Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Dead stock the car made 115rwkw then with a little bit of fiddling (timing etc) it made 125rwkw.

First Dyno..

152rwkw with 12.5psi & exhaust.

Stock airbox, ECU & IC.

Ran in 3rd gear.. why I don't know.

Second Dyno..

164rwkw with 15psi, exhaust, fmic & bosch910 fuel pump.

Stock airbox & ECU.

Ran in 4th gear..

Also have a run in third gear which made almost the same power (-3rwkw) so gears don't affect the final power output much at all.

In fact a higher gear made more power than the lower gears.

I questioned why and was told in the higher gear the turbo has more time to start pushing some decent air.

-----

Not much more to be had with the poor little old RB20t turbo..

Obviously runs out of efficiency hence not a big gain from 12.5psi -> 15psi.

Tuned ECU and I think it would have cracked 170rwkw easily.

Can someone explain to me why -Joel's- dyno graphs are different in the way that the power curve is. The second graph seems to shoot up faster than the first ?

-Joel- were these runs done in 2 different gears, first run being 3rd a second run being 4th ?

:confused: - Or are these 2 differnt engines ?

They are two different gears as I explained in the post.

I think the biggest reason why the first one looks a little less steep is because the bleeder was probably spiking a little through the mid range and settling on 12.5psi + the lower gear giving the impression it has more mid range.

The second dyno sat on a steady 1bar all the way through the power run and made peak power just over 7000rpm.

Its probably also got a little to do witht he ramp rate or something also as it was wheel spinning when coming on to boost even with a couple of people in the boot (crappy half bald 205's).

Theoretically running a car in different gear will yield a different looking power curve BUT the final power should be basically the same.

Can someone explain to me why -Joel's- dyno graphs are different in the way that the power curve is.

It's just the way they are scaled.

Look at the figures on the bottom and side of the graph.

The first one starts goes from 50 to 130 kmh and power is measured from 40 to 168kw.

The second graph is from 70 to 150 kmh and the power is from 70 to 165kw, but the kw axis is stretched.

If you scaled the kmh axis from 60 kmh to 160 kmh on the second graph, it would look like a very fat power curve.

  • 1 month later...

Apex'i PFC

Z32 AFM

GTR injectors

FMIC

Full exhaust

Pod

HKS GT2535

Stainless manifold

11 psi

It does'nt have the power because of low boost.

- Red lines are on 11psi with no boost controller conected.

- Green lines are with the shitty Turbo Smart boost controller connected and set at 16psi.As you can see boost is all over the place.

I hope to have 300rwhp once boost is turned up.

HYPER31%20214rwhp.JPG

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


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Version 1 aluminium airbox is.......not acceptable No pics as I "didn't like the look.....alot" Even after all my "CAD", and measurements, the leg near the fusebox just didn't sit right as it ended up about 10mm long and made the angle of the dangle look wrong, the height was a little short as well, meh, I wasn't that confident that Version 1 was going to be an instant winner I might give Version 2 another go, there's plenty of aluminium at work, but, after having in on and off a few times, and laying in the old OEM airbox without the new pod filter and MAF, there may be an option to modify the OEM air box and still use the Autoexe front cover and filter.... maybe This >  Needs to fit in here, but using the panel, and not the pod, the MAF will need to fit in the airbox though> I'm thinking as the old OEM box and Autoexe cover that is sitting in the shed is just sitting around doing nothing, and they are relatively abundant and cheap to replace if I mess it up and need another, it may well fit with some modifications to how the Autoexe brackets mounts to the rad support, and some dremiling to move it get in there, should give me some more room for activities, as I don't want to move the MAF and affect the tune Sealing the hole it requires to stick it in the air box is simple, a tight fit and some pinch weld will seal it up tight  I am calling this a later problem though
    • and it ends up being already priced in as though you're just on 91RON without any ethanol. Car will lose a bit of economy as the short and long term fuel trims bring down the AFR back to stoich or whatever it is for cruise/idle for the engine.  
    • Oh, you are right. But, in Australia E10 is based on 91RON fuel and ends up being 94RON. Hence it being the cheaper option for economy cars. The more performance oriented cars go for the 98RON fuel that has no ethanol mixed in. The only step up we have left then at some petrol stations is E85.
    • There is a warning that "this thread is super old" but they ignore that anyway...
    • With 10% Ethanol, we're talking 2-3% fuel consumption difference. The emissions reductions and octane boost in my opinion far outweigh this almost non existent loss.    My tanks sitting at 80%. Luckily that should go down fast as I'm on vacation again for the next two weeks. 
×
×
  • Create New...