Linsay

The chap at Nobles mentioned it was a bit rich, but i asked for it safe (reason for fitting 5th)
Didn't really notice a difference in fuel economy C&B
I went to Le Mans that June and it was getting just under 300 miles to a tank as before the 5th injector - and those who were on the trip would say i wasn't taking it gently.. at any point lol


it's undergoing a little rewiring at the mo Hence why it wasn't ready to run at your rolling road day
is overkill really on this engine - but will be good to have better management on it

Fiecos Dan

on wheel figure, (but that will be 310 fly bhp on AVA dyno, )

i've not played with a rst with my lambda gauge, so dont no what they are like to tune and how they fuel.


i run my cossie between 12.0 - 11.8, and my xr2 @ 11.9- 12.2 at max, (used to run them @ 12.5, but since decided the extra power isn't worth the risk)

But i set other cars @ 11.8 at high rpm/boost

JamboRS

it wont be 310 at AVA as they dont do fly figures,IF it made 295@wheels at ava then they would say its 295@wheels not tell you a bullshit fly figure to boost your ego or make them sound better
most people leave ava with an unhappy vibe as there car didnt make what they were told be it fly or wheels

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

I don't wish to sound evasive, but what exactly is it that makes AVA's dyno the final-word compared to what is probably the WORLDS most respected dyno?

In early 2006 when mine made 315bhp at the flywheel at Power Engineering, we couldn't get more than 280bhp here (240 at the wheels). Now it is 295bhp at the wheels.

If it didn't make 295bhp at the wheels at AVA, then IMO their dyno under-reads.

Fiecos Dan

i always ask Wheel bhp,

i dont know if Ava under or over reads, but they/and their customers say every other RR is uncorrect due to a 2wd would only loss 15 bhp from fly to wheels, and 4wd will only loss 30 bhp. and it will be the same on a 130 bhp RST, and a 350 bhp rst.

Thats why i made a joke, as i believe thats incorrect. As i'm a stronge believer its a percentage of the power is lost, as the drive chain is a restriction.

Ps, i also believe fully in a DD RR,

JamboRS

the post isnt about ava so keep it clean
i replied only to say that it wouldnt make a made up fly figure at ava as they dont do fly figures only wheels as for the other comments of tranny losses etc and why ava's is supposedly the best i wont comment on that as we know each others opinions on them

Andy_R

iTrader: (3)

Christian you arent sounding evasive. What have you to evade?

What you have atempted to do is selectivly quote and manipulate Jamies reply to Dan.

For your info your fucking with the wrong person, but then again if its a fight your looking for then you've quite possibly selected the right man.

Evasive action well that may me an idea

Fiecos Dan

Back to the Thread,

sorry didn't mean to course a detour, light hearted joke.


i didn't understand that, or who you was talking about?

Andy_R

iTrader: (3)

Riots and invasion of lands have been started over less

Fiecos Dan

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

Pardon?

Fiecos Dan

i asked the same thing, about that post.

Andy_R

iTrader: (3)

Pardon!

What you didnt hear what I said?....that whould be about right then, as I didnt say anything. It was writen.

Read what was writen, engage brain & then think!

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

Andy, in response to references by Jamie that EVERYONE comes away with disappointment that their car doesn't make the expected power, I suggested that I would be sceptical about the figures produced there. Jamie almost made it sound that regardless of where your engines power was measured, it would almost certainly make less on AVA's dyno.

We have as fairly equal split of people whose cars make the expected power, to those that don't and have run enough standard cars to know that the power figures are fairly close.

So, how does that lead us to the replies that you have made above?

JamboRS

i merely pointed out that AVA dont do fly figures as was quoted,they would give you your figures at the wheels,whether thats more or less it would make on your ego busting rollers i dont know,i just stated that they would not give you a bullshit figure(ie flywheel)
i never once said AVA was the best or better than anyone elses rollers,if you made 295@wheels on AVA's rollers i would shake your hand as that would prob be the most power an rst has produced on there rollers but sayin that they dont run theres with 2 bar of boost,they like the less boost more power/driveability approach

still there will be an rolling road day prob nearer summer at AVA your welcome to come and try and get as close to your figure as you like,would be good as a comparison against your own rollers,since your still on a learning curve and maybe even learn something from alan when your up,he's actually a very decent chap who would spend all day talkin about rolling roads variations etc

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

Jambo, I have spoken to Alan in the past and found him very helpful. He and I have no issue's between us!!

As for your comment about big boost making less reliability, that's a slightly complicated subject if you don't fully understand the whole thing. There is no power to be made from any kind of weird/wonderful techniques, you need Boost and/or timing to make power. If AVA make more power on less boost, then they must be adding more timing, that doesn't necessarily make it any safer. High/Low comp also comes into it.

As it happens, mine is fairly low comp, so runs lots of boost and a fair bit of timing too. There is no way that a high comp engine could run the amount of boost/timing that I do. It could be said that my engine is one of the safest around due to the low comp aspect.

There are so many difference tuning techniques in use around the world, that it's not easy to challenge which is best, so it's probably best not to try. You should see what the Jap's do.

PeterD

Here goes...

Std bottom end, decompressed Mahls running arp's and 7.8:1
Not sure about the head. doh!
mf2 5th injector
AVA modified Ke Jetronic
std airbox and filter
stage 2 technics
proalloy cooler
chip
2.5 mongoose
150 @ wheels on AVA dyno
un dynoed (when andy had it) 230 @fly on 21 psi

if i remember anything else ill post it

Andy_R

iTrader: (3)

Strange that you call into question power figures produced at AVA, yet not surprising. Your habitual bitching & attempts to discredit others in a somewhat pitiful attempt to elevate yourself........come's across as desperate.

It seems not so long ago that I recall standing next to Allan @ AVA whilst Gary sought advice from Allan on amongst other rolling road related topics. How he (Gary) could be taken seriously given that his rolling road power figures were being mocked.

A few months with a 2wd rolling road your shouting Expert.....go figure!!!!

Compression does indeed come into account where optimising ignition advance/boost thresholds........ Again it doesnt seem that far back that we exchanged pm's you seeking advice/information on compression ratios specifically relating to the1600cvh. Does that ring a bell?

You were keen to find out the spec/ratio used by AVA. Must have been around the time that Tony’s engine went bang and you were spec’ing both his and your own build.


And it could be said that Jamie’s engine is significantly safer than yours, given that his compression ratio is lower than yours, if we are applying the same logic.

Billy_RS

iTrader: (5)

Andy_R

Do you own AVA?

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

I fail to see the bitching you refer to. What I do fail to see and infact the only thing I questioned is why AVA's figures seem to be the one's to believe. Historically, when anyone mentions power figures on here, the reply seems to be along the lines of 'Take it to AVA, then your figures will be believed'. That's not me bitching, it is me as an individual (as in not representative of APT) wondering why AVA's method should reign supreme over everyone else. It's also not me saying that it's not right, I merely asked the question.

Jamie's reply earlier in this thread seems to cast a question mark over my claim of 295bhp at the wheels. I was merely defending myself against that. Was I not?

Where does elevating myself come into it? Since when have I bigged myself up? I merely report what I have seen/done. That's it.

Gary's conversation with Allan, if indeed you were standing there, was completely unrelated to anything we are discussing now. It was actually about 5 years ago and was regarding a dyno which is now in our past and infact whilst working for a company that neither me nor Gary has any connection to any more. Don't digress.

That's just speculation on your part. I did some investigation about compression ratio's when building my engine, I make no secret of that. Infact I probably even posted on here. Yawn.

I don't really understand where you are heading with that reply. I'm not nit-picking about whose engine is safer, again just defending myself against remarks of other's. Remember it wasn't me that started the bitching about how much boost I run. It was one of the Jamsport boys, then the next thing we hear is that Stuart Collin's car which was tuned by Jamsport is to run 2.5 bar of boost. No disrespect to Stuart, that's not why I am pointing this out, it's just a case AGAIN of someone representing a tuner without the full knowledge to do so.

Andy_R

iTrader: (3)

I guess history shows that thier(AVA's) figures are worthy of comparison.
Where you get the "take it to AVA, then your figures will be believed" and "AVA's methods reign supreme" from I dont know.

I fail to see in Jamie's posts where "a question mark is cast over your claim to 295bhp at the wheels" my perception is of your atempt to call into question AVA's figures.

Fiecos Dan

No,
i did make a joke, Not directed at AVA directly, as i dont know/spoke or heard nothing wrong/bad about AVA.

it was meant a joke towards just their followers, who say nothing but the AVA's RR is accurate.

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

Fair point on Jamie's remark, perhaps I was wrong there, or perhaps I wrongly interpreted his use of a BOLD 'IF' (sorry to Jamie if I did), but don't make me trawl through the many RR threads on this forum and quote the many many references to AVA and their wonderful all-singing all-dancing dyno, where regardless of how or where your power figure was achieved, it can't possibly be true unless it was verified at AVA. Those posts DO exist, but frankly I don't have the time or the inclination to find them.

Shame this has to be aired publically really, I do have you in my MSN list, but you never seem to be online these days.

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

Dan, I don't think anyone is upset at anything you have said. I certainly aren't. I am the villain here.

Andy_R

iTrader: (3)

Id be interested to see quotes which state "nothing but AVA's RR is accurate"

Andy_R

iTrader: (3)

Christian im sure you will find many posts and even threads by users commenting on the quality of AVA's rolling road......An enviable position to be in should you consider yourself in direct competition with them.

You may not find as many posts commenting on their dyno...it does however exist.

Fiecos Dan

is not so much AVa are the only accurate RR, more that the losses quoted at others are wrong.


here's one link,


https://passionford.com/forum/viewto...r=asc&start=38


there is at least 2 more i can remember off the top of my head, but will take hours to find.

JamboRS

come on worsel gummage,take the straw from under your hat and start using your brain, as to think a 4wd can lose over 30% of its power from calculated losses
so if i had a 1000bhp cossie i would lose over 300bhp thru calculated losses
your gearbox would look like a lump of molten metal
ok then ill leave you to it
losses are not a percentage,just because your adding more bhp there will be slightly more heat created,thats obvious,but its not a constant,for every bhp gained your losing 0.3bhp,the gearbox doesnt know if its 500bhp or 200bhp so how can it work out its percentage to lose
if we're goin by your terms or christians losses,then my car would make 270bhp@fly,would you saythat plausible?on 18psi on a stg 3 t3
so why did christian jump on lewis on another post when he said he had 240bhp@18psi

Fiecos Dan

Less of the name calling.



Yeah,

Same response the AVA clan say, as this is what AVA have told you's.


But guess what, its not proven.

Your correct, i dont believe there is as much losses as some Roller claim, but i also think there is more than Ava tell You.

Andy_R

iTrader: (3)

Ok Dan, so we've now established that rather than accuracy of measured BHP what we are dissagreeing over is accuracy off transmited losses?

JamboRS

unless you actually look like worsel gummage then theres no name calling,just in jest as he;s no brain either
do you look like him like?

Fiecos Dan

only a bit from the front,




But as for the no brainer, least i think for myself.



Yes, i have always agreed the only measured bhp on a rr is the wheel power.

But even tho thats true, some still read higher (or lower, matters who's correct) than others.

JamboRS

stunt double i heard


look what the thinkn for yourself got you,30% losses,id rather let the experts do the thinkin as they know best,they dont think it

Fiecos Dan

Yep thats what i do,


That why i use a DD RR, as its the BEST.

Andy_R

iTrader: (3)

Quantifying losses or attempting to is futile; yes they exist but can't accurately be measured.

Personally I make a point of not commenting other than generically on losses, in the same way I choose to steer clear from comparing results between differing rolling roads.

JamboRS

yeah its that good it can measure losses and give you a flywheel figure too

Fiecos Dan

No,


But it gives torque. And it isn't a D.I.Y attempt.


As i always have said, BHP @ the wheels is whats important.

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

Andy, I don't mean to nit-pick, but are your words your own? I just find it odd that a person of your obvious grammatical skill should mis-spell a word like transmitted?

Anyway, I digress. Back on topic.

I still believe, as I always have, that 'Power at the Wheels' is one of the most important stat's, behind actual figures on the tarmac, but differently to 10 years ago, a Rolling Road is actually capable of producing a fairly accurate 'estimation' of engine power. That's why countless manufacturers of actual car's use Dyno's like that made by Dyno Dynamics to carry out their testing. How many manufacturers quote power at the wheels? I'm not suggesting that is right or wrong and it doesn't change my opinion of Power at the Wheels figures.

Further to this, I also think that it is the belief of most that an engine dyno is the most accurate way of measuring engine power, but there is enough information in existence to suggest that this isn't the case either. Alot of engine dyno's use a strain gauge, just like the Dyno Dynamics Dyno uses, so there is really as much margin for error on an engine dyno as there is on a chassis dyno.

In conclusion to this, I am happy that I have enjoyed a gain of 60bhp over my previous spec measured on the same dyno, whatever power that produced and the car is achieving what it was built to achieve, which is top speed, so even if the dyno is lying, the tarmac isn't.

Andy_R

iTrader: (3)

Transmited is Allan terminolgy YES!

If the question is do I use the same terminoligy when refering to losses between the flywheel and wheels again the answer is YES!

Are the words my own YES!
I've described losses as transmited as opposed to transmition after an explaination given by Allan a number of years back.

Most recent reference would be the following:-

https://passionford.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=243001

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

I never have doubted Alan's integrity. He is clearly a VERY knowledgable person with many years experience in his field.

My belief is, however, that modern Dyno technology has advanced alot in recent years. Dyno Dynamics don't use the coastdown method for 'calculating' flywheel figures and standard cars seem to produce flywheel figures that are true to their claims, taking into account that some manufacturers over/under quote.

Dyno Dynamics uses a Strain Gauge to measure tractive effort and this device is so accurate that when we view the raw value that this sensor read's, it's value can be changed by placing a leaf on it and it can still be calibrated perfectly.

There are many unusual methods of measuring power that can be seen when you look for them and flaws in almost all become obvious the harder you look.

I have seen video's of dyno runs where you catch a glimpse of the brake-lights coming on as a reflection in the back-wall of the dyno cell during coast down. Of course on a coastdown measured 'flywheel' figure, this type of interaction can completely falsify the end figure.

Also, I have seen many quoted power figures where a Power @ Wheels figure of, for example, 600bhp is quoted against a 'Flywheel' claim of 850bhp. That same car, if run on a dyno where the system or operator believes that a standard figure of 'loss' is applied, then that 4wd car may not exceed 700bhp at the 'flywheel'.

It's all about how to interpret the figures and how they were measured.

Dyno Dynamics believe that by closely governing operators of it's systems and ensuring operation within a very strict set of guidelines and parameters that a reliable level of global standardisation can be achieved. This is a system that will be certified and offered in the UK in the very near future to all DD users. It's success remains to be seen, but it is use in other countries already and represents the closest that is currently available for comparison between dyno's on different days and even in different locations.