Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Dead stock the car made 115rwkw then with a little bit of fiddling (timing etc) it made 125rwkw.

First Dyno..

152rwkw with 12.5psi & exhaust.

Stock airbox, ECU & IC.

Ran in 3rd gear.. why I don't know.

Second Dyno..

164rwkw with 15psi, exhaust, fmic & bosch910 fuel pump.

Stock airbox & ECU.

Ran in 4th gear..

Also have a run in third gear which made almost the same power (-3rwkw) so gears don't affect the final power output much at all.

In fact a higher gear made more power than the lower gears.

I questioned why and was told in the higher gear the turbo has more time to start pushing some decent air.

-----

Not much more to be had with the poor little old RB20t turbo..

Obviously runs out of efficiency hence not a big gain from 12.5psi -> 15psi.

Tuned ECU and I think it would have cracked 170rwkw easily.

Can someone explain to me why -Joel's- dyno graphs are different in the way that the power curve is. The second graph seems to shoot up faster than the first ?

-Joel- were these runs done in 2 different gears, first run being 3rd a second run being 4th ?

:confused: - Or are these 2 differnt engines ?

They are two different gears as I explained in the post.

I think the biggest reason why the first one looks a little less steep is because the bleeder was probably spiking a little through the mid range and settling on 12.5psi + the lower gear giving the impression it has more mid range.

The second dyno sat on a steady 1bar all the way through the power run and made peak power just over 7000rpm.

Its probably also got a little to do witht he ramp rate or something also as it was wheel spinning when coming on to boost even with a couple of people in the boot (crappy half bald 205's).

Theoretically running a car in different gear will yield a different looking power curve BUT the final power should be basically the same.

Can someone explain to me why -Joel's- dyno graphs are different in the way that the power curve is.

It's just the way they are scaled.

Look at the figures on the bottom and side of the graph.

The first one starts goes from 50 to 130 kmh and power is measured from 40 to 168kw.

The second graph is from 70 to 150 kmh and the power is from 70 to 165kw, but the kw axis is stretched.

If you scaled the kmh axis from 60 kmh to 160 kmh on the second graph, it would look like a very fat power curve.

  • 1 month later...

Apex'i PFC

Z32 AFM

GTR injectors

FMIC

Full exhaust

Pod

HKS GT2535

Stainless manifold

11 psi

It does'nt have the power because of low boost.

- Red lines are on 11psi with no boost controller conected.

- Green lines are with the shitty Turbo Smart boost controller connected and set at 16psi.As you can see boost is all over the place.

I hope to have 300rwhp once boost is turned up.

HYPER31%20214rwhp.JPG

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

    • From when I was looking at getting the 86 engineered for the turbo, the joint said to put in a few euro 5 or 6 cats, then tune the car on a nice clean E85 tune When I was looking at a turbo for the MX5, it was basically the same thing, a couple of cats and a nice clean tune Although, it will depend on the year of the Jeep IRT emmisions standards required, and what mods are done, especially if it has a newer engine installed that requires a higher Euro
    • Yeah - but it's not actually that easy. There are limits for HC, CO, NOx and particulates. Particulates shouldn't be a concern in any petrol engine unless trying to comply to the very latest Euro standard. But getting a tune right so that all the others stay within limits AT THE SAME TIME is not a trivial exercise. You couldn't possibly get it right by just guessing at the tuner's dyno, unless he had a 4 gas analyser up the pipe, which is not often the case these days. It used to be. Every decent shop that did "tune ups" (as opposed to tuning) would have a 4 gas analsyer. Perhaps there's still quite a few of them around these days. But most "tuners" are only watching O2 and power readings.
    • Slight segway but the most expensive part of the whole thing which I would have thought would only be required for an engine size/type swap, not a VIV test, is emissions testing.  That's when you get into the big bucks.  I can't remember the exact price now but I got quotes for the GT-R based on swapping to RB30 (not that anyone bothers doing it legally anymore...) and it was around $4500 just for that alone.  The guy that does them manipulates the tune on the vehicle to make sure it passes.  The cheaper option is to book into Kangan Batman Tafe (I think that's where it was) and hire their tester.  Allegedly you're not allowed in there with the car though so not in a position to tweak anything to make sure the vehicle passes.  I'm sure in this day and age of ultra tuneable ECU's you could get the tuner to program a special efficiency (clean) tune that emits the lowest amount of particulates possible that would pass the test.  It might only make 50kW's but as long as it passed who cares!
    • I'm sure he has left signs, or, he is looking down, laughing That's my cunning plan for when I leave, lots of half finished projects, with no rhyme or reason of where I was actually up to, just to keep everyone on their toes
    • Does that price include the rack time to straighten the frame and body and replacement of parts and paint, as well as the noise and emmisions testing  The last engineering certificate I had done, albeit about 15 years ago, was around $1000 for a few inspections and the certificate 
×
×
  • Create New...