FTO AUSTRALIA

ruchi once again you've drawn a very clear line in the sand where you stand

from my point of view. i'm not really worried about the dyno results, however a dyno is very useful for testing products. basically when we test something we do a calibration dyno (baseline) run then quickly put a mod on and test it.

we always do a baseline run as as:

1. Ambient temp has an effect
2. Humidty has an effect
3. Service interval has an effect (car will read higher if its just been serviced).
4. Tyre quality (how much tread is left)

Dyno's all read different as well which is why i only use one dyno (being the UAS one, and always in shootout mode 6).

anyway just a few points i thought i'd add.

smorison wrote:ruchi once again you've drawn a very clear line in the sand where you stand

In case a clearer translation was required, in my last post I actually admitted I was wrong and that G1 was right, but perhaps that got lost in my explanation of why the 1:1 ratio is desired.

We're all friends here

I fully agree with what you say above too Steve

Dyno's are only good to set a benchmark and then to compare against this benchmark, but only if the dyno and it's settings and the other various variables (temperature etc.) are the same or close as possible to the original test.

ruchi wrote:Dyno's are only good to set a benchmark and then to compare against this benchmark, but only if the dyno and it's settings and the other various variables (temperature etc.) are the same or close as possible to the original test.

or to use a setup in a controled envirnoment with aircon units then the results can be taken more seriously

Here's Tania's dynograph:



Tan, you owe me beer!

now that's what a FTO GPX graph should look like!

...and yes, G1, that's been done in 2nd gear

if you compare that to a stock MIVEC you will find that the mods we've built not only improve the alround performance of the car but the mid range has a dramatic improvement.

Thanks Mikey - I'll "buy" you one at Mallacoota

come on guys we've been over this dyno argument before.

i just like to have an idea of how i compare to other fto's and how well my car is running with the mods, and as a rough baseline to test further mods to my car and the gains i get from them

i'll get the 3rd gear dyno run done and post them up soon... i can expect a lower peak in 3rd than 4th, so it wont be very accurate to compare this to tj2709's and silentbob's, but it will be good for my own info...

richard H you forgot to mention what mods are on your car

G1 wrote: richard H you forgot to mention what mods are on your car

No I didn't! There aren't any! Not in the engine department, anyway.

Totally stock induction and exhaust. Well, there is a K&N panel filter in there, but that makes stuff-all difference. I was just getting sick of having to find a new air filter element every 10,000km, and a K&N jobbie worked out cheaper.

No fuel/oil additives either. Oh, and it's a manual.

- Rich

nice... no 1/4 mile times yet?

it was helpful to see that yours also had the flat spot from just under 7000rpm, so mine and silentbob's was only rev'ed to no more than 7000 by the looks of things, which you correctly pointed out earlier

looking at your power curve though, yours was lacking the dip during the mivec change over, which i have seen on most other stock GPXs, including mine before the front pipe mod.... did your real dyno graph look the same? maybe your k&n panel filter is doing more for ya than you think

here is a pic i dug up from the dyno runs at Ricol.

we also had problem with speed limiter in 4th, did one run on 3rd, sorry for the bad pic, but as you can see the blue(3rd) on the left has a lower reading at that 7000 peak than the red(4th) on the right, which never made it to the 7800rpm peak after the flat spot..

there appears to be about 1-2kw difference between the 2

G1 wrote:nice... no 1/4 mile times yet?

I ran 15.211 in January. That was on r-comp tyres.

G1 wrote:looking at your power curve though, yours was lacking the dip during the mivec change over, which i have seen on most other stock GPXs, including mine before the front pipe mod.... did your real dyno graph look the same?

There was a wee dip on the real dyno. I put it down to a bit of "wobble" in their results, as there's a noticable 'wave' in the torque curve...

<img src="http://www.ftowa.com/images/workshopart04_6.png" border="0" />

They are pretty different environments, though. When you think about it, a Home Dyno run is on-road... heaps of air stuffed in against the radiator at about 75km/h at that point, so a real high pressure zone. Try holding your hand flat out the window at that speed!

- Rich

G1 wrote:come on guys we've been over this dyno argument before.

i just like to have an idea of how i compare to other fto's and how well my car is running with the mods, and as a rough baseline to test further mods to my car and the gains i get from them

which has always been the original intent when i posted up this thread... inevitably it somehow got all convulated with mumbo jumbo which shouldn't come as a suprise i guess...

oh well, gimme more dyno's charts and some details about the runs (and less dyno arguments, folks)

keep 'em coming!

A West Aussie dyno run...

<img src="http://www.ftowa.com/images/workshopart10_14.jpg">

- At: Hyperdrive Motorsport
- Run: 3rd Gear, shootout mode, Dyno Dynamics.
- Mods: FTOWA Induction System (repositioned airbox, etc.). K&N Panel Filter. Otherwise stock.

Cheers.

- Rich

that's a damn good figure for an FTO with stock exhaust! :shock:

Yeah, that car is running sooo nicely.

Not bad for nine years old!

- Rich

Time to dig up this hoary old thread for an update... Here's my latest dyno run.

149.1 bhp at the wheels.



This was done in 3rd gear. Same gear as the one a few ancient posts above. Same dyno. Changes on the vehicle were:

- UAS downpipes.
- Ultrasonic injector clean.
- Valve clearance adjustment.
- New spark plugs.

Here's a direct comparison on the same printout. The "current' graph line is a bit faint, but at least it's not in Blurrovision(tm) like the image above!...



Gotta be happy with that!!!!!

- Rich

Wow. looking good Richard!
For those that want to know in kilowatts its around 111kW.

very nice indeed... its good that yours has the torque graph unlike the one at UAS... you can see that the low end is sacrificed a little... i could feel the low end loss as soon as i got the UAS downpipe... but it smooths out that dip nicely...

No, that's an air/fuel ratio.

- Rich