Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, WR33KD said:

I asked this question a while ago about dyno sheets but with a tcf of 1 isn’t that engine power and with a tcf of 1.1 or higher wheel power?

i went through a low talk with a guy here in nz to get my 400kw sticker.

My tcf is set to 1.1 as I’m only 2wd and 1.2 for 4wd or am I only the wrong page or am I reading the wrong book

No, the complete opposite.  The torque and power numbers shown on a "flywheel" graph on a Dynapack are whatever was measured at the hubs x whatever the TCF is.  If the TCF is 1.0 then the number shown is the hub number times 1.0, or basically exactly the same as what was measured.

Your TCF of 1.1 means that it has multiplied what the dyno read by 1.1, so it's inflated what the dyno measured by 10% as an attempt to estimate what the engine is making.... that's why they'd used 1.2 for 4WD, as there will be more transmission loss so they inflate the measured number by 20% to try and make up for that.  I personally can't stand this practice, and only use "flywheel mode" as it allows you to correct the hub torque using the final drive and I'll just set TCF to 1.0 to make sure there is no inflation going on.   Hub dynos read high enough compared to others as it is

  • Like 1
12 minutes ago, Lithium said:

Hub dynos read high enough compared to others as it is

Then there's the whole 1000nm army too (when clearly RPM input is missing and derived torque isn't used).

 

And the whole idea of TCF is a bullshit anyway.

We all generally work on the idea that a DD roller dyno will read about 75% of the engine power at the rollers. That is NOT lost in the transmission. Some of it is, but the bulk of it is lost at the rollers. There is tyre slip and deformation on any roller. A huge amount of energy is lost to friction. If you don't tie the car down hard then you lose more to slip. If you do tie it down real hard, you 'll lose less to slip, but lose some more to deformation of the tyre. (I would suggest that deformation is a much smaller proportion than slip though).

AWD rollers have the opportunity to lose more power at the rollers, because 2x the number of rollers. But....with the same amount of engine power, because the power is less at each roller, there will be much less slip at each roller. So AWD cars might lose a bit more power than a 2WD car, but they could also lose a little less. Probably lose more in big power applications and lose less in low power, but I'm just guessing.

The 2WD thing was then further confused by people saying that the losses in FWD transmissions are less than in RWD transmissions. Now, whether that is true or not is not really important, because most of the power "lost" is still lost at the tyre-roller interface, not in the transmission. So out of the 25% "loss" that we pretend is a constant for RWD cars, maybe only 5-10% of it is in the transmission. And if FWD cars are more efficient in the transmission, then you might only save 1% out of that. So the total losses should still be in the region of 25% for FWD cars too.

The real situation is certainly nothing like saying RWD cars lose 25%, FWD cars only lose 15-20% and AWD cars lose 30-35%. Because those statements simply cannot be true in general. It is close enough for RWDs on DD dynos. It might be a little different for RWDs on other roller dynos (due to calibration differences, roller diameter differences, roller surface texture differences, etc). It is definitely different on Amercian roller dynos, which have an input field in the software for "How much power did you want?" And I won't talk about inertia dynos because they suck.

Hub dynos are great because all the tyre-roller losses just go away. You measure power much more close to what the engine is capable of, less only that which is turned into heat in the drivetrain. And that number is nowhere near as big as people think it is. If it was, then a 500HP car would boil the oil in a typical diff in a single dyno pull. Certainly after a few repeated pulls. It doesn't happen, therefore the losses in the drivetrain are smaller than people think.

Edited by GTSBoy
  • Like 2
1 minute ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Then there's the whole 1000nm army too (when clearly RPM input is missing and derived torque isn't used).

 

Yeah that's what I was referring to with flywheel mode, that actually corrects the 1000+nm torque by dividing it by the final drive - you just have to leave TCF as 1.00 so it doesn't do other inflation

Cheers for that guys, my knowledge of dynos and tubing is next to zero hence why I pay the pros to do it as it goes way over my head.

We have the 1000nm army guys over here and it gets me every time that my 400kw can beat there 500kw every time and the it’s hard to believe who’s telling the truth when it comes to power 

5 minutes ago, WR33KD said:

We have the 1000nm army guys over here and it gets me every time that my 400kw can beat there 500kw every time and the it’s hard to believe who’s telling the truth when it comes to power 

It's the best isn't it when you come to play with less power, less everything and deliver piles of choppage :)

10 minutes ago, WR33KD said:

Cheers for that guys, my knowledge of dynos and tubing is next to zero hence why I pay the pros to do it as it goes way over my head.

We have the 1000nm army guys over here and it gets me every time that my 400kw can beat there 500kw every time and the it’s hard to believe who’s telling the truth when it comes to power 

Yep, that's why I prefer to ask what size turbo and what their MPH is if they have taken it down the 1/4 mile. 

  • Like 1
On 5/15/2020 at 5:15 PM, Murray_Calavera said:

Yep, that's why I prefer to ask what size turbo and what their MPH is if they have taken it down the 1/4 mile. 

I prefer to ask for a skid

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, GTSBoy said:

Depending on the cooler, you may struggle to get above 280rwkW anyway.

It's a blitz returnflow, I know they're not the best.

I'd be happy with 280kw but could always change the cooler at a later date.

5 hours ago, dyl33 said:

what turbo would you recommend for a r33 gtst for a responsive 280-300kw street car on p98 fuel.

Easy bolt on and still use stock airbox and return flow cooler. 

ATR45SAT BB model internally gated is recommended. U will need a proper cooler kit for that power. I can supply PWR front mount coolers if anyone's interested. Thats the same one as I'm currently using on the test car. 

Ok thanks Tao, what would you expect a atr45sat to make with a return flow cooler?

Do you have any pictures of one low mounted on a stock manifold?

Also how does the atr45sat compare to the G4 hiflows?

Thanks.

 

I don't think u will see much more then 270rwkws with a Blitz return flow cooler. Fitment of it is on Video below. O nP98 fuel, Power wise G4 high flow maxed towards 300rwkws, while ATR45SAT maxed at 322rwkws.   

 

 

I'm placing an bulk order for PWR 600x300x79mm coolers at a discounted price. if any one wants them let me know. 

Edited by hypergear
  • Like 1

Alternatively you can use standard G3 profiled 21U high flow thats bolton to factory location with minimum fabrication work. Made 282rwkws on P98 fuel and 330rwkws on E85 internally gated, super responsive. 

Edited by hypergear
  • Like 1

Ok thanks tao, I want to stick with the return flow intercooler for now.

Whats different between the g3 and g4 hiflows?

How much fabrication is needed between the high flow and the atr45sat to install? I thought just a metal intake pipe?

If it will only make around 270kw with return flow do you still recommand the atr45sat?

 

 

Edited by dyl33

G4 comes with one size bigger wheels.  roughly 25kws difference in power compare to the G3. Trying to push 270rwkws out of blitz return flow is like pushing 520rwkws out of stock cams. So yes to ATR45SAT. 

I believe PWR do a return-flow intercooler for these cars too (PWR PWI2204 for R34 GTT, at least).

Does anyone know if these have the same restrictions as the Blitz, and other return-flows?

With return flows you necessarily have a core with less height, by about the diameter of the return pipe. That means the core has that much less area for flow, will present a higher pressure drop.

The outlet on the return side tank is usually not ideal either. The flow has to turn through 180° in a short radius. Will always lead to a larger pressure drop than normal cross flow outlets.

For all that - it's what I've got and I would happily stick within the power limitations imposed by it, if having a return flow was something I wanted to keep doing. And for a street car, it's a pretty desirable thing. If you want to make more silly power levels, you have to start giving up on things that are nice to have (for installation ease, more stock look, etc) in favour of things that work better for the power.

Edited by GTSBoy

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Jdm DC2R is also nice for a FF car compared to the regular hatches of the time.
    • Now that the break-in period for both clutch and transmission is nearly over I'd like to give some tips before I forget about everything that happened, also for anyone searching up how to do this job in the future: You will need at least 6 ton jack stands at full extension. I would go as far as to say maybe consider 12 ton jack stands because the height of the transmission + the Harbor Freight hydraulic platform-style transmission jack was enough that it was an absolute PITA getting the transmission out from under the car and back in. The top edge of the bellhousing wants to contact the subframe and oil pan and if you're doing this on the floor forget about trying to lift this transmission off the ground and onto a transmission jack from under the car. Also do not try to use a scissor jack transmission lift. You have to rotate the damn thing in-place on the transmission jack which is hard enough with an adjustable platform and a transmission cradle that will mostly keep the transmission from rolling off the jack but on a scissor lift with a tiny non-adjustable platform? Forget it. Use penetrating oil on the driveshaft bolts. I highly recommend getting a thin 6 point combination (box end + open end) wrench for both the rear driveshaft and front driveshaft and a wrench extension. These bolts are on tight with very little space to work with and those two things together made a massive difference. Even a high torque impact wrench is just the wrong tool for the job here and didn't do what I needed it to do. If your starter bolts aren't seized in place for whatever reason you can in fact snake in a 3/8 inch ratchet + 6 point standard chrome socket up in there and "just" remove the bolts for the starter. Or at least I could. It is entirely by feel, you can barely fit it in, you can barely turn the stupid ratchet, but it is possible. Pull the front pipe/downpipe before you attempt to remove the transmission. In theory you don't have to, in practice just do it.  When pulling the transmission on the way out you don't have to undo all the bolts holding the rear driveshaft to the chassis like the center support bearing and the rear tunnel reinforcement bar but putting the transmission back in I highly recommend doing this because it will let you raise the transmission without constantly dealing with the driveshaft interfering in one way or another. I undid the bottom of the engine mount but I honestly don't know that it helped anything. If you do this make sure you put a towel on the back of the valve cover to keep the engine from smashing all the pipes on the firewall. Once the transmission has been pulled back far enough to clear the dowels you need to twist it in place clockwise if you're sitting behind the transmission. This will rotate the starter down towards the ground. The starter bump seems like it might clear if you twist the transmission the other way but it definitely won't. I have scraped the shit out of my transmission tunnel trying so learn from my mistake. You will need a center punch and an appropriate size drill bit and screw to pull the rear main seal. Then use vice grips and preferably a slide hammer attachment for those vice grips to yank the seal out. Do not let the drill or screw contact any part of the crank and clean the engine carefully after removing the seal to avoid getting metal fragments into the engine. I used a Slide Hammer and Bearing Puller Set, 5 Piece from Harbor Freight to pull the old pilot bearing. The "wet paper towel" trick sucked and just got dirty clutch water everywhere. Buy the tool or borrow it from a friend and save yourself the pain. It comes right out. Mine was very worn compared to the new one and it was starting to show cracks. Soak it in engine oil for a day in case yours has lost all of the oil to the plastic bag it comes in. You may be tempted to get the Nismo aftermarket pilot bearing but local mechanics have told me that they fail prematurely and if they do fail they do far more damage than a failed OEM pilot bushing. I mentioned this before but the Super Coppermix Twin clutch friction disks are in fact directional. The subtle coning of the fingers in both cases should be facing towards the center of the hub. So the coning on the rearmost disk closest to the pressure plate should go towards the engine, and the one closest to the flywheel should be flipped the other way. Otherwise when you torque down the pressure plate it will be warped and if you attempt to drive it like this it will make a very nasty grinding noise. Also, there is in fact an orientation to the washers for the pressure plate if you don't want to damage the anodizing. Rounded side of the washer faces the pressure plate. The flat side faces the bolt head. Pulling the transmission from the transfer case you need to be extremely careful with the shift cover plate. This part is discontinued. Try your best to avoid damaging the mating surfaces or breaking the pry points. I used a dead blow rubber hammer after removing the bolts to smack it sideways to slide it off the RTV the previous mechanic applied. I recommend using gasket dressing on the OEM paper gasket to try and keep the ATF from leaking out of that surface which seems to be a perpetual problem. Undoing the shifter rod end is an absolute PITA. Get a set of roll pin punches. Those are mandatory for this. Also I strongly, strongly recommend getting a palm nailer that will fit your roll pin punch. Also, put a clean (emphasis on clean) towel wrapped around the back end of the roll pin to keep it from shooting into the transfer case so you can spend a good hour or two with a magnet on a stick getting it out. Do not damage the shifter rod end either because those are discontinued as well. Do not use aftermarket flywheel bolts. Or if you do, make sure they are exactly the same dimensions as OEM before you go to install them. I have seen people mention that they got the wrong bolts and it meant having to do the job again. High torque impact wrench makes removal easy. I used some combination of a pry bar and flathead screwdriver to keep the flywheel from turning but consider just buying a proper flywheel lock instead. Just buy the OS Giken clutch alignment tool from RHDJapan. I hated the plastic alignment tool and you will never be confident this thing will work as intended. Don't forget to install the Nismo provided clutch fork boot. Otherwise it will make unearthly noises when you press the clutch pedal as it says on the little installation sheet in Japanese. Also, on both initial disassembly and assembly you must follow torque sequence for the pressure plate bolts. For some reason the Nismo directions tell you to put in the smaller 3 bolts last. I would not do this. Fully insert and thread those bolts to the end first, then tighten the other larger pressure plate bolts according to torque sequence. Then at the end you can also torque these 3 smaller bolts. Doing it the other way can cause these bolts to bind and the whole thing won't fit as it should. Hope this helps someone out there.
    • Every one has seemed to of have missed . . . . . . . The Mazda Cosmo . . . . . . what a MACHINE ! !
×
×
  • Create New...