Dyno Horsepower

[Crazy Dave]

So has anyone put there car on a Dyno. If so how much do our little beasts manage to deliver with the inlet/exhaust mods (if you are willing to give over the info) at the wheels. Just curiuos as my stock standard road excel (standard exhaust and filter) still is quicker in a straight line than my rally car. I might need to get my wife away for a week or so and swap the engines over, but then there is the rego hassles. My rally engine is rebuilt with the block and head being decked slightly so has been guestimated to be about 10.2:1 compresion, has the pod and a free flowing exhaust. I don't know its weight yet but imagine it to be about the same as the road car, but maybe it is heavier as I can't understand why it is quicker. And this is done on a bit of road where we accelerate up this gentle hill and work out the time and speed as you past the second point and it is clear that it is faster. Maybe the new engine hadn't loosenned up yet and there is still more to come.

[Mooa42]

My intention is to put my current SOHC on the dyno before I change it to the DOHC to see what the difference is between the two in terms of where and when the torque and power peaks are.

Putting a roll cage in certainly slowed mine down, so I guess it makes it safer because now I'm not going to hit trees as fast!:rofl:

I will post my results when I get it done. (In Dec hopefully)

[Mooa42]

Finally put the SOHC motor on the dyno before I pulled it out on the weekend.

A massive brain shattering 43.7kw at the wheels!! Read it and weep! (you know you want one). 1897nm of thrust, (whatever that means), apparently according to the graph it was a lot flatter than most engines.

http://www.compellingeconomics.com.au/pics/dyno_SOHC_16_01_08.jpg

The motor was running in standard trim, 170,000ks on the clock, all as it came from the factory, exhausts, filters etc. Only real difference was that the tyres which were Autosport 175 x 70 x 13 rally tyres. The run was done in third gear.

I am in the process of putting in a 70,000k DOHC which I intend to try on the same dyno in standard trim and then try with a different rear muffler and different oil. I am not worrying about engine mods this year; I have to learn to drive first.

I will post figures when it is done.

Cheers
Tony

[Mooa42]

I have now run the twin-cam motor on the dyno and the results surprised me. It didn't feel that much different to me on the road but I have been told that this is because of the similar and flat tourque curve.

The only thing I have changed is the motor, box and engine mounts, (70,000k motor). The exhaust and inlet are the same I even used the same air filter and the same tyres, (only driven to the dyno and back). The oil in the two motors was also the same type.

So the results;
DOHC is 48.9kw in 3rd gear and
SOHC was 43.7kw in 3rd gear
by my calculations that's an increase of about 11.9%

It appears, (I'm guessing), that the twin cam is also lighter., (I'm only saying this because the ride hieght increased when I changed the engine. I did also move the battery which may have had some impact)

Do I think I will get better times because of the twin cam; I doubt it, I think it has got far more to do with confidence into corners and I suspect that even with 100% increase in kw my times would vary only slightly.


http://www.compellingeconomics.com.au/pics/dyno_DOHC_9_04_08.jpg

[kelvin]

That all looks a bit funny to me. I still work in bhp. But that means you have 65 bhp at the wheels. Say the standard motor has 100 bhp (approx), then that's a loss of 35% in the transmission. Depending on who you talk to, must would not offer more than 20% loss.
My Gemini rally car had around 72 bhp at the wheels. The Gemini has a cam. The Excel has 16 valves. I would expect similar if not more from the Excel. Don't know what the transmission losses, FWD compared to RWD are though. Interesting.

[John C]

Great report Tony well done:clap:

[Damo666]

It appears, (I'm guessing), that the twin cam is also lighter., (I'm only saying this because the ride hieght increased when I changed the engine. I did also move the battery which may have had some impact)[/IMG]

Good stuff, great to see some hard figures between the two engines

On the weight, a quick google shows the SOHC to weigh 111kg's, and the DOHC 121kg's. Maybe the battery weight made the difference? I've pickud up a twin-cam for mine, so will weigh both as I do the swap to double check.

[342Four]

54.3kW from a stock standard SOHC x3 with a shitty pod
run in 4th gear on dyno dynamics roller
ambient temp 26
intake temp 45
shoot-out mode 4

made max power flat from about 4200-5200, then dropped of all the way to redline
AFR's were all over the place - starting at around 11.8:1 then getting to bout 12.5:1 1/3 into the run, fluctuating between 12.6:1 and 12.2:1 until right at the end when it spiked down to 10.2:1 right at the end of the run (from about 5000-6000rpm)

[ae86trueno]

At the end of the year i think im going to have to build Mathew a 100FWKw motor just to see if it can be done and how insane it would be :crazy:

How long will the standard gerabox last :|

[Lucky67]

Wouldn't that be a 100FWkW ?:)

Front rather than rear killer wasps.

Old spoontang habits die hard !

[342Four]

At the end of the year i think im going to have to build Mathew a 100rwKW motor just to see if it can be done and how insane it would be :crazy:

How long will the standard gerabox last :|

long enough
theres a guy on Hyper who has a turbo LC2 running 22psi and i think about 200hp through the standard box.....

[ae86trueno]

Oops, yes i mean FWKW

I think we may be a little limited by the head, and getting the bottom end to rev reliably to 8500-9000 rpm. :(

[342Four]

Oops, yes i mean FWKW

I think we may be a little limited by the head, and getting the bottom end to rev reliably to 8500-9000 rpm. :(

if you want it to be reliable then knife edge the crank, get a lighter flywheel, ACL race series bearings, forged pistons, nitrided and shot-peened stock con rods that have been balanced along with a fully balanced bottom end (crank, flywheel and clutch)
that should hold it up to 8500 rpm surely :D
its not like 6 cylinders where they suffer from harmonic issues, so thats one major problem that you dont have to worry about (that the engine will shake itself apart)
its the head that will have to hold up
3 angle valve grind, port and polish, port matching, twin throttle plenum or custom plenum
oh, and about 10.5-11:1 compression running full microtech MAF sensored (for better driveability) ecu, prob with 98+meth

if i had the money then thats what i would do....

[Glenn]

Oops, yes i mean FWKW

I think we may be a little limited by the head, and getting the bottom end to rev reliably to 8500-9000 rpm. :(

Mark Thompson's jigger puts out 135kW at the crank. So it would have at least 100kW at the wheels.

It has been done.

[Crazy Dave]

if you want it to be reliable then knife edge the crank, get a lighter flywheel, ACL race series bearings, forged pistons, nitrided and shot-peened stock con rods that have been balanced along with a fully balanced bottom end (crank, flywheel and clutch)
that should hold it up to 8500 rpm surely :D
its not like 6 cylinders where they suffer from harmonic issues, so thats one major problem that you dont have to worry about (that the engine will shake itself apart)
its the head that will have to hold up
3 angle valve grind, port and polish, port matching, twin throttle plenum or custom plenum
oh, and about 10.5-11:1 compression running full microtech MAF sensored (for better driveability) ecu, prob with 98+meth

if i had the money then thats what i would do....


Sounds like my engine:D

[watty]

54.3kW from a stock standard SOHC x3
run in 4th gear on dyno dynamics roller
shoot-out mode 4

The fact that it was in shootout mode (always gives a higher reading) and that it was in 4th is why it got a higher reading.



full microtech MAF sensored (for better driveability)

After having microtech in a few cars I would say driveability is absolute crap!!!

They are the worst computers for that...

A few of my problems were

Overfuelling to the point that when you keyed off it would let a 6 foot flame go out the back.

Cold start wouldn't always switch off.

Problems getting the TPS settings right.

Car left for a month and cleared itself of all maps (luckily I had them backed up)

[342Four]

The fact that it was in shootout mode (always gives a higher reading) and that it was in 4th is why it got a higher reading.

yeah - but 4th is a better gear to run it in as its a 1:1 ratio




After having microtech in a few cars I would say driveability is absolute crap!!!

They are the worst computers for that...

A few of my problems were

Overfuelling to the point that when you keyed off it would let a 6 foot flame go out the back.

Cold start wouldn't always switch off.

Problems getting the TPS settings right.

Car left for a month and cleared itself of all maps (luckily I had them backed up)

wow - okay
did you self tune or get a workshop to do it??
ive heard really good things about most microtech setups
whatever really its down to personal taste (haltech, microtech, AEM/stinger, Adaptronic, autronic whatever your willing to pay i suppose)
its a pity they dont make PowerFC's for hyundais... :D

personally i would go for a microtech LT10S or a AEM Stinger
i havent heard of a Stinger been used on a hyundai yet tho

[watty]

I had Promaz, Mazfix, Brescani's and MSC performance all do tunes for me, I ended up doing it myself in the end as I could get it tuned just as good for a fraction of the price.

My pick would be an autronic anyday...

[342Four]

okay

yeah - an autronic unit looks good, couldnt justify the price tho
launch and traction control would be awesome :D

[ae86trueno]

digging up an old thread,
the new engine has been dynoed, and im impressed,
we got an extra 10% more torque right through the whole rev range by playing around with a few things, :clap:

and both torque and KW are still climbing at the limiter

the figure will remain secret for the min :naughty:

Ben.

[Glenn]

As Matt said on Saturday....there's no excuses now!

[ae86trueno]

its the Iridium spark plugs that make all the difference :lmao:

[wagonist]

What, not the unobtanium valves & pistons:crazy:

I'm guessing the fuel pump issue has been sorted? (If that was the problem)

[Crazy Dave]

we got an extra 10% more torque right through the whole rev range by playing around with a few things, :clap:


And the things that seem to make a difference are???

[ae86trueno]

And the things that seem to make a difference are???

just playing around wth cam timing,
plugging the fuel pressure regulator back in (gave an extra 2 KW)
flux capacitor
simple stuff really :potstir:

Ben.

[shake]

carn tell us how many?

can we guess higher or lower?

ubove 60kW??

[Crazy Dave]

plugging the fuel pressure regulator back in (gave an extra 2 KW)


So putting it back to how it was supposed to be worked for you where as with Mick's car they found it gave them more horse power, unless he knew it wouldn't and told us all that to get all of us to drop a bit of horse power. Cunning team that one. :lmao:

So I guess we don't know the answer to that unless we find out what is different from your engine to Mick's engine so we can work out why yours drops with it disconnected and Mick's rises.

[kelvin]

Changing the fuel pressure reg in any way will effectively change the amount of fuel being injected. Thus changing the A/F ratio. Raising or lowering HP. As the Hyundai uses a closed loop system, the O2 sensor will see this as an error and gradually change the ECU mapping to compensate. Bringing you back where you started. Takes a while for the ECU to learn, so the effects last for a while, but will eventually disappear.

[Andrei]

Does anyone have any experience with programs like MyHomeDyno, DynoMax2000 or similar.

I used G-tech in the past, and found it very hard to get a consistent results.

[Curly]

Changing the fuel pressure reg in any way will effectively change the amount of fuel being injected. Thus changing the A/F ratio. Raising or lowering HP. As the Hyundai uses a closed loop system, the O2 sensor will see this as an error and gradually change the ECU mapping to compensate. Bringing you back where you started. Takes a while for the ECU to learn, so the effects last for a while, but will eventually disappear.

Interesting - so the ECU will learn and modify it's map, even for full throttle running? I thought it ran in closed loop on part throttle, but then a static map after that.

Any idea how much headroom the standard injectors have?

How long does the ECU take to relearn after any changes - are we talking 5, 10 or 50km of varied driving?

We fitted our dual throttle manifold last week, and had ordered an adjustable fuel pressure regulator. But based on this info I'm thinking that there's no real point to getting one, unless the injectors are on 100% duty cycle...

We gave it a quick run with a Jaycar LED A/F meter installed, and the full throttle mixtures seemed ok.

[Curly]

Does anyone have any experience with programs like MyHomeDyno, DynoMax2000 or similar.

I used G-tech in the past, and found it very hard to get a consistent results.

I've had a play with Pocket Dyno on the iPhone, and it seems to work quite well. My slightly modified mx5 got 8.0s, 8.2s and 8.5s 0-100, with two on board.

Roadgoing X3 twincam did 10.0, 10.1 and 10.1 seconds, again with two people on board.

For a free app, I was quite impressed. It allows you to calibrate the accelerometer, and appears to give quite repeatable results.