13B Power @ 1 bar absolute pressure, to see what you might have if you MAN UP!
 

So I wanted to start an Interesting thread.

With a plethora of power and rwhp claims n shit abound I had a fucking brilliant idea and that is the standardize the out put down to N/A terms for a few common engines and many people could apply it to their own? and build a up a data base here.

So here is how it follows.

1 atmosphere roughly = 1 bar absolute, so whatever your boost pressure is (psi, bar, kg/cm, horse penis forskins!) convert it to absolute bar (ambient + your gauge boost pressure) then divide your ENGINE POWER by this. I'll illustrate by a few examples of mine.

When you go through and work out how much power your engine set up makes N/A then it is easy to work out how much boost you need to make some big power, fit the right turbo and cooler to keep charge temp under control and other mapping basics this is what you theoretically will get......

eg: ~250bhp 13B N/A on 43psi boost (what will it make?)
(43/14.5) = 2.965
2.965 + 1 = 3.965 absolute pressure
250 x 3.965 = 991.4 bhp!
NOTE: F1 mid 80's 5.6bar boost absolute (66.7psi gauge boost) would yield ~1400bhp interestingly EXACTLY what a 1.5lt stock block BMW road car engine did @ 10200rpm :)

Some 13B engine combos worked out for base power N/A (post up yours) you will need to estimate your engine power! NOTE: dynapack chassis dyno users I have used a figure of 1.15 multiplier on FD platform and this is commonly accepted across the traps who use this type to guess the engine power, its pretty close! > http://translate.google.com.au/trans...6prmd%3Divnsfd


13B-REW (stock standard)
T04Z 1.32 A/R & stock twin turbo's tested (on exact same set up)
3.5" exhaust dual muffler (quiet)
9.0:1 compression ratio 45 deg C charge temp (for both set ups) 29psi v's 13psi *water sprayed IC and water injection internally on single turbo*
365bhp @ 6700rpm engine power @ 13psi boost twins, same exhaust, IC, intake etc SP specification.
565bhp @ 6700rpm engine power @ 29psi boost Single Turbo, water spray IC, and RR water injection
(29/14.5) = 2.0
2.0 + 1 = 3.0 bar absolute pressure
565bhp / 3.0 = 188bhp
So a stock block 100% stock ported 13B-REW will give 188bhp @ the engine N/A *2.0bar boost*
So a stock block 100% stock ported 13B-REW will give 192bhp @ the engine N/A *0.9bar boost*

FAMSPEED 13B-REW
The new high-flow turbine test (More FAMSPEED RESULTS) confirming my testing on stock ported 13B-REW
ブースト：1.1ｋ Boost: 1.1k 　 トルク：45.2kg/5907rpm 馬力：408.0ps/6692rpm 408.0ps/6692rpm: hp 45.2kg/5907rpm: torque
　 ↓ 10.6%アップ ↓ 10.6% up
ブースト：1.3ｋ Boost: 1.3k 　 トルク：51.1kg/5386rpm 馬力：451.3ps/6697rpm 451.3ps/6697rpm: hp 51.1kg/5386rpm: torque
↓ 4.3%アップ（ブーストタレの為） ↓ (for boost sagging) up 4.3%
ブースト：1.5ｋ Boost: 1.5k 　 トルク：53.5kg/5689rpm 馬力：470.8ps/6664rpm 470.8ps/6664rpm: hp 53.5kg/5689rpm: torque
^^^FAMspeed RX7 13B-REW "tickled up" stock port ports just polished no real timing change "modified twins"
various power levels listed at 6700rpm maximum peak (TCF 1.15) high flow twins
Works out to 194bhp *1.1bar boost* 188bhp *1.5bar boost* @ engine N/A

13B-S5 (mild street ported)
actual engine dyno tested @ 7500rpm
3" exhaust 1 muffler
and fitted with T66 1.00 A/R
9.0:1 compression ratio 1.7bar boost pressure with 2.1 bar exhaust manifold pressure
580.1bhp @ 7500rpm engine power @ ~25psi boost RR water injection
(1.7 bar) = 1.7bar
1.7 + 1 = 2.7 bar absolute pressure
580.1 / 2.7 = 215bhp
So a mild street port 13B-S5 block makes 215bhp @ the engine N/A

13B-S5 or 13B-COSMO (RR street ported)
both deliver peak power @ 7600rpm
3" exhaust 1 muffler
and either fitted with T04 1.32 A/R or T51 deliver following
9.0:1 compression ratio 45 deg C charge temp
549.7bhp @ 7600rpm engine power @ 18.3psi boost S5 variant with T04 RR water injection
633.5bhp @ 7600rpm engine power @ 24psi boost COSMO variant with T51 RR water injection
S5 worked out below
(18.3/14.5) = 1.262
1.24 + 1 = 2.262 bar absolute pressure
550 / 2.262 = 243bhp
So a RR street port 13B-Cosmo or S5 block makes 240bhp to 243bhp @ the engine N/A

SCOOT RX7 "top speed car" 13B-REW Peripheral port "cross port motor"
710bhp on 29psi boost @ 7100rpm (dyno print out on coast down converts to estimated engine power *can provide data*)
HKS T51KAI 1.0A/R
Works out to 236bhp @ engine N/A
and on ~1.48bar boost (610bhp)
Works out to 245bhp @ engine N/A

PANspeed RX7 13B-REW Bridge port
578.5bhp on 18.5psi boost (~1.30 bar) @ 7800rpm (TCF 1.00 shown > 503.1rearhubhp)
HKS T04Z 1.0A/R
Works out to 251bhp @ engine N/A

FAMspeed RX7 13B-REW Peripheral port "cross port motor"
646bhp on 21psi boost (1.45 bar) @ 6700rpm (TCF 1.15 so it actually made 561.7rearhubhp)
HKS T51SPL 1.0A/R
Works out to 258bhp @ engine N/A

Racing Beat 13B circa 1986 (Twin Turbo Bridge Port)
530bhp on 15psi boost @ 8000rpm
3" x 2 open pipes FUCK OFF EAR BLEEDING LOUD!
5 deg C charge temp ICE/Alcohol cooler offset low engine compression ratio
(15/14.7) = 1.03
1.03 + 1 = 2.03bar absolute pressure
530 / 2.03 = 261bhp
Racing Beat bridge port 7.5:1 comp engine made 261bhp @ engine N/A

FULL Bridge Port 13B-Cosmo N/A style primary and secondary
3.5" exhaust 1 muffler *loud*
660bhp on 21psi boost @ 8500rpm 9.0:1 compression ratio RR water injection
Garrett T51 1.22A/R
(21/14.50) = 1.448
1 + 1.448 = 2.448 absolute pressure
660/2.448 = 269bhp
Works out to 269bhp @ engine N/A
Same engine fitted with 7.8:1 compression rotors gave below reading
690bhp on 24psi boost RR water injection
Works out to 260bhp @ engine N/A



RR street port V's stock ports

http://www.riceracing.com.au/Hoon%20build%206.JPG http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3606/hoon18fx6.jpg

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5426/hoon17bj7.jpg http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/8396/hoon11ax0.jpg

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3...xhaust3ai5.jpg

In summary, if your system is efficient and the block can take it! then for each 1 bar increase in absolute pressure or each extra atmosphere you will make 100% more power.

250bhp N/A on 5.6 bar absolute boost pressure = 1400bhp
1400bhp - 250 bhp N/A = 1150bhp increase due to boost pressure
1150bhp/250bhp = 4.6 x 100 = 460% increase in power! simple.
Therefor each 1 bar over N/A = 100% power increase as there is 100% more air, assuming you keep charge temps under control the motor was not built by BDC ;)

As a historical context in 1986 when BMW managed regularly to get 1400bhp in qualifying from their stock block 4cyl 1.5 motors they were pumping 6 lt of water per lap onto the after cooler to keep charge temperature at the normal level of 45 deg C! so their power output followed this linear scale quite well as it did on the dyno when they tested it, you will need to compressor map width and turbine to match before you think of doing shit like this, but its been done before in the rotary world.

Typically on a 2 rotor full bridge port engine a GT45R is needed to support 36 psi gauge pressures and keep the relationship in tact, delivering around 825rwhp or so on cars I have worked with. For the higher pressure ratio's in Garret Nomenclature you are then looking at GT47 sized units or hybrids to do this.

But for most people who are normal this is interesting to see your power to boost and if your set up is efficient or if you are wondering what you can do with your bits you have. There should be lots of honest 500 to 600bhp cars around, then again lol

You can see when you sort through the BULLSHIT that a well done street port makes pound for pound the same as a partial PP or full BP engine with non of the head fucks associated with poor fuel mileage, high idle, very high exhaust noise, exhaust back pressure sensitivity etc etc.

And you can equalize out the boost people run and see what the motor will do on its own, and project further on what it will do if you fit up the right turbo and charge cooler etc.

Hmm. I've often thought about this exact concept and would have applied it exactly the same as you have but the more and more I thought about it, the more i found things that might throw off the approximation so I pretty much just dismissed the idea.

Have you tested how accurate this is? Maybe it's just the way i'm looking at it but it almost seems over simplistic. I'm sure it gives a reasonable approximation - but how accurate is my question?

The two biggest things for me are intake air temp and volumetric efficiency. Obviously i don't need to explain the fundamental gas law, but I was also under the impression that at higher rpms, internal combustion engines (n/a) could reach greater than 100% volumetric efficiency so the absolute pressure in the manifold (or combustion chamber) could be greater than 1 bar absolute.

The way I'm looking at it (and I know I'm missing some things) is that doubling the absolute pressure wouldn't actually double the power.

Sure it's a good approximation, but how good?

It's 100%

So long as you have the compressor map width and turbine to match i.e. BIGGER TURBO *to match your pressure ratio target, thus power target* (efficiency) and charge cooler big enough for the extra heat rejection. I have proven it in my own testing and that with rotary turbo drag cars I consult on. And its been proven over and over in many piston turbo examples most notable F1 1000bhp era.

Volumetric efficiency of stock ports is around 85%
My Street Ports around 105%
Bridge and Peripheral (many variations!) but say 110% (as used in turbo applications).
NOTE: Power differences are not just a function of this but where the power is made

The match between turbine to compressor (again I test this and have posted up many graphs not Howard Coleman like conjecture and personal theory) is so long as relationships are maintained PORTS are not the restriction never ever have been to ultimate power, all they define is where it is made due to charging efficiency at higher engine speeds.

(Turbo's are simple as stated. And ancillaries as well, if you are reading this thread and comprehend it so far you will be all over these basics too.)

The formula and how it works is proven ;)

So the base engine (aside from mechanical strength!) was and is never the issue, its the bolt ons and adaption of water injection or aftercooling spraying to keep charge temperature under control and so long as you have the appropriate turbo its a prefect linear relationship.

It is and can be swayed by these variables:

* If you are greatly reducing ign timing as boost increase
* If you are making vast changes to AFR as boost increase

Then you can have non linear discrepancies of over 25%!!!
But if you run water injected especially these boundary restrictions do not apply ;)

To give you a practical proven example a BMW F1 turbo mapped on an engine dyno here (I have the dyno sheet!) is Australia did 802bhp @ 3.3bar with lambda of 0.79 @ 10,000rpm and at 5.6bar uses the same lambda and water spraying the IC it see's over 1350bhp That was the going rate at the time for the qualifying power output at that boost pressure ;)

Well I'll be darned :willy_nilly:

I gotta say, the thing I like the most about your posts is that you explain the theoretical side of things and then follow it up with an example that agrees with what the textbook says.

Thanks ;)

That is how I teach (It's my profession) :) it adds credibility and separates the wannabe's from the ones who actually have done it ;)

I like many others get sick and tired in forum world of reading crack pot theories or regurgitated information by overnight wonders who have never done anything of the sort. My idea is to understand the theory and then apply it myself, THEN talk about it. And back it up ........... odd concept I know to some lol.

You asked an excellent and insightful question before and I hope I explained it, back when I was doing tests on the standard ports and collecting data on everything I personally saw near a linear rise to the point where there was divergence between TIP and MIP (turbine inlet pressure and manifold inlet pressure) *read turbo becoming too small* so then I experimented with 1.00 to 1.15 and to finally 1.32 A/R turbine housings then to the point of the turbo itself being too small. So that is a critical point and lots of good engineering writing on the subject explains balance of gas flows between turbine to compressor. Second "mapping" considerations which lots dont talk about is excess fuel ratio's and spark timing, and tertiary considerations are the charge temperature and knock limitation of the fuel you use relative to the CR you choose to implement (inter related issues to a point).

But if all things are appropriate for the target goal then sky is the limit, so long as you do not exceed thermal capacity of critical engine components or mechanical strength, and it is advantageous to keep rpm low and vastly increase pressure as this is far far less stressful.

Wanted to keep it simple though, but hopefully this explains the "theory" is sound and proven in reality too :)

Forgot to add, the real world examples I give are using stock std Mazda inlet manifolding.

edit *too much info!* you dont need to know :) and all of your real performance increases come from raising the absolute pressure to the level you need to make the power you want :willy_nilly:

Unless your like me and go bridge for wank factor. WOOOO!

Further info.
 

On that note.

On a full length primary and secondary bridge port N/A style with 9.0:1 rotors and big rear housing T51 frame turbo the best figure I personally have recorded is ~270bhp N/A corrected above forumula used (car tested to 1.5bar to derive those figures) peak power at 8250rpm on stock cosmo inlet manifold.

p.s. this piss ant bridges and drill a hole through the water jacket partial/semi PP's LOL you see some "shops" do are a joke and make the lower end or less than a good street port when you separate the FACTS from the BULLSHIT.

So difference of around 7% to specification RR street port. Despite the shit you read on the internet bridge ports are fucking gutless in mid range power boost for boost too. So it is very hard to beat a good street port, and it will work on the street, unlike any of the race porting options. Fuck even on the track it is preferable, just you cant help some dumb asses LOL.

If you are doing it for wank factor, then that is a different story :) they do sound good :)

Summary god created turbo's for a reason, use them as intended and keep the engine well mannered and street ported at most, it is all you ever will need in any application with non of the wank factor draw backs ;)

Racing Beats full Peripheral Port Turbo's are around that same ~270bhp level btw. But to attain that you need a full open exhaust! not practical even on race tracks. I listed a few of partial pp's in the first post, worst or just a bit over compared to RR street port. so you can see there is not much in it really at end of the day once you have a decent street ported motor.

There is a big gain from small stock ports, but how much power do you want :smilielol5: 190 odd bhp level to 240bhp~!

Updated with more figures *directly from dyno tests-rather than trying to remember the numbers!* from various tests I have on hand. Gives a good range of 13B power (@ 1 bar ABS) for various port configurations and turbo set up in various guises...... Compression ratio's listed, all high power (non Jappo or Racing Beat) cars (used only as external comparisons as data is trust worthy) are water injected and tuned the same (as I did them!) so figures are what they are for the engines efficiency. A good maximum street port therefore would suit many people.

Amazing correlation too

More engines added, this time Panspeed 13B-REW 9.0:1 compression ratio engine bridge ported with T04Z as run last year at World Time attack, tuned before shipping to event.

More engines added, this time Panspeed 13B-REW 9.0:1 compression ratio engine bridge ported with T04Z as run last year at World Time attack, tuned before shipping to event.

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9...brewbridge.jpg

252+ on RR street port :)
secret set up :)

Thanks for adding some more wrinkles to my brain.:D

Aim is to make it easy to understand and equalize out all of the conjecture and mis information around porting and what 'magical' gains some styles give.

It is patently obvious that you would have to be fucked in the brain to do a bridge port or worse to a turbo motor ;) the many negatives associated with them no way in hell are made up for in 'mega' gains IF anything the gains are 'meager' as has been shown so simply.

Some may like this little 'off topic' addition.

For historical context we will look at an engine from 1972! (that was run from 1967 in Turbocharged for at your Indy 500). The mighty Offenhauser 159 cube 2.605lt (13B equivalent!) 4 cylinder.

http://www.tsrfcars.com/images/1972_...-029%20029.JPG

I have a photograph and dyno test details of this engine run on methanol, no IC, and 20% Tolulene blend, it dynoed over 1000bhp on 120inches of mercury = 4bar abs (44psi gauge boost) @ 9000rpm. Did this power to last 500mile race! From 1967 to around 1970 they ran up to 30psi boost and around 800bhp setting... again fairly reliably.

= about 250bhp in NA form :o15:

It's a bit of a JOKE that a 13B rotary is such nugget box and about 40+ years later you still cant meet the power density with Intercoolers, EFI, all kinds of stuff~! and no where near the reliability!!!!!

Fact V Fiction, A few years of real work, not pulling yourself on the internet!!!
 

Posted in another thread, needs to be here !

You can buy a Performance box and a basic input module and do stuff like this easy (was recorded with a VBOX Mini and MIM01).

http://imageshack.com/a/img11/9761/pvzd.jpg

Here is the fact v fiction ANALysis that goes along with the above ;) The one the only, widely copied, NEVER EQUALED !!!
No Howard Coleman one line spaced un readable calculations LOL! Only stuff that works and does not blow up every second day LOL

http://imageshack.com/a/img809/6617/mmoi.jpg

jizz factor Get On It :-Oc==3
 

Here is a sheet I made in deevelopment of RICESP and a few other cars I work on... these are actual figures!

THe power to 1 bar boost ~ 1 atmosphere is easy to work back on the sheet but for you here on internet land just divide the power buy the MAP figure and will give you the NA hp as per topic of the thread etc ........

And on Don Mega Kill Mode, still on pump petrol and with WM50 jizz spec RR set up.... running ~****cc injectors (equiv)... well through jizz injection, but this is classified info cuuunts......

:auto:


http://image.toutlecine.com/photos/n...rs-90-05-g.jpg

Wait so you've hit 65psi and maxxed out your injectors???:o11:

That happened on 4.6 bar or so :18: but I run some different settings and still use similar injectors, just different operating conditions for them, and WM50 accounts for some of the difference. I don't show those figures but I have a sheet floating around that details some of it...... just not in this thread :ugh2: :uhh: *more complex sheet of the rotary formulas one shown for ND4SPD a few posts up*

Go on break my heart.

My guess is about 313BHP somewhere between 6000 and 7000. Something like 170BHP per 1 bar absolute.

There was some uphill gradient involved, maybe 10 meter climb at most.

Hey Peter,

We are having a Global Warming snow storm in New Orleans. Go figure.
Everything is shut down so I thought I would contribute.

Probably apples and oranges as far as taking data compared to your system.
Mine from the TFX combustion testing (see attached).

My daily driver set-up:
13B-COSMO (Judge Ito street ported)
peak power @ about 7800rpm
3" exhaust 1 muffler (Racing Beat single)
Cool intake box with 9" K&N.
and either fitted with T04s or T04z both use a 1.0 A/R .
9.0:1 compression ratio and about 38 deg C charge temp.


@ 15 boost T04s 50/50 WM injection (pre turbo and post intercooler).
it made 492 bhp @ 7730 rpm

(15/14.5) = 1.034
1.034 + 1 = 2.034 bar absolute pressure
492 / 2.034 = 242 bhp
Works out to 242 bhp @ engine N/A


at 18 psi and the T04z 50/50 WM injection and optimized ignition advance it made
580bhp @ 7854 rpm engine power

(18/14.5) = 1.241
1.241 + 1 = 2.241 bar absolute pressure
580 / 2.241 = 258.8 bhp
Works out to 258.8bhp @ engine N/A


http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/l...X/1k47atdc.jpg

Thanks for posting that information up, the more the better........

[QUOTE=Barry Bordes;274121]Hey Peter,

We are having a Global Warming snow storm in New Orleans. Go figure.
Everything is shut down so I thought I would contribute.

Probably apples and oranges as far as taking data compared to your system.
Mine from the TFX combustion testing (see attached).

My daily driver set-up:
13B-COSMO (Judge Ito street ported)
peak power @ about 7800rpm
3" exhaust 1 muffler (Racing Beat single)
Cool intake box with 9" K&N.
and either fitted with T04s or T04z both use a 1.0 A/R .
9.0:1 compression ratio and about 38 deg C charge temp.


@ 15 boost T04s 50/50 WM injection (pre turbo and post intercooler).
it made 492 bhp @ 7730 rpm

(15/14.5) = 1.034
1.034 + 1 = 2.034 bar absolute pressure
492 / 2.034 = 242 bhp
Works out to 242 bhp @ engine N/A


at 18 psi and the T04z 50/50 WM injection and optimized ignition advance it made
580bhp @ 7854 rpm engine power

(18/14.5) = 1.241
1.241 + 1 = 2.241 bar absolute pressure
580 / 2.241 = 258.8 bhp
Works out to 258.8bhp @ engine N/A


http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/l...X/1k47atdc.jpg


*Personally your figures are way too high since you are not taking into account friction or if you are underestimating it? in the software deriving the bhp? thus it would be good to actually measure the 'brake' power directly rather than software estimation? (my thoughts on it) based off my experience and engine combos listed already that are well known.
This is where testing it with a VBOX (if you don't trust 'dyno's' would help)*


So this is indicated power of a single cycle, do you have a mean bhp? (bhp = iP-fP) over at least 1 second that you can average to confirm a 'statistical average of say at least ~100 cycles' mean pressure acting and thus power level for the sake of comparison to steady state measurement principles.

Thanks.

p.s. Have you ever tested your car for brake power on any system other than this to validate what it is saying you have? How are you or it measuring the frictional power (fP) loss in the engine????, you have the 'indicated power' through pressure from what I can see you posted, but its not what is coming out of the engine (brake horse power), like to know some more on how you derive your power figure? For others who don't know what I am on about here is a Laymans link > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testing..._of_IC_engines

Peter,
Yes probably apples and oranges.... but I have been trying to optimize low boost settings.
This can be different from high boost tuning. Let me explain.


The TFX Engine Technology system derives its readings from pressure inside the rotor chamber. It compares the volume at each degree of eccentric rotation to the pressure readings at each degree. So we have pressure (psi) times area of the rotor face times eccentric offset which giving torque.
I am not sure if frictional forces are figured into their HP formulas but they are incorporated in the IMEP so it would seem that that would cover HP also.

IMEP is my normal tool for comparing my tuning runs. With normal "forum info timing" the mean effective pressure averaged a little over 200 psi and peak pressures of around 650 psi. This has improved to over 300 psi IMEP and 1250 psi Peak Pressure by positioning peak at 45 degrees ATDC.

But as boost goes up peak pressure becomes the limiting factor. The only way we can know the material limits of the rotary becomes a very hard lesson.
Once we get to this peak pressure limit we have to retard the ignition.

So any correction to NA as you are doing will show a loss in power compared to having the peak pressure at 45 degrees ATDC at lower boost.

Barry

*Personally your figures are way too high since you are not taking into account friction or if you are underestimating it? in the software deriving the bhp? thus it would be good to actually measure the 'brake' power directly rather than software estimation? (my thoughts on it) based off my experience and engine combos listed already that are well known.


This is where testing it with a VBOX (if you don't trust 'dyno's' would help)*


So this is indicated power of a single cycle, do you have a mean bhp? (bhp = iP-fP) over at least 1 second that you can average to confirm a 'statistical average of say at least ~100 cycles' mean pressure acting and thus power level for the sake of comparison to steady state measurement principles.
Thanks.

Yes it shows HP for all cycles and the highest RPM is usually the highest HP.


p.s. Have you ever tested your car for brake power on any system other than this to validate what it is saying you have? How are you or it measuring the frictional power (fP) loss in the engine????, you have the 'indicated power' through pressure from what I can see you posted, but its not what is coming out of the engine (brake horse power), like to know some more on how you derive your power figure?

No, only a Gtech Pro.

If you can clarify with them how they account for the fP and derive the bhp from only measured IMEP that would be appreciated.

I have done plenty with indicator PV diagrams, but we always directly measured fP to then calculate bhp directly. I just could not see how you have done that and its not clear from your posted program interface thus the question :)

Till then its not comparable.

Forum timing, yes I hear you lol.

MBT (minimum best timing) is a phrase I coined for rotaries, not many people understand it, MBT (mean best torque) with petrol and WI in conventional terms ............. good luck LOL.

What I was asking for the system you use is if you could hold steady state at 7800rpm and average out a hundred cycles I'd be interested to see the 'mean' pressure to take out cycle to cycle variations. Is that possible the way you test?

"What I was asking for the system you use is if you could hold steady state at 7800rpm and average out a hundred cycles I'd be interested to see the 'mean' pressure to take out cycle to cycle variations. Is that possible the way you test? "


The tests are run like your Vbox runs.
Real world flow to the radiator, intercooler and air box. Air drag to the car... you know on the "test track".
But I can't hold load at 7800 rpm. That is passed in a microsecond.

Here is IMEP 4500 to 8000rpm (early testing with 12 psi).
If you can make out the poor screen-shot below you will see which buttons are activated.
In this case the blue HP/MEP/T /RPM button is slected then the IMEP is expanded, plus the green Cycles button, and Select Data.

The other screen shot above has Combustion selected so it runs every cycle like a movie.
That is just one frame. I would have to do a YouTube video to show you the whole run.

But yes there is a great deal of deviation cycle to cycle. Reversion problems I would guess mostly.... a good cycle pollutes the 2nd following cycle.



http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/l.../TFX/imep4.jpg

[QUOTE=Barry Bordes;274898]"What I was asking for the system you use is if you could hold steady state at 7800rpm and average out a hundred cycles I'd be interested to see the 'mean' pressure to take out cycle to cycle variations. Is that possible the way you test? "


The tests are run like your Vbox runs.
Real world flow to the radiator, intercooler and air box. Air drag to the car... you know on the "test track".
But I can't hold load at 7800 rpm. That is passed in a microsecond.

Here is IMEP 4500 to 8000rpm (early testing with 12 psi).
If you can make out the poor screen-shot below you will see which buttons are activated.
In this case the blue HP/MEP/T /RPM button is slected then the IMEP is expanded, plus the green Cycles button, and Select Data.

The other screen shot above has Combustion selected so it runs every cycle like a movie.
That is just one frame. I would have to do a YouTube video to show you the whole run.

But yes there is a great deal of deviation cycle to cycle. Reversion problems I would guess mostly.... a good cycle pollutes the 2nd following cycle.

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/l.../TFX/imep4.jpg

I'll have a look at that in more detail.

On the 'holding load' its pretty easy to do in 3rd gear or even 2nd gear as you wont have any more than 350rwkw of power and your braking system can do even on road tires -750kw (and hold -500kw lap after lap, even with fade) 3rd gear just makes it easier to pick the rpm you want. I can send you pics of a RS FD3S at a local track showing the power of the braking system ;)

Little tip for you, try it :)

hello..........
Barry did you get to the bottom of how your vendor works out 'bhp' from only an indicated power calculated method?????

Bazz any updates????

Peter what kind of dyno would you like me to put my car on?
Barry

Anything that takes into account friction power would be nice and then we can compare it to the ones on this list (which are from various dyno types). Let us know how you get on mate.

I have my own personal list of this that is about 5 times longer and has many more interesting examples covering everything you can imagine, this you just wont find anywhere else :fawk:

Doing some development work in the not too distant future which will yield some more 'first hand' quality information, may give a little teaser up here if I get excited :willy_nilly:

Barry did you test your car yet? would like to validate your results.

Dynapack is best to use, make sure TCF is set to 1.00 so I can see the raw result at the hubs.

Do a pull, log the boost too if you can.

I'll actually be able to get this data in about a week, albeit low boost (1B) and on a dynojet, but logs logs logs out the ass for three different sets of coils... FIGHT THE CDI REVOLUTION! :(

Some BIG development here, we are talking BIG! paradigm shift indeed LOL......

Got allot of set ups now around and ABOVE 300bhp per 1 bar :)

Go the ROTARY ENGINE, and these ones are doing over 800bhp engine power :) and petrol WI too :) list is gag factor in detail, bit too much to share on pubic forum though haha