MLR Rolling road today......477 bhp...Graph added.
19-11-2007, 09:51 PM
#241
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont like euan disagree there is an effect - pikes peak etc all prove this easily, I just dont believe the relationship is the same for NA as for turbo. I'm not even saying if its more or less correction for turbo as I do not know and think it changes as the system changes. I doubt it is directly related as with the N/A example.
Yes I know people use it on dynos rollers etc but doesnt mean I agree until proven properly otherwise. Seen worse cases of misinformation over the years.
Now back to more important issues - Dave - what temp was you fuel on the run?
lol
Yes I know people use it on dynos rollers etc but doesnt mean I agree until proven properly otherwise. Seen worse cases of misinformation over the years.
Now back to more important issues - Dave - what temp was you fuel on the run?
lol
19-11-2007, 09:53 PM
#242
BANNED
BANNED
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 12,483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could say the engine charge method is irrelivant.
The reason I say that is that the correction figures get larger for more
bhp which is the point I am trying to make now.
Horse power is a measurement of force over work time.
A set amount of horse power at a fixed RPM at the same engine efficiency
will consume a fixed volume of air.
The quantity of required oxygen will change due to density.
If the air density is lower due to high air inlet temperatures then the power
will go down as there is less oxygen available to make your power.
Again I say, Its all about standards and that no two places follow the same
making a mockery of it all really...
The reason I say that is that the correction figures get larger for more
bhp which is the point I am trying to make now.
Horse power is a measurement of force over work time.
A set amount of horse power at a fixed RPM at the same engine efficiency
will consume a fixed volume of air.
The quantity of required oxygen will change due to density.
If the air density is lower due to high air inlet temperatures then the power
will go down as there is less oxygen available to make your power.
Again I say, Its all about standards and that no two places follow the same
making a mockery of it all really...
19-11-2007, 10:03 PM
#248
BANNED
BANNED
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 12,483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rapidcossie
Flux Capacitor
Just out of interest, what temps/pressure are the standard then?
Just out of interest, what temps/pressure are the standard then?
I dont know exactly off the top of my head and I wont guess as I hate it
when Mike Rainbird corrects me
... Its a TUV and DIN (german) standard.
Mike Rainbird maybe the man to ask though (via Harvey)....
19-11-2007, 10:09 PM
#251
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another way I am looking at it - during the run your boost changes - as your all online map reading experts now you know that the pressure ratio changes and with it the efficiency in most cases (depending where you move about the map granted)
Now you are trying to use linear standards to work back to a "natural state" by applying a temperature correction and a pressure correction. I just dont think these apply correctly in the turboed engine`s case. N/A - yeah if the equation is correct to a point - its much simplier.
I guess I am sayingis that I would output the recorded values and ones that are directly calculated such as wheel torque/hp. Measured pressures/temperatures etc but leave out the fudge factors that cause confusion.
I can also see this being a shower of 5hit by the next time I see it at uni tomorrow as this is not how people have been doing it lol TUV approved turbo charged nonsense I say lol
Now you are trying to use linear standards to work back to a "natural state" by applying a temperature correction and a pressure correction. I just dont think these apply correctly in the turboed engine`s case. N/A - yeah if the equation is correct to a point - its much simplier.
I guess I am sayingis that I would output the recorded values and ones that are directly calculated such as wheel torque/hp. Measured pressures/temperatures etc but leave out the fudge factors that cause confusion.
I can also see this being a shower of 5hit by the next time I see it at uni tomorrow as this is not how people have been doing it lol TUV approved turbo charged nonsense I say lol
19-11-2007, 11:06 PM
#254
BANNED
BANNED
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 12,483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mechanic28,
They use corrections to make an engines readings the same as if
they were tested using EXACTLY the same standard conditions
which in reality no two places/conditions are the same.
I.E the same ambient air temperature and the same atmosperic pressure, humidity etc...
They use corrections to make an engines readings the same as if
they were tested using EXACTLY the same standard conditions
which in reality no two places/conditions are the same.
I.E the same ambient air temperature and the same atmosperic pressure, humidity etc...
20-11-2007, 07:33 AM
#256
Simon,
You need to make up you mind, as one second you're saying that the power achieved with these injectors on Dave's engine is impossible, then the next you're saying that the temperature probe location (the reason for it's huge correction factor) is mounted in the right place, where if you move it to measure the cell temperature instead of the engine bay temp, the figure is not overly corrected and you get a more realistic bhp.
Even Harvey's engine dyno takes the cell temperature well away from the engine, as the air that the turbo moves is so dramatic and of such large volumes, that measuring it too close to the engine gives higher RADIATED heat temps (not in anyway related to the temp of the air that the engine is consuming after a few seconds) and the air temp will calculate upward with anything above 20°C ambient (and down wards for anything below 20°C).
Why can't you see that measuring the air temp in the engine bay is flawed, when you quote the way Honda do it (which is trying to get a true AMBIENT temp)? As soon as the turbo starts moving the huge volumes of air, it will be pulling in the cooler air from inside the dyno cell, so to measure the radiated heat will ALWAYS make the computer ADD power, as it will ALWAYS pick up the rdiated heat and NOT the temp of the air entering the engine 
.
If you want an artificially high figure, measure the air temp close to a heat source, if you want a realistic figure, measure the AMBIENT air temp, as this is what the turbo will be consuming at a rate of knots. All you have to do is look at a turbo's compresser map and see what kind of volume it will be shifting, you can then see that it is HUNDREDS of litres of air in a very short time, which would just not have time to be affected by the radiated heat (obviously dependent on where the turbo was obtaining it's air supply from, so is why airboxes or properly shielded cone filters rule).
You need to make up you mind, as one second you're saying that the power achieved with these injectors on Dave's engine is impossible, then the next you're saying that the temperature probe location (the reason for it's huge correction factor) is mounted in the right place, where if you move it to measure the cell temperature instead of the engine bay temp, the figure is not overly corrected and you get a more realistic bhp.
Even Harvey's engine dyno takes the cell temperature well away from the engine, as the air that the turbo moves is so dramatic and of such large volumes, that measuring it too close to the engine gives higher RADIATED heat temps (not in anyway related to the temp of the air that the engine is consuming after a few seconds) and the air temp will calculate upward with anything above 20°C ambient (and down wards for anything below 20°C).
Why can't you see that measuring the air temp in the engine bay is flawed, when you quote the way Honda do it (which is trying to get a true AMBIENT temp)?
As soon as the turbo starts moving the huge volumes of air, it will be pulling in the cooler air from inside the dyno cell, so to measure the radiated heat will ALWAYS make the computer ADD power, as it will ALWAYS pick up the rdiated heat and NOT the temp of the air entering the engine .If you want an artificially high figure, measure the air temp close to a heat source, if you want a realistic figure, measure the AMBIENT air temp, as this is what the turbo will be consuming at a rate of knots. All you have to do is look at a turbo's compresser map and see what kind of volume it will be shifting, you can then see that it is HUNDREDS of litres of air in a very short time, which would just not have time to be affected by the radiated heat (obviously dependent on where the turbo was obtaining it's air supply from, so is why airboxes or properly shielded cone filters rule
).
20-11-2007, 08:09 AM
#257
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nash
Originally Posted by Kev.H
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Originally Posted by dingy
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Dingly,
APTs set up has the temp probe measuring the cell temperature and NOT the airbox temp (which as Mark has pointed out, gives hugely (upwardly)corrected figures) .
APTs set up has the temp probe measuring the cell temperature and NOT the airbox temp (which as Mark has pointed out, gives hugely (upwardly)corrected figures)
. 
) . Hows comes I only made 270 
You mean i might have even less Yet I can make more on say the track n road TAT single roller 285bhp ? Which is meant to be very accurate 1,5% within a SUN engine dyno rolling roads are sooo confusing
thanks for clearing up
20-11-2007, 10:36 AM
#259
Testing the future
Originally Posted by Flux Capacitor
mechanic28,
They use corrections to make an engines readings the same as if
they were tested using EXACTLY the same standard conditions
which in reality no two places/conditions are the same.
I.E the same ambient air temperature and the same atmosperic pressure, humidity etc...
They use corrections to make an engines readings the same as if
they were tested using EXACTLY the same standard conditions
which in reality no two places/conditions are the same.
I.E the same ambient air temperature and the same atmosperic pressure, humidity etc...
20-11-2007, 11:57 AM
#260
BANNED
BANNED
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 12,483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by foreigneRS
Originally Posted by Flux Capacitor
mechanic28,
They use corrections to make an engines readings the same as if
they were tested using EXACTLY the same standard conditions
which in reality no two places/conditions are the same.
I.E the same ambient air temperature and the same atmosperic pressure, humidity etc...
They use corrections to make an engines readings the same as if
they were tested using EXACTLY the same standard conditions
which in reality no two places/conditions are the same.
I.E the same ambient air temperature and the same atmosperic pressure, humidity etc...
... How many of these tuners cells are actually equipped with that technology ?
- I can only think of one outside of a major corporation that isnt a car maker.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
nicodinho
Ford Non RS / XR / ST parts for sale.
6
07-10-2015 12:56 PM