400kw Mitsubishi Magna / Diamante
Oct 6, 2003, 01:21 AM
#16
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australind, Western Australia
Posts: 1,510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mitsiman
How's this
How's this
Thanks Heaps.. i was getting confused that did you have the Twin Turbo, or Supercharger on
All good !
Pete
Oct 6, 2003, 05:27 AM
#17
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Dave, I am sitting here almost amused from your claims on drive-train loss. I have just done some very simple calculations to verify your theory and I am sorry to say it does not check out. Taking a 206kw Evolution VI Lancer now putting your theory to work (60% loss) you would get 82.4kw at the wheels. Now a standard 1.8L Lancer has 86kw now taking 25% you would get a result of 64.5kw at the wheels. I know for a fact that there is not 17.9kw difference in power at the wheels between these two machines. I can understand why you like the high power loss through the drive-train as it makes your improvements look even more impressive to your customers. I have seen many a dyno result in my time and I am absolutely floored by your claims. I feel ALL the numbers are far too high, it should not be guess work.
Oct 6, 2003, 01:50 PM
#18
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mackay (Qld)
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mitsiman assistance
Mitsiman
Something to make life easier for you with the dyno chart, if after the chart is generated just copy it and paste into a photo editing application and then save as JPEG file format. You can email that back to you business/home PC and post it up here
I like seeing big numbers so I know this will be a ripper
Something to make life easier for you with the dyno chart, if after the chart is generated just copy it and paste into a photo editing application and then save as JPEG file format. You can email that back to you business/home PC and post it up here
I like seeing big numbers so I know this will be a ripper
Oct 6, 2003, 05:13 PM
#19
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australind, Western Australia
Posts: 1,510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mivec
Hello Dave, I am sitting here almost amused from your claims on drive-train loss. I have just done some very simple calculations to verify your theory and I am sorry to say it does not check out. Taking a 206kw Evolution VI Lancer now putting your theory to work (60% loss) you would get 82.4kw at the wheels. Now a standard 1.8L Lancer has 86kw now taking 25% you would get a result of 64.5kw at the wheels. I know for a fact that there is not 17.9kw difference in power at the wheels between these two machines. I can understand why you like the high power loss through the drive-train as it makes your improvements look even more impressive to your customers. I have seen many a dyno result in my time and I am absolutely floored by your claims. I feel ALL the numbers are far too high, it should not be guess work.
Hello Dave, I am sitting here almost amused from your claims on drive-train loss. I have just done some very simple calculations to verify your theory and I am sorry to say it does not check out. Taking a 206kw Evolution VI Lancer now putting your theory to work (60% loss) you would get 82.4kw at the wheels. Now a standard 1.8L Lancer has 86kw now taking 25% you would get a result of 64.5kw at the wheels. I know for a fact that there is not 17.9kw difference in power at the wheels between these two machines. I can understand why you like the high power loss through the drive-train as it makes your improvements look even more impressive to your customers. I have seen many a dyno result in my time and I am absolutely floored by your claims. I feel ALL the numbers are far too high, it should not be guess work.
Mivec, also remember, the EVO is AWD, and the Lancer and Magna are FWD.. an AWD car has more loss then the FWD cars when put on the dyno..
But seeing 60% loss on an evo seems poor, as usually its around the 40% mark..
Oct 6, 2003, 05:38 PM
#20
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I am going on industry standards here and thesea are an average. It is a well known fact that the "Factory 206kw EVO" is not 206kw, but well in the 220+kw range.
I have asked my dyno man to see if he can email me a jpeg copy of the dyno printout and awaiting his reply.
With regards to a 1.8 lancer I can absoloulty confirm there is around a 25% drivetrain loss. As an average the KW figure at the flywheel on a 1.8 lancer is equivelent to the HP figure at the front wheels. This when worked out on a calculator works out to around a 25% drive train loss. This is the general rule of thumb when calculating FWD horsepower levels. Now it may not be 100% accurate you could be out 3 - 5hp but it is close enough to make teh point.
Any flywheel horsepower is always going to be an estimate as there is no real way short of an engine dyno to really calculate what you have at the flywheel. You can estimate but thats all it would ever be.
So to clarify with our magna let me confirm this then.
My Magna at 8 psi boost with a 450hp fuel pump is producing 370hp at the front wheels.
With the larger fuel pump being a 550hp fuel pump we expect it to hit around 400 - 420hp at the front wheels on around 10 psi boost.
According to your calculations what would this be at the flywheel? Does it really matter as all we care about is waht is at the front wheels anyway which is where it all ends.
The minute I get the dyno result I would be more than happy to show it to everyone - already several members of some locaal perth MOGWA members have seen the dyno report so it is not something I am making up here.
David THomas
www.rpw.com.au
I have asked my dyno man to see if he can email me a jpeg copy of the dyno printout and awaiting his reply.
With regards to a 1.8 lancer I can absoloulty confirm there is around a 25% drivetrain loss. As an average the KW figure at the flywheel on a 1.8 lancer is equivelent to the HP figure at the front wheels. This when worked out on a calculator works out to around a 25% drive train loss. This is the general rule of thumb when calculating FWD horsepower levels. Now it may not be 100% accurate you could be out 3 - 5hp but it is close enough to make teh point.
Any flywheel horsepower is always going to be an estimate as there is no real way short of an engine dyno to really calculate what you have at the flywheel. You can estimate but thats all it would ever be.
So to clarify with our magna let me confirm this then.
My Magna at 8 psi boost with a 450hp fuel pump is producing 370hp at the front wheels.
With the larger fuel pump being a 550hp fuel pump we expect it to hit around 400 - 420hp at the front wheels on around 10 psi boost.
According to your calculations what would this be at the flywheel? Does it really matter as all we care about is waht is at the front wheels anyway which is where it all ends.
The minute I get the dyno result I would be more than happy to show it to everyone - already several members of some locaal perth MOGWA members have seen the dyno report so it is not something I am making up here.
David THomas
www.rpw.com.au
Oct 7, 2003, 01:05 AM
#21
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all Pete (Rexhunta) did you even read my post? I commented on AWD Vs FWD using the figures provided and made a comparison.
Now using your figures again Dave (Mitsiman) of the 60% loss for AWD cars, I will take a stock AWD WRX with 160kw at the fly, and compare it to a stock FWD 1.8L Lancer with 86kw at the fly. Now with the 25% loss the FWD Lancer will have 64.5kw at the wheels. The AWD WRX will have 64kw at the wheels. Now you can not be serious that a stock Lancer has more power at the wheels than a stock WRX.
I am sure you know Dave that dyno results will never be accurate. There is no such thing as an exact result, dynos are only good for tuning purposes. Now by no way am I against you developing products and telling us all how good these developments are. But you must surely know that some claims just should not be made.
Now using your figures again Dave (Mitsiman) of the 60% loss for AWD cars, I will take a stock AWD WRX with 160kw at the fly, and compare it to a stock FWD 1.8L Lancer with 86kw at the fly. Now with the 25% loss the FWD Lancer will have 64.5kw at the wheels. The AWD WRX will have 64kw at the wheels. Now you can not be serious that a stock Lancer has more power at the wheels than a stock WRX.
I am sure you know Dave that dyno results will never be accurate. There is no such thing as an exact result, dynos are only good for tuning purposes. Now by no way am I against you developing products and telling us all how good these developments are. But you must surely know that some claims just should not be made.
Oct 7, 2003, 01:16 AM
#22
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australind, Western Australia
Posts: 1,510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mivec
First of all Pete (Rexhunta) did you even read my post? I commented on AWD Vs FWD using the figures provided and made a comparison.
Now using your figures again Dave (Mitsiman) of the 60% loss for AWD cars, I will take a stock AWD WRX with 160kw at the fly, and compare it to a stock FWD 1.8L Lancer with 86kw at the fly. Now with the 25% loss the FWD Lancer will have 64.5kw at the wheels. The AWD WRX will have 64kw at the wheels. Now you can not be serious that a stock Lancer has more power at the wheels than a stock WRX.
I am sure you know Dave that dyno results will never be accurate. There is no such thing as an exact result, dynos are only good for tuning purposes. Now by no way am I against you developing products and telling us all how good these developments are. But you must surely know that some claims just should not be made.
First of all Pete (Rexhunta) did you even read my post? I commented on AWD Vs FWD using the figures provided and made a comparison.
Now using your figures again Dave (Mitsiman) of the 60% loss for AWD cars, I will take a stock AWD WRX with 160kw at the fly, and compare it to a stock FWD 1.8L Lancer with 86kw at the fly. Now with the 25% loss the FWD Lancer will have 64.5kw at the wheels. The AWD WRX will have 64kw at the wheels. Now you can not be serious that a stock Lancer has more power at the wheels than a stock WRX.
I am sure you know Dave that dyno results will never be accurate. There is no such thing as an exact result, dynos are only good for tuning purposes. Now by no way am I against you developing products and telling us all how good these developments are. But you must surely know that some claims just should not be made.
Oct 7, 2003, 01:57 AM
#24
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There is a big difference between a car running 64kw at two wheels V a car running 64kw at four wheels.
Secondly - and remember I am working on an industry standard that is accepted amongst many of the engine and dyno builders in WA, a four wheel drive vehicle runs through two differentials so would it not make sense that the drive train loss is going to be at least twice that of a FWD vehicle
That being the case then as said - I know on the mitusbishi vehicles they do run a 25% drvietrain loss on the lancers / magna vehicles.
I also know for a fact that commodore and falcons with gearbox and rear differential run on a 40% drivetrain loss.
So it would be fair to assume that somewhere between 40 - 60% drivetrain loss is a fair assumption on a AWD vehicle. There are not a lot of AWD vehicles in the mitsubishi range that we see in perth so again I am working on a known average.
At the end of the day - and this question I do ask - what does al lthis ahve to do with our reports on our magna vehicle?
Secondly - and remember I am working on an industry standard that is accepted amongst many of the engine and dyno builders in WA, a four wheel drive vehicle runs through two differentials so would it not make sense that the drive train loss is going to be at least twice that of a FWD vehicle
That being the case then as said - I know on the mitusbishi vehicles they do run a 25% drvietrain loss on the lancers / magna vehicles.
I also know for a fact that commodore and falcons with gearbox and rear differential run on a 40% drivetrain loss.
So it would be fair to assume that somewhere between 40 - 60% drivetrain loss is a fair assumption on a AWD vehicle. There are not a lot of AWD vehicles in the mitsubishi range that we see in perth so again I am working on a known average.
At the end of the day - and this question I do ask - what does al lthis ahve to do with our reports on our magna vehicle?
Oct 7, 2003, 03:49 AM
#25
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mitsiman
At the end of the day - and this question I do ask - what does al lthis ahve to do with our reports on our magna vehicle?
At the end of the day - and this question I do ask - what does al lthis ahve to do with our reports on our magna vehicle?
Your car is a beast and it's been an interesting evolution to follow. Just wished I lived over there to check it out. Oh well, I'll catch up with Manual when I'm over there next time and hopefully Mitsu will have made available a manual AWD for you to bust a groove with.
Oct 7, 2003, 04:21 AM
#26
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think it would have everything to do with the Magna vehicle. Reputation is everything and you are only as good as your last performance. I just think it would be far more sensible for you to understate figures than to overstate them. From a marketing point of view yes great to say we have that magic 400kw number, but something to also think about is you might sell five, ten even twenty kits, but what will happen if they are not absolutely correct? I can tell you that there will be unhappy consumers who will pass on negative information. Now say if you market a 350kw kit which is easily that and more, and you sell a couple less in the beginning because it does not have that extra wow factor. Now the customers will purchase this kit and be more than happy and tell more and more people about it. I know all of this because it happens in the market place everyday, and I have done copious amounts of research on the topic so I have seen it first hand. I am not trying to be negative, in fact I would love to see your products reach a higher level and for this reason I felt I would say something.
Oct 7, 2003, 08:17 AM
#27
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thats fair enough comment and If I get ratty sometimes - understand that I am on a lot of forums and you tend to get definsive sometimes.
The main thing to remember about our magna which is why I can say that a 400kw package is no problem is that the engine is built ot handle an easy 14 psi boost.
Currentyly we are only on 8 psi and have 360hp at the wheels. Running 10 psi which is all we will be able to run with an internal pump 550hp pump was the biggest we could find as far as an internal pump is concerned, we should hit around 400 - 420hp at the wheels.
I ran some quick numbers and working on a 15% drivetrain loss 400 - 420 is around 400kw at the flywheel.
I guess the point is we know the engine is more htan capable of 400kw at the flywheel if we feed it enough fuel and it would be able to do that under 14 psi boost.
We won't take the car above whatever the limit of the internal pump is as I don't plan on going that far with fuel pumps running surge tanks etc.
The heading of this discussion was not really specifically about this one car doing a particular package of 400kw, but the fact that a Mitsubishi vehicle, not generally seen as a performance vehicle will easily produce this high level of horsepower, with a relativly low boost level when compared ot other vehicle sproducing the same horsepower but iwth much higher boost levels.
But I do acknowledge your points - it is easy to get stuck into generalising everything and forums cna be bad for that. As for drivetrain losses at the end of the day every car / model is unique and whilst I can definitly qoute figures on the FWD range of the mitsubishi's, when we get beyond that things can get fuzzy.
David Thomas
www.rpw.com.au
The main thing to remember about our magna which is why I can say that a 400kw package is no problem is that the engine is built ot handle an easy 14 psi boost.
Currentyly we are only on 8 psi and have 360hp at the wheels. Running 10 psi which is all we will be able to run with an internal pump 550hp pump was the biggest we could find as far as an internal pump is concerned, we should hit around 400 - 420hp at the wheels.
I ran some quick numbers and working on a 15% drivetrain loss 400 - 420 is around 400kw at the flywheel.
I guess the point is we know the engine is more htan capable of 400kw at the flywheel if we feed it enough fuel and it would be able to do that under 14 psi boost.
We won't take the car above whatever the limit of the internal pump is as I don't plan on going that far with fuel pumps running surge tanks etc.
The heading of this discussion was not really specifically about this one car doing a particular package of 400kw, but the fact that a Mitsubishi vehicle, not generally seen as a performance vehicle will easily produce this high level of horsepower, with a relativly low boost level when compared ot other vehicle sproducing the same horsepower but iwth much higher boost levels.
But I do acknowledge your points - it is easy to get stuck into generalising everything and forums cna be bad for that. As for drivetrain losses at the end of the day every car / model is unique and whilst I can definitly qoute figures on the FWD range of the mitsubishi's, when we get beyond that things can get fuzzy.
David Thomas
www.rpw.com.au
Oct 7, 2003, 11:22 PM
#28
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries Dave, as I have said all along, I am always for development. I understand the points you have made and I know you understand mine, and we do have common ground. I agree forums can be a little limiting at times also.
Awwwwwwwww Comn
Oct 9, 2003, 08:08 PM
#30
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sorry having an eleterical problem think its a dud air flow meter which meant no tuning and we aer still working it out between other paying jobs.
Will updated ASAP
Will updated ASAP