Deleted Thread, Requested Post
#16
12-31-2006, 12:15 AM
Originally Posted by TRK
Yes, we will do that.
However, our chassis dyno is a dynapack, not a dynojet, and the dynapack is a load bearing dyno just like our engine dyno where the dynojet is an inertia based dyno. So, our comparisons will only relate from our engine dyno to our chassis dyno and others that share the same dyno's. Those with dynojets will be forever lost...
Case in point, put a stock car on a dynojet (inertia based) and on our dynapack (load based) to get a baseline. Take the same car and put a lightweight flywheel package on it and redyno the car. The dynojet will show more hp even though you haven't changed the power at all where the dynapack will show the same power.
Sure inertia has to do with acceleration rates. There's an interesting paper I sent over to Jean from Sachs about their clutches and the inertia change relative to track/acceleration rates. However, if you dyno your car in each gear, it will show different power outputs due to the changing acceleration rates of the rotating parts, where again, your power hasn't changed, just the inertia. So, is the dynojet really measuring power? Not really, just acceleration rates that they're back calculating power from. But they're not taking into account the inertia of the vehicle or components. Where load based dyno's measure the torque output vs. the accel rate and can better calculate the actual power/torque of the engine.
Yes, the light weight flywheel will make your car accelerate quicker, but has it changed the power? no, and will it make it accelerate more quickly in 6th gear? So miniscule that it would be hard to measure, but the more powerful car will run away regardless if it has the lwf or not...
Sorry, enough rambling ;p
However, our chassis dyno is a dynapack, not a dynojet, and the dynapack is a load bearing dyno just like our engine dyno where the dynojet is an inertia based dyno. So, our comparisons will only relate from our engine dyno to our chassis dyno and others that share the same dyno's. Those with dynojets will be forever lost...
Case in point, put a stock car on a dynojet (inertia based) and on our dynapack (load based) to get a baseline. Take the same car and put a lightweight flywheel package on it and redyno the car. The dynojet will show more hp even though you haven't changed the power at all where the dynapack will show the same power.
Sure inertia has to do with acceleration rates. There's an interesting paper I sent over to Jean from Sachs about their clutches and the inertia change relative to track/acceleration rates. However, if you dyno your car in each gear, it will show different power outputs due to the changing acceleration rates of the rotating parts, where again, your power hasn't changed, just the inertia. So, is the dynojet really measuring power? Not really, just acceleration rates that they're back calculating power from. But they're not taking into account the inertia of the vehicle or components. Where load based dyno's measure the torque output vs. the accel rate and can better calculate the actual power/torque of the engine.
Yes, the light weight flywheel will make your car accelerate quicker, but has it changed the power? no, and will it make it accelerate more quickly in 6th gear? So miniscule that it would be hard to measure, but the more powerful car will run away regardless if it has the lwf or not...
Sorry, enough rambling ;p
Last edited by cjv; 12-31-2006 at 12:18 AM.
#19
12-31-2006, 12:38 AM
Todd,
Question regarding low versus higher boost. In your opinion, does one have an advantage of the other in:
a) tracks like Infineron, LS or just twisty mountain roads (areas where you have alot of turns where alot of one to three seconds of acceleration picks up alot of time and distance.)
b) quarter mile runs
c) long stretches of high speeds or high rpm's
Question regarding low versus higher boost. In your opinion, does one have an advantage of the other in:
a) tracks like Infineron, LS or just twisty mountain roads (areas where you have alot of turns where alot of one to three seconds of acceleration picks up alot of time and distance.)
b) quarter mile runs
c) long stretches of high speeds or high rpm's
#20
12-31-2006, 02:01 AM
Please note, this thread was started by one of our tuners. I encourage his and any other tuners comments along with the comments of members.
I will not tolerate any foul language (even not so foul), personal attacks, insults of the likes. Don't even be demeaning.
Please keep it factual.
Any reply's that violate this will be deleted. If it happens more than once with the same member they will be banned.
Thanks for your cooperation.
I will not tolerate any foul language (even not so foul), personal attacks, insults of the likes. Don't even be demeaning.
Please keep it factual.
Any reply's that violate this will be deleted. If it happens more than once with the same member they will be banned.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Last edited by cjv; 12-31-2006 at 02:05 AM.
#21
12-31-2006, 02:10 AM
Originally Posted by cjv
Interesting about the LWC. What are your views on lightening the crank, rods and pistons? These parts like the LWC reduce recipicating weight. Doesn't this get your car into the optimum torque range faster? Your thoughts please.
Case in point, trying to launch a low torque high reving car with a very light flywheel... its extremely easy to stall. But yes it will rev more quickly up in the power band... if thats what you want.
Thats my take on it at least.
#22
12-31-2006, 02:44 AM
Originally Posted by Vicious
Lighter rotating parts inside the motor are great for reducing internal stresses, BUT lighter is not always better. There are many times where you do not want a motor to be that free reving. Just as flywheel weight is used as a tuning tool, all that weight stores energy and while it seems a bit far fetched has a very dramatic impact on how the vehicle handles.
Case in point, trying to launch a low torque high reving car with a very light flywheel... its extremely easy to stall. But yes it will rev more quickly up in the power band... if thats what you want.
Thats my take on it at least.
Case in point, trying to launch a low torque high reving car with a very light flywheel... its extremely easy to stall. But yes it will rev more quickly up in the power band... if thats what you want.
Thats my take on it at least.
I realize light rotating parts when rebounding from a rev at idle can stall the motor if the driver isn't use to it. Where are the advantages along with other disadvantages?
Last edited by cjv; 12-31-2006 at 02:48 AM.
#23
12-31-2006, 02:57 AM
Todd K - thanks for posting. It's very interesting to hear your thoughts. You indicated the advantage of freer flowing heads was realized in the "higher RPM range". What RPM does a car need to get to before freer flowing heads are an asset. I'm making reference to my GT700. Do freer flowing heads make sense on a car with GT28s at all?
#24
12-31-2006, 03:00 AM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nice to see Todd on here taking the time to answer the questions while Cynthia is building the motors
Todd, as you know, I ran my turbo on a Dyno Dynamics and she laid down 915hp at 1.5bar ???...Either that is a bad pass (like my AX-22 runs) or your engine Dyno is very conservative...I plan on doing some more testing before I put up her informative thread....what dyno should I use in order to make a fair comp. ?
Todd, as you know, I ran my turbo on a Dyno Dynamics and she laid down 915hp at 1.5bar ???...Either that is a bad pass (like my AX-22 runs) or your engine Dyno is very conservative...I plan on doing some more testing before I put up her informative thread....what dyno should I use in order to make a fair comp. ?
#25
12-31-2006, 03:11 AM
Wow 915 Hp thats stout. I assume that was motor HP and not RWHP/AWHP? I come from a 03 Cobra crowd/owner and get confused by the quoted HP figures when dealing with the P cars. We always give RWHP on the Cobra site so it's easier to compare cars. I don't know what my modded (Protomotive) 02 TT Porsche is putting down but is sure is FUN.
#26
12-31-2006, 03:21 AM
Originally Posted by JWC
Wow 915 Hp thats stout. I assume that was motor HP and not RWHP/AWHP? I come from a 03 Cobra crowd/owner and get confused by the quoted HP figures when dealing with the P cars. We always give RWHP on the Cobra site so it's easier to compare cars. I don't know what my modded (Protomotive) 02 TT Porsche is putting down but is sure is FUN.
#28
12-31-2006, 03:57 AM
I am not sure how EVOMS got the reputation as a "high boost" tuner? I am currently running only 1.5 bar on my EVOMS tuned car. Todd Z. has never suggested that I run more boost. To the contrary, Todd Z. is a proponent of head work in order to get the same HP with less boost. The EVOMS GT800 that produced 730 rwhp was only running 1.5 bar. Standard GT700 cars run 1.4 bar (perhaps 1.5 in some cases). I am only aware of a couple of EVOMS tuned cars that run what one might consider "high" boost, and the owners of those cars made the decision to run higher boost than others.
FWIW, VRAlex has run considerably more than 1.5 bar at times (e.g., his "kill mode"). Yet, no one labels Protomotoive a "high boost" tuner.
Just my 2 cents.
Craig
FWIW, VRAlex has run considerably more than 1.5 bar at times (e.g., his "kill mode"). Yet, no one labels Protomotoive a "high boost" tuner.
Just my 2 cents.
Craig
Last edited by Craig; 12-31-2006 at 04:01 AM.
#29
12-31-2006, 04:05 AM
Originally Posted by JWC
AWSOME. What tire will allow that much power to be used.
VRAlexander's car is normally AWD. He only disconnected his front driveshaft to dyno the car that day.
My car is RWD and will run R-compounds when I get it back.
#30
12-31-2006, 05:17 AM
Basic Sponsor
Originally Posted by Craig
I am not sure how EVOMS got the reputation as a "high boost" tuner?
Craig
Craig
There was also a recent thread about one gt700 customer that hooked up a delfi analog guage and saw 1.6 to 1.8 bar bars constant on pump gas... he got scared... and I don't think he was one of those special gt700 customers that requested higher boost... if he was he would not start the thread about it... apparently the Zenor diode installed in the ecu fools the cluster boost reading thus assuming that one is running 1 bar for example.. but in reality its reading 1.5+ bars...
Protomotive 700 hp cars run 1.35 bars MAX.
So like you said.. some Evoms cars are running HIGH boost.... some not...
I would rather compare stock internal tuning packages... and it seems liek Evoms is pushing at least 1.5 bars on the gt700s vs. Protomotives 700 hp car which is running 1.35 bars(on race gas only).... 1.1 to 1.2 bars on 93 octane max.
Maybe we can get some input from a couple of gt700 owners.. if they only would hook up a analog boost guage... that would truly tell the story....
again IM only speculating and comparing... like I always do... no harm intended... It's OK to disagree..
markski
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Last edited by markski@markskituning; 12-31-2006 at 05:36 AM.