Paul, you retard, you didn't need all that badass shit to make 300whp on a 99 motor.
08-20-2008, 01:32 PM
#61
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Bring it up 5000 feet, and ANY other boost controller will make 2-3psi less. Just how turbo works. So FM adds a correction factor to bring their power numbers back up. It was always a little high, but no big deal, right? Until the Hydra comes along. Suddenly 10psi at sea level is the same 10psi at 5000', but they still add that same correction factor.
I think we have a winner....although it's stated the EBC was removed when they went to the Hydra.
Reply
0
0
08-20-2008, 05:52 PM
#62
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
And what really pisses me off is that they seem to be totally oblivious to it. I know they can't say anything because it would discredit them, but come on, guys. Jeremy knows damn well that car isn't a 300whp car. You don't make that power on an 11psi GT2560R. You don't make 290whp on a 12psi GT2560R car with 93 octane, either. I don't care how they get their correction, or whether the corrections are SAE, FIA, or FBI sanctioned.
you missed an opportunity to evoke a "naughty by nature" reference.
If I were the average check-book hobbyist and bought a turbo kit from these guys, including hydra, for my westy, and had it dyno'd at a reasonable altitude and it only made 50whp less than the rest of them, I'd be pretty ******* pissed at this bullshit.
That's something I have to say I respect about Gary Shuhart/Track Dog Racing. Every car he touches makes the #'s he claims on his site, and he doesn't forum ***** stuff like this.
Reply
0
0
08-21-2008, 02:44 PM
#64
We posted both the corrected and uncorrected charts to try to avoid this particular shitstorm, but it never works. Why do we still post corrected numbers? Mostly because it allows comparisons to historical runs. We post the uncorrected for those who prefer them. We acknowledge the problems with corrected charts on our website, but short of moving the shop to a lower altitude we're stuck with having to do something. Throwing all corrections out the window means we can make more horsepower simply by testing the cars in winter, and that's obviously not accurate or repeatable. Repeatable is important to us, and it's more important than the actual numbers as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, how do you know if you're improving?
The interesting thing about these charts isn't the ultimate power number. It's the difference between the two ECUs. None of us here can explain why this particular car was able to respond so much better than the others to the Hydra, it's typically about a 35 rwhp increase. Jeremy did note that the car ate up all sorts of timing at the top end, which is obviously a source of big power gains. It's not just a Miata with a 3" downpipe, it's a custom setup from the turbo to the tailpipe so it's difficult to compare directly to a Miata engine in a Miata. The Hydra does seem able to run more advanced timing than the Link did, and over on Miata.net several Hydra owners have mentioned this.
Our turbo install at the Mitty pulled 238 on a Dynojet in Atlanta, and that was with a good margin of error. Jeremy could have raised that up somewhat I'm sure.
When we got our Rototest, we ran a number of the same cars that had been tested on the Dynojet and calibrated the test procedure to simulate a Dynojet run as best we could (2000-7000 rpm sweep in 15 seconds). That's typical for a 220-250 rwhp Miata, although the sweep should be shorter for a really high-power car in order to fully duplicate the Dynojet. We can't duplicate wheel slip, of course.
It's a shame there aren't more Rototests out there, although I fail to see how that's our fault! There are more than 2 in the US now, I know that. They don't work off hydraulic pressure, they use hydraulic pressure as the resistance and use strain gauges to measure the actual torque at the wheels. When we used to have a Dynojet, we copped a lot of abuse for using it too and we got the same sort of complaints. We've always been clear about what dyno we use - it's right there at the top of every dyno sheet we release.
There are no tweaks to the numbers to provide better results and we haven't screwed with the calibrations. The only thing we do is convert the units (the Rototest outputs in kW and Nm) and apply the SAE standard correction factor (when used).
It is interesting to note that we seem to get the same numbers (corrected) for stock Miatas and Mazdaspeeds that everyone else does. I'm not sure how to explain that. I am going to play with sweep time on the high-hp cars to see how much of a difference that makes, as we are seeing lower inertial losses than a Dynojet. Those with 300 hp Miatas on Dynojets, how long does it take to pull from 2000-7000 rpm?
The interesting thing about these charts isn't the ultimate power number. It's the difference between the two ECUs. None of us here can explain why this particular car was able to respond so much better than the others to the Hydra, it's typically about a 35 rwhp increase. Jeremy did note that the car ate up all sorts of timing at the top end, which is obviously a source of big power gains. It's not just a Miata with a 3" downpipe, it's a custom setup from the turbo to the tailpipe so it's difficult to compare directly to a Miata engine in a Miata. The Hydra does seem able to run more advanced timing than the Link did, and over on Miata.net several Hydra owners have mentioned this.
Our turbo install at the Mitty pulled 238 on a Dynojet in Atlanta, and that was with a good margin of error. Jeremy could have raised that up somewhat I'm sure.
When we got our Rototest, we ran a number of the same cars that had been tested on the Dynojet and calibrated the test procedure to simulate a Dynojet run as best we could (2000-7000 rpm sweep in 15 seconds). That's typical for a 220-250 rwhp Miata, although the sweep should be shorter for a really high-power car in order to fully duplicate the Dynojet. We can't duplicate wheel slip, of course.
It's a shame there aren't more Rototests out there, although I fail to see how that's our fault! There are more than 2 in the US now, I know that. They don't work off hydraulic pressure, they use hydraulic pressure as the resistance and use strain gauges to measure the actual torque at the wheels. When we used to have a Dynojet, we copped a lot of abuse for using it too and we got the same sort of complaints. We've always been clear about what dyno we use - it's right there at the top of every dyno sheet we release.
There are no tweaks to the numbers to provide better results and we haven't screwed with the calibrations. The only thing we do is convert the units (the Rototest outputs in kW and Nm) and apply the SAE standard correction factor (when used).
It is interesting to note that we seem to get the same numbers (corrected) for stock Miatas and Mazdaspeeds that everyone else does. I'm not sure how to explain that. I am going to play with sweep time on the high-hp cars to see how much of a difference that makes, as we are seeing lower inertial losses than a Dynojet. Those with 300 hp Miatas on Dynojets, how long does it take to pull from 2000-7000 rpm?
Reply
0
0
08-21-2008, 02:58 PM
#65
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,893
Total Cats: 399
EDIT: Paul's looks to be about 10 seconds. I don't know what gear, or what starting and ending rpm. He has the datalogs and can reply.
Video here, sounds like he goes WOT at 11 seconds into it and cuts the throttle at 21 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67MQWgJWIg4
My 270rwhp is 14 & 13 seconds from 2100-7000, 10 sec for 2700-7200. I do not have anywhere near paul's spool. I used 4th gear, 3.90, 205/45/16 t1r
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VPloV9a-mE
Last edited by TurboTim; 08-21-2008 at 03:11 PM.
Reply
0
0
08-21-2008, 03:34 PM
#67
Sounds like 10 seconds is a reasonable number to use then. The next time we have a high-hp car on the dyno, I'll plug that in and see what a difference it makes. I assume that any dynoed car will be using the 1:1 gear, either 4th in a 5-speed or 5th in a 6-speed. The closed-loop resistance control on the Rototest can cause problems with spoolup on big turbos, but we'll deal with that if it comes up.
In theory, keeping the same sweep time will keep the inertial losses consistent regardless of power level. There's certainly some merit to that. But it's not what will happen on a Dynojet, so if we want to come up with Dynojet-like numbers we have to take that into account. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out - it would certainly explain why the lower-power cars are more consistent with other dynos.
In theory, keeping the same sweep time will keep the inertial losses consistent regardless of power level. There's certainly some merit to that. But it's not what will happen on a Dynojet, so if we want to come up with Dynojet-like numbers we have to take that into account. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out - it would certainly explain why the lower-power cars are more consistent with other dynos.
Reply
0
0
08-21-2008, 03:40 PM
#68
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
I do know that when I was using the LINK default timing maps I was down a ton of power, I think I bumped it ten degress and saw a pretty large gain.
I should be hitting up another dyno in a few weeks. I'll only be in the 250rwhp range, but I'll try the LINK map again and see what the loss is.
I should be hitting up another dyno in a few weeks. I'll only be in the 250rwhp range, but I'll try the LINK map again and see what the loss is.
Reply
0
0
08-21-2008, 03:51 PM
#69
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
We were using 7 seconds at the last dyno day I attended. I thought it was too short, and my car made only 235 whp, when the previous time on the same dyno it made 255 whp with less boost. I was going for ~275 whp with the boost and ignition improvements, and had I had the additional time, I'm sure I would have achieved my goal (or close enough).
The last car that pulled, on his last pull, we finally got the operator to agree to increase the sweep to 9 seconds. That car picked up around 25 whp on that run compared to the previous.
The last car that pulled, on his last pull, we finally got the operator to agree to increase the sweep to 9 seconds. That car picked up around 25 whp on that run compared to the previous.
Reply
0
0
08-21-2008, 07:06 PM
#71
Former Vendor
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 128
Total Cats: 2
I would love to put every one of these cars down the 1/4 mile when I'm done tuning them- when it comes to dropping your drawers and grabbing the ruler that's something you can actually compare. (trap speed vs. ET)
Dyno results between different dynos on the other hand, not so much.. For me the dyno is simply a tuning tool to get the most out of any given car using its ability to consistently measure output.
So, I've considered just posting uncorrected numbers from now on because I'm tired of the whining. You won't be able to compare the runs to anything we've done in the past, though. I could say stuff like "It was cold out" or "it was hot out" and state the PSI in absolute pressure.
New thought. If I were to have always stated the pressure on the boost gauge, I think our correction factor would match up. However, I always have stated the absolute pressure along with the corrected HP numbers. Maybe that's the **** up- it needs to be absolute with no correction, or gauge pressure (over ambient) with the correction. The issue there though would be that all our FM2 kits run 15 psi or so on the gauge up here, and then everyone at sea level would then decide it's OK to run 15 psi which is not so much OK. I don't know. It's a thought.
Dyno results between different dynos on the other hand, not so much.. For me the dyno is simply a tuning tool to get the most out of any given car using its ability to consistently measure output.
So, I've considered just posting uncorrected numbers from now on because I'm tired of the whining. You won't be able to compare the runs to anything we've done in the past, though. I could say stuff like "It was cold out" or "it was hot out" and state the PSI in absolute pressure.
New thought. If I were to have always stated the pressure on the boost gauge, I think our correction factor would match up. However, I always have stated the absolute pressure along with the corrected HP numbers. Maybe that's the **** up- it needs to be absolute with no correction, or gauge pressure (over ambient) with the correction. The issue there though would be that all our FM2 kits run 15 psi or so on the gauge up here, and then everyone at sea level would then decide it's OK to run 15 psi which is not so much OK. I don't know. It's a thought.
Reply
0
0
08-22-2008, 06:33 AM
#72
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
Originally Posted by Keith
No, the estimates on the website assume that you won't have Jeremy sitting in the car at tuning time, and that you'll be running an off-the-shelf FM exhaust instead of the much different setup found on this car.
I'll tell you what Hydra will do that Megasquirt wont; Drain your bank account of an extra $1200... Thats about it.
Reply
0
0
08-22-2008, 07:59 AM
#74
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
Come on man. What he means is that they don't know how competently the unit will be tuned and leave some fudge factor for that. There's some crappy tuners out there. And there's a lot of folks who simply run whatever base map they're given.
Reply
0
0
08-22-2008, 01:38 PM
#75
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
lets see what else it does that the MS doesn't:
-runs my turbo 01 before the megasquirt was PNP for an NB
-runs my VVT plug and play
-runs my AC plug and play
-runs my idle plug and play
-runs my stock coils plug and play
-runs sequential injection
-runs VTCS plug and play
-comes with functional launch control and all stock functions of the later cars except EGR
-comes with a wideband
-controls the NB alternator directly
-independent fan control
-built-in boost control
-half a dozen configurable PWM or switched outputs
-four spare inputs
-free support for life from FM
And I'm confident I could build a megasquirt in under a day, but it wouldn't support most of that without a lot of research and modding. I could install and have the hydra running in a day as well.
Jeremy is not jesus. He's paid to tune cars and anyone can learn how.
******* please indeed.
Reply
0
0
08-22-2008, 01:45 PM
#76
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
so you haven't researched the hydra much.
lets see what else it does that the MS doesn't:
-runs my turbo 01 before the megasquirt was PNP for an NB
-runs my VVT plug and play
-runs my AC plug and play
-runs my idle plug and play
-runs my stock coils plug and play
-runs sequential injection
-runs VTCS plug and play
-comes with functional launch control and all stock functions of the later cars except EGR
-comes with a wideband
-controls the NB alternator directly
-independent fan control
-built-in boost control
-half a dozen configurable PWM or switched outputs
-four spare inputs
-free support for life from FM
And I'm confident I could build a megasquirt in under a day, but it wouldn't support most of that without a lot of research and modding. I could install and have the hydra running in a day as well.
Jeremy is not jesus. He's paid to tune cars and anyone can learn how.
******* please indeed.
lets see what else it does that the MS doesn't:
-runs my turbo 01 before the megasquirt was PNP for an NB
-runs my VVT plug and play
-runs my AC plug and play
-runs my idle plug and play
-runs my stock coils plug and play
-runs sequential injection
-runs VTCS plug and play
-comes with functional launch control and all stock functions of the later cars except EGR
-comes with a wideband
-controls the NB alternator directly
-independent fan control
-built-in boost control
-half a dozen configurable PWM or switched outputs
-four spare inputs
-free support for life from FM
And I'm confident I could build a megasquirt in under a day, but it wouldn't support most of that without a lot of research and modding. I could install and have the hydra running in a day as well.
Jeremy is not jesus. He's paid to tune cars and anyone can learn how.
******* please indeed.
Reply
0
0
08-22-2008, 02:02 PM
#77
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
MS is a much better value, but the Hydra hardware is ****.
<--MS dealer speaking
PS, the MS software is much better than Hydra's
Reply
0
0
08-22-2008, 02:06 PM
#78
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
I watched Y8s tune his Hydra on the dyno. I was thoroughly impressed. While the MS is cheap and robust, I'd love a hydra, but I'm a cheap *******.
I agree Ben, the MS software is easier.
I agree Ben, the MS software is easier.
Reply
0
0
08-22-2008, 02:24 PM
#79
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
oh yeah the software for the hydra is pretty weak (at least up to 2.5) but the newer 2.6 looks to be a little more user friendly. they still lack decent logging though it's improved.
The tec 3 had very nice software though even that was buggy. maybe it's endemic to the whole automotive tuning genre, but all the software seems to have at least a few unforgivable quirks that I've run across. thank god though that we're still not tuning in DOS!
believe me though, if the MS could do most of what i listed the hydra does, I might jump ship just to be one of the cool kids and have more flexibility. regardless of cost.
The tec 3 had very nice software though even that was buggy. maybe it's endemic to the whole automotive tuning genre, but all the software seems to have at least a few unforgivable quirks that I've run across. thank god though that we're still not tuning in DOS!
believe me though, if the MS could do most of what i listed the hydra does, I might jump ship just to be one of the cool kids and have more flexibility. regardless of cost.
Reply
0
0
