2004 stock turbo, E85, road dyno at 5500'
Sep 6, 2010, 07:54 PM
#1
2004 stock turbo, E85, road dyno at 5500'
I know there's a bunch of threads about stock turbo E85 cars, but there aren't that many at high altitude. The following data is at approximately 5500', in Albuquerque NM.
Power mods:
Perrin Intake
OEM MR DV (not-crushed)
Helix camshafts
Helix V2 cam gears (-2,-1)
Ported, coated OE exhaust manifold
Coated Megan o2 housing
3" downpipe, 3" test pipe, 3" catback
Walbro 255 fuel pump
FIC 1050 injectors
TephraMod 94170715
A couple of things to note.
1) This is not a dyno queen or drag car. It's a dedicated track and autocross car. I take it to 20+ events a season. Consequently, it's tuned to last, not get the absolute highest torque/power numbers.
2) Boost in the logs is correct, but not adjusted for altitude. 25 psi in the logs would read 27.3 psi on a boost guage.
3) I have to run significantly less timing in the midrange than most other folks seem to have to. More timing quickly and dramatically produces knock there. Up top, it is advanced until the plot produces no more power.
4) Two plots are provided using Brad Barnhill's new Virtual Dyno software: one uncorrected and one using the standard SAE correction factors. I used real data from the weather station _at_ the site I use for doing pulls. Because of the altitude, this correction is huge. Accordingly, these charts are very close to what my car produced on a dynojet back in the spring.
Questions are welcome. If folks want, I can also provide the full Evo 8 rom image. You read that right, you can have the whole tune if you want it.
d
EDIT: corrected graph updated.
EDIT2: The car trapped 107 at Albuquerque Dragway (5295') at 75 degrees.
Power mods:
Perrin Intake
OEM MR DV (not-crushed)
Helix camshafts
Helix V2 cam gears (-2,-1)
Ported, coated OE exhaust manifold
Coated Megan o2 housing
3" downpipe, 3" test pipe, 3" catback
Walbro 255 fuel pump
FIC 1050 injectors
TephraMod 94170715
A couple of things to note.
1) This is not a dyno queen or drag car. It's a dedicated track and autocross car. I take it to 20+ events a season. Consequently, it's tuned to last, not get the absolute highest torque/power numbers.
2) Boost in the logs is correct, but not adjusted for altitude. 25 psi in the logs would read 27.3 psi on a boost guage.
3) I have to run significantly less timing in the midrange than most other folks seem to have to. More timing quickly and dramatically produces knock there. Up top, it is advanced until the plot produces no more power.
4) Two plots are provided using Brad Barnhill's new Virtual Dyno software: one uncorrected and one using the standard SAE correction factors. I used real data from the weather station _at_ the site I use for doing pulls. Because of the altitude, this correction is huge. Accordingly, these charts are very close to what my car produced on a dynojet back in the spring.
Questions are welcome. If folks want, I can also provide the full Evo 8 rom image. You read that right, you can have the whole tune if you want it.
d
EDIT: corrected graph updated.
EDIT2: The car trapped 107 at Albuquerque Dragway (5295') at 75 degrees.
Last edited by donour; Sep 18, 2010 at 07:59 AM.
Sep 6, 2010, 10:10 PM
#3
Where did you do this log? Thats pretty wavy for 30 smoothing.
So 316whp without correction? Pretty mild even for e85 and a track car. I'd put a few degree's in it, if your getting knock in places your timing might be off in other parts of the map.
So 316whp without correction? Pretty mild even for e85 and a track car. I'd put a few degree's in it, if your getting knock in places your timing might be off in other parts of the map.
Sep 6, 2010, 10:21 PM
#4
On a very flat private road, at/near the Albuquerque airport. I thought it was wavy too, some of that might be the tach signal to the ecu. It's very, very wavy when unfiltered.
EDIT: I think some of that is from the version of virtual dyno (1.04) That waviness goes away even at smoothing=3 on newer version. As always, caveat emptor. Plot the log file with your favorite power plot tool.
The altitude is a killer. Remember this is a 9.8cm^2 turbo. It's weak sauce up top.
Where? Anywhere between 4000 and 5500, adding timing results in knock and more timing getting pulled than was added. Above 6000, more timing is probably past MBT. Power goes down...
d
EDIT: I think some of that is from the version of virtual dyno (1.04) That waviness goes away even at smoothing=3 on newer version. As always, caveat emptor. Plot the log file with your favorite power plot tool.
So 316whp without correction? Pretty mild even for e85 and a track car.
I'd put a few degree's in it, if your getting knock in places your timing might be off in other parts of the map.
d
Last edited by donour; Sep 7, 2010 at 10:09 AM.
Sep 7, 2010, 11:42 PM
#7
What you targeting for fueling?
You can run a decent more timing at altitude then people can at sea level. You might need to dumb down your knock filters because you might not be getting knock, I have no experience with those cams though so can't say too much.
8 turbo does suck but I think you could still get 325-335 pretty conservatively. E85 is pretty safe too. Have you checked its actual content cause some places e85 is really more like e75 or less even in the summer.
You can run a decent more timing at altitude then people can at sea level. You might need to dumb down your knock filters because you might not be getting knock, I have no experience with those cams though so can't say too much.
8 turbo does suck but I think you could still get 325-335 pretty conservatively. E85 is pretty safe too. Have you checked its actual content cause some places e85 is really more like e75 or less even in the summer.
Trending Topics
Sep 8, 2010, 09:31 AM
#9
High 11s under full load. As you can see it's in the 11.6-11.8 range.
Already done that as much as I feel comfortable. Around peak load, adding more timing quickly produces knocksum and removing reduces knock sum. It's really hard to listen with detonation cans at full load on the road.
Other users from my source report 81-82 % ethanol content based on the GM sensor.
d
You can run a decent more timing at altitude then people can at sea level. You might need to dumb down your knock filters because you might not be getting knock,
8 turbo does suck but I think you could still get 325-335 pretty conservatively. E85 is pretty safe too. Have you checked its actual content cause some places e85 is really more like e75 or less even in the summer.
d
Sep 8, 2010, 12:16 PM
#11
There's a worksheet here:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/barcorrecthcalc.html
The actual electronic baro reading would have been something like 24.01. The one they send to the national weather service is either a) a relative reading or b) corrected to sea level. At my house the absolute pressure is about 12.2 psi. That's where the HUGE correction comes from.
As noted, the boost gauge is the same because it reads relative pressure.
d
EDIT: here's an example of a TV weather station on the other side of town. It posts RAW weather readings. http://www.wunderground.com/weathers...?ID=KNMALBUQ90
Last edited by donour; Sep 8, 2010 at 12:19 PM.
Sep 8, 2010, 04:36 PM
#12
The weather station values are corrected for elevation. I took the corrected value from the airport nearby -- something like 29.50 -- and applied an aviation-type correction.
There's a worksheet here:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/barcorrecthcalc.html
The actual electronic baro reading would have been something like 24.01. The one they send to the national weather service is either a) a relative reading or b) corrected to sea level. At my house the absolute pressure is about 12.2 psi. That's where the HUGE correction comes from.
As noted, the boost gauge is the same because it reads relative pressure.
d
EDIT: here's an example of a TV weather station on the other side of town. It posts RAW weather readings. http://www.wunderground.com/weathers...?ID=KNMALBUQ90
There's a worksheet here:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/barcorrecthcalc.html
The actual electronic baro reading would have been something like 24.01. The one they send to the national weather service is either a) a relative reading or b) corrected to sea level. At my house the absolute pressure is about 12.2 psi. That's where the HUGE correction comes from.
As noted, the boost gauge is the same because it reads relative pressure.
d
EDIT: here's an example of a TV weather station on the other side of town. It posts RAW weather readings. http://www.wunderground.com/weathers...?ID=KNMALBUQ90
But really I (& most others) are against using weather/elevation correction. Your cars is NOT making 400 HP where you live/drive. Its making the UNCORRECTED number. Inflating it doesn't mean your car is making more ACTUAL power.
Sorry if this comes off wrong. Its just me and corrected numbers dont get along
Sep 8, 2010, 05:18 PM
#13
Really, the un-corrected value is the only one that matters. That's why I posted it first. The only reason I presented a corrected one is because most dynojet plots you see up there (or in colorado, or utah, or whataver-mountain-country) are corrected. As per my first post the corrected one is very close to what an actual dynojet read on my car a few months ago. The very fact that is it "corrected" means that it is only a multiple of power delivered.
To me, it doesn't matter one way or the other. I brag about lap times, not dyno sheets
cheers
d
Sep 8, 2010, 05:51 PM
#15
I guess...
There are, in fact interesting features in it. That's why I posted it. It's the peak numbers that a meaningless, but that's what folks seem to all caught up with.
Nobody seems to notice the spool. It actually spools pretty fast for this altitude. On the stock car, I wasn't getting 20 lbs of boost until like 4900 RPM in third!
d
There are, in fact interesting features in it. That's why I posted it. It's the peak numbers that a meaningless, but that's what folks seem to all caught up with.
Nobody seems to notice the spool. It actually spools pretty fast for this altitude. On the stock car, I wasn't getting 20 lbs of boost until like 4900 RPM in third!
d