Lancer Register Forum banner
1 - 20 of 158 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
OK To stir things up a bit....
My car was on ND engine dyno last week and Saturday at WRC.
The only change is fuel (not sure what SUL Simon used, I filled with BP SUL)
TOP power figers are consistent with common wizdom - from the WRC - 380, Engine dyno - 506, i.e 25% loss.
But.....
comparing the graphs, there is a different picture:
Here is comarative table of the results and the trans loss varies between 18% and 69% (!) depending on RPM.
I have no idea what the explanation is, but here you go:

WRS---E. Dyno (ND)
RPM----HP(ATW)---HP(FW)-------Loss
2500----50------------79--------------37%
2750----65------------138-------------53%
3000----75------------216-------------65%
3250----88------------280-------------69%
3500----115----------331-------------65%
3750----157----------359-------------56%
4000----215----------378-------------43%
4250----290----------397-------------27%
4500----339----------420-------------19%
4750----361----------440-------------18%
5000----371----------458-------------19%
5250----378----------470-------------20%
5500----380----------480-------------21%
5750----380----------487-------------22%
6000----374----------494-------------24%
6250----355----------498-------------29%
6500--------------------500
6750--------------------502
7000--------------------502

Deda has attached this image:


Last edited by Deda on 11-04-2005 at 01:11



SpeedAddict


Fatman, absolutely SPOT ON! You can NOT compare figures that are taken during steady state to those done during a run. I wasn't aware that this is how the figures are produced on Norris' dyno!

Below 4500 RPM on the Norris graph the BHP occurs 700 - 800 RPM earlier this would have a massive impact on any torque figures cauculated, it also implies to the uninformed that the engine is low lag

SMITHY500 not slaging your engine off, with 2.3 L it still must be quicker than mine

BUT

The big question?

Are you brave enough to put up a graph as Oleg did

Whats your 0-100 MPH time

Still think you missed a big oppertunity at the weekend mate to put the record straight on a level playing field.

But enjoy it

Speed addict, thanks I was begining to think I was going nuts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
Fatman,
2.3L still produce far better torque curve than 2.0 (obvious).
If you look at the RR overall figures, my BHP was 6th result overall, but tractive effort - 4th.
Would be nice to see comparisson in MLR Moded section once the last results are there.
This will give better drivability and better acceleration.

Cheers,
Oleg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Deda said:
Fatman,
2.3L still produce far better torque curve than 2.0 (obvious).
If you look at the RR overall figures, my BHP was 6th result overall, but tractive effort - 4th.
Would be nice to see comparisson in MLR Moded section once the last results are there.
This will give better drivability and better acceleration.

Cheers,
Oleg
Agree 100%

What were your feelings over your Norris graph, were you expecting more torque because of it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Sorry m8 i have only just found this tread my car will be on the rollers very soon just dont worry yourself,you have to remember i have been through all the turbos so i know what power is,just wait and see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
smithy500 said:
Sorry m8 i have only just found this tread my car will be on the rollers very soon just dont worry yourself,you have to remember i have been through all the turbos so i know what power is,just wait and see.
I am sure thats a very nice car to drive M8

Just think it would be nice to compare it on a level playing field, are you going on the rollars at WRC silverstone?

Tried timing a 0-100 yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I've been reading these posts for a while now and all I seem to see is one person trying to have a dig at one or two others.

My question to Fatman is,

1. Have you ever been in a car with a proper Norris engine :confused:
2. Have you ever come up against a car that has a proper Norris engine :confused:
3. Do you know of anyone who has not been happy with an ND engine or Mod.
4. If the Norris figures for the dyno are so wrong can you please explain how he achieves the 0-60, 0-100, quarter mile and top speeds with less power than other evos are quoting in the tuning circle, these have been run on both AVA and G-Force but I see no mention of that. :confused:
This is in NOT a dig at other tuners or privet individuals but I had to ask the question because this just seems like a one man crusade to pi88 people off :rolleyes: .

Question No 4 relates to your fascination with 0-100 times ?

The final thing I would say is this, look at what your car has had done and the money you must have spent, I think that's enough said !!! :crackup:
13. Forum ID : Rob
Car Model : VII GSR
Performance Modifications : Autronics + BB turbo etc
ECU Mapper : NR Autosport
Boost level : 1.6 bar
Power ATW : 268.9 bhp
Tractive Effort : 1840 lb

14. Forum ID : TurboTom
Car Model : Evo VI RS II
Performance Modifications : R/A Ecu, Blitz NUR Spec R, Turbo Elbow, Blitz D/Pipe, HKS Filter, Blitz Boost cont, APS intercooler
ECU Mapper : NA
Boost level : 1.4 bar
Power ATW : 266.5 bhp
Tractive Effort : 1648 lb

15. Forum ID : Weebl
Car Model : V GSR
Performance Modifications : Induction, Exhaust, Power FC
ECU Mapper : Simon Norris
Boost level : 1.6 bar
Power ATW : 263.7 bhp

Tractive Effort : 1778 lb

16. Forum ID : Fatman
Car Model :Extreme Evo VII S
Performance Modifications :
The Extreme S conversion is undertaken on the lighter RS model of Evolution VII.
Engine
Gems re-mapable sports ECU
Sports camshafts
Gas flowed and polished cylinder head and manifolds
Sports air induction kit
Sports exhaust catalyst
Engine cylinder block modifications
Omega competition forged precision engineered pistons
Arrow competition forged precision engineered conrods
ECU Mapper (if applicable) : Phil Marks & Tony Cox
Boost level : 2 Bar
Power ATW : 263.3 bhp

Tractive Effort : 1899 lb

17. Forum ID : DU52VFR
Car Model : VI GSR
Perf Mods : Apexi Ind, Magnex zaust, evo400 BB Ti Turbo conversion, uprated fuel pump, AVCR, evo400 EcuTech upgrade
ECU Mapper : THe Dentist
Boost level : 1.85 bar
Power ATW : 263.2 bhp
Tractive Effort : 1658 lb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46,409 Posts
davec said:
I've been reading these posts for a while now and all I seem to see is one person trying to have a dig at one or two others.

My question to Fatman is,

1. Have you ever been in a car with a proper Norris engine :confused:
2. Have you ever come up against a car that has a proper Norris engine :confused:
3. Do you know of anyone who has not been happy with an ND engine or Mod.
4. If the Norris figures for the dyno are so wrong can you please explain how he achieves the 0-60, 0-100, quarter mile and top speeds with less power than other evos are quoting in the tuning circle, these have been run on both AVA and G-Force but I see no mention of that. :confused:
This is in NOT a dig at other tuners or privet individuals but I had to ask the question because this just seems like a one man crusade to pi88 people off :rolleyes: .

Question No 4 relates to your fascination with 0-100 times ?

The final thing I would say is this, look at what your car has had done and the money you must have spent, I think that's enough said !!! :crackup:
13. Forum ID : Rob
Car Model : VII GSR
Performance Modifications : Autronics + BB turbo etc
ECU Mapper : NR Autosport
Boost level : 1.6 bar
Power ATW : 268.9 bhp
Tractive Effort : 1840 lb

14. Forum ID : TurboTom
Car Model : Evo VI RS II
Performance Modifications : R/A Ecu, Blitz NUR Spec R, Turbo Elbow, Blitz D/Pipe, HKS Filter, Blitz Boost cont, APS intercooler
ECU Mapper : NA
Boost level : 1.4 bar
Power ATW : 266.5 bhp
Tractive Effort : 1648 lb

15. Forum ID : Weebl
Car Model : V GSR
Performance Modifications : Induction, Exhaust, Power FC
ECU Mapper : Simon Norris
Boost level : 1.6 bar
Power ATW : 263.7 bhp

Tractive Effort : 1778 lb

16. Forum ID : Fatman
Car Model :Extreme Evo VII S
Performance Modifications :
The Extreme S conversion is undertaken on the lighter RS model of Evolution VII.
Engine
Gems re-mapable sports ECU
Sports camshafts
Gas flowed and polished cylinder head and manifolds
Sports air induction kit
Sports exhaust catalyst
Engine cylinder block modifications
Omega competition forged precision engineered pistons
Arrow competition forged precision engineered conrods
ECU Mapper (if applicable) : Phil Marks & Tony Cox
Boost level : 2 Bar
Power ATW : 263.3 bhp

Tractive Effort : 1899 lb

17. Forum ID : DU52VFR
Car Model : VI GSR
Perf Mods : Apexi Ind, Magnex zaust, evo400 BB Ti Turbo conversion, uprated fuel pump, AVCR, evo400 EcuTech upgrade
ECU Mapper : THe Dentist
Boost level : 1.85 bar
Power ATW : 263.2 bhp
Tractive Effort : 1658 lb
well said dave :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
Fatman - regardless of turbo spool up issues, Ian's car is NEVER going to drop off the power curve on any performance measuring run. There will ALWAYS be more than 550 hp available atf.

His car is capable of 0-100 in 5.9 secs. This comes from the performance calculator at

http://www.letstorquebhp.com/

This performance calculator has been shown to work very well and predicts Simon Norris' results almost perfectly if you use the 730 hp that was measured on Simon's engine on the ND engine dyno.

If you are so keen to get WRC Tech RR results, I suggest you offer to pay for Smithy's run there. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
708 Posts
Just to put my own 2p's worth into this, from my point of view, I'm not knocking anything that Norris do with regards to tuning, car prep, etc. Quite simply, I CAN'T! They're producing amazing results, and that's that.

But when every now and then there is the discussion on losses, I WILL stick my oar in and say my bit, because I think a lot of you are misguided.

Now if you want to see over-inflated figures, then fine, but if you truly want to know with a bit more accuracy what is going on, then you need to listen!

You're all basing this "24%" thingy on the fact of comparing cars from Norris' dyno to WRCs. Just like everyone seems to be slagging off other rolling road dynos in comparison, why are you not questioning Norris' engine dyno? Just because you measure an engine on an engine dyno, it don't mean that engine been calibrated properly to start with! Just like there's debate that some rolling road dynos are more accurate than others, then this also applies to different engine dynos.

For example, would you honestly believe that Norris' dyno would be as accurate as the multi-million pound dynos that are used by people like Cosworth Racing and Mercedes-Benz/Ilmore? I think not!

I think before you guys start formulating theories cast in stone, you should take an engine to somewhere like Swindon Race Engines and see how that compares to Norris' dyno.

FWIW, before I even joined Owens, I was there one day as a customer when a certain development company were using Owen's dyno to see how their engine dyno compared, without Owens being aware until afterwards. The result was FW figures work out by coastdown that were within 1-2bhp of what was seen on this other company's engine dyno. Enough said! ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,837 Posts
SpeedAddict said:
You're all basing this "24%" thingy on the fact of comparing cars from Norris' dyno to WRCs.
Not quite Dino,
It's strange that the 24% also gives figures that match up (more or less) for std cars as well.

At the end of the day, at peak power, a figure of 24% seems to agree over a wide range of outputs. Even Chris at WRCT will agree with that....

Yes, engine dynos will vary but the variation would generally be less than the variation in estimating transmission losses and so the likelihood is that comparing engine dyno to engine dyno you are far more likely to get agreement than comparing rolling road to engine dyno.

Andy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,716 Posts
Ohh, just seen this and noticed my cars power figures being used as a comparison. Just like to point out that the peak BHP recorded there was at 5500 RPM as i have a boost control issue causing the car to drop to 1.3 bar above that. With the 1.6-1.5 being held properly i would expect to see the curve keep climbing past 5500 RPM and not tail off like it did. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
708 Posts
AndyF_RSX said:
Yes, engine dynos will vary but the variation would generally be less than the variation in estimating transmission losses and so the likelihood is that comparing engine dyno to engine dyno you are far more likely to get agreement than comparing rolling road to engine dyno.
Let me loose on a dyno, and I can make it show 100bhp more or less than it's actually producing, whether it's a rolling road or engine dyno! ;)

Anyway, the only way you'll know is to compare an engine on a KNOWN good engine dyno and Norris'. If the figures tally up, then fine, we then know that the figures are accurate. If not?

All this debate is no skin off my nose, as I know how to interpret the data for my *own* purposes, but for those that are less in the know, well, believe what you want! :D

With regards to real-world tests that would reflect the power levels a given engine produces, I'd look at the terminal speed of the quarter mile. I'd expect to see terminal speeds of 130-135mph for anything just over 600bhp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46,409 Posts
SpeedAddict said:
Just to put my own 2p's worth into this, from my point of view, I'm not knocking anything that Norris do with regards to tuning, car prep, etc. Quite simply, I CAN'T! They're producing amazing results, and that's that.

But when every now and then there is the discussion on losses, I WILL stick my oar in and say my bit, because I think a lot of you are misguided.

Now if you want to see over-inflated figures, then fine, but if you truly want to know with a bit more accuracy what is going on, then you need to listen!

You're all basing this "24%" thingy on the fact of comparing cars from Norris' dyno to WRCs. Just like everyone seems to be slagging off other rolling road dynos in comparison, why are you not questioning Norris' engine dyno? Just because you measure an engine on an engine dyno, it don't mean that engine been calibrated properly to start with! Just like there's debate that some rolling road dynos are more accurate than others, then this also applies to different engine dynos.

For example, would you honestly believe that Norris' dyno would be as accurate as the multi-million pound dynos that are used by people like Cosworth Racing and Mercedes-Benz/Ilmore? I think not!

I think before you guys start formulating theories cast in stone, you should take an engine to somewhere like Swindon Race Engines and see how that compares to Norris' dyno.

FWIW, before I even joined Owens, I was there one day as a customer when a certain development company were using Owen's dyno to see how their engine dyno compared, without Owens being aware until afterwards. The result was FW figures work out by coastdown that were within 1-2bhp of what was seen on this other company's engine dyno. Enough said! ;)
thing is though owens no **** about evos bud
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
708 Posts
moses said:
thing is though owens no **** about evos bud
WTF has that got to do with dynos? What do WRC know about Figaros? That don't stop them dynoing the damn thing! ;)

If an OEM compares his engine dyno to their rolling road, and they're as accurate as you could wish for, what's the problem?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46,409 Posts
SpeedAddict said:
WTF has that got to do with dynos? What do WRC know about Figaros? That don't stop them dynoing the damn thing! ;)

If an OEM compares his engine dyno to their rolling road, and they're as accurate as you could wish for, what's the problem?
u mentioning owens pi55ed me off thats all :D they know **** all about evo engines and cant even make a proper manifold and bigger turbos spool up faster than their fq400

so when u mentioned it and i had to say that coz where the **** does owens come into it bud
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
4,430 Posts
Dear All

Thought it might be worth me entering into this discussion to add some facts that might help.

Yesterday ran a 2.0 4G63 on our engine dyno at three different loads, the entire spec and mapping remained the same for all tests, all that changed was the time taken to perform each of the tests.

The first line on the left was over 25 seconds, next was over 18 seconds and the last one was over 8 seconds. The interesting thing that some may not realise is that the turbo spools up at different times dependant on how much load is applied. Just for Fatman our "static" mapping lines appear around 100/200rpm earlier in the lower portion of the graph than the first line on this diagram.

I have concluded the load generated for the four tests are similiar to the following gears in a stock GSR;

8 Second Test = 1/2nd Gear
18 Second Test = 2/3rd Gear
25 Second Test = 4thGear
Static Test = 5th Gear

To explain the differences between both Ian's engine and Oleg's engine the WRC and G-Force Dynos run the cars for approx 7.5 seconds, this equates to approx 2nd gear and explains the difference in spoolup between this method and our Mapping load.

Does anyone really expect the same engine and turbo combination to spoolup at the same point if it is in 2nd or 5th?!

Speedaddict - Swindons figures are actually higher than ours due to their cell configuration. They use a Froude G490 absorbtion housing and the same Superflow desk and control software we use. In answer to your question, the answer is yes, our dyno and all other well calibrated dynos will produce the same figures so long as the same correction factors are used. (To a small error percentage of course!)

Cheers

Simon :)
 
1 - 20 of 158 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top