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

    • I have no hard data to report, but I have to say, having driven it to work and back all week, mostly on wet roads (and therefore mostly not able to contemplate anything too outrageous anywhere)..... it is real good. I turned the boost controller on, with duty cycle set to 10% (which may not be enough to actually increase the boost), and the start boost set to 15 psi. That should keep the gate unpressurised until at least 15 psi. And rolling at 80 in 5th, which is <2k rpm, going to WOT sees the MAP go +ve even before it crosses 2k and it has >5 psi by the time it hits 90 km/h. That's still <<2.5k rpm, so I think it's actually doing really well. Because of all the not-quite-ideal things that have been in place since the turbo first went on, it felt laggy. It's actually not. The response appears to be as good as you could hope for with a highflow.
    • Or just put in a 1JZ, and sell me the NEO head 😎
    • Oh, it's been done. You just run a wire out there and back. But they have been known to do coolant temp sensors, MAP sensors, etc. They're not silly (at Regency Park) and know what's what with all the different cars.
    • Please ignore I found the right way of installing it thanks
    • There are advantages, and disadvantages to remapping the factory.   The factory runs billions of different maps, to account for sooooo many variables, especially when you bring in things like constantly variable cams etc. By remapping all those maps appropriately, you can get the car to drive so damn nicely, and very much so like it does from the factory. This means it can utilise a LOT of weird things in the maps, to alter how it drives in situations like cruise on a freeway, and how that will get your fuel economy right down.   I haven't seen an aftermarket ECU that truly has THAT MANY adjustable parameters. EG, the VAG ECUs are somewhere around 2,000 different tables for it to work out what to do at any one point in time. So for a vehicle being daily driven etc, I see this as a great advantage, but it does mean spending a bit more time, and with a tuner who really knows that ECU.   On the flip side, an aftermarket ECU, in something like a weekender, or a proper race car, torque based tuning IMO doesn't make that much sense. In those scenarios you're not out there hunting down stuff like "the best way to minimise fuel usage at minor power so that we can go from 8L/100km to 7.3L/100km. You're more worried about it being ready to make as much freaking power as possible when you step back on the loud pedal as you come out of turn 2, not waiting the extra 100ms for all the cams to adjust etc. So in this scenario, realistically you tune the motor to make power, based on the load. People will then play with things like throttle response, and drive by wire mapping to get it more "driveable".   Funnily enough, I was watching something Finnegans Garage, and he has a huge blown Hemi in a 9 second 1955 Chev that is road registered. To make it more driveable on the road recently, they started testing blocking up the intake with kids footballs, to effectively reduce air flow when they're on the road, and make the throttle less touchy and more driveable. Plus some other weird shit the yankee aftermarket ECUs do. Made me think of Kinks R34...
×
×
  • Create New...