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

    • Block bump. $400. As above cyl 6 needs bore or sleeve.
    • I would think making the argument that the travel is limited by a spring flexing against a spring perch as "the same method". Later on in the document they do state that the spring can't bind on full bump travel and cannot come loose in full rebound travel as well. (which is all very sensible). The laws are actually pretty sensible and reasonable. It's just that the people who enforce and check them don't actually read them or know them accurately. "Oh, coilovers? Instant fail mate. Don't even need to look at it." - Guy who will be instantly reported by me. There is probably merit to people who do get defected for height also get defected for the suspension in that state that allows it. I did never consider the people who are complaining about coilovers being picked on are also running around at 50mm off the floor.
    • I think given SAU's knowledge of E85 we can strongly conclude that 10% ethanol in almost any situation is entirely fine. Almost all of the myths against E85 were overblown, let alone E10.
    • From your link See bold text, is this referring to damper settings, if so that may a issue for "some" inspectors, I cannot see aftermarket coilovers having the evidence that "must be available that its functional performance is equivalent to the original" Maybe just remove the adjustment knows and hope for the best???? Meh 5.2 Suspension travel In all instances, modifications to a vehicle’s suspension must ensure the integrity of the system and not compromise the ride quality. At least two thirds of the original suspension travel should be maintained in both directions (rebound (i.e. extension) and bump (i.e. compression)), and rebound must be limited by the same method used by the vehicle manufacturer or if this is not practicable due to the nature of the modification, an equivalent method. If an alternative method is used, evidence must be available that its functional performance is equivalent to the original.
    • They actually don't - They adhere to VSB14 rules just like Victoria. The rules are against CABIN adjustable height, and it quite clearly states that the height has to be within parameters. I asked the VASS engineer to confirm this when I got my car engineered and they refused to engineer the coilovers because they didn't meet the requirements for requiring engineering. (mine are height adjustable.) People "Not wanting to bother" with "Actually reading/knowing/adhering to the rules" should result in fines and immediately losing the ability to issue blue slips and/or RWC's in Vic.
×
×
  • Create New...