dip at transition is absolutely brutal. I spent several months debugging a low transition and could not imagine living with a car with this power delivery.
The entire point of the sequential system is power at low rpms and the lunacy that is the rat's nest is there to ensure a smooth transition. This car has no better low end power than any medium sized single turbo and has a completely broken transition.
Here for example is a 450 whp dyno plot from an FD with a single (from this post):
It has essentially the same power curve without the transition discontinuity - and the T04Z is not exactly optimized for low end power.
For comparison, here is the plot from earlier in this thread:
The entire point of the sequential system is power at low rpms and the lunacy that is the rat's nest is there to ensure a smooth transition. This car has no better low end power than any medium sized single turbo and has a completely broken transition.
Here for example is a 450 whp dyno plot from an FD with a single (from this post):
It has essentially the same power curve without the transition discontinuity - and the T04Z is not exactly optimized for low end power.
For comparison, here is the plot from earlier in this thread:
Dyno plot from Chadwick(442rwh) is more like a 360-370rwh without correction.
It has been SAE corrected by +21% ! -(maybe issues w/ dyno sensors).
I'm sure Chadwick could post an actual dyno plot to confirm, if anyone cares....
JD
12-15-07, 01:35 AM
#155
yea, it depends on what you want. you can get a smooth transition with some aftermarket controllers
i kinda like the "kick" after 4500rpm
id rather have two turbos over just one. the sickest setup ive seen is the 20B with twins. id pay for the extra fuel just to hear that 3 rotor (im a daily booster)
i kinda like the "kick" after 4500rpm
id rather have two turbos over just one. the sickest setup ive seen is the 20B with twins. id pay for the extra fuel just to hear that 3 rotor (im a daily booster)
12-15-07, 10:32 AM
#156
"your turbo source"
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its pretty funny when you compare a T67 single turbo to bolt up twins... Hold on lets dig up a GT42 or a GT45 and compare them! First off, on that dyno sheet, what is the timing set at? Whats the split? Whats the AFR? That car is making close to 360 RWTQ, and the dynosheet was made at 19 psi of boost.... Why do you even compare the 2? BTW why don't you compare the top end TQ between the 2 sheets...
As Chadwick stated, there was 10's AFR on low end and could only get 12-13 psi off the primary turbo. Once that boost is up on the primary you will gain all through the bottom end and transition. Everytime I go to the dyno and have cars tuned all measurements corrected and uncorrected are within 10-15 RWHP. Sequential cars have a dip in midrange, you can't get around it.
Bryan@BNR
As Chadwick stated, there was 10's AFR on low end and could only get 12-13 psi off the primary turbo. Once that boost is up on the primary you will gain all through the bottom end and transition. Everytime I go to the dyno and have cars tuned all measurements corrected and uncorrected are within 10-15 RWHP. Sequential cars have a dip in midrange, you can't get around it.
Bryan@BNR
Last edited by Bryan@BNR; 12-15-07 at 10:51 AM.
12-15-07, 11:01 AM
#157
400Rwhp Seq Twins Baby!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: "Sunny" ol England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trying to **** in anyone's corn flakes here, but I can't see how this dyno plot is anything but a terrible advertisement for sequential turbos on an FD. The amount of horsepower before the ~4500 rpm transition is far from spectacular (~220 whp, not 250 whp as stated a few times) and that dip at transition is absolutely brutal. I spent several months debugging a low transition and could not imagine living with a car with this power delivery.
The entire point of the sequential system is power at low rpms and the lunacy that is the rat's nest is there to ensure a smooth transition. This car has no better low end power than any medium sized single turbo and has a completely broken transition.
Here for example is a 450 whp dyno plot from an FD with a single (from this post):
It has essentially the same power curve without the transition discontinuity - and the T04Z is not exactly optimized for low end power.
For comparison, here is the plot from earlier in this thread:
The entire point of the sequential system is power at low rpms and the lunacy that is the rat's nest is there to ensure a smooth transition. This car has no better low end power than any medium sized single turbo and has a completely broken transition.
Here for example is a 450 whp dyno plot from an FD with a single (from this post):
It has essentially the same power curve without the transition discontinuity - and the T04Z is not exactly optimized for low end power.
For comparison, here is the plot from earlier in this thread:
Lets compare costs for a second. These are not exact figures but you should get the idea...
Good Single Turbo Kit $5000 BNR's $2500
Fuel Kit $800 Fuel Kit $400
FMIC $1200 SMIC $600
Exhaust System $1000 Exhaust $1000 possiby?
PFC $650 PFC $650
Good Tune $500 Good Tune $500
Total $9150 Total $5650
Pretty big difference there...
Also remember its about round town drivability for most people with twins. Being able to floor it in any gear and still have power/torque is a big thing for me and i guess it will be for others that opted for the same.
12-15-07, 09:55 PM
#158
NYC's Loudest FD
Once again, everyone is IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE CORRECTION FACTOR WAS ALTERED ON THIS DYNO CAUSING IT TO SHOW A DYNO FIGURE WAY TOO HIGH!!!! CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS??
12-15-07, 11:42 PM
#159
Here is a little study material so you don't make an *** out of yourself next time.
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm
The conditions are listed on the bottom of the second dyno plot I posted, plug them into the calculator and see what you get.
I can do a lot of things, but one of them is not controlling the weather when we dyno, the numbers are what they are and they are accurate to the conditions for that day. Now if you want to make a case about SAE corrected dyno’s on turbo cars have at it, but don't accuses me of fudging numbers just to have a bigger e-*****.
I didn't come on here boosting about what great numbers we can get, what a great tuner I am... blah, blah, blah. I posted my resent experience with the BNR stage III's and was basically called a bull ******* so I posted the dyno plot. I personally don't give a **** what a dyno plot says, it is just a tool I have at my disposal to help in trouble shooting/tuning cars. I also don't think it is the best way to tune, but when trying to correct a problem it is the fastest way to make controlled runs and narrow the problem down. SAE correction allows us to make pulls on different days and remove the weather from the equation.
As I have said multiple times, the car was not 100% when the pulls were made. We were tying to track down a boost problem. Any good tuner will tell you that a car needs to have all issue resolved before you start tuning. We were also fighting a high RPM ignition issue that showed up in later pulls. Both issue were resolved and because of what I saw in my logs we didn't make anymore high horsepower runs as the car was running out of injector past 420hp.
By the way, you should be more concerned about the plots that don't give you complete information like the one posted for the single turbo. Who know what correction or conditions were used to make those numbers
I will end it with this; BNR makes a great replacement for the stock twins. With a little work they can make great power, not give up some of the advantages of a twin system and give a lot of the singles out there a run for their money. This was my first experience with them and they have made a believer out of me. In my opinion there is not a better solution out there for the cost.
Last edited by Chadwick; 12-15-07 at 11:50 PM.
12-16-07, 03:08 AM
#161
NYC's Loudest FD
Ok, that was just rude, maybe you should learn a little about what you are talking about before you open your mouth and show everyone what an idiot you are.
Here is a little study material so you don't make an *** out of yourself next time.
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm
The conditions are listed on the bottom of the second dyno plot I posted, plug them into the calculator and see what you get.
I can do a lot of things, but one of them is not controlling the weather when we dyno, the numbers are what they are and they are accurate to the conditions for that day. Now if you want to make a case about SAE corrected dyno’s on turbo cars have at it, but don't accuses me of fudging numbers just to have a bigger e-*****.
I didn't come on here boosting about what great numbers we can get, what a great tuner I am... blah, blah, blah. I posted my resent experience with the BNR stage III's and was basically called a bull ******* so I posted the dyno plot. I personally don't give a **** what a dyno plot says, it is just a tool I have at my disposal to help in trouble shooting/tuning cars. I also don't think it is the best way to tune, but when trying to correct a problem it is the fastest way to make controlled runs and narrow the problem down. SAE correction allows us to make pulls on different days and remove the weather from the equation.
As I have said multiple times, the car was not 100% when the pulls were made. We were tying to track down a boost problem. Any good tuner will tell you that a car needs to have all issue resolved before you start tuning. We were also fighting a high RPM ignition issue that showed up in later pulls. Both issue were resolved and because of what I saw in my logs we didn't make anymore high horsepower runs as the car was running out of injector past 420hp.
By the way, you should be more concerned about the plots that don't give you complete information like the one posted for the single turbo. Who know what correction or conditions were used to make those numbers
I will end it with this; BNR makes a great replacement for the stock twins. With a little work they can make great power, not give up some of the advantages of a twin system and give a lot of the singles out there a run for their money. This was my first experience with them and they have made a believer out of me. In my opinion there is not a better solution out there for the cost.
Here is a little study material so you don't make an *** out of yourself next time.
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm
The conditions are listed on the bottom of the second dyno plot I posted, plug them into the calculator and see what you get.
I can do a lot of things, but one of them is not controlling the weather when we dyno, the numbers are what they are and they are accurate to the conditions for that day. Now if you want to make a case about SAE corrected dyno’s on turbo cars have at it, but don't accuses me of fudging numbers just to have a bigger e-*****.
I didn't come on here boosting about what great numbers we can get, what a great tuner I am... blah, blah, blah. I posted my resent experience with the BNR stage III's and was basically called a bull ******* so I posted the dyno plot. I personally don't give a **** what a dyno plot says, it is just a tool I have at my disposal to help in trouble shooting/tuning cars. I also don't think it is the best way to tune, but when trying to correct a problem it is the fastest way to make controlled runs and narrow the problem down. SAE correction allows us to make pulls on different days and remove the weather from the equation.
As I have said multiple times, the car was not 100% when the pulls were made. We were tying to track down a boost problem. Any good tuner will tell you that a car needs to have all issue resolved before you start tuning. We were also fighting a high RPM ignition issue that showed up in later pulls. Both issue were resolved and because of what I saw in my logs we didn't make anymore high horsepower runs as the car was running out of injector past 420hp.
By the way, you should be more concerned about the plots that don't give you complete information like the one posted for the single turbo. Who know what correction or conditions were used to make those numbers
I will end it with this; BNR makes a great replacement for the stock twins. With a little work they can make great power, not give up some of the advantages of a twin system and give a lot of the singles out there a run for their money. This was my first experience with them and they have made a believer out of me. In my opinion there is not a better solution out there for the cost.
12-16-07, 09:04 AM
#162
Well I studied your "material" The average elevation of Smyrna, TN where the dyno is located is 573 ft. above sea level. In combination with the temperature being 52.29F and the humidity being 38% does NOT equal an SAE correction factor of 1.21! I suggest you calculate the figures yourself before you start calling people idiots.
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_abs.htm
12-16-07, 11:34 AM
#163
NYC's Loudest FD
Umm… you forgot something, a little thing called station pressure. Here, I'll make it easy for you, less things to read and fill out.
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_abs.htm
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_abs.htm
Link to weather page from 11/10/07 showing proper pressure readings:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/...tename=NA&MR=1
Screenshots 1, 2 and 3 showing the proper pressure readings:
Screenshots of engine tuner's calculator with the correct values inputted showing a correction factor of .94
12-16-07, 12:20 PM
#165
Burden on society
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ky
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see two assumptions you make here.
1) the sensors used for this website were 100% accurate.
2) the pressure/temp at the websites sensing location (possibly tens of miles away) was the same as that at the shop/dyno (assumeing the sensors for the site were 100% accurate).
We all know what they say about "assume"ing things.
Since both of these assumptions are "doubtful" at best, you did a lot of work for little results. You've accused chadwick of "knowingly falsifying results", or not calibrating the dyno properly. Before you start casting dispersions on someones integrity or ability's maybe you should eliminate the assumptions.
Show me someone who claims 100% accuracy, I'll show you an idiot.
(Just my 2 cents worth)
1) the sensors used for this website were 100% accurate.
2) the pressure/temp at the websites sensing location (possibly tens of miles away) was the same as that at the shop/dyno (assumeing the sensors for the site were 100% accurate).
We all know what they say about "assume"ing things.
Since both of these assumptions are "doubtful" at best, you did a lot of work for little results. You've accused chadwick of "knowingly falsifying results", or not calibrating the dyno properly. Before you start casting dispersions on someones integrity or ability's maybe you should eliminate the assumptions.
Show me someone who claims 100% accuracy, I'll show you an idiot.
(Just my 2 cents worth)
12-16-07, 12:39 PM
#166
According to the dyno sheets posted, it shows that you were dynoing the car on 11/10/07 at around 3:42:48 PM. If this is correct, the pressure on that date and time is 30.21in NOT 24.34in as shown on the dyno sheet! Inputting the correct pressure of 30.21 from that day will yield you an SAE correction factor of .94, NOT 1.21! So either someone is deliberately manipulating the data OR the pressure sensor on the dyno is bad. Either way, the calculated correction factor is wrong. Here's a link and some screen shots of the sites I used to find the pressure for the date and time in question. Enter these figures into the site you so abominably suggested I study and you will get an SAE correction factor of .94.
Link to weather page from 11/10/07 showing proper pressure readings:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/...tename=NA&MR=1
Screenshots 1, 2 and 3 showing the proper pressure readings:
Screenshots of engine tuner's calculator with the correct values inputted showing a correction factor of .94
Link to weather page from 11/10/07 showing proper pressure readings:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/...tename=NA&MR=1
Screenshots 1, 2 and 3 showing the proper pressure readings:
Screenshots of engine tuner's calculator with the correct values inputted showing a correction factor of .94
In order to compare surface pressures from various parts of the country, the National Weather Service converts the actual air pressure reading into a sea level corrected barometric pressure. In that way, the common reference to sea level pressure readings allows surface features such as pressure changes to be more easily understood.
Last edited by Chadwick; 12-16-07 at 01:01 PM.
12-16-07, 12:40 PM
#167
NYC's Loudest FD
I see two assumptions you make here.
1) the sensors used for this website were 100% accurate.
2) the pressure/temp at the websites sensing location (possibly tens of miles away) was the same as that at the shop/dyno (assumeing the sensors for the site were 100% accurate).
We all know what they say about "assume"ing things.
Since both of these assumptions are "doubtful" at best, you did a lot of work for little results. You've accused chadwick of "knowingly falsifying results", or not calibrating the dyno properly. Before you start casting dispersions on someones integrity or ability's maybe you should eliminate the assumptions.
Show me someone who claims 100% accuracy, I'll show you an idiot.
(Just my 2 cents worth)
1) the sensors used for this website were 100% accurate.
2) the pressure/temp at the websites sensing location (possibly tens of miles away) was the same as that at the shop/dyno (assumeing the sensors for the site were 100% accurate).
We all know what they say about "assume"ing things.
Since both of these assumptions are "doubtful" at best, you did a lot of work for little results. You've accused chadwick of "knowingly falsifying results", or not calibrating the dyno properly. Before you start casting dispersions on someones integrity or ability's maybe you should eliminate the assumptions.
Show me someone who claims 100% accuracy, I'll show you an idiot.
(Just my 2 cents worth)
12-16-07, 01:12 PM
#169
NYC's Loudest FD
12-16-07, 01:36 PM
#172
400Rwhp Seq Twins Baby!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: "Sunny" ol England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple fact remains, it still made over 400rwhp on standard mounted twins and in my book thats ******* insane!
Good on you bud!
I will be posting my BNR dyno up for the world to see when its finished next month so lets see how that compares shall we...
Good on you bud!
I will be posting my BNR dyno up for the world to see when its finished next month so lets see how that compares shall we...
12-16-07, 01:53 PM
#173
rebreaking things
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In that statement he said that the 'correction factor' was altered not the results. In his following post he said, someone deliberately manipulat[ed] the data.
You can't conclude from his statements that he believes you did it knowingly for the purpose of being deceptive as opposed to out of incompetence or negligence. When I read it I assumed he thought it was due to incompetence.
Either way, I don't understand why you guys are getting so heated about this. Your HP results are incredible, and unbelievable compared other cars that I have seen dyno, especially given what I have heard from a very reputable person about the power limitations of that system's hot side setup.
Add to that the highest correction factor I have ever seen, the fact that repeated questions about it were ignored, and I think his statements are reasonable. Even if he is wrong it was a rational thing to question, and no reason for you or dinosaur to repeatedly insult him.
You can't conclude from his statements that he believes you did it knowingly for the purpose of being deceptive as opposed to out of incompetence or negligence. When I read it I assumed he thought it was due to incompetence.
Either way, I don't understand why you guys are getting so heated about this. Your HP results are incredible, and unbelievable compared other cars that I have seen dyno, especially given what I have heard from a very reputable person about the power limitations of that system's hot side setup.
Add to that the highest correction factor I have ever seen, the fact that repeated questions about it were ignored, and I think his statements are reasonable. Even if he is wrong it was a rational thing to question, and no reason for you or dinosaur to repeatedly insult him.
