Mercury Motor Sport Brilliance!

[kymbo]

Simply had to let everybody know that I believe Trent at Mercury Motorsport has totally perfected the R35 GTR tune.

With only a cold air intake, Mercury catted dumps, super high flow Mercury stainless mid pipe + Willal Ti cat back system and Trent's new custom tune, my GTR now tops out at 380.5 awkw. The previous tuner could only get 344.4 awkw with much the same hardware.

What is even more amazing is the massive increase through the power band and the linearity of the delivery from only 3,000 RPM right through to 7,000 RPM and this result is only using standard 98 RON fuel!

All up, Mercury have achieved this power increase from the original standard 262 awkw. That is 118.5 extra awkw!

Without even allowing for extra drive train loss and simply adding the awkw gain to the original factory at crank 357 kw, my car now has over 475 kw at the crank, or in old school over 640 HP!

So, a big thanks to Trent, his team and Luke, who fabricated a new Mercury Stainless Mid Pipe that can only be described as a true work of art.

Happy Days

Edited July 8, 2012 by kymbo

[domino_z]

Congrats, now it's time to embrace the e85

Bang on 85% ethanol straight out of the united pump in the middle of winter - cant ask for anything better than that

Was your stock car base run and previous tune done on the mercury dyno too?

Edited July 8, 2012 by domino_z

[Wardski]

Amazing..

I've been in this game long enough to know that Mercury doesn't have the best reputation around town, so good to know they might have actually done something right.

My mate's Evo X that Mercury "tried to tune" (went there brand new totally stock with 2000kms on the clock) is still having issues, and Mercury pretty much washed their hands having no idea how to fix all the CEL's that kept popping up, as well as the fact it runs pig rich, and has boost spike from here to Mars.

I just figure if they can't tune a $70k car, I wouldnt let them touch my GT-R with a 40' pole.. Anyways GL with it all.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Wardski

[NoFigJamHere]

If we take the Nissan advertised 357KW at the flywheel and your "claimed" base line run of 262AWKW thats a 36% power train loss. So your 380AWKW on the same dyno would equate to 516KW at the flywheel!!! I suggest you race another car with similar power to weight figures and see how you go.... All to often the dyno results seem to differ to the bitumen results.. Hope yours isnt the case but it seems exaggerated IMHO.

[NISMOGTT]

If we take the Nissan advertised 357KW at the flywheel and your "claimed" base line run of 262AWKW thats a 36% power train loss. So your 380AWKW on the same dyno would equate to 516KW at the flywheel!!! I suggest you race another car with similar power to weight figures and see how you go.... All to often the dyno results seem to differ to the bitumen results.. Hope yours isnt the case but it seems exaggerated IMHO.

no offense intended here so please dont take any.... drive train loss is not a percentage it is more a total figure...

the loss is the rotating mass of the parts from the flywheel to the road, this does not change by a percentage once you increase power, so if you loose 90KW at stock then you will only ever loose close to this when you power up maybe slightly more... so if you add 200kw you dont all of a sudden need 150kw to move the drivetrain if that makes sense.

please prove me wrong anyone in the know but this is how i understand physics.

Edited July 9, 2012 by NISMOGTT

[Wardski]

no offense intended here so please dont take any.... drive train loss is not a percentage it is more a total figure...

the loss is the rotating mass of the parts from the flywheel to the road, this does not change by a percentage once you increase power, so if you loose 90KW at stock then you will only ever loose close to this when you power up maybe slightly more... so if you add 200kw you dont all of a sudden need 150kw to move the drivetrain if that makes sense.

please prove me wrong anyone in the know but this is how i understand physics.

Obviously drivetrain loss is not linear through the power range. We all use a rough % to calculate it, but as far as I am aware the loss % reduces as you add more power into the equation - up to a certain point, and it also depends on a massive number of things in the equation (eg, transmission, clutches, thermal, mechanical limits, etc)

[kymbo]

Hi Guys

I bought the car new in June 2010. The base line run of 262 awkw was done on exactly the same Dyno in April 2011. The 344.4 awkw was done 6 weeks ago. So at least I know my car is 'calibrated' to this Dyno, so the measured improvements are far more accurate and real.

On that point, I have noticed in reading other threads that, other Dyno's seem to be giving higher base readings and the Mercury Dyno always seems to give a more conservative base result?

Trent now does all his own tunes instead of relying on staff. He spent 4 hours on my car last Friday night until Midnight, now that's what I call client service!

As a qualified 'Mechanical Engineer' as apposed to just a Motor Mechanic, I believe he has the technical know how to get it right. Especially in the weird area of electronic software mapping.

Keep in mind, my car still has Cat's and is running on 98 RON. The stock turbo's are now running at a peak of 18 PSI. Everything runs perfectly with the standard everything, such as injectors and pump etc, etc.

I suggest if anybody has any doubts, contact Trent at Mercury for a copy of my Dyno sheet and he can explain how it is done!

[handbrake]

good to hear Kymbo.

Trent is a good guy, as is the whole mercury team.

He's even staying back tomorrow night with Luke and myself to help make the composite parts for my car. now thats dedication!

how many workshops are in-house building an entire car including mechanical work and custom metal / composite fabrication. not to mention trackside support.