# Horse power difference



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Hi guys what's the power difference between wheel horse power to engine horse power on the MY11 Gtr please, can you please give me a horse power figure not in percentages if possible. I did 3 power runs yesterday at a friends Dyno open day at MSL in Birmingham who just had the latest Four wheel drive rolling road installed and my car did 3 consecutive runs at 562.4 wheel horse power and 553.8lb foot of torque on a Litchfields stage one map with 102mm downpipes and K&N panel filters which I thought was bloody damn impressive. I've been told by a friend that the Gtr's lose about 24% through the transmission but I'm not sure if that's correct. Thank you chaps


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

What Dyno are they using and can you post the graph?


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

It was a Dyno Jet Dyno and I'll try to put a graph as well as the video I recorded on my phone


----------



## goRt (May 17, 2011)

Takamo said:


> Hi guys what's the power difference between wheel horse power to engine horse power on the MY11 Gtr please, can you please give me a horse power figure not in percentages if possible. I did 3 power runs yesterday at a friends Dyno open day at MSL in Birmingham who just had the latest Four wheel drive rolling road installed and my car did 3 consecutive runs at 562.4 wheel horse power and 553.8lb foot of torque on a Litchfields stage one map with 102mm downpipes and K&N panel filters which I thought was bloody damn impressive. I've been told by a friend that the Gtr's lose about 24% through the transmission but I'm not sure if that's correct. Thank you chaps


562.4 WHP @ 24% loss equates to 740 BHP at the fly - both outstanding and unbelievable. I guess you've been quoted the calculated values??? if so the WHP would have been 427.4.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

My car was fifth on the list to be done, they ran 3 mercedes c63 amg's and one Cls 6.3 amg before mine and they all made stock power give or take a bhp or two and then were remapped and were re-done and they increased by roughly 45 to 50hp


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

goRt said:


> 562.4 WHP @ 24% loss equates to 740 BHP at the fly - both outstanding and unbelievable. I guess you've been quoted the calculated values??? if so the WHP would have been 427.4.


No their tuner who's been brought in from las Vegas specifically said that the figures are wheel horse power and he also said he roughly equates it 680-700.


----------



## goRt (May 17, 2011)

Takamo said:


> No their tuner who's been brought in from las Vegas specifically said that the figures are wheel horse power and he also said he roughly equates it 680-700.


OK, going for the 'normal' 19% transmission loss that I think is the 'calculated' value at SRR that would give you BHP of 694, the torque on the same basis would be 684.
Watch your rods as I read stock should be less than 650 for safety.

Who is the tuner you use as this appears to be anything but a standard Litchfield stage 1?


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Seems odd that the car is making almost exactly what you'd expect as engine bhp, but the place says it's at the wheels.

Personally I think they've made a mistake.

My MY11 Litchfield stage 2 car on it's "road map" made about 495 at the wheels on the hub dyno at Abbey Motorsport.
Which translated to around 590bhp at the engine.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

I'm no expert but I'm only going by what they said and what I saw on their screen and also what it showed on other cars


----------



## splking (May 11, 2012)

I would think that is engine HP, i don't think stock turbo's would be able to flow enough to produce that kind of wheel hp unless your car has a crazy number of supporting mods and you are going for the fastest stock turbo records in a gtr. As Rich said, sounds bang on for a stage 1 crank hp figure which is very respectable. 

H


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

Transmission loss is NOT a % of the power and its just plain wrong to say that.

If your car makes 1000 hp at the flywheel with 24% loss it would lose 240 hp so 760 ATW

If your car makes 2000 hp at the flywheel with 24% loss it would lose 480 hp so 1520 ATW.

% just doesn't work, transmission losses do not go up with the power.


Dyno jet is renowned for reading high, 740 on stock turbos seems very high


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Anyway getting back to my original question what is the transmission loss


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

if a Litchfield stage 1 on a my11 is 590 hp then you have about 590 hp, so your looseing around 30 hp simple as that really.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

scoooby slayer said:


> if a Litchfield stage 1 on a my11 is 590 hp then you have about 590 hp, so your looseing around 30 hp simple as that really.


I can't see the transmission losses on a GT-R being 30bhp.
I still think they've made a mistake at the Rolling Road.

My transmission losses were 75-100bhp on a similar car.


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

4WD losses tend to be around 80-100hp.


----------



## DODGY (Oct 28, 2001)

This was mine std 2011 with y-pipe. Wheel bhp was 434


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

CT17 said:


> I can't see the transmission losses on a GT-R being 30bhp.
> I still think they've made a mistake at the Rolling Road.
> 
> My transmission losses were 75-100bhp on a similar car.


with a gtr a dynapack losses 50 hp hub to flywheel in reality, abbey ran a stock 09 made 435 hp hubs and there 485 at the flywheel so they loose 50hp simple as that imo.


a dyno dynamics will make a lot less at the wheels than a dynapack that's where the adding 20% comes in that then brings the figures in line. 

dynojet read high so ive read so corrections will be small. the only way to confirm any power figure is by timing the car imo, I pulled 60 - 130 mph in 5.49 seconds in my gtr at 862 hp and that wasn't even in race mode ! that confirms its power being 0.1 seconds faster than a Veyron


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

scoooby slayer said:


> with a gtr a dynapack losses 50 hp hub to flywheel in reality, abbey ran a stock 09 made 435 hp hubs and there 485 at the flywheel so they loose 50hp simple as that imo.


Interesting.
I didn't think any of the "claimed" 485bhp early GT-Rs actually made that.
That is a "simple as that" calculation made using an estimated figure that Nissan claim, not what the car was actually making.
I believe they made around 500bhp stock.

Either way Abbey did my MY11 on their hub dyno and the losses were 75-100bhp.
That's an actual car.


----------



## TEAM_KHAN (Oct 8, 2007)

The guy who built the dyno stated very clearly that the dyno gave wheel horse power only, have attached a picture of the graph as proof. The 3 stock mercs made stock power and after a map had the extra 50 horsepower the tuner claimed. It's a brand new dyno jet dyno.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

TEAM_KHAN said:


> The guy who built the dyno stated very clearly that the dyno gave wheel horse power only, have attached a picture of the graph as proof. The 3 stock mercs made stock power and after a map had the extra 50 horsepower the tuner claimed. It's a brand new dyno jet dyno.


Cool, your car is making about 640-650 engine bhp then. :thumbsup:
Based on the transmission losses of my MY11.

So it's running stage 4 + downpipes. Or something like that.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

I suspect it's running around the 640-650bhp mark because I've ran several times against different stage 4cars and svm 650 cars and either beat them or at worst been side by side, so may be I'm just lucky and I've got a strong bugger, my car ran an 11flat at 128.4mph with loads of spin off the line and my previous stage 4 ran 11.01 so there very similar but I could be wrong


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

To add my 2 pennies worth.

Had my R32GTR on Abbey Dynopack hub dyno and it made 440 at the hubs in 4wd (483 at the rear hubs in 2 wheel drive).

On SRR Dyno Dynamics, made 382bhp at the wheels in 4 wheel drive which was guesstimated at 480bhp at the flywheel by the rolling road.

adding 50bhp to the hub dyno appears about right, but I have soft 'r' tyres, so maybe they absorb more energy reducing the atw figure?

I just say my car has around 480 to 500bhp at the flywheel.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Takamo said:


> I suspect it's running around the 640-650bhp mark because I've ran several times against different stage 4cars and svm 650 cars and either beat them or at worst been side by side, so may be I'm just lucky and I've got a strong bugger, my car ran an 11flat at 128.4mph with loads of spin off the line and my previous stage 4 ran 11.01 so there very similar but I could be wrong


*So what is the actual spec of this car?
Because in post one you said was running a Litchfield stage 1.*

Have you put injectors in it?
It won't make over 600bhp without those. 
That's pretty much fact, no matter how many bhp you want to think it has.

A stock newish one runs an 11 second dead quarter mile.
That's the quoted Nissan time and Lee from SRD took his MY11 to Santa Pod and did almost exactly that.

Possibly you are good in the car (a good driver) and are getting a better launch at the quarter mile where the SVM cars you've gone against have struggled to put the power down?


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

So if a standard MY11 runs 11dead what does a stage 4 run because I'm a regular at the pod and I ain't seen any stage 4s run better than a 10.9 and yes I am a pretty good on the drag scene as I have been running all my gtr's down there total of 18. Anyway the proofs in the spanking and I've spanked a fair few over the years.... Lol I'm happy with it and to be honest all that counts, I ask a simple question about what loss of power and everyone becomes a critic, as I said only going by what saw and the Dyno guy's s showed me and told me, no big deal really


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

CT17 said:


> Interesting.
> I didn't think any of the "claimed" 485bhp early GT-Rs actually made that.
> That is a "simple as that" calculation made using an estimated figure that Nissan claim, not what the car was actually making.
> I believe they made around 500bhp stock.
> ...


if the losses are 100 hp on a dynapack then my car makes 912 on v power which it certainly doesn't it made 812 at the hubs so around 860 crank hp. 

my car made 928 at the hubs on e50 and it definitely doesn't make 1028 at the crank as the turbos only flow enough for about 950 hp. 

50 hp added is a realistic figure imo, I guess we could use 75-100 for down the pub talk  lol


----------



## The Cat (Apr 30, 2014)

*BHP*



Takamo said:


> So if a standard MY11 runs 11dead what does a stage 4 run because I'm a regular at the pod and I ain't seen any stage 4s run better than a 10.9 and yes I am a pretty good on the drag scene as I have been running all my gtr's down there total of 18. Anyway the proofs in the spanking and I've spanked a fair few over the years.... Lol I'm happy with it and to be honest all that counts, I ask a simple question about what loss of power and everyone becomes a critic, as I said only going by what saw and the Dyno guy's s showed me and told me, no big deal really


That's about right as one of our guys ran10.8 at the pod on Saturday with 650 bhp. Forget the rolling road. Take it up the Pod if it runs 10.8 or quicker you have at least 650 at the Flywheel. Who cares what's at the wheels. There are to many factors between the flywheel and the the tyres !!


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

The Cat said:


> That's about right as one of our guys ran10.8 at the pod on Saturday with 650 bhp. Forget the rolling road. Take it up the Pod if it runs 10.8 or quicker you have at least 650.


I will, last time I ran it I was on stock Dunlops and they weren't in brilliant condition and I was getting loads of spin off the line, so since then I've changed to MPSS'S and looking forward to the next run what you brung to improve on the last times, I'm hoping for a 10.8 /10.9 because I was so frustrated last time because with the rite grip those runs were 10 second. Let's see what happens I'll keep you posted. Cheers fella


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

i would personally use the terminal mph to determine power rather than elapsed time as the launch has a big influence on the time but the mph will only be reached with the power to pull it there in the given distance. 

look at indigo he did a 10.9 at stage 2 in an 09 car !


----------



## The Cat (Apr 30, 2014)

*BHP*



Takamo said:


> I will, last time I ran it I was on stock Dunlops and they weren't in brilliant condition and I was getting loads of spin off the line, so since then I've changed to MPSS'S and looking forward to the next run what you brung to improve on the last times, I'm hoping for a 10.8 /10.9 because I was so frustrated last time because with the rite grip those runs were 10 second. Let's see what happens I'll keep you posted. Cheers fella


Fair point. I can't remember the make of rubber he was running I do remember there was plenty left.


----------



## The Cat (Apr 30, 2014)

*BHP*



scoooby slayer said:


> i would personally use the terminal mph to determine power rather than elapsed time as the launch has a big influence on the time but the mph will only be reached with the power to pull it there in the given distance.
> 
> look at indigo he did a 10.9 at stage 2 in an 09 car !


I can't recall his MPH. What was indigo pulling at 10.9?


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

scoooby slayer said:


> i would personally use the terminal mph to determine power rather than elapsed time as the launch has a big influence on the time but the mph will only be reached with the power to pull it there in the given distance.
> 
> look at indigo he did a 10.9 at stage 2 in an 09 car !


On my last run we achieved 11.01 @ 131.04mph so what power does that equate to in your opinion because ain't got foggiest on how to work it out


----------



## Jags (May 20, 2007)

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/139871-just-weighed-my-r32gtr.html

Going by that I'd say roughly around 600bhp


----------



## The Cat (Apr 30, 2014)

*BHP*



Takamo said:


> On my last run we achieved 11.01 @ 131.04mph so what power does that equate to in your opinion because ain't got foggiest on how to work it out


I couldn't tell you. Lol. I do know there is a very complicated formula to work it out, weight, gearing, tyre size, bhp etc. I just gave an example from what I saw on Saturday. That was assuming the car I watched did have 650. Which I'm sure was correct. I'm hoping the owner will post soon.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Takamo said:


> On my last run we achieved 11.01 @ 131.04mph so what power does that equate to in your opinion because ain't got foggiest on how to work it out



131 suggests plenty of ponies that's for sure 

I guess the vbox terminals on here will be a good guide


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

I wasn't trying to be a critic, I was just trying to get the bottom of the facts.

A stage 1 MY11 makes around 570bhp. My stage 2 made 590bhp.
Yours produced a reading of 563bhp on a rolling road, which they said was at the tyres.
Transmission loses on that are going to be around 75bhp give or take a bit.
A stock GT-R struggles to make over 600bhp without having the injectors changed because it just can't flow enough fuel to produce the power safely without maxing out the injectors.
A late model GT-R when well driven will do an 11 second (or damn close) quarter mile in good conditions.

Clearly you are a good driver and are getting the best out of the car, where others are turning up with (possibly) a bit more power and not driving so well.

Either way it's good. You are a good driver or producing more power than you should be.  (maybe both!)


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Threads like this make me cringe.

Its got 700 bhp Takamo, and the same torque, but yours hasnt broken yet, because its a special one.

You are also a better driver than everyone. Ross Brawn is kicking himself


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

FLYNN said:


> Threads like this make me cringe.
> 
> Its got 700 bhp Takamo, and the same torque, but yours hasnt broken yet, because its a special one.
> 
> You are also a better driver than everyone. Ross Brawn is kicking himself


I couldn't have put better myself.... You know me quiet well then.... Lol. Chill buddy don't know why your getting worked up.... I'm quiet happy to line it up against any stage 4 or svm 650 car it's all fun I don't take it that seriously it's just a sport to me and I enjoy it, I even lined up with the hulk for a laugh and ended up winning because he bogged it off the line but that's what makes it fun because anything can happen. Normally the hulk would have spanked me silly but it didn't.


----------



## The Cat (Apr 30, 2014)

*BHP*



Takamo said:


> I couldn't have put better myself.... You know me quiet well then.... Lol. Chill buddy don't know why your getting worked up.... I'm quiet happy to line it up against any stage 4 or svm 650 car it's all fun I don't take it that seriously it's just a sport to me and I enjoy it, I even lined up with the hulk for a laugh and ended up winning because he bogged it off the line but that's what makes it fun because anything can happen. Normally the hulk would have spanked me silly but it didn't.


Let me know when you plan to run up the pod next. Maybe we can have a drag together. (Does that sound sexual). Wasn't meant to be!


----------



## G2GUV (Dec 16, 2012)

Takamo said:


> I couldn't have put better myself.... You know me quiet well then.... Lol. Chill buddy don't know why your getting worked up.... I'm quiet happy to line it up against any stage 4 or svm 650 car it's all fun I don't take it that seriously it's just a sport to me and I enjoy it, I even lined up with the hulk for a laugh and ended up winning because he bogged it off the line but that's what makes it fun because anything can happen. Normally the hulk would have spanked me silly but it didn't.


Lol!

I witnessed that run! The Hulk had a fuelling issue!!! It was being piloted by John Hanton or possibly John from SVM for the last run they did that day. Believe you me - both Johns are quiet fluent in getting a gtr off the line mate! 

I never had my car dyno'd so cant help with those dyno figures - but my car always felt like a SVM850R in my books when it was only a 650R!!! I have owned a Litchfield Stage 4 car (MY11) alongside my 650R and the 650R just felt almighty over the MY11!!! I think it is because we get used to all the characteristics of our own cars that we manage to get EVEN MORE out of them. Once we start to explore our cars limits - we try our best to convince ourselves that we have the 'special one' but facts are facts! 

Irrespective of what we feel and who we've spanked :chuckle: a stage 1 tune will NOT be making anywhere near 700 hp!!!


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

TEAM_KHAN said:


> The guy who built the dyno stated very clearly that the dyno gave wheel horse power only, have attached a picture of the graph as proof. The 3 stock mercs made stock power and after a map had the extra 50 horsepower the tuner claimed. It's a brand new dyno jet dyno.


He is right, it does do wheel HP, but it is calculated and it's not measured against a eddy current brake in the same why that most of our UK dyno work (Maha, Sun, DynoDynamics, DynoTech ect).

I've gone through this 1001 times in the 3S/3000GT/GTO world where dynojet numbers match our Dyno Dynamics numbers with the same set ups and same fuel (race gas). The only difference is that they write AWHP (Wheel HP) and we write BHP (flywheel HP).
¼ mile terminal speeds always match too.

Put your car on a Dyno Dynamics in shoot_44 and I bet it makes within a couple of HP of the number you have been told is power to the wheels.

I know a modest amount about running dyno as I have been running cars on various dynos for the last 14 years (No, I'm not a tuner, I just like to get hands on and do my own thing on my own car).

However, thank you very much for posting the details as I have been looking for one of these DynoJets to run my GTO on the same day that I run it on a Dyno Dynamics to conclude my point with my US counterparts.

Mark


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Video clip of the two runs Watch "Nisaan GTR TK600 dyno run" on YouTube - Nisaan GTR TK600 dyno run: Nisaan GTR TK600 dyno run - YouTube


----------



## OldBob (Oct 18, 2010)

Hi Tak it can be frustrating for you when all you've done is give the info you've been given and we're all over it with critique.
Either take it for what it is and be happy or if you're really bothered get it on another well known dyno with an-other, or get the buddy to go to the original with you in another GTR (that's preferably been dyno'd before but no matter) and re-run it to see a comparative.

Dyno absolute figures in isolation are difficult to go by in any event and will naturally attract dissection. I normally go with others and then take a simple relative view, all other things equal.

Good luck


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

OldBob said:


> Hi Tak it can be frustrating for you when all you've done is give the info you've been given and we're all over it with critique.
> Either take it for what it is and be happy or if you're really bothered get it on another well known dyno with an-other, or get the buddy to go to the original with you in another GTR (that's preferably been dyno'd before but no matter) and re-run it to see a comparative.
> 
> Dyno absolute figures in isolation are difficult to go by in any event and will naturally attract dissection. I normally go with others and then take a simple relative view, all other things equal.
> ...


Cheers buddy, another guy from Birmingham was also there with his stock 13plate gtr (which he's had since new) so gunna see if I can contact him as to what his car made that would then give me a good idea, but saying that the 3 cl63's that went on before mine made completely stock power of around 445-450 and then after a map all made around 494-498 bhp at the wheels.


----------



## ROG350Z (Jun 15, 2008)

CT17 said:


> Interesting.
> I didn't think any of the "claimed" 485bhp early GT-Rs actually made that.
> That is a "simple as that" calculation made using an estimated figure that Nissan claim, not what the car was actually making.
> I believe they made around 500bhp stock.
> ...


Correct......having seen the engine dyno runs at the factory I would suggest the figure was 'at least' 485. Nissan asked us not to reveal any figures out of courtesy but suffice to say the rumour was no GTR arrived with anything actually less than a 5.


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

My r32 put out a touch more ath on Abbey dyno than a 2009 r35, but dyno dynamics suggested 480 atf. Maybe, due to nissans claims dd amended tranny losses?


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Ok just had a call from the guys at MSL performance in Birmingham who dyno'd my car as they have read my thread and has said that firstly they stand by their dyno readings and have said that they are happy to do 5 gtr's FREE OF CHARGE just to compare. They want a couple of stock cars and then 3 modified cars, he's asked me to deal with it, so you can call me 07973733441 and I'll get you guys booked in... NO CHARGE AT ALL


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Got one stage 4.25 so four more slots to go


----------



## m4rc1980 (Oct 7, 2009)

Interested in the 4.25 result, what year is it?


----------



## ACspeedtech (Aug 25, 2011)

Stock injectors won't run over 620hp @100% duty (stock fuel pressure reg), stock maf's won't measure over 620hp of airflow without going over 4.92v and triggering warnings.

If you're running bigger injectors and bigger intakes or have a speed density conversion then you may be running more, but you'll need downpipes/cat delete/sports cats or similar work to keep the boost up above 5800rpm to produce more top end power.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Im running 102mm downpipes, K&N filters, y Pipe and it's a MY11 so it has the larger intakes with Litchfield stage one map and Motorsport gearbox software , stock power was 530bhp


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

ACspeedtech said:


> Stock injectors won't run over 620hp @100% duty (stock fuel pressure reg), stock maf's won't measure over 620hp of airflow without going over 4.92v and triggering warnings.
> 
> If you're running bigger injectors and bigger intakes or have a speed density conversion then you may be running more, but you'll need downpipes/cat delete/sports cats or similar work to keep the boost up above 5800rpm to produce more top end power.


so we can accertain then that the flywheel power will be somewhere from 590hp upto 620hp max, so somewhere from 30 - 60 hp loss from crank to wheels if it made 560 wheel power or it must have bigger injectors and turbos that are flowing very well.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Takamo said:


> On my last run we achieved 11.01 @ 131.04mph so what power does that equate to in your opinion because ain't got foggiest on how to work it out



looking at the vbox times on here 134 mph was pulled by a svm 650r
your gonna be in the low 600s hp according to that but making more power for longer than stage 4 09 cars as they don't trap as high a terminal mph they are all in the 120s


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Sound.... I'm good with that


----------



## The Zedhed (Oct 25, 2013)

I could well be interested in the MSL dyno run.
Stage 4.25 (depends when I get round to selling it) or a 900R.

Any idea when?


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

MSL chaps are off to the states to have talks with AMS and will be back in week and a half so anytime after that, I'd like to get all you guys at the same time but it's not essential, can be done individually no problem


----------



## The Zedhed (Oct 25, 2013)

Just seen that you have 2 threads running, shall I show interest in that one too?


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

We just ran an SVM650R gtr on the same dyno with all the same setting's and we ran the car 4 times and it's best results were 559.8 wheel horse power with 527.99pound of torque. We then compared my cars graphs over the SVM650R cars graph and they were very very similar in power delivery.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Takamo said:


> We just ran an SVM650R gtr on the same dyno with all the same setting's and we ran the car 4 times and it's best results were 559.8 wheel horse power with 527.99pound of torque. We then compared my cars graphs over the SVM650R cars graph and they were very very similar in power delivery.


What is the actual spec of your car?
Post one just says Litchfield stage 1 with downpipes?


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

CT17 said:


> What is the actual spec of your car?
> Post one just says Litchfield stage 1 with downpipes?


Litchfield stage one, Motorsport gearbox software, 102mm downpipes, K&N filters and Y Pipe. Oh and it's Daytona blue I don't know if that makes a difference.... Lol :chuckle:


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

So no aftermarket injectors, but 102mm down pipes.

Isn't that a little dangerous? I'd suspect either you have injectors, or the oem injectors are running close to 100%. I'd have that looked at if I were you.

There is also no such thing as a stage one map. You have basically got a map to suit your mods, which is a typical "stage 4" without a injectors and intakes. If you haven't, and just put the down pipes on without a remap, you'll need that looking at immediately too.

Again what's the point of having the downpipes with no intakes, injectors or back section?

Maybe someone could explain that to me.


----------



## MattGTR750 (Apr 26, 2012)

Because the noise is sickkkk lol agree though you need supporting mods !!


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Ok.... Just ran a 10 plate Litchfield stage one gtr on the same dyno with all the same setting's and after three runs it's best run was 527bhp at the wheels which with the 12% loss added equates to 584 which is bang on based on Litchfields stage one figures for the early models(estimated 570hp). We then dyno'd my car (MY11) on the same dyno with all the same setting's and conditions and after 4 runs it's best result was 569.21 wheel horse power with 553.34 pound of torque so now I'm satisfied that's it's correct and that I've got a strong car.


----------



## ACspeedtech (Aug 25, 2011)

527 with 12% losses is 598
You're working the wrong way, for 12% you divide by 0.88

Is this a hub dyno or a chassis dyno? A stock GTR on a chassis dyno shows 18% loss but as has been mentioned, it is more correct to be a fixed loss plus a small percentage.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

ACspeedtech said:


> 527 with 12% losses is 598
> You're working the wrong way, for 12% you divide by 0.88
> 
> Is this a hub dyno or a chassis dyno? A stock GTR on a chassis dyno shows 18% loss but as has been mentioned, it is more correct to be a fixed loss plus a small percentage.


It's a rolling road dyno, we are going by advice from AMS which they say 12-15% power loss through the transmission


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

So that means your car is making noticably over 600bhp on the stock injectors.
I'd be a bit worried and want to see how maxed out they are.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

I'll get them checked out maybe they may have been changed by previous owner, if not then god knows


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

My second run link Watch "Nissan GTR TK600R Fire Breathing Monster" on YouTube - Nissan GTR TK600R Fire Breathing Monster: Nissan GTR TK600R Fire Breathing Monster - YouTube


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Another Litchfield stage one 60plate done on same dyno with all the same setting's and conditions Watch "Litchfield Stage 1 GTR runs 527whp at MSL Perform…" on YouTube - Litchfield Stage 1 GTR runs 527whp at MSL Perform…: Litchfield Stage 1 GTR runs 527whp at MSL Performa - YouTube


----------



## ACspeedtech (Aug 25, 2011)

What we're establishing here is the fact that this dyno is showing very enthusiastic WHP figures, however it looks like using 10% loss (or 50hp, depending what you want your pub figure to be) brings a fairly correct FWHP figure. We will all agree that 10% or 50hp is not 'correct' for the GTR (more like 17/18% from DD or more correctly around 80hp+5%), but this style of dyno is very repeatable, just need to know how to interpret the figures.


----------



## ACspeedtech (Aug 25, 2011)

...and that Mr Takamo REALLY needs to do some datalogs


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Well I disagree with that because they have dyno'd quiet a few different makes of stock cars and it's showing very close to the manufacturers figures and now they have dyno'd 4 different gtr's from stock to SVM650R cars and it's given a very close to expected figures based on what the tuners stated power to be. I don't think it loses as high as 17-18% more like 12-15% as AMS have stated because according to all the gtr's expected power the difference was around the 11-12% from there calculations.


----------



## ACspeedtech (Aug 25, 2011)

Yes, on a dynojet you make a 10-12% compensation for a gtr, but this is not applicable to other dynos and is incorrect. These dynos are renowned for reading high with turbocharged high power cars, they work quite well with normally aspirated engines however and in both cases are very repeatable which makes them good for mapping no matter what numbers they put out.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Ok, I see what your saying now, we'll get some comparisons and see the difference if any.


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

At the end of the day the Dyno "measures" power at the wheels.

Forget the flywheel figures as it is just calculated, guessed, estimated etc and will always be inaccurate as it is not "measured"


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Conrad said:


> At the end of the day the Dyno "measures" power at the wheels.
> 
> Forget the flywheel figures as it is just calculated, guessed, estimated etc and will always be inaccurate as it is not "measured"


Agreed.... Either way my car made bloody good power for a Litchfield Stage one car with only 102mm downpipes and K&N panel filters. :chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::runaway:


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Conrad said:


> At the end of the day the Dyno "measures" power at the wheels.
> 
> Forget the flywheel figures as it is just calculated, guessed, estimated etc and will always be inaccurate as it is not "measured"


I completely agree with what your saying the only issue is no figures are ever comparable at all, whereas if it can be accertained what they make at the crank it makes them all comparable then imo.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

My cars giving out bloody good power and now that I've compared it three other gtr's on the same dyno with all the same setting's and conditions and mines consistent in the readings.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Brilliant. That's that sorted then. Close the thread


----------



## Bobby dazzler (Jan 10, 2014)

Can somebody tell me what this thread is about

Or is my first guess right with my car is a stage 1 and produces lots more power than anyother stage 1 ever done even though I don't know it's a stage 1 could really be anything 


Ahem


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

scoooby slayer said:


> I completely agree with what your saying the only issue is no figures are ever comparable at all, whereas if it can be accertained what they make at the crank it makes them all comparable then imo.


That statement is incorrect, the "measured" variable is always comparable to another "measured" variable providing both devices are calibrated correctly.

Guestimated and unmeasured Flywheel figures are not comparable full stop. If you want to know flywheel figures then its best to use an engine dyno.

At the end of the day its the wheel power that propels you down the tarmac, that is what counts 

Takamo, great result "At the Wheels" I wonder what mine makes with 102mm exhaust and stage 4 remap


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

wheel figures are not comparable just take a dynapack figure and a dyno dynamics figure they are miles apart they need some form of correction to make them comparable so its not incorrect at all. 

I have 2 plots from my car ran on a dynapack and dyno dynamics in exact same state of tune, making around 700 whp on a dyno dynamics then 812 hub power on a dynapack now surely you can see those figures aren't comparable without bringing them inline with one another. 


im not interested in anyone saying there not comparable because they are with the correct calculation imo. 






Conrad said:


> That statement is incorrect, the "measured" variable is always comparable to another "measured" variable providing both devices are calibrated correctly.
> 
> Guestimated and unmeasured Flywheel figures are not comparable full stop. If you want to know flywheel figures then its best to use an engine dyno.
> 
> ...


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

FLYNN said:


> Brilliant. That's that sorted then. Close the thread


No asked for your opinion or sarcasm so stop thread crapping


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Bobby dazzler said:


> Can somebody tell me what this thread is about
> 
> Or is my first guess right with my car is a stage 1 and produces lots more power than anyother stage 1 ever done even though I don't know it's a stage 1 could really be anything
> 
> ...


No your guess is wrong, I was asking a simple question which is wanting to know what the power difference was between wheel and engine horse power but some guys took it in a different direction. My car is a stage one car because I had Litchfields check it out before they mapped it because it felt quicker than any other MY11 I had driven or raced against, when it was stock I ran against 1 Litchfield stage 4 and an SVM650R car at the pod and beat both, and they verified it was stock map and had no other mods..... So I'm as surprised as you guys.


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

Conrad said:


> At the end of the day its the wheel power that propels you down the tarmac, that is what counts


Shame that is not what is being measured then?


----------



## Bobby dazzler (Jan 10, 2014)

Was there any differences after the remap 

Also dont get hung up on power figures from dynos 
Seat of the pants is always better


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Bobby dazzler said:


> Was there any differences after the remap
> 
> Also dont get hung up on power figures from dynos
> Seat of the pants is always better


my seat of the pants dyno doesn't work, my supra felt quicker than my r35 is, but it wasn't not by a long shot ! 

a lot of low end torque will feel fast but if it doesn't make the power uptop it wont be fast ime.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Takamo said:


> No your guess is wrong, I was asking a simple question which is wanting to know what the power difference was between wheel and engine horse power but some guys took it in a different direction. My car is a stage one car because I had Litchfields check it out before they mapped it because it felt quicker than any other MY11 I had driven or raced against, when it was stock I ran against 1 Litchfield stage 4 and an SVM650R car at the pod and beat both, and they verified it was stock map and had no other mods..... So I'm as surprised as you guys.


one thing is for sure pod terminals mean more than any dyno imo and with your 128 - 131 mph it proves you are making good power


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Bobby dazzler said:


> Was there any differences after the remap
> 
> Also dont get hung up on power figures from dynos
> Seat of the pants is always better


Yes the stage one map a big difference especially in the torque, well worth doing


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Takamo said:


> No asked for your opinion or sarcasm so stop thread crapping


Funny that. This being a public forum, and you posting a question.

Oh, and stop saying "stage one map". It doesn't mean anything, and it's making you look like you don't know what your on about. That and the fact you don't know how to work out percentages

Your car has been remapped to the mods you have on your car.


----------



## thistle (Oct 27, 2007)

I have a stage 1 map and like it.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

*facepalm


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

FLYNN said:


> Funny that. This being a public forum, and you posting a question.
> 
> Oh, and stop saying "stage one map". It doesn't mean anything, and it's making you look like you don't know what your on about. That and the fact you don't know how to work out percentages
> 
> Your car has been remapped to the mods you have on your car.


As I said no one asked for your pathetic comments, and it is a stage one map, maybe your finding it hard to understand that, may be one day yourl understand. Now if you haven't got anything sensible to say then please keep off my thread


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

I've got plenty of sensible things to say.

I like the fact you've made a new word. Yourl.

Also, it's not your thread. It's everyone's thread. Public forum you see.

..........and you said stage one map again. It's silly. Stop it.

Did you find out about your injectors? I was always under the impression that downpipes required injectors for it to be safe.


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

scoooby slayer said:


> wheel figures are not comparable just take a dynapack figure and a dyno dynamics figure they are miles apart they need some form of correction to make them comparable so its not incorrect at all.
> 
> I have 2 plots from my car ran on a dynapack and dyno dynamics in exact same state of tune, making around 700 whp on a dyno dynamics then 812 hub power on a dynapack now surely you can see those figures aren't comparable without bringing them inline with one another.
> 
> ...


:chuckle:

LOL You really dont understand do you?

What does a dynapac "measure" = Power at the "HUBS"

What does a Dyno Dynamics "measure" = Power at the "Wheels"

The two instruments "MEASURE" power at different POINTS therefore you CANNOT compare the figures


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

FLYNN said:


> I've got plenty of sensible things to say.
> 
> I like the fact you've made a new word. Yourl.
> 
> ...


Downpipes don't require injectors to be safe and what's wrong with saying stage one map, unless Litchfields don't know what they are talking about. It's called stage one map because exactly what it is.... Duh!!! :chuckle:


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

Takamo said:


> No asked for your opinion or sarcasm so stop thread crapping


Ever thought of a career in the diplomatic corps? LOL


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Ok. I'll try and explain because I think you are struggling. If your car was a Litchfield stage one, then it wouldn't have downpipes. It would just be a remap with a y pipe. That is what Litchfield describe the stage one pack to be. 

The map, you keep saying is a stage one map, is just a custom map that takes your currently mods into consideration.

It's not a stage one map. It's just a remap.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Conrad said:


> :chuckle:
> 
> LOL You really dont understand do you?
> 
> ...



I understand plenty thank you very much, I know exactly where they measure power. and with the correct factor they can be compared, I don't know where you think the power originates from maybe a magical fairly land lmao

it starts at the crank and it should only take a simple calc to get back to its origin, so I assume even srr flywheel figure is not correct for you then ? whos to say any wheel figures are correct. if you want to get into an in depth about dyno accuracy then we need to start talking about what correction method is used, ambient temp sensor location, I have plots that show a car make 530 whp then 808 whp just by changing from din to sae ! 

its something I have read into a lot so I know a little what im talking about thanks 

srr is a good benchmark for flywheel power, plots can easily then be varied against it for a guide as to making comparable plots as long as they are in ideally sae j1349 and the temp probe is in the cell away from the motor


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

FLYNN said:


> Ok. I'll try and explain because I think you are struggling. If your car was a Litchfield stage one, then it wouldn't have downpipes. It would just be a remap with a y pipe. That is what Litchfield describe the stage one pack to be.
> 
> The map, you keep saying is a stage one map, is just a custom map that takes your currently mods into consideration.
> 
> It's not a stage one map. It's just a remap.


He's right. 

Your car isn't stage one if it has downpipes.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

CT17 said:


> He's right.
> 
> Your car isn't stage one if it has downpipes.


What is it then? , because I asked for stage one and paid for stage one and I asked iain about downpipes as to whether it makes any power difference and he said "not really on your car it will be more the sound and breathing for the turbos" so unless he was lying or he don't know what he's talking about (which I doubt) then I must be wrong aswell. 
"


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

FLYNN said:


> Ok. I'll try and explain because I think you are struggling. If your car was a Litchfield stage one, then it wouldn't have downpipes. It would just be a remap with a y pipe. That is what Litchfield describe the stage one pack to be.
> 
> The map, you keep saying is a stage one map, is just a custom map that takes your currently mods into consideration.
> 
> It's not a stage one map. It's just a remap.


Ok. What ever makes you feel better..... You obviously know better than Iain at Litchfields who's told me it's a stage one car


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

scoooby slayer said:


> I understand plenty thank you very much, I know exactly where they measure power. and with the correct factor they can be compared, I don't know where you think the power originates from maybe a magical fairly land lmao
> 
> it starts at the crank and it should only take a simple calc to get back to its origin, so I assume even srr flywheel figure is not correct for you then ? whos to say any wheel figures are correct. if you want to get into an in depth about dyno accuracy then we need to start talking about what correction method is used, ambient temp sensor location, I have plots that show a car make 530 whp then 808 whp just by changing from din to sae !
> 
> ...


LOL.......Clearly you havent read enough....



scoooby slayer said:


> it starts at the crank and it should only take a simple calc to get back to its origin


The fact that there is a "calculation" needed (which isnt simple) to calculate flywheel power means your accuracy has gone, there are too many parameters involved in that calculation that can vary to achieve an accurate flywheel power figure, for example tyres size, tyre pressure, wheel weight, drag in the transmission and associated componants, gear box oil temp, gearbox oil viscosity etc.

Any figure is only accurate when its "measured" with a calibrated device 



scoooby slayer said:


> so I assume even srr flywheel figure is not correct for you then


You are bang on the money, well done! 

Here is a fact that you obviously havent read....

FACT: Dyno Dynamics Flywheel Figures are ESTIMATED. The Wheel Power is "Measured". 

Have a nice evening


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

Takamo said:


> What is it then? , because I asked for stage one and paid for stage one and I asked iain about downpipes as to whether it makes any power difference and he said "not really on your car it will be more the sound and breathing for the turbos" so unless he was lying or he don't know what he's talking about (which I doubt) then I must be wrong aswell.
> "


Flynn is correct it is not a standard stage 1 map but a custom stage 1 map tweaked to allow for the extra breathing from the downpipes. Strictly a stage 1 map is a map on a totally standard car or at most having the Y pipe changed.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Conrad said:


> LOL.......Clearly you havent read enough and do not know what you are talking about....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol of coarse there estimated, that is obvious they are a percentage of the run on a dyno dynamics, what do you think happens when a different trans oil is used, tyre size or weight whatever it still relates to an alteration to the power read at the wheels so where does that leave us with our wheel figures ? it seems to me by your analogy no dyno plots wheels or anywhere can even been seen together at all and compared, theres always going to be an element of variation in any of them its unavoidable. 

tell me do you understand that any variation in wheels, tyres, trans oil whatever will all relate to a change in power measured at the wheels on your calibrated device ? where does that leave us then no dyno plots ever are comparable at all. lol 

good evening to you aswell 


edit I would just like to add

there is just something else I want to add with my recent car and me accertaining its true real world hp.

it has made 869 crank hp on srr
and 812 at the hubs, abbey ran a stock 09 which made 433 hubs so was 52 hp down from nissans quoted 485 hp. 

so that's near enough for me add the 52 makes 862 dynapack flywheel, 869 srr estimated flywheel. 

now the important bit to quantify that I have run 60 - 130 mph in 5.49 seconds which is 1 tenth quicker than a 2006 Veyron. 

a Veyron makes 522 hp per ton, my gtr makes 495 hp per ton so those figures simply cannot be far off. 


that has veried my figures are in the correct ballpark, and made them comparable from a dynapack to a dyno dynamics, im not talking about being within the last hp but then again I don't believe any dyno can give us the figure that is 100% correct and we could stake a lot on it, performance at the road backs up figures undisputedly.



sorry takamo for going off the coarse of your thread, back on topic with your car being an my11 and having if im correct the bigger intakes as standard, maybe your car as a stage 1 is more like a stage 3 ?


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

No need to apologise Takamo.

Glad to help. 

I will say you seem to be a little pig headed that you won't listen to advice, even from someone like Andy, who knows more about GTRs than anyone else I can think of.

For whatever reason you've got it in your head that you car has got more hp than the turbos can even produce. If that's what you what to think, and that's what you want to tell your mates, that's great. 

Again, no need to apologise


----------



## border1 (Jan 25, 2014)

scoooby slayer said:


> lol of coarse there estimated ffs, that is obvious they are a percentage of the run on a dyno dynamics, what do you think happens when a different trans oil is used, tyre size or weight whatever it still relates to an alteration to the power read at the wheels so where does that leave us with our wheel figures ? it seems to me by your analogy no dyno plots wheels or anywhere can even been seen together at all and compared, theres always going to be an element of variation in any of them its unavoidable.
> 
> tell me do you understand that any variation in wheels, tyres, trans oil whatever will all relate to a change in power measured at the wheels on your calibrated device ? where does that leave us then no dyno plots ever are comparable at all. lol
> 
> good evening to you aswell


Been trying not to bite on this one as I work in the industry and run engine and vehicle tests on a very regular basis, in different countries and under different (controlled) conditions so I feel I've got some experience behind me on this one and hate getting drawn into internet 'science'

the only thing you can confidently say about dyno measurements is that the figure you measure is the figure you measure. Anything else you infer from that is inherently inaccurate, to varying degrees given the amount of factors involved.

For me, estimated flywheel figures are only good for willy waving down the pub. Who cares what the operator/tuner/your gran thinks the losses are from flywheel to road surface? At the end of the day, the power which makes it to the road is all you've got against anybody else's car and is all you need for a direct comparison between the two. There are far too many variables involved to try and draw comparisons between estimated flywheel figures from different tests, hardware, vehicles, weather systems, blah blah blah... if you want flywheel figures, pay up and get the engine rated on an engine dyno. If you want real-world numbers, use a chassis dyno and be happy with wheel figures.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

FLYNN said:


> No need to apologise Takamo.
> 
> Glad to help.
> 
> ...


Stop behaving like a twat .give it a break once in a while


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Takamo said:


> Stop behaving like a twat .give it a break once in a while


I'm not the one calling people names Takamo. 

I just corrected you, because you were getting it all wrong.

That's all. Now you've got all mad.

Calm down and unclench


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

border1 said:


> Been trying not to bite on this one as I work in the industry and run engine and vehicle tests on a very regular basis, in different countries and under different (controlled) conditions so I feel I've got some experience behind me on this one and hate getting drawn into internet 'science'
> 
> the only thing you can confidently say about dyno measurements is that the figure you measure is the figure you measure. Anything else you infer from that is inherently inaccurate, to varying degrees given the amount of factors involved.
> 
> For me, estimated flywheel figures are only good for willy waving down the pub. Who cares what the operator/tuner/your gran thinks the losses are from flywheel to road surface? At the end of the day, the power which makes it to the road is all you've got against anybody else's car and is all you need for a direct comparison between the two. There are far too many variables involved to try and draw comparisons between estimated flywheel figures from different tests, hardware, vehicles, weather systems, blah blah blah... if you want flywheel figures, pay up and get the engine rated on an engine dyno. If you want real-world numbers, use a chassis dyno and be happy with wheel figures.


ive already got real world numbers thanks, ive added them to my post. my dyno of favour is the dynapack as it is the most repeatable and removes the variable of the wheel/tyre and strapping the vehicle down. 

for my car to accelerate at a specific rate from x - y speed there is no getting around without the power it simply wont do it no matter what any dyno plot says, I wouldn't personally take any dyno as gospel but I do like to have as comparable data as is possible and I will continue to do so.


----------



## border1 (Jan 25, 2014)

scoooby slayer said:


> ive already got real world numbers thanks, ive added them to my post. my dyno of favour is the dynapack as it is the most repeatable and removes the variable of the wheel/tyre and strapping the vehicle down.
> 
> for my car to accelerate at a specific rate from x - y speed there is no getting around without the power it simply wont do it no matter what any dyno plot says, I wouldn't personally take any dyno as gospel but I do like to have as comparable data as is possible and I will continue to do so.


Sorry if my first post comes across as arsey mate, I feel the same in terms of wanting that solid baseline to evaluate the effects of each modification I make, for example. 

However, there's a difference between repeatability and reproducibility - even barometric pressure can have a 3-4% effect upon measured fuel efficiency (and I'm talking differences between morning and afternoon runs during changing weather conditions here) so the data you get is only ever as good as the assumptions (read: corrections) you're making. I don't want to discourage anyone from using technical means of gauging performance but these measurements are so much more sensitive than a lot of people realise.


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

border1 said:


> Been trying not to bite on this one as I work in the industry and run engine and vehicle tests on a very regular basis, in different countries and under different (controlled) conditions so I feel I've got some experience behind me on this one and hate getting drawn into internet 'science'
> 
> the only thing you can confidently say about dyno measurements is that the figure you measure is the figure you measure. Anything else you infer from that is inherently inaccurate, to varying degrees given the amount of factors involved.
> 
> For me, estimated flywheel figures are only good for willy waving down the pub. Who cares what the operator/tuner/your gran thinks the losses are from flywheel to road surface? At the end of the day, the power which makes it to the road is all you've got against anybody else's car and is all you need for a direct comparison between the two. There are far too many variables involved to try and draw comparisons between estimated flywheel figures from different tests, hardware, vehicles, weather systems, blah blah blah... if you want flywheel figures, pay up and get the engine rated on an engine dyno. If you want real-world numbers, use a chassis dyno and be happy with wheel figures.


Well said 





scoooby slayer said:


> tell me do you understand that any variation in wheels, tyres, trans oil whatever will all relate to a change in power measured at the wheels on your calibrated device ? where does that leave us then no dyno plots ever are comparable at all. lol
> 
> good evening to you aswell


Exactly.... It "measures" what ever the value is at the wheels at that time? 

If you pull a spark plug lead off it will still "measure" the power at the wheels at that time, it will be less power but that's down to a change in the variables from the engine to the wheels but its still a measured value.

You can compare two devices that "measure the exact same thing"


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

border1 said:


> Sorry if my first post comes across as arsey mate, I feel the same in terms of wanting that solid baseline to evaluate the effects of each modification I make, for example.
> 
> However, there's a difference between repeatability and reproducibility - even barometric pressure can have a 3-4% effect upon measured fuel efficiency (and I'm talking differences between morning and afternoon runs during changing weather conditions here) so the data you get is only ever as good as the assumptions (read: corrections) you're making. I don't want to discourage anyone from using technical means of gauging performance but these measurements are so much more sensitive than a lot of people realise.



I do understand mate I don't think its an exact science or anything, but I do believe with a correctly operated dyno in sae j1349 figures can potentially be comparable ish I suppose I should say lol

in gear speed doesn't lie and it sure is a good gauge to then compare against a plot imo.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Conrad said:


> Well said
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will continue to do as I do and feel confident in the knowledge that im close enough with in gear speed times to back it up. there are plenty of donuts out there that get a fudgey dyno plot that shows a million hp when they really have 20, I don't fall into that rubbish as I time my cars and have loads of data ive collected so as I can have a good idea at having comparable figures that are realistic.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

Oh dear oh dear. We have one calibrator, a few people with knowledge of physics and a bunch of hopeful enthusiasts posting here.

Just remember one thing. Dyno manufacturers at this level are in the business of providing one thing - sale of their dyno's. Nothing more nothing less.



scoooby slayer said:


> I have plots that show a car make 530 whp then 808 whp just by changing from din to sae !


The best thing you can do for that shop is to drive over there right now and set their building on fire. That is perhaps the most absurd thing i've read in a long time. Please go and look up the equations for a "given uncorrected power figure" and apply each correction and see just how brainless that comment is.


So the losses are a fixed percentage are they? Really? Please go by a GCSE physics book and read it. Then have a careful think before picking up a proper book. Better still, go buy yourself a pushbike. Wait for a southerly wind and ride 5 miles with the wind behind you. Record the time. Then wait for a notherly wind. Repeat the test. Record your time. Are you ill all of a sudden? Are you making less power? Next week repeat the test but ride with flat tyres. The week after carry a pillion. Then do it the week after on your mountain bike. Then make the rear brakes drag the week after that and try again. Then tow your cousin on his sled. Is your wheel power always your leg power minus 15%?


Just to add. If i sound like an asshole - well its because i am.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> I do understand mate I don't think its an exact science or anything, but I do believe with a correctly operated dyno in sae j1349 figures can potentially be comparable ish I suppose I should say lol
> 
> in gear speed doesn't lie and it sure is a good gauge to then compare against a plot imo.


I tell you what, you come down to my place, i'll take you on the dyno and make 10 runs (once conditions are absolutely stabilised - perhaps 30-40 runs in) within 0.5% then show you a 10% gain in power by changing the tyre and the repeat the test 10 times within 0.5%. Then just for fun i'll go back to the first tyre and then back again and show you inconclusive repeatability for a further 20 runs. Shall we look for logic or science?


----------



## border1 (Jan 25, 2014)

Tim Radley said:


> Oh dear oh dear. We have one calibrator, a few people with knowledge of physics and a bunch of hopeful enthusiasts posting here.
> 
> Just remember one thing. Dyno manufacturers at this level are in the business of providing one thing - sale of their dyno's. Nothing more nothing less.
> 
> ...


I'm not a calibrator if you're referring to me mate? I run automotive crankcase lubricant product development programmes and come from an automotive engineering background but I'm not in this for willy waving and don't want to get into any drawn out arguments. I just wanted to raise the point that all measurements are only as good as the assumptions you base them on and caution people against getting carried away with estimated figures as those on internet forums can tend to


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> Oh dear oh dear. We have one calibrator, a few people with knowledge of physics and a bunch of hopeful enthusiasts posting here.
> 
> Just remember one thing. Dyno manufacturers at this level are in the business of providing one thing - sale of their dyno's. Nothing more nothing less.
> 
> ...



lol you said it, I have the plots they are from the same run, maybe your not as clever as you think you are if you think its impossible because here they are.

din correction temp probe under the bonnet seeing 58 degress

correction method none




same plot but correction sae



I need to find the din plot but it made 590 whp din correction.


also ive never once said I think losses are a fixed percentage I don't know where your getting that from they are a fixed figure imo, except for with a dyno dynamics as they read a lot lower wheel hp.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

border1 said:


> I'm not a calibrator if you're referring to me mate? I run automotive crankcase lubricant product development programmes and come from an automotive engineering background but I'm not in this for willy waving and don't want to get into any drawn out arguments. I just wanted to raise the point that all measurements are only as good as the assumptions you base them on and caution people against getting carried away with estimated figures as those on internet forums can tend to


You are correct in what you say, too much assumption is made.

A 1600bhp GT-R will NOT have approx 400bhp in transmissio losses. Go run a 400bhp engine with no radiator flat out for 3 minutes on an engine dyno? But a transmission can suffer 400bhp losses with no coolant and just its oil? Why does the engine seize long before 3 minutes but the transmission not? Oh yes, because there are not 400bhp losses in the transmission. This is very basic physics.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> lol you said it, I have the plots they are from the same run, maybe your not as clever as you think you are if you think its impossible because here they are.
> 
> din correction temp probe under the bonnet seeing 58 degress
> 
> ...


You need to review those images and do some research before posting. The clue is - read ALL THE NUMBERS presented. If you don't understand what you see there i suggest you step away from the keyboard.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> You need to review those images and do some research before posting. The clue is - read ALL THE NUMBERS presented. If you don't understand what you see there i suggest you step away from the keyboard.


the plot is identical except one has no correction the other has old sae applied. 
these were taken from history files of my own car and simply loaded out with no correction, sae and then din.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> the plot is identical except one has no correction the other has old sae applied.
> these were taken from history files of my own car and simply loaded out with no correction, sae and then din.


Incorrect unfortunately, as i said before, please review the images once more.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> Incorrect unfortunately, as i said before, please review the images once more.


lol as I said they are the same plot just with different corrections 

heres an article on it 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...V6guI0fHidihwAdlg&sig2=ATbLZ9fKeYno_phX5N9Ygg


and here is the plot in din (the feint plot) and also with all the relevant data amb temp, baro etc







the only difference I know of is its sae not j1349 but I think old sae which is gross hp, which obviously will be more but not 280 hp more ! the temp increase makes for a lot more corrected power on the plot, even on din and sae j1349 if the probe is dropped in a cup of cup for a proper fudge test the figures increase dramatically msd (motorsport developments) did it in a discussion we had on passionford.


----------



## ACspeedtech (Aug 25, 2011)

I've spent about the last 14 years regularly using dynos, primarily dyno dynamics.
As a tool for mapping and setting a car up, I would choose dynapack. But the majority of people struggle to interpret the numbers given, and it takes a relatively long time to set each car up which looses a few points from a commercial use point of view. (All this assuming we're not realistically taking each persons engine out to run on an engine dyno)

The DD figures, power at the wheels i.e. what is actually being laid down to the tarmac, seem FAIRLY accurate, but the variables and the sweeping generalisation of the shootout modes have always annoyed me. They are great for standardising the figures between DD dynos the world over however. Changing tyre size and seeing the wheel power change is something DD never managed to get round, things like this mean I only ever give power ATW and may mention a rough estimate of FWHP but that's as definite as it gets. The DD shootout 44 is around 21.5% across the board, same for every 4x4 vehicle? Clearly not. Shootout 6F is around 16%, bit nearer but still wrong. It's fairly common knowledge that its largely a fixed figure between engine/hub with a small percentage due to increased friction (5% ish?)

Different chassis dynos read different numbers and how they load them up and the ramp rates all create different outputs. A fair operator will be able to give you a fair ATW figure, or as fair as they can measure!

It seems the science of dynos is well documented, however dyno manufacturers will always claim theirs is the best instead of clearly stating honestly its limitations.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> lol as I said they are the same plot just with different corrections


Once again, please look at the graphs again.

Two are flywheel figures one is raw tractive data. 2655ftlb vs 430ftlb? And they are the same data? SAE to DIN will not make a 290bhp difference at this power level regardless of what you think.

You are correct, bad correction is a real problem in the dyno world. Always ask for the Intake and Baro data then compare it to weather history for that place. When you see people with a DIN 1.15 correction at near sea level you know they are messing with the weather station or just plain lying. DIN an STD will read higher than SAE. SAE gives the best honest correction for weather but is rarely shown due to the lower numbers.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

ACspeedtech said:


> I've spent about the last 14 years regularly using dynos, primarily dyno dynamics.
> As a tool for mapping and setting a car up, I would choose dynapack. But the majority of people struggle to interpret the numbers given, and it takes a relatively long time to set each car up which looses a few points from a commercial use point of view. (All this assuming we're not realistically taking each persons engine out to run on an engine dyno)
> 
> The DD figures, power at the wheels i.e. what is actually being laid down to the tarmac, seem FAIRLY accurate, but the variables and the sweeping generalisation of the shootout modes have always annoyed me. They are great for standardising the figures between DD dynos the world over however. Changing tyre size and seeing the wheel power change is something DD never managed to get round, things like this mean I only ever give power ATW and may mention a rough estimate of FWHP but that's as definite as it gets. The DD shootout 44 is around 21.5% across the board, same for every 4x4 vehicle? Clearly not. Shootout 6F is around 16%, bit nearer but still wrong. It's fairly common knowledge that its largely a fixed figure between engine/hub with a small percentage due to increased friction (5% ish?)
> ...


The problem though is the regular man just sees the number and takes it as gospel. And as you say not all shops either a) understand their dyno or b) want to comment if they do. Easier to just take the money and move onto the next job for so many unfortunately! Even an engine dyno can show quite large differences depending on how you conduct the test - sweep vs step. Its understanding these and making a fair and honest test that seems to be the difficulty.

Another problem is the "dynojet awhp" claim you will see littered all over a large percentage of US forums. Oh dear. Then they make up an assumed % flywheel figure. The already scaled up number is then scaled up again.

The other problem i see with many dyno plots is the rpm pickup. Many struggle with using inductive pickups and instead do a gear based reverse calculation. First problem is calibrating this from the cars tacho - which on some is 500+rpm over. Second is wheel slip on chassis dyno. You can't see it and with ratio pickup you can't measure it. Third is repeating the dyno on another day after using this method. Then they sit and compare spool ...

The amount of potential for inaccuracy, or more important repeatability, is quite vast.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> Once again, please look at the graphs again.
> 
> Two are flywheel figures one is raw tractive data. 2655ftlb vs 430ftlb? And they are the same data? SAE to DIN will not make a 290bhp difference at this power level regardless of what you think.
> 
> You are correct, bad correction is a real problem in the dyno world. Always ask for the Intake and Baro data then compare it to weather history for that place. When you see people with a DIN 1.15 correction at near sea level you know they are messing with the weather station or just plain lying. DIN an STD will read higher than SAE. SAE gives the best honest correction for weather but is rarely shown due to the lower numbers.



as far as I understand that is just the read torque that simply hasn't been multiplied by the axle ratio so as far as I know you are wrong. 

here is the exact same plot but that's had the axle ratio multiplied to get the correct figure, do you see we now have flywheel torque displayed....... lol





whenever ive seen a run on a dynapack the raw figure comes up first then it is simply divided by the axle ratio to get torque.


heres another plot they are the same just before and after axle calc

before



and after


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> as far as I understand that is just the read torque that simply hasn't been multiplied by the axle ratio so as far as I know you are wrong.


As a said in my last few posts, the wrong interpreted information can be quite dangerous.

SAE flywheel
645.8 / 1.503 gain
=429.67 ftlb

DIN flywheel
436.3 / 1.018 gain
=428.59 ftlb

Back to school lad.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> As a said in my last few posts, the wrong interpreted information can be quite dangerous.
> 
> SAE flywheel
> 645.8 / 1.503 gain
> ...


the raw data has simply had no correction, din and then sae applied, any other changes are through the software not a different run or any user input change as I understand it. 

so where are these gain figures coming from then ? if you know and can explain what im not seeing then do so rather than having the silly attitude and little comments all the time :GrowUp:


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

I'm even more confused now then when I first posted this question.... Too much for I'll stick to just putting fuel in and enjoying the flight..... Anyone fancy a cuppa... Lol


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> the raw data has simply had no correction, din and then sae applied, any other changes are through the software not a different run or any user input change as I understand it.
> 
> so where are these gain figures coming from then ? if you know and can explain what im not seeing then do so rather than having the silly attitude and little comments all the time :GrowUp:


As i said initially, look at the graphs, all the information is on there. If you don't understand all the data presented then perhaps you should not be making bold statements that other people then absorb and also saying that i'm wrong.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Takamo said:


> My car was fifth on the list to be done, they ran 3 mercedes c63 amg's and one Cls 6.3 amg before mine and they all made stock power give or take a bhp or two and then were remapped and were re-done and they increased by roughly 45 to 50hp


I think many C63 owners would be interested to hear about this map that increases bhp by 10% on a N/A Merc? They're some pretty aggressive claims & would probably be laughed at by most C63 owners.

Probably another example of the 'adjusted' figures you get from a RR.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> As i said initially, look at the graphs, all the information is on there. If you don't understand all the data presented then perhaps you should not be making bold statements that other people then absorb and also saying that i'm wrong.



so show why your not wrong then, its that simple I don't claim to know it all far from it I run a plant contracting company and a farm im not a professional dyno operator, I am an enthusiast with cars as my hobby and it all interests me and I will post as I see fit thanks this is a public forum


at the end of the day the point im making is its very easy for dyno figures to show massive variations, my own corrections that I think give a guide to crank power are close enough FOR ME and correlate with measured real world performance I have measured myself, there are more factors that can scew results from a fudgy dyno far more than my flywheel factor does.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> so show why your not wrong then, its that simple I don't claim to know it all far from it I run a plant contracting company and a farm im not a professional dyno operator, I am an enthusiast with cars as my hobby and it all interests me and I will post as I see fit thanks this is a public forum


Gain factor is on the graphs along with other information.

SAE and DIN equations can be found online and you have displayed the raw uncorrected data too.

I don't get paid to train people online, i make my living partly from knowing and understanding what we are discussing here and putting that to use.

Yes it is a public forum hence why i have the right to point out what i see as invalid information based on owning dyno's for more than 10 years and operating them for even longer. I'm not saying anybody can't post at all, i'm merely pointing out errors as i see them. If i made a statement about farming or plant that was hogwash you'd probably point it out just the same. Thanks anyway.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

w8pmc said:


> I think many C63 owners would be interested to hear about this map that increases bhp by 10% on a N/A Merc? They're some pretty aggressive claims & would probably be laughed at by most C63 owners.
> 
> Probably another example of the 'adjusted' figures you get from a RR.


I'm no expert but the guys at MSL performance are when it comes to mercedes and modding them, I seen the before and after results for myself and the drivers took the cars out after and noticed a big difference in the torque especially. Going by your rational no dyno would be correct. At the end of the day the MB CLUB guys were and are extremely happy with the results they got and that's all that counts not what you or I think, we aren't paying for it or driving those cars


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

I'm sure I read the C63 engines have throttle limitations or something that a tune removes thus allows an extra 30-40 BHP.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Takamo said:


> I'm no expert but the guys at MSL performance are when it comes to mercedes and modding them, I seen the before and after results for myself and the drivers took the cars out after and noticed a big difference in the torque especially. Going by your rational no dyno would be correct. At the end of the day the MB CLUB guys were and are extremely happy with the results they got and that's all that counts not what you or I think, we aren't paying for it or driving those cars


I'm not doubting gains were made & 20bhp even on a car with 450bhp would be noticeable from the drivers seat, however engineering is engineering & to squeeze 50bhp out of a n/a C63 engine is at best a miracle & at worst false.

Any Dyno operator can apply simple calculations to produce an adjusted output so the after figure although a guide as to gains having been made, does not give a guaranteed figure. A very old debate regarding the accuracy of dyne figures given the output figure is actually created by the operator (unless using a hub dyno).


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

w8pmc said:


> I'm not doubting gains were made & 20bhp even on a car with 450bhp would be noticeable from the drivers seat, however engineering is engineering & to squeeze 50bhp out of a n/a C63 engine is at best a miracle & at worst false.
> 
> Any Dyno operator can apply simple calculations to produce an adjusted output so the after figure although a guide as to gains having been made, does not give a guaranteed figure. A very old debate regarding the accuracy of dyne figures given the output figure is actually created by the operator (unless using a hub dyno).


So basically all tuners are liars then by that rationale... Lol


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Takamo said:


> So basically all tuners are liars then by that rationale... Lol


Some are, yes.

...............Or people hear what they want to hear, and that makes them happy, so they just go along with it


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Takamo said:


> So basically all tuners are liars then by that rationale... Lol


Where did i say that?

What i said was extracting 50bhp from a C63 n/a engine with purely a remap is a very strong claim as purely adjusting the fuelling & timing on such an engine to get that kind of power uplift is a little far fetched or very risky or both.

Having been in/around tuning for 15yrs, i'd say that more than a fair share of tuners are liars & that staying well clear of the wild claims is normally a marker that you're going to be dealing with a genuine tuner.

I've so many stories of stolen/copied code that's then palmed off as 'custom tuning' to unsuspecting customers.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Blimey..... Who do you trust then


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Takamo said:


> Blimey..... Who do you trust then


For R35's & this is purely my opinion, if you stick with the GTROC registered traders you'll not go far wrong.

SVM, Litchfield & RB Motorsport are names i certainly know & trust & i've yet to hear of any negative feedback. There are of course many others & some will be top drawer & some won't.


----------



## Bobby dazzler (Jan 10, 2014)

So have we got to the bottom of this topic lol


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> Gain factor is on the graphs along with other information.
> 
> SAE and DIN equations can be found online and you have displayed the raw uncorrected data too.
> 
> ...



if your not interested in discussing it and explaining where ive got my plots wrong then why did you even comment in the first place ? 

the 2 gain figures you've highlighted I don't even see them on the plots ive put up ? I asked abbey to apply sae correction as well as din just so I have a comparison, mark told me the figures would be higher I just wanted them as a direct comparison and as far as im aware that's exactly what they are. 

I don't want to waste marks time with it but I will email him and ask as I still don't see where these gain settings are and I know mark hasn't altered anything to make it look like it makes more power I can guarantee that for a 100% fact as I asked him to do the sae plot for me !


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> the 2 gain figures you've highlighted I don't even see them on the plots ive put up ?


As i suggested, take the raw data you have and apply both SAE and DIN formulas and see what numbers you get.

You made a bold statement that DIN was two hundred and something higher than SAE then decided to remark that maybe i'm not as clever as i think. Sorry but i found that rude. My replies were designed to hope that you would analyse your data, research what you were saying and understand it. The intention was NOT to be rude in return but you persisted in saying i was wrong.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> As i suggested, take the raw data you have and apply both SAE and DIN formulas and see what numbers you get.
> 
> You made a bold statement that DIN was two hundred and something higher than SAE then decided to remark that maybe i'm not as clever as i think. Sorry but i found that rude. My replies were designed to hope that you would analyse your data, research what you were saying and understand it. The intention was NOT to be rude in return but you persisted in saying i was wrong.



you came into the thread with plenty of statements directed at me with the end remark "yes I sound like an arsehole" or words to that effect by your own admission, i have replied in due coarse. 

i never said din to sae will make another 200 odd hp, i gave a specific plot with a high temp reading from the ambient temp probe due to it being hung under the bonnet which then resulted in sae giving a higher correction than din does for that temperature, on the back of that you then dub me "brainless" which i found rude for the record !

how can YOU apply the din and sae corrections when you dont even know the temperature the ambient probe was seeing ? i know theres lots of other inputs aswell pressure etc and i don't prefess to know them, but i do have the temperature trace the ambient temp probe was seeing but i havnt even added it in this thread yet ? 

i still don't see the gain figures your quoteing im gonna put the 2 plots here just with flywheel torque quoted sae and din

no correction applied



so sae plot flywheel



din plot flywheel




i can see the gain figures but i don't see the gain figures your quoteing ? are you suggesting then that you think those gain figures have been manipulated ?


i see a -50.1 gain and a -1.8 gain ? i don't see the figures your quoteing ?


mark at abbey has literally taken my uncorrected plot and then just applied the din and sae software corrections and emailed me the plots as I asked him to for a comparison, it interested me as im always keen to learn and see the difference these things can make on corrected dyno figures.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> i gave a specific plot with a high temp reading from the ambient temp probe due to it being hung under the bonnet which then resulted in sae giving a higher correction than din does for that temperature
> 
> how can YOU apply the din and sae corrections when you dont even know the temperature the ambient probe was seeing ?


Ok. Well for a second put your unhappiness aside, take the uncorrected graphs you have, along with the temperature figures you have, then apply each correction factor (equations online and seeing as you've quoted google links twice i'm sure you can find them). Once you worked the figures out, please come back and review the first comment i picked you up on. You've reiterated my argument twice. Why do you continue to argue when you haven't even done the mathematics here?




scoooby slayer said:


> i still don't see the gain figures your quoteing im gonna put the 2 plots here just with flywheel torque quoted sae and din
> 
> i see a -50.1 gain and a -1.8 gain ? i don't see the figures your quoteing ?


You've just clearly written -50.1 (typo error its -50.3) and -1.8.

I previously wrote
SAE flywheel
645.8 */ 1.503* gain
=429.67 ftlb

DIN flywheel
436.3 */ 1.018* gain
=428.59 ftlb


/1.503 and /1.018 = -50.3%, -1.8%. Where is the confusion?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> Ok. Well for a second put your unhappiness aside, take the uncorrected graphs you have, along with the temperature figures you have, then apply each correction factor (equations online and seeing as you've quoted google links twice i'm sure you can find them). Once you worked the figures out, please come back and review the first comment i picked you up on. You've reiterated my argument twice. Why do you continue to argue when you haven't even done the mathematics here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



from me reading here 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...1sbhVA7ca8ZzeMTbQ&sig2=teFN9KXYS8bLO4XjxJewOg

it reads that in the software the gains are to do with electrical fan kicks in for example and its effect on acceleration rate then displayed as a figure. 

as far as I see it its just the software doing whatever it does, so are you suggesting that those gain figures have been physically manipulated ? an answer to that would be good this time if possible as I will have to ask mark at abbey about it and why the figures are different, im sure he will be happy to explain hes always been very helpful to me with the data.


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

Tim Radley said:


> As i suggested, take the raw data you have and apply both SAE and DIN formulas and see what numbers you get.
> 
> You made a bold statement that DIN was two hundred and something higher than SAE then decided to remark that maybe i'm not as clever as i think. Sorry but i found that rude. My replies were designed to hope that you would analyse your data, research what you were saying and understand it. The intention was NOT to be rude in return but you persisted in saying i was wrong.


The GAIN numbers are only where the GREEN and YELLOW pointers are placed;

This is used to show gains but if you look at the dyno plots your see that the pointers arent placed on a dyno plot line.

Is this just a hit at Dynapack figures are just a general hit at Dyno's in general.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

[email protected] M/S said:


> The GAIN numbers are only where the GREEN and YELLOW pointers are placed;
> 
> This is used to show gains but if you look at the dyno plots your see that the pointers arent placed on a dyno plot line.
> 
> Is this just a hit at Dynapack figures are just a general hit at Dyno's in general.


im glad you've joined the discussion mark  thankyou for taking the time to explain about the crosshairs being the gain points. 

I remember reading the thread you linked moons ago that displayed the effect of temperature and correction differences as the temps get higher with din vs sae, and added my own plots here just to show how the results can alter, which then branded me brainless apparently. 

in lamens terms what exactly do those gain figures mean mark and how do they relay into the hp figure given, if at all ? ive never taken any notice of them at all as I didn't think they ment much in terms of the actual power plot given ? 


ive also seen some test results that stuart sanderson did from motorsport developments on his dyno dynamics dyno that he did kind of through the middle of a thread on the ford forum with some interesting results, he put the temp probe in a cup of tea then at various other temps just to show the correction difference the software will make as the temps get upto 100c.


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

Takamo said:


> Hi guys what's the power difference between wheel horse power to engine horse power on the MY11 Gtr please, can you please give me a horse power figure not in percentages if possible. I did 3 power runs yesterday at a friends Dyno open day at MSL in Birmingham who just had the latest Four wheel drive rolling road installed and my car did 3 consecutive runs at 562.4 wheel horse power and 553.8lb foot of torque on a Litchfields stage one map with 102mm downpipes and K&N panel filters which I thought was bloody damn impressive. I've been told by a friend that the Gtr's lose about 24% through the transmission but I'm not sure if that's correct. Thank you chaps



Is the guys name Steve and did he recently own a white pulsar as well as a few other cars?
If so I was talking to him a couple weeks ago regarding those rollers as were getting some too but thinking of going for Dyno developments latest set up as opposed to his which I believe he had imported from the states

Sorry not read the whole thread


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

pulsarboby said:


> Is the guys name Steve and did he recently own a white pulsar as well as a few other cars?
> If so I was talking to him a couple weeks ago regarding those rollers as were getting some too but thinking of going for Dyno developments latest set up as opposed to his which I believe he had imported from the states
> 
> Sorry not read the whole thread


No idea who you are talking about, these guys are merc specialist and have recently gone into dynoing and are currently in talks with ams to start selling and installing there parts to gtr's they have been into performance modding for around 30yrs


----------



## Tiler (Mar 28, 2014)

[email protected] M/S said:


> The GAIN numbers are only where the GREEN and YELLOW pointers are placed;
> 
> This is used to show gains but if you look at the dyno plots your see that the pointers arent placed on a dyno plot line.
> 
> Is this just a hit at Dynapack figures are just a general hit at Dyno's in general.


Hi mark
Abbey was where I had my first car dyno. There was a guy with a Holden gets there and me with my new Monaro. 
Back in 2004
Hope you are all well.


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

> in lamens terms what exactly do those gain figures mean mark and how do they relay into the hp figure given, if at all ? ive never taken any notice of them at all as I didn't think they ment much in terms of the actual power plot given ?


The gains figures are only any use if I or any other operator moves them to the correct position;

On your attached dyno plots you see the dyno plots with only a low number that the green and yellow pointers are positioned very closely;

the other dyno plot with a gain of -50/50 the the pointer are at different positions maybe there was another dyno pull plot that hasn't been printed and the pointer stayed in the same position.

It does not automatically show a gain.

Mark


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

[email protected] M/S said:


> The gains figures are only any use if I or any other operator moves them to the correct position;
> 
> On your attached dyno plots you see the dyno plots with only a low number that the green and yellow pointers are positioned very closely;
> 
> ...




thanks for clearing that up mark, top man :thumbsup:

so were now clear that the gain figures aren't what caused the elevated numbers on the sae corrected plot.

I have now found that link to the difference between sae and din upto 50c.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...V6guI0fHidihwAdlg&sig2=a-lcntqBfO_LKEBfXegcyA

my peak temps were higher than 50c aswell, actually 61c peak heres the plot




the temps have very little effect on din anyway, but sae its a whole other story as I said at the start before I was branded brainless and not knowing what im talking about lmao


----------



## [email protected] (May 21, 2014)

w8pmc said:


> I think many C63 owners would be interested to hear about this map that increases bhp by 10% on a N/A Merc? They're some pretty aggressive claims & would probably be laughed at by most C63 owners.
> 
> Probably another example of the 'adjusted' figures you get from a RR.


Hi

Just for your Information

Stock C63 run around 451bhp
2010 PP Run around 487 BHP
C63 507 run 507

So Many Stock c63 Owners do laugh with the extra bhp they get. 
And this is proven car after car. A Stock c63 can gain anything from 50bhp to 70 bhp. The question is Why? The answer is they are detuned from Factory as the Throttle body is open at 80% on stock cars. Once mapped the Throttle body can be open up to 100% hence the big increase from a 6.3 liter NA engine.

I hope that Helps

Thanks

Acid


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Ok, ran two more Gtr's today on the same dyno under the same setting's and conditions and the guy's are forum members (great guys by the way a pleasure to have met you guys) and with there permission here's there results below. 

1st car: Litchfields stage 4.25, MY09, running on pump fuel (shell and tesco )best run of 3 was 554.12 whp and 590.48lb of torque. 

2nd car: SVM S650,MY 09/10 had private plate on it, mixed fuels by adding a gallon of methanol to shell power. Best run of 4 was 584.02 whp and 560.10lb of torque . 

With there permission I will post the videos up later on this evening.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Watch "SVM 650R GTR Dyno Run At MSL Performance" on YouTube - SVM 650R GTR Dyno Run At MSL Performance: SVM 650R GTR Dyno Run At MSL Performance - YouTube


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> Ok. Well for a second put your unhappiness aside, take the uncorrected graphs you have, along with the temperature figures you have, then apply each correction factor (equations online and seeing as you've quoted google links twice i'm sure you can find them). Once you worked the figures out, please come back and review the first comment i picked you up on. You've reiterated my argument twice. Why do you continue to argue when you haven't even done the mathematics here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you've gone very quiet now tim, especially considering you told me to "step away from the keyboard" and "brainless suggestion"  LMAO


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

[email protected] M/S said:


> Is this just a hit at Dynapack figures are just a general hit at Dyno's in general.





scoooby slayer said:


> I have plots that show a car make 530 whp then 808 whp just by changing from din to sae !


Hi Mark,

No this is a hit at people making statements like the one above.

I've repeatedly asked him to show how this is possible and come back with the raw data with corrections applied. He's failed to prove anything other than show a bunch of google links that are not relevant to his statement.

If you can show a Dynapack plot where just changing from DIN to SAE results in a 278bhp increase in corrected figures (at this power level), then I and many others would be most interested to see these along with all the relevant weather station data.

Regards

Tim


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

scoooby slayer said:


> you've gone very quiet now tim, especially considering you told me to "step away from the keyboard" and "brainless suggestion"  LMAO


I gave up wasting my time with you that is why i am quiet. Stop posting nonsense google links. Post your raw data figures then apply the SAE and DIN calculations and show this 278bhp gain from "just changing from DIN to SAE" please. Until that happens you are acting like a complete and utter child.

You also stated in reply to Conrad that converting from wheel to hub to flywheel also just requires the correct correction applying. What a complete and utter load of sh**e. The correction formulas are for weather only - if you'd done your homework you would know this! They do not include any inertial loss calculations nor friction nor temperature in the drivetrain. Without measuring frictional losses with a motoring dyno and having a very accurate model for the MOI of the wheels then the conversion from any measured figure to a "calculated" one is purely an ESTIMATE.

So lets go back to my first post in this thread, post #114. "Please go and look up the equations for a "given uncorrected power figure" and apply each correction and see just how brainless that comment is." Now please correct me if i'm wrong, but i fail to see where you backed up your first statement.

If you continue to post pointless google links not relevant to your statement that caused this argument between us and argue in a childish manner then i'll just treat your replies with the contempt they deserve.


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

> If you can show a Dynapack plot where just changing from DIN to SAE results in a 278bhp increase in corrected figures, then I and many others would be most interested to see these along with all the relevant weather station data.


with regards the above figures I would ask for the air temp graph from the relevant dyno plot; can you post the figures please.

There is a good write up regards this from my Friend in Kiwi land Andre Simon from Speedtech Motorsport, I will try to find it and put a link up again , I have quoted it on this site before.

We @ Abbey always only use DIN when we tune , other tuners when they use our dyno use SAE.

Our temperature probe is placed in a permanent position so there is no moving the sensor to record a higher temp when using SAE conversion.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> I gave up wasting my time with you that is why i am quiet. Stop posting nonsense google links. Post your raw data figures then apply the SAE and DIN calculations and show this 278bhp gain from "just changing from DIN to SAE" please. Until that happens you are acting like a complete and utter child.
> 
> You also stated in reply to Conrad that converting from wheel to hub to flywheel also just requires the correct correction applying. What a complete and utter load of sh**e. The correction formulas are for weather only - if you'd done your homework you would know this! They do not include any inertial loss calculations nor friction nor temperature in the drivetrain. Without measuring frictional losses with a motoring dyno and having a very accurate model for the MOI of the wheels then the conversion from any measured figure to a "calculated" one is purely an ESTIMATE.
> 
> ...



lmao your the one coming on here like an arehole by your own admission, not me. I wil continue to post relevant data that I find I don't give two hoots if you like it or not. 

I have backed up my first statement plenty of times, the plots i have added uncorrected, sae and din, ive also added the temperature probe plot. I don't profess to know it all but you do, how do you think you can do the math without knowing the temp probe figures ?
I have added the temp plot now but I hadn't at the time you stated its incorrect

mark supplied me the figures and I trust them 100% hes not fudged anything just applied sae and din as ive said a million times. 

you were putting the figures down to the gain setting and mark has clearly stated they are not relevant to the sae plot.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

[email protected] M/S said:


> with regards the above figures I would ask for the air temp graph from the relevant dyno plot; can you post the figures please.
> 
> There is a good write up regards this from my Friend in Kiwi land Andre Simon from Speedtech Motorsport, I will try to find it and put a link up again , I have quoted it on this site before.
> 
> ...



the probe temperature reading Is above mark on this page mate.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

[email protected] M/S said:


> with regards the above figures I would ask for the air temp graph from the relevant dyno plot; can you post the figures please.
> 
> There is a good write up regards this from my Friend in Kiwi land Andre Simon from Speedtech Motorsport, I will try to find it and put a link up again , I have quoted it on this site before.
> 
> ...


Thanks Mark. It would appear this scoooby slayer person is saying your dyno can show a 278bhp increase at this power level by switching from DIN to SAE though. Sounds rather excessive, it would interesting to know how you managed that through correction alone.

I shall not continue to argue with him because although he wishes to continue to argue with myself and others, he still doesn't actually know what he is talking about and still hasn't backed up his claims despite thinking he has. All he has done is put the onus on you now for supplying him with the charts.


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

I doubt I said 278bhp from DIN to SAE , dont really have time to trawl back through the entire thread TBto gain 278bhp from DIN to SAE would be a huge increase in air temperature. I think he may of gotten mixed up with the gain figures GREEN and YELLOW crosses (as I said these can be placed anywhere and the dyno plot used the lower number may of been a low boost plot and the YELLOW cross was on a lower power run)

Running SAE with an inflated Temp reading will show a bigger number full stop.


----------



## Tim Radley (Aug 3, 2013)

[email protected] M/S said:


> I doubt I said 278bhp from DIN to SAE , dont really have time to trawl back through the entire thread TBto gain 278bhp from DIN to SAE would be a huge increase in air temperature. I think he may of gotten mixed up with the gain figures GREEN and YELLOW crosses (as I said these can be placed anywhere and the dyno plot used the lower number may of been a low boost plot and the YELLOW cross was on a lower power run)


No he said your plots had gained 278bhp just by changing correction factor and as i've said from the beginning that is an absurd statement. Anyone who looks at the charts with all the data can quickly see how stupid that statement is.

You've clearly explained above about the cursor positions and that was also misunderstood. Thanks for your efforts here though.

Scooby slayer, 49kw is about 65bhp. Its not 278bhp. Do the math for the temperature increase required to see such a rise in figures. Or just continue to be happy that you believe you are right when you are totally wrong.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Tim Radley said:


> No he said your plots had gained 278bhp just by changing correction factor and as i've said from the beginning that is an absurd statement. Anyone who looks at the charts with all the data can quickly see how stupid that statement is.
> 
> You've clearly explained above about the cursor positions and that was also misunderstood. Thanks for your efforts here though.
> 
> Scooby slayer, 49kw is about 65bhp. Its not 278bhp. Do the math for the temperature increase required to see such a rise in figures. Or just continue to be happy that you believe you are right when you are totally wrong.



uncorrected power was 530 hp, 590 hp din cr, 808 hp sae cf so 218 hp more than din showed. also the article 65 hp 49kw test was only upto 50c my plot was at 62c whatever difference that makes. im not saying it didn't look excessive to me, it did but that was why I asked for a plot for sae as I wanted to see the difference it made in the figures against sae at these high amb temps, as I had read that test and thought it seemed excessive. 

if something else has influenced those figures I don't know I simply got the plots from my tuner as a comparison. 
im not suggesting for one minute its accurate either the car was nowhere near 800 hp, it was more an illustration to show simply placing a temp probe innocently under the bonnet and applying old sae will give hugely inflated figures, granted more than I thought it would be but those are the plots I got.


----------



## [email protected] M/S (Feb 16, 2002)

scoooby slayer said:


> uncorrected power was 530 hp, 590 hp din cr, 808 hp sae cf so 218 hp more than din showed. also the article 65 hp 49kw test was only upto 50c my plot was at 62c whatever difference that makes. im not saying it didn't look excessive to me, it did but that was why I asked for a plot for sae as I wanted to see the difference it made in the figures against sae at these high amb temps, as I had read that test and thought it seemed excessive.
> 
> if something else has influenced those figures I don't know I simply got the plots from my tuner as a comparison.
> im not suggesting for one minute its accurate either the car was nowhere near 800 hp, it was more an illustration to show simply placing a temp probe innocently under the bonnet and applying old sae will give hugely inflated figures, granted more than I thought it would be but those are the plots I got.


That wasnt on my Dyno was it?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

[email protected] M/S said:


> That wasnt on my Dyno was it?


yes mate my r33 from 2008 M40 BHP, hang on il put the plots here you emailed me mark


UNCORRECTED




SAE





DIN





TEMPERATURE PLOT





all dates on plots are 13th august 2008 9:51


----------

