Long story about fitting 262 cams, dyno, and lots of drama

[swinks]

Just mentioned in other thread I did manage to fit 262 cams and get my vr4 dynoed.
Well, here is a long story with lots of drama, sudden turnovers, and few happy endings.
1. Fitting 262 cams.
Well, obviously didn't go as expected. First, with kochajj we approach problem with few times harder BC valve springs. After 2 days fight, we made "custom" support tool" to compress effin springs. Then adjustablecam gears went in, uprated tappets, and new valve stem seals. Engine put but together and on 3rd day after fitting new timing belt and ancilliares, we were ready to start vr4.
Again... we left vehicle with doors and boot open, so battery was drain completely :microwave Few phonecalls and we get extra gizzmo super battery charger, but had to sit down and smoke few cigarettes for next 4 hours till battery will come back to live. Finally at 6pm we could start engine for 1st time.
Lots of bangs, smoke and even more fire followed start engine. /JawDroppi Obviously ignition or timing was badly wrong. Coilpacks, HT wires, spark plugs checked... OK, still I we have fire through intake manifold :rolleyes4 One hour of scratching heads and decision to check timing marks...
Then.. hang on... camshaft timing blade (that attached to front exhaust gear) is misaligned approx. 25 degrees...:ranton: Yes, blade itself was identical, but attached to cam gear at wrong angle!
Now, was getting late and we had no choice but to swap that cam gear for stock one. How to make it without touching timing belt. Again scratching heads... no, it's impossible, we had no choice but to take freshly set up timing belt off and change gear. Being in rush, we managed to... break camshaft position sensor whilst removing cam gear! /catfight
That was the moment I sworn and promised to sell this efin car as soon I get to UK. :anxious:
Because no available other cam angle sensor at 10pm, I took soldering iron and some industrial epoxy glue gun, and spent another hour on "refurbish" sensor.
Once it was made, we fit with all care sensor back to engine, then stock gear, and then we made world record in speedy fitting timing belt - 1 hour!
Word of advice, 262 cams make fitting timing belt even more difficult. It's due to smaller lobes so getting cams on marks is a quite challenge.
At midnight we got everything put back together. Start again...
Bl***dy tappets! I made myself petrol to diesel conversion, or the first running sewing machine. :joker:
Quick run around, car was pulling strong and good, just this noise from tappets!
Following day late morning, another run on country side roads. Noise from tappets didn't disappeared. Conclusion... 3mm tappets are not for our engines, so keep away from them guys.
Unpleasant discovery, blue smoke behind vr4 /pale Quick diagnosis, and it seems either from leaking turbos or intake valve stem seals (those newly fitted). Money on valve seals, maybe 1 or 2 is sitting wrong, we were in rush fitting them. And here we go. Also, apeeared some judder, misfire, or similar effect on heavy load in range 4k to 6k. I left it for futrure investigation, because following day I was leaving for main Polish Mitsu owners meeting.
2. Dyno run.
Dyno run was organized but Polish Mitsu Fan club. There was 1 of many day activities. Unfortunately it was portable RR (suitable also for AWD cars). Anyway, RR was far from professional approach, like many of them being on massive events. No graphs regarding afr, boost, tractive effort, etc. All manual cars were measured on 4th gear.
After long queue I got there.
- 1st run - vr4 was visibly sick, plenty of black, white, blue smoke. The Fart made only 238 bhp ATW and 443 Nm torque, but was juddering, spitting and misbehaving badly. Massive lost in 4.5k to 6.5k rev range. Also bloke who operated diyno complained on me. Apparently his afr probe in exhaust was totally choked by unburned fuel and no more for use :rolleyes4
Well, quick thinking, and decision to make another run with disconnected methanol injection (its injection peak was in that range).
- 2nd run - again vr4 misbehaving badly, again spitting with unburnt fuel, figures bit different: 247,6 HP ATW (better) and 439 Nm torque. This time I took short break and with help of kochajj and deejay (other PL Mitsu club member) we did manage to swap tappets for my old one (already cleaned). It took us 2 hours but we managed to change lash adjusters on both banks. Engine got quiet. I put everything together and got for another DD run.
- 3rd run - this time challenge was how to make vr4 to run leaner and stop overfuelling i top range. Didn't want to mess with s-afc, so quick decision: 10p coin and play with MAF plug. Plug was undone approx. 1.5 turn off the MAF.
This time my vr4 behaved much better, still you could see lots of sickness, but graph wasn't messed and finally we get better power and torque curves. WOT afr stayed on 10.8.
Figures: 247 HP ATW and 433 Nm torque.
Well, having some margin to play, decision was made to make another run with more play with maf.
- 4th run - this time MAF plug was undone approx. 3 turn. Power and torque curves got more smooth, vr4 was still sick. WOT afr raised to 11.2.
Figures: 268,2 HP ATW and 433 Nm torque.
In the mioddle of 4th run I've noticed that air fan blower... WASN'T switched on! /JawDroppi So, with shaking hands and floppy legs I shouted at other bloke to switch it on. After run I got some apologies from them, but decided to f**k them all and not make runs anymore.

So, here we are: 268 HP ATW with quite sick car, lottle blow in exhaust and badly overfuelling.
Got to my parents home following day, bit annoyed by random short bursts, judder and loose power. Did 450km run with no drama. Yesterday decided to tidy up engine bay.
In a middle of work I've pulled spark plug coils off. And here we go... 1st cylinder coil was half burnt! Undone spark plug, and got "soft legs"... top of the spark plug didn't exist! Porcelain bit was broken into 3 bits, badly burnt, top electrode half melted... Unfortunately hadn't got any camera to make a photo.
Being very lucky that bottom electrode didn't fell into cylinder and hold in place.
To be even more annoyed, those plugs were NEW ones! I did fit old plug, but now HT lead need to be replaced also. Works, but I can't trust one anymore.
Got The Fart for a spin... bl**dy hell what a beast!

So... ladies and gents...
All you will see on made dyno graphs is measurement of vr4 running on... 5 cylinders without compression in rear bank :rolleyes4
Pictures of dyno graph soon to follow. It's not easy to upload anything fro mobile in remote area.

BTW, since swapping for old stock tappets vr4 is less farting in blue, much less...

[swinks]

Here is picture of damaged Denso plug:
57516

Porcelain broke vertically (I've put one together or picture), whole inside electrode was freely moving 5mm vertically. Brass top been melted on top a little.

[swinks]

And here is short movie from 3rd session of my sick vr4 running 5 cylinders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nDLlX6bARA&feature=youtu.be

[fassi1]

Good result for 5cyl engine :)
Seen similar spark plug damage on N/A engine which doesn't run as hot, looks like u were unlucky with badly manufactured spark plug.

[Anderz]

What a story, glad to hear that the damaged plug did not drop into the cylinder. It would be really interesting to see a dynochart running on 6 cylinders, have to say that is a stunning result for 5 cylinders :)

[Kenneth]

Good write up Tomasz. I am surprised the dyno operator didn't abort that run when the AFR probe fell out, one assumes it would have started registering a little on the lean side :P

[Adam.Findlay]

hope you can get the compression/ blue smoke issues sorted and do another run, keen to see what you can pull out of it with those cams :)

[Oblivion]

Thats an amazing result for such an unhealthy engine! :2thumbsup Hmmm the possiblities on an engine running well.... :thinking:

[Nick Mann]

It would be very interesting to know how much you lost through the dodgy cylinder. Was it helping the other five or hindering them?

268 as 5/6 of your power, puts your potential wheel power at 320ish. That could give a flywheel power of over 400! I am guessing that is optimistic, but it would be very interesting to know what the car can do when it is healthy!

So I guess the headaches and work will be worth it for a power hike like that....

[swinks]

Here are dyno graphs. Please note that it was a very dodgy rolling road. No probes other than afr. Even that was chocked after my 1st run, and dyno operator used... my wideband gauge inside vr4! So... no temp, boost/vacuum, fuel pressure, etc. monitoring.
Also you can see that his flywheel power calculations are all over the place. The same Galants n/a with the same measured wheel power got different fly figures of 23 bhp! All cars with tiptronic (Galant n/a, FTO) were not calculated for converter loss, and torque max was taken form converter peak (approx. 2k revs).
Anyway, hope that torque and wheel power are most reliable...:thinking:

Red line: torque
Green line: wheel power

1. First two runs. You could see how vr4 was struggling within peak range
57533

2. Last 2 runs where I did some play with 10p coin and MAF:
57534

[swinks]

Just wonder... how on earth did I miss that unhealthy spark plug whilst doing tappets?
Yeah... 3 guys in rush...

[Gowf]

They are decent figures without a doubt. What had you set your overlap to?

[swinks]

What had you set your overlap to?
Errmm... Gareth, I don't know what you mean. Can you re-do question like for total ignorant?? :)

[Gowf]

Errmm... Gareth, I don't know what you mean. Can you re-do question like for total ignorant?? :)

No worries..... I'm talking about valve overlap. Now I dont know how much there is standard (I'd expect next to none), but wondering where you have set your verniers to, to give you more overlap.

Having reread your thread, you've not fitted the pulley to the front exhaust cam, so you've prob left everything at 0 deg?

[swinks]

With you now... :)
Yes, cam gears left on stock settings, 0 degree. Can't do anything with them because the most important one with cam position sensor is temporary wrong. Once I get to UK, I need another stock front exhaust gear as sample and try to align that adjustable one.

[Adam.Findlay]

400 is acheivable on stock turbos i think. bradc did it on stock turbos, no cams just an autronic and a bunch of fancy IC piping other bolt on stuff

[Gowf]

400 is acheivable on stock turbos i think. bradc did it on stock turbos, no cams just an autronic and a bunch of fancy IC piping other bolt on stuff

Why is there not a can of worms smiley?

I am not convinced.... This argument was raised with Brad at the time when I had my car on TD04's. Now yes my car made a whopping great 15bhp more than brads apparently (when on road fuel) even though mine was able to flow a great deal more air (dont have the flow charts to hand or remember). There will always be a restriction, in my case it was cams, but there comes a point that you can increase your valve lift, overlap etc as much as you want but if the turbo cant provide enough flow for that, then there is little point. In simple terms I would really like to know how Brad managed to get a very similar BMEP to mine without changing anything???

I would love to be proven wrong, so can someone please do so and show me a genuine 400bhp on stock turbos? (Requires Eddy current dyno)

[scott.mohekey]

Isn't this just a case of NZ dyno's vs the rest of the world?

[Gowf]

Thomaz, I've also just been looking and doing some calcs of my own.... It does seem that your dyno is someway out....

If lets say you have 268bhp (200kW) @6000rpm then you should have a torque of 235lbft (318Nm).... but your chart says that you have 380Nm ish...

Now if you convert that to a rough ATF power then you have something like 360bhp and 295lbft which gives you a BMEP of around 20.2bar

Your max BMEP is 29.4bar.


Now using these figures as a comparison, and remembering that BMEP isnt a direct measure of cylinder pressure (although related), if you wanted to have 400bhp at 6000rpm then you are looking at a BMEP of around 24bar, which is a good bit different from 20.2. I just do not see how this is possible through mapping as this is a massive difference (350lbft)

[Gowf]

Isn't this just a case of NZ dyno's vs the rest of the world?

Thankyou!

[Badger_01]

Isn't this just a case of NZ dyno's vs the rest of the world?

Due to us being in the southern hemisphere and them in the northern. Something to do with air pressure or something?

I dont know lol I remembered reading something saying that cause of us being down here it means we can make more power etc?

[Kenneth]

Don't forget that brad did NOT have standard turbos. He had modified turbines which allowed him to achieve better top end exhaust flow.

The dyno his car was tuned on is also known to be a little optimistic compared to the one all dyno days were done on, possibly by around 5-10KW

Most everything else does stack up though.

Might be able to work out around where he was at in terms of fuel use. As I recall his AFR was up into the 12s (leaning out) and had the injectors at around 90% or something stupid.

[Adam.Findlay]

brads td03s were hi flowed too but no doubt he was running them tk the absolute limit

[wintertidenz]

He was running around 16psi on the standard high-flowed turbos. He also used to tell different numbers too - I never got a solid figure out of him, and he said that the exhaust housings were high-flowed when the turbos were rebuilt.

The injectors were definitely maxed out, and the turbos were surging IIRC.


Tomasz, would love to see the power you get when the car is fully sorted. Did you do a pre-cams dyno?

[swinks]

Tomasz, would love to see the power you get when the car is fully sorted. Did you do a pre-cams dyno?
Last dyno chart I have is from March 2011, wheel power was IIRC approx. 267 HP ATW.
Will do post here once get home. Still in Poland at the moment.

[swinks]

Thomaz, I've also just been looking and doing some calcs of my own.... It does seem that your dyno is someway out....

It is, Gareth.
Said in previous post that all calculated figures have to be taken with massive pinch of salt, and few are obviously wrong.
Wheel power and torque seems to be right. Maybe picture doesn't show, but graph and final figure are the same. Next dynoed car was stock Evo 8, and wheel power and torque was about right.
Anyway, last few dyno runs in UK my vehicle was measured on 3rd gear, this time it was 4th. IIRC, there as some debate which one measurment is better and more reliable.

[Oblivion]

400hp without changing turbos would be nice.. VR400 has a nice ring to it :P Someone do it please!

[Gowf]

The thing is, people keep going on about Brad and his 400BHP..... but it just never happened. Are you seriously telling me that on TD03 8G's (yes they may be modified, but they STILL have the same sized impellers!) with no internal engine mods made 400bhp @ 16psi? As has been said many times before.... my engine was a good one, it made stock power with the shroom filter and exhaust. Once the TD04's were fitted, I was running 405ish on 99RON @1.4bar... it just doesnt make sense! Once knock was removed by running 109 RON various things were tried.... upping the boost gave very little gain to the actual top end power (tubs just didnt have it in them).... Leaning it out from 11.5 to 12.5 made no difference whatsoever.... the extra 45bhp was made purely through timing.

So as you can see, THIS is why I am questioning the 400bhp, why I would love for someone to prove me wrong.... granted changing cams will effect your VE and BMEP and so the potential is more realistic, however there is a point when you are using all the air that is available from the turbos and so no matter what you do with your cams, it wont give you any more power. This is why you will always have a higher torque low down, because the flow rate of air that is being consumed increases in a non linear manner with increase in engine speed, so unless you have a variable inlet this will always be true... this also goes somewhere to show that when you do dial your cams in Thomaz, your max torque will be lower, BUT you will have more torque higher up the rev range, thus more power..... potentially less drivable though as the area under your torque curve will have diminished.

And again to really see the benifits in this it needs to be carried out in a scientific fashion... not overly anal, but at least before and after plots from the same dyno on the same fuel, and same mapper (some people have different safety factors)

[Gowf]

Due to us being in the southern hemisphere and them in the northern. Something to do with air pressure or something?

I dont know lol I remembered reading something saying that cause of us being down here it means we can make more power etc?

That is utter nonsense, as there should be barometric, temperature and humidity corrections on the dyno

[Kenneth]

Would you be saying this if Ben had done the tuning and given the sheet with 400hp on it?

The fact of the matter is that Brads car was setup and tuned by a well respected tuner. We know his dyno was probably a little optimistic but there is absolutely no reason to believe that the figures are far out.

I think you should just get over it, accepting that you might not agree with it but that without the ability to replicate his entire setup, you have absolutely no way to say for sure what did and what did not happen.
To say flat out that it never happened is just rude, regardless of whether or not you feel you are right. Why should anyone post dyno graphs when you just come out and say you don't believe it? Perhaps we should dispense with dynos and just have the GOWF HP rating scale?


The thing is, people keep going on about Brad and his 400BHP..... but it just never happened. Are you seriously telling me that on TD03 8G's (yes they may be modified, but they STILL have the same sized impellers!) with no internal engine mods made 400bhp @ 16psi? As has been said many times before.... my engine was a good one, it made stock power with the shroom filter and exhaust. Once the TD04's were fitted, I was running 405ish on 99RON @1.4bar... it just doesnt make sense! Once knock was removed by running 109 RON various things were tried.... upping the boost gave very little gain to the actual top end power (tubs just didnt have it in them).... Leaning it out from 11.5 to 12.5 made no difference whatsoever.... the extra 45bhp was made purely through timing.

[Gowf]

Would you be saying this if Ben had done the tuning and given the sheet with 400hp on it?

The fact of the matter is that Brads car was setup and tuned by a well respected tuner. We know his dyno was probably a little optimistic but there is absolutely no reason to believe that the figures are far out.

I think you should just get over it, accepting that you might not agree with it but that without the ability to replicate his entire setup, you have absolutely no way to say for sure what did and what did not happen.
To say flat out that it never happened is just rude, regardless of whether or not you feel you are right. Why should anyone post dyno graphs when you just come out and say you don't believe it? Perhaps we should dispense with dynos and just have the GOWF HP rating scale?

Well maybe we should have that, or at least look at the physics for the answer... as to me it defies logic. To get the same power he must have the same VE agreed? if he is running less boost, same octane, he must have more air flow at that pressure than I did at higher pressure with larger turbos yes?

No I havent had the car with the same setup for comparison, but there is something out there that allows you to compare engines and that is BMEP. A measure of VE can be found if the BMEP is considered in terms of MAP..... So I'm not looking at things in the GOWF BHP rating fashion, I am using what the industry does. If you want me to start referencing what I say I'l happily do that

[Kenneth]

To get the same power he must have the same VE agreed?
I disagree, but that could be to do with the definition of VE. To me, VE is the efficiency of cylinder filling per induction stroke.
To have the same power, you need the same total amount of air and fuel by weight in the cylinder (assuming the same AFR), but I don't see how VE must be the same for that to be the case. Higher manifold pressure and lower VE can get the same result as lower manifold pressure and higher VE.

My understanding is that VE is a product of the entire system, intake, engine and exhaust. To me this is the crux of the issue as we have no way of verifying what the VE is of his system.

I just don't see the point in arguing about it. He has the piece of paper that says 227.9KW at the wheels. Regardless of whether we take that figure with a pinch of salt or not, he has it. When people make power claims, the first thing everyone does is demand the dyno graph. In this case we have it.
To continually say it is rubbish just sounds like sour grapes. I am not saying I endorse and support the figure given, but I am willing to accept that without proper evidence in the contrary, his piece of paper is as good as any.

[Badger_01]

That is utter nonsense, as there should be barometric, temperature and humidity corrections on the dyno

Crap my bad, just remembered it means we can run faster times in the drags

[elnevio]

Crap my bad, just remembered it means we can run faster times in the drags

We'll only say, "get some timeslips posted up then!".

Then we'll say, "the strip at Santa Pod is uphill, you know!".

:D

[Ryan]

http://www.clubvr4.com/forum/showthread.php?29911-got-my-dyno-graphs-today-D&highlight=dyno+400hp

Potentially throwing the cat among the pigeons here but my car is setup very similar to Brad's and was tuned by the same man - the only thing different is that my turbos are standard and I do not have my air filters enclosed in a metal box as Brad does (where the battery is, facing down with a hole cut out of the battery support tray). My car made 198kW atw on stock turbos and fuel pump. Changedto Walbro fuel pump and increased to 205kW atw.

I'm not trying to cause an argument and certainly don't have anything to add to the above debate from a technical point of view but just thought that I'd mention it.

[Oblivion]

I see in this thread there is also a German VR4 that makes 400hp with stock tubs, so maybe not impossible after all? http://www.clubvr4.com/forum/showthread.php?54280-Who-s-got-the-highest-bhp-VR4-in

/flagnz = cleaner oxygen rich air = more power /haz

[Gowf]

I disagree, but that could be to do with the definition of VE. To me, VE is the efficiency of cylinder filling per induction stroke.
To have the same power, you need the same total amount of air and fuel by weight in the cylinder (assuming the same AFR), but I don't see how VE must be the same for that to be the case. Higher manifold pressure and lower VE can get the same result as lower manifold pressure and higher VE.

My understanding is that VE is a product of the entire system, intake, engine and exhaust. To me this is the crux of the issue as we have no way of verifying what the VE is of his system.

I just don't see the point in arguing about it. He has the piece of paper that says 227.9KW at the wheels. Regardless of whether we take that figure with a pinch of salt or not, he has it. When people make power claims, the first thing everyone does is demand the dyno graph. In this case we have it.
To continually say it is rubbish just sounds like sour grapes. I am not saying I endorse and support the figure given, but I am willing to accept that without proper evidence in the contrary, his piece of paper is as good as any.

I agree that the VE could be different, but that would only be the case if there were differences in porting and valve timing, which there are not so it would be reasonable to say that they would have to be the same.
VE can be calculated from air flow, to which MAP, Lambda, IAT, Injector pulse width can help with gathering the data. It is true that this may be all a little academic, and it is certainly not a case of my car's faster than your car. What irratates me somewhat is the internet (maybe a bit broad but here we go). You can say whatever you like on it and it can become gospel. There is no true process of review. So when it comes to people who are looking for answers to questions and are using a resource I would prefer them to be given information that is factual and accurate, not hearsay and conjecture. Granted there was a power graph, I could go and run the car that is currently sitting on the dyno and give you whatever power figure you want (within reason).... it doesnt mean that it is true. These things need to be looked at with a sceptical eye, back to the reviewing process, to assess whether the information is of any use or not.

As for sour grapes, I'm not quite sure what I'd have to be sour about? I don't own a VR4 anymore, nor do I ever intend to again. My car was what it was, as was Brad's. My point is not car specific, but general in that figures that are posted up have to be reasonable... for example if I said I had a 1000bhp 1.4l Polo would you believe me? If not why not? All boils down to the same thing.

Now if you wanted to, we can go further into this and make it far more scientific and bring the flow maps into it, and physically prove that you can not flow enough air for 400bhp.... that is my point.

[Adam.Findlay]

I disagree, but that could be to do with the definition of VE. To me, VE is the efficiency of cylinder filling per induction stroke.
To have the same power, you need the same total amount of air and fuel by weight in the cylinder (assuming the same AFR), but I don't see how VE must be the same for that to be the case. Higher manifold pressure and lower VE can get the same result as lower manifold pressure and higher VE.

My understanding is that VE is a product of the entire system, intake, engine and exhaust. To me this is the crux of the issue as we have no way of verifying what the VE is of his system.

I just don't see the point in arguing about it. He has the piece of paper that says 227.9KW at the wheels. Regardless of whether we take that figure with a pinch of salt or not, he has it. When people make power claims, the first thing everyone does is demand the dyno graph. In this case we have it.
To continually say it is rubbish just sounds like sour grapes. I am not saying I endorse and support the figure given, but I am willing to accept that without proper evidence in the contrary, his piece of paper is as good as any.

+1 kenneth

no one here can comment on the VE of brads engine or efficency of the turbos as no one else has the data from brads car
I personally think 400 flywheel hp on stock (although fiddled with) td03's is possible. with cams and other supporting mods.
to be honest here gareth you seem the only one offended by the thought that bradc was close to your hp figure without changing turbos, dont get me wrong you seem to know your stuff and im sure noone doubts your dyno figures but its not a pissing contest, well for me its not i just want to see what swinks can make out of his car with the cams i supplied him.

[Wobble]

its not a pissing contest,.

but it is a debate between 2 very knowledgeable club members .with more knowledge on these cars than half the club combined ,

[Gowf]

Adam, I dont know how many times I now have to say that this isn't a pissing/dick waving contest. This has nothing to do with my car or what I have done. It comes down to the fact that I do not believe, I know that you can not get 400bhp out of the stock turbos due to the air that they flow. Its exactly the same principle as running a restrictor. If you run a restrictor, as in the case of rallying for 1 example, your power will always be limited due to the limit on your air flow. Now this does not mean that you cant have a massively torquey engine, it just means that at high rpm you will not be able to air to feed your beast. By having clever cam profiles, amongst other things, means that you can then have mountains of torque, but your power will platau, almost to a straight line.

So at no point have I said changing cams etc will not increase your power and torque, they will make a massive difference, BUT your top line power figure will not be 400bhp, close maybe but no cigar.

This whole rant has nothing to do with Brad or anyone else, it has to do with scientific fact, and all I am trying to do is put a bit of realism into the mix so that people don't go chasing rainbows.

Just to add, and I didn't want to, but thanks for saying that I seem to know my stuff. I have to, as this is exactly the sort of thing that I actively engage in academic research and lecture in, and as we as a university focus heavily on creating engineers for F1 (every F1 team has at least 2 of our graduates in it) if I don't know what I am talking about I don't have a job (pissing contest now over!)

[Ryan]

but it is a debate between 2 very knowledgeable club members .with more knowledge on these cars than half the club combined ,

/yes

[Kenneth]

Your setup is VERY different on the exhaust side, which is where I believe that a good percentage of the gains Brad has are. Your car is also factory manual so probably has the smaller TB, Brads was facelift Auto (converted to manual) so has the larger TB.


http://www.clubvr4.com/forum/showthread.php?29911-got-my-dyno-graphs-today-D&highlight=dyno+400hp

Potentially throwing the cat among the pigeons here but my car is setup very similar to Brad's and was tuned by the same man - the only thing different is that my turbos are standard and I do not have my air filters enclosed in a metal box as Brad does (where the battery is, facing down with a hole cut out of the battery support tray). My car made 198kW atw on stock turbos and fuel pump. Changedto Walbro fuel pump and increased to 205kW atw.

I'm not trying to cause an argument and certainly don't have anything to add to the above debate from a technical point of view but just thought that I'd mention it.

[Kenneth]

It is my understanding that VE is affected by intake and exhaust flow as well as porting, valve timing etc.
We have been told by others that the exhaust manifolds have been used to 500+hp (again, not necessarily proven to scientific standards, but I choose to believe that there is at least a majority of truth in it) so I don't have too many qualms in accepting that sufficient work to the exhaust housings and turbines could contribute to much better exhaust flow. There was enough done to Brads exhaust to (in 4th gear) result in max boost being achieved at ~3250RPM which is quite a bit slower than standard.

If you had a 1.4l Polo, claimed 1000bhp and provided the dyno graph to back it up (and the dyno graph wasn't totally unbelievable) then I would accept your claim. I don't really care whether or not you made 1000bhp. If you didn't then it is your lie. The only one you would be cheating is yourself. Even if it was 990hp, I don't see the point in splitting hairs over it.
Brad knows his car was tuned on a dyno which is known to be a little optimistic and he was due to lose a few KW at the wheels if he dynoed with the club dyno day, which is why he didn't. That is his choice though, he still has his claim to 400hp in the mean time.

I would like to see your flow maps etc which prove that 400hp is impossible. It would be nice if you could do it up in a spreadsheet so we can fiddle with parameters which we feel might contribute to system differences.
I am highly interested in what figures you feel WOULD be possible.


I agree that the VE could be different, but that would only be the case if there were differences in porting and valve timing, which there are not so it would be reasonable to say that they would have to be the same.
VE can be calculated from air flow, to which MAP, Lambda, IAT, Injector pulse width can help with gathering the data. It is true that this may be all a little academic, and it is certainly not a case of my car's faster than your car. What irratates me somewhat is the internet (maybe a bit broad but here we go). You can say whatever you like on it and it can become gospel. There is no true process of review. So when it comes to people who are looking for answers to questions and are using a resource I would prefer them to be given information that is factual and accurate, not hearsay and conjecture. Granted there was a power graph, I could go and run the car that is currently sitting on the dyno and give you whatever power figure you want (within reason).... it doesnt mean that it is true. These things need to be looked at with a sceptical eye, back to the reviewing process, to assess whether the information is of any use or not.

As for sour grapes, I'm not quite sure what I'd have to be sour about? I don't own a VR4 anymore, nor do I ever intend to again. My car was what it was, as was Brad's. My point is not car specific, but general in that figures that are posted up have to be reasonable... for example if I said I had a 1000bhp 1.4l Polo would you believe me? If not why not? All boils down to the same thing.

Now if you wanted to, we can go further into this and make it far more scientific and bring the flow maps into it, and physically prove that you can not flow enough air for 400bhp.... that is my point.

[Oblivion]

....I am highly interested in what figures you feel WOULD be possible.

Me too! Very curious about the limits of the stock turbines.

[swinks]

Little update.
Thanks to Paul (psbarham) who borrowed to me stock front exhaust cam gear with cam rotor blades I could investigate why in my aftermarket cam verniers rotor blade was so much misaligned.
So did few checks:
57756
Here is the answer...
Rotor blade wasn't misaligned at all! There was wrongly positioned timing mark!
There is 2 tooth misalign between both cam gears ;)
Now adjustable cam gear has a "new" timing mark scratched by myself:
57757

[jungle]

Interesting read. Any updates?

[amsoil]

Bit late in the day this I know, but from memory no graph can be correct if the torque and power lines do not cross at 5200 rpm. Simple maths from the formula for each, please correct my dying brain cells if I am in error but I have dabbled a little and most of the rolling roads and dynos out there are, shall we say, only really useful for comparisons. Love the torque figures, beats my car (at tickover, lol)

[Sketchy_Race]

Bit late in the day this I know, but from memory no graph can be correct if the torque and power lines do not cross at 5200 rpm. Simple maths from the formula for each, please correct my dying brain cells if I am in error but I have dabbled a little and most of the rolling roads and dynos out there are, shall we say, only really useful for comparisons. Love the torque figures, beats my car (at tickover, lol)

I don't believe this is the case

Horsepower is the product of torque * RPM so if your peak torque was made at say 4000 RPM and then fell flat after due to poor fueling etc then the cross over point of power would be much earlier than 5200 RPM for example.

But yes no two dynos will read the same on any given day, there are just to many variables.

[Kenneth]

I believe Don was correct

HP = (Torque * RPM) / 5252

When RPM = 5252 they cancel each other out and you are left with just hp = torque.

However that may just be true for HP and torque in lb-ft :P

[swinks]

However that may just be true for HP and torque in lb-ft :P
I think Don just forget about this... :)
You can easy spot that in my dyno graph that scaling for torque is not matching power scaling, unlike typical imperial HP vs. LbFt figures.
Posted above graph is KM (PS) vs. Nm ;)

[Adam.Findlay]

yes kenneth and swinnks are right
The internet is full of arguments with keyboard warriors saying hurr durr that dyno graph is wrong because hp doesnt cross torque at 5252 rpm. but most of the people dont take into account mostly the torque lines and hp lines are on different scales to fit them on the same page. as well as 5252rpm being the crossover point for imperial measurements. im sure it would be different when measuring in kilowatts and newton meters instead of horsepower and foot pounds.

but don is also right when the scales are the same and you measure in hp/ft-lb vs rpm it should cross at 5252rpm

[Gowf]

I don't believe this is the case

Horsepower is the product of torque * RPM so if your peak torque was made at say 4000 RPM and then fell flat after due to poor fueling etc then the cross over point of power would be much earlier than 5200 RPM for example.

But yes no two dynos will read the same on any given day, there are just to many variables.

This does irritate me. Power is NOT Torque *rpm.... it is Torque * angular velocity which is very much different from rpm (rad/s). Power is simply T*2*Pi*rpm/60. However you have to be careful of what units are used, if you are using Nm for Torque then you will get watts out. If you want HP, then you have to use a conversion factor which is then why if you are using lbFt that you then get the 5250 division.

Thus if you want it in kW (divide by 60000) and if you have the same scaling on both, you will find that they only cross at 9554rpm

[Sketchy_Race]

This does irritate me. Power is NOT Torque *rpm.... it is Torque * angular velocity which is very much different from rpm (rad/s). Power is simply T*2*Pi*rpm/60. However you have to be careful of what units are used, if you are using Nm for Torque then you will get watts out. If you want HP, then you have to use a conversion factor which is then why if you are using lbFt that you then get the 5250 division.

Thus if you want it in kW (divide by 60000) and if you have the same scaling on both, you will find that they only cross at 9554rpm

hmmm power is torque * RPM, just it has to be converted to a value to make the calculation true. They are both a measure as to how fast the engine is rotating. Just the same as Nm is the same as lbFt, just different units.

But I digress all I was wanting to illustrate is that there is no fixed point that the curves must cross.

[amsoil]

Very late at night for me now, but...... from an online converter:- 100Nm at 5252 rpm = 100HP so maybe irrespective of the scales at 5252 rpm metric torque = BHP? So that line is pegged here. The other line however moves and as Gowf says with KW the cross point is 9550.
Guess if they kept these metric scales they lines would rarely meet never mind cross. Soooooo looks like they use KgM instead to fit it all on the same piece of paper. The correct crossing point? I'll let someone else work that one out.
Gosh I hate metric, the threads arnt even right!
Guess I'll have to remain using the 2nd best system of fastners, imperial.
The best was of course Whitworth! but long gone.

[Gowf]

hmmm power is torque * RPM, just it has to be converted to a value to make the calculation true. They are both a measure as to how fast the engine is rotating. Just the same as Nm is the same as lbFt, just different units.

But I digress all I was wanting to illustrate is that there is no fixed point that the curves must cross.

I really cant be bothered to argue over unit expressions, BUT when you tell people that P=T*RPM then that is exactly what they try and calculate and get horendously confused when you then put a conversion factor in, as they don't understand where it came from, far better to explain it by stating its true formula which is angular velocity

[Adam.Findlay]

I really cant be bothered to argue over unit expressions, BUT when you tell people that P=T*RPM then that is exactly what they try and calculate and get horendously confused when you then put a conversion factor in, as they don't understand where it came from, far better to explain it by stating its true formula which is angular velocity

yep power =2*pi*(rpm/60)*T
if you put in newton meters that formula gives you killowatts out.

[AKKO]

Yes, cam gears left on stock settings, 0 degree. Can't do anything with them because the most important one with cam position sensor is temporary wrong. Once I get to UK, I need another stock front exhaust gear as sample and try to align that adjustable one.

Did you resolve this alignment issue in the end...
what adjustment was required or did the supplier address the issue somehow?

[swinks]

Did you resolve this alignment issue in the end...
what adjustment was required or did the supplier address the issue somehow?
Yes, post #45.
Anyway, rather recommend to check on tdc marks before fitting, seems that
It was only issue

[AKKO]

Thanks not sure how i missed that post *puzzled*

Just purchased a set myself