Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Anyway of comparing torque figures from 2 different dynos?

See attached images. Old graph (Dyno Dynamics), with higher power and lower torque was done 3-4yrs ago using SAFC and SITC.

The only change, new graph on Mainlne, was a Nistune, so I could have some proper off boost/part throttle behaviour and smooth out that torque dip (through controlling the inlet butterflies properly).

Is there any way to compare the very different torque readings wit the info at hand? 

Cam.thumb.JPG.19ac6512cfead26d97f8cc93b12b6b38.JPG

 

 

received_469312163404959.thumb.jpeg.b6529dae1e9cd21c20f29da9f23d168f.jpeg

received_469312170071625.thumb.jpeg.24a343999129b10d94628550a06caac1.jpeg

Just back calculate a torque number from the power using the normal formula.  It won't be numerically correct, but because it comes from the only thing that actually matters (power at the roller) at least you're starting from the same basis* and can draw graphs to compare.

 

*of course, excepting the different dynos, operators, tyres, years in between, etc etc etc.

I have torque numbers from both dynos. They are very different (360Nm vs 550 or so). 

I know power is just a function of torque vs revs, but given these dynos do various corrections to get their numbers, I have no idea how to apply anything to either number to find something meaningful between them. 

 

 

 

It's because the operator on the Mainline didn't use an inductive pickup OR setup the derived RPM via syncing RPM.

Once that is enabled you can select show 'Derived Torque' 

/Thread 

Even when plugging figures into calculators with known RPM, the output is not like either graph. 

All smoke and mirrors. 

Oh well, see how it goes Sunday and will just hope that a smoother graph means a better car to drive (yes i know graphs can be smoothed also).

Also the power diffence is sfa when considering its 2 differnt dynos on 2 different days, I'd love to see the boost plot from the dd run as a tiny overboost would explain the hump around 4g on the dd graph

Also the 550nm mainline number in this case would definitely be the bs number as with out a rpm trace there's no way it can give torque reading with reference to the engine

 

  • Like 1

If you are not measuring the same car on the same dyno on the same day a good way of telling the improvement is to compare say 80 to 120 km/hr times - too late for you now of course. Does the car feel better to drive now?

1 hour ago, Scott Black said:

Also the power diffence is sfa when considering its 2 differnt dynos on 2 different days, I'd love to see the boost plot from the dd run as a tiny overboost would explain the hump around 4g on the dd graph

Also the 550nm mainline number in this case would definitely be the bs number as with out a rpm trace there's no way it can give torque reading with reference to the engine

 

Boom! Someone that knows :)

Quick report from track day. 

Car felt gutless, no surge of torque when it comes on boost. Also a little bit pinging somewhere up in 3rd, was not logging so cannot tell. Had a few misses/hesitation when cornering (car has surge tank setup) though tuner did note fuel pressure was fluctuating quite a bit with temperature. 

Despite the car feeling gutless and less powerful than I remember it (a few years ago) the max top speed down the straight was identical and the lap time was within 1 tenth of the previous PB 0_0

 

 

Given the max top speed was the same, I'd say so. 

Though I need my old phone to look at the Race Chrono data and see if the corner exit speed onto the straight is the same to be sure. 

Not after seeing GT-Rs "economy" on e85 and the fact I can't get it here. Annoying enough bringing back 80L at ta time for the GTR (which ate 140L at winton...) 

Silvia wouldn't be as bad, but still. That means injectors and a full retune on e85, or additional e-flex sensor then really should go to proper boost control etc etc. 

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

    • 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...