Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

None of those torque figures are accurate unless an inductive RPM pickup was put on the engine, or the derived rpm generated from wheel vs roller speed (not quite as accurate). If you have Killowatts at the Roller and an Engine RPM figure, you can of course calculate a "Derived" Torque figure, remember if you have any 2 of the 3 components of Power (HP)= (TrqFtlbs x RPM)/5252 equation the 3rd can be calculated. Mainline dynos do this very accurately with their excellent RPM pickup, but like any top level chassis dyno they give Derived Torque which is simply Torque at the Rear Wheels (or front or all 4), so essentially it's the Flywheel Torque minus Driveline losses.

If you want a torque figure calculated correctly for any of your cars let me know and I can run them with the RPM pickup in place and generate true derived torque for each vehicle. At least that way you can make accurate comparisons :)

Note when an inductive pickup is used to measure rpm on the older version of DD software that most of you seem to be posting the torque is represented as iNm rather than straight Nm to let you know its been measured with an inductive pickup :D

Edited by Martin Donnon

Yo, Adrian (sorry, I couldn't resist) guess what? Although I didn't have my GTS25t at the recent BW dyno day, not long before that day Shaun did a tuning dyno run that resulted in 302.3rwkw, and pretty much the same torque peak too.

Have I mentioned yet, that I'm keen to get the 780cc injectors fitted, HKS cams dialled in, E85 tune done and then wind the boost up? Hurry up and arrive injectors!

Looks like its got a bit more in it if you were to tweak the ignition and afr's for max power. :)

Afr's in what i would call middle of the range .8 to .85, ignition has had a little tickle, who knows how much is possible with e85, I tend to think it's a flow issue, 1. std comp cover 2. std exh manifold. I think i can discount the valve springs floating, maybe some bigger cams would help!

If you want a torque figure calculated correctly for any of your cars let me know and I can run them with the RPM pickup in place and generate true derived torque for each vehicle. At least that way you can make accurate comparisons :)

I'd be interested in that. I know someone that would be interested in Golf GT tweaking too :D

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...