Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'll print off a overlay of a GT3076R vs Kando T67 with very similar mods and on the same dyno... You will be very surprised how similar they are :)

If I wanted to I can do a 13-15sec ramped run and make my graph come on that early like "wasnt me" run.

I'm not revving it to 8000rpm for a number, it's going to be like that all the time... If I wanted a number it would be going to 9000rpm

Not really crazy, most the drift guys over here run 8500rpm and sit on limiter all day without too many issues

Maybe thats why some motors last and some don't. I personally dont rev mine past 7100.

Maybe thats why some motors last and some don't. I personally dont rev mine past 7100.

Still making 405kw at 7100 :)

Remember also that mine is still a happy at 8000rpm and power is still rising, where as GT30 turbine Garretts have turned over well before then and the motor is just getting stressed.

I guess only time will tell how long it lasts...

Still making 405kw at 7100 :)

Remember also that mine is still a happy at 8000rpm and power is still rising, where as GT30 turbine Garretts have turned over well before then and the motor is just getting stressed.

I guess only time will tell how long it lasts...

Your missing the point...Why rev your engine to 8000rpm when you could make the same power at 6000rpm....The most my car has made is 356rwkw (Mainline Dyno from memory) and it sees that at a bit over 6000rpm. My car has been on E85 for 2+ years now and i havnt looked back. Response and power cant beat it...If you are ever in SA i will be more than happy to take you for a spin.

Whats a good close GTR estimate of 400rwkw in awkw? Anyone got the AWD drivelines power loss figures from one of them sweet dynos?

I ask cause I'm running 301awkw now, I'd assume that's up near 345-350rwkw? -5's, stock engine, 18psi.

Cause if that's the case, and I work the engine to handle 22+psi, throw in some cams, and minor port work, I figured 400rwkw is easily obtainable? Car already has all the other supporting mods, big cooler, big exhaust, afms, jectors, so on..

Really? I thought there was about a 10-15% difference in power output between the 2 drive types.

Edit: Heh, I've searched for this before, and I'm looking again, and it's tough to find an definitive answer through all the total nonsense answers.

Edited by GTRPowa

Further reading on trash forums, I found a bright spark with a convincing way of saying the drive train losses are fixed, what with all the articles/forum threads around talking about percentage losses.

Eg: You might make 200kw at the engine, and 140kw at the wheels. Then if you make 400kw at the engine, you'll make around 340kw at the wheels. Excuse the fact some of you probably know this, but I'd assume lots of people (myself included) think about fixed percentages.

And if that's the case, then the AWD mode on GTR's would used a fixed amount, instead of a percentage too. The pieces come together! :D

Edit: Excuse the fact if it's posted somewhere here, but I haven't seen it, and in fact, I've never read it this way until today... And I read forums a bit too..

Edited by GTRPowa

Huh? through a transfer case, diff, axles and hubs you gotta see at least a 20kw drop.

Has anyone done the back to back runs to check it out?

Power isn't always running through the transfer case...

Back to back runs always confirm they are so close there is nothing in it!

Further reading on trash forums, I found a bright spark with a convincing way of saying the drive train losses are fixed, what with all the articles/forum threads around talking about percentage losses.

Eg: You might make 200kw at the engine, and 140kw at the wheels. Then if you make 400kw at the engine, you'll make around 340kw at the wheels. Excuse the fact some of you probably know this, but I'd assume lots of people (myself included) think about fixed percentages.

And if that's the case, then the AWD mode on GTR's would used a fixed amount, instead of a percentage too. The pieces come together! :D

Edit: Excuse the fact if it's posted somewhere here, but I haven't seen it, and in fact, I've never read it this way until today... And I read forums a bit too..

Bloody hell don't start the fixed vs percentage debate again. There like a 10 page thread on it.

Percentage loss is a good way to work out factory approximate drivetrain losses. When you start making 3, 4 or even 5 times the factory power levels, those percentages are not logical any more. There was a big thing on it here, once again, a lot of people agreeing to disagree.

My arguement is you can't say that a drag car making 3000hp at the wheels is still going to have a 20% drivetrain loss coz that's BS

Power isn't always running through the transfer case...

Back to back runs always confirm they are so close there is nothing in it!

Power runs through the transfer while it's on the dyno though doesn't it?

The rear wheels are always in a slip event so the fronts should always be having 'some' torque applied to them. That torque has to come from somewhere

nah it's no where near that much. 400rwkw is about 375-380awkw or so. if you've got 301awkw you would be about 320-325rwkw on most dynos. there is not much difference between AWKW and RWKW on dyno dynamics dynos. certainly not 15%. and it's not a fixxed percentage anywway. the gap does widen a little bit the higher the power level but it's not linear. like it might be 20kw difference at 200kw and only 25kw at 400kw. there is no fixed answer. regardless of that even just different dynos vary a bit even when all reading RWKW or AWKW.

Power runs through the transfer while it's on the dyno though doesn't it?

The rear wheels are always in a slip event so the fronts should always be having 'some' torque applied to them. That torque has to come from somewhere

The rear wheels are not in a slip event if the dyno allows the front wheels to match speed... Even for a split second :)

if it will really help people sleep at night if I have time this weekend i'll put one of my GTRs on the dyno. run it in AWD, then run it in RWD and see what it gets.

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

    • @Haggerty you still haven't answered my question.  Many things you are saying do not make sense for someone who can tune, yet I would not expect someone who cannot tune to be playing with the things in the ECU that you are.  This process would be a lot quicker to figure out if we can remove user error from the equation. 
    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
×
×
  • Create New...