180Mph / 500Hp Capri - Dyno plot + video.
#81
I'm Finding My Feet Here Now
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Somewhere safe
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations Nyk,
Good to see you got such a positive result, and an awesome top speed. As has already been said in this thread, the car just looks 'right', and now has the power (and plenty of it) to match.
I can sleep at night now that I know my old engine has achieved something quite spectular.
Credit to Mark for an awesome build, and Nyk for the bowling-ball cajones for getting it up to 180.
Good to see you got such a positive result, and an awesome top speed. As has already been said in this thread, the car just looks 'right', and now has the power (and plenty of it) to match.
I can sleep at night now that I know my old engine has achieved something quite spectular.
Credit to Mark for an awesome build, and Nyk for the bowling-ball cajones for getting it up to 180.
#82
*** Sierra RS Custard ***
iTrader: (3)
Thanks for the reply .
Always loved the car and can't believe you still have it .
Interesting that the torque is more out than the power, where power is just a calculation of torque when comparing the two, I suppose it's just where the rollers can't load the car in the same way the dyno can? .
Would be good if someone could overlay the two to see a direct comparison between the rolling road and dyno.
I have yet to take my car to a rolling road (tried once, but the turbo ingested part of the air-filter and each run the power got less and less ), but am interested to do likewise - especially with 4wd .
Car is a credit to you .
Always loved the car and can't believe you still have it .
Interesting that the torque is more out than the power, where power is just a calculation of torque when comparing the two, I suppose it's just where the rollers can't load the car in the same way the dyno can? .
Would be good if someone could overlay the two to see a direct comparison between the rolling road and dyno.
I have yet to take my car to a rolling road (tried once, but the turbo ingested part of the air-filter and each run the power got less and less ), but am interested to do likewise - especially with 4wd .
Car is a credit to you .
Dyno dynamics rolling roads often struggle to get a RPM feed from an autronic ECU, as a result normally they have to calibrate the RPM feed against roller speed using the tacho in the car for a reference.
If they do this, the BHP figure will be exactly the same regardless of what error is involved in the RPM feed, but it can alter the torque figure accordingly, so that may be an issue here.
It will NOT effect the peak BHP though.
Nyk, can you quote us as exactly as possible please, the two peak BHP RPM points, as this will let us know if the rpm calibration on the dyno dynamics was out at all.
#84
*** Sierra RS Custard ***
iTrader: (3)
Rich, it may also been be down to rpm calibration on the rollers for the capri.
If when they set the rollers at 4000rpm on the tacho, its actually doing 4100rpm, all the torque figures will be out by 2.5% too low.
It wont effect the BHP at all though (well other than moving it 2.5% higher up the rev range so it may read peak at 6150rpm instead of 6000rpm) in terms of the figures but the actual BHP figures recorded will not be effected AT ALL.
If when they set the rollers at 4000rpm on the tacho, its actually doing 4100rpm, all the torque figures will be out by 2.5% too low.
It wont effect the BHP at all though (well other than moving it 2.5% higher up the rev range so it may read peak at 6150rpm instead of 6000rpm) in terms of the figures but the actual BHP figures recorded will not be effected AT ALL.
#87
*** Sierra RS Custard ***
iTrader: (3)
Thats not very reliable unfortunately, when we put the astra on a dyno dynamics on SM4, they tried:
Coil
Injector
RPM output of ecu
And the dynodynamics wasnt happy with any of them, so they had to use the roller speed method.
As Ive mentioned though, it does NOT effect peak BHP at all even if the roller speed calibration is wrong, but it can make torque under read (or over read depending on which way out it is)
Coil
Injector
RPM output of ecu
And the dynodynamics wasnt happy with any of them, so they had to use the roller speed method.
As Ive mentioned though, it does NOT effect peak BHP at all even if the roller speed calibration is wrong, but it can make torque under read (or over read depending on which way out it is)
#90
BANNED
BANNED
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 12,483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not having a go at you personally and maybe I am being dumb as to the exact point you are trying to make there but as you know I sometimes look at mathematics from a reverse angle due to the way I program software when using non high level languages.
But I think what you are saying is wrong ! LOL
(I have deliberately worded the following simply and expanded explanations so everyone can attempt to understand it)
Excluding RPM.....Torque is the ONLY variable you can measure on any dyno/RR. (as opposed to BHP)
This does not depend on RPM except when the torque curve is plotted on the graph as this is then shown relative to RPM.
When the dyno/RR does a power run, these torque values are stored with an RPM reference.
BHP can only be calculated from torque and RPM from the following calculation...
BHP = TORQUE x RPM / 5252
Now the way I understand things, if you measure RPM wrong then both BHP and TORQUE will be shifted up or down the graph by the same amount in their relative ratio's.
For example using fictional figures....
An engine produces a peak torque of 400lb/ft @ 6000 rpm.
Thus 400 (lb/ft) x 6000 (rpm) / 5252 = 456.9 BHP
Now if the RPM over reads by 200 rpm....
Thus 400 (lb/ft) x 6200 (rpm) / 5252 = 472.2 BHP
Going the other was and undereading by 200 rpm...
Thus 400 (lb/ft0 x 5800 (rpm) / 5252 = 441.7 BHP
So my conclusion is that during an incorrectly read RPM graph PEAK TORQUE will always be correct even though its in the wrong place on the
graph relative to RPM.
BHP will be wrong as the RPM ratio changes based on the RPM value.
Thus your comment that peak BHP will be correct for an incorrect RPM reading is not right !!!!
BHP will ONLY ever be correct if the RPM is absolutely correct !
I await your comments
Last edited by ECU Monitor Enthusiast; 25-09-2008 at 10:42 AM.
#93
Caraholic
iTrader: (3)
Chip,
Not having a go at you personally and maybe I am being dumb as to the exact point you are trying to make there but as you know I sometimes look at mathematics from a reverse angle due to the way I program software when using non high level languages.
But I think what you are saying is wrong ! LOL
(I have deliberately worded the following simply and expanded explanations so everyone can attempt to understand it)
Excluding RPM.....Torque is the ONLY variable you can measure on any dyno/RR. (as opposed to BHP)
This does not depend on RPM except when the torque curve is plotted on the graph as this is then shown relative to RPM.
When the dyno/RR does a power run, these torque values are stored with an RPM reference.
BHP can only be calculated from torque and RPM from the following calculation...
BHP = TORQUE x RPM / 5252
Now the way I understand things, if you measure RPM wrong then both BHP and TORQUE will be shifted up or down the graph by the same amount in their relative ratio's.
For example using fictional figures....
An engine produces a peak torque of 400lb/ft @ 6000 rpm.
Thus 400 (lb/ft) x 6000 (rpm) / 5252 = 456.9 BHP
Now if the RPM over reads by 200 rpm....
Thus 400 (lb/ft) x 6200 (rpm) / 5252 = 472.2 BHP
Going the other was and undereading by 200 rpm...
Thus 400 (lb/ft0 x 5800 (rpm) / 5252 = 441.7 BHP
So my conclusion is that during an incorrectly read RPM graph PEAK TORQUE will always be correct even though its in the wrong place on the
graph relative to RPM.
BHP will be wrong as the RPM ratio changes based on the RPM value.
Thus your comment that peak BHP will be correct for an incorrect RPM reading is not right !!!!
BHP will ONLY ever be correct if the RPM is absolutely correct !
I await your comments
Not having a go at you personally and maybe I am being dumb as to the exact point you are trying to make there but as you know I sometimes look at mathematics from a reverse angle due to the way I program software when using non high level languages.
But I think what you are saying is wrong ! LOL
(I have deliberately worded the following simply and expanded explanations so everyone can attempt to understand it)
Excluding RPM.....Torque is the ONLY variable you can measure on any dyno/RR. (as opposed to BHP)
This does not depend on RPM except when the torque curve is plotted on the graph as this is then shown relative to RPM.
When the dyno/RR does a power run, these torque values are stored with an RPM reference.
BHP can only be calculated from torque and RPM from the following calculation...
BHP = TORQUE x RPM / 5252
Now the way I understand things, if you measure RPM wrong then both BHP and TORQUE will be shifted up or down the graph by the same amount in their relative ratio's.
For example using fictional figures....
An engine produces a peak torque of 400lb/ft @ 6000 rpm.
Thus 400 (lb/ft) x 6000 (rpm) / 5252 = 456.9 BHP
Now if the RPM over reads by 200 rpm....
Thus 400 (lb/ft) x 6200 (rpm) / 5252 = 472.2 BHP
Going the other was and undereading by 200 rpm...
Thus 400 (lb/ft0 x 5800 (rpm) / 5252 = 441.7 BHP
So my conclusion is that during an incorrectly read RPM graph PEAK TORQUE will always be correct even though its in the wrong place on the
graph relative to RPM.
BHP will be wrong as the RPM ratio changes based on the RPM value.
Thus your comment that peak BHP will be correct for an incorrect RPM reading is not right !!!!
BHP will ONLY ever be correct if the RPM is absolutely correct !
I await your comments
#94
*** Sierra RS Custard ***
iTrader: (3)
You are mistaken, what ive said is correct.
(I have deliberately worded the following simply and expanded explanations so everyone can attempt to understand it)
Excluding RPM.....Torque is the ONLY variable you can measure on any dyno/RR. (as opposed to BHP)
This does not depend on RPM except when the torque curve is plotted on the graph as this is then shown relative to RPM.
When the dyno/RR does a power run, these torque values are stored with an RPM reference.
BHP can only be calculated from torque and RPM from the following calculation...
BHP = TORQUE x RPM / 5252
Excluding RPM.....Torque is the ONLY variable you can measure on any dyno/RR. (as opposed to BHP)
This does not depend on RPM except when the torque curve is plotted on the graph as this is then shown relative to RPM.
When the dyno/RR does a power run, these torque values are stored with an RPM reference.
BHP can only be calculated from torque and RPM from the following calculation...
BHP = TORQUE x RPM / 5252
From this, an accurate curve of torque vs rollerspeed is plotted in the software.
That then needs to be translated to engine torque, to do this you need to know the relative speed of the engine compared to the rollers.
Now the way I understand things, if you measure RPM wrong then both BHP and TORQUE will be shifted up or down the graph by the same amount in their relative ratio's.
For example using fictional figures....
An engine produces a peak torque of 400lb/ft @ 6000 rpm.
Thus 400 (lb/ft) x 6000 (rpm) / 5252 = 456.9 BHP
Now if the RPM over reads by 200 rpm....
Thus 400 (lb/ft) x 6200 (rpm) / 5252 = 472.2 BHP
Going the other was and undereading by 200 rpm...
Thus 400 (lb/ft0 x 5800 (rpm) / 5252 = 441.7 BHP
For example using fictional figures....
An engine produces a peak torque of 400lb/ft @ 6000 rpm.
Thus 400 (lb/ft) x 6000 (rpm) / 5252 = 456.9 BHP
Now if the RPM over reads by 200 rpm....
Thus 400 (lb/ft) x 6200 (rpm) / 5252 = 472.2 BHP
Going the other was and undereading by 200 rpm...
Thus 400 (lb/ft0 x 5800 (rpm) / 5252 = 441.7 BHP
What you would actually get for your 400lb/ft @ 6000rpm which is registering as 6200rpm due to a slightly incorrect RPM calibration is that instead of being 400lbft, it would be incorrectly scaled and would come out as 387lbft
Which is EXACTLY the same BHP as it should be, 456.9, but now registered at 6200 rpm
So as I said all along, the BHP will be EXACTLY correct values, but shown at a slightly different RPM to where it should be, and the torque will under or over read.
Hope you can see the mistake you have made there, if not then let me know and I will go into more details for you
Roller Torque * Roller Rpm / 5252
And I await yours now Ive hopefully explained it to you enough for the penny to drop my good friend
Last edited by Chip; 25-09-2008 at 11:16 AM.
#95
*** Sierra RS Custard ***
iTrader: (3)
I believe you have the mental capacity to understand what Im saying if you just read it through a few times and take it in small steps Mike, so rather than just take Simon's word for it, try and work it out yourself from the points Ive raised, and you will (imho) be inteligent enough to come up with exactly the same conclusion as me, as it is of course the only correct one, its not a matter for opinion, merely fact or not fact, and what I have said is fact, and what Simon has said is not fact.
Try it again Mike, you can suss it
And if you cant, give me a ring and i'll talk you through it in even smaller steps
Try it again Mike, you can suss it
And if you cant, give me a ring and i'll talk you through it in even smaller steps
#96
BANNED
BANNED
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 12,483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chip,
Instead of just dismissing my comments and saying "INCORRECT" please say why !!!
I would appreciate you editing your above post and copy and paste it into another post
Of course the graph will be 100% correct in relation to the rollers but we want to know what the engine is doing !
If we are not measuring the engine RPM correctly, any readings given in a graph will be wrong ... FACT !!!
Except the peak torque value which will be in the wrong RPM place.
The graph only shows one RPM scale... How do you know how to correct the reading if we are not measuring it directly !!!!
If you agree that the following calculation is correct then all your reasoning is wrong...
BHP = TORQUE x RPM / 5252
Torque is a measurement independant of RPM !
BHP is always calculated from TORQUE and RPM.
It dosent take much brains to see that if TORQUE or RPM is wrong then BHP will be wrong !!
In fact you said I am wrong above in one place then quote the same calculation to me
Instead of just dismissing my comments and saying "INCORRECT" please say why !!!
I would appreciate you editing your above post and copy and paste it into another post
Of course the graph will be 100% correct in relation to the rollers but we want to know what the engine is doing !
If we are not measuring the engine RPM correctly, any readings given in a graph will be wrong ... FACT !!!
Except the peak torque value which will be in the wrong RPM place.
The graph only shows one RPM scale... How do you know how to correct the reading if we are not measuring it directly !!!!
If you agree that the following calculation is correct then all your reasoning is wrong...
BHP = TORQUE x RPM / 5252
Torque is a measurement independant of RPM !
BHP is always calculated from TORQUE and RPM.
It dosent take much brains to see that if TORQUE or RPM is wrong then BHP will be wrong !!
In fact you said I am wrong above in one place then quote the same calculation to me
#102
*** Sierra RS Custard ***
iTrader: (3)
Simon, Id have thought you'd know me better than to think I would make a mistake about something as pure mathmatics as a rolling road, lol
PM me your number and I'll give you a ring, easier to explain on the phone than pages and pages of typing, then once you understand how it works, I'll go back and type it all up properly when I get the chance.
PM me your number and I'll give you a ring, easier to explain on the phone than pages and pages of typing, then once you understand how it works, I'll go back and type it all up properly when I get the chance.
#105
*** Sierra RS Custard ***
iTrader: (3)
As a very extreme but simple example, lets assume we have 100lbft of torque at 5252rpm at the wheels from our engine, and of course hence 100bhp at the wheels too.
Now we're going to get the rpm VERY wrong just to demonstrate what happens.
Lets get it wrong by 50%, just for arguments sake?
Ok, so now we are seeing 2626rpm instead of 5252, and of course, that means we we do the calculation to get from roller torque to engine torque, this will also be out by the same amount, but in the opposite direction, so the torque we will see will be 200lbft instead of 100lbft.
So what we will see in our example, is 200lbft @ 2626 when its really 100lbft @ 5252, as BOTH will be out by the same factor (one halves, the other doubles)
Tell me please simon, what BHP will we see if we do the maths on 200lbft@2626 and can you tell me what % discrepancy there is from the 100bhp we were expecting?
Indeed I have, you ase using the right equation, you are just using it wrongly
#106
As you can see as the run was done in 3rd the engine did not quite see the same boost lower down as the engine dyno, So you dont quite have the same Tq as the engine dyno but when you look at it its only 15ftlb down from the max it showed on the dyno,
This shows you a proper engine can make within a few % of what is recorded on a engine dyno and 2 diff companies owning them,
This is not a advert only a reply to your question by someone that is the best qualifed person to do soso no deleting this.
Mark
Russ
#107
PassionFord Post Whore!!
After disapointment last night with the thread vanishing, here are the details of the 180mph Capri.. (in the wet I may add)
HUGE CONGRATULATIONS to Nik, Mark, Jim, Keith and all involved in the build.
503.6 BHP @ Flywheel
485 Ft/LB @ Flywheel
430.6 BHP @ The Wheels
414 FT/LB @ The Wheels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3ZFexeqEaQ
HUGE CONGRATULATIONS to Nik, Mark, Jim, Keith and all involved in the build.
503.6 BHP @ Flywheel
485 Ft/LB @ Flywheel
430.6 BHP @ The Wheels
414 FT/LB @ The Wheels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3ZFexeqEaQ
This RR was done with the Ignition pick up as you can clearly see it listed with the If Ftl this means it was run with The Ignition pick up,
So no fudgingof the graph can happen and you can see the temp and baro also.
Mark
#112
Axle is standard 2.8 with uprated shafts and a tightened up stock diff
Terry,to be honest I don't think It'll go much faster.
saying that,there was a slight headwind,we were down .2 bar due to a split diaphragm in the dump valve and I was struggling to get 5th gear so maybe a touch more mph if everything came together
We might be closely matched on top speed but 10s quarters are well beyond my reach!
Terry,to be honest I don't think It'll go much faster.
saying that,there was a slight headwind,we were down .2 bar due to a split diaphragm in the dump valve and I was struggling to get 5th gear so maybe a touch more mph if everything came together
We might be closely matched on top speed but 10s quarters are well beyond my reach!
#113
Axle is standard 2.8 with uprated shafts and a tightened up stock diff
Terry,to be honest I don't think It'll go much faster.
saying that,there was a slight headwind,we were down .2 bar due to a split diaphragm in the dump valve and I was struggling to get 5th gear so maybe a touch more mph if everything came together
We might be closely matched on top speed but 10s quarters are well beyond my reach!
Terry,to be honest I don't think It'll go much faster.
saying that,there was a slight headwind,we were down .2 bar due to a split diaphragm in the dump valve and I was struggling to get 5th gear so maybe a touch more mph if everything came together
We might be closely matched on top speed but 10s quarters are well beyond my reach!
#114
Yup,3.44 gears
The problem being 1245kg verses, I guess, under 1000kg for your car
Car used to run 12.20s at over 117mph on only 330bhp on AO48s with the previous engine.
Puddy spent ages looking for a hidden nitrous lines that were never there!!
The problem being 1245kg verses, I guess, under 1000kg for your car
Car used to run 12.20s at over 117mph on only 330bhp on AO48s with the previous engine.
Puddy spent ages looking for a hidden nitrous lines that were never there!!
#117
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Reading
Posts: 956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stunning car this,cracking job on it by all involved.i was at brunters on monday when it ran the 180,fuck me this things goes like fuck and sounds the tits.nick you have big bollocks m8 as it was wet as fuck there with puddles all over the place.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
STAFFY OWNER
Pictures, video & Photoshop Forum
10
13-09-2015 08:59 PM