crcain

Here is an example of a customer car done about a year ago.

Both graphs on VP Import, car is a GT35R 2.2 litre.

Norris Engine Dyno:



And then on a Dyno Dynamics in Shoot44 mode:



Bit hard to say how well they match. I'd say pretty well?

Full thread here: http://www.lancerregister.com/showthread.php?t=140934

PVD04

iTrader: (23)

I don't think they match at all. Peak torque is about 600-1000 RPM later on the chassis dyno. That same difference with the original car would make full boost around 4800 to 5200 RPM. Nothing overly impressive.

-Paul

crcain

Full boost for an 800 atw 42R at 4800-5200 rpm is not overly impressive?

And technically peak torque from the sheets I posted above is at 5200 rpm for both graphs as far as I can tell.

JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

Sorry my friend look again closer.

The engine dyno hits boost sooner but doesnt hit peak torque till almost crossover at 5200. The chassis dyno shows it halfway between 4.8k and 5.6k so that would be 5200 as well. The DD actually hits peak torque faster, though it sacrifices how much torque is before that I will admit.

hanahawaiian

iTrader: (10)

sick curves! bloody good job guys! FTW norris design at UK

EVOlutionary

iTrader: (38)

Are you blind? Peak torque on the chassis dyno is at 5200 rpm. Peak torque on the engine dyno is at 5300 rpm.

You say making full boost on a 42R around 5K is "Nothing overly impressive". Are you kidding? If that's nomal please point me to the dyno graphs. That is exceptionally impressive!

EVOlutionary

crcain

I'm not saying that an engine dyno graph is going to look identical to the chassis dyno, but I'm just showing from the example above it appears to be pretty close. I also doubt Norris, given his reputation, would run his very expensive engine dyno in a way that the engine behaved very differently than it would on the road.

PVD04

iTrader: (23)

I should have worded my post differently. When I said peak torque, what I really meant was where the torque begins to level off. Looking at the engine dyno that setup is making 90% of peak torque by 4300 RPM whereas on the chassis dyno it doesn't get there until close to 5000 RPM. The peak happens at the same point but the curve leading up to the peak is much better on the engine dyno. If the same happens with the original dyno then the area before peak torque would not be nearly as impressive.

-Paul

robertrinaustin

iTrader: (5)

The HUGE difference is the way the turbo spools which makes sense because the 42 graph is unreal for early torque. I'll use whp to demonstrate because the torque scales are different on the 35R graphs. The DD hits 200 whp about 1000 rpm later than the engine dyno, about 4400 rpm v. 3400 rpm.

The 42R graph shows 250 lb ft of torque at 3600 rpm and I've never seen a 35R make that, much less something bigger. Assuming 20% loss as on the 35R graphs from the engine dyno to the DD, though I think that's a little high, that means the engine dyno shows a 42 spooling the same as a much smaller 35R. I would bet it's similar to the 35R graphs and that it would hit 250 lb ft 1000 rpm later on the DD. What's interesting is both dynos seems to reach peak boost within 300 to 400 rpm of each other based on the 35R graphs, but the ramp up happens much later and much quicker on the DD. From my personal experience on the road logging my 35R, the DD is much closer to what my turbo spools like than the engine dyno.

PVD04

iTrader: (23)

Full boost with a 42R on a 2.37L engine around 5k is very good, but not Earth shattering. The engine dyno shows boost leveling off around 4200 RPM, which would be extremely impressive.

Peak torque may happen at the same point on both graphs, but the engine dyno shows significantly more power at all points left of peak torque. This makes the torque curve appear much broader than it is on the chassis dyno.

-Paul

EnzoFerrari

I notice 110 is usually the point where the absorber starts slipping on big power engines... When slipping power is less not more...

crcain

And for whatever reason I believe Simon stated the boost jumped in the end which perfectly explains the jump in power at the end. They posted a few pics today...

Liqquid

Looks great! Wonder how that'd do on the street

Indy Evo

iTrader: (41)

Enzo, Do you think it is possible when the absorber slips it lets the engine free spool for a moment and that is why the boost jumped and it made power in 300 RPM ? I know on high torque n/a applications I have seen a slip and the engine lost power but with the turbo what do you think. It almost looks like a slip and catch. I like the overall result in either case. crcrain could you ask Mr. Norris what he thinks happened and if he made another run after this one with the same result. Thank you, just wondering what happened and if it was it a 500 RPM step test.

2k4EvoVIII

iTrader: (15)

When i had my 2.4 with a 72mm turbo (little smaller then the 42R) I was getting full boost around 5500rpms. The setup was far from being dialed in perfectly and we were running a really small exhaust housing to get those numbers just FYI.

Chris