400bhp+ Cossie RR/Dyno graphs? Post em here.
12-02-2008, 07:30 AM
#44
MAD Carbon Cossie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South London
Posts: 2,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by big_wig_074
quite simply the worst pic ever 
but lost original somewhere.thicker line on right is bhp other is lb/ft,peak is 425 for both iirc withscales just legible
but lost original somewhere.thicker line on right is bhp other is lb/ft,peak is 425 for both iirc withscales just legible Yeah that time it was peak 425hp & 425lb ft
The time before with the Ahmed Chip it made 432hp & 442lb ft but was alot slower car 
Got the new Chip & Baby Board from Steve Scott/Harvey & with them that transformed the car completely ! 
Lower hp & torque but the car was 10 times faster !
12-02-2008, 08:47 PM
#46
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Shropshire.
Posts: 3,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CossieRich
Nice
What spec engine and what boost was that at?
What spec engine and what boost was that at?
200 long studded Block,low comp,BD10's,headwork,4x4 plenum with spacer.
35psi peak boost,holding 28psi.(Turbo only lived for 6 months on that boost though
)Sorry can't tell you what compression or whats been done to head,bottom end re-build invoice just says 'low comp',and headwork was a cash in hand no VAT charged job
Originally Posted by Christian and Beccy
Is there a reason why the run ended at 5500rpm?
Not sure to be honest,didn't notice myself till ages after had it on rollers
Was only a power run,so didn't really get much feedback off operators.
Could it have been just cause power was starting to drop off??????
12-02-2008, 09:18 PM
#47
Hmmmm, strange. What turbo is it?
I'm wondering if the RPM reading was wrong? Do you know if they used an Ignition pick-up? Or did they estimate RPM from your clocks? Or else if the power has dropped off that early, there must be something else wrong.
I'm wondering if the RPM reading was wrong? Do you know if they used an Ignition pick-up? Or did they estimate RPM from your clocks? Or else if the power has dropped off that early, there must be something else wrong.
14-02-2008, 02:13 PM
#48
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Shropshire.
Posts: 3,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Christian and Beccy
Hmmmm, strange. What turbo is it?
I'm wondering if the RPM reading was wrong? Do you know if they used an Ignition pick-up? Or did they estimate RPM from your clocks? Or else if the power has dropped off that early, there must be something else wrong.
I'm wondering if the RPM reading was wrong? Do you know if they used an Ignition pick-up? Or did they estimate RPM from your clocks? Or else if the power has dropped off that early, there must be something else wrong.
Not sure on ignition pick up
Only thing the operator said was 'thats a good power curve,must go well on the road'
Was at Power Station,heard a few people say there abit dodgy????
14-02-2008, 02:24 PM
#49
Shame that graph doesn't show boost. I'd be interested to see that. Looks too responsive for a 0.63 T34 car, which might explain why the run only goes to 5500. Maybe the RPM was entered wrong, giving it the illusion of 1000rpm better response, but making the run look like it ended at 5500rpm.
Though its hard to say, it looks from the graph like its got full boost at 3500rpm, that must be more like 4500rpm in reality? That would have then taken the run to 6500rpm.
Maybe I am wrong!
Though its hard to say, it looks from the graph like its got full boost at 3500rpm, that must be more like 4500rpm in reality? That would have then taken the run to 6500rpm.
Maybe I am wrong!
14-02-2008, 05:00 PM
#51
saff is working!!!...atm
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: fishburn sex shop...co.durham
Posts: 8,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Christian and Beccy
Shame that graph doesn't show boost. I'd be interested to see that. Looks too responsive for a 0.63 T34 car, which might explain why the run only goes to 5500. Maybe the RPM was entered wrong, giving it the illusion of 1000rpm better response, but making the run look like it ended at 5500rpm.
Though its hard to say, it looks from the graph like its got full boost at 3500rpm, that must be more like 4500rpm in reality? That would have then taken the run to 6500rpm.
Maybe I am wrong!
Though its hard to say, it looks from the graph like its got full boost at 3500rpm, that must be more like 4500rpm in reality? That would have then taken the run to 6500rpm.
Maybe I am wrong!
14-02-2008, 05:07 PM
#52
Part of the Furniture
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: aberdeen
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
400 bhp+
The power graphs don't look to hot to me apart from a few the torque is way to far up the rev range and drops like a stone. Every one gets cought up in bhp figures and forget about torque that is what makes a fast car you want early torque and smooth drop off to the end of the rev range with bhp takeing over from tq mid point. heres mine very close to Mike's Hm SCS
14-02-2008, 05:18 PM
#53
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CosKev3
Was at Power Station,heard a few people say there abit dodgy????
14-02-2008, 06:32 PM
#54
Football Cwazy
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Redditch, Worcestershire
Posts: 9,553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pete mcrash
Originally Posted by Christian and Beccy
Shame that graph doesn't show boost. I'd be interested to see that. Looks too responsive for a 0.63 T34 car, which might explain why the run only goes to 5500. Maybe the RPM was entered wrong, giving it the illusion of 1000rpm better response, but making the run look like it ended at 5500rpm.
Though its hard to say, it looks from the graph like its got full boost at 3500rpm, that must be more like 4500rpm in reality? That would have then taken the run to 6500rpm.
Maybe I am wrong!
Though its hard to say, it looks from the graph like its got full boost at 3500rpm, that must be more like 4500rpm in reality? That would have then taken the run to 6500rpm.
Maybe I am wrong!
14-02-2008, 06:51 PM
#55
saff is working!!!...atm
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: fishburn sex shop...co.durham
Posts: 8,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bud-weis
Originally Posted by pete mcrash
Originally Posted by Christian and Beccy
Shame that graph doesn't show boost. I'd be interested to see that. Looks too responsive for a 0.63 T34 car, which might explain why the run only goes to 5500. Maybe the RPM was entered wrong, giving it the illusion of 1000rpm better response, but making the run look like it ended at 5500rpm.
Though its hard to say, it looks from the graph like its got full boost at 3500rpm, that must be more like 4500rpm in reality? That would have then taken the run to 6500rpm.
Maybe I am wrong!
Though its hard to say, it looks from the graph like its got full boost at 3500rpm, that must be more like 4500rpm in reality? That would have then taken the run to 6500rpm.
Maybe I am wrong!
15-02-2008, 03:15 AM
#60
PassionFord Post Whore!!
350 - 370 bhp.
Seen a pulser do 330 bhp on T34 (cant remember full spec or boost), with out a proper tune, and a issue,
but that was on external wastegate(due to space issue), with std wastegate welded shut.
Seen a pulser do 330 bhp on T34 (cant remember full spec or boost), with out a proper tune, and a issue,
but that was on external wastegate(due to space issue), with std wastegate welded shut.
