1.6L 2560r record attempt
03-05-2013, 09:43 AM
#481
Yeah, I'm looking at the plots and they don't make sense to me at all.
Glad I'm not alone.
Hopefully all the nutswingers can actually stop hating and maybe try to figure this out so we can confirm whether he really broke any records or proved anyone wrong.
Among MANY other things that really strike me as odd, is anyone else shocked by the fact that a 2560 is holding 22psi to REDLINE? (on an internal wastegate no less )
Unless this turbo is handcrafted from a solid chunk of unicorn semen, and the 1.6 was secretly a mazda F1 engine snuck into this one car, and his IM and TB are secretly enlarged and ported magically, it just doesn't make sense. Am I missing something?
Glad I'm not alone.
Hopefully all the nutswingers can actually stop hating and maybe try to figure this out so we can confirm whether he really broke any records or proved anyone wrong.
Among MANY other things that really strike me as odd, is anyone else shocked by the fact that a 2560 is holding 22psi to REDLINE? (on an internal wastegate no less )
Unless this turbo is handcrafted from a solid chunk of unicorn semen, and the 1.6 was secretly a mazda F1 engine snuck into this one car, and his IM and TB are secretly enlarged and ported magically, it just doesn't make sense. Am I missing something?
Last edited by 18psi; 03-05-2013 at 10:53 AM.
Reply
0
0
03-05-2013, 10:42 AM
#484
Well, here they are, will ceramic coat the manifold and wrap the whole thing in fibreglass and see how it changes the spool up.
You can see my attachments I took a few photos and uploaded them a few times, I couldnt get a clearer one up but you can still read it all.
Let the arguments commence. And the backpedaling, that too.
Dann
NOTE, the AFRs were cleaned up a little before it left the shop, however its not a straight line, it made the most torque with most of the swings you see there.
You can see my attachments I took a few photos and uploaded them a few times, I couldnt get a clearer one up but you can still read it all.
Let the arguments commence. And the backpedaling, that too.
Dann
NOTE, the AFRs were cleaned up a little before it left the shop, however its not a straight line, it made the most torque with most of the swings you see there.
They are obviously not whp and wtq that we reference normally.
I'm really glad you mentioned the backpedaling, since you'll be the one doing it
Reply
0
0
03-05-2013, 11:03 AM
#485
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
@ 5050 RPM the plot shows youre making ~260RWHP.
so:
495Ft-lb @ 5050 RPM = 476 HP
it's not in ft-lb.
495Nm = 360 ft-lb
360 ft-lb @ 5050 RPM = 346 HP
it's not in Nm.
Dan, how can you give us an accurate HP number if we dunno what TQ the dyno was measured in? HP is a function of TQ, right now your HP numbers are completely arbitrary.
so:
495Ft-lb @ 5050 RPM = 476 HP
it's not in ft-lb.
495Nm = 360 ft-lb
360 ft-lb @ 5050 RPM = 346 HP
it's not in Nm.
Dan, how can you give us an accurate HP number if we dunno what TQ the dyno was measured in? HP is a function of TQ, right now your HP numbers are completely arbitrary.
Reply
0
0
props
03-05-2013, 12:08 PM
#489
Bannisheded
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 135
Total Cats: -23
Well it seems to me the most likely answer (not saying this is the case, just what comes to my mind) is that the torque curve is probably scaled differently (i.e. there should be another scale on the right side of the chart for torque, which is done quite commonly i might add...). That would explain the offset in the two curves and why the torque numbers appear to be way out of whack with the horsepower numbers.
According to the horsepower curve, at 5000 rpm he should be making 304ft/lbs of torque. That's using this formula, HP=torque*rpm/5252, or to calculate for torque, Tq=HP*5252/RPM
the chart shows 290hp@5000rpm so, 290hpX5252/5000rpm=304ft/lbs according to the posted HP chart. I'm using the red line in the graphs as per Dann the blue are the old log manifold.
18psi, I'm not sure who exactly the "nutswingers" comment was intended for, but I think it's about you left the playground name calling behaviour behind, this an adult forum not the school yard...
Jim J
According to the horsepower curve, at 5000 rpm he should be making 304ft/lbs of torque. That's using this formula, HP=torque*rpm/5252, or to calculate for torque, Tq=HP*5252/RPM
the chart shows 290hp@5000rpm so, 290hpX5252/5000rpm=304ft/lbs according to the posted HP chart. I'm using the red line in the graphs as per Dann the blue are the old log manifold.
18psi, I'm not sure who exactly the "nutswingers" comment was intended for, but I think it's about you left the playground name calling behaviour behind, this an adult forum not the school yard...
Jim J
Reply
0
0
03-05-2013, 12:27 PM
#491
Bannisheded
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 135
Total Cats: -23
One other thing I noticed is that if you read through the spool data thread, your log is pretty much average for spool based on what's posted there, about 6 psi@2500-2600 rpm, but your tubular manifold is about 600rpm later than normal for a 2560, no idea what's up with that. In the spool data thread, it doesn't seem to make much, if any difference whether it was a cast log or a tubular manifold, they all seem to spool pretty close (based on the data posted by users). it almost appears as if your smaller i.d. runners had the opposite effect to what was expected, slower spool and more top end vs faster spool and possibly restricted top end.
It also looks as thought the dyno runs were done in 5th gear and not 4th, is this correct or did the operator input the wrong info?
Jim J
It also looks as thought the dyno runs were done in 5th gear and not 4th, is this correct or did the operator input the wrong info?
Jim J
Reply
0
0
03-05-2013, 12:31 PM
#492
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Well it seems to me the most likely answer (not saying this is the case, just what comes to my mind) is that the torque curve is probably scaled differently (i.e. there should be another scale on the right side of the chart for torque, which is done quite commonly i might add...). That would explain the offset in the two curves and why the torque numbers appear to be way out of whack with the horsepower numbers.
it would only make sense if the TQ plot was NOT in ft-lbs, but another unit of measurement to be determined. Even still, when I just used his HP numbers alone, his torque per liter is way above the norm for any other miata out there, and there's really nothing special about his setup that should make it produce numbers way outside the norm.
that coupled with this shitty *** bs dyno plot...
Reply
0
0
03-05-2013, 12:35 PM
#494
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
One other thing I noticed is that if you read through the spool data thread, your log is pretty much average for spool based on what's posted there, about 6 psi@2500-2600 rpm, but your tubular manifold is about 600rpm later than normal for a 2560, no idea what's up with that. In the spool data thread, it doesn't seem to make much, if any difference whether it was a cast log or a tubular manifold, they all seem to spool pretty close (based on the data posted by users). it almost appears as if your smaller i.d. runners had the opposite effect to what was expected, slower spool and more top end vs faster spool and possibly restricted top end.
Jim J
Jim J
my spool results of log vs tubular manifolds logs spool was faster but make was less - Honda-Tech
Reply
0
0
03-05-2013, 12:51 PM
#495
Bannisheded
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 135
Total Cats: -23
more of you not know what youre talking about.
my spool results of log vs tubular manifolds logs spool was faster but make was less - Honda-Tech
my spool results of log vs tubular manifolds logs spool was faster but make was less - Honda-Tech
I mentioned 5th vs 4th because most dyno runs are done in the 1:1 gear ratio, Dann has a 5 speed so that would mean it should have been done in 4th gear, the info at the top of the chart indicates 5th was used... this would obviously have some impact on the resiults.
NO Brain I do not think your stupid, reread what I posted. I am suggesting that the printout was done incorrectly, that the torque curve should probably be rescaled and brought inline with the hp curve. If you look at the hp only plot of the new setup it matches the red line in the combined plot showing hp only of the new setup, the combined plot shows both lb/ft and hp at the top, the measurements match the HP of the new setup, I am suggesting that the combined plot was "put together" after the fact and was done incorrectly by the operator (and the plots may in fact be correct, but scaled and displayed incorrectly). I am suggesting that it is showing HP, which would stand to reason as it matches the new plot showing hp only of the new setup It shows a plot for Danns old log setup and his new tubular setup done weeks apart so clearly the plots were not overlayed and printed "back to back" sorry if I was unclear about what I meant. Does this explain it better?
Jim
Last edited by jimj64; 03-05-2013 at 01:10 PM.
Reply
0
0
03-05-2013, 01:03 PM
#496
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Brain, I was reffering to the spool data thread in the DIY turbo category of miataturbo.net, not some irrelevant honda thread.....read it and you will see that I am absoultely correct. In fact your spool data is there too...the data posted in that thread show very little difference in spool between log and tubular manifolds on a 1.8BP motor with a Garret GT2560R turbo.
I mentioned 5th vs 4th because most dyno runs are done in the 1:1 gear ratio, Dann has a 5 speed so that would mean it should have been done in 4th gear, the info at the top of the chart indicates 5th was used... this would obviously have some impact on the resiults.
If you look at the hp only plot of the new setup it matches the red line in the combined plot. and clearly shows HP, the "hp" in the combined plot and the "ft/lb" measurements match the HP numbers in the plot that shows HP of the new setup, I am suggesting that the combined plot was "put together" after the fact and was done incorrectly by the operator (and the plots may in fact be correct, but scaled and displayed incorrectly). It shows a plot for Danns old log setup and his new tubular setup done weeks apart so clearly the plots were not overlayed and printed "back to back" sorry if I was unclear about what I meant. Does this explain it better?
Jim
Jim
the red single plot shows 325.4HP and 498.3 Ftlb
so no, that doesnt not explain it better, it still suggests that you have your head too far up your *** to even understand that it's not scaling issue.
Reply
0
0
03-05-2013, 01:20 PM
#497
Bannisheded
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 135
Total Cats: -23
how many of the setups in the spool thread have done back to back testing between a tubular and log manifold? That link just happened to be the first link I found, I could post many many more examples of back to back testing of this. This is a pretty common known concept.
did you even bother to look at the measured speed? If he ran the dyno in 5th and it was expecting 4th, then the plot would make the exact same peak numbers but the rpms in which they get plotted would be off.
the red single plot shows 325.4HP and 498.3 Ftlb
so no, that doesnt not explain it better, it still suggests that you have your head too far up your *** to even understand that it's not scaling issue.
did you even bother to look at the measured speed? If he ran the dyno in 5th and it was expecting 4th, then the plot would make the exact same peak numbers but the rpms in which they get plotted would be off.
the red single plot shows 325.4HP and 498.3 Ftlb
so no, that doesnt not explain it better, it still suggests that you have your head too far up your *** to even understand that it's not scaling issue.
Does it show 495 ft/lbs? You are assuming that the same scale is for both hp and tq, I am suggesting that the scale shown only reflects the HP number not both, I know it appears to be both but obviously that would make no sense. It just so happens though that the scale and numbers shown do match the hp numbers shown in the HP only plot, I think the torque scale should be displayed on the right as is commonly done but is missing in this case and makes it look as though the same scale was used for both.
Jim
Reply
0
0
03-05-2013, 01:24 PM
#498
Bannisheded
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 135
Total Cats: -23
Dann, is it possible for you to get a print out of just your new setup on the dyno that clearly shows both hp and tq numbers rather than the somewhat confusing pieced together plot?
Jim J
Jim J
Reply
0
0
03-05-2013, 01:27 PM
#499
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
BRAIN, READ THE SPOOL THREAD IN THE DIY TURBO SECTION OF THIS FORUM, if you look at the data for the 1.8's running gt2560's you will see that there is very little difference in the way the gt2560 spools from car to car regardless of manifold type, it's not my data, go read it and you will see that I am simply repeating what is shown there.
Does it show 495 ft/lbs? You are assuming that the same scale is for both hp and tq, I am suggesting that the scale shown only reflects the HP number not both, I know it appears to be both but obviously that would make no sense. It just so happens though that the scale and numbers shown do match the hp numbers shown in the HP only plot, I think the torque scale should be displayed on the right as is commonly done but is missing in this case and makes it look as though the same scale was used for both.
the 498 TQ number is TIED TO the 325 HP number.
the scaling IS CORRECT.
both should be plotted on the same scale, if they were different, then they wouldn't be plotted traditionally.
The issue is, the 498 number is perposterous, and since dynos mesaure TQ and then calcuate HP, without explaination, his numbers are completely bogus.
Reply
0
0
