Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Injector duty cycle to calculate rough power figure VS actual Dyno graph

So, might seem like a dumb question. I know there is a formula for it... Just not sure which is correct. or the math....

If I am seeing a max injector duty cycle of 82% on 700cc injectors (Rb26 - base fuel pressure), in theory, can you compare this calculated HP figure to that of what the Dyno reads out?

Would i say that 1cc = 1HP, so 0.82% of 700CC = 574HP

Is that fairly accurate?

# never was good at math's

Edited by djvoodoo

Engine horsepower, yes.  Not chassis dyno horsepower.

FI cars run richer so you may not get quite as much as 1HP per CC.  But good enough for estimating injector requirements.  Maybe slightly less reliable for what you're asking about.

So give or take, we'll say 82% duty cycle on 700cc is roughly 520-550 engine HP. At the wheels you'd be looking at mabee 420ish (or about 315rwkw)

More to the point - What if the dyno reads quite low compared to what you are seeing max injector wise? Can they be compared? I'm guessing fuelling and how much fuel is dialled in at the top end is also a factor which can skew duty?. Lets just say i'm running about 11.5 to 11.8 in the top end AFR's.

In more just curious at how many different ways you can calculate wheel HP other than just a dyno number.

I always thought it was 5cc of fuel was required per horse power, so a 550cc injector is good for 110hp per cylinder then multiplied by 6 cylinders was 660hp then times it by .8 if you want to only use 80% duty cycle is 528hp

There is never going to be an exact science but obviously there has to be something close otherwise picking the correct injector would be s stab in the dark 

The fairly rough rule, particularly true for RBs, at least RB26s, is that (given 6 injectors) then the cc size of a single injector is the maximum engine power supported by those injectors.  Factory 440cc injectors will run up to about 440HP.  Plus or minus the usual range of variables of course.  It's rough but good enough.

yes rough rule for approximating the size of injector you need.. but the OP wants to determine how much power his car is making based on injector DC.. that's obsurd.. just as obsurd as a moron on a Facebook page telling someone to install a resistor pack on their high impednace injectors because their car won't crank over.

You can actually do a better job if you can measure the airflow rather than the fuel flow.  Do you have afm's? If you can convert the voltage to a flow you can google any number of calculators to convert the air flow to rwhp or engine hp or whatever.

1 hour ago, djr81 said:

You can actually do a better job if you can measure the airflow rather than the fuel flow.  Do you have afm's? If you can convert the voltage to a flow you can google any number of calculators to convert the air flow to rwhp or engine hp or whatever.

I'm using MAP sensor. May as well do a data log session on the Vipec and look at air flow.

you want to work out power, drag strip.

x weight can going so y speed in z time and k distance (factor in some basic air drag) - that is much more accurate then working out how much power a motor makes based on air flow and fuel usage.

You need to remember a motor is not 100% efficient, and x air/fuel does not equate to a direct 100% energy transfer to mechanical energy - there are losses such as heat due to inefficiencies.

1 hour ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

you want to work out power, drag strip.

x weight can going so y speed in z time and k distance (factor in some basic air drag) - that is much more accurate then working out how much power a motor makes based on air flow and fuel usage.

You need to remember a motor is not 100% efficient, and x air/fuel does not equate to a direct 100% energy transfer to mechanical energy - there are losses such as heat due to inefficiencies.

Certainly will do bud. Just have to work out when!!!

5 hours ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

you want to work out power, drag strip.

x weight can going so y speed in z time and k distance (factor in some basic air drag) - that is much more accurate then working out how much power a motor makes based on air flow and fuel usage.

You need to remember a motor is not 100% efficient, and x air/fuel does not equate to a direct 100% energy transfer to mechanical energy - there are losses such as heat due to inefficiencies.

The correlation between air flow and horsepower is much closer than that between terminal speed and horsepower.  You don't, for example need to compensate for such minor things as drag coefficients, frontal area, gear change, traction, engine torque characteristics etc etc. 

11 hours ago, djr81 said:

The correlation between air flow and horsepower is much closer than that between terminal speed and horsepower.  You don't, for example need to compensate for such minor things as drag coefficients, frontal area, gear change, traction, engine torque characteristics etc etc. 

+1.  And again, anything you use to estimate "power" is going to be "estimated engine horsepower", not hp @ wheels - and I know from experience that often the calculated results often get heavily question because by nature of how crazy low Oz dynos read the crank hp results which get calculated if done correctly are often much higher than people expect from typical @ wheels readings on a Dyno Dynamics.

A thing no one has mentioned here is fuel as well, if you treat the % duty cycle of x size injector = hp described above for 6 cylinder turbos and are running E85 you will get very optimistic results :)

 

 

  • Like 1

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


  • Latest Posts

    • I think the concept is highlighting the various scenarios where thicker oil helps, and thicker oil potentially doesn't help and only generates heat and costs power, in turn for safety which isn't actually any safer (unless you're going real hot). If anything this does highlight why throwing Castrol 10w-60 for your track days is always a solid, safe bet. 
    • Jason should have shown a real viscosity vs temp chart. All the grades have very little viscosity difference at full operating temperature.
    • Oops... I meant to include the connector  view... BR/W - power from fuse L/W - motor negative to fan control amp (and off to HVAC pin19) OR/B - PWM signal (from HVAC pin20) B --  ground  
    • Yep, if you are applying filler it sounds like there is something wrong with the body lol. Safe to assume there is going to be a lot of sanding going on if your still applying fillers.  Picture a perfect bare metal panel, smooth as glass. You lay down your primer, it's perfect. (why are you going to sand it?) You lay down the colour and clear, it's perfect. No sanding at all took place and you've got a perfectly finished panel.  You won't be chasing your tail, sounds like you were prepping to start laying filler. If your happy with the body after the sanding, there is some bare metal exposed and some areas with primer, no issues at all, start laying the filler. You are safe to lay filler on bare metal or primer (of course check your technical data sheet as usual for what your filler is happy to adhere to).  This isn't a 100% correct statement. There is primer that is happy to adhere to smooth bare metal. There are fillers that are happy to adhere to smooth bare metal. Just make sure you're using the right materials for the job.  Typically if you are using filler, you would go primer, colour and clear. I've never seen any instances before where someone has laid colour over body filler (maybe this happens, but I haven't seen it before). So your plan sounds pretty normal to me. 
    • I don't think there's any way someone is push starting this car.. I honestly can barely move it, and moving it and steering it is just flat out not possible. I'm sure it is, but needs a bigger man than me. I have a refurbished starter now. The starter man was quite clear and consise showing me how nothing inside a starter really should contribute to slow cranking, and turned out that for the most part... my starter was entirely fine. Still, some of the wear items were replaced and luckily it didn't show any signs of getting too hot, being unfit for use, etc. Which is 'good'. I also noticed the starter definitely sounded different, which is a bit odd considering nothing should have really changed there.... Removed and refit, and we'll pretend one of the manifold bolts didn't fully tighten up and is only "pretty" tight. GM only wants 18ft/lb anyway. I also found a way to properly get my analog wideband reading very slightly leaner than the serial wideband. There's Greg related reasons for this. The serial output is the absolute source of truth, but it is a total asshole to actually stay connected and needs a laptop. The analog input does not, and works with standalone datalogging. Previously the analog input read slightly richer, but if I am aiming at 12.7 I do not want one of the widebands to be saying 12.7 when the source of truth is 13.0. Now the source of truth will be 12.65 and the Analog Wideband will read 12.7. So when I tune to 12.7 it'll be ever so slightly safer. While messing with all of this and idling extensively I can confirm my car seems to restart better while hot now. I did add an old Skyline battery cable between the head and the body though, though now I really realise I should have chosen the frame. Maybe that's a future job. The internet would have you believe that this is caused by bad grounds. In finding out where my grounds actually were I found out the engine bay battery post actually goes to the engine, as well as a seperate one (from the post) to the body of the car. So now there's a third one making the Grounding Triangle which is now a thing. I also from extensive idling have this graph. Temperature (°C) Voltage (V) 85 1.59 80 1.74 75 1.94 70 2.1 65 2.33 60 2.56 55 2.78 50 2.98 45 3.23 40 3.51 35 3.75 30 4.00   Plotted it looks like this. Which is actually... pretty linear? I have not actually put the formula into HPTuners. I will have to re-engage brain and/or re-engage the people who wanted more data to magically do it for me. Tune should be good for the 30th!
×
×
  • Create New...