Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

agreed that dyno figures can be somewhat misleading but i believe you can get a rough estimate from a dyno graph, and thus, they are a tuning tool - i wouldnt class them as being an accurate reader of power.

comments about track times are abit more valid however i wanted to say that an ET is sometimes pointless aswell. the best indicator of power is the terminal speed.

fwiw, i have recorded a 199.5rwkw on c&v's dynodynamics dyno. ran a 13.8s ET with a 2.1sec 60ft and 99mph terminal speed. goes to show that the car was tuned for mid-range...

mods are as follows:

-powerfc

-avcr @ 0.8bar

-fmic

-full exhaust

-stock airbox with hiflow air filter

Yep, dynos are tuning tools. I dunno if I'd say ETs are pointless. I'd say all 3 individual measurements are pointless when stated on their own. Eg, no point having a 140mph TS if the best ET you can get is mid 11 when its capable of a low 10.

First time at the track I ran 14.3@98mph with a 60' of 2.4. Best 60' on the day was 2.3. Only mod was a cat back zorst. I installed a K&N panel and made 126rwkw on BMT's dyno.

I then added a few bits'n'pieces and made 140rwkw then ran a 13.8@101mph with a 60' of 2.2 on almost unroadworthy 205 tyres. From this visit to the track I learnt that TYRES are the best mod anyone can invest in coz my 60' times were almost unaffected and now wheelspin is an issue in second gear. Mods were: bleeder @ ~10psi, full exhaust (crappy cat tho), stock airbox with K&N panel filter.

I've since upped the boost to 13psi and had a chipped ecu put in. It made 153rwkw. Just waiting for a set of wheels to arrive with new tyres and I'm aiming for a low 13 ET. To achieve this I'll need a sub 2s 60' and maybe a few more mph. I've personally spent just over $1K on mods. I'll be spending more than that on tyres alone.

with same mods as others eg exh, ecu, fmic, pod, stock turbo and engine i got 270hp or 201kw. with a 2.234 60' , 102.04mph i had an elapsed time of 13.571

id say i could have done better with a better clutch set up, but thats the same old story. id say that would be on par with rest of the state and maybe your problem is with gtst-vspec not WA. so what if he hasnt ran a et for your benefit, just somthing to consider. I hope im able to put a spin on things :headspin:

Is it just me or is 99 and 102mph terminal speeds a bit on the low side for 200rwkw skylines? (Referring to RBVS and Franks) My best TS was 106.5mph and thats with 165rwkw (on 2 different dynos), granted my car is only 100kg lighter, albeit with a longer diff??

Hrmmm... maybe dyno figures arent all that reliable...

Btw cameron, your car is really running knife edge AFRs for the street! Especially that green line. When that fuel pump goes in, try not to go over 12:1 so you can have a little margin of protection!!

Is it just me or is 99 and 102mph terminal speeds a bit on the low side for 200rwkw skylines? (Referring to RBVS and Franks)  My best TS was 106.5mph and thats with 165rwkw (on 2 different dynos), granted my car is only 100kg lighter, albeit with a longer diff??

Hrmmm... maybe dyno figures arent all that reliable...

:uh-huh: :uh-huh:

my best TS is 108mph but that was a 13.6, other factors come into play with TS.

yes all dynos are going to read differnt and they are only tools its all been said befor. but who's to say my reading was true and yours were low or the other way round. cars can also be tuned differnt, you may have more bottom end or midrange than i have peak. what ET did you get? maybe your getting better performance with a lower peak out put.

what quarter mile do you guys reckon i would get

It is almost impossible to determine what quarter mile times/speeds you're going to achieve by looking at a dyno reading.

2 examples from earlier in this thread: I ran a 14.3@98mph with a dyno reading of 126rwkw, you ran 14.1@103mph with 162rwkw. I ran a 13.8@101mph with 144rwkw, Franks ran a 13.8@99mph with 199rwkw. I'm not sure how much clearer these examples can be.

Its not just the final dyno figure that matters, its everything that happens in the rev range as well.

It is almost impossible to determine what quarter mile times/speeds you're going to achieve by looking at a dyno reading.

2 examples from earlier in this thread: I ran a 14.3@98mph with a dyno reading of 126rwkw, you ran 14.1@103mph with 162rwkw. I ran a 13.8@101mph with 144rwkw, Franks ran a 13.8@99mph with 199rwkw. I'm not sure how much clearer these examples can be.  

Its not just the final dyno figure that matters, its everything that happens in the rev range as well.

... just to clarify, the power level when i ran 13.8s was not at 199rwkw it was more like 187rwkw...and i have an R34 which is also slightly heavier than a R33.

funny the dyno thing really. I am a long time detractor of it's road going merits as a comparison between cars. It's a good tuning tool as a relative guide thats it. The air temp is adjusted for in the shootout mode from memory however the fact that you are stuck with lower timing and boost settings effects the power to a degree the software can't predict. The right way to do power runs is with the bonnet down and there are plenty of places that don't do that.

I had mine tuned a little the other day and got about 240rwhp, it was a 55deg intake temp day in the booth and I did the run with the bonnet down and boost at about 10psi. AFR's were left in the low 11's. 235 rwhp in mine got me the 13.3 @106mph previously. So my 235rwhp is more power than everyone else's 280rwhp (talking stock turbos). Sounds stupid doesn't it? Yep dyno comparisons have just entered the special olympics as an event.

the runs we did with 184kw and 162kw were all done with the bonnet down.

the quarter mile run we did with a slipping clutch was the last run of the night. we got a 60ft of 2.3 and 14.1 1/4 ET at 103mph TS.

that wasent launching because of wheelspin. it was more slow off the line and floor it....

what tires do you guys recomend to use to get better traction ? because we have heavy duty clutch and can launch it.

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

    • 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.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
    • Can you also make sure the invoices on the box (And none exist in the boxes) are below our import duty limits... I jest, there's nothing I need to actually purchase and order in. (Unless you can find me a rear diff carrier, brand new, for stupidly cheap, that is for a Toyota Landcruiser, HZJ105R GXL, 2000 year model...)  
×
×
  • Create New...