BNR Stage 3 - #'s don't add up.
05-10-12, 06:14 AM
#33
Haha yeah they don't call them "ego jets" for nothing. Mustang dynos always read lower. Idk if the older bnrs would make that big of a difference though. If stock turbos or 99 specs with the same setup should put out higher numbers than that. I guess it depends on elevation too, but my car was tuned in the mountains of north carolina so I was pretty high.
05-10-12, 07:11 AM
#34
Original Gangster/Rotary!
iTrader: (213)
If the car pulls like a bat out of hell, then leave it alone. Dyno numbers don't mean jack anyway. Go hit the drag strip for some trap speeds or time yourself in the 40 to 140 mph spring, or 60 to 130 etc.
05-10-12, 04:10 PM
#36
rotary sensei
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to know how much power your car is making and if it's operating correctly, including afr's etc. find a reputable shop with a dynojet and do a couple pulls. You can be sure the secondary turbo is coming online as it should and you can see if the car is operating correctly.
Just make sure the hp and torque curves cross at 5250.
Just make sure the hp and torque curves cross at 5250.
05-14-12, 06:19 AM
#41
Actually your HP and Torque are the same at 5252rpm, both are about 225. There is nothing wrong with your chart or the dyno, it is just the way the graph is scaled.
If you look at your HP & TQ scales they are different. Some dynos automatically change the scaling to make the graph easier to read with the peak hp and tq in the same area of the chart. On the chart above if both sides were scaled from 50-275 the HP and TQ lines would cross at 5252rpm.
If you look at your HP & TQ scales they are different. Some dynos automatically change the scaling to make the graph easier to read with the peak hp and tq in the same area of the chart. On the chart above if both sides were scaled from 50-275 the HP and TQ lines would cross at 5252rpm.
Last edited by Banzai-Racing; 05-14-12 at 06:21 AM.
05-14-12, 07:21 AM
#42
I won't let go
Dang,
Sorry...Dong...
Sorry...Dan....I mean Don....
What you don`t realize is that you had BNRs already and replaced them with a stock set.
On a serious note, and I don`t know how much weight can be taken into account here, but I`d be curious to see your map from the old setup and the new. But I`d also be curious to know what differences there are between the dynos. Not all are created equal so perhaps go back to the original dyno to see if there is any significant difference. What were the weather conditions?
When you say last year, was it last year or when we were all together two years ago?
Sorry...Dong...
Sorry...Dan....I mean Don....
What you don`t realize is that you had BNRs already and replaced them with a stock set.
On a serious note, and I don`t know how much weight can be taken into account here, but I`d be curious to see your map from the old setup and the new. But I`d also be curious to know what differences there are between the dynos. Not all are created equal so perhaps go back to the original dyno to see if there is any significant difference. What were the weather conditions?
When you say last year, was it last year or when we were all together two years ago?
05-14-12, 09:21 AM
#43
r074r'/ |\|00B
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: KC, KS
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually your HP and Torque are the same at 5252rpm, both are about 225. There is nothing wrong with your chart or the dyno, it is just the way the graph is scaled.
If you look at your HP & TQ scales they are different. Some dynos automatically change the scaling to make the graph easier to read with the peak hp and tq in the same area of the chart. On the chart above if both sides were scaled from 50-275 the HP and TQ lines would cross at 5252rpm.
If you look at your HP & TQ scales they are different. Some dynos automatically change the scaling to make the graph easier to read with the peak hp and tq in the same area of the chart. On the chart above if both sides were scaled from 50-275 the HP and TQ lines would cross at 5252rpm.
Sorry for the thread jack Dan!
05-14-12, 11:18 AM
#44
Dang,
Sorry...Dong...
Sorry...Dan....I mean Don....
What you don`t realize is that you had BNRs already and replaced them with a stock set.
On a serious note, and I don`t know how much weight can be taken into account here, but I`d be curious to see your map from the old setup and the new. But I`d also be curious to know what differences there are between the dynos. Not all are created equal so perhaps go back to the original dyno to see if there is any significant difference. What were the weather conditions?
When you say last year, was it last year or when we were all together two years ago?
Sorry...Dong...
Sorry...Dan....I mean Don....
What you don`t realize is that you had BNRs already and replaced them with a stock set.
On a serious note, and I don`t know how much weight can be taken into account here, but I`d be curious to see your map from the old setup and the new. But I`d also be curious to know what differences there are between the dynos. Not all are created equal so perhaps go back to the original dyno to see if there is any significant difference. What were the weather conditions?
When you say last year, was it last year or when we were all together two years ago?
You have a PM...
05-15-12, 09:39 AM
#45
F'n Newbie...
iTrader: (6)
Not to be rude, but I think that the dyno operator may have fudged those numbers to make you feel good. Twins will NOT make 358whp at 12psi, regardless of how happy the motor is, you're talking a (roughly) 140whp increase for 2psi of boost. BNRs or no BNRs, that just ain't happening.
05-15-12, 12:36 PM
#48
rotary sensei
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5252 is the constant, where tq=hp
"We need to get to horsepower, which is 550 foot-pounds per second, using torque (pound-feet) and engine speed (RPM). If we divide the 550 foot-pounds by the 0.10472 radians per second (engine speed), we get 550/0.10472, which equals 5,252.
So if you multiply torque (in pound-feet) by engine speed (in RPM) and divide the product by 5,252, RPM is converted to "radians per second" and you can get from torque to horsepower -- from "pound-feet" to "foot-pounds per second."
05-15-12, 02:00 PM
#50
So back to my point.... I don't think it is my motor, at 17 paid on bnr twins I made 12hp more uncorrected on the same synopsis at the rear wheels. Whatever that calculates out to is what it is.
Now another question that has come to mind. Does tuning timing on stock ports vs street/bridge ports make a big difference. In everything I read it sounds as if it does, as does having a larger IC etc. I have seen a lot of theory on power discussing. Timing splits, which I understand, but not as much around how and why you would ignite with more or less timing with each rotor. I am a member of chuck westbroks pfc group, now arghx, and I wonder if maybe I need to read on timing theory again. If nothing else to realize my exhuast and stock ports are holding me back.
Now another question that has come to mind. Does tuning timing on stock ports vs street/bridge ports make a big difference. In everything I read it sounds as if it does, as does having a larger IC etc. I have seen a lot of theory on power discussing. Timing splits, which I understand, but not as much around how and why you would ignite with more or less timing with each rotor. I am a member of chuck westbroks pfc group, now arghx, and I wonder if maybe I need to read on timing theory again. If nothing else to realize my exhuast and stock ports are holding me back.