Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 167
  1. #21
    WFX
    WFX is offline
    Beams Owners Group WFX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    352
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    WFX     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    0
    Well Id say this is as good as I'm gunna get for awhile till I work out a few other issues so here are the new details anyway:

    Car Owner: Wayne Siviour
    Car Type: 1993 Toyota Celica ST184
    Engine Type: 3SGE BEAMS Red Top
    MAX HP @ RPM: 134.7HP @ 6700RPM
    MAX Torque @ RPM: 111.2 HP @ 6000RPM
    Modifications:
    Blitz SUS Air Intake
    Phoenix Exhaust Manifold
    Full 2 1/2" Straight Through Exhaust System
    JUN Lightweight Flywheel
    TRD Clutch Cover & Disc
    Apexi SAFC Neo
    Walbro 255 Fuel Pump

    Dyno Chart:
    Last edited by WFX; 07-06-2007 at 08:33 PM.

  2. #22
    Beams Owners Group
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    speedyls91     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    0
    Edited - Will repost
    Last edited by speedyls91; 07-07-2007 at 08:30 PM.

  3. #23
    Beams OCD Support Group Roman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 58 Times in 38 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    Roman     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Alright I took mine back to the dyno today. Will post my chart up soon. I should also update the first post in this thread with the results, haha.

    Car: hardtop 1990 SW20, 1030kgs.
    engine: redtop 3SGE from ST202 celica.
    max power: 127kw @ wheels (170hp) Running quite rich, 12.5:1 AFR from about 4000 onwards.
    max torque: not sure, I'll have to check later, haha.
    relevant mods: cusco flywheel, exedy ceramic clutch, rebuilt gen 5 gearbox with cusco or TRD LSD, TOMS extractors/exhaust (2.5" through to muffler), cat converter replaced with straight pipe, standard muffler, alloy intake pipe, standard airbox/air filter from an ST215 GT caldina.

    Now that I've got a good baseline result, I might see if a different muffler setup will make a difference, and might get a high flow panel filter for it. It's currently got an el cheapo paper one in there... An aftermarket ECU would definitely help a lot, but it's a lot of money for the sake of a few HP!

  4. #24
    Beams OCD Support Group Roman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 58 Times in 38 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    Roman     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I've since fixed the low RPM leanspot, vaccuum leak in the throttle body!


  5. #25
    Beams Owners Group Lion_HUN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 16 Times in 15 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    Lion_HUN     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Nice

  6. #26
    RST
    RST is offline
    Beams Owners Group RST's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Inverness, Scotland
    Posts
    479
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    RST     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Car Owner: RST
    Car Type: 1993 SW20 Rev 2 GT-i T-Bar with 1997 BEAMS transplant
    Engine Type: 3SGE BEAMS Red Top
    MAX HP @ RPM: 195.7Bhp @6,906rpm
    MAX Torque @ RPM: 159.0lbf @ 5,978RPM
    Modifications:
    SARD induction kit
    Blue Flame S/S exhaust
    Blue Flame de-cat pipe
    CAMCON (planned as of 4.10.2007)
    VMAX torque brace (planned as of 4.10.2007)


    ...the gods must be smiling on me!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #27
    Beams Owners Group SW20.dk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    SW20.dk     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    0
    Car owner: Bo Uhrskov
    Car type: Toyota MR2 SW20
    engine type: 3SGE VVTI Beams
    max HP @ RPM: 195 Hk @ 6500, at flywheel
    max torque @ RPM: 230 Nm @ 4600, at flywheel
    relevant mods:
    ?? Exhaust Manifold - see picture
    Remus exhaust
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by SW20.dk; 10-06-2007 at 12:23 PM.

  8. #28
    Beams OCD Support Group Roman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 58 Times in 38 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    Roman     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Ugh, why do some dynos insist on 'flywheel' horspower? It means less than nothing.


    Aaaah, I should really update this registry with the new results. Will do so tonight.

  9. #29
    Beams Owners Group puretone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Aruba, #1 BEAMS Engine on the Island
    Posts
    3,083
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 87 Times in 85 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    puretone     $ 200.00
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Car owner puretone
    Car type: ST184 Convertible
    engine type: BEAMS RedTop!!!
    max HP @ RPM: 198whp @ 6900
    max torque @ RPM: 167ft/lbs @ 6000
    relevant mods: intake air running thru skyline-size intercooler (air comes out cold as ice and the IC is there for future turbo project...) EGT, wideband O2, FAL fans on KOYO radiator with 1.5 bar TRD cap, Denso Iri's IK20, full 2.5 inch exhaust from flexpipe on to end can, 2.5 inch vibrantperformance resonator & muffler, swap out to titanium evo8 can from time to time, no catalytic converter
    A picture of the dyno plot if possible: no havey scan here

  10. #30
    Beams Owners Group da_horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    da_horse     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    0
    take a photo of the dyno sheet,
    but 198HP at the wheels? considering you have 200HP at the crank stock, thats a 2hp loss through drivetrain.

  11. #31
    0311
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    85
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    RageLtMan     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    0
    Nice curves, needs boost though. These things look like they'd be a blast @ autoX tracks or tight back road runs. Put your cars on a minor diet and you'll be more than competetive with the turbo guys.

  12. #32
    Beams Owners Group puretone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Aruba, #1 BEAMS Engine on the Island
    Posts
    3,083
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 87 Times in 85 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    puretone     $ 200.00
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by da_horse View Post
    take a photo of the dyno sheet,
    but 198HP at the wheels? considering you have 200HP at the crank stock, thats a 2hp loss through drivetrain.

    its adjusted for 20% loss thru drivetrain so it should be more like 170-160ish at the wheels, this dyno shop (the only one around...) doesn't show wheel-hp bc its lower so ppl think they got more power or something.....i do have some very light wheels on my rig which does help....

  13. #33
    RST
    RST is offline
    Beams Owners Group RST's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Inverness, Scotland
    Posts
    479
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    RST     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    max HP @ RPM: 195 Hk @ 6500
    ...what's Hk guys? Haven't seen that one before -are we comparing like for like figures here or what's the conversion into Bhp or KW? Also, I believe the red top is quoted at 200Ps, which equates to something like 197-198Hp unless I'm mistaken.

    its adjusted for 20% loss thru drivetrain
    ..can I just ask if that was a calculated loss? Some of the r/r days that appear in mags. in the UK just knock-off 20% but it's surprising to see the variation in losses when it's measured.

    Ugh, why do some dynos insist on 'flywheel' horspower? It means less than nothing.
    ...Actually I don't really give a stuff what mine's putting down at the rubber at the moment, that's a bit of a sweeping statement for me and not meaningless at all.

    Not shooting any one down or picking holes, it's interesting to see what everyone's getting. Personally I've always wondered what difference an intercooler would make just out of interest. Any chance we can get a before and after figure?

  14. #34
    Beams OCD Support Group Roman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 58 Times in 38 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    Roman     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    ...Actually I don't really give a stuff what mine's putting down at the rubber at the moment, that's a bit of a sweeping statement for me and not meaningless at all.
    I dont get what you're saying here.

    It sounds like you're saying that you DONT care about 'at the wheel' power (which is directly measured, and indisputable), but you DO care about supposed 'flywheel horsepower', which is the 'at the wheels' figure plus an imaginary percentage, plucked out of the air by the dyno operator.

    Assuming you were concerned with a rough estimate of 'at the engine' power, 15% would be a more realistic percentage to add to the 'wheels' power figure.

    And yes, power at the engine is well and truly irrelevant.

    Lets say that you had two different engine/gearbox combos to choose from for a particular car.

    One was a 200hp engine, mated to a gearbox which allowed it to have 180hp at the wheels.

    the next engine is a 220hp engine, with a gearbox with marmelade and sand used as gearbox oil, which means it's still got 180hp ATW.

    The 220hp engine aint gonna be any faster if it's only got the same HP ATW.

    The reality is, that there's no way to measure flywheel horsepower with any degree of accuracy, apart from on an engine dyno. Anything else is mere speculation. And irrelevant anyway, it's the power that you can get to the wheels which is important.

    P.S. I reccomend checking out some of the power/dyno articles down the page of pumaracing.co.uk

  15. #35
    RST
    RST is offline
    Beams Owners Group RST's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Inverness, Scotland
    Posts
    479
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    RST     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Roman,

    I agree with what you're saying and I agree that allot of club dyno runs seem to just add on 20% or 15% on an ad-hoc basis with no explanation. This is a "plucked" figure -no mistake and the most effective way for f/wheel power is on an engine dyno but that's allot of work and you can maybe accept an inacuracy measuring it another way. Perhaps my own mis-interpretation but I've extracted this from the Dastek web site page.

    I understand that you use a coast down test to determine flywheel power. Why, when wheel power is what makes you go?



    The problem with measuring wheel power only, is that many factors can affect the wheel power output - tyre design, temperature and pressure, wheel alignments, gear box oil, viscosity temperature and level, wheel speed, final drive ratios etc.



    As an example; take two very similar cars with similar modifications, both are tested on a 'wheel horse power only' dyno, Car A has 12 Bhp more at the wheels than Car B. The owner of Car B and/or the dyno operator begin looking for problems with the turbo chargers, ECU calibrations, CAM timing etc. If the test had been carried out on the Dastek Dyno, the coast down test would have revealed the transmission loss would have appeared excessively high, thus taking the focus away from the engine fault and pointing us in the direction if the drive line problem. The fault was in fact a partially seized brake caliper, which was converting the power into heat.
    Dastek Dynamometers - Frequently asked questions

    ...now if this is crap then fair enough but I have read the theory in better detail ages ago and seemed OK engineering wise at the time.

    I'm just back from Cambridge and spoke to Patrick at Rogue yesterday afternoon about finding a competent dyno centre to do some proper work. I think there's a place in Tewkesbury which has a Mustang dyno which I think is highly rated. I'm thinking a 1,200 mile round trip there early next year is better than faffing about on others. I believe this can simulate a Dastek dyno also, so I can look at tuning some mods, then doing a final "Dastek" power run to see a comparison from my first run a few weeks ago.

    ...My comment still stands -and this is what I think we should be clear on is are we considering the same units, PS doesn't equal Bhp but I can't find a conversion figure yet (surely we shouldn't quote 200Bhp for the BEAMS -it's 200PS or about 197-198Bhp?) . And what on earth's an HK -I'm an engineer and never heard of that unit before, I can't find it searching the internet so far?

  16. #36
    Beams Owners Group SW20.dk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    SW20.dk     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RST View Post
    And what on earth's an HK -I'm an engineer and never heard of that unit before, I can't find it searching the internet so far?
    Sorry..

    HK is danish for HP. HK=HP

  17. #37
    RST
    RST is offline
    Beams Owners Group RST's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Inverness, Scotland
    Posts
    479
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    RST     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Ahh, brilliant -as simple as that, thanks for clarifying!

    Richard


    ...learn something new every day
    Last edited by RST; 10-24-2007 at 12:34 PM.

  18. #38
    WFX
    WFX is offline
    Beams Owners Group WFX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    352
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    WFX     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    0
    Try this little converter, I use it all the time and it works perfectly:

    Unit Converter


  19. The Following User Says Thank You to WFX For This Useful Post:

    RST (10-28-2007)

  20. #39
    Beams OCD Support Group Roman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 58 Times in 38 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    Roman     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I understand that you use a coast down test to determine flywheel power. Why, when wheel power is what makes you go?

    The problem with measuring wheel power only, is that many factors can affect the wheel power output - tyre design, temperature and pressure, wheel alignments, gear box oil, viscosity temperature and level, wheel speed, final drive ratios etc.
    Exactly, there's a lot more variables which lead to wheel horse power... Which is why knowing engine/flywheel HP is even more useless.

    If you've got 10 more flywheel HP than someone else, but they've got 5 more HP at the wheels, what's the point, apart from bragging rights? If you lose 5whp because you stuck on some 19" chrome wheels, then that directly affects the performance of your car, so it's what's relevant.


    As an example; take two very similar cars with similar modifications, both are tested on a 'wheel horse power only' dyno, Car A has 12 Bhp more at the wheels than Car B.
    The owner of Car B and/or the dyno operator begin looking for problems with the turbo chargers, ECU calibrations, CAM timing etc. If the test had been carried out on the Dastek Dyno, the coast down test would have revealed the transmission loss would have appeared excessively high, thus taking the focus away from the engine fault and pointing us in the direction if the drive line problem. The fault was in fact a partially seized brake caliper, which was converting the power into heat.
    So how exactly do they measure coast down losses?
    If they've got the engine in gear, then they're effectively 'engine braking', as the vaccuum in the cylinders resists the turning motion of the drivetrain/wheels/etc. So the coastdown figure would change based on what type/displacement of engine that you've got, how heavy your flywheel is, etc etc... It's hardly indicative of drivetrain losses.

    If they do this while the engine is out of gear, then... It's hardly representative of drivetrain losses either is it?

    I'm not sure if you guys work on your own cars, but I'd know well before taking my car to the dyno that I had a jammed caliper, or a similar fault.

    I can see the benefits of measuring coast down losses or whatever, but I dont see it as being at all relevant to the power figure while accellerating.

  21. #40
    WFX
    WFX is offline
    Beams Owners Group WFX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    352
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
    Total Contributions For

    WFX     $ 0.00
    Feedback Score
    0
    Car Owner: Wayne Siviour
    Car Type: 1993 Toyota Celica ST184
    Engine Type: 3SGE BEAMS Red Top
    MAX HP @ RPM: 147.2HP @ 6800RPM
    Modifications:
    Blitz SUS Cold Air Intake
    Phoenix Exhaust Manifold
    Full 2 1/2" Straight Through Exhaust System
    JUN Lightweight Flywheel
    TRD Clutch Cover & Disc
    Apexi SAFC Neo
    Walbro 255 Fuel Pump



    AFR needs to be leaned out a little in the higher rev ranges but other then that its an extra 18ish HP then last time so its definately getting there! Might play around with this exhuast setup before moving to QUADS!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •