Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

so now your saying its only 680 bhp???the car did 616 bhp right??so plus 64 bhp??? thats 680bhp???basicly what im saying!!not as much as on the dyno???
cheers danny

Mark Shead

Maybe you should have gone and looked at the engine dyno graph like I said,
And if you didnt know a Dyno dynamics rr uses a straight 20.4% loss so this graph at the flywheel is a straight % and not a actual fig its only the power at the wheels is correct and measured,
Go and add the numbers to the engine dyno like I said at the extra boost I would expect to see 550+hp at the wheels,
On the Evo engines I dyno we see a total loss between 22 to 25% when going from engine dyno to RR so is the cossie less or more than this that is the question.

Mark

Fagin

Nice figures both of you!

For comparison I had my Spec C on a Dyno Dynamics RR a couple of weeks back and it hit 530bhp / 540lbft on a standard Subaru fitment GT30 core AET Turbo. The boost was a bit lazy coming on as the run was not loaded up correctly, but even though it still managed that peak torque at 4500rpm. Peak boost on the road comes in at around 3200rpm. On the DD RR it was at 4400rpm. Peak power was at 1.75bar.

All figures on straight VPower using a High Compression 2.5ltr engine.

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

you know and i know a dd rr is programed to lose % and you also know that the more power a car has the less it loses so at that power on an escos it shouldnt even lose 20%..evos are known for losing more through thier better transmission than escos to..
your also adding 64 bhp from engine dyno wich is at crank power to the wheel power on a rr wich you also know is not correct so where the fuck are you going with these calcs???you better get rod by your side to work out your figs for you!!!
i see where youve compared figs on the dyno but now were comparing figs against psi on the rr..the fact is at 2.4 bar on daves engine on the dd rr it would not of made 711 bhp??thats what im saying and as said above the more power the less lost so power fig would be even less...best way to prove this is when rods car goes on dd rr and see what it makes....il put money on it it wont make the same as dyno???and if it does the dd rr will still state 18% loss wich of course wont be right with a 2wd yb running 800+ bhp..
cheers danny

Mark Shead

Maybe you should look at what I said its clear to me and nice language btw,
And theres no fact on Daves as it wasnt run on the RR at 2.4bar,
Rods will be run on the RR to see what it does in the car.

Mark

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

you realy answered them points well there...i take it you never use any choice language??especialy when your trying to make a valid point???well im sorry but i sometimes do!!! cheers danny

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

come on wheres chip or atleast some one that will say something???
its always the same on here..you make a few valid points and basicly no one bothers to reply or you get a shit reply that makes no sense..and thats just from the bloke that built the said engine!!! no doubt chip will chirp up soon when hes back from cruising???
cheers danny

TimC

iTrader: (1)

Si id love to be in your car when/if that ever happens again. Chasing the Prep N Play car was soooooo good at Donny

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

i will be well up for a rip with si b also but i hope hes a fair bit quicker than the prep and play 3 door as at brands i pissed all over that car...
cheers danny

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Am online now as im in work.

Cant really be arsed to trawl through all your rambling and badly laid out posts though to find what you want answered TBH, but if you have anything you would like comment on feel free to repost it a bit more clearly and I will do so.

What are you actually trying to argue over though, that you think it would make a couple less bhp in the car than on the dyno?

Impossible to ever know as im sure you are aware, as there is NO dyno on planet earth that accurately measures transmission losses, its always only an educated guess.

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

so for once because you cant be arsed (wich never normaly happens)your not going to put your two pence worth in????
the point i was making was after all the bollox the car wouldnt make 711 bhp on the rr???
your the usual spokesman who normaly answers for the mad crew and thought you atleast would give your opinion on what shit mark came out with but i suppose on this occasion it will suit you to keep it shut???
cheers danny

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Quite happy to reply, but not going over a whole evenings post to do so.


The ONLY accurate measurement you can get in the car, is an at the wheels figure, where as mark has mentioned it would be mid 500s on higher boost im sure

I'll answer on any thread I find interesting, couldnt give a fuck who the tuner is, and i certainly dont speak on mark's behalf as he knows far more than I do so doesnt need me talking for him just to give a less useful answer than he could give.

I havent seen anything that is "shit" that Mark has replied, my belief is that rolling roads do NOT have an accurate way to measure transmission losses, and they never will do, he was commenting on the % difference he tends to see between the engine dyno and the wheels results and I dont have enough experience of that to comment as I dont reguarly go between a dyno and a rolling road like he does.

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

look at marks posts..on one of them to get the 550 at wheels fig for example he added the extra 64 bhp from engine dyno to the wheels fig!!!even you can see thats not right???
danny

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Daves car made 491bhp @ wheels for 2.85 bar absolute pressure.

Bear in mind thats not actually on a finished map at that pressure either, thats just Dave chucking it on the rollers on the basemap, so with a couple more degrees ignition im sure the wheels figure would have been over 500 already, so the 491 figure isnt quite representative of what was possible I suspect, it only showed what dave had on his base map.

But even still, Thats 172bhp @ wheels per ber of pressure.
or 86bhp @ wheels for half a bar

So even though its not a linear scale it seems perfectly reasonable to me that when fully mapped with half a bar more, it would pick up another 60-70bhp @ the wheels or so more above what it has there.


I really cant see the point you are trying to make, Dave's car performed exactly how i was expecting it to when he put it on the dyno, I dont see any significant "missing" horsepower on it when its making almost 500bhp @ the wheels for the boost and ignition that its running etc.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

To get to 550 from 491, he added 59bhp, not 64bhp, and he also knows that the 491bhp is a few bhp still off what it would have made with the ignition optimised, as Dave still wasnt on a finished map at that boost level, so in reality he is only adding another 50bhp.

If you think that is wrong, its of course up to you to have that opinion, but all Mark is doing is telling you what he would honestly expect from the car, and IMHO what he is saying makes perfect sense to me!

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

i cant be bothered to write down all my calcs now and i dont want ppl to think im slating yum!!! but an escos with 711 bhp should have around 580 bhp @ wheels and no matter how you work it out it was never going to have that...
my engine did exactly this from dyno to rr so im not suprised but was just trying to say this and was jumped on..
cheers danny

Fagin

I think you best re-word that comment. I can go on three different rolling roads and they will all give wildly different ATW figures. Which one is accurate, as they can't all be!

There is bull**** and there are dyno's! Not much difference between the two in my book!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Sub 20% transmission losses is less than I would personally expect and without Dave's engine having the map finished in the car, and being run on full boost I guess we will never have an exact figure to go off mate as to what he would have had, and obviously now he is breaking the car thats not going to happen now.

Even if it has lost 20-30bhp in the car for some reason, such as restricted inlet breathing or exhaust breathing relative to the dyno cell then I dont really think it matters a great deal to most people, although the numbers would have been interesting to see.

But for you to be arguing against what you think it might have done with the boost turned up, and then compare that to what you think it should have done, is all pretty pointless IMHO as its all entirely guesswork really, so if its 20bhp apart on a load of guesses thats still only a 3% error, which doesnt seem unlikely to me anyway.

So I dont really think you have any valid point that you are making TBH mate, it just comes across like you are having a go, even if that isnt your intention.

Dave put it on the dyno because he was interested to see what power he had been driving it with, he now knows that.
He also knows what the engine was capable of from the dyno, so trying to guess what its capable of by adding numbers to what it made on the rollers seems pointless when he already knows it makes 711bhp on high boost anyway.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I said the only accurate figure you CAN get. not the only accurate figure you aLWAYS get.

Most rolling roads churn out garbage, look at the bristol group day recently, Doug Stirlings car made under 250bhp at the wheels and was then quoted with nearly 50% transmission losses, clearly utter rubbish!

I dont know why people get so obsessed over rolling road figures given the inherent inaccuracy of them.

My comment about what you CAN get, is that if you own your own dyno that you have control of and operate it properly, you can be confident that your figures will always be representative of one car to the next, so they are a useful tuning aid, but what they dont EVER do, is accurately tell you the power your engine is actually making!

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

theres no way it would lose 20% at that power!!!you should know this as the more power the less loses!!!im not going to bother anymore as your not going to see another opinion on it...
cheers danny

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Its simply not that straightforward.


When power increases, so does the loading on parts, and often you get to the stage where putting more power in results in a bigger percentage loss as the friction goes up exponentially!
Likewise, sometimes although the loading increases the box is well enough specced and lubed that you dont see a significant increase in friction and the % losses go down.

You simply cannot quote one rule that applies to all transmissions as its a series of bell curves, one for each loaded surface!
So the diffs might get more efficient % wise and the box less efficient, or vice versa, or all go in one direction.

You just seem to be making a huge number of assumptions and guesses, adding them all together and trying to draw an accurate conclusion from them, it just seems like a pointless thing to do IMHO as you must know yourself that you arent ever going to be accurate doing it like that, so why bother?

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

i agree tottaly in what youve said there so why go on about a wheel fig that is being relied on??? i suppose the only argument here is transmission losses..
the fact is wether the rr is right or wrong you will have less losses the more power you have and an escos is believed to be app 20% std and thats at 220 bhp so its not going to be the same 20% at 700 bhp is it???
cheers danny

Spiky

iTrader: (1)

Its people like you that have brought this site down. ALWAYS looking for an argument


Sad, just sad

Chip

iTrader: (3)

You are aware that dave doesnt run a standard gearbox are you mate? It has much bigger teeth in it that would give potentially give different losses on a standard car to what the standard box does?

But either way, it is NOT the case that when you triple the power the % losses will always drop, sometimes they will go up and sometimes they will go down, its entirely application dependant, there isnt a "one rule fits all cases" answer to this, so you are over simplifying the issue to the point where what you are saying is simply not accurate anymore IMHO

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Not sure who that comment was aimed at.

If it was me, then I disagree Im not looking for an argument at all, Im merely correcting what I believe to be innacurate info, I suspect that Danny believes that is what he is doing too.

If people dont want to read it because such discussions dont interest them then they dont need to, but at least in both cases we are doing our best to be constructive, where as your comment is nothing other than insulting and brings nothing of value to the discussion at all IMHO.

Be a boring world if we all thought the same thing though anyway!

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

im only making the same assumptions as you and mad as no matter what the wheel fig says your happy to make the % work for the said bhp output instead of just saying its probably 35-40 bhp less in the car wich is more likely...
Thats what iv done and have been trying to get the hp i want in the car by making changes...
cheers danny

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Im not trying to do any such thing, I dont beleive that there is an accurate way to measure the power of an engine once its installed in a car, other than to quote the amount of power that ends up at the wheels, I dont believe its possible to derive from that an accurate figure showing how much its actually making at the flywheel by any means I have available to me, or anyone else who uses a rolling road for that matter.

That is why DD rollers dont even attempt to measure the rundown losses or anything like that, as they know it isnt accurate, so they just allow you to add a % which vaguely represents loss, its NOT intended even by the makers to be accurate though as far as im aware so its pointless anyone else treating it like it is definitive.

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

I know your right there for sure so on that note im giving up as i believe the car wouldnt lose that much and should make around 580 @the wheels and everyone else is happy to think its less...maybe i should ignore the power mine makes on the rollers too and id be happier..lol..
cheers danny

wozzy

All this talk about transmission losses and percentages being different etc looks to me to be more a case of certain people suggesting marks engine dyno figures are 'fudged'. His engines have proven themselves time and time again so i dont see the need to constantly query what figures his engines make. Cant remember exactly but didn't one of his 500/500 engines go from engine dyno to dd dyno and only loose 5bhp or somthin?? i would think that would be proof enough for most people

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

never said i didnt believe the engine dyno plot and have also said more than once what an engine and id be happy myself if it were mine..the argument is from me anyway that its less in the car..not a slating about yum or dave or marks engine as they wouldnt give a toss now as the car is in bits!!!!
cheers danny

MikeR

If l recall correctly the dyno v rr plot for the Capri that Mark did was spot on regarding the difference's and what was/is expected

Mike

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

maybe yes but i expect in this case it doesnt count..lol
cheers danny

MikeR

Have you ever posted your graphs Danny ?

Mike

Danny @ Enhanced Performance

iTrader: (3)

the first engine dyno was done by tommy at field m.sport a while back and my graph i no longer have infact iv had loads over the years for many different engines and yet i dont know where they are...iv only ever run my latest car/engine on our own rollers for comparison and it has been on paul hills old rr after it was re calibrated..
there was 6 bhp between our rrs but since then iv only gone by our own rr...
my engine will be re dynoed by the end of january and i will defo keep and post the results..
im hoping for around the 650 hp mark but it all depends on turbo choice as im having a new ett borg warner derived turbo being speced at the mo and if that works out i should be around the 700 hp mark with no extra lag...only time will tell but even if its only 600 bhp still il post my results..
cheers danny

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Yes I remembmer that It was within a couple of bhp, although Im personally of the opinion that is largely because on that particular car the DD figures that are a guess at transmission losses (and that really IS all they are!) just happened by pure chance to the right numbers, if he had a totally different transmission then the guess at losses would have been wrong and the figure would have then came back either higher or lower accordingly.

Luca

iTrader: (2)

Would you be speaking of this Capri

https://passionford.com/forum/3603401-post1.html

https://passionford.com/forum/genera...lot-video.html

(edit full link above)

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Yes

MikeR

That be the one Luca

Mike

Its Dave

iTrader: (4)

At the end of the day have 2 set of figures, engine dyno and rolling road

Now im sure if l had of kept YUM mark could of got me very close to the engine dyno figures in the car when we was going to have a crack at 200 plus the benefit of some race fuel as well

I decided to to have the figures from what it was running on the road, if we had turned up boost we may of had transmission problems as it was only a Bara box and a 7" Quaife rear diff and all my transmission was sold at the time of the rollers

I would of not wanted anymore than 500bhp at the wheels, anyone that has had 500bhp at the wheels will tell you its bloody fast!!!! Maybe to fast for the road.

Cheers

RANJ

ill vouch for the 500atw wheels being enough