Powerstation shootout results
13 November 2000, 12:58 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm. Looking at the various curves for Sunil's car begs a question:
Is that HOOGE bulge in the torque curve at 3000 with the PossumLink ECU, what the MY00 surging problem is trying to avoid (but over-compensating for)?
Only other curve i could see (I didn't look at them all)showing anything like it was Anders Skarsten's 22b
Is that HOOGE bulge in the torque curve at 3000 with the PossumLink ECU, what the MY00 surging problem is trying to avoid (but over-compensating for)?
Only other curve i could see (I didn't look at them all)showing anything like it was Anders Skarsten's 22b
13 November 2000, 09:49 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Stratford Upon Avon
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Where are the Powerstation results?
I can remember some of the results Rich shouted out but not all of them.
Must admit the Silver EVO and Skyline did it for me, EVO was still to hit peak power going into the red!!!!
Did Mark Shead put get the Black Cossie Escort on the rollers?
Must trade in my MY00 Scooby for a G-reg Skyline and spend the spare 10k down at Middlehurst.
jon
Where are the Powerstation results?
I can remember some of the results Rich shouted out but not all of them.
Must admit the Silver EVO and Skyline did it for me, EVO was still to hit peak power going into the red!!!!
Did Mark Shead put get the Black Cossie Escort on the rollers?
Must trade in my MY00 Scooby for a G-reg Skyline and spend the spare 10k down at Middlehurst.
jon
13 November 2000, 06:21 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rannoch
One of the interesting things is that on Saturday they tested a std STI V Type R.
It gave 13lbft LESS torque than a P1 with just the backbox.
An STI with 225lbft according to PS. Still doesnt sound right. The P1 engine was bench dyno'd on 97 Ron and gave 256lbft.
Jonathan
One of the interesting things is that on Saturday they tested a std STI V Type R.
It gave 13lbft LESS torque than a P1 with just the backbox.
An STI with 225lbft according to PS. Still doesnt sound right. The P1 engine was bench dyno'd on 97 Ron and gave 256lbft.
Jonathan
13 November 2000, 06:26 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing that puzzled me about the P1 torque ratings from this event, was the torque rating specified on the P1 page on subaru.co.uk was considerably higher than that detailed by the results of the day! confused... someone like to explain?
Cheers Alex
[This message has been edited by DrEvil (edited 13 November 2000).]
Cheers Alex
[This message has been edited by DrEvil (edited 13 November 2000).]
Trending Topics
13 November 2000, 06:44 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good day, shame about the iffy figures 
.
Several people have always stated they reckon that the figures obtained from the rollers at PS are among the most accurate around.
After this event I doubt that very much.
In my opinion, there were just too many inconsistent figures on the day to even contemplate them being correct.
Sure, I was shocked and somewhat disappointed to see CK1 manage no better than 235bhp and 230lb/ft. I know my car very well, and the difference the PPP ecu has made to my car's torque is staggering. Everyone that has driven it agrees. Whilst the figures I got from my run at PTS may not be deadly accurate, at least they showed a substantial improvement in torque.
I cannot see how such a massive improvement in power on the road converts to only a few extra horses and pounds on the rollers.
Some of you may say I've just got sour grapes, but there were other question marks raised.
How on earth can a Prodrive RB5 get figures less than a standard RB5 with breathing mods?
A 22B with a Link gets less power than a standard 22B UK? (and please, nobody say 'safe mapping').
'Link'ed cars and now 'Prodrive' cars seem to do far worse than expected on the rollers. Why? Can someone please explain?
Another thing I noticed is that when the cars are put on the rollers at PS, the figures are not obtained by putting the car into 4th gear and then flooring the throttle, as is the case at every other rolling road I have been to. Instead, the throttle is applied at a steady pace. A pace which is obviously going to (and did) vary from car to car as it is dependant on the operator. As he is a human he is therefore incapable of replicating exact pressure applications every time.
I questioned Rich about this and he said the rollers are loaded and this is what calculates the figures, although he didn't say how the rollers were loaded. Someone asked if they were electro-magnetic but the answer was no. Can anyone shed any further light on this, as everyone I have spoken to has never heard of this before?
How can correct figures be obtained if the engine isn't working at it's hardest right through the rev range?
There is no questioning that what PS can do for the Impreza's handling is nothing short of outstanding.
Unfortunately, this dyno day has only confirmed (in my eyes at least) that no dyno I have ever been to can be considered really accurate, which several people have stated all along.
Stef.
[This message has been edited by Stef (edited 13 November 2000).]
.Several people have always stated they reckon that the figures obtained from the rollers at PS are among the most accurate around.
After this event I doubt that very much.
In my opinion, there were just too many inconsistent figures on the day to even contemplate them being correct.
Sure, I was shocked and somewhat disappointed to see CK1 manage no better than 235bhp and 230lb/ft. I know my car very well, and the difference the PPP ecu has made to my car's torque is staggering. Everyone that has driven it agrees. Whilst the figures I got from my run at PTS may not be deadly accurate, at least they showed a substantial improvement in torque.
I cannot see how such a massive improvement in power on the road converts to only a few extra horses and pounds on the rollers.
Some of you may say I've just got sour grapes, but there were other question marks raised.
How on earth can a Prodrive RB5 get figures less than a standard RB5 with breathing mods?
A 22B with a Link gets less power than a standard 22B UK? (and please, nobody say 'safe mapping').
'Link'ed cars and now 'Prodrive' cars seem to do far worse than expected on the rollers. Why? Can someone please explain?
Another thing I noticed is that when the cars are put on the rollers at PS, the figures are not obtained by putting the car into 4th gear and then flooring the throttle, as is the case at every other rolling road I have been to. Instead, the throttle is applied at a steady pace. A pace which is obviously going to (and did) vary from car to car as it is dependant on the operator. As he is a human he is therefore incapable of replicating exact pressure applications every time.
I questioned Rich about this and he said the rollers are loaded and this is what calculates the figures, although he didn't say how the rollers were loaded. Someone asked if they were electro-magnetic but the answer was no. Can anyone shed any further light on this, as everyone I have spoken to has never heard of this before?
How can correct figures be obtained if the engine isn't working at it's hardest right through the rev range?
There is no questioning that what PS can do for the Impreza's handling is nothing short of outstanding.
Unfortunately, this dyno day has only confirmed (in my eyes at least) that no dyno I have ever been to can be considered really accurate, which several people have stated all along.
Stef.
[This message has been edited by Stef (edited 13 November 2000).]
13 November 2000, 06:47 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonathan,
sorry, didn't spot that one, but it is poor and may explain why on the road Evo VIs seem faster, they simply have a bundle more torque.
I never tried my car as standard at PS - a week after the spring session I had 264lb ft and certainly have improved the car since then - but it is not a straight comparison which I accept.
R
sorry, didn't spot that one, but it is poor and may explain why on the road Evo VIs seem faster, they simply have a bundle more torque.
I never tried my car as standard at PS - a week after the spring session I had 264lb ft and certainly have improved the car since then - but it is not a straight comparison which I accept.
R
13 November 2000, 06:50 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airmiles, my run was done at PE many moons ago when i first had the Link installed, the huge wallop of torque is due to a nice bit of 22psi overboost (no knock/det) that has subsequently been smoothed! That isnt the same as your engine surging issue.
HOWEVER, WITH A DIFF TURBO, DIFF ECU AND NO MAF ON MY CAR, THE ENGINE SURGING IS STILL THERE EVER-SO SLIGHTLY (Bob has tweaked some settings to mititgate it). So draw from that what conclusions you will!
Stef, glad to see you are becoming more and more impartial by the day!
Sunil
HOWEVER, WITH A DIFF TURBO, DIFF ECU AND NO MAF ON MY CAR, THE ENGINE SURGING IS STILL THERE EVER-SO SLIGHTLY (Bob has tweaked some settings to mititgate it). So draw from that what conclusions you will!
Stef, glad to see you are becoming more and more impartial by the day!
Sunil
13 November 2000, 06:55 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stef,
just posted in parallel...
...I have commented elsewhere and will say it again here.
I have found PS very good for 'benchmarking' my own tuning ability and respect the guys for the advice they have given me. Here's the thing, I didn't go up on Saturday because I was unable to push my car on the PS rollers due to thermal stress.
The way they slowly build up the power AND have a high load impedance creates intolerable thermal stress in the block - most likely expressed as detonation.
For me this limits how far I can push my car. It does not limit other Scoobs getting 'big scores' but these cars have something in common - they use waterspray and/or water injection to acheive these figures.
Also, the det I suffered at PS has not been replicated on the road or track, even tho' I now have more advance/boost/leaner fueling and a quicker car
R
just posted in parallel...
...I have commented elsewhere and will say it again here.
I have found PS very good for 'benchmarking' my own tuning ability and respect the guys for the advice they have given me. Here's the thing, I didn't go up on Saturday because I was unable to push my car on the PS rollers due to thermal stress.
The way they slowly build up the power AND have a high load impedance creates intolerable thermal stress in the block - most likely expressed as detonation.
For me this limits how far I can push my car. It does not limit other Scoobs getting 'big scores' but these cars have something in common - they use waterspray and/or water injection to acheive these figures.
Also, the det I suffered at PS has not been replicated on the road or track, even tho' I now have more advance/boost/leaner fueling and a quicker car
R
13 November 2000, 07:27 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunilp,
I think that's a "yes", in a roundabout way (as opposed to a wet roundabout way) as there've been several threads suggesting that the surging is a side-effect of the ECU over-compensating for an overboost condition in that rev-range - which is what you saw.
Stef,
As ever there is a difference between "power" and "response" (or pickup). This can be seen on a dyno if a) you do a full-throttle run, and b) look at the shape of the torque curve around gearshifts - i.e. how quickly it gets back up to torque.
Also, the full-throttle dyno run only replicates one engine state, not the variation in load/revs/throttle that you get in real-life - so it doesn't illustrate pickup or driveability.
This was brought home to me when I had a VFR750 dyno-jetted (the carb equivalent of unijet) with a street-legal exhaust - the dyno-curve hardly changed, but the pickup difference was chalk and cheese - as you describe the PPP (although granted that will also make an outright power increase) - it "felt" like an extra 15 horsepower (out of 97)
So if the PPP plays carefully with the richness and advance in the part-throttle, and transition to full-throttle states it could produce an effective difference far greater than you would see on a dyno.
Never thought I'd see the day I'd pick Stef up on anything..must be a yorker...so I have already got my coat & I'm off home. Goodnight!
I think that's a "yes", in a roundabout way (as opposed to a wet roundabout way) as there've been several threads suggesting that the surging is a side-effect of the ECU over-compensating for an overboost condition in that rev-range - which is what you saw.
Stef,
As ever there is a difference between "power" and "response" (or pickup). This can be seen on a dyno if a) you do a full-throttle run, and b) look at the shape of the torque curve around gearshifts - i.e. how quickly it gets back up to torque.
Also, the full-throttle dyno run only replicates one engine state, not the variation in load/revs/throttle that you get in real-life - so it doesn't illustrate pickup or driveability.
This was brought home to me when I had a VFR750 dyno-jetted (the carb equivalent of unijet) with a street-legal exhaust - the dyno-curve hardly changed, but the pickup difference was chalk and cheese - as you describe the PPP (although granted that will also make an outright power increase) - it "felt" like an extra 15 horsepower (out of 97)
So if the PPP plays carefully with the richness and advance in the part-throttle, and transition to full-throttle states it could produce an effective difference far greater than you would see on a dyno.
Never thought I'd see the day I'd pick Stef up on anything..must be a yorker...so I have already got my coat & I'm off home. Goodnight!
13 November 2000, 07:41 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunil.
I'm always impartial!
It's just that if something doesn't seem right in my opinion, I like to know why.
Airmiles.
Surely the aim of a power run is nothing other than to see the peak power and torque your car achieves, and to some extent how it achieves it (the curves).
Wouldn't a simple 'floor the throttle' approach do a better job than trying to replicate on road driving, which I presume the loading of the rollers is trying to emulate? How does it emulate the same conditions for each car if full throttle is not applied?
Stef.
I'm always impartial!
It's just that if something doesn't seem right in my opinion, I like to know why.
Airmiles.
Surely the aim of a power run is nothing other than to see the peak power and torque your car achieves, and to some extent how it achieves it (the curves).
Wouldn't a simple 'floor the throttle' approach do a better job than trying to replicate on road driving, which I presume the loading of the rollers is trying to emulate? How does it emulate the same conditions for each car if full throttle is not applied?
Stef.
13 November 2000, 07:48 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>A 22B with a Link gets less power than a standard 22B UK? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Stef.. Define power..
My car produced 201 Power @ Wheels while the UK 22B produced 199..
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>The PaW column shows the Power figure at the Wheels which is measured; the flywheel figures are then calculated by the dyno<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So looked at another way my car was the most powerful Impreza there on the day..
There's lies, damned lies and then rolling road figures..
Richard
[This message has been edited by rsquire (edited 13 November 2000).]
Stef.. Define power..
My car produced 201 Power @ Wheels while the UK 22B produced 199..
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>The PaW column shows the Power figure at the Wheels which is measured; the flywheel figures are then calculated by the dyno<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So looked at another way my car was the most powerful Impreza there on the day..
There's lies, damned lies and then rolling road figures..
Richard
[This message has been edited by rsquire (edited 13 November 2000).]
13 November 2000, 07:56 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly my point Richard...even more in-consistency!
I know power-at-the-wheels figures are the most important but nobody uses them in 4WD world do they, as they're rather embarassing when comaprisons with 2WD cars are made!
Sure, your and Chucky's cars may have different power loss through the transmission, but why does his car show more bhp at the rollers and less at the wheels?
If bhp is calculated from the torque, surely your figures should be simialar like your torque figures?
Why is the world round?
Why is the sky blue?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Arrrrrrgggghhhhhhhh.
Stef.
I know power-at-the-wheels figures are the most important but nobody uses them in 4WD world do they, as they're rather embarassing when comaprisons with 2WD cars are made!
Sure, your and Chucky's cars may have different power loss through the transmission, but why does his car show more bhp at the rollers and less at the wheels?
If bhp is calculated from the torque, surely your figures should be simialar like your torque figures?
Why is the world round?
Why is the sky blue?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Arrrrrrgggghhhhhhhh.
Stef.
13 November 2000, 07:57 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
So if Powerstations rollers ONLY (because they obviously UNDER read) give me 325bhp and 340 ft/lb, than what do I REALLY have then...........350bhp and 370 ft/lb!!!!!
Shaun.
Shaun.
13 November 2000, 08:06 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Yeah but you only managed 207 paw which is just 6 more than my "mere" 245hp and 273 lb/ft produced..
Imprezas must just be waaaay more efficient at getting the power to the road 
Richard
Imprezas must just be waaaay more efficient at getting the power to the road
Richard
13 November 2000, 08:07 PM
#18
Stef,
I think you are right. The way they are doing it is called a "manual pull-through" test which gives a much lower reading than a "stab" test (fourth gear, rev the car to X rpm, record the speed that the car makes at those revs, set the speed on the dial and nail it - the rollers will then prevent the car from going past that speed and the load that it takes to do that gives you a bhp figure) that normal rolling road operators use. However, from your description of some of the runs, it sounds that they did "pull-through" runs on some cars and "stab" tests on others (which gives a higher reading). If they were doing just power runs, they really should have just done "stab" tests on all the cars, as this is repeatable. Next time you go, ask for a "stab" test to be done - this way you will have a like for like comparison for PTS's figures on their dyno.
To run a proper test you need an impartial operator or another operator along to watch that the runs aren't being "fiddled". Because every dyno operator knows how to make one car look better than another - some unscupulous sorts even have a button on the controller that will instantly make the rollers lose 20bhp....(I kid you not!).
LOL
Mike R
What you really need to establish is if Shaun's car was done on a "manual pull through" like all the rest or was it done on a "stab" run....
I think you are right. The way they are doing it is called a "manual pull-through" test which gives a much lower reading than a "stab" test (fourth gear, rev the car to X rpm, record the speed that the car makes at those revs, set the speed on the dial and nail it - the rollers will then prevent the car from going past that speed and the load that it takes to do that gives you a bhp figure) that normal rolling road operators use. However, from your description of some of the runs, it sounds that they did "pull-through" runs on some cars and "stab" tests on others (which gives a higher reading). If they were doing just power runs, they really should have just done "stab" tests on all the cars, as this is repeatable. Next time you go, ask for a "stab" test to be done - this way you will have a like for like comparison for PTS's figures on their dyno.
To run a proper test you need an impartial operator or another operator along to watch that the runs aren't being "fiddled". Because every dyno operator knows how to make one car look better than another - some unscupulous sorts even have a button on the controller that will instantly make the rollers lose 20bhp....(I kid you not!).
LOL
Mike R
What you really need to establish is if Shaun's car was done on a "manual pull through" like all the rest or was it done on a "stab" run....
13 November 2000, 08:20 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm....as I have already said the sole aim of doing power runs at a dyno day, in my opinion, is to get comparitive figures for all the cars. They clearly can't be comparitive unless the runs are all done in an identical manner.
And how on earth can Shaun's car get 75bhp and poo loads more torque than Richards car yet only 6 bhp more atw??? Is the Cossie transmission really that poo?
My bloody heads gonna explode in a mo'!
Shaun.
They only seem to under-read on certain cars though, and you WERE the man paying them for the day after all!
Seriously though, I'm not implying that any foul play took place at all. I just want an explanation as to why they don't do 'stab' tests for every car.
Stef.
And how on earth can Shaun's car get 75bhp and poo loads more torque than Richards car yet only 6 bhp more atw??? Is the Cossie transmission really that poo?
My bloody heads gonna explode in a mo'!
Shaun.
They only seem to under-read on certain cars though, and you WERE the man paying them for the day after all!
Seriously though, I'm not implying that any foul play took place at all. I just want an explanation as to why they don't do 'stab' tests for every car.
Stef.
13 November 2000, 08:25 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Mike,
I cant comment on your suggestions on rolling road operation (because I know fug all), but to suggest that Powerstation made inconsistent power runs concerns me!
I for one only make praises for peoples services because they have provided me a good service in the past, but just because of that doesnt mean I think they can do no wrong (Both of my cossies have been to PTS for management work!), so what would Powerstation benefit from fiddling my figures?????
The power run made on Saturday was nigh on the same as a previous power run (curves are only so slightly different!!) made there several months ago......and as previously stated, this had been done on a vehicle that had been converted by SOMEBODY ELSE!
As you KNOW roughly my conversion method (basic 330-350bhp conversion!), you of all people should look at my figures especially and know that they seem true (The conversion was an advertised 340bhp, so a figure of 325 sounds VERY REALISTIC to me!....especially when it is running at 22-24 psi boost!).
Now are you saying that a slam down of the peddle gives a more accurate figure......or less of one????????
Richard,
You have hit the nail on the head m8. It is a known fact that Scoobys transfer and gain the power MUCH better/faster than a Cossie. It's just one of those things.
Stef,
Read comment to Richard. Have you seen the size of the diff on the rear of a cossie compared to a scooby one? Have you checked the gearing and reving abilitys of both? There you will find some answers grasshopper!
Shaun.
P.S. Again I am not trying to say that Powerstations give the MOST ACCURATE figures....ever!!! Only a Engine Dyno can do that, but I STILL think they have/operate one of the most accurate ROLLING ROADS around.
Stef perhaps you, harj and myself can book a run each at PTS and PE together to compare?
[This message has been edited by Shaun (edited 13 November 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Shaun (edited 13 November 2000).]
I cant comment on your suggestions on rolling road operation (because I know fug all
), but to suggest that Powerstation made inconsistent power runs concerns me!I for one only make praises for peoples services because they have provided me a good service in the past, but just because of that doesnt mean I think they can do no wrong (Both of my cossies have been to PTS for management work!), so what would Powerstation benefit from fiddling my figures?????
The power run made on Saturday was nigh on the same as a previous power run (curves are only so slightly different!!) made there several months ago......and as previously stated, this had been done on a vehicle that had been converted by SOMEBODY ELSE!
As you KNOW roughly my conversion method (basic 330-350bhp conversion!), you of all people should look at my figures especially and know that they seem true (The conversion was an advertised 340bhp, so a figure of 325 sounds VERY REALISTIC to me!....especially when it is running at 22-24 psi boost!).
Now are you saying that a slam down of the peddle gives a more accurate figure......or less of one????????
Richard,
You have hit the nail on the head m8. It is a known fact that Scoobys transfer and gain the power MUCH better/faster than a Cossie. It's just one of those things.
Stef,
Read comment to Richard. Have you seen the size of the diff on the rear of a cossie compared to a scooby one? Have you checked the gearing and reving abilitys of both? There you will find some answers grasshopper!
Shaun.
P.S. Again I am not trying to say that Powerstations give the MOST ACCURATE figures....ever!!! Only a Engine Dyno can do that, but I STILL think they have/operate one of the most accurate ROLLING ROADS around.
Stef perhaps you, harj and myself can book a run each at PTS and PE together to compare?
[This message has been edited by Shaun (edited 13 November 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Shaun (edited 13 November 2000).]
13 November 2000, 08:47 PM
#21
Shaun,
I am not saying that either run is more or less accurate than another, but a "manual pull-through" will give a lower reading than a "stab" run. So if a "pull-through" was done on some cars and a "stab" run on others, the figures cannot be compared....
Every car has to be recorded in the same manner. I am only commenting on the fact that Stef has told me that your car sounded like it was done on a "stab" run, whereas his was most definitely done on a "manual pull-through". Can you confirm which way your figures were recorded?
I am not suggesting any underhandedness (such a word?), just offering an explanation to Stef as to what "could" have been done to given the wildly different flywheel figures....
However, when you compare some of the peak power figures (as in where they are located in the rev range, not the actual figure), they don't seem to match up with the manufacturers claims which seems strange...
Best regards
Mike R
I am not saying that either run is more or less accurate than another, but a "manual pull-through" will give a lower reading than a "stab" run. So if a "pull-through" was done on some cars and a "stab" run on others, the figures cannot be compared....
Every car has to be recorded in the same manner. I am only commenting on the fact that Stef has told me that your car sounded like it was done on a "stab" run, whereas his was most definitely done on a "manual pull-through". Can you confirm which way your figures were recorded?
I am not suggesting any underhandedness (such a word?
), just offering an explanation to Stef as to what "could" have been done to given the wildly different flywheel figures....However, when you compare some of the peak power figures (as in where they are located in the rev range, not the actual figure), they don't seem to match up with the manufacturers claims which seems strange...
Best regards
Mike R
13 November 2000, 08:52 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Richard,
Just re-read your comments on the transmission loss and looked back at the dyno graphs, and you may have a point there.
There definatley seems to be a boo boo made on your cars power run as the transmission loss on your car is only 44 odd bhp
Now I dont know what happened and I aint gonna start jumping to brash statements (cause I dont know anything!) but, based on other scooby transmission losses of approx 80 bhp that takes your bhp figure upto 280bhp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shaun.
[This message has been edited by Shaun (edited 13 November 2000).]
Just re-read your comments on the transmission loss and looked back at the dyno graphs, and you may have a point there.
There definatley seems to be a boo boo made on your cars power run as the transmission loss on your car is only 44 odd bhp
Now I dont know what happened and I aint gonna start jumping to brash statements (cause I dont know anything!) but, based on other scooby transmission losses of approx 80 bhp that takes your bhp figure upto 280bhp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shaun.
[This message has been edited by Shaun (edited 13 November 2000).]
13 November 2000, 08:52 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people post a real load of bollox on here! hey Stef?
Seems Rainbow man knows it all too, how about Mike controlling the runs next time? or are you gonna ask Harvey and Ahmed how to do it as per usual? LOL
Seems Rainbow man knows it all too, how about Mike controlling the runs next time? or are you gonna ask Harvey and Ahmed how to do it as per usual? LOL
13 November 2000, 08:53 PM
#24
i think this thread is confirming what i have always felt about Rolling Roads. They are not really there to give power figures, they are there to diagnose problems and give a baseline torque curve.
I think a lot of people thought i would be peed off with my figures as the power was a LOT lower than i expected.
Quite the oposite, i am chuffed to bits, as the torque curve i saw absolutely matched how the car felt on track. It has massive punch on initial acceleration, then just seemed to loose that rate of aceleration.
By looking at my torque curve it is plain as day what is going on, after 3300rpm my ignition is being backed off big time, i am loosing huge power because my intercooler is crap.
I cant wait to get my chargecooler built and on the car, because its going to be one hell of a fast car!
I think a lot of people thought i would be peed off with my figures as the power was a LOT lower than i expected.
Quite the oposite, i am chuffed to bits, as the torque curve i saw absolutely matched how the car felt on track. It has massive punch on initial acceleration, then just seemed to loose that rate of aceleration.
By looking at my torque curve it is plain as day what is going on, after 3300rpm my ignition is being backed off big time, i am loosing huge power because my intercooler is crap.
I cant wait to get my chargecooler built and on the car, because its going to be one hell of a fast car!
13 November 2000, 08:58 PM
#27
Harj,
Nice duffel coat yesterday
At least I have enough intelligence of when to let "experts" take over....
And which part of my comment is "bollox" or was it because you didn't understand?
LOL
Mike R
PS. When are you getting that Nismo 400R R34 that you paid £15k deposit for?
Nice duffel coat yesterday
At least I have enough intelligence of when to let "experts" take over....
And which part of my comment is "bollox" or was it because you didn't understand?
LOL
Mike R
PS. When are you getting that Nismo 400R R34 that you paid £15k deposit for?
13 November 2000, 09:02 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Mike,
The plot thickens!!!!!!
I cant confirm how my power run was done, because I dont look at the operators feet when my baby is on the rollers..........i'm more concerned in looking at the engine, to see if it blows!!!!!!!!!
But like I said, both runs on THIS car produced virtually the same figures and curves. These were done several months apart, and by TWO DIFFERENT operators!!!!!!
Shaun.
The plot thickens!!!!!!
I cant confirm how my power run was done, because I dont look at the operators feet when my baby is on the rollers..........i'm more concerned in looking at the engine, to see if it blows!!!!!!!!!
But like I said, both runs on THIS car produced virtually the same figures and curves. These were done several months apart, and by TWO DIFFERENT operators!!!!!!
Shaun.
13 November 2000, 09:08 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richards car only lost 44bhp through the tranny?
What gear oil are you using Rich?
Harj.
I ain't posting no bollox, I'm just seeking some answers. Still, like Shaun, as your figures at PS have also always been fairly good, you too have no reason to doubt them do you?
Talking of bollox on here, answer Mike will ya?
Stef.
[This message has been edited by Stef (edited 13 November 2000).]
What gear oil are you using Rich?
Harj.
I ain't posting no bollox, I'm just seeking some answers. Still, like Shaun, as your figures at PS have also always been fairly good, you too have no reason to doubt them do you?
Talking of bollox on here, answer Mike will ya?
Stef.
[This message has been edited by Stef (edited 13 November 2000).]