# Litchfield Stage 4.25 Dyno Update



## Jonndogg (Oct 27, 2012)

This week I had my car updated to the latest development of the stage 4.25 tune and a bit of optimisation on the dyno. Plus the latest TCM software/cal which is awesome and actually made the most difference on my journey home.

Number of the beast in pub figures 666/600 ! Or 509 whp in real terms.







Thanks team Litchfield !


----------



## David-R (Feb 25, 2010)

strong power for a 4.25 :thumbsup:


----------



## rfo5 (Nov 10, 2011)

That tune is the best i've seen so far for a 4.25


----------



## goRt (May 17, 2011)

rfo5 said:


> That tune is the best i've seen so far for a 4.25


Johnny g did 675 last week!


----------



## saucyboy (Nov 1, 2009)

Think Johnny has a nice SRD inter cooler as well? Not that I'm stalking him lol.


----------



## Jonndogg (Oct 27, 2012)

I believe this level is pretty normal now, the new dyno has allowed for some further optimisation. Happy days and a worthy investment!

Another stage4.25 did very similar power when I was there. Numbers aside it drives great and this has to be the best compromise of money for power on a gtr.

I don't have any additional mods from the package that Lichfield offer, has the 102mm exhaust though.


----------



## Chronos (Dec 2, 2013)

amazing, everyone thought the max on stock turbos was like 640ish?


----------



## RichF-R35 (Jun 16, 2012)

Nice results John, had my stage 4 tweaked a couple of months ago by Litchfields. They managed to get 657/613


----------



## Jonndogg (Oct 27, 2012)

RichF-R35 said:


> Nice results John, had my stage 4 tweaked a couple of months ago by Litchfields. They managed to get 657/613


Decent result too there Rich!

Here is a quick sound bite from a real private runway session (seriously) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS1kPzH6biw

JB


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

awesome result but 150 hp transmission losses are not real terms by any means imo, I don't doubt the figures accuracy but like dyno dynamics dynos id say your crank figures are bang on but your wheel power is actually more than 509 hp.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

What do you base that assumption on?

On the one had we have a dedicated £170,000 machine built by Germans for oem testing specifically to measure drivetrain losses and on the other hand we have your gut.

I know which I put more faith in.

I'd study the hardware before lumping it in the same category as other dynos.


----------



## Oski (Mar 8, 2014)

Great results my stage 4.25 with 102mm is booked on the dyno next week can't wait to see what it gets.


----------



## Jonndogg (Oct 27, 2012)

As its a dyno plot thread I expected there to be some debate over figures. I wanted to have the cal optimised for my own interest / peace of mind and the numbers are just that to me, but also people like to see such numbers and discuss. 

Car is performing great and exactly how I had hoped, I hit 185mph on that runway video easily which although boring just going in a straight line is actually something I wanted to experience seeing as its the most powerful car I'm likely to own for a while. And lets face it you cant use 600+ hp legally on the road anyway.


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

nice numbers and the car sounds great.

Which runway is that and how long? Based on time at full throttle and the rate of braking I would guess you hit 165mph and the runway is about 1200 / 1400 meters?


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

gtr mart said:


> nice numbers and the car sounds great.
> 
> Which runway is that and how long? Based on time at full throttle and the rate of braking I would guess you hit 165mph and the runway is about 1200 / 1400 meters?


You're 20 mph off with your maths 

See his posts again.


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

oops. Yes, 185mph. Meaning the runway must have been around 1600 meters?


----------



## Jonndogg (Oct 27, 2012)

I don't have a vbox or GPS in the car so the 185 was cluster only data. Next time I will film the cluster to give a rough approximation of acceleration.

I use RAF Woodbride for info. Think it's 2.7km and I was coasting down to not put too much energy into my brakes as it was my first time there didn't want any issues. Think 190+ is easy on cluster indicated speed.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb198/Flyer719/SUFFOLK/Woodbridge/20090531Woodbridge25-2.jpg


----------



## gtrmackem (Apr 12, 2014)

I've noticed that most stage 4:25 Dyno graphs are all so different, not just in bhp or torque but in when max torque is achieve. My Dyno graph shows max torque at 3710 rpm, but Jonndogg achieved max torque at 4860 rpm. To me thats a big differents, just wondered if anybody could give an answer on these anomalies.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Adamantium said:


> What do you base that assumption on?
> 
> On the one had we have a dedicated £170,000 machine built by Germans for oem testing specifically to measure drivetrain losses and on the other hand we have your gut.
> 
> ...



lol if you were cut down the middle you've have Litchfield stamped through you like a stick of rock lmao

I base that assumption on common blo%dy sense tbh ! the transmission is NOT consumeing 150 hp and its frankly ridiculous for it to be sold as such imo. 

so yes I believe the crank figure is no doubt right, but the wheel figure is not 150 hp less no, I don't care who built it, the driveline isnt consumeing 150 hp.


and since you questioned me on my opinion it gets much worse, heres 300 hp drivetrain losses on litchfields dyno




so because the germans built it am I now expected to believe 300 hp transmission losses lmfao, I don't think so


----------



## Evo9lution (Aug 24, 2013)

gtr mart said:


> oops. Yes, 185mph. Meaning the runway must have been around 1600 meters?


I dunno Martin, I reckon it would have to be about a mile long ...

















:chuckle:


----------



## DonnyMac (Jun 21, 2012)

Excuse my ignorance, but regardless of power output aren't the drivetrain losses always the same on the same car?


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

gtrmackem said:


> View attachment 91586
> I've noticed that most stage 4:25 Dyno graphs are all so different, not just in bhp or torque but in when max torque is achieve. My Dyno graph shows max torque at 3710 rpm, but Jonndogg achieved max torque at 4860 rpm. To me thats a big differents, just wondered if anybody could give an answer on these anomalies.


How is the AIT colder than the ambient temp?


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

DonnyMac said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but regardless of power output aren't the drivetrain losses always the same on the same car?


No, heat makes a massive difference.
Oil viscocity, tyre pressures, how hard the car is strapped down.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

scoooby slayer said:


> lol if you were cut down the middle you've have Litchfield stamped through you like a stick of rock lmao
> 
> I base that assumption on common blo%dy sense tbh ! the transmission is NOT consumeing 150 hp and its frankly ridiculous for it to be sold as such imo.



So your whole answer is "it must be wrong because of common sense".

Well, I'm convinced!

I'll call up the engineers at MAHA and tell them to go back to the drawing board, clearly measuring the drag using calibrated machines designed to accurately measure drag is not the way to do it.

I'll suggest they go with the "pick a number at random" approach.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Adamantium said:


> So your whole answer is "it must be wrong because of common sense".
> 
> Well, I'm convinced!
> 
> ...



so you believe the drivetrain is consumeing 300 hp on the 1300 hp car ? 
just think about that, the amount of power a 300 hp car has, all that is gone, yes common sense tells me its not right.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

I can't say for sure that it's right, but unlike you I can't say for sure that it's wrong.


----------



## markM3 (Jan 7, 2008)

Wouldn't the ATW figure be accurate, as that is measured, the flywheel figure is just a percentage added, which you'd have thought would be a figure averaged from standard cars by MAHA then added to any ATW fig. Does seem high though.

Didn't Litchfield test it on other standard car AMG Merc & M3 and the figures were pretty much spot on?


----------



## rob2005 (Apr 26, 2015)

That's mad my Stage 4.25 made 666bhp last month at Litchfield too :wavey:


----------



## BigBen (Aug 18, 2012)

OK Im confused. Logic states that any drive train losses should be constant no matter the power created by the engine? For example 100bhp loss between engine and wheels. So a 600hp car has 500 at the wheels. (AN EXAMPLE!!)

SO give that same car 700hp surely it should be 600 at the wheels? Why would the drive train loss increase? Surely it should remain the same?


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

The transmission comparison, assuming most GT-R running gear is going to consume a similar amount of power, is a sensible logic.

Something not being considered is that part of the drag factor is engine braking as they let it coast down in gear. I can believe that a higher output engine would have greater engine braking effect which could explain the huge variety in drag losses


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

It's not a fixed percentage.

They measure the power at the wheels under load then measure drag by allowing the car to coast and subtract one from the other.

The losses are not constant, they vary car to car and engine to engine. The levels of friction are related to heated and also torque so again are not fixed for similar cars of different power.


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

They also vary due to dyno operators adding a little bit of steering lock on the coast down, trailing the brakes or dragging the handbrake.

Not quite got the number you quoted the customer?
Easy fix, a little extra rolling resistance will resolve that.


----------



## Jonndogg (Oct 27, 2012)

The one thing you need to have clear in your mind is friction. 

Once you understand that the losses will make sense, its not a constant as has been discussed.

The results from these stage cars has been pretty consistent so far, I never speculate or ask for a number when going on a dyno - I work in powertrain development for a large OEM and it makes me cringe when people do that.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

BigBen said:


> OK Im confused. Logic states that any drive train losses should be constant no matter the power created by the engine? For example 100bhp loss between engine and wheels. So a 600hp car has 500 at the wheels. (AN EXAMPLE!!)
> 
> SO give that same car 700hp surely it should be 600 at the wheels? Why would the drive train loss increase? Surely it should remain the same?


heres my take on it, imagine a spoon in a bowl of treacle, turn the spoon slowly its easy to turn it, but try and turn that spoon faster and it takes more effort to turn that spoon so more turning force is needed to maintain momentum, I think of a transmission the same so the losses cannot actually be the same as power increases the force on the transmission must increase, but there cant also be 300 hp of loss of power to turn those gears it simply cant be that high imo. 

its like a parasitic loss, the more power that's applied the more is then in turn lost as its harder to turn everything faster, quicker, just my opinion before any knickers get in a twist.


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

For a car to have equal/consistent losses the above would need to be rewritten.


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

Try this little experiment the next time you are able to get close to a Dyno.

Run your car on low boost, get an infrared temp gun and measure the temperature of the dyno retarder.

Then, run the car on high boost, read the temp.
Then, run the car on low boost again and read the temp.

*You will see something like this:*
230C
390C
260C (due to heat soak/not enough time to cool to ambient)

*You can't have more heat and the same losses.*

But, all of this doesn't mean that I agree with the losses shown in the graphs in this thread.


----------



## Litchfield (Feb 26, 2008)

Guys, without wanting to start some kind of Dyno debate I’ll try and explain again the figures on the graphs. 

The figure that is accurately calculated on our Maha dyno is the flywheel figure. The power at the wheel and drag are *NOT* just the measurement from the car but also from the whole dyno setup. This is different to some of the US / AUS WHP figures and therefore I understand how confusing it is especially as they use the same terminology 

The drag measurement is the total figure including the 3 retarders, 2 rollers and 2 electric motors etc on the dyno as well as everything on the car. All these things have an exponential effect on a reading and are therefore included in all the calculated figures.

Changing something as simple as the tyre pressure on most dynos and the WHP will increase as the friction is reduced. As we measure the drop in drag as well the Flywheel HP won’t change. Same can be seen in the temperature of the transmission or tyres etc.

For example we did a customer’s car the other day which produced 1,040bhp with a built PPG gearbox. We subsequently changed only the gearbox to Dodson’s a new gear set (which they ground and Superfinish) and the improved design dropped the drag by 30bhp at 8,000rpm. Power at the wheels increased but drag also dropped so the engine power didn’t change 

Francis’s GTR is a perfect example of what can cause huge changes in WHP figures. He was running on track tyres (warn R888 I think) and with his big power and torque we had problems getting the wheels not to spin on the rollers. To get around the wheel spin we dropped the pressures right down which will significantly increase the drag (tyres have a massive effect, try pushing a car with a flat!). Putting this amount of power through the dyno also creates a lot of internal heat which will affect the whp/drag of the whole system. All of which is accounted for in the final flywheel calculation.

After Francis’s car we ran another with similar power but it was on Michelin’s which found much more grip and no problems with slip. This cars overall drag was much lower at around 198bhp at 8,000rpm. Typically a GTR on the dyno will produce an overall drag figure around 150bhp at 7,000rpm. 

Hopefully the explanation explains the drag figure is *NOT* the power lost just in the transmission but in all the test equipment that can affect the only figure that we are interested in which is the Power the engine is producing 

GTO Nemesis most of those tricks you mention will not work on a single roll and would show on the drag graph.

Stage 4 and Stage 4.25 figures can vary a little but there are so many different exhaust sizes and designs fitted to these specification cars it all adds up. We have also been improving our Stage 4 maps continually and from April/May onwards we have found some more top end power. All our previous Stage 4 maps were around 620-628bhp when we tested them originally so we’re really pleased with the gains 

Regards

Iain


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Litchfield said:


> Guys, without wanting to start some kind of Dyno debate I***8217;ll try and explain again the figures on the graphs.
> 
> The figure that is accurately calculated on our Maha dyno is the flywheel figure. The power at the wheel and drag are *NOT* just the measurement from the car but also from the whole dyno setup. This is different to some of the US / AUS WHP figures and therefore I understand how confusing it is especially as they use the same terminology
> 
> ...




thankyou which is what ive said all along, the FLYWHEEL figure is accurate :bowdown1:

id like to get on your dyno sometime with my car and see if it really does make the 962 crank hp I think it does on e50.


----------



## Donga (Mar 3, 2013)

gtr mart said:


> The transmission comparison, assuming most GT-R running gear is going to consume a similar amount of power, is a sensible logic.
> 
> Something not being considered is that part of the drag factor is engine braking as they let it coast down in gear. I can believe that a higher output engine would have greater engine braking effect which could explain the huge variety in drag losses


I believe this too. EDIT: Just read Iains post :chuckle:


----------



## OldBob (Oct 18, 2010)

Chronos said:


> amazing, everyone thought the max on stock turbos was like 640ish?


I didn't think it would be long for you to remind some of that


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

Litchfield said:


> For example we did a customer’s car the other day which produced 1,040bhp with a built PPG gearbox. We subsequently changed only the gearbox to Dodson’s a new gear set (which they ground and Superfinish) and the improved design dropped the drag by 30bhp at 8,000rpm. Power at the wheels increased but drag also dropped so the engine power didn’t change


From reading that it sounds like you put that change solely down to the gearbox change?

The variance is 2.8% which at 1000+HP must be well within expected tolerance?


----------



## Chronos (Dec 2, 2013)

OldBob said:


> I didn't think it would be long for you to remind some of that


amazing how it's been the norm for a long time that stock tubbys max'd out at 630-640bhp , and now people are getting like 30bhp+ in some cases which is great! I want mine doing now! ha ha ..can't beat more top end power! :thumbsup:



> We have also been improving our Stage 4 maps continually and from April/May onwards we have found some more top end power. All our previous Stage 4 maps were around 620-628bhp when we tested them originally so we***8217;re really pleased with the gains


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Must apologise to ScoobySlayer for not properly reading his original comment and jumping to the wrong conclusion about what he was saying.

The power at the wheels figure is accurately measured but since it includes the losses in the dyno it is a true reading but not representative of the drivetrain losses of the car, it merely includes that as part of its internal calculation.

Re-reading what you wrote originally, I now see you didn't question the flywheel power at all.

I shall eat humble pie if someone can point me to a suitable icon.


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

What is a Litchfield 4.25?

I can find the 4 and 4.5 but no details on their www for the 4.25


----------



## Jonndogg (Oct 27, 2012)

Stage 4 plus downpipes = 4.25


----------



## Litchfield (Feb 26, 2008)

GTO the 1040bhp car has been on our dyno a lot and the figures are very consistent run after run.

Scooby Slayer you would be welcome to run your car anytime just let me know. Typically we find hub figures are pretty close to our flywheel figures.


----------



## R35_owner (Jun 3, 2014)

Brilliant had mine done last week too 4.25 663 bhp 609 ft lbs Litchfield is deffo the place to go ***128076;***127997; top service great bunch Ian top bloke will be returning for more mods in future


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

Litchfield said:


> GTO the 1040bhp car has been on our dyno a lot and the figures are very consistent run after run.
> 
> Scooby Slayer you would be welcome to run your car anytime just let me know. Typically we find hub figures are pretty close to our flywheel figures.


would be a good comparison mate we shall have to do it, it made 928 hub hp on e50, which I make approximately 958 crank hp


----------



## ISR36 (May 6, 2015)

Jonndogg said:


> I believe this level is pretty normal now, the new dyno has allowed for some further optimisation. Happy days and a worthy investment!
> 
> Another stage4.25 did very similar power when I was there. Numbers aside it drives great and this has to be the best compromise of money for power on a gtr.
> 
> I don't have any additional mods from the package that Lichfield offer, has the 102mm exhaust though.



The other Stage 4.25 there would've been me I think - Unfortunately I was running crap!! fuel, so Iain advised a bit more power is definitely available.

Amazing the power they're getting now though!


----------



## Doldy (Jul 6, 2015)

Superb, and a superb looking GT-R too!


----------

