Mike B Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Hi Everyone. Managed to get my car on a Dyno recently as you will all have read in the other thread, and the most interesting compare for me is Jay's chart, both are shown below (hope you don't mind Jay ) We are both using almost exactly the same spec; VVTi, turbo (and .68 housing), built engine (same internals), 6speed, and more importantly same gear used on the same dyno. We use different ecu's, FMIC's and possibly different cams, although both are 264 ish. Have a look at the respective dyno plots... Mine makes more power at the bottom end of the rev range, but Jay makes a LOT more at the upper end... and what makes me really scratch my head is that Jay's torque and power get a real kick at 5500... All Dynos I have seen show torque tailing off towards the end of the rev range, but Jay's dips at 5500, then gets a magic kick and starts climbing again! why do you think that is? Could it be VVTi? edit; both cars at 1.3 bar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jevansio Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Course I don't mind Funnily enough I asked Dan about that blip I get at 5500, his explaination was that around that area he has pulled some timing out (to combat pre-ignition), after 5500 the condition went away & he could add the timing back in. Also I'm non-vvti. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean1933 Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Very interesting. What are the actual differences between the two cars, ie which cams/ecu/FMIC's (and are either of your FMIC's ducted?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jevansio Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Also I run a Greddy inlet manifold, how much power will that release on a circa 500 bhp car. And were you running the WI on those runs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Mike I remember hearing something about your ECU was tuned to make the car perform a bit more like an N/A power curve. Bit tame with the .68 housing ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean1933 Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Also I run a Greddy inlet manifold, how much power will that release on a circa 500 bhp car. And were you running the WI on those runs? The inlet explains a chunk of the increased power, it also explains the slight extra lag down low in comparision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike B Posted November 10, 2007 Author Share Posted November 10, 2007 Jay uses aem, 264in/ex, I use HKS valcon VVTi in, 264 ex. yeah, I used W/I thoughout. I pulled timing on mine and it made little difference to the HP. and jay's in not VVTI now I am really scratching my head... Jay "harry potter" vaniso!! let us all know the spell you use on that top end lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike B Posted November 10, 2007 Author Share Posted November 10, 2007 Mike I remember hearing something about your ECU was tuned to make the car perform a bit more like an N/A power curve. Bit tame with the .68 housing ? It is tame, with .68, but it's the same housing as Jay, When I get use of my hands back properly I will swap for the .82 housing as I have not tried it yet. if you look at my powercurve it looks kite an n/a! but ho can you tune it to do this? at wot surely you just have no choice but to map what goes in the intake manifold regardless.. how could you tune it to be more like an n/a...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jevansio Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Is it not then a combination of the inlet & the WI maybe sapping a little power (for safeties sake)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Isn't the difference that Jay's car has actually had the ECU mapped for his specific setup whereas Mike's car has been left to let ECU auto-tune itself? I would think that changing the turbo and then expecting the ECU to adjust its map to suit the new turbo is going to result in a less than optimum set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike B Posted November 10, 2007 Author Share Posted November 10, 2007 Possibly.... If I get good response from the bigger housing I will go back and turn the w/i off. I can't notice any difference in throttle intervention using it anyway; don't really recon it does much! We'll find out if I go back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean1933 Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 WI wont sap power, in cools the intake temps and releases oxygen, therefore leaning the mixture but reducing the chances of det due to lower temperatures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike B Posted November 10, 2007 Author Share Posted November 10, 2007 Isn't the difference that Jay's car has actually had the ECU mapped for his specific setup whereas Mike's car has been left to let ECU auto-tune itself? I would think that changing the turbo and then expecting the ECU to adjust its map to suit the new turbo is going to result in a less than optimum set up. yes, but the afrs are absolutely bang on.. not a whiff of incompatability... Reg did say that he would prefer do a remap on it as opposed to let it re-learn, he would do for it's his living, but I'm sure there is some truth in it. It's a complicated system and I dare say he could pull some more hp out of it if he re-did it.. he says he has a lot of softwear upgrades to put in it regardless. Just the cost of flying him over is hard to stomach when it runs so well and safe anyway. 1500 quid in tuning fees for an extra 30 bhp would not be so amusing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 It is tame, with .68, but it's the same housing as Jay, When I get use of my hands back properly I will swap for the .82 housing as I have not tried it yet. if you look at my powercurve it looks kite an n/a! but ho can you tune it to do this? at wot surely you just have no choice but to map what goes in the intake manifold regardless.. how could you tune it to be more like an n/a...? Wind back the timing where the turbo kicks in and reduce the sudden increase of power. Dimitri did this a bit on mine, make it a lot easier to control mid to exit on a fast corner. The gain control on some boost controllers have this effect also. Hope you see a good increase in BHP on the .82 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike B Posted November 10, 2007 Author Share Posted November 10, 2007 Wind back the timing where the turbo kicks in and reduce the sudden increase of power. Dimitri did this a bit on mine, make it a lot easier to control mid to exit on a fast corner. The gain control on some boost controllers have this effect also. Hope you see a good increase in BHP on the .82 Ah,.... thanks for explaining.. that makes sense. I keep wanting to change my sig.. but it's true; I'm always learning!! The .96 divided has a lot more power, but the throttle response is bad, really bad! maybe .82 will be the answer.. I nearly sold it to Jake, I knew somehow I would end up using it.. sorry bud! ext temps should come down further too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan.G Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Isn't the difference that Jay's car has actually had the ECU mapped for his specific setup whereas Mike's car has been left to let ECU auto-tune itself? Nope Jays is 'Auto - Tuned' also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan.G Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 The midrange will be better on yours mike due to the VVTI adjusting the valve timing and the peak power on jays will almost definatly be down to the Greddy manifold. As found an extra 42bhp recently on a car i have mapped which has just changed to a greddy manifold. The VE after 5k is dramatically changed with aftermarket intakes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike B Posted November 10, 2007 Author Share Posted November 10, 2007 The midrange will be better on yours mike due to the VVTI adjusting the valve timing and the peak power on jays will almost definatly be down to the Greddy manifold. As found an extra 42bhp recently on a car i have mapped which has just changed to a greddy manifold. The VE after 5k is dramatically changed with aftermarket intakes Really?!! tht's a hell of a difference; i had no idea stock intakes were so restrictive over 500. That's a big difference, and a good mod to have if you are getting so much more top end on a medium sized turbo. how much are the greddy intakes then?? one more question.. although the vvti is giving me more low and midrange, should it not also have an effect on the top end... the asprirated vvti's seem to revel in their extra top end power... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suprafan72 Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 I have to agree with Ryan really... Im putting down the difference to mapping techniques.. Studying the timeing and fuelling curves of my new map compared to my old one says it all.. Allso my boost break is coming in allot sooner now after ryan has sorted out my pre-spool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike B Posted November 11, 2007 Author Share Posted November 11, 2007 I have to agree with Ryan really... Im putting down the difference to mapping techniques.. Studying the timing and fuelling curves of my new map compared to my old one says it all.. Allso my boost break is coming in allot sooner now after ryan has sorted out my pre-spool. Hmmm... not sure I agree.... I get more low end than jay, he's just whipping me top end, the manifold does go somewhere to explaining this. Poor mapping can explain poor spool, but I think it's less likely to be the root cause at the top end. 538 is not bad, and if I want more I could always push it to 1.5bar from 1.3. Reading up on the greddy intake it may mean the removal of the etcs which would remove the saftey net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suprafan72 Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 Hmmm... not sure I agree.... I get more low end than jay, he's just whipping me top end, the manifold does go somewhere to explaining this. Poor mapping can explain poor spool, but I think it's less likely to be the root cause at the top end. 538 is not bad, and if I want more I could always push it to 1.5bar from 1.3. Reading up on the greddy intake it may mean the removal of the etcs which would remove the saftey net. Take your point... but poor mapping can allso relate to crappy top end too.. especially if your timing is out.. I agree in this situation it may not be totally responsible into the differences your seeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean1933 Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 As i previously said and as Ryan confirmed, the Greddy inlet will have effected the low end grunt and given more uptop power. However how agressive the timing map is will effect TE (Thermal efficiency), therefore effecting VE, therefore effecting the mechanical power produced. (Thought i better make my 1000th post a useful one !) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.