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

    • Meanwhile, 20+ years ago, I pulled out the 105mm hole saw and went straight down through the inner guard in front of the airbox to get my stormwater pipe cold air intake in. Right behind the two stock holes for the intercooler pipes. Those have no reinforcement (apart from a couple of robust pieces of steel pipe through them!). I feel that the Australian vehicle standards crews put way too much emphasis on "maintaining the crash performance" of cars and not enough consideration of "any crash is a new and wonderful experiment with a random selection of parameters and you will never be able to tell if an extra 80mm hole through some sheet metal caused a significant difference...but if you close your eyes and squint at the whole structure, engage your engineering brain and have a good think about it, you'd have to expect that it would do jack all."
    • You guys are focussing on the wrong part of this post and have headed off on an irrelevant tangent!  Clearly I'm not going to put my most prized physical possession (well it will be once I'm finished it...) on a piece of shit contraption that might fail and crush me or my car!  At no point was that even implied I was trying to buy a butchered P.O.S that some shonky clown had thrown together with a gasless MIG....  Either way I would love to see the build quality of a rotisserie that has failed.  Actually I'd love to see a photo of one that has failed full stop.  Google fails to deliver.  Never happened?? I'll either make one that won't fail or will buy one that wouldn't fail! End Post.....
    • Yeah, if you can't breathe for more than about 2 minutes, you're cooked.
    • Well, all the power should be getting dissipated across the starter motor. Therefore, ideally, the voltage drop across the earth lead should be convincingly close to zero. Certainly you'd want it to be only a volt or so at max, because otherwise that volt doesn't turn up at the starter to do what is required. A car can probably survive a bad enough earth to crank and start with only 9V or so at the starter motor, maybe even a bit less. But you're seeing only 8V at the battery terminals when cranking, so there can't even be that much available over at the starter, which simply won't do. I would have thought that you couldn't pull enough current (with a healthy starter) to make the battery drop to 8V locally. But I was ignoring the possibility that the starter is in fact crook. If it has shorted windings (or maybe the solenoid is borked and shorting to earth) then I guess it could pull a stack of current and not even look like wanting to turn over. So follow the other boys' reccos too. Because they are just as likely at this point.  
    • Depending where the whole gets drilled, and what country/state you're talking about, quite likely not.   Under ole vehicle mod rules in NSW, VSI06 allowed for drilling of holes in "non structural" areas. So you could drill a hole through the inner guard, and not need engineering. You couldn't drill over seams, and it was advised to add extra reinforcing around the hole, as well as something to protect from sharp edges.   Again, it's all about finding the documentation for where the mod is to be done, AND then being able to explain the situation, with the documentation as to why you don't need engineering, with a positive attitude, to any one of the likes eg, police, vehicle inspector, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...