506HP, 356lb-ft on GT35R :) at 1.1BAR
09-30-12, 02:05 PM
#26
In theroy, 4x850 can make around 510 flywheel on paper at 100% duty cycles.
550x850's@100%=420 flywheel
550x1300@100%=550 flywheel
550x1680@100%=670 flywheel
550x2200@100%=830flywheel
Just to throw some Fuel on the fire
Iwan, don't make us crank up some more B-17's and P-51's. Now here comes the oxidizer...
550x850's@100%=420 flywheel
550x1300@100%=550 flywheel
550x1680@100%=670 flywheel
550x2200@100%=830flywheel
Just to throw some Fuel on the fire
Iwan, don't make us crank up some more B-17's and P-51's. Now here comes the oxidizer...
09-30-12, 02:17 PM
#27
In theroy, 4x850 can make around 510 flywheel on paper at 100% duty cycles.
550x850's@100%=420 flywheel
550x1300@100%=550 flywheel
550x1680@100%=670 flywheel
550x2200@100%=830flywheel
Just to throw some Fuel on the fire
Iwan, don't make us crank up some more B-17's and P-51's. Now here comes the oxidizer...
550x850's@100%=420 flywheel
550x1300@100%=550 flywheel
550x1680@100%=670 flywheel
550x2200@100%=830flywheel
Just to throw some Fuel on the fire
Iwan, don't make us crank up some more B-17's and P-51's. Now here comes the oxidizer...
thewird
09-30-12, 05:05 PM
#30
******
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: miami
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that the American way? To have a huge turbo and plenty of fuel will take to NOWHERE without having other components to suit it. Getting power of an engine is a balance of many factors not just turbo and fuel...
For the Dyno, it is a MAHA dyno. MAHA Maschinenbau Haldenwang GmbH & Co KG - LPS 3000
Best REgards,
For the Dyno, it is a MAHA dyno. MAHA Maschinenbau Haldenwang GmbH & Co KG - LPS 3000
Best REgards,
wow . im not saying im the best but my tunes are very good. and this almost made me quit lol
09-30-12, 07:37 PM
#31
Maha is a legit dyno guys. Maha & AVL are among the big German dyno manufacturers. Their dynos much more expensive than a dynojet. They're used in industry, but normally for regular emissions and fuel economy drive cycles rather than wheel horsepower. OEM's don't do horsepower certification on chassis dynos, they do them on engine dynos.
The curve looks weird because you guys are used to seeing heavily smoothed horsepower and lb/ft on the same chart with the same scaling, so that they always cross at 5252 rpm. These are metric units with different scaling... Newton meters are much higher than lb/ft and they don't cross the kW curve.
Iwan, some of the sheet is cut off at the bottom. Can you please explain the following things:
1) Brown line is measured wheel torque in Newton-meters?
2) Pink line is wheel power in kW?
3) What is the blue line?
4) is the green line a measure of road load force? it sure looks like it to me
If you were using a road load curve during this pull, what was the inertia weight and the coefficients? FYI, "real" loading dynos use a quadratic equation for road load force based on inertia weight. The coefficients (A,B,C) correspond to the equation of the a + bx +cx^2
The curve looks weird because you guys are used to seeing heavily smoothed horsepower and lb/ft on the same chart with the same scaling, so that they always cross at 5252 rpm. These are metric units with different scaling... Newton meters are much higher than lb/ft and they don't cross the kW curve.
Iwan, some of the sheet is cut off at the bottom. Can you please explain the following things:
1) Brown line is measured wheel torque in Newton-meters?
2) Pink line is wheel power in kW?
3) What is the blue line?
4) is the green line a measure of road load force? it sure looks like it to me
If you were using a road load curve during this pull, what was the inertia weight and the coefficients? FYI, "real" loading dynos use a quadratic equation for road load force based on inertia weight. The coefficients (A,B,C) correspond to the equation of the a + bx +cx^2
09-30-12, 07:51 PM
#32
Maha is a legit dyno guys. Maha & AVL are among the big German dyno manufacturers. Their dynos much more expensive than a dynojet. They're used in industry, but normally for regular emissions and fuel economy drive cycles rather than wheel horsepower. OEM's don't do horsepower certification on chassis dynos, they do them on engine dynos.
The curve looks weird because you guys are used to seeing heavily smoothed horsepower and lb/ft on the same chart with the same scaling, so that they always cross at 5252 rpm. These are metric units with different scaling... Newton meters are much higher than lb/ft and they don't cross the kW curve.
Iwan, some of the sheet is cut off at the bottom. Can you please explain the following things:
1) Brown line is measured wheel torque in Newton-meters?
2) Pink line is wheel power in kW?
3) What is the blue line?
4) is the green line a measure of road load force? it sure looks like it to me
If you were using a road load curve during this pull, what was the inertia weight and the coefficients? FYI, "real" loading dynos use a quadratic equation for road load force based on inertia weight. The coefficients (A,B,C) correspond to the equation of the a + bx +cx^2
The curve looks weird because you guys are used to seeing heavily smoothed horsepower and lb/ft on the same chart with the same scaling, so that they always cross at 5252 rpm. These are metric units with different scaling... Newton meters are much higher than lb/ft and they don't cross the kW curve.
Iwan, some of the sheet is cut off at the bottom. Can you please explain the following things:
1) Brown line is measured wheel torque in Newton-meters?
2) Pink line is wheel power in kW?
3) What is the blue line?
4) is the green line a measure of road load force? it sure looks like it to me
If you were using a road load curve during this pull, what was the inertia weight and the coefficients? FYI, "real" loading dynos use a quadratic equation for road load force based on inertia weight. The coefficients (A,B,C) correspond to the equation of the a + bx +cx^2
thewird
09-30-12, 08:19 PM
#34
I don't want to stir up anything here, but I think a lot of people in this thread were quick to judge based on a cursory glance at the dyno sheet in metric units rather than actually doing some math to see if the numbers make sense. They actually do... it's basically a maxed out Aspec kit on maxed out 4x850 injectors at very high fuel pressure. The numbers are high but I've seen a lot of high numbers on this forum.
If the pink line isn't wheel kW, and the blue line is wheel kW, what's the pink line? The curves are different. One can't be a multiple of the other unless they are smoothed differently or scaled differently. If the blue line is read as about 255 wheel kilowatts, that's about 350rwhp. but just looking at the brown line and guessing, the torque is what, 460Nm? that's about 340 lb/ft of torque. I would be surprised to see a modified rotary make horsepower and lb/ft peak numbers that are so close.
On the subject of the fuel:
Note that he said it was 4x850 injectors @ 3.5 bar fuel pressure and totally maxed out. That is a very significant increase in fuel pressure, and there is an exponential effect
We use the RC engineering fuel injector calculator. Stock fuel pressure is 2.5 bar or 36psi. injectors are 550x2 and 850x2 . Total = 2800cc @ 36psi fuel pressure. Then we switch to 850x4. Total = 3400cc . Now raise the fuel pressure using the calculator. 36psi becomes 50psi, and 850cc injectors become 1000cc injectors.
Sooo... that's 4x1000 = 4000cc worth of injector running at 100% duty cycle. Now for simplicity's sake, compare to 2x550 + 2x1600 which is 4300cc. So his 4x850 at 50psi fuel pressure & 100% duty is like running a set of stock primaries with 1600cc secondary injectors and not maxing them out. The claims about the fuel are feasible.
On the subject of the fuel:
Note that he said it was 4x850 injectors @ 3.5 bar fuel pressure and totally maxed out. That is a very significant increase in fuel pressure, and there is an exponential effect
We use the RC engineering fuel injector calculator. Stock fuel pressure is 2.5 bar or 36psi. injectors are 550x2 and 850x2 . Total = 2800cc @ 36psi fuel pressure. Then we switch to 850x4. Total = 3400cc . Now raise the fuel pressure using the calculator. 36psi becomes 50psi, and 850cc injectors become 1000cc injectors.
Sooo... that's 4x1000 = 4000cc worth of injector running at 100% duty cycle. Now for simplicity's sake, compare to 2x550 + 2x1600 which is 4300cc. So his 4x850 at 50psi fuel pressure & 100% duty is like running a set of stock primaries with 1600cc secondary injectors and not maxing them out. The claims about the fuel are feasible.
10-01-12, 01:31 AM
#38
If the pink line isn't wheel kW, and the blue line is wheel kW, what's the pink line? The curves are different. One can't be a multiple of the other unless they are smoothed differently or scaled differently. If the blue line is read as about 255 wheel kilowatts, that's about 350rwhp. but just looking at the brown line and guessing, the torque is what, 460Nm? that's about 340 lb/ft of torque. I would be surprised to see a modified rotary make horsepower and lb/ft peak numbers that are so close.
P-Rad (blue) = rear wheel KW
P-Schlepp (green) = dyno load
M (red) = torque NM
The issue with your comparison, is that we don't know if the torque is flywheel corrected or not. As we all know, HP is a calculation of torque so it would not make sense to be the rear wheel torque and instead is the corrected torque. The uncorrected torque is not listed. The car is making 351 rwhp according to the dyno sheet which his injectors can support. Even using a very favorable drivetrain loss calculation of 20%, that is still only 420 bhp. But of course guessing flywheel horsepower is retarded so that number doesn't even matter. 506 bhp = 44% drivetrain loss, give me a break. This is why comparing dyno numbers on the internet is idiotic.
thewird
10-01-12, 03:23 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Czech republic
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P-Norm (pink) = flywheel guessed KW
P-Rad (blue) = rear wheel KW
P-Schlepp (green) = dyno load
M (red) = torque NM
The issue with your comparison, is that we don't know if the torque is flywheel corrected or not. As we all know, HP is a calculation of torque so it would not make sense to be the rear wheel torque and instead is the corrected torque. The uncorrected torque is not listed. The car is making 351 rwhp according to the dyno sheet which his injectors can support. Even using a very favorable drivetrain loss calculation of 20%, that is still only 420 bhp. But of course guessing flywheel horsepower is retarded so that number doesn't even matter. 506 bhp = 44% drivetrain loss, give me a break. This is why comparing dyno numbers on the internet is idiotic.
thewird
P-Rad (blue) = rear wheel KW
P-Schlepp (green) = dyno load
M (red) = torque NM
The issue with your comparison, is that we don't know if the torque is flywheel corrected or not. As we all know, HP is a calculation of torque so it would not make sense to be the rear wheel torque and instead is the corrected torque. The uncorrected torque is not listed. The car is making 351 rwhp according to the dyno sheet which his injectors can support. Even using a very favorable drivetrain loss calculation of 20%, that is still only 420 bhp. But of course guessing flywheel horsepower is retarded so that number doesn't even matter. 506 bhp = 44% drivetrain loss, give me a break. This is why comparing dyno numbers on the internet is idiotic.
thewird
Comparing of dyno numbers is not feasible due to the existence of highly inflated dynojets and mainly due to incompetence of most people which don't understand impacts of correction factors on turbocharged vehicles which tries to compensate itself for varying conditions. Moreover, no one is trying to compare numbers, you are the one who said that car is slow for 35R, I guess based on numbers?
MAHA dynos are very accurate and show true numbers - of course if someone doesn't want to fudge in the first place. I have seen dyno readouts from stock BMW M3 E46 and calculated flywheel figure matches factory claim. FWIW I've found several dyno charts of stock cars and calculated flywheel power always match reality withing 5%.
P-Norm is sum of wheel power and drivetrain losses which are measured, not guessed, during roll out, and with correction factor for ambient conditions.
P-Rad is indeed wheel power, without corrections, its raw figure which most people doesn't show on other dynos.
P-Schlepp is not dyno load. Its measured drivetrain loss and OP's drivetrain loss is similar to high revving, high HP cars.
Another thing you obviously don't understand, drivetrain losses aren't and can't be expressed in percents. They are increasing with drivetrain speed, lineary at first, but then exponentially.
OP does indeed have about 350 WHP and about 110 HP of drivetrain loss at peak power. Losses seems very high, but its on pair with other cars, even with less power overall. Uncorrected engine power will be in 460 HP range which is believable for 1.1Bar (16 psi) of boost. (460/2.1PR=220HP atmo engine).
With regards to injectors, OP stated that they were flow tested at 920cc@3bar and he run them with 3.5bar base pressure and 100% duty. It works out to about 366 pounds of gasoline per hour. With 0.7 BSFC its enough fuel to support 520 HP.
I have only one issue, that OP didn't post whole readout with ambient conditions and IAT's. But neither do most people who post any dyno sheets.
10-01-12, 04:10 AM
#40
I merely posted the the percentages of drivetrain losses as a comparison. Your just reiterating my point that calculating bhp based off rwhp is a waste of time. Unless someone has a function of drivetrain losses, by RPM, gear, trans temp, and diff temp to accurately calculate drivetrain losses, any calculation from rwhp to bhp is a waste of time just to get a big number. That doesn't include things like tires growing under load and wheel slip and I'm sure there are other variables I haven't posted.
I don't care what dyno it was done on, all chassis dyno's work the same and suffer from the same downfalls when producing a number. Adding a stupid "correction" to make a bhp number just makes the number output even worse. It's like when Dyno Dynamics operators add a correction to their power outputs and say its Dynojet figures. It wasn't done on a dynojet, its not a dynojet number ffs.
Reason I say its slow is because the OP thinks his car has something special when it hasn't done anything at all to impress anyone. And yes that's based off the numbers but that is what the OP is bringing to the table. So my slow comment is merely suggesting there is nothing special about his special setup that doesn't have a big turbo or fuel that he seems to think is inferior...
thewird
I don't care what dyno it was done on, all chassis dyno's work the same and suffer from the same downfalls when producing a number. Adding a stupid "correction" to make a bhp number just makes the number output even worse. It's like when Dyno Dynamics operators add a correction to their power outputs and say its Dynojet figures. It wasn't done on a dynojet, its not a dynojet number ffs.
Reason I say its slow is because the OP thinks his car has something special when it hasn't done anything at all to impress anyone. And yes that's based off the numbers but that is what the OP is bringing to the table. So my slow comment is merely suggesting there is nothing special about his special setup that doesn't have a big turbo or fuel that he seems to think is inferior...
thewird
10-01-12, 02:44 PM
#44
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I do not like to comment any calculations you have made here and what the power is whether the wheels or fly or else where.
However, to make it simple for you, please refer to the definition of the "Horse Power". The Horse Power is defined as torque multiplied by RPM divided by 5252. Non of you ever had a look at the Torque produced, nor where it was made to get the relation to the power made. Do the calculation compare with other dyno sheets and you will see the relation between the power we measure here and your American RWHP :-)
Best REgards,
Iwan
However, to make it simple for you, please refer to the definition of the "Horse Power". The Horse Power is defined as torque multiplied by RPM divided by 5252. Non of you ever had a look at the Torque produced, nor where it was made to get the relation to the power made. Do the calculation compare with other dyno sheets and you will see the relation between the power we measure here and your American RWHP :-)
Best REgards,
Iwan
10-01-12, 02:47 PM
#45
I do not like to comment any calculations you have made here and what the power is whether the wheels or fly or else where.
However, to make it simple for you, please refer to the definition of the "Horse Power". The Horse Power is defined as torque multiplied by RPM divided by 5252. Non of you ever had a look at the Torque produced, nor where it was made to get the relation to the power made. Do the calculation compare with other dyno sheets and you will see the relation between the power we measure here and your American RWHP :-)
Best REgards,
Iwan
However, to make it simple for you, please refer to the definition of the "Horse Power". The Horse Power is defined as torque multiplied by RPM divided by 5252. Non of you ever had a look at the Torque produced, nor where it was made to get the relation to the power made. Do the calculation compare with other dyno sheets and you will see the relation between the power we measure here and your American RWHP :-)
Best REgards,
Iwan
thewird
10-01-12, 04:14 PM
#46
Senior Member
Thread Starter
And what is your point sir? Do the calc and you will see the numbers on my sheet do match exactly to the definition of Horse Power.
Best REgards,
Iwan
