Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Injector duty cycle to calculate rough power figure VS actual Dyno graph

So, might seem like a dumb question. I know there is a formula for it... Just not sure which is correct. or the math....

If I am seeing a max injector duty cycle of 82% on 700cc injectors (Rb26 - base fuel pressure), in theory, can you compare this calculated HP figure to that of what the Dyno reads out?

Would i say that 1cc = 1HP, so 0.82% of 700CC = 574HP

Is that fairly accurate?

# never was good at math's

Edited by djvoodoo

Engine horsepower, yes.  Not chassis dyno horsepower.

FI cars run richer so you may not get quite as much as 1HP per CC.  But good enough for estimating injector requirements.  Maybe slightly less reliable for what you're asking about.

So give or take, we'll say 82% duty cycle on 700cc is roughly 520-550 engine HP. At the wheels you'd be looking at mabee 420ish (or about 315rwkw)

More to the point - What if the dyno reads quite low compared to what you are seeing max injector wise? Can they be compared? I'm guessing fuelling and how much fuel is dialled in at the top end is also a factor which can skew duty?. Lets just say i'm running about 11.5 to 11.8 in the top end AFR's.

In more just curious at how many different ways you can calculate wheel HP other than just a dyno number.

I always thought it was 5cc of fuel was required per horse power, so a 550cc injector is good for 110hp per cylinder then multiplied by 6 cylinders was 660hp then times it by .8 if you want to only use 80% duty cycle is 528hp

There is never going to be an exact science but obviously there has to be something close otherwise picking the correct injector would be s stab in the dark 

The fairly rough rule, particularly true for RBs, at least RB26s, is that (given 6 injectors) then the cc size of a single injector is the maximum engine power supported by those injectors.  Factory 440cc injectors will run up to about 440HP.  Plus or minus the usual range of variables of course.  It's rough but good enough.

yes rough rule for approximating the size of injector you need.. but the OP wants to determine how much power his car is making based on injector DC.. that's obsurd.. just as obsurd as a moron on a Facebook page telling someone to install a resistor pack on their high impednace injectors because their car won't crank over.

You can actually do a better job if you can measure the airflow rather than the fuel flow.  Do you have afm's? If you can convert the voltage to a flow you can google any number of calculators to convert the air flow to rwhp or engine hp or whatever.

1 hour ago, djr81 said:

You can actually do a better job if you can measure the airflow rather than the fuel flow.  Do you have afm's? If you can convert the voltage to a flow you can google any number of calculators to convert the air flow to rwhp or engine hp or whatever.

I'm using MAP sensor. May as well do a data log session on the Vipec and look at air flow.

you want to work out power, drag strip.

x weight can going so y speed in z time and k distance (factor in some basic air drag) - that is much more accurate then working out how much power a motor makes based on air flow and fuel usage.

You need to remember a motor is not 100% efficient, and x air/fuel does not equate to a direct 100% energy transfer to mechanical energy - there are losses such as heat due to inefficiencies.

1 hour ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

you want to work out power, drag strip.

x weight can going so y speed in z time and k distance (factor in some basic air drag) - that is much more accurate then working out how much power a motor makes based on air flow and fuel usage.

You need to remember a motor is not 100% efficient, and x air/fuel does not equate to a direct 100% energy transfer to mechanical energy - there are losses such as heat due to inefficiencies.

Certainly will do bud. Just have to work out when!!!

5 hours ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

you want to work out power, drag strip.

x weight can going so y speed in z time and k distance (factor in some basic air drag) - that is much more accurate then working out how much power a motor makes based on air flow and fuel usage.

You need to remember a motor is not 100% efficient, and x air/fuel does not equate to a direct 100% energy transfer to mechanical energy - there are losses such as heat due to inefficiencies.

The correlation between air flow and horsepower is much closer than that between terminal speed and horsepower.  You don't, for example need to compensate for such minor things as drag coefficients, frontal area, gear change, traction, engine torque characteristics etc etc. 

11 hours ago, djr81 said:

The correlation between air flow and horsepower is much closer than that between terminal speed and horsepower.  You don't, for example need to compensate for such minor things as drag coefficients, frontal area, gear change, traction, engine torque characteristics etc etc. 

+1.  And again, anything you use to estimate "power" is going to be "estimated engine horsepower", not hp @ wheels - and I know from experience that often the calculated results often get heavily question because by nature of how crazy low Oz dynos read the crank hp results which get calculated if done correctly are often much higher than people expect from typical @ wheels readings on a Dyno Dynamics.

A thing no one has mentioned here is fuel as well, if you treat the % duty cycle of x size injector = hp described above for 6 cylinder turbos and are running E85 you will get very optimistic results :)

 

 

  • Like 1

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


  • Latest Posts

    • From experience, it will come back to bite you haha.
    • Background: my BMW 225i hatchback (rebodied MINI/X1) came with 3x RE003 and 1x Goodyear Asymmetric something. The RE003 roared and slid around, the Goodyear side was quiet and grippy. Definitely my car was thrashed before it got sent to dealers. My brother also got RE003 all round on his old VA WRX STI, I wasn't impressed with them, car was loud so can't comment on noise. Anyway, Hankook stopped making/updating V12 Evo2. So bought S1 Evo3 runflats. Great daily duties tyre and not that harsh ride. Tyre reviews site/youtube rated them as best stopping in the rain and I believe them. Next set, Goodyear Asymmetric 5 non-RFT. It beat PS4 in tests and is like $100 cheaper, so put them on. Great tyre, more grip then S1 Evo3 but a tad noisier as expected, still rocking them. Next set I am looking to go runflats, probably the new Hankook Evo. Although the new Pirelli PZ5 did well in tyrereviews test. Or go Goodyear Asymmetric 6 which was top tyre last year. The V12 Evo2 on my gen5 Liberty GT wagon did great in cold condition (drove to snowy mountains for a day so my husky can feel his ancestor's roots). Super impressive performance for $120 each lol. Never skimp on tyres, brakes, suspension. There's old pics of my R31's crappy random brake pads bending in the caliper at Oran Park track day somewhere around here. Anyway, my 2 cents.
    • I said "Matlab clone". I could throw one onto one of my linux VMs. Probably only take 10 or 20 hours to sort out the dependencies, relearn how to use it, etc etc.
    • Hi all, got myself a 400R end of last year. Few tasteful mods done so far. Love the thing. Has anyone got any suggestions for sourcing bodykit parts for them over here???
×
×
  • Create New...