Rolling road day at powerstation jan (all welcome)

After my live map with FC Performance, i am planing on going back to powerstation to see what the increase in power is.
After talking to flea, it would be nice for afew other coupes to come.
Hopefully flea will be there with his car and possibly my mate.
If anyone is interested in attending i will give them a ring and try sort out a time and date which suits everyone.

Ash

Maybe interested

deffo interested should have down pipe and injectors sorted by then... hopefully!

Nick

I'm in this one if all being well with a live map to

It will probably be the week after your mapping Paul
Has anyone got any preferred days, times or dates in january?

Would be nice if you would come Chris, see if the gt28rsr's are the same on both our cars We could also have a little competition Chris on who's got the loudest exhaust

Ash

Interested Ash, depending on the date....

Could well be up for this if i get the bits a need to get done.

where abouts is powerstation? could get a few coupes together

Its in Tewkesbury they also have a website to

Would be nice to have a coupe day there, as they like the coupes and are always impressed with the power they achieve.
I will give them a ring on monday, i think it will be 29th/30th or 31st january.

Ash

i'd be up for this, see if my car is still the same as when it left perfect touch a while ago.

wish flea had been doing mapping then, would of saved me a drive halfway across the country!

cant really do anything in the first half of the month though, anytime after the 14th is fine

up for this - need to see if curing the boost leaks has found me the missing power - I only got 350 there last time

"only........."

Intrested

Ben

Right i rang powerstation today, and they said not a problem having afew coupes one day end of January, as they haven't booked anything in yet.
He said we will have to book a 2 hour slot and pay on the day, but will need definite's as i got to tell them how many will turn up.
I asked if it was ok, if any of us needed any extra time on the rollers it would be fine (for tinkering). But they will charge the extra time if its over the 2 hours.
I got to ring them back tomorrow for the price and i am sure he said £200 for 2 hours (forgot to write it down ), which we will split between all the people that run on the rollers.

I don't have to book it until beginning of January (5th/6th or 7th)
If everyone that's a definite could you put your name down and which days are best for you (28th/29th/30th or 31st)

Looking forward to this

Ash

yes, and 31st for me, as its a saturday!

I rang them back its £240 +vat for 2 hours and £120+vat per hour. Depending on how many go, the price will be split between us.

So far 31st then

Ash

31st is fine for me

Ben

I'll be there

Ok, the date is now 31st. The list of definite people i have so far is-

Me
Flea
Benny
Owl10
hillbilly11113 (provisional)
proccy (provisional)
Nick
I will ring them next week to book the day and how many places. I will be able to work out how much for each of us by then.

Just one more thing what time would be best about 10am.

Ash

Would it be ok for someone with only little power to come? Just for a fueling check to make sure all is well?

Yeh of course you can attend, you don't need big power. We will all get our coupes looked after the same. We will all get our power over shadowed by fleas car

Ash

Does sound good and i'd like to know all is ok.
Put me down as provisional... 2 reasons..make sure the clutch is ok by then and to make sure im in the country at the end of January as i might be away with work.

Would really like to go though
Cheers
Chris

as with hillbilly, please put me as provisional....

Ok have edited the list proccy. When will you know for definite as i will ring them the first week in January now to book.

Ash

i'll be there as long as downpipe gets fitted before, ordering it tommorrow so i should be ok, that should give me a month to get it fitted

Nick

i expect to know within 10 days maximum - and then assuming i can get motormech to do a couple of jobs prior to the weekend at powerstation. again, this will be booked in within the next 10 days...

edited to say, booked in at motormech on 13th so if everything checks out ok i'll be there...
i'm basically standard with a gtec chip, so just wanna be sure the fuelling is ok

I am working on the 31st on days, but if i can put a days leave in i want to come to this to see how the car is running.

Christmas hasent gone as planned...and the new years not getting much better so im going to have to pull out. Really sorry guys.

Chris

i'm out too sorry - the work being done should be finished but i now am scheduled to work that weekend the miserable fcukkers

Any update Ash, and i gather this is still on

Ben

This is still on Benny, i have got to phone them this week to book the slot. I am going to book it for 7 cars.
So can everyone that's a definite confirm with me that the 31st is still OK.
I will ring powerstation on Wednesday to book and will get the price per car.

List So far is -
Me- Definite
Flea- Definite
Benny- Definite
Nick- Definite
Owl10- Definite
Nigel- Definite
Luke- Definite
Also i forgot to add, what time would be best for everyone about 10am


Thanks Ash

C'mon guys - this is a golden opportunity to get your car checked out on the rollers.

Its a great day out - learn whether you car is producing the power you *think* it is - speak to the guys at PowerStation (they REALLY know their stuff) - speak to modding nutters like Flea and me to see what can be done (may even take a passenger or two for a quick spin)

I'm happy to take my code reader and do FREE checks before it goes on the rollers - as well as the obvious identifying and resetting of error codes, it can also check for throttle opening angle - this is by far the easiest BHP you will ever find - previous code reader sessions have commonly found throttle angles in the low to mid 60s (max is supposed to be 84). The worst was 42 degrees (ie half throttle).

I'll also bring the airbag / ABS pod for the code reader, so I *might* be able to reset your airbag or ABS light, or at least diagnose the cause (the SP code reader isn't always able to reset the light)

PowerStation is a doddle to get to - less than 5 minutes off the M5 at Cheltenham

go on - you KNOW you want to.......

put me down as a more than likely definate as im getting flea to work his magic on my car in next couple of weeks soo that will be good opportunity to see what my new figures will be!

Thanks luke your names down. I bet you will be glad to get your power back after the lean running.

Ash

I'm a definate 10am is fine

Can i take you up on your offer Nigel of a passenger ride

Ben

Put you on as definite Benny.
I wouldn't mind a passenger ride in a powerful coupe too

well the rich running yeah costing me a fortune hopefully if flea is happy enogh with health of my car and can map it properly should see a nice 350bhp if fueling is spot on

Providing my leave goes through on monday i'll be there.

Let me know how your leave goes nrenz123, as i am ringing them wednesday.

Ash

will do, im pretty sure i'll get it though!

can you put me down as a definate please!

i'll bring my compression tester along if anyone wants to check before going on the rollers.

ash, iirc a few friends who have been to powerstation suggested we may get a slightly better price if paying cash

on the previous occasions I've been there (about four or five times) I've found that a wad of cash and no requirement for a receipt can help with the pricing negotiations

has any one go the post code for power station??

thanks

Last time me and paul20vturbo went we payed the normal price but with cash. Everyone will be paying them each so will see if we can all pay cash.

Marco20valveT the address for powerstation is-

POWERSTATION
Northway Trading Estate
Northway Lane
Tewkesbury
Gloucestershire
GL20 8JH

And there site is- http://www.powerstation.org.uk/index.asp

Ash

Hmmmmmm quite tempted, always wanted to know what my car was running (completely standard!)

Your more then welcome to come benje, always a good thing to know how your cars running on the rollers.

Ash

Right i am going to phone them tomorrow to book the session. I have 6 definites, so will book for 7-8 incase someone ones to add on soon.

Will let you know tomorrow about the details

Ash

its about 2 hours from me...

im going to pass on this! sorry mate but thanks for the offer!

Its ok marco20valvet maybe next time
Right everyone it is now booked for 10am saturday 31st January for 8 coupes.
The price is 240 +vat for all cars, so that will be divided by how many turn up (roughly £40). If everyone brings cash there will be no vat so please bring cash.
I have told them we all want fueling and det checking, which he has wrote down, but will remind them on the day.

So will see you all at powerstation on the 31st.

Ash

Good work Ash

Ben

Damnit, granted im not driving a coupe anymore but id have loved to come to this!

Ash - I *might* ask for more than one run - Leighton will have a quick tweak of the maps before it goes on the rollers and may also make a few changes while its on the rollers - this may mean several runs, but I'm happy to fork out for an hour's use (which was about £60 last time I did it)

This may be useful for other owners to see, purely so they can see what Leighton does and what the results are

I would be interested in this if there is still any spaces? Joe at countrycruising is currently doing some work on my car including a new turbo. Will this be ok to bring or does a turbo need to be run in?

turbo doesn't need running in!

Theres always one isnt there Nigel? im droping mine down to leighton tomorrow so when i come to this we will see what mine will be running at 1.4 bar. its running 298bhp at 1.35bar now with very rich fueling soo should be much better after leighton does his stuff. not sure wether i should ask him to map it to 1.5bar tho

1.5 is what mine used to run on the RS, not much difference between that and 1.4 IMO!

Nigel i asked about extra time and they said not a problem aslong as they don;t have a booking after our 2 hours, they will just add the price on. I might need abit more time too as Leighton said he will tweak mine also :)]

Plusna your more then welcome to come along, i booked for 8 coupes and only got 6 definites so there will be room.

pfoe i can't see a problem with you coming in a different car if Nick doesn't come or say hes a definite.

Ash

what would we be talking eldinho?? with 0.1 bar difference. . .

Well even if i cant get in there i might pop along anyway cos i dont think its far and i wouldnt mind having a look that their 4x4 rollers

a piston?

Should be there ash... even if it is only to check fuelling on current map!
Ideally i will have exhaust off Eldinho, New chip and Larger turbo elbow all fitted by then... But UNLIKELY..

So may just end up seeing if my current chip will run ok with larger injectors and smaller fpr, again UNLIKELY... but i'll be there!!

Nick

Thanks Nick will put you down as a definite.
Looking forward to seeing all the coupes there.

Ash

3 pistons in my case

I think it would only give a few extra bhp and bit more torque, I'm sure Leighton will advise better than me though!

Looks like a great day by the way!

il stick to 1.4bar as leighton said. im droping the car to him so he got how ever long to get it perfect

my car made less peak power at 2.1 bar than it did at 1.75 bar

However, it held over 380bhp all the way from 4,000rpm to about 6,500 and the torque was HUGE, so it felt much faster

Given how cold it is out there I would get Flea to map it more conservatively. You might not get det when the ambient is zero but in the summer it could be a different story!

yeah he is going to be conservative but at 1,5bar ive told him to map it to what he personally thinks is good balance of reliability and perfomance.

Well took it out for a wee spin this afternoon, such a lovely car to drive and awesome exhaust sound Anyway, you got me thinking when you said how does Matty run 2bar on standard internals and well hell, why not I thought. J****us, it's really shifting now Luke, you are gonna luv it

i dont care what do as long as i do love it treat my baby how it should be treated.

had my map leaned out much?? altho i did reset ecu few days ago so may not seem soo .

Yes it's lean, certainly at the top end. I have bypassed the Unichip and will start mapping it tomorrow, btw I was being honest about... loving your car, it sounds just beautiful and the KWs really are the best suspension setup I have driven in for ride quality, it must be the Brava topmounts

yeah does ound good i think too and tbh i havent driven many other cars that handle as well for a FWD. Let us all know how u get on tomorrow

Good write-up, eh, Luke? Nice one ;-)

Ok, this is getting a bit closer now, who is coming up from the south / Bristol area? (or comes through that way along the M4)

Convoy ? ? ?

im up for a trip up from cardiff id like to check the fueling is up to the stage 1 turbo gtec2 front mount scorpion system and decat what time at powerstation how many will be going anyone from cardiff or wales traveling up cheers richie

flea is mapping my car on monday - so i would love to come to this.

can you put me down as a maybe for know. just need to check i can make sat.

Thanks

Dan

This has been booked for 8 coupes with abit of extra time if needed, i am not sure how many they will let turn up (if they have booked other cars for after 12pm)
I will ring them on monday and see if they will let 10 coupes come with extra roller time for flea and Nigel.

Ash

dont worry if you cant fit me in, will make another RR session :-)


Thanks

Dan

im coming from newbury/swindon so will be able to meet not sure where tho?

Ash I don't need any extra roller time, on and off like everyone else

Ok Leighton, it might just be Nigel that needs abit more roller time. Your not allowed to go on first, just incase you break the rollers

how many coupes are definatly turning up id really like to come up to see how the fueling is doing on mine ill be coming up the m4 owl10 where would you like to meet if your still up for a convoy ????

all of us are definatly going buddy. where on the M4 you coming from? asim coming along there too.

How many extra people want to come as a definite, as i will ring them tomorrow and see if i can get abit more time for extra people.

Ash

sadly i can not make this date. count me out im afraid.

looking forward to all your results though :-)

Thanks

Dan

Leighton - the only reason I've said I *might* need more time is in case you want to make any changes to the maps - I know you can play with the tickover and low speed maps by trundling around the local roads, but its not going to be easy to run high boost on the open road - I'm hoping we can try 1.6 bar or maybe even some more if it feels good.

With the boost leaks sorted it should be a lot more predictable

No that's fine Nigel, I was speaking for my own car which will just need a run or two. Happy to spend some time on the rollers with your car, nothing like a bit of "live" live mapping

Sorry Ash, i wanted to come along to this but can no longer attend hopefully something like this will come up again in the summer.

Its ok not a problem, i am sure someone else will sort one out later on in the year.

Ash

Can you count me in as a definate for sat ash please, my coupe has developed a rather nasty splutter id really like to find out if its a fueling issure or some thing more ill be travelling from cardiff so ill be travelling west along the m4 if any one travelling that way that want to meet for a convoy let me know a time and at what jnt or services to meet cheers richie

Does anyone fancy meeting at junction 6 of m5?? there is a pub on that island we could meet at??
tewkesbury is only another 10-15miles down motorway then??

Nick

I will be meeting everyone at powerstation, as i am meeting up with flea earlier on for a check over my map.
Ok Richie that makes 9 coupes, i will ring them tomorrow dinner and let them know.

Ash

Ok thanks ash thats great see you saturday

Right i rang them today, and we are the only ones booked in for Saturday, so we can have the rollers for as long as possible.
So if anyone is thinking of coming your more then welcome, the more that turn up the cheaper it works out.

Ash

Was going to put my name back down. But well ermm... see related chat.

Sorry to hear about the damage, hope its just bent the subframe and you can get it back on the road.

Ash

I'm going to be there, as i'm dropping my car off with Flea for a re-map. Not going on rollers though, but will good to see some of your cars

Luke, and anyone else coming from the south ish area (inc south wales) how about meeting at michael wood services on the M5 between Junctions 14 - 13 at 09:00 ????

Me and my old man are going up the A449/m50

See everyone there

Ben

i gather u mean m4 not m5??? if m4 then yes that cool for me as thats chieveley rite near me. . .

Love that road, especially the part that winds up the hill then drops back off into a long straight. The bit near Monmouth with the roundabouts is fun too!

i'll be here at 9.

click

just relised, thats probably miles from your route!

click just shows me a map of europe lol where id hope you would be somewhere on there if planning to attend tomorrow

prob miles off your route luke, m4 northbound between the junctions 14 -13,

i'll just see everyone there at 10.......

Not long now everyone, don't forget to bring CASH so we can pay without paying vat, will be alot cheaper for everyone.

See you all there tomorrow, hope it doesn't snow


ASh

what time is every one planning on getting to power station

We all have to be there by 10am

Ben

So the mechanic who was changin my manifold gasket, sorting a prob with manifold and fitting my new larger turbo elbow decided to go home early today and not bother... Proper pissed me off!

Also left me to change my own injectors and fpr, as my 3.8 bar fpr was making the injectors leak!!

Did that, then guess what???!!
The one nearest the new 3 bar fpr was leaking after 10 mins!!! Really really pissed off now!!

After fidling for 10 mins managed to stop the leak and have had her running for an hour now and all is still ok so i'll still be coming, Really looking forward to it!!

Nick

good news - i can now make this :-)

see you there in a couple of hours :-)

Thanks

Dan

see you guys soon!

Come on guys, don't hold the results. Give it to me

Give them a chance Freddan, they will be running right now

that's better

my previous run at PowerStation gave me 350bhp, but I later discovered a couple of boost leaks.

Today I got 395bhp at about 1.6 bar - another run at 1.7 bar gave 388bhp, but that was the third or fourth run in rapid succession, so there was a fair bit of heatsoak by then

Different rollers will always give different results, so I'm perfectly happy with this one. Speaking with Rich, the Powerstation chappie, he said he could easily have shown me 400+ bhp by running in 4th gear (he used 5th for the power runs)

How much WHP did you get?

just under 300

Was a good day,thanks to everyone that came, hope everyone enjoyed it. If anyone wants the pdf of there last power runs i should have them soon (emailed didn't work today, so will phone them in the week to resend).

I was very happy with my power after my mapping, my gt28rsr kept up with the gt28rs boys (apart from benny you got great power).

I made 335bhp so just what i was looking for. Just got to find out now why its boosting 400-500 rpm later then my last time at powerstation (think my variator isn't working).


Also a big thank you to Leighton for having a look at my car again.
Ash

259 bhp from my standard 20 VT. FC performance (Flea) - found me 40 extra horses from some where!! Very pleased indeed :-)

Sadly they only saved my 256bhp run :-(
I am sure i had 250 torque on my best run but the saved graph had 238.

Was great to see some very powerful Coupes!!! And only £30 a head - what a bargain!!

Thanks

Dan

Yes - must say that the £30 bill was a very pleasant conclusion to a bloody good day out.

With the knowledge that my fuelling is good for more than the 1.6 bar I've been running for the last few months, I had a play on the M5 on the way home. I can certify that 1.95 bar is huge fun and not very quiet

I also had a good day out and the coupe performed okay

It was a little rich midrange and torque was down a bit,

which on the way home i discovered i was running a bit less boost than it should be so that's fixed now

Shame i did'nt have a chance to have a chat to you Nigel but there is always next time

Results were 366bhp 303ft/lb

will post pic's and graph in the week

Ben

I have just been outside looking into why my turbo is boosting later then before and why i have a very flat torque curve. I took the variator relay out and the pins in the connector have oxidized and gone really black.
I gave it a quick clean and pushed the relay in firmly. Just been out to fill it up and wow what a difference, boost in hard at 2800 (1.37bar) and it feels so much more responsive and faster.
Shame i didn't notice this before going on the rollers. Will clean the connector up properly tomorrow and give it a better test (got a 300mile round trip to do tomorrow).

looks like my variator wasn't doing anything today on the rollers

Ash

Thats good news Ash

Its typical we find these little niggles out after the event

Ben

i know, i think that's what owning a coupe is all about, the little niggles.
I was very impressed with your engine bay, could eat my dinner off it

Ash

Geees, I feel tired after today! Some nice results, especially glad to see Nigel and Luke's power back up, Ash making a good increase and Dan's standard car doing the business

Not sure what to say about mine as it didn't quite get a full set of results. First few runs at 1.9bar were done in 5th gear, but for some reason the dyno was limiting the speed to 150mph and shutting down the run, just as it was getting going!! Unfotunatey 4th gear was spinning the wheels on the rollers so never got a proper run at full boost. Anyway pleased with the results, certainly backs up what I have felt on the road

1.9bar - 403lbs/ft
(run aborted at 150mph in 5th gear)

1.7bar - 457bhp & 369lbs/ft
(4th gear run)

150mph = topped out Dyno. 5th gear?

Anyway, nice figures Leighton.

damn, that's some power, I want !

Flea - I thought you said that Rich ran in 5th for my runs - I've checked the graph for the final 388bhp run and it shows 129mph at peak power, so it must have been in 4th

WOW! So much torque How much WHP Flea?

Nigel, yes he did use 5th on the first run, but I asked him to run it in 4th gear after that.

Matty, most dynos with twin rollers per axle do limit the max speed at which the dyno can run due to the smaller bearings. Something like the Dastek or Dynojet which has big single rollers can take a little more top speed due to the larger bearings although they don't recommend it. It appears the MAHA limits top speed to 250km/h or 155mph.

It's a shame we couldn't stop the wheels spinning in 4th gear, perhaps with a little more time and effort it could be strapped down harder. He tried reducing the load on the dyno so that it would allow it to spin up quicker but the wheels were still breaking free. It also has the effect of reducing boost as it doesn't load the engine enough. I have to admit my tyres are also shot, so that didn't help matters.

Nice Flea

Same question here Flea.. how much wheel Hp and Tq?

best run made 340bhp and 297lbs at 1.5bar but have quite a bad bouncing idle atm and nigel suffered this before and was found to be boost leaks so im suspecting i may have boost leak somewhere the search continues

relly sorry i didnt turn up guys my car bokedown on the m4 engine management came on and injector light had to wait for my fater to bring a trailer proper pissed off really wanted to see how the fueling was doing on my coupe as i can see you all had some very good results may be next time for me cheers


Richie

I don't understand why you couldn’t get a proper run in 5th I though MAHA dynos were good , you gonna take a trip to PT for a power run then

I think it’s fair to disregard your 4th gear runs as "official" as not getting traction is a B***h.

What RPM were you reaching before it kicked out? Obviously you reached peak torque at 403ft/lb at 1.9Bar I was kinda expecting more considering you got a GT3076R. But now we are all left wondering what the BHP would have been....

So the question is when is the next power run?

Er, read above. I don't think you will find many dyno operators wanting to run cars up to 190mph+ especially with eddy current retarders.



The 4th gear run at 1.7bar was fine for traction. The 5th gear run didn't slip so the torque figure is at the point it stopped on the dyno. Based on the 5 speed gearing it would have stopped at 6150rpm, so another 1700rpm to go.



Why? Based on...? All cars on the day made power expected for their level of tune. It begs the question, still think you would make over 400bhp at Powerstation, indeed even the same as your "PT figures" ? Over time I may manage to squeeze a little more out of it but right now, it is what it is.

I though you said it was slipping in fourth So you’re happy to say at 1.7Bar its 457BHP with 369ft/lb what was wbhp?




Based on your dyno graph here:
http://www.torquestats.com/static/cars/modified/Flea/20/upload_274.jpg?1206008769

Was this not your last official dyno figure at 1.6Bar with GT2871R 0.86 and PT map?
It made 480BHP with 366ft/lb.
Now you make 457BHP with 369ft/lb at 1.7Bar with GT3076R and your map.
That’s why is was expecting more power.

Here is my graph fom the day click

And a few pic's

luke
mine
owl10
carphone
ash
nick_d
flea
mattm
nigel

Ben

You'll also find most Dyno's top out around 150mph which is why I did a face at the 5th gear run.

Now thats what i'm talking about, turn the limit off and 200MPH.

Have you tried going past 150mph on your dyno Matty? I'm sure I have done it on my local Dastek last year but he wasn't keen for me to try.

Jason it's hard for me to compare the two setups as a couple of months later after that run my engine blew up on PTs dyno... On that day that's what it made at Powerstation. It was much colder, the engine was running a good deal leaner at the top end and the ignition timing was somewhat more aggressive than what I run now. The turbo was a TD hybrid, not an off the shelf GT2871R 0.86, in fact it does appear to flow very similar to my current turbo so who knows.

Anyway enough about me, if I get any more dyno runs I'm sure you will be the first to criticise... sorry question

I see the story unravels more..., I heard that it let go at PT but didn't want to say publically. No 4 plug melted and dropped in or something?



Agreeded I just love the sparing matches, I like keeping you on your toes

Actually it was more than that. They were CP forged pistons, number 4 ran so hot the ceramic tip on the iridium plug dropped off and went all the way through. However, all 5 pistons had severe detonation pitting, indeed on number 5 part of the piston crown had broken off at the edge. This was a brand new engine with about 3000 miles on it including running in.

The reason I didn't go public, especially at the time, is due to the blame game. PT said it was Barbz and Barbz was adamant it was the mapping. Barbz and I have been good friends for a few years now, and at the time I didn't think it was fair for anyone to question his engine builds so I took it on the chin.

I should point out that upon stripping the engine there were no problems, oh other than the destroyed pistons.

TurboJ, has Leighton upset you in the past? Seems you have a chip on your shoulder for some reason???

Just a bit awkward to read your posts... They dont seem to be motivated by genuine interest...

Regards

Dan

Not at all. Flea's a nice bloke I aint got a problem with him at all. Just because we don't agree on all issues doesn’t mean I have a chip. I will always challenge something I don't agree with and have never bad mouthed his work, I know flea is good at what he does. Disagreement and arguing points doesn’t mean negativity towards each other. The way some of my posts read may seem awkward but I was never good at English in skool.

Anyway enough of me an Flea where are all the graphs

Great to see the results from this dyno day at last; been waiting for this for a long time.

Nigel's making 400bhp again, Luke's car now making a 'reliable' 338bhp and a standard remappe car making 259bhp... more than I ran for 4 years with fairly extensive mods All good stuff

As for the top speed on the rollers thing, when I took mine to Track'n'road, the guy did my run in 5th gear and took it up to 6,500rpm or thereabouts, well over 150mph anyway. He told me he always runs them in top gear and even showed me a vid of an F1 car redlining in 6th gear. It was near 250mph apparently... sounded like it too

Good old Greenald

Jason,

just to add, I physically looked at Leightons pistons after the carnage on the rr'd at PT, they were all truly fccuked & detted to death.

I would have mistaken them all for a dart board judging by the erosion on the crowns & amount of heat damage

I have also suffered with the PT map, sure on the day it was okish, but I will NEVER use them again.

Put it this way, if Flea didn't map my coop, I would have quietly had it crushed, and I am NOT joking about that

when you are sat in the MOT station & the CO emissions are getting above 10%, YOU HAVE TO QUESTIONS what the fccuk is going on

IMHO

Sad to hear that about flea's engine I wouldn't wish that upon anybody When Barbz told me what happened years back I was devastated for him as I remember once upon a time when the DTA ECU trashed my first engine. Glad to hear yours is up and running sweet

My last run on the rollers was at Owen Developments. He, (Mark Harrison), ran my car in fifth aswell and max power was reached at 167 MPH.

Sean

If we can all stop this bicuring and get back to what this thread is about

And any more results from the day

Ben

290 lb/ft & 320 bhp....ish

rich lower down and getting lean toward the top, no prizes for guessing where it was mapped (wasnt cheap either)

another coupe going to be heading leightons way soon, well as soon as you lot work hard enough for the govt. (aka my student finance) to pay for it........

it seems that no one wants to reveal there whp figures

Yes, only pub figures in this thread

P.S I think it's just Nigel that has presented a WHP figure

I made 347 @ wheels but as you know Freddan, you can't compare wheel power between dynos, it's apples and oranges

It states it on my graph i posted earlier in the thread

271wbhp

Ben

I just want to see the difference between Wheel HP and Crank HP.
By the way how do they calculate the Crank HP?

OK, Im not trying to rubbish anyone's power figures here just trying to educate the few on here that do not understand the whole picture

Read this page, all of it!!

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/POWER3.htm

I think that it would make things a lot more accurate if people quoted WBHP figures then used a single formula for all despite what dyno is used

As Dave from Puma race engine has come up with one we may as well use that

That is

Add 10 bhp to the wheel figure and divide the result by 0.9

This unfortunatly will not take out the accuracy differences from one dyno to another but its a hell of a lot more accurate that quoting Flywheel bhp when all dyno operators seem to be using different transmission losses

In Fleas case they seem to have used nearly 30% as a transmission loss, this seems excessive to me especially as VW and Bosch both work to 15%

AS i said above im not trying to rubbish anyones figures but if we all work to the same formula then at least we will all be singing from the same him sheet

using this formula i got these results

Flea- 396.6 BHP
benny- 312.2 BHP


If anyone else wnats to put up there WBHP figures i can work it out, or you can use the formula above yourself

It would be nice to get some figures from other dyno's as well especially if you have run the same car on differing dyno's, this way at least we can check just how close each dyno is.

thats alot of transmission loss there,my car made 295whp and 338bhp so i have more whp then benny and less bhp then him so thats will confusing whos car as more power then

Well I have 389 WHP and 430 BHP.

On a proper Dyno.

295 + 10 / 0.9 = 338.9BHP your figures are spot on
271 + 10 / 0.9 = 312.2BHP so yours is quicker

Sigh... black and white

I love Dyno debates.

So yours is very close, i think we need to bear in mind they will never be exactly what the formula predicts

Your results suggest that your dyno is conservitive with its results, by 13bhp, percentage wise its very minimal

Funily enough, reading TurboJ's results from his sig, 322 WBHP +10BHP=332 / 0.9 = 368.8 flywheel BHP

Thats on a Dastek dyno as well and its being concervetive by a similer amount percentage wise, so it shows that the dastek dyno's are giving similer results.

Flea, Do you have your PT graph to hand, as your one of the very few people to run on both dyno's we should be able to compare the two accuracy wise

Not really as I’m only ever interested in WBHP & Ft/lb. Flywheel figures never impress me....even if they are 100% correct.



That run was with the injectors running out of duty still had another 1000rpm to go so I probably would have made 370ish with that run

Both dynos are mechanically different and utilise different software. What they have in common is they are both designed to measure flywheel power because that is what we use in Europe unlike the yanks who work with wheel power. If you want to compare wheel power results then frankly you need to understand the dyno mechanisms not some generic internet formula. You can't have it both ways, you accept one or the other, I would be inclined to accept the one the manufacturers have engineered it for.

Anyway, these are the revised figures:

Flea - 457bhp becomes 397bhp (GT3076R @ 1.9bar)
Nigel - 395bhp becomes 339bhp (GT2871R @ 1.7bar)
Benny - 366bhp becomes 312bhp (GT28RS @ ???)
Luke - 338bhp becomes 288bhp (GT28RS @ 1.5bar)
AshP - 335bhp becomes 286bhp (GT28RSR @ 1.37bar)
Owl10 - 320bhp becomes 273bhp (GT28R @ ???)
Carphone - 259bhp becomes 222bhp (Standard @ 1.2bar)

Effectively your saying the above cars are all knackered! Carphone buddy, your remapped standard car is only making standard power!!

Or are they?? Perhaps they are making the power you would expect to see from a well setup coupe with all the mods +/- 10bhp?

So the infamous Dastek dyno. They are getting quite popular in this country - the reason, they happen to be the cheapest by quite some margin. Anyway, I have indeed been to a Dastek dyno quite recently, in fact it was December.

383whp @ 5803rpm (1.8bar)

Now hang on a minute, that can't be right can it?? How have I lost 61whp (yes that is right, at Powerstation I only made 322whp at 5800rpm) in just a month?? Indeed, the run in December was with my old 440cc injectors, the reason the torque drops sharply at 5800rpm is because my injectors were at 100% duty therefore I had to drop the boost with the Apexi to 1.5bar to the redline. So anyway, with the Puma formula I made 437bhp at only 5800rpm, that's pretty good going Indeed, that leaves another 2000rpm left to run at full boost which I can now do because I have 580cc injectors!! So which figures are best correlated, wheel power of flywheel power? Given that I only made 390bhp @ 5800rpm at Powerstation, it looks like they are undereading compared to the Dastek dyno??!! Oh dear, what are we to do? The fact is everyone makes less whp on a MAHA dyno, Jason you wouldn't even break 290!

This is what I mean Jason... black and white, not really is it?

What have you done here???

Used the WBHP to calculate what the fly should be??

I was of the understanding that they don't measure flywheel power , they only estimate it. The only thing rolling roads measure is power at the wheels, anything else is estimate?!

Powerstations figures always seem to cause arguments on the many forums I'm a member of. Dave Baker of pumaracing seems to think their figures are way off :

http://www.pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic...nichip...&mid=0

As with all rolling roads though, theres no point comparing between different rollers as it's pointless due to different losses / calibrations etc. Flywheel figures are also nearly always a bit of a fudge, so in my opinions the only real comparisons are to be had at the same rolling road, comparing wheel figures.

Ben

All in my opinion of course

You will find that car manufacturers test the output of there engines on an engine dyno, thats why they get flywheel BHP, its more accuarate.

Any chassis dyno measures WBHP then using a transmission loss calculation works out the flywheel BHP, so the WBHP has to be more accurate

Can your car be loosing nearly 30% in the transmission??

The dyno is not measuring at the flywheel so the only accurate reading here is the WBHP

And a standard car thats done who knows how many miles running slighly more boost that standard with a conservitive map is doing pretty well to be making standard power, especialy as the dyno could be reading under.

Flea, im not going to argue with you about dyno's, as with anything in this industry everyone has there own opinion on products, i dont have one about the dyno that powerstation are using, i have never been near one so i dont know but the fact is that it has to be measuring WBHP, yours is 347bhp, if its as accurate as your saying then thats the figure that is more important.

I think this statement speaks volumes

"Powerstation's bhp figures are a load of absolute cock to be frank about it. The wheel bhp numbers are far too low and the transmission losses far too high. Why they don't get it sorted out properly I have no idea. It must be obvious to them comparing data with any other rollers or am I crediting them with too much intelligence?

It's very rare to come across a set of rollers which reads low on the wheel bhp numbers, which after all is the only thing that rollers really measure or can be calibrated to. The only other one I'm aware of is John Clarkson Autos in Chorley who have a Dastek system which I find are usually dead accurate. For some reason his also reads very low at the wheels and high on the losses although the combined flywheel numbers compare well with other data. I'm not sure I can say the same for Powerstation's flywheel numbers but don't have enough back to back data to be certain.

Although it's a subject I've studied for years and have written more about than just about anything else on my website I still don't see how you can set up rollers to read low at the wheels and high on the trans losses. The trans losses are simply tyre and gearbox drag measured on the same rollers but as negative numbers and if the rollers have been calibrated low then surely the wheel numbers and trans loss numbers should both be low.

One day I'll have to ask Gerry at Dastek what jiggery pokery it takes to achieve this but it makes it bloody difficult to compare such rollers to anyone else's. It also makes it impossible to use my normal trans loss equations which of course rely on accurate wheel numbers to produce reasonable flywheel 'guesstimates'."

Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

The only saving grace its seems is Dave says to that Powerstations dyno reads low for WBHP, so using the same calc will always seem a bit low

Tricky, I made 383 wheel horsepower at 5800rpm on a Dastek dyno just over a month ago, you can see the graph. So it that my true wheel horsepower?

Also your calculations are incorrect, it is not 30% but 24%

455-347 = 108/455 = 23.7%

The Dastek dyno gives me 8% transmission losses which is equally impossible.

415-383 = 32/415 = 7.7%

So how do you account for the difference in wheel horsepower between the two dynos on the same engine, yet the flywheel figures are really quite close?

Do you also agree with the revised figures, are all these cars really making such low power, because if they are then they are ALL fubarred?

Without being too harsh to Dave, he does admit that he doesn't own a dyno and he also has no idea on the "jiggery pokery" they use so I wouldn't read too much into his opinion either, he is just writing about it with more questions than answers.

Quoted from Paul on the same PH thread, he is the guy I know well at the Dastek dyno I use, the above linked graph was run by him.

"Dave, if you go on the MLR forum and do a search under Gerry Gaffney you will find he has put alot of time and effort into posting up why he believes its best to measure power at the flywheel and not rely "too" much on power at the wheels. I am a believer of this too, especially since owning the Dastek dyno and having used other dyno's. Alot of the percieved "guestimates" are infact measurements read by the dyno on coastdown. Obviously there are such things as transmission inertia and tyre pinch on very high powered cars which no-one can ever measure accurately on the dyno as each car is different, so an average of that is taken. But what it does do is cancel out alot of the unknowns and produce much more consistent power at the flywheel figures."

So Gerry at Dastek UK (MD), believes in flywheel power too, just like I said.

Yeah Flea, your fugures seem correct, i just guessed at 30% after glancing at it, i did not bother to work it out anymore accuratly

But i dont care about flywheel figures, i care about WBHP, i would say as Powerstations results seem to be well known for there inacuracy i would work from the dastek results you have

So you have 383Wbhp, and as Dave has said the powerstation dyno seems to read low on WBHP figure so the Wheel figures may be a whole lot closer than you think


Just forget the the flywheel figures, look at the WBHP

Dastek = 383 maybe slighly reading high
Powerstation = 347 Dave, who knows what he is talking about says its reading low

there is only 36BHP between the two, seems like an easy one to call i think

As for everyone elses figure from the Powerstation run, well there dyno seems to be reading low so using the calc that i have put up you will be getting low figures, how much lower? i dont know, take it to a different dyno and see what WBHP figures you get you may be hapily surprised

320 ish bhp fly, 260 ish wheels @ powerstation (290 lbft)
299 ish bhp fly, 270 ish wheels @ PT. (280 lbft) approx 1year ago. pointless comparing between rollers IMO.

EDIT: TBH i couldnt really give two figs as to the power, the reason for running it was to check fuelling is safe and.... well it isnt, but at least now i know, and can drive accordingly untill its sorted.

Its nice to have a pub figure, but if someone comes up to you and says i have an xxx bhp car what does it mean? nothing really.

Flea there is no end to an argument like this, one fact remains though is that all dyno's will read slightly different from another, but its been ducumented that Powerstations dyno is inaccurate

And the only really accurate way to figure out flywheel bhp is with an engine dyno, as no-one is using one then we should only take WBHP into concideration as that way we dont need to take into account the varying transmission losses that different dyno operators seem to imply, one figure that cannot be massaged by the operator is the WBHP

I think 10BHP is a small enough amount to be put down to the difference in rollers

Tricky you haven't read my post...



You can't compare wheel power at two different rpm points, it is totally dynamic. There is a 61 wheel horsepower difference between the dynos at 5800rpm. At the same point the Dastek says I have 415bhp and Powerstation only 390bhp.

If you only care about wheel horse power then you are ignoring the advice of two professionals, 1. The MD at Dastek 2. A tuner who uses a Dastek every day.

Puma Dave, well he admits he doesn't know how dynos work, he doesn't use one.

Exactly, although you could have just popped up the road for a fueling check

I like that song too...Michael Jackson is it not.

Flea as im sure you know, BHP is a calculation of Torque and RPM

We are looking at peak BHP figures, why you have different results I dont know.

The fact is that Chassis dyno's measure WBHP then any other calculation are taken from that.

Yes dave does say he does not operate a dyno but im sure he has a better idea of how they work than most, on his site he explains how they work!!

Not to mention that he builds engines for people and then they get mapped on dyno's obviously he knows what his engines can do and he seem to be getting consistent results from most dyno's apart from powerstations, so i think he is more qualified than you or i to say powerstaions dyno is out or not


TBH i cant see why you are trying to defend there dyno, you cant honestly beleive that you are hetting 24% trans losses??

Maybe they are puting up the trans losses to compensate for how inacurate its measuring WBHP? i dont know but one thing i do know is there dyno has been known to read low on WBHP and High on trans losses


Are you telling me that everyone else's dyno are wrong?

I dont think thats the case

Clearly not that at all mine made 250wbhp but i have another graph from when it made 335bhp again and only lost 30bhp so you tell me how any wbhp calculations can even be significantly correct when theres a differencr of that?

the bloke from powerstation stated on the day that the wbhp is insignificant so dont take much notice of it because of reasons he explained but i personally can not remember.

i was there when he told you luke but also cannot totally remember. Something to do with drag and wheel pinch, and ignore wheel power alltogether on that dyno it is the fly figure which is correct

/\ +1, heard that also, from someone

Sorry luke but of course he say that, his dyno seems to be tottaly inacurate.

And TBH all of this is of minmal importance, the reason why i said people should quote WBHP is simply because there is less chance of the operator manipulating the results with inflated trans losses

Again though its not that important what the peak HP is, is the car running well?? thats important

and if you want to measure your gains people should use one dyno from standard to modified and that way you can see whats done what

the problem is people put to much stock in these pub figures but if people are going to quote them at least use the most accuarte way possible and in this case that is WBHP the problem is people that have used powerstations dyno will always have low figures as there dyno seems to be inacurate

the only more accurate way would be to put all the cars on one dyno that is accurate but this sort of problem will always show itself when you compare dynos as well as results

All in all its not that important as long as your happy and from what you have said luke you are.

drag and how the rollers pinche the tyres awkwardly thats it

Nope micheal Jackson sang Black OR White turboj

wow what have i started well i think we need to do another rolling road day at another rollers,that will be well interesting,imagine the thread lol

this is why dynos need to be calibrated, presuming the dyno is calibrated then is should be accurate the problem is that this dyno is giving results quite different from other dyno's that have been calibrated, you could allow for a bit but this dyno seems to be right at one extreme

agreed, not PT or powerstation, maybe SSR and maybe they can do a deal on a sunday if lots of people turn up for power runs alone?

A dyno can measure torque and extrapolate BHP according to rpm or it can measure workrate i.e. horsepower, and extrapolate torque from that. Torque is a measurable turning force, horspepower is the rate at which the torque is applied.



I don't have different results? Since when did peak bhp figures occur at the same rpm, that would be very remarkable! At Dastek I made peak BHP at 5803rpm (for reasons stated in this thread) and at Powerstation peak was at 7535rpm. How can you possibly compare transmission losses with 1700rpm difference? Transmission losses are not uniform, they increase with rpm so obviously they are going to be greater. Indeed, transmission losses change significantly between gears, that is low gears have lower transmission losses than higher gears. You have to compare at the same rpm point as I did, ergo at 5800rpm there is a 61whp difference between the dynos.



Dave understands in layman terms how dynos work, but how can he possibly know the difference in engineering between them. That would be like saying all otto engines work exactly the same, yes they do in principle, but the unique engineering differences can create enormous differences.



I favour neither the Dastek or MAHA dyno, I don't need to?? I use both as you know, so if I get high wheel power from one and low from the other what do I care. As long as they are consistent between runs and the flywheel figures are close enough then that's the idea. What I won't do is simply dismiss a dyno out of hand without any knowledge of how they work on an engineering or software level.

Wheel horspower is too low, no idea why, but must mean flywheel power is wrong and using this internet formula these are the correct results.

That is frankly absurd especially when the flywheel figures correlate more accurately between dynos than the wheel figures, that alone should tell you something. Just because you don't know how something works doesn't make it wrong.

indeed my only issue is which i have just stated in my tuning thread "guess my new BHP" near the end of it (page 6) soo if you would like to give your experience on that would be interesting

To be totally honest Flea, i dont care if you trust what the powerstation dyno is saying and i getting bored going over the same points

These dyno's both measure BHP at the wheels then they work out flywheel figures from that

lets ignore trans losses or which dyno is better at working out flywheel BHP, its not important

What matters is the figure that all these calculations are made from, thats WBHP, hence why i say people should quote WBHP as frankly flywheel BHP is to reliant on other calculations that tend to be different from tuner to tuner and are open to debate


If you want flywheel BHP then take the engine out of the car and put it on an engine dyno its the only way to be accurate, any other flywheel BHP figures are simply estimated


I dont have anything against powerstation or the dyno they are using but there is no way that anyone can argue that 24% trans losses are normal so somethings not right as other people have confirmed, not just people without a clue but Dave, from puma race engines, who is one of the most respected engine builders in this country, an despite him explaining how a dyno works on his website in laymens terms, who do you think reads his site? i can assure that its mostly people with limited knowledge

You dont get a reputation like he has by not knowing what your doing, nor would you be able to get the results he gets, so lets not question his abilities as he more than likely knows more than either of us


If you think that 24% trans losses are correct then you are saying that First of all Dave is wrong and you would be disagreeing with VW and Bosch them self, i dont think companys like that get this sort of thing wrong TBH

So Flea Beleive what you like, i will beleive what i think is correct, which funnely enough seems to be the same as most of the tuning seen in europe and car manufacturers


Most people with tuned cars will beleive the biggest number and thats what they will tell everyone, the only people that will know the difference will be people in the know so who cares?

I sure as hell dont, i simply suggested that people all quote there power figures at the wheels or using the same formula, that way we can have a more uniform idea of what power these cars are producing

I personally dont know a lot,if anything about dyno's
and how they calculate the bhp,wbhp and torque

I just went to powerstation to get my fuelling checked and to see if my hard pipe kit improved spool up

TBH im not fussed my car only done 271wbhp and i think no one else is

As long as it's running well im happy

Ben

Benny, your 100% right and this is how people should look at it

If you read the thread you will know why the flywheel calculation is most relevant in this instance

1. They correlate significantly more than the wheel power

2. The dyno designers themselves (and operators) have determined that the flywheel power is best used.

My Dastek coupe is not faster than my Powerstation coupe I can assure you, it's exactly the same despite 40whp+ difference

Oringinaly i was told by the first place i went to for rolling road that the Wbhp was the figure to look at... so i thought great, i had 249 wbhp with 265 fly wheel bhp!! this was a single roller rolling road, thinkit was a dyno jet??
since going to the rolling road at power station sat i now believe that fly wheel figure is most relevant as since last rolling road (about 5 months ago), i've only changed injector size, And my Flywheel bhp was 267, VERY similar to last time, YET my Wbhp was only 180ish???

Therefore i reckon if ya gonna compare rolling roads then only compare Fly bhp!!

Also while i'm here.. quick question to those in the know??

If you had 2 identical cars but 1 was running slighty rich and the other slightly lean which would make most power??

I'm guessing the slightly lean one??

Nick

In general most engines are happy with lambda 1. A slightly richer mixture results in better torque around lambda 0.9. A slightly leaner mixture results in better fuel economy which occurs around lambda 1.1.

Now let’s talk about WOT:
Remember an engine is an air pump you can always add more fuel but air is valuable and limited. Air and fuel are not perfectly mixed so slightly more fuel should be added to allow for as much oxygen in the air as possible to be used for combustion. Slightly richer allows for a faster flame speed, any more fuel than this is used to keep combustion temperatures under control (mainly turbo applications). Richer mixtures allow more spark lead (less advance to reach MBT at the right time), and cooler exhaust temperatures thus producing more torque safely.

A lean mixture actually burns cooler (yes it does) and more complete but its slower and it’s this slowness that causes cylinder temperatures to rise risking detonation.

So in summary:
Power = rich mixtures.
Clean and efficient = lean mixtures.

11.1-11.7 is what I would be aiming for in a turbo application.

There must be something wrong here or I have been told wrong.

When I was at my first RR session, the guy after me had a drop in power at high rpm ( I think it was from 6000 rpm). The guy who owned the RR said it its due to rich mixture. He used a chip from a German company (not Novitec) and was told not to use it. Too much fuel can damage the engine.

At the second RR me and my friend Alx went to check his car and tune the new FPR. After the first run we were told that we needed to take away some fuel, the fuelling was to rich. So after the next run we got +10 HP. We change the FPR a little bit more and after the third run we had managed to gain 20 HP. So from 300 HP to 320 HP.

So for me it is the opposite.
Less fuel = More HP

Is this wrong?

i'm thinking this.... as the first rollers i went on (very lean), i made my max bhp at 5300, where run was stopped??
also peak torque 263ft lb was made really early at 4000 revs! This was using 440injectors with 2.5 bar fpr!

Same chip at powerstation i got got a tiny bit less torque and it didn't peak untill 5500 revs??
Fly power was pretty much the same but i didn't get this untill 6500 revs... both my peaks were tiny bit less and much later in power range1
I'm thinking i was VERY rich as was using 630 injectors with 3 bar fpr, (didn't actually check AFR tho)!!

I think on the first rollers if he'd have gone to 6500 revs i would have made MORE power as i've got C&B fast road cams?!?

so from my results i'd say Leaner = more power (but dangerous)!!

Nick

Nick, when we are talking about powerstations dyno i suspect that the dyno has not been calibrated and it reads low WBHP, if powerstation used a normal trans loss calculation they would always get low flywheel figures so what it looks like they have done is push up the trans loss calculation to an un realistic figure to compensate for how low the WBHP is reading

This is not fact just what i suspect is happening, you need to remember that people would stop going there if anyone that put there car on it seemed to loose 40bhp everytime, as unfortunatly people chase BHP figures and nothing else


Look at it this way, all rolling roads measure WBHP and in an ideal world they would all be accurate and read exactly the same, unfortunatly that impossible but most read with 5-10% of each other they then add a trans loss on that and take a educated guess as to what the flywheel BHP is

Like this

dyno 1, read 10 WBHP + 15% trans loss = 11.5 flywheel bhp
dyno 2, read 9 WBHP + 28% trans loss = 11.5 flywheel bhp

these are justfigures i picked out of the air but powerstations seems to be like dyno 2, unfortunatly thats not what nearly every dyno in the country does

Unless my lecture notes are wrong


Surly he must mean too rich you just don't run lean at these rpms.

We were on engine dyno cell the other month mapping Vauxhall 2.2 N/A engine. Alpha/n mapping to a target of 0.92 for that particular fuel. I ask why 0.92 how do you get that number is it a guess? No for power you map to peak torque. To do this we go to a cell and hold the rpm/tps and watch the torque reading on the dyno. We are trying to get the highest reading but must be quick as heat soak occurs, it's like trying to find the top on a falling slope. After a few goes adjusting the AFR I found that it was making most power at 0.92 and that’s how you achieve lambda target.

Powerstation have a MAHA LPS3000 which is fully calibrated. It is actually one of the most popular dynos in the UK and Europe and indeed the most expensive at over £100,000. All MAHA dynos work the same as Powerstation, there is no "pushing up" the transmission losses. I believe Ross (h2ypr) on here used a MAHA dyno in Scotland, same results.

As Nick has stated, if we consider flywheel power then that is the important measurement and will ensure we can correlate everything much more closely. As I have said above Tricky but you obviously missed it, if the dyno designers and operators say we should consider the flywheel power then that's all there is to it.

Flea, i will consider flywheel BHP when its measured at the fly, in other words an engine dyno, other wise its estimated

For everyone else, if we follow the manufacturers advice and also that of the dyno operators then we can't go too far wrong with flywheel power.

Interesting findings here...

Some of the varying results are even found on the same machines at different RRs.

I have not read it all but right at the bottom its says to stick with WBHP and you wont go to far wrong

It also says that outright power figures should be taken with a pinch of salt


and the difference between the highest and lowest was 13.4 bhp

Actually they called the 13.4 difference shocking, on at 74bhp car that's a difference of 17%. On a 300bhp car that could be as much as 50 wheel horspower, hardly possible to compare is it?

I meant too. Missed a letter

When I RR my car I got AFR 12-12.5.

OK - for a start, I'm not taking sides in this discussion, but it IS interesting enough to carry on

So - here's a situation that needs some explanation

20 October 2008 at Powerstation

271 at the wheels @ 6410rpm - max test rpm, 7135 / 130.6mph
351 at the fly
equals 80bhp transmission loss

31 January 2009 at Powerstation

287 at the wheels @ 6830rpm - max test rpm, 7000 / 129.3 mph
388 at the fly
equals 101bhp transmission loss

interestingly, torque was almost identical 330 in October and 333 in January

so - the way that Powerstation measure transmission losses is via the coastdown method - i.e dip the clutch at peak revs, then the rollers measure resistance as the revs die away. We know this is better than a simple guess at transmission losses, as there's actually some measuring going on.

However, other than sorting a couple of boost leaks, my car was in exactly the same condition - same tyres, same pressure. The ambient was 6 degrees colder on the January run and barometric pressure was very slightly higher.

So - how did my transmission suddenly lose me 20bhp?

my guess (for what its worth) is that the drag measurement is partly calculated as well, rather than just a pure measurement

in fact I have some more runs from Powerstation

March 04 - wheel power = 207, drag loss = 59bhp
November 04 - wheel power = 217, drag loss = 77bhp
November 05 - wheel power = 191, drag loss = 125bhp


However, I seem to recall that in November 05, I ran with tyres at about 32psi

go figure.....

The answer is due to peak power being at different rpms like I explained to Tricky. In October peak bhp was at 6400rpm and last weekend it was 6800rpm, so 400rpm difference. As rpms increase so do the transmission losses. As Rich said, if you wanted a higher wheel power he could run it in third gear (assuming it wouldn't slip) as lower gears produce less transmission losses.

Nigel,

Did they come out with a figure of 191+125 (316BHP) at the fly for that then?

If so by my calculations thats a 65% transmission loss, there is no way on this earth it could have been that bad! Even with the tyres at 5 psi I shouldn't expect those kind of losses.

I'm in the camp of Wheel BHP is the only one that matters, anything else is a mere estimate / calculation. The article Trappy posted also makes some good reading

Ben

P.s I'm at a Dyno on Saturday which will be bolted directly to my hubs, be interesting to see what transmission losses I have (As tyres are a big factor) I've already spoken to the guy, even he said it's best to go on Wheel (Or in my case hub power)

IRC Nigel made 305bhp with it run in 5th gear, so the transmission losses would be higher.

Anyway, for all those that are advocates of wheel horsepower, the Dastek dyno is by far the one to go for

ok this is not my words but none the less they are from a mapper and dyno operator using a Dastek after researching this is the one he chose for his own reasons

"Just read the rest of this thread, should have done that before posting the above LOL. My Dastek does produce very similar, if not, the same figures on different ramp rates. Even conducting an inertia run will give similar, if a little higher, figures to a loaded run. For what its worth, I recently ran a modified Audi S2 (4WD) in 3rd gear which is the recommended gear to use for 4WD's, and it made 290bhp, Ran the car up again in 4th, but used the next slowest ramp rate and it produced 291bhp. The boost profile was slightly different as more boost was seen at the same RPM than the 3rd gear run, but apart from that, the graphs looked the same. I have to say, I was pretty gob smacked when I saw the results."

He was gob smacked at how well the Dastek dyno managed to come out with almost identicle results despite what gear was used, Flea maybe you can explain to why the MAHA dyno despite being nearly twice as expensive as the Dastek cannot do that?

and its worth reading this as well, again its Dave from Puma race engine

"It's engine power that is affected by atmospheric conditions and this is the figure that must be corrected to DIN standards. If you make the assumption, which is of course false to start with, that adding 'coastdown' losses to actual wheel bhp gives you actual flywheel bhp then it can only be this final figure that merits correction. As coastdown losses bear no scientific relationship to true transmission losses occuring when the engine is powering the transmission the entire premise is flawed to start with but it's the closest a rolling road can come to 'guesstimating' flywheel bhp from wheel bhp. It's discussed in detail on my site.

I high lighted this in red as its basically what i have been trying to explain my self, hence why i say WBHP is more relevant

Ramp rate does indeed play a part in affecting wheel bhp as you say. Only steady state power figures with the engine held at a fixed rpm can be considered as true bhp measurements. Anything else is affected by inertia. However if the ramp rate is chosen wisely and the car is in a high gear the effects should be minimal and should be allowed for inside the dyno software to some extent. It also depends on whether the operator has input a reasonable figure for the vehicle's inertia. It may well be that it's these factors not being used properly that lead to a normally accurate system like the Dastek not working at all in the case I described previously.

Back in the day when all we had were ancient Clayton waterbrake rollers and Heenan and Froude waterbrake engine dynos none of this nonsense played any part. All you could take were steady state wheel figures and no one had thought of coastdown losses as a fudge back to flywheel power. Every roller or dyno read the same, assuming it has actually been calibrated, and everyone knew where they stood. Nowadays it's little more than a lottery how many bhp you get told your engine has. As big numbers help sell tuning products there is pressure to apply large coastdown losses and big correction factors to what might have otherwise been realistic wheel bhp numbers. The average punter is unfortunately too uninformed or too disinterested to question anything they get told. Bragging rights down at the pub are more important to them than science."


I want to make clear that i have nothing against Flea/powerstation/Perfect touch or for that matter a Maha dyno or a Dastek dyno

As i said right at the beginning i just think its best to work from WBHP, its much less likely to be calculated wrong or be massaged in anyway, not to mention that if these dyno's are calibrated then the WBHP should not be to different from any other dyno that has been calibrated.

Nigel, with regard to your runs at powerstation

Unless the car has been modified in between sessions on the RR then something is really wrong

First of all we need to understand that BHP is a calculation between torque and RPM, your torque will tail off towards higher RPM for various reason, peak BHP is met at the point when your torque is dropping off at such a rate that despite the RPM increasing its actually producing less BHP

while your car would produce peak BHP at different RPM's from run to run i have never seen a difference as much as 400RPM

In fact my brothers old RS turbo had been on many rolling roads and despite getting slightly different WBHP figures (within 5%) the peak BHP always peaked with-in 200 RPM of any of the other runs on all the dyno's, i think i have 5 different print outs for that car


Let me make clear though that i do not run cars on dyno's on a daily basis, so it could be normal, you will need to talk to an experienced non biased dyno operator to confirm that

As for you losing 20 BHP from your october run and then your january run, it looks as though for some reason your engine was not holding the torque for as long on the lower power run and in turn your BHP peaked earlier, as it peaked at a lower RPM then it cannot produce the same BHP

So in short there must of been something effecting your cars performance that day or for some reason the dyno read it differently.

Thats how it looks to me at least

Trickymex - the 400rpm difference would easily be accounted for with the three boost leaks - two in the intercooler piping and one if the intake rubbers badly split

so - not really modification as such, but almost certainly the reason for the 30+ bhp gain and the increase in peak power revs

as for my question - it wasn't where my 30bhp came from - that's already sorted - its why the transmission losses were 20bhp higher on the later run

Tricky, you make me smile If you had read my previous posts you would know you have quoted Paul who I know very well, indeed it is his Dastek dyno that I use!

Two points:

1. He is referring to flywheel power, there was a 1bhp difference measured at the fly! That is how accurate they can be. A run with air con on or off can be measured at the fly.

2. Paul is an advocate of flywheel power measurements.

I have said all this before in this very thread, for some reason it's not being read?

Regarding Nigel's different runs, yes there are big changes in tuning levels over the years. However, first you need to understand the difference between transmission losses, gearing and rpms then it will be possible to read the results correctly.

As an example, last weekend I made 400bhp @ 6000rpm or 324whp @ 6000rpm. That constitutes a 16.75% transmission loss, acceptable to you? Lets have a look at some more rpm points:

5000rpm - 315bhp or 258whp (17.7%)
6000rpm - 400bhp or 324whp (16.75%)
6500rpm - 428bhp or 345whp (19.39%)
7000rpm - 449bhp or 355whp (20.9%)

So if the dyno had been stopped at 6000rpm I doubt we would be having this conversation? Only I made peak power at 7535rpm so the transmission losses continue to grow.

I reiterate my advice to people, of course everyone makes their own opinions, although if you read what I have said the actual data points to one conclusion. If the flywheel figures look right then they probably are, if they correlate better between dynos then that's the figure to use, if the dyno manufacturer says use flywheel for best practice then that's what we should do, if the dyno operator says use flywheel then that's what we should do. Afterall, who could know more about their own equipment?

Tricky, if you are interested then drop MAHA a line and see if they can give you some more technical information about how their dyno operates. The link I sent you does have the manual for download (in German) which lists a multitude of formulae that they use.

Here are the results i got from my dyno run at Track and Road.




Looking up to Flea's results, the losses seem about the same as mine at the same rpms and I can certainly see 24% losses at over 7,300rpms.

TurboJ, what do you make of Greenald at T'n'R? It's obvious you know him but you've never made a comment on the guy or his dyno...

Flea your missing my point, i am reading what your saying and i agree that trans losses do increase with rotational speed but your focusing to much on these figures and calculations

Your seem to be ignoring that all these dynos make there calculations from the WBHP, thats fact so any flywheel bhp figures are estimated and subject to calculations that can be argued

read this again

"It's engine power that is affected by atmospheric conditions and this is the figure that must be corrected to DIN standards. If you make the assumption, which is of course false to start with, that adding 'coastdown' losses to actual wheel bhp gives you actual flywheel bhp then it can only be this final figure that merits correction. As coastdown losses bear no scientific relationship to true transmission losses occuring when the engine is powering the transmission the entire premise is flawed to start with but it's the closest a rolling road can come to 'guesstimating' flywheel bhp from wheel bhp

The reason i say to stick to WBHP is simply because then we can all ignore these estimations

I will maintain that if you want accurate flywheel bhp figures then you need to put it on an engine dyno and as a rolling road can only measure WBHP accuratly then that is the only figure worth mentioning

The only problem i can see with the people that have used powerstations dyno and quoting WBHP is there dyno seems to read low on WBHP and high on trans losses, this is not just my opinion but of quite a few people in the know

Because you have used powerstations dyno most people with knowledge of them will take your figures with a pinch of salt, thats a shame

As flea has said people will make there own decisions on what way they look at this but its agreed amongst the experienced that WBHP is the only way you should be comparing and even then unfortunatly there will be discrepencies, but at least this way we are not relying on flawed calculations that are open to debate

Tricky I haven't missed your point, I dispute it based on professional opinion and data shown. Indeed, more than missing the point you have ignored much of what has been said so forgive if I am a little more direct and ask that you answer these questions specifically:

1. What do you say to these figures from Powerstation?

5000rpm - 315bhp or 258whp (17.7%)
6000rpm - 400bhp or 324whp (16.75%)
6500rpm - 428bhp or 345whp (19.39%)
7000rpm - 449bhp or 355whp (20.9%)

As Trappy has shown they are really quite similar?

2. You quoted Paul albeit incorrectly. Why do choose to ignore his advise and that of the Dastek manufacturer that the flywheel power is what should be considered? MAHA also state the same?

I meet Greenald years back, top bloke (I aint see him since though) but I’ll be there with my mates Ford soon. My old Boss used to use his dyno all the time. He prefers a single roller for some reason??? and likes the fact Steve & Steve prints every detail on the printout. I was more interested in the two dyno cells and what was strapped to them at the time

I wasn't so sure about the dyno either at first, how does it compare to the other well known dynos (i.e. does it read high/low on bhp @wheels/@fly?

I thought he was a top bloke too, though he was a bit 'iffy' at first.

Judging by the website, they certainly have had a few monsters in there

I too love the printout, a full detail dyno plot, and 3 pages of numbers lol. Perfect for my excel version

Im not ignoring it, but you know as well as i do that different dyno manufacturers and dyno operators use different trans losses and other factors and calculations and its all calculated from the WBHP so its estimated and open to massive manipulation

If people stick to WBHP then there is no where near as much chance of manipulation and as such its more accurate

Whats more important i think is why powerstations dyno seems to read low on the WBHP and high (in most poeples opinion) on trans losses

especially as i was talking to friend of mine today with a skyline who uses a MAHA dyno for rolling road runs and mapping now but he said to me that he consitantly gets WBHP and flywheel figures that mirror what he gets on a Dastek dyno that he used to use

he is going to dig some graphs out for me and i will post them up if you like

Well I'm back from my session this morning, results here:

http://www.fiatcoupeclub.org/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=767376#Post767376

Remember this is a hub dyno, and as such I have no tyre losses.

Ben

looks really good Benje, 193 WBHP is good considering how standard your car is

just to confirm that daves formula that i posted above seems to work quite well here as well

that is

193 WBHP + 10 BHP = 203 BHP / 0.9 = 225.5 estimated flywheel BHP, thats 2 BHP less then there own estimated flywheel figures

so its just above standard and as you have an aftermarket exhaust fitted that expected and seems right


Anyway your car looks as though its running pretty well, congrats

Tricky, it's not wheel horsepower, it's a hub dyno.

I know Flea the difference is not worth mentioning but its still measured in place of the wheels and its the power thats applied to the wheels, if you want to discuss potential losses from hub to tarmac then start another thread if you like

The tyres provide the greatest transmission loss.

...as I found out when I ran under-pressure - that's what gave me the 125bhp transmission loss

of course, the tyre losses are exaggerated on PowerStation's dyno [and all dual-roller dynos], as there are two contact patches per wheel (although the total contact patch isn't double the normal area, as the curve of the rollers shortens the contact patch considerably)

A hub dyno simply removes the tyres from the equation - in doing so, it potentially gives a less true reading than a rolling road, as the power reading you get on a hub dyno cannot possibly be recreated on the road - however, it does eliminate wheelspin - something that PowerStation's rollers aren't particularly good for - they are getting VERY smooth - when I ran the 355 there, they had to get two guys to sit on the back of the car for the run

Not to mention the more weight you put over the driving wheels the higher the rolling resistance becomes, then on top of that you will have abnormal tyre deformation, again adding to potential inacuracy's

This all effects how accurate a roller can measure the bhp

Thankfully most modern dyno's take all this into account and give pretty comparable results

I don't quite understand what you are getting at there Nigel, by less true reading? In theory a hub dyno should be more accurate than normal rolling road as it eliminates the tyres as a loss?!? (Which add such variables as Tyre Pressures, friction, rubber compounds etc etc )

OK fair enough, I think 227BHP is slightly optimistic, I'd have taken about 10% transmission losses for a hub dyno, which would have given me 192
*1.1 = 211BHP. In the grand scheme of things though, it doesnt matter, as I now have a baseline figure (193) so anything I do I can compare with what I had today (Assuming I go back to PJ Motorsports, which I will )Anything other than the 193BHP that was actually measured today in my opinion is an estimate!

I think your right, compare mods on the same dyno

I think Nigel means that a hub dyno does not take into account the relationship a tyre has with the tarmac, the way i look at it is a hub dyno replicates a perefect situation with regard to grip.

I also dont know how they take into account the inertia of the wheels, but they manage to do it with the inertia of the roller so its probably run of the mill stuff for a dyno designer

one thing i can comfirm though is the only hub dyno i have put any of my cars on provided almost identicle hub figures as WBHP figures on any other conventional dyno i had run that specific car on.

yes - what I meant was that without wheels fitted, the power reading cannot be replicated on the road, as its usually wise to refit the wheels before driving

However, it IS a more accurate measuring method, as it removes a variable

I understand, I'd had a little too much last night when I read it!