Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Got a bit bored tonight and thought i'd get all the dyno graphs out and compare them. After looking at them all it was a bit difficult to actually see what kind of power increases there have been over the last three years as you obviously just get used to the power every time. I decided i would chuck all the values into excel and chuck them all on the same graph and was fairly suprised by it all.

Here's the graph for a bit of a reference in case people are going down similar routes and want to compare what kind of power differences there will be (Obviously each dyno and car is different but at least it gives you a rough idea).

post-35676-1242381888_thumb.jpg

Stock turbo

Stock Turbo @ 10psi

Full 3" Exhaust

Pod Filter

HKS GTRS Stock ECU

GTRS @ 14psi (started breaking down spark at 190kw, hence the stop in power)

FMIC

Plazmaman plenum

GTRS Microtech

GTRS @ 17psi

LT12S Microtech

Splitfire Coilpacks

Injectors

Fuel Pump

GTRS + Headwork

GTRS @ 20psi

Cams

Springs

Ported Polished Head

I'm going to fiddle with it a bit more and try to get it to make a nice figure of 270kw :)

Edited by PM-R33
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270208-dyno-graph-comparisons/
Share on other sites

Thats some nice gains there with the cams and head work Phil. I was wondering when i'd see a post from you.... saw the car out front of tms a few days back. .!

How does it feel on the road now ?

I just got mine all back together tonight..... man what a fun job pulling the head is. Be a week or so before i get on the dyno.

Gary

Edited by Fastrotor
the results are bogus

Why so?

His plots overall look fairly typical for the type of development work undertaken. He explained some sort of problem and why the run was aborted, so still worth including for a general comparison. I'd say that the problem might be more likely rooted in a tock ECU going into the good old failsafe R&R.

Demonstration of the lift in area under the curve aka power density aka average power might help people what to expect with their mods too. I'd rather look at torque plots though. :D

the results are bogus, why would you even bother plotting at 190rwkw GTRS

sure good work, but i would even bother with the whacko figures

Hmm not sure what you are getting at. The dyno run that goes to 190rwkw was two years ago with the stock ecu and stock coilpacks. We were going to tune a SAFC before and after however up top it kept breaking down in spark. The reason i only plotted it to 190rwkw is afterwards it just jolted around the place, don't really see the point in plotting a bunch of random up and down spikes. Hope that kind of answers what you ment?

Edited by PM-R33
top stuff you must be happy with the result.

did you go o/s on the valves in the head.

Nah they are just standard size Nissan valves. I was thinking of going the 1mm oversize on the exhaust side, but couldn't justify the money at the time and wasn't sure what kind of gains it would have.

no what im saying, is, the figure for the GTRS is pointless

no one in the right mind would expect a GTRS to cap at 190rwkw - regardless of mods

and doing it with stock ecu is silly

it just adds confusion and misleading information - it would be the same as including thizzles 300rwkw GTRS

its not correct, its way outside the norm and its not the typical result a person would achieve

the point of a comparison chart, like yours (which is a good idea) is to compare typical results one would achieve

if you throw in a 190rwkw GTRS graph people may be get confused etc and we all know GTRS is average 250rwkw

Oh ok fair enough. I just put the graph up there since that was a graph i had lying around and it gives a rough idea of what the GTRS runs like on a stock ECU up to the point where mine stopped making power due to the coilpacks. Obviously if i had some good coilpacks on that run it looks like it would have gone to low 200's before the ECU started holding it back.

I agree with Paul but for a different reason.

the graph is bogus for the fact that the head work line is running 20 psi and the non head work line is running 17 psi.

changing from 17 up to 20 will get the gtrs up into its optimum flow range for the turbo and it will also ramp harder onto boost and therfor make more midrange and top end power.

however the top end power is fairly similar between before and after considering the extra 3 psi, so i would be a little dissapointed in the dolllars spent.

why did you pull the head off?

what went wrong?

I'm not going to keep arguing with you dude.

I made the graph for me of my car's dyno runs and how it reacted each time. Thats what it made on the dyno on the stock ECU with no tuning. The 190rwkw was at about 5000rpm or so judging by the graph. That's pretty much what it would make on some one elses car aswell running the turbo on a stock ECU. So it was relavent to me and maybe it will be relevant to other people thinking a similar setup will get good results, which clearly it didn't until it got the aftermarket ECU put into it.

Can you please just get over such a small thing, this wasn't the point of the thread.

I agree with Paul but for a different reason.

the graph is bogus for the fact that the head work line is running 20 psi and the non head work line is running 17 psi.

changing from 17 up to 20 will get the gtrs up into its optimum flow range for the turbo and it will also ramp harder onto boost and therfor make more midrange and top end power.

however the top end power is fairly similar between before and after considering the extra 3 psi, so i would be a little dissapointed in the dolllars spent.

why did you pull the head off?

what went wrong?

Head got pulled off because i did the valve springs after putting the cams in.

Your incorrect of your assumptions about my car. We ran the car on 20psi last time and it didn't get much better results hence we ran it on 17psi. A car that is ramping up on boost is not going to make more power down low because its peak boost has changed from 17psi to 20psi. The wastegate is shut below 3500 odd rpm, so the power increase down low is clearly not due to running more peak boost. Surely you know this and no i'm not dissapointed, it has a lot better over all power on the street, exactly what i wanted.

Can we PLEASE not turn this into a shit fight like every other thread turns into. I did the graph for my amusement, thought ppl might think its interesting. It's not an Engineering report into the air flow characterstics of a GTRS, it was my dyno graphs put onto one graph, that is all. Take from it what you want.

Edited by PM-R33

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...