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

    • Yeah, sort of blurring two different things together, aren't we? I just meant O2 feedback closed loop. I used to have a 0-1V LCD meter on my dash, wired directly to the O2 sensor signal. So you could easily see what it was doing. Normal running it would flick back and forth nicely. Slow down to an idle and it would keep flicking, as the ECU tried to servo to maintain stoich, but it would slow down as each swing happened until it would stay at one end of the scale. As I said above, the sensor heater is not enough to keep it hot enough when there is also little heat in the exhaust flow. Give it a blip and it would start swinging again, then peter out again. Meanwhile, idle speed control would run just fine, because unrelated.
    • It's not even O2 feedback, it's just simply when the ECU sees the closed TPS signal for whatever reason the idle will start steadily dropping until the engine dies. With the TPS adjusted to not trigger closed TPS it will idle at some ridiculously high RPM and something like 6 degrees of timing. In the absence of getting eyes on it personally and a lot of quality time doing diagnostics I couldn't tell you what the real problem was but it was interesting nonetheless
    • Oof. One of my mates has an R34 GT-R that he initially was a "I want to go twins for response and convenience" on his stock 2.6 with Kelford 272 cams, but his friends are pests and were always in his ear about their place being in the bin.   Eventually one of the 2860-5s decided to add it's own input and force his hand, so he conceded and went for a Pulsar 6262G ("G35 900") with T4 0.85 hotside.    Here's an overlay of the results, same cams, same stock bottom end, same boost, same fuel, just from a pretty tidy 2860-5 install to a Pulsar turbo on a 6boost maniifold on BP98.   Worth mentioning here, it may seem like a dead horse thing but the dyno plot doesn't tell the story of how much better it is to drive - transient response has completely changed the car, he used to have flat foot shifting to stop it having to wind up again on gear changes even at >7000rpm... now it builds boost faster than that even short shifting.   It's 100% transformed the car before you even consider how much better it holds on: Pulsar and Garrett aren't the same, but from our experience if you're just looking for a better drive and the ability to make the same or more power I think the divided G30 770 would probably be the smallest I'd go to.
    • Great work Duncan, any events local you will give it a test once all done? 
×
×
  • Create New...