Important! : Dyno Graph Help Needed!! ASAP

  1. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Sep 2007 Someones Bumhole Posts: 5721 Mk2 16v Desire
    #1
    I need a RR print out of a standard 16v engine as close to the 120bhp & 107lb/ft as possible. I need it for part of my uni work if anyone has one i would be greatful! i got mine RR'd as standard engine and i got a stupid figure of around 140hp on a gash rolling road so i need a realistic one as close the the 120 as possible.
  2. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Sep 2007 Someones Bumhole Posts: 5721 Mk2 16v Desire
    #2
  3. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Sep 2007 Someones Bumhole Posts: 5721 Mk2 16v Desire
    #3
    Someone must have one?
  4. Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: Aug 2009 Ascot Posts: 4619 Mint 106 rallye, Saxo VTR
    #4
    Nicks is 134bhp???
  5. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Sep 2007 Someones Bumhole Posts: 5721 Mk2 16v Desire
    #5
    Nah i need one around the 120hp mark as a standard figure cheers though matey.
  6. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Nov 2010 Kent Posts: 8439 Gen 7 Celica 190.
    #6
    Sure Barry123 had his S dyno'ed and thats standerd iirc.
  7. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Sep 2007 Someones Bumhole Posts: 5721 Mk2 16v Desire
    #7
    Cheers matey i dropped him a PM
  8. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Oct 2005 Aycliffe Posts: 32205 Saxo VTS
    #8
    Hello mate, unfortunately mine also was 140 hp on a standard engine.

    But wheel figure is around correct which was 98.9 hp... it's in my progress thread on the first page if you need it?

    Cheers!

    Ads
  9. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Sep 2007 Someones Bumhole Posts: 5721 Mk2 16v Desire
    #9
    Nice one cheers matey ill pinch that for now and still hunt for an engine one
  10. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Sep 2007 Someones Bumhole Posts: 5721 Mk2 16v Desire
    #10
  11. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Oct 2005 Aycliffe Posts: 32205 Saxo VTS
    #11
    I think you're going to struggle mate. Honestly just use mine and take the 98.9 wheel figure and then manually add 20% to cover transmission losses across the rev range. That should sort you out. What's this for out of interest???
  12. Established Member Joined: Dec 2008 Bournemouth/Ringwood Posts: 1259 Black Mk2 VTS
    #12
    128 any good?
  13. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Sep 2007 Someones Bumhole Posts: 5721 Mk2 16v Desire
    #13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Barry123 View Post
    I think you're going to struggle mate. Honestly just use mine and take the 98.9 wheel figure and then manually add 20% to cover transmission losses across the rev range. That should sort you out. What's this for out of interest???
    I have used yours mate cheers Its perfect for wheel figures and i have used a 18.2% transmission loss to calculate the engine power but i need a physical graph for an engine figure. Its just for a comparison between a standard and throttle bodied engine for part of a report about the use of single and multiple throttle's.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CC06NBA View Post
    128 any good?
    Ah i forgot about yours, ill pinch that one matey
  14. Established Member Joined: Dec 2008 Bournemouth/Ringwood Posts: 1259 Black Mk2 VTS
    #14
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tom5190 View Post
    I have used yours mate cheers Its perfect for wheel figures and i have used a 18.2% transmission loss to calculate the engine power but i need a physical graph for an engine figure. Its just for a comparison between a standard and throttle bodied engine for part of a report about the use of single and multiple throttle's.



    Ah i forgot about yours, ill pinch that one matey
    ok, theres 1 pic on my progress thread but if you need better quality pictures let me know and il send you them
  15. Saxperience Post Whore Joined: Sep 2007 Someones Bumhole Posts: 5721 Mk2 16v Desire
    #15
    Nice one cheers mate
  16. Established Member Joined: May 2009 Devizes Posts: 2280 Blue Clio 172 Cup
    #16

    light side is on the right, torque
    bold line is on the left, powaar
  17. Super Moderator Joined: Nov 2009 Cambridge(ish), UK. Posts: 10581 BMW 5x M50d.
    #17
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Barry123 View Post
    I think you're going to struggle mate. Honestly just use mine and take the 98.9 wheel figure and then manually add 20% to cover transmission losses across the rev range. That should sort you out. What's this for out of interest???
  18. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Oct 2005 Aycliffe Posts: 32205 Saxo VTS
    #18
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RossDagley View Post
    Go on then Ross... tell me what you think it should be...
  19. Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: Dec 2008 Lancs Posts: 4124 JP4S'd R.
    #19
    Too many differences..

    Why most people say 10%-20% transmission losses ..

    10% being lightweight wheels / good condition box / shafts

    20% being 20kg 19's.. fucked shafts / gearbox

    So saying 20% as in worse case scenario?
  20. Super Moderator Joined: Nov 2009 Cambridge(ish), UK. Posts: 10581 BMW 5x M50d.
    #20
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Barry123 View Post
    Go on then Ross... tell me what you think it should be...
    Around 8-10% on a 106/saxo. Of course, hardly anyone likes numbers that low for some reason...
  21. Saxperience Hardcore! Joined: Oct 2005 Aycliffe Posts: 32205 Saxo VTS
    #21
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RossDagley View Post
    Around 8-10% on a 106/saxo. Of course, hardly anyone likes numbers that low for some reason...
    You haven't heard the bearings on my box

    Also, be careful. I'm talking about adding because of a loss rather than subtraction knowing there's a loss. 16.67% down from 120 hp is the same as 20% up from 100.
  22. Super Moderator Joined: Nov 2009 Cambridge(ish), UK. Posts: 10581 BMW 5x M50d.
    #22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Barry123 View Post
    You haven't heard the bearings on my box
    LOL

    On a serious note, in my experience (not just with these cars, but R5gtt's and my mini turbo) I've seen the most accurate results around 10% - Back in 1997 on the mini I was able to compare back to back against an engine dyno to the chassis dyno (and we had 8% loss - straight cut box helped).

    My current chassis dyno readings are around the 10% mark and I don't have teflon coated gears with an anal lube covered clutch cover... If someone's happy with a 20-25% figure, good for them. But they're not living in reality.

    There is HUGE pressure on dyno operators to give customers a satisfactory figure they'll be pleased with and it's because of this we see the numbers molested/adjusted.

    Want more power? up the tyre pressures. Tweak the air intake temp. sit on the bonnet on the dyno run then get off on the coastdown (if you're even measuring coastdown rather than looking up the "losses" in a database (dynodynamics?). Run in 3rd gear not 5th. It's so subjective...

    Oh and to an earlier poster, wheel size/weight doesn't affect ATW power figures.
  23. Saxperience Forum Bum Joined: Dec 2008 Lancs Posts: 4124 JP4S'd R.
    #23
    I remember reading a post from jhon @ GMC..

    he said having lighter wheels / shorter gears would theoretically mean less transmission losses.

    Makes sense.. Im sure turning alot more weight at the end of the transmission will take more work (Hp) than if it was very light.
  24. Super Moderator Joined: Nov 2009 Cambridge(ish), UK. Posts: 10581 BMW 5x M50d.
    #24
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by saxova View Post
    I remember reading a post from jhon @ GMC..

    he said having lighter wheels / shorter gears would theoretically mean less transmission losses.

    Makes sense.. Im sure turning alot more weight at the end of the transmission will take more work (Hp) than if it was very light.
    But that's not what I said I said ate power isn't affected by wheel size/weight.