Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Al, your gearing must be different to mine [r34] or something, cause mine was hitting the rev limit at 150km in 3rd gear - no way I could get to 170k / 180k.

edit, oops here is my recent dyno sheet [just to stay on-topic :)]

attachment.php?s=&postid=246025

No the point of the matter is for a 1:1 gear ratio skyline gtsts must be done in 4th gear to acheive an accurate reading.

Dyno in 3rd will give a higher reading and will be less accurate.

Some cars it is better in 3rd gear...and so on

Get your skylines done in 4th gear and not 3rd

Im pushing 286hp but sure as hell i think im pushing more on the road with what i seem to wave goodbye to :) I thought mine was good for about 315@1Bar but not the case :)

How is inaccurate in third? would the power curve be similar in all gears, just maybe more noticable in the third and fourth. As can be seen on the graph mine was done in third gear.

My dyno graph has a couple of flat spots that are noticable. Anyone want to speculate why and if they could have tuned it better or something. Just curious as I didn't notice any flat spots prior to the tune, and now they are very obvious even annoying.

Mike

Mike,

Your A/FR curve on WOT is very very rich in the top end (above 100km/h on the dyno run) :P

I'm fairly sure the Dyno Dynamics A/FR software only reads to 10:1. So the flatline you see from 100km/h & above isn't a true reading. In other words something more like 9:1 A/FR. That's bloody rich! Bad for power, economy, health of engine internals (fuel washing oil off the bores), plug fouling, the list goes on.....

I'm guessing you don't have any form of ECU management. The dips in the power curve look like the factory ECU is pulling timing, & most probably causing the overly rich mixtures as well. You could advance the base timing as a slight work around, at least until you get some control over the ECU.

What mod's does the car have currently? I'm guessing it has FMIC?

Matt

The only mod is a bleed valve set to 9psi. I have been thinking about getting an aftermarket ECU but haven't persued it yet. Need the $$$

I don't want to sound like a cheapskate but a friend of mine had a wrx where he used a bleader on his fuel line?? Or something like that to lean out the mixtures. He warned that it can be dangerous as being too lean is not good, better to be too rich. Is that something to explore? I would only consider it if it can be done properly and not damage the engine, but that said a new ECU would be better by far.

Hehe i guess that is possible Rasi, if you bleed the fuel rail pressure u can lean it out probably very effectively, But the cost of a new engine after u go too lean isnt worth it..

Take your time mate, all skys run rich, but as u boost her up more the fuel pressure rises as well keeping it mega rish and at some stage you will want some fuel management to fix it up and get some power back :)

You can actually buy mechanical fuel pressure bleed kits. See here - http://www.horsepowerinabox.com/mall/fs05.asp However this is very crude (yet effect) way to improve the A/FR's on boost. The system has no feedback. So a conservative approach is best. Mind you, considering your engine is running @ worse than 10:1 up top, there's plenty of room to move!

Much better to try & score a second hand Unichip or S-AFC (~$400-$500).

I'd also get a second opinion on the A/FR's. Just to make sure the dyno info is accurate.

Hi Rasi, the first dip looks like a bit of wastegate creep, what sort of boost controller are you using? You will notice that Dremen's dyno graph shows the same first dip, this is typical and can be tuned out with judicious use of the boost controller and ignition timing (sometimes a little extra fuel helps as well).

The second dip is most likely a combination of the rich air fuel ratios (should be 11.5 or higher) and ignition timing. If you look at Benm's and Dale's dyno graphs the A/F ratio never goes as rich as 10. As you can see correcting the A/F ratio from 11.4 to 1 to 12 to 1 resulted in 13 rwkw more output.

As for the 3rd gear versus 4th gear, it may be to avoid the 180 kph speed limiter or keep the speed down on the dyno. It shows higher torque output but should show the same horsepower.

The question of kph or rpm on the graphs is simply a matter of selecting which you want displayed, provided the operator has hooked up the rpm sensor of course. Ditto, A/F ratios, torque etc

These 4 dyno graphs are a good reason why comparing power output from dyno to dyno and operator to operator is a very inaccurate measure. For example 2 of them indicate "shoot out mode" the other 2 don't.

When we are comparing one car to another on the same dyno (it's a Dyno Dynamics) we always use;

1. the gear that is closest to 1 to 1 (usually 4th)

2. conventional operation (non shootout mode)

3. ramp rate at 100

4. ambient correction at 1.00

5. xtra correction at 1.00

Let's say I am an unscrupulous dyno operator (not saying that any of the four examples are) and I have a customer come in and say something like "I need a better dyno tune, I took my car to XYZ and it only got 140 rwkw. I know, because of the cars that I drag off, it has really got 160 rwkw. They can't be very good, so I came to you cause I have been told that you will get the power." "I've done a few more mods since then and it should be up to 170 rwkw, if you can tune it right."

Now as the operator (and a business man) what am I going to do if I run the car up on the dyno it it has 140 rwkw? Simple I stick a 15% correction factor into it and it shows 161 rwkw. I then tune it and get an extra 10 rwkw, making 171 rwkw on the display.

I give a copy of the printout to my customer and he goes away happy. Now I feel OK, because I really did achieve a 10 rwkw power increase and I have a satisfied customer who will tell all of his friends that my dyno reads right.

The only problem is next time he comes back I have to remember to stick the 15% correction factor back in. Otherwise the power output will be lower, ever had that happen.................

Makes you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

The best use of the dyno is to gauge what HP gains you had from a certain mod and to diagnose/tune the car with a aftermarket ecu or a safc. If you use the same dyno everytime you get a good idea of how much HP that mod made. From my signature you can see I'm running around 235HP (or 175kw) at the wheels and I havent done a great deal. Using a electronic boost controller over a bleed valve will give you much better results, but will cost a lot more. Plus with the upped boost you really do need a fmic to keep intake temps down and it should give you a bit more HP as well. When I change my ecu to an autronics and add a dump+front pipe I'll be going back to the same dyno to see what real gains I had from those mods.

if you dont have an aftermarket ecu or a way to control fuel/ignition at given points, what could you actually do to the car on the dyno to "tune" it? (apart from altering base timing)

also, i've seen cars get higher readings by doing multiple power runs (like 3 in 5 mins) with nothing being touched by the mechanic.

this normal? are there really cobwebs in there? :P

Hi Rob, let's try a question. Last time you took your car to the dyno (same one of course), when it made its 235 bhp, it was the middle of winter, say 14 degrees ambient temperature. This time it's the middle of summer and it's 30 degrees.

Now we know that for every 8 degrees of temperature you loose around 5% in horsepower.

Do you want the dyno operator to add 10% ambient correction? ie; the current dyno run shows 220 rwhp without correction but 242 rwhp with correction.

The answer is do you want to know how much horsepower it has today (that's 220) or how much compared to last time after allowing for that fact that it is hotter (that's 242)?

Tough call?

the dyno is a tuning aid (thats one more dollar closer to being a millionaire).

Do the dyno before and after the same day you put a mod on if you can and then you have a very relative guide to the improvement it made....on that day...wearing your lucky watch...and facing into the breeze.

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...