My dyno sheet from yesterdays upgrades..

Fulcrum · 22 Apr 2006 at 15:21

I wouldnt mind one

Is it similar to that model on fifth gear

People normally compare the engine power I think, my car is 115bhp but at the wheels Ive no idea probably 90 odd?
I think at the wheels is relevant for you because of the 4wd, what you make up in handling is lost a bit in increased resistance

Dr Who · 22 Apr 2006 at 15:25

Ev0 said:
It's what's hitting the tarmac that counts, still it's not going to be slow

with 211 bhp at the wheels its gonna spank most of the cars driven on this forum... inc mine... well the forrie anyway, not the 7...

Clarkey · 22 Apr 2006 at 15:27

also regarding calculated engine bhp, how can it be calculated only from the wheels, you add on the guestimate figure from the transmission loss, but what about the drag from the ancilliaries(sp?).

Clarkey · 22 Apr 2006 at 15:29

Fulcrum said:
I think at the wheels is relevant for you because of the 4wd, what you make up in handling is lost a bit in increased resistance

4wd wont gain you handling, it will gain you traction.

Bear · 22 Apr 2006 at 15:36

Clarkey said:
also regarding calculated engine bhp, how can it be calculated only from the wheels, you add on the guestimate figure from the transmission loss, but what about the drag from the ancilliaries(sp?).

As said before many times the drag figure to calculate the flywheel power is nonsense anyway, because when you press the clutch down for the coast down, you're disconnecting the main part of the transmission anyway ie the gearbox.

Clarkey · 22 Apr 2006 at 15:38

edit - what am I talking about.

you're not disconnecting the gearbox, you're disconnecting the engine.

Fulcrum · 22 Apr 2006 at 15:48

Clarkey said:
4wd wont gain you handling, it will gain you traction.

I guess thats what I meant though isnt AYC about handling, not sure if this model has such things though

Bear · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:06

Clarkey said:
edit - what am I talking about.

you're not disconnecting the gearbox, you're disconnecting the engine.

In reality you're doing both, they dip the clutch and stick it in neutral. Either way, the loss from the flywheel, starting through the gearbox, driveshaft, diff etc isnt whats being measured on coast down as its totaly disconnected from the engine and gearbox.

Dr Who · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:27

Clarkey said:
also regarding calculated engine bhp, how can it be calculated only from the wheels, you add on the guestimate figure from the transmission loss, but what about the drag from the ancilliaries(sp?).

Transmission losses (drag) are sometimes calculated on rundown, depending on the dyno, the loss from ancilliaries, ie cooling, water pump etc is not accounted for, same as it usually isnt on an engine dyno...

Those are never removeable so they are part of the engines loss just to run...

In reality, the engine will be slightly more powerful, but all quoted figures, to which you compare, allow for those items as well...

NickXX · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:37

Looks like it's giving a similar output, BHP&Torque wise, to a 330d M57n engine.

ScoobyDoo69 · 22 Apr 2006 at 16:52

some good results there Pete.
The intercooler with remap to take advantage will give you around 10bhp on the road I reckon, on the rollers however something like 5bhp??

What made you choose the VF39 and not something like a TD05 could have been a bit cheaper for similar if not better results...?

Matt82 · 22 Apr 2006 at 17:42

would be interesting to know what the original power figure was

[TW]Fox · 22 Apr 2006 at 17:53

-westy- said:
420 ft/lb of torque though?

420nm. 10nm more than a bog standard BMW 5 Series diesel

Fulcrum · 22 Apr 2006 at 17:59

Also a Porsche Cayenne S - 340 bhp, 420Nm torque. Its not bad

Vertigo · 22 Apr 2006 at 18:06

penski said:
No.

420 N/m of torque.

288 lb/ft.

*n

No slashes in either of those, tis Nm and lbft

Trickle · 22 Apr 2006 at 19:01

This ftlb figure is in red on the sheet? Is this also before transmission losses?

Lashout_UK · 22 Apr 2006 at 19:03

Partially correct. It is indeed Nm but it is lb/ft - it's pounds per foot.

Vertigo · 22 Apr 2006 at 19:08

Lashout_UK said:
Partially correct. It is indeed Nm but it is lb/ft - it's pounds per foot.

No it isn't, it's a turning force or moment which is described as a given force operating at a given distance, so 100 lbft of torque is equivalent to a force of 100lbs operating at a distance of 1 foot.

Nm is simply the metric version of lbft, replacing lbs with Newtons and feet with metres.

Lashout_UK · 22 Apr 2006 at 19:38

That wasn't my argument

I was simply stating that it's lb/ft (or lb-ft if you're strange). You do not denote it as lbft - as far as I know - I never have, or seen it denoted as such and none of my textbooks or reference material do

Bear · 22 Apr 2006 at 20:29

Trickle said:
This ftlb figure is in red on the sheet? Is this also before transmission losses?

Its the orange trace which is the top one on the graph. It will be torque at the wheels.