Dyno Results

Slither · Post by **Slither** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:39 pm

It seems to be the curse of the N/A car, people are fusy over a few kW here and there

afterburner · Post by **afterburner** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:49 pm

HRD2BQT wrote:
spetz wrote:Rolling road...
Dyno dynamics, I thought they were all with the rollers?
there are technically 2 types of dyno machine.

1. the usual dyno on the rollers (which im sure afterburner was referring to) where ther tyres spins on the rollers.

2. the HUB version, where you have to take your wheels off ( i think) - im not sure how exactly this one works.

Yep sorry, that's what I meant. Over here there are a number of places with each. The hub dyno is transportable, and involves lifting the car off the ground, unbolting the wheels, and bolting the hub dyno modules to the hubs. And as mentioned above, they tend to result in higher readouts.

Boris · Post by **Boris** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:02 am

Thats's a good result mate!

Another reason why i got such a high result is due to my CAI, i have a huge pipe in the front bumper that pretty much allows a huge amount of air into my UAS airbox & pipe.

I don't know about how you only got a minor difference by taking the intake of, but it could be because it's sucking in warm turbulent air from around the engine a bit more, donno, strange.

And yes Mikey, it's just a number, but still it doesn't stop us comparing our "packages" because thats what men do... were only comparing results on the same dyno pretty much... trying to ruin our fun

I don't really care that I have 126kw, because due to my tyres & suspension Grant & Jono will outhandle my car in everyway, and if i race them, i will probably start to overtake them only in 3rd...

I think that dyno is pretty accurate, cos Jono got ~105kw atw on it... which is still good, and it's pretty respectable compared to his mods.

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:34 am

lol, i'm not trying to ruin the fun here Boris, but from what i've been reading so far (not just from this thread alone) some ppl seem to be overly concerned about certain things unnecessarily... it's interesting to see the HP differences between each cars though, but the point i'm merely trying to make is that HP means nothing without TORQUE. Frankly, i don't care if my car makes the same HP as my N/A counterparts - it's the torque (not torque-steer lol) that i'm more interested in...

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:41 am

Go V8 6.0L GenIV, theres plenty of torque.....*run & hide*

BuCkEt · Post by **BuCkEt** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:14 pm

*Cocks rifle*

Where'd he go?

If you want to be a dyno queen, go get a Supra

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:23 pm

FTO338 wrote:Go V8 6.0L GenIV, theres plenty of torque.....*run & hide*

mate, it's all good... no need to run & hide... i've always had a soft-spot for V8s afterall, pushrod or not - just wait till you hear the wastegate fully open on an LS1 on boost (with open pipes!

) I can't say I have heard of anything that sounds as mean as a cut-sick LS1... well maybe except for a Ferrari

;)8)

spetz · Post by **spetz** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:59 pm

I'm not sure of why such a low difference either Boris.

But what I was thinking is that under real life road conditions the difference would be greater. Like I said my intake only goes until the airbox, and that's where it sucks air from... hot air.

Where as the dyno was done with an open bonnet with that fan going onto the front, so I think that gave a few extra kw because it was effectively working like a CAI.
Anyway, although the kw didn't really change that much on the dyno, after putting the Apexi power intake (thanks to mxysxy for the DIY adaptor from bunnings) it does push quite a bit harder and power now keeps coming instead of stopping 500rpm before redline.
To be honest I was surprise that just a pod filter with no CAI would make a noticable difference. Even though the mechanic said it wont make a difference putting a CAI I am still convinced it will.

And GPXXX, seeing as it's so much harder to make good "dyno readings" with NA over turbo, I think we have the right to care about those handfull of kw. Anyway it's a comparison and we're all just having fun.
So watch out, Boris, Grant and Jono... ehhehehe.

BTW no one answered what extractors Boris has on his FTO?

spetz · Post by **spetz** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:04 pm

Anyway I can't seem to load the dyno graph onto imageshack...
I give up!!

Can someone host it for me? it keeps saying file integrity failed. Upload terminated

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:49 pm

hmmmmm i never had a problem with imageshack, whats sort of image format you try to load? Btw spetz you got give me a ride when i'm up your way hehhee

BuCkEt · Post by **BuCkEt** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:20 pm

You're comin up Canberra way?

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:34 pm

Maybe

hehehe

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:59 pm

the fact that my car is turbo'd or not is not the issue and it doesn't matter either... what i'm telling you is that although your HP/kilowatt reading may be less than Boris's dynograph in comparison, you shouldn't be overly concerned over a handful of KW's difference... instead you should really be paying more attention to the torque curve because ultimately it's the difference in torque that will dictate the outcome of the race. If your car made 260NM of torque vs Boris's 280NM (hypothetically speaking), then you have a good reason to be worried...

i really dunno any other simpler way of saying this so don't take this as criticism, but rather a suggestion.

the fact that you have a lighter car is already an advantage to begin with... quick example - if you had seen the Bathurst 24hr race 2 years ago, the HRT Monaro 427 pretty much had similar power-to-weight ratios as the Lambos and GT Ferraris, yet the sheer amount of torque from the Monaro helped the car to fly past them on the straights (ok might be a bad cliche but you get the picture).

BuCkEt · Post by **BuCkEt** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:30 pm

Then how does one increase the torque of the FTO?....as ultimately it's that nice "pushed back" feeling that I enjoy when accelerating.

Something to give it a bit of grunt in the 1k-3k rpm range would be nice.

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:37 pm

BuCkEt wrote: Something to give it a bit of grunt in the 1k-3k rpm range would be nice.

High torque at low rpm with a FWD, mate thats a recipe for torque steer.

Black_FTOGPX · Post by **Black_FTOGPX** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:40 pm

BuCkEt wrote:Then how does one increase the torque of the FTO?....as ultimately it's that nice "pushed back" feeling that I enjoy when accelerating.

Something to give it a bit of grunt in the 1k-3k rpm range would be nice.

A supercharger would give the FTO all the torque you want down low. (but would be a bitch with the torque steer

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:15 pm

or a really really small turbo from a Daihatsu 800cc Kei car could give u a slight kick in the back at low rpms lol...

and take it from me, don't expect to take on the twisty tarmac when you're hard on boost coz the torque-steer is gonna either rip the wheels off off from your hands or plough your car off from the racing line... (and it's times like these i wish i had a RWD FTO...

)

Black_FTOGPX · Post by **Black_FTOGPX** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:18 pm

GPXXX wrote:(and it's times like these i wish i had a RWD FTO... )

So when are you gonna start on that?

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:23 pm

stay tuned for my next Charity Fundraiser cruise...

spetz · Post by **spetz** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:56 am

No problems FTO338

If you wait a little bit longer I'll have some more work done to it.

The image is .tif
It says "Microsoft Office Document Imaging File" in the properties

And GPXXX I know what you mean with torque, but still you need kw and torque to go fast. But how do you recommend I increase torque but staying n/a?