1st Dyno sheet!!!

[Raksj04]

I would like to share my unimpressive Dyno sheet. It was at a Dyno days at a non-rotary shop, they didn't know how to get a proper RPM signal from the Car so the Torque is off, at least I hope so. Car is a 1987 base with a JDM S4 13B-T with a 3in down pipe no cats and an OEM TII catback. I have the stock TMIC turbo smart dual port BOV, Corksport pre tmic pipe. untune rTek with larger secondarys. My turbo is stock S4 with a ported wastegate. I am running about 9-10psi. I didnt have my palm to data log. I am thinking about getting a boost controler but not sure which type yet, even if I want Manual or Elecrtic.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/raksj04/facebook_-1165262398jpg-1.jpg

[9krpmrx8]

Ouch. I hope something is off.

[FerociousP]

Can't see sheet... did you edit it?

[Raksj04]

I did edit it. I made sure it worked on my phone. the numbers are 199.46 Hp and 85 Ft/lb

[TheDriver216]

the torque has to be way off lol, i really do hope so...my 12a with stock carb and intake put out 91ft at 5000rpm on a mustang dyne

[Raksj04]

The sheet also read the Temp at 95F. I wonder what power I would make with it a little bit cooler.

The Dyno had my car reading 1700 rpm at idle when it is closer to 700 to 900 rpm. I asked about the 85Ft/lbs as the guy running it handed me the sheet, he said it was because of the RPM being off.

[RETed]

I wouldn't worry about the absolute numbers...

What's good is:
1) the HP # is about right for the mods, and
2) that's a nice, almost ruler-flat torque curve.

It would've been nice to get an RPM scale underneath, but they didn't because of the RPM problem in the first place.

It looks like the secondary fuel injector transition could be tuned a little better.
How high did you rev the engine till?
It looks like a little wiggle up there, but it could be that you're banging off the rev limiter?
This top end RPM power isn't that important, because you spend very little time revving the engine up there.


-Ted

[Raksj04]

I told them to rev it to 7,500. I didn't hear them bonce it off the rev limiter at all. I am not sure what the rTek is set at.

[Libor]

The sheet also read the Temp at 95F. I wonder what power I would make with it a little bit cooler.

If the dyno number would be SAE corrected, it would show about 196 HP. Temperature is higher, but so is pressure against standard, in this case their effects on air density almost cancel each other out.

Correction for temperature only, from 35°C to 25°C would bring us to 206 HP based only on density difference. But turbocharged engine is complex device, different temperature and pressure will have effect both on turbo and intercooler operation to such extend, that corrections can be way off.

IMHO uncorrected numbers with notes for ambient conditions are the right way for turbocharged engines tested on chassis dynos, it would save us many dramas that accompanies internet forums:uhh:

[Raksj04]

So now I got the bug for more boost. I was told there are pros and cons to Manual and Electric boost controller. So am not sure which route to go with.

[RETed]

I would recommend to save your money for an EBC.

MBC's are tempting cause they are CHEAP.
The problem is that - if you're running on the ragged edge - it could also cause too much boost that you want to.
The problem with MBC's is that the boost setting changes with regards to changing atmospheric conditions.
When the ambient temperature drops, the boost level will rise.
When the humidity changes, the boost level will change.
Changes to ambient temperatures can change boost levels 2 - 3psi easily and as much as 5+ psi in certain cases.

This is where EBC's are superior.
Find an EBC with a feedback, dedicated boost sensor, like the A'PEXi AVC-R.
With it's own feedback boost sensor, it knows exactly how much boost the turbo is producing no matter what the ambient conditions are.
This means once you've set your boost to 10psi, it will always be 10psi.
With EBC's you also get fancy options for monitoring and possibly datalogging - this can allow you eliminate stand-alone gauges.
Most will come with fancy options that can control boost via transmission gear selection, vehicle speed, engine RPM's, etc.
Some EBC's also have "self learning" that will give you the most aggressive boost curve possible.
With MBC's, you're stuck with a set boost curve that might or might not give you the best boost ramp possible.


-Ted

[Raksj04]

I would recommend to save your money for an EBC.

MBC's are tempting cause they are CHEAP.
The problem is that - if you're running on the ragged edge - it could also cause too much boost that you want to.
The problem with MBC's is that the boost setting changes with regards to changing atmospheric conditions.
When the ambient temperature drops, the boost level will rise.
When the humidity changes, the boost level will change.
Changes to ambient temperatures can change boost levels 2 - 3psi easily and as much as 5+ psi in certain cases.

This is where EBC's are superior.
Find an EBC with a feedback, dedicated boost sensor, like the A'PEXi AVC-R.
With it's own feedback boost sensor, it knows exactly how much boost the turbo is producing no matter what the ambient conditions are.
This means once you've set your boost to 10psi, it will always be 10psi.
With EBC's you also get fancy options for monitoring and possibly datalogging - this can allow you eliminate stand-alone gauges.
Most will come with fancy options that can control boost via transmission gear selection, vehicle speed, engine RPM's, etc.
Some EBC's also have "self learning" that will give you the most aggressive boost curve possible.
With MBC's, you're stuck with a set boost curve that might or might not give you the best boost ramp possible.


-Ted

I also seen some that will give a signal for water/meth injector which I have been thinking about doing.

[Raksj04]

I Like the e-Boost 2, but it is about $600.

[Raksj04]

I just found out from my rtek that I am only at 7 to 8.5 psi. which is less then I thought.

[Raksj04]

I went to another Dyno day. this dyno guy was a lot better at running the dyno. peak HP was 213.62 and TQ was 192.93.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/raksj04/2012-11-10_19-35-36_307.jpg

I wouldn't worry about the absolute numbers...

What's good is:
1) the HP # is about right for the mods, and
2) that's a nice, almost ruler-flat torque curve.

It would've been nice to get an RPM scale underneath, but they didn't because of the RPM problem in the first place.

It looks like the secondary fuel injector transition could be tuned a little better.

-Ted

This confrims what you were saying and the transition.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/raksj04/2012-11-10_19-35-44_617.jpg

[Raksj04]

It was also about 70^F outside today.