Rocky Mountain Club B5

Discussion Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Cole on March 26, 2005, 09:08:10 PM

Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on March 26, 2005, 09:08:10 PM
Here are the numbers!

The first set is the actual (HP/TQ) at the wheels. The second set is the corrected [HP/TQ] at the crank shaft using the correction numbers given to us by the guys at MAC. You will notice that a couple of the stock cars came very close to their stock crank numbers after the correction factor.

Sorted roughly from highest HP to lowest.  :D

1. Cole 2000 S4 2.7TT (280HP/395TQ) [350HP/493.75TQ]
2.??? 1991 M5 (253HP/229TQ)[290.95HP/263.35TQ]
3.Jason W8 (226HP/252TQ) [273HP/304.92]
4.Ian 2002 Golf 1.8T (226HP/264TQ) [268.94HP/314.16TQ]
5. Andrew 2003 Golf 1.8T (210HP/255TQ) [249.9HP/303.45TQ]
6. Ken 2004 GLi 1.8T (208HP/243TQ) [247.52HP/289.17TQ]
7.Jason 1995 M3 (208HP/198TQ)[239.2HP/227.7TQ]
8.Jack 2003 Golf 1.8T (207HP/229TQ)[246.33HP/272.51]
9.Andy 2001 Golf 1.8T (201HP/256TQ)[239.19HP/304.6TQ]
10.Randy 2003 Passat 1.8T (190HP/230TQ)[226.1HP/273.7TQ]
11. Sarah Golf 337 1.8T (184HP/197TQ) [218.96HP/234.43TQ]
12.TW 2001 Passat 1.8T (182HP/209TQ) [216.58HP/248.71TQ]
13. Ted 2004 A4 1.8T (179HP/254TQ) [216.59HP/307.34TQ]
14. Chas 1998 Passat 1.8T (175HP/215TQ) [208.25HP/255.85TQ]
15. Andrew S. 2000 Passat 1.8T (161HP/218TQ)[198.03HP/268.14TQ]
16. Mark 2000 Passat Wagon 1.8T (152HP/192TQ) [186.9HP/236.16TQ]



Correction factors used to calculate driveline loss are as follows. (estimated by MAC Automotive)


RWD Stick 15%
FWD Stick 19%
FWD Aut0 23%
AWD Stick 21%
AWD Auto 25%

I don't have your guess numbers in there.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: lpshade on March 26, 2005, 09:30:56 PM
A fun day to watch all the other cars that showed up  -  must do it again
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: shummer on March 26, 2005, 10:55:27 PM
APR claims 200hp/245lb-ft for my particular ECU (4B0 906 018 BH) and I got an estimated 198.03hp/268.14lb-ft after correction. Looks pretty good except for the fact all you other suckas seem to have inflated numbers!!!
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: gragravar on March 26, 2005, 11:15:17 PM
sounds like you guys had fun.  wish I could have joined you.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on March 26, 2005, 11:28:22 PM
Quote from: "shummer"
APR claims 200hp/245lb-ft for my particular ECU (4B0 906 018 BH) and I got an estimated 198.03hp/268.14lb-ft after correction. Looks pretty good except for the fact all you other suckas seem to have inflated numbers!!!



Inflated how?
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: coveredbytheblood on March 27, 2005, 08:01:33 AM
So what exactly do the corrected numbers represent?  Is that our HP at sea level or is it our flywheel HP?
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on March 27, 2005, 08:14:58 AM
Flywheel HP. That is why the correction factor is different for different drivelines. Different drivelines will have a different amounts of loss.

Since the factroy numbers are quoted at the flywheel. You need to convert to the estimated flywheel numbers to see exactly how much HP gain you have from your mods.

The correction factor numbers are estimates. It is really impossible to tell exactly how much loss you have without dynoing your engine in AND out of the car. But if we all use the same numbers for each drivetrain it will give you a relative estimate of how certain mods work over others, etc.


The dyno is already corrected for altitude! Theoretically you will get the same numbers on this dyno if it were at sea level or here.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: tweakeDub on March 27, 2005, 12:43:47 PM
Am I on the list as TW????
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on March 27, 2005, 03:03:30 PM
I dunno. I only copied the names from the list to the screen. So definately maybe.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: SweetVW on March 27, 2005, 04:52:34 PM
Sounds like you guys had allot of fun.  Nice numbers from allot of people.  Allong with Chas' results I personally would have liked to seen Rusty's as well.  Both of these guys scare me with what they know and have done.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on March 27, 2005, 08:32:11 PM
I am working on the videos.  I am going to cut each one into a seperate file, and upload them or host them for download.  THey are pretty cool!

Just so you know, the numbers seem acurate.  Both of my cars performed very close to spec, and they are both stock.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: shummer on March 27, 2005, 10:10:10 PM
Quote from: "Cole"
Quote from: "shummer"
APR claims 200hp/245lb-ft for my particular ECU (4B0 906 018 BH) and I got an estimated 198.03hp/268.14lb-ft after correction. Looks pretty good except for the fact all you other suckas seem to have inflated numbers!!!



Inflated how?


Take yours for example:

Stock 2000 S4:  250hp/258lb-ft
GIAC chip: +70 to 80hp/+80 to 90lb-ft
Corrected numbers: 330hp/348lb-ft

I know you have an aftermarket exhaust, but +20hp and +150lb-ft more than expected? Some numbers match up very well and some seem high.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: ColoradoB5 on March 27, 2005, 10:11:13 PM
Sounds like a great time was had by all.  Cole, the last time I talked to you, you said the S was close to stock.  So what have you been up to?
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on March 27, 2005, 10:16:19 PM
Here are the Dyno plots for both the M3 and W8.  I also included an example video of my runs, and everyone's will be similar.  I shrunk the video down so that it could be easier to view, but yours will be higher quality.

(http://www.rmcb5.com/albums/JDawg/M3_Dyno.gif)
(http://www.rmcb5.com/albums/JDawg/W8_Dyno.gif)

Here is the video:

FIXED!!! :)
http://www.transcendsolutions.com/video/JDawg.wmv
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on March 27, 2005, 10:21:33 PM
Keep in mind all of this was done in 3rd gear.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: coveredbytheblood on March 27, 2005, 10:24:19 PM
Sweet, Sweet, and SWEET!!!
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: jayryan on March 28, 2005, 05:58:44 AM
Hmm...Passat's suck.  :lol:
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on March 28, 2005, 09:16:44 AM
I know my torque number seems way high. I have no answer for it at the moment.  

I will be getting all of our runs on disk later today (forgot and left the disk there).

Here is the complete list of things that I "know" are on my car. There may be other stuff I don't know about since most fo it was done before I bougth it.


-GIAC-X (aparently an old version, I read somewhere on AW that someof the newer chips were smoothed out and tuned the TQ down. Automatic trans also multiply TQ between the crankshaft and the input of the trans. Without knowing the differential in those two shaft speeds etc it woudl be hard to tell what is really comming out of the engines output shaft and what is making it into the transmission.So really I may be 497TQ into the trans but that may be different than what is comming out of the engine. )
-GIAC Tip-chip
-Forge BPVs
-Samco TBB
-K&N Air Filter
-Brullen Exhaust. (I also get error codes that seem to be consistant with downpipes, but my pipes seem stock so the pre-cats may be hollow, I have yet to take a close look)
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: madigan on March 28, 2005, 09:57:55 AM
Quote from: "jayryan"
Hmm...Passat's suck.  :lol:


Yeah, and it's quite embarrassing!

I need a new car...
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on March 28, 2005, 11:42:12 AM
Jdawg and I did some additional "Performance Testing" :wink:  after the dyno to see how accurate the numbers were.  We were able to test the W8 and the S4 and the numbers appear pretty accurate :wink:  :D
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: kraut-sled on March 28, 2005, 12:57:26 PM
Taking stock claims from VW / Audi / BMW here are the result of who has the largest gain over stock:

1. Cole - 100HP
2. Ian - 89HP
2. Andrew Self - 89HP
4. Andrew 34K - 69HP
5. Ken - 67HP
6. Jack - 66HP
7. Chas - 58HP
8. Randy - 56HP
9. Andrew Shum - 48HP
10. TW - 46HP
10. Ted - 46HP
12. Sarah - 38HP
13. Mark - 36 HP
14. Jason W8 - 3HP
15. Jasom M3 - Even
16 Mark M5 - LOSS
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: s4josh on March 28, 2005, 02:05:05 PM
16. Mark M5 - LOSS

Naturally aspriation loss, due to altitude?  We are a mile high!

Is Jasom's M3 stock or does it have exhaust, air filter, ecu, etc...?
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: kraut-sled on March 28, 2005, 02:11:49 PM
Quote from: "s4josh"


Is Jasom's M3 stock or does it have exhaust, air filter, ecu, etc...?


Jasom is Jason (my bad typing) and it is stock - but not for long!
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on March 28, 2005, 02:25:19 PM
Quote from: "Cole"
Jdawg and I did some additional "Performance Testing" :wink:  after the dyno to see how accurate the numbers were.  We were able to test the W8 and the S4 and the numbers appear pretty accurate :wink:  :D


Very true.  Basically, Cole wasted me completely without even blinking or having to try hard.  Bastard.  But wait until I get the cams in the M3, you will be crying.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: s4josh on March 28, 2005, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: "JDawg"
Quote from: "Cole"
Jdawg and I did some additional "Performance Testing" :wink:  after the dyno to see how accurate the numbers were.  We were able to test the W8 and the S4 and the numbers appear pretty accurate :wink:  :D


Very true.  Basically, Cole wasted me completely without even blinking or having to try hard.  Bastard.  But wait until I get the cams in the M3, you will be crying.


I hope you are talking about a road course and not the dyno.  Cams are not going to give you that much increase in power.  Your going to have to buy a SC or turbo kit to do that.  You have to make 100+ hp and 250+ TQ to match Cole.  The cams will help you on the track at least :P

S4 > M3!
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on March 28, 2005, 05:03:39 PM
Quote from: "s4josh"
16. Mark M5 - LOSS

Naturally aspriation loss, due to altitude?  



No. The dyno is corrected for altitude. The M5 was only down 10HP over its stock numbers. This could be attributed to mileage, dirty air filter, old clogging exhaust, old spark plugs, etc. It could even be the 104oct he had in it. If the car did not compensate for it you may actually show less HP.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: kraut-sled on March 28, 2005, 05:28:42 PM
I think his loss was due to mileage and the 104 octane fuel (his ECU would not be able to take advantage of it)  however when he did a pull in 4th gear the car was amazing.  His power and torque curve did not drop, unlike all the other cars.

His car is pimp and I have no doubt it will be cared for and last forever.  He now owns a small fleet of bimmer's.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on March 28, 2005, 06:10:09 PM
Quote from: "s4josh"
Quote from: "JDawg"
Quote from: "Cole"
Jdawg and I did some additional "Performance Testing" :wink:  after the dyno to see how accurate the numbers were.  We were able to test the W8 and the S4 and the numbers appear pretty accurate :wink:  :D


Very true.  Basically, Cole wasted me completely without even blinking or having to try hard.  Bastard.  But wait until I get the cams in the M3, you will be crying.


I hope you are talking about a road course and not the dyno.  Cams are not going to give you that much increase in power.  Your going to have to buy a SC or turbo kit to do that.  You have to make 100+ hp and 250+ TQ to match Cole.  The cams will help you on the track at least :P

S4 > M3!


Actually, my car (the M3) is SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than Cole's S4.  My driveline loss is about 10% less, and cams make a 50+ horsepower difference in a stock M3.  So, with cams I am pushing 300 horsepower and would be very competitive with Cole because of the weight / horsepower/torque ratio.  The M3 is at least 800 lbs lighter than the S4, automatic.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: jayryan on March 29, 2005, 06:01:19 AM
Quote from: "JDawg"
Actually, my car (the M3) is SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than Cole's S4.  My driveline loss is about 10% less, and cams make a 50+ horsepower difference in a stock M3.  So, with cams I am pushing 300 horsepower and would be very competitive with Cole because of the weight / horsepower/torque ratio.  The M3 is at least 800 lbs lighter than the S4, automatic.


*nods head*

Randy, what have you done to your car that puts it so much ahead of others...for instance, Ted's A4. He's got Garret and Injectors. You've got Revo, CAI and stock injectors. Or even Shum's B5. Am I missing something?
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: kraut-sled on March 29, 2005, 10:48:08 AM
I have done nothing special - other then the mods listed - but I have an idea as to why my numbers are what they are.

If you look at the starting place for each car - stock power - I am starting at a higher point.  B5 = 150 B5.5 = 170.  Using this formula Chas has gained the most HP over stock, I am seccond, Tweekdub 3rd, and Ted 4th, Shummer 5th, and Mark 6th.

As for Ted's car and his numbers...I have spoke to GIAC and Jeff Moss regarding the issue.  Due to the way a Dynopack makes it readings, it does not allow for the GIAC Big injector program to reach full mixture.  (way too much technical mumbo-jumbo to type how this happens)

I will be changing my exhaust soon and then I will head back to MAC to see what additional impact that wil have.  Exhaust HP gains are obvious in the Golf cars that ran and on Tweekdubs Passat.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Chas on March 29, 2005, 10:57:01 AM
One reason for Randy's car to show higher numbers is that he is starting out from the factory with 170 HP. All the cars you listed JR are the older design engines with a base HP from the factory of 150.

But, Randy's car cranks it out! I only bested him in the total increase over factory HP claims by 2 HP!  :? I think Randy also has a larger exhaust. which goes a long way to making more power with turbo cars.  8)

I now see I have some more work to do. I have put off getting a proper exhaust system for way too long. But now I have an excuse. I have a dent in my downpipe that casue a restriction right at the point where it bends to a fully horizontal angle. And of course I'll have to get a high flow cat to go with it. I'm sure I can sail that one right past my wife. :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :wink:  :(
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: shummer on March 29, 2005, 11:49:15 PM
I thought exhaust gains were minimal, but hey look at me now. My numbers were spot on what I should be expecting from APR. What opens my eyes the most are the Golf and GLI numbers - their KO3 numbers are approaching/matching KO4 or stage 3 numbers for the longitudinal 1.8Ts.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: kraut-sled on March 30, 2005, 10:15:51 AM
I had my car stripped out of it's interior for about 10 days - I was hauling an exhaust arround for a customer and needed the extra space - and was shocked to hear the flow of my exhaust.  With all the seats out and the music off you can really hear it!

It made me wonder how much power was being robbed due to restricted flow.  Then seeing the Hp number of the cars with a 2.5 inch exhaust made me realize it was a substantial improvement.

I am waiting for GHL to finish their new Passat turbo-back exhaust, then I will be bolting it on.  As soon as I have it on I will head back to MAC for another pull to see what the gain is.  Then we will know forsure.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: jayryan on March 30, 2005, 10:21:20 AM
Quote from: "kraut-sled"
I had my car stripped out of it's interior for about 10 days - I was hauling an exhaust arround for a customer and needed the extra space - and was shocked to hear the flow of my exhaust.  With all the seats out and the music off you can really hear it!

It made me wonder how much power was being robbed due to restricted flow.  Then seeing the Hp number of the cars with a 2.5 inch exhaust made me realize it was a substantial improvement.

I am waiting for GHL to finish their new Passat turbo-back exhaust, then I will be bolting it on.  As soon as I have it on I will head back to MAC for another pull to see what the gain is.  Then we will know forsure.


I'd like to see that before I go and have anything done.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: kraut-sled on March 30, 2005, 10:57:47 AM
Pull it out and you can hear what I am talking about.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: jfrahm on March 30, 2005, 11:06:35 AM
Quote from: "Cole"


No. The dyno is corrected for altitude. The M5 was only down 10HP over its stock numbers. This could be attributed to mileage, dirty air filter, old clogging exhaust, old spark plugs, etc. It could even be the 104oct he had in it. If the car did not compensate for it you may actually show less HP.



So how do you run a corrected dyno with a turbo car?  Do you use a reducing correction factor, or reprogram the dyno based on the type of turbo system?  If the dyno just reads high to account for the lower air density all the MAP controlled turbo cars will dyno high.  Under boost, the absolute pressure in the intake of a B5.5 is going to be about the same here as it would be at sea level while an NA car will have the local aimbient air pressure as the manifold pressure (20-25% less than sea level.)

-Joel.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on March 30, 2005, 11:17:25 AM
If what you are saying is true, where would you recommend that we can research the exact numbers in relation to manifold pressures and the dyno results?  I also was under the impression that when you are a sea level, even in forced induction cars the manifold pressure will be relationally higher than when you are at a higher altitude, just like a NA engine.  Are you saying that because the ambient air pressure is lower the boost system is somehow able to draw in greater amounts of air to compensate at a higher altitude?
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on March 30, 2005, 11:40:40 AM
"Air mass per volume (density) is dependent on (absolute) pressure and temperature. If you would run the same ABSOLUTE manifold pressure with the same IAT, you would make the same power regardless of altitude. Typical boost gauges do not display ABSOLUTE pressure though, but relative pressure (gauge pressure), relative to atmospheric. So if you use gauge pressure, you make less power because you put less air MASS in the engine, even though the indicated boost level (relative to atmospheric) is the same.
I said above 'same IAT', because to make the same absolute pressure at altitude as at sea level, the turbo needs to work harder (faster). This raises IAT's. Hotter air has a lower density -> result is less power even for the same absolute pressure. As the outside air is also less dense at altitude, an intercooler works less efficiently as there is less air (mass) flowing around it to cool.
Lower air density at altitude also means less aerodynamic resistance at high speed. For some forms of racing this can offset the power losses a little."

So while a turbo will maintain a constant pressure ratio no matter what altitude you are at it will not maintain a constant density ratio.  This correlates with my understanding of air density and how engines regardless of how air is inducted respond to different atmospheric pressures.  There is no way for a forced induction engine to create additional air mass at higher altitude than it can at a lower altitude.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: jfrahm on March 30, 2005, 11:57:36 AM
Turbos can be controlled different ways.  The system on the B5.5 as far as I understand it, controlls boost by opening and closing a valve between manifold pressure and the turbo wastegate.  The decision to open that valve seems to be determined by input from the MAP sensor on the intercooler outlet.  The turbo then boosts not up to a relative pressure of, say 8psi over ambient (which let's say is 12psi locally instead of 14.7 at sea level) but to an absolute pressure value which seems to be about 22 psi absolute.

The system is not able to draw in more air but is told to boost higher (relative pressure) by the ECU.  The ECU is trying to make a certain absolute manifold pressure and as long as the turbo can provide that pressure it will do so.  The car will be roughly as powerful here as it sea level, at least once the turbo is spun up.  

What is different?  Well there is less air to work with so the turbo has to spin faster.  I suppose spoolup is slower but with a K03 it's probably insignificant.  Off boost performance will of course be affected but on the dyno I doubt anyone would care.

One big factor:  As I understand it, at very high altitudes the ECU lowers the max boost so as not to overspeed the turbo trying to make 22psi (absolute.)  I'm not sure how high we'd have to go to see that effect.

Now, with a turbo controlled by a simple manual boost controller, the turbo is not managed by a clever computer that can tell what the absolute pressure is, but a simple spring that opens the wastegate at a relative pressure differential.  If you set your MBC at sea level to give you 8psi of boost, I believe you would get 8psi over ambient pressure here or at sea level or in Leadville (assuming the turbo can manage to make 8psi in Leadville.)  The car would be faster at sea level and slower in Leadville 'cause it's boosting 8psi over ambient everywhere, or 22.7psi (absolute) at sea level, 20 psi here, and... maybe 18 psi in Leadville.  

My observations are that my B5.5 shows 10-11psi of boost on a mechanical boost gauge here (which reads relative pressure, or boost over ambient) but I understand boost is supposed to be around 8psi at sea level.  I have also fooled around a bit with the output of the MAP sensor and sure enough I can get more or less boost depending on how that signal is massaged.  That tells me the boost is determined by the MAP and that I am getting my altitude correction already thanks to the ECU.  If I ran on a dyno corrected for an NA car it'd read high.

There are other ways to control boost.  Some systems use knock to reduce boost like my old Saab 900.   The Audi 200 takes temperature into the equation.  Correcting them on a dyno would be a different matter.
Gasoline quality would also be a factor to be taken into account.

-Joel.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on March 30, 2005, 12:04:46 PM
Okay, if the ECU works the way you have described, I agree that the dyno results for those vehicles would not represent true numbers at sea level.   I don't think however that you have taken into account that the faster you move air, and the more compression that occurs, the hotter air gets which greatly affects the air density.  Does the ECU factor that in as well?
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: jfrahm on March 30, 2005, 12:12:32 PM
Quote from: "JDawg"

So while a turbo will maintain a constant pressure ratio no matter what altitude you are at it will not maintain a constant density ratio.  This correlates with my understanding of air density and how engines regardless of how air is inducted respond to different atmospheric pressures.  There is no way for a forced induction engine to create additional air mass at higher altitude than it can at a lower altitude.


Well the turbo is just an air pump and it'll do whatever you tell it to do up to it's mechanical limits.  A turbo _can_ maintain a constant pressure ratio (MBC) or it _can_ maintain a density ratio if you control it cleverly using a MAP input.  This assumes the turbo can spin fast enough.  Yes, you might lose some power due to greater heating of the air, and IC efficiency will probably be down.  On a dyno your IC will not be performing worth a damn unless they have a big fan.

I recall getting the correction factors from Bandimere, I think they use about 1/2 the NA correction for turbo cars but they do not differentiate between a turbo controlled by MAP or by relative pressure either.  I would suppose people who tune their cars are already turing up boost to take the altitude into consideration anyway, so all you are left with are the IC efficiency and the additional heating of the air.  Fuel quality is another issue, as we might lose some timing advance.  Much of the gas here is formulated with the lower cylinder pressures in mind. Not a big deal when it's cool out but a factor on a hot day.

At any rate I do not think much of a correction is needed for a MAP based system like the B5.5, or for a car with an MBC that has been turned up to take altitude into account.  Certainly nothing like the factor used for NA cars.

-Joel.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on March 30, 2005, 12:14:38 PM
Interesting.  I would be curious to see what MAC has to say about this.  Anyone interested in talking wtih them?
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: jfrahm on March 30, 2005, 12:25:26 PM
Quote from: "JDawg"
Okay, if the ECU works the way you have described, I agree that the dyno results for those vehicles would not represent true numbers at sea level.   I don't think however that you have taken into account that the faster you move air, and the more compression that occurs, the hotter air gets which greatly affects the air density.  Does the ECU factor that in as well?


Well the heating of the air depends to a great degree on where you are on the compressor map.  Stock cars or cars with modest increases are probably not hitting the wall of hot air you get when you are way out of the sweet part of the compressor map.  There is really no way to know how big an effect you are getting without logging the intake temp and playing with the boost.  You could run at the same pressure ratio as you would at sea level, measure the air temp after the IC, and figure out how much of your pressure is due to heat rather than the presence of more air molecules.  Take that amount of air, devide by 12 or whatever you use for a WOT A/F ratio, and that will tell you how much more fuel you would be using if your IAT were cooler, and thus the amount of HP you aren't producing.  If you are not too far out of the efficient range of the turbo it won't be a huge number.

-Joel.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Rusty on March 30, 2005, 01:37:10 PM
(Rusty answers JR's Bat-signal...)

Hey, where did this guy jfrahm come from?  He's freakin' smart!  Smarter than me (although I'm not sure that says much...) Welcome to RMCB5! Hope I get to meet you at the Memorial Weekend GTG...

Anyway, what j says is spot-on.  The SAE correction factors are truly not appropriate for a forced-induction engine.  To simplify things, let's ignore the MAP-sensor system, and concentrate on the simpler MBC system.  Like j said, x lbs boost at sea level is x lbs boost at 5,280 feet.  All other things being equal, it's the same air mass.  Humidity and temperature corrections still apply, but if you apply SAE altitude correction to the "boosted" portion of the mass air flow (clumsy words but I'm trying to get across a concept here), you'll be over-correcting because it's the same amount of air mass as sea level.  To do SAE altitude correction properly for forced-induction, you have to have two components - one using the full SAE correction for the percent air mass due to ambient pressure, and another using only Temp and Humidity for the percent air mass that's boosted.

So unlike the standard SAE correction, which is the same percent regardless where you are on the dyno curve, the "Turbo-correct" SAE correction will be different on different parts of the curve, depending on the amount of boost.  The error will be greater for greater amounts of boost. As you can see, this is a computational nightmare for the average dyno operator - an accurate boost curve would have to be determined and the data fed in.  Greatly complicates the dyno process.

That's my two cents, anyway.  I would be intrigued with a further discussion of the MAP-sensored cars - it seems like you would still have the SAE temp and humidity correction, but would you eliminate the altitude and the barometric pressure correction entirely?!?!:?: Hmmm....

(more wheels turning for Rusty's E-mail Dyno Room...)


Cool stuff.  Two Thumbs - Up.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on March 30, 2005, 01:50:37 PM
Interesting read.  How far could it really be off if it is?


The S4 and W8 weigh about the same. One is twin turbo the other N/A.  The w8 a 6 speed and the S4 a tip.  If the results are truely off for the turbo car then The W8 should be closer to the S4 in the real world.  We went head to head after the dyno. (which only shows 54HP/143TQ difference at the wheels) Our basic results show that the performance difference is AT LEAST this much. (seat of the pants judgement). Just some more fuel to think about.



1. Cole 2000 S4 2.7TT (280HP/395TQ) [350HP/493.75TQ]
3.Jason W8 (226HP/252TQ) [273HP/304.92]
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: jayryan on March 30, 2005, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: "Rusty"
Hey, where did this guy jfrahm come from?


Boulder.

 :P Sorry. I'm incredibly bored with absolute nothing to add to this thread which hasn't already been said.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on March 30, 2005, 01:58:10 PM
I aggree with Cole, there are real-world differences that make me think the results are accurate.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Rusty on March 30, 2005, 03:29:48 PM
Quote from: "Cole"
Interesting read.  How far could it really be off if it is?

Quote from: "JDawg"
I aggree with Cole, there are real-world differences that make me think the results are accurate.

Well, basically I agree, too, which is why I never worried about it for my dynoplots.  I figured if there was that big of a difference, with as long as turbos have been around and as long as altitude has been around, someone would have done something by now.  I'll go check my equations and see if I can come up with how much it might be... but not today.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Rusty on March 30, 2005, 03:50:29 PM
OK, then, today.  But my brain hurts, someone else figure this out:

Here's the equation:

1.18*(29.235/(L6*(1-L10/(280.3*L4+1.001*L10+128938))^5.255-L8*(0.001804*10^((4.167*L4-133.3)/(0.5556*L4+219.5)))))*SQRT((L4+460)/537)-0.18

L10 = altitude (ft)
L8 = humidity (%)
L6 = baro pressure (in Hg)
L4 = temp (F)
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: s4josh on March 30, 2005, 04:20:37 PM
Quote from: "JDawg"
Quote from: "s4josh"
Quote from: "JDawg"
Quote from: "Cole"
Jdawg and I did some additional "Performance Testing" :wink:  after the dyno to see how accurate the numbers were.  We were able to test the W8 and the S4 and the numbers appear pretty accurate :wink:  :D


Very true.  Basically, Cole wasted me completely without even blinking or having to try hard.  Bastard.  But wait until I get the cams in the M3, you will be crying.


I hope you are talking about a road course and not the dyno.  Cams are not going to give you that much increase in power.  Your going to have to buy a SC or turbo kit to do that.  You have to make 100+ hp and 250+ TQ to match Cole.  The cams will help you on the track at least :P

S4 > M3!


Actually, my car (the M3) is SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than Cole's S4.  My driveline loss is about 10% less, and cams make a 50+ horsepower difference in a stock M3.  So, with cams I am pushing 300 horsepower and would be very competitive with Cole because of the weight / horsepower/torque ratio.  The M3 is at least 800 lbs lighter than the S4, automatic.


2000 Audi S4 = 3593 lbs
1995 BMW M3 = 3175 lbs
3593 - 3175 = 418 lbs difference

All that really matters is power to wieght ratio and power band.

HP = Torque x RPM / 5252

Cole's S4 = 3593 lbs / 280 whp = 12.8 lbs per hp
Jason M3 = 3175 lbs / 203 whp = 15.6 lbs per hp
Jason M3 + 50 hp = 3175 lbs / 246 whp =  12.9 lbs per hp

Cole's S4 = 3593 lbs / 395 w ft-lbs = 9.1 lbs per ft-lb
Jason M3 = 3175 lbs / 198 w ft-lbs = 16.0 lbs per ft-lb
Jason M3 + 30 ft-lbs (guessing) = 3175 lbs / 219.0 w ft-lbs =   14.5 lbs per  ft-lb

You will be very close to Cole's hp to weight ratio with 50 hp increase, but you won't be close on torque or power band.

Cole generates far more torque and has a much broader power band.  With a higher duration/lift/lobe seperation cams you are going to increase hp, but at the expense of narrowing your power band.

I have a friend with an turbo'd Acura Integra GS-R that makes about 230 whp and I still beat him with my much heavier stock AWD S4 with 189 whp, because his power band looks like a needle starting at about 5500 rpm going to 8000 rpm and the rice fed rats legs are to short to make any torque :P.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on April 01, 2005, 11:45:51 AM
I don't think an automatic S4 weighs 3593 lbs.  I came up with 3704 for a automatic.  Why would a turbo have a broder power band than a NA engine?  I guess cole and I will just have to go find out... :)  You should probably compare dyno plots on the M3 and S4 before you start guessing about torque curves.

There are some issues with your math.  I was going to go into detail about the cams for a M3, but it is appearant you have no knowledge about what modifications are available for the M3, what the S50 motor is comprised of, and how to add 198 plus 30.  That equals 228.

The 3593 weight is for a six-speed tranny, 3704 is the only number I could find for an automatic and that still seems low.  

The euro schrick camshaft setup is exactly the same as the euro spec S50 engine cams.  With that upgrade, along with the euro headers and euro MAF, push this engine to the 290hp range, at the crank.  This is with an aditional 40 ft/lbs of torque and it smooths out the torque curve and provides even broader power thanks to the VANOS system BMW is known for.  

According to my math

2000 Auto S4 13.2 lbs/hp
2000 Auto S4 9.4 lbs/torque ft/lbs

1995 M3 12.9 lbs/hp
1995 M3 13.3 lbs/torque ft/lbs
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on April 01, 2005, 01:35:41 PM
Boy this is fun! :lol:  As long as we are comparing parts we don't have yet. I can throw in my plans for the K04/16 hybrid install with RS4 fueling and intercoolers and other associated parts. Ball park guestimates should be 550 crank HP.

That puts the auto S4 at 6.7lbs/HP :D  8O  :D  8O  :D  8O (and I can get the traction to put it to the ground :wink: )
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: s4josh on April 01, 2005, 03:44:22 PM
JDawg let me answer these one at a time...

1. Why would a turbo have a broder power band than a NA engine?
  Answer.  NA engines cannot add more air than is pulled in via the piston.  If you had two of the same engines (same displacement), both running 12:1 air to fuel ratio.  The one turbo charged one running 2 bar would put twice the amount of air and fuel into the engine volume than the NA one.  Which directly relates to joules of energy with translates to whp eventually.  Audi also has Variable valve lift and timing on the V6 5V like the 2.7TT (same as VANOS, V-TEC, and every other manufacture on earth now).  This gives you the ability to make a broader power band than you could on non-VLVT NA engine.  Now throw turbos on top of that with full boost control, ignition timing, etc... and you can make the power band just about as wide as you want.  Theres a reason you get 308 hp and 375 ft-lbs of torque when you chip an 2.7TT engine - being Audi likes that flat torque curve which limits the engines hp (hp = torque x rpm / 5252).  The S4 stock makes 258 ft-lbs or torque from 2200-5800 rpm for driveability, marketing, and reliablity reasons, but not because its limited to it; like the M3's NA engine.

2. You should probably compare dyno plots on the M3 and S4 before you start guessing about torque curves.
  Answer.  I wasn't guessing.  BMW I6 even with VANOS always make less torque than hp because they are NA and geared for higher rpm use than most production cars.  Even though its an I6 and a square bore/stroke (very very close) engine they are always are designed for the higher rpms.  They are very smooth engines and run nicely, but they do not come close to the power band of the 2.7TT engine.  You guys have the dyno plots throw them up here :D

3. There are some issues with your math.  ...how to add 198 plus 30.  That equals 228.
  Answer.  The reason you didn't get the same results is you did the math incorrectly.  You just added a 30 ft-lbs or torque to your wheel ft-lbs when its a increase at the crank, same with the 50 hp.  I added the 50 hp/30 ft-lbs to your crank figures then x them by 0.85 which is the 15% loss for RWD manuals that was post with the dyno results.

4. The 3593 weight is for a six-speed tranny, 3704 is the only number I could find for an automatic and that still seems low.
  111 lbs difference or 529 lbs more than your M3.  The S4 would need to wieght about 1500 pounds more for you to beat it :)

5. The euro schrick camshaft setup...  With that upgrade... headers... MAF, ... 290hp range, at the crank.  ...aditional 40 ft/lbs of torque and it smooths
  Stock cams:  252 deg intake and 244 deg exhaust w/ 10.2 mm lift
  Dr. Schrick cams: 264 deg intake and 256 deg exhaust w/ 11.2 mm lift
  You should read this artical, so you don't get your hopes up about that 50 hp from the cams alone.  They were able to get a total 51.1 hp and 40.7 ft-lbs of torque total after about eight mods.  They only gained 8.1 hp between when they dynoed w/o the cams then w/ the cams.  They also got  thier max hp at 6900 rpm, which is higher than the stock engine speed limiter.  Like I said its going to narrow your power band.
  Europrean Car Mag - Project 1997 BMW M3 (http://www.europeancarweb.com/projectcars/0201ec_projbmw/)
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on April 02, 2005, 07:21:10 PM
S4JOSH, thanks for calling me out on several of those items.  First of all, I will still argue that the M3 torque curve is much flatter than the S4, and that it will produce more usable torque earlier in the RPM range.  I did post my M3 dyno on the first page of this thread.  Otherwise, you are correct on the numbers.  I still believe that I will be able to put together a NA M3 that will contend with a chipped S4, and on a track would probably eat one alive, however sometimes ignorance is bliss ;)
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on April 02, 2005, 07:24:03 PM
Oh, and BTW I was looking into using the Schrick 284 intake and 274 degree exhaust cam, which comes from the Euro M3.  It should produce better results than the first cam you mentioned.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: kraut-sled on April 04, 2005, 09:55:06 AM
Quote from: "Cole"
Boy this is fun! :lol:  As long as we are comparing parts we don't have yet. I can throw in my plans for the K04/16 hybrid install with RS4 fueling and intercoolers and other associated parts. Ball park guestimates should be 550 crank HP.

That puts the auto S4 at 6.7lbs/HP :D  8O  :D  8O  :D  8O (and I can get the traction to put it to the ground :wink: )


This will tear your transmissions off!!!
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on April 04, 2005, 10:22:34 AM
Quote from: "kraut-sled"


This will tear your transmissions off!!!



How do you figure?
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: kraut-sled on April 04, 2005, 11:00:55 AM
Your cluth will not be able to transfer the power through the transmission.  it will shread your gears.

If you do it, please put me down for first dibs on your chassie :wink:
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on April 04, 2005, 12:01:02 PM
There are S4s all over the place running this kind of power.  So where do you get your information?


I have personally seen an S4 put over 460HP to the WHEELS on the dyno.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: kraut-sled on April 04, 2005, 12:09:12 PM
Quote from: "Cole"
There are S4s all over the place running this kind of power.  So where do you get your information?


I have personally seen an S4 put over 460HP to the WHEELS on the dyno.


True there are S4 running this power.  I have driven one. 8O   However they are not TIP cars, they are 6 speeds.  There is a known problem with the tip transmission holding up under that amount of power.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on April 04, 2005, 12:39:59 PM
Right. You need to go hang out on the S4 forums more often. The TIP can be upgraded to handle the power. There are several Stage III tip cars out there now doing just fine.

Stronger clutches, stiffer springs in teh valve body and better cooling and you are good to go.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: speedpro on April 04, 2005, 07:59:47 PM
Hey Cole...What mods does your S4 have.  Those are some solid numbers...something I aspire to.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on April 04, 2005, 08:17:37 PM
Here is the list of the stuff I know of. (not all HP related)

GIAC -X-CHIP
Brullen Exhaust
K&N Filter
Samco TBB
Forge BPVs
GIAC TIP-CHIP
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: s4josh on April 14, 2005, 12:16:31 PM
I don't know if you guys have seen this S4 or not but here you go VTG Killer S4 (http://www.vtg.pl/paudis4.php)

750 hp and 740 ft lbs!  0-62 mph = 3.1 seconds!  1/4 mile = 10.665 seconds!  Its a Wagon too!

This is my goal for my S4 for the a dyno day in the future!
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: s4josh on April 14, 2005, 01:00:41 PM
Quote from: "JDawg"
First of all, I will still argue that the M3 torque curve is much flatter than the S4, and that it will produce more usable torque earlier in the RPM range.  I did post my M3 dyno on the first page of this thread.  Otherwise, you are correct on the numbers.  I still believe that I will be able to put together a NA M3 that will contend with a chipped S4, and on a track would probably eat one alive, however sometimes ignorance is bliss ;)


Flatter is not better! Flat torque curve is why the BMW I-6 feels so smooth while you accelerate.  A stock S4 is making almost 100 ft lbs more torque at 2200 rpms and changes no more than 10% until 5800 rpm making a very broad power band.  The M3 has a very flat curve with a little hump right in the middle where it should be and there is nothing wrong with that, but the S4 is still going to take you :)

Best thing to do is take it to the Bandimere speedway and run the 1/4.  On Test-n-Tune Wendsdays its $30 to run your car as many times as you can between 4pm and 9pm.  This is a good time to do it also because you are stock and you can gauge how your mods improve your 1/4 times from stock going forward.

My best time 100% stock and 3/4 tank of gas was 14.917 seconds at 92 mph (Bandimere Speedway).

Quote from: "JDawg"

Oh, and BTW I was looking into using the Schrick 284 intake and 274 degree exhaust cam, which comes from the Euro M3. It should produce better results than the first cam you mentioned.


Heres something you should seriously consider, so you dont damage anything.  In that artical I post about the 1997 BMW M3 they used the 264 deg intake and 256 deg exhaust w/ 11.2 mm lift cams and were getting thier max hp at 6900 rpm.  If you use the 284 intake and 274 degree exhaust cams you are going to move your max hp out to 7500-8000 rpm.  Your stock rev limiter kicks in at 6600 rpm for a reason.  Unless your planning to have the engine rebuilt, balanced, stiffer valve springs, better valve retainers, better valve guide material, and prolly forged pistons (wriste pins in cast pistons can do bad things at high engine speeds) I would suggest against such a high duration cam in a stock engine without rebuilding it or at least rebuilding the head with performance parts.

Valve springs lose how much pounds of resistance they have over a period of cycles and stock ones do not have enough force to close the valve quick enough to keep it from hitting the piston at high engine speeds (valve float).
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on April 16, 2005, 09:12:31 AM
Honestly, I could care less about quarter mile times.  While straight line fast cars are fun and exciting, the M3 was purchased to be used on the track, at SCR, Pikes Peak, Pueblo, etc.  My needs for power are different than a 1/4 mile track car needs.  Smooth, predictable and responsive power delivery will help me to accelerate out of corners faster, and that is where I will continue to focus when I modify the M3.  When I compare cars, I compare how they perform in that environment, not really on a 1/4 mile basis.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: JDawg on April 16, 2005, 09:13:54 AM
Honestly, I could care less about quarter mile times.  While straight line fast cars are fun and exciting, the M3 was purchased to be used on the track, at SCR, Pikes Peak, Pueblo, etc.  My needs for power are different than a 1/4 mile track car needs.  Smooth, predictable and responsive power delivery will help me to accelerate out of corners faster, and that is where I will continue to focus when I modify the M3.  When I compare cars, I compare how they perform in that environment, not really on a 1/4 mile basis.

You are right about the cams though.  Most people seem to feel comfortable running a stock M3 S50 engine at 7000 - 7200 rpm, and with cams and software I expect that is where it will be.  At this moment, I am not planning to build the engine to manage higher RPM's, but if something were to happen to it, I would seriously considering doing so at that time.  I am by NO MEANS knowledgeable when it comes to engine internals, and that is why cams are the limit of my comfort in modifying the engine.  I will rely on the expertise of BimmerHaus to provide any answers I am looking for, and so far that has been their recommendation.  Bob has stated that with cams and the other slight modifications; I will be in the 310 crank HP ranges, which for me and the track driving would be a great place to start.  Much more power and I will have serious issues keeping the power on the ground, without making changes to wheel widths, locking diffs, and gearing.  My intention now is to maximize the current setup of the M3, for my use in SCCA ITE events, when I get there.  I have to be careful about what mods I make, and follow the rules in doing so as well.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on April 16, 2005, 10:00:19 AM
I would be interested to see a head-2-head of the E36 M3 vs. the B5S4 on a track.

"Top Gear" did one of the E46 vs. the B6 S4 and had some interesting things to say.

The M3 was about 2-3 car lenghts faster at the end of the 1/4 mile.
The M3 was more "fun" and the Audi felt "Smooth and safe". (I am actually paraphrashing here)
On the racetrack however the Audi smoked the M3. 8O

I would be interested if anyone knows of a link to a comparison of a stock b5 s4 vs. a stock M3.  I know the M3 is slightly faster in a straight line. But wondering if all the rumors of handling are due to "feeling" and not actual results.

I personally would rather have a car that handels well than one with lots of power. But since I bought the S4 I understand where the power hungy addiction comes from.

Up until yesterday I swore I would dial in the suspension before anymore power modifications. (then I blew a turbo! If I have to replace it, I may as well upgrade while I am in there :D )

Usable power for track use varies a lot from car to car. Too much power in the M3 may actually make it MUCH harder to drive a clean lap. The nice thing about the M3 is that it has very linier and predictable power. This is MUCH easier to use on a track.  

I auto-Xed a MR2 Turbo and the power curve made it a very tricky car to drive well on the course. Throttle modulation is nowhere near the same as a NA car.

The dyno is a great tool. But it is only a very small slice of the overall pie of information needed to determine overall performance.

One last thought. A road course is made up of two parts. Straight lines and curves. This requires three things. Going, stopping and turning.  You can blend these in a variation of ratios and end up with the same lap times.
Title: DYNO DAY RESULTS!!!!
Post by: Cole on May 31, 2005, 03:07:58 PM
DYNO DAY 2 (http://www.rmcb5.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=29729#29729)