Paul, you retard, you didn't need all that badass shit to make 300whp on a 99 motor.
 

http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=295854

All you needed is a bullshit correction factor. Seriously, 300whp out of an 11psi GT2560R? :bowrofl:

even the uncorrected chart looks a bit high...

Maybe they have the charts mixed up?

I would contribute to see that motor on a dynojet.

Come on, I believe... Not. Hey, the motor is stock too!!! Maybe, just maybe, it's the Hydra, because the Link ECU never sucked ass.

Mark

550's were maxed out?

who has an FM kit in New Orleans? We need to put this shit to bed and call them out on this garbage.

I'd like to know exactly what they changed...I don't see what could possibly change that much which Link or any EMS is incapable of doing.

17% correction sure helps.

30whp (over typical 220whp) gain, not the bullshit corrected gain from 3" exhaust and a real tune and an extra psi of boost.

Not 300whp bullshit claims, I don't know how FM still pulls that off (well, scratch that look at the 300$ center console group buy on m.net.) Look at boosted car's 1/4 mile mph's at altitude vs N/A cars at the same vs both at regular alt and you will see boosted cars are barely hurt compared to N/A at the same alt.

where's that bs flag image?

Strange. I have pure proof that their tuning on a 1.8 w/2560 is good for ~230rwhp for people at more normal altitudes @ 10-10.5 psi. It took me 12.5 psi to make an even 250rwhp.

I'm curious to see what happens on the day i get 3" exhaust.....

Posted.

Needs more Absurdflow.

yeah, at an uncorrected 250 whp? that's fucked up, because that means my 460cc injectors are running at 120% right now.

Actually my calcs for my car show my 550s maxing out just shy of 300 rwhp. and by maxing, I mean max safe duty of around 80%.

I wonder what my car'd do on their dyno if I'm 250-260 at sea level at 9.5 psi.

I'm actually suprised that they hadn't locked or tidied up that thread. Can't be questioning a sponsor, now, can we?

Power output numbers aside.....it takes an extra 600RPM to make 1psi these days now???

Its like westside story in there. Don't fuck with the jets...when you're a jet you're a jet till ya die!!!

I'm very interested to see how Jeremy responds. If it's simply a stock '99 motor w/3"exhaust, then it should be routinely repeatable on any '99 Miata w/3"exhaust. And I know that nobody has ever gotten that close to 300whp with such low boost. Not even on a 2860, let alone a 2560. Hell, I don't even think I've seen any T2 series make 300whp at such low pressure.

I don't know what the latest Hydra version is, but if the one the Caterham was running is the newest, maybe this is FM's marketing ploy to get people to upgrade.

With their long and distinguished history of "questionable" dyno reporting, they've gotta konw the regulars are gonna jump in and shit all over them for this.

I'd like to know what Hydra does to make so much power. Apparently I'm naive, and don't understand why fuel and spark calibrations make more power on different platforms. Its not atomizing the fuel any better, not running any more manifold pressure...basically their claiming the old link wasn't properly tuned, and now they're running nitromethane in the caterham.

Most I've ever seen on a GT2560, running exactly 11psi, was actually an FM II Kit. It hit 244whp with a hydra and 550's. 300? I think not. I think they're running Fertilizer injection, cause I smell the bullshit.

My car at 8.99psi with a gt2560, 99 motor made 246rwhp. MS and 550s. add 5psi(14psi) and it made only 300 but that's because i have no idea what the fuck i'm doing with timing. I say I get my car to DIYAutotune to have them tune spark and fuel and shove that dyno up FM's ass. Does FM use dynapacks?

rototest. same principle but uses hydraulic fluid instead of eddy current.

what did it do uncorrected? would be nice to be able to compare uncorrected power at absolute pressure vs uncorrected power at absoulte pressure.

uncorrected it made 300rwhp

corrected using SAE (97%), smoothing of 5: 290.98rwhp

65°F, 42% humidity, 29.96 ~hg.

uncorrected:
9psi run was 247.62
14psi run was 301.46 hp

SAE correction applied:
9psi: 246.89
14psi: 300.28

files are here
14psi http://www.miatamx5.com/dynoruns/4-5.....REIN_003.drf
9psi http://www.miatamx5.com/dynoruns/4-5.....REIN_004.drf

edit. different from what brain posted because i use smoothing of ZERO

conditions:

29.96 in-Hg 14psi run
29.93 in-Hg 9 psi run

paul is yours above correct? I'm dropping 3% (10rwhp) from your charts.

Damn son. :bowrofl:

Still, based on your fuel system and 72% IJDC, I think that dyno was a little bit optomistic. 280 or so seems likely, 300 should have maxed out the 550s. You can't beat physics.

paul, what was your fuel pressure? running > 60 psi fuel pressure on 550s means more than 300 rwhp.

You can question all you want, actually. As long as both sides stay technical and nobody introduces personal bullshit, the thread could go on forever, and if a mod closed it they'd get called out on it.

remember, 13 other people all ran on that dyno that same morning. it was dynojet, not much you can do for fudging the numbers. He was stilling more power than the rest of us, even airbrush at the same boost level with his T3 (saw 260rwhp at 14psi).

Assuming 50psi at atmospheric, he should have something like 64psi in the rail. When I do the math for 325BHP at .72 DC and .55 BSFC, I get 538cc as the ideal injector.

lulz, what math did you use? ;) mine comes out different.

the other option is that his 550 injectors flow greater than 550 cc/min @ 3 bar. if they're rx7 tII injectors, those have been shown to flow 575-600 cc/min, and the numbers would make sense.

I ain't knockin paul. he's the one who started pulling the 'how come your IJDC is much higher than mine' train, so I'm looking for the answer.

i have an electronic fuel pressure gauge that shows the pressure right around 60. typically when the car is at that load i can't look at the gauge very long

60 / 43.5 = 1.379

Sqaure Root of 1.379 = 1.174308307047174

1.174 x 550cc = 645.7cc

645.7cc / 10.5 = 61.49 lb/min


(61.49 lb/min * .72) / .55 = 80HP

80.5HP * 4 cylinders = 322BHP

got ya, I was figuring 50 psi fuel pressure.

remember the charge is pressurized, so you really should subtract boost from rail pressure to get differential fuel pressure.

well it's 1:1, so really it's all relative. the same fuel/air is being injected per each level of atmosphere...but the rail pressure is still increasing, so the fuel capacity is still be extended, correct?


maybe we need to see what Airbrush1 logged as his DC% on his 260rwhp run that afternoon.

just looked all over for the sheet from witch hunter for the 550's but can't find it. i think they tested at 550. supersaiyan might remember, i bought them off him

I didn't log anything that day, just did the pulls.

On my tuner's dynapack the car did 292 wheel, and I'm running low impedance
rx7 460's... I'm sure they wouldn't have maxed out my fuel completely

i've always run my calculations with the 1:1 in mind, 50psi at atmosphere plus whatever boost you're running, so at 15psi boost 65psi of fuel is considerably more fuel than at 50psi.

alternatively, why do we even need fuel pressure regulators?

i think it goes something like this:

our pumps would make 80+psi all the time which would
1. make it harder to idle the damn thing
2. burn the pump out faster
3. and that bitch would be loud

here was my last run from that day.

http://y8spec.com/dyno/plot6_duty.jpg

http://y8spec.com/dyno/250rwhpduty.png

No way I'd post this over there cause it'd get deleted... somebody confirm or set me straight on this:

I understand that Dyno's are a tool.
I understand that track performance is a much better indication of power than a dyno.
I understand that the numbers any dyno produces can be greatly fudged by a motivated operator.

But look at it this way. When Paris comes up in casual conversation, you automatically assume Hilton or France. Nobody thinks Perris, California and tries to put the conversation in context.

When you hear someone quote a dyno-number, you automatically assume they're talking about Dynojet numbers... unless they quantify it by saying, Mustang/DD/DynaPack/L&S where the %age above or below Dynojet numbers can be "roughed" based on lots and lots of history comparing numbers between the various dynos. In short, I've always been under the assumption that Dynojet was the "standard"... which is why people ALWAYS quantify if they're using anything other than Dynojet. Am I wrong?

Since it's my money, I'd like to know whether or not FM's dyno reads 25-30% higher than a Dynojet, or if the Hydra is worth 70whp over a Megasquirt for an extra $1500.

If it's worth the 70whp, then I'm converted... otherwise I'm gonna have Chad build me an MS when the time comes for $1700 less

Does anybody know what dyno they use and is there any data to compare it against any other system.

Good point. I think they were making 260whp on the old dyno...and not sure if they had hydra then. That might explain the change in figures. I don't think that car would put down 300 on a dynojet, and I'm also not smart enough to buy a turbo kit or engine management based on dyno #'s. If hydra were $1-g bar cheaper, I'd have that instead of MS.

I don't give a fuck which engine management you're using if fuel and spark are optimized from one system to another, you're going going to get that much of a difference in peak power.

haha, what i really meant was, why do we need the 1:1 part of the fpr?

otherwise we would need bigger injectors to run boost. then we are back to bigger injectors = harder to idle.

I say we get FM to put up one of their cars against another builder/tuner combination and dyno on the same system. I recommend TurboTim and DIYAutotune vs. FM. MS vs. Hydra. Doesn't get anymore David vs Goliath than that. Then we can listen to them squeal that theirs is more reliable or easier for noobs or some shit like that.
Stock motors of the same year. Same turbo, GT2560R. Whatever exhaust and intercooler they want to set up.

+1. Why don't you, Mr. Perez, and Sav. get behind this idea and get a thread going on m.net. I think EVERYONE would like to see a heads up eye-to-eye showdown. I know everyone on this forum would support it.

miata.turbo.net shootout! weeeeehoooo.

just make sure you dyno TWO places. FM and anywhere the other guy chooses.

TurboTim? Whatcha think? Let's see if a cast iron mani from FM can outflow an Absurdflow.

yes of course i understand that but why add more complexity to the system, take the 1.6 miata for example, i'm sure mazda could have gotten 205cc injectors to idle with 50psi of fuel pressure and conversely i'm sure they could have gotten 250cc injectors to run at 36psi of fuel pressure at redline in 5th gear, no real point in arguing anything here because it doesn't really matter, i just think it would be a better fueling system, kind of like why a stand alone ecu controls fuel better than an fmu.:bang:

only thing i can guess is fuel pump longevity?

they did go that route with the NB.


It would certainly make your fuel map be more consistent in it's patterns.

FM have a rototest dyno in-house. one of the best chassis dynos in the world. naturally, anybody with half a brain can figure out how to fudge the numbers it spews out.

FM's Dyno: http://flyinmiata.com/tech/rototest.asp

You're not wrong that the Dynojet is the Standard. But, to play devil's advocate, it was a pretty big deal on the pointy board when they got their new dyno a couple years ago. I think it even toasts bread or something.

I am confused with how the Hydra can show those kinds of gains as well. Shouldn't the fuel and spark tables be pretty much the same? The only differences being better tuning or better resolution?

It'd be fun to see a shoot out. It's not like the MS is exactly a direct competitor to the Hydra. FM needs something any joe blow can hook up and run safely without worrying about it to much. You pay for Plug and Play. I'm sure the Hydra is also less of a Customer Service nightmare.

Chris

guys guys guys, it's simple. He's using the same 99 motor FujiRacing used in their 177 hp ITB dyno.

Sam, post that verbatim. I will guarantee it won't be deleted.

Only 2 of those Dyno's in North America... hmmm.... no wonder there's no comparisons. I suppose if I was a shop owner and wanted my shop to post consistently higher dyno numbers than any other shop anywhere, I'd find a dyno from the other side of the world that nobody else had.

Then when my dyno posted huge numbers all the time and I got called out for it, I'd just say "a dyno is just a tool, numbers don't mean anything"... or the fanbois would do it for me.

I call bullshit. If Dynojet is the standard, then FM owes it to the community and to their customers to know how their machine stacks up against it. Take the next 5 cars that FM builds, put'em on the Rototest, let Jeremy work his magic. Drive straight to the closest Dynojet and make 3pulls. Corrected and Uncorrected vs. Same. Settle it.

^Sav, I'll let somebody else more eloquent than I take that thought process over there. If Keith or Jeremy would like to throw down, it would cost them less than $300 to put this thing to rest. I'll say it for the 4th or 5th time. I'm a potential Hydra customer. The money isn't all that important in the end. What should be important to FM is their reputation. I'd say 95% of the shit that gets talked about FM is directly related to their seemingly impossible dyno numbers that nobody else can reproduce. The "checkwriters" would never question the numbers and there's a large part of the community that resents that.

What's important to me is how much better Hydra is potentially than MS. If it's worth it, then I'm in... but FM will never get a dime from me and there will always be a doubt in the mind of the community that their dyno numbers are complete hogwash. The argument for a direct Dynojet comparison can't be dismissed. It's up them. I will sit back and watch now.

The problem really isn't the dyno, the problem is the 5000000' altitude in which they run the dyno. the correction factor they use isn't based on much.

as long as they perform before and after results on the same dyno, then the results are valid. But I always tend to simply ignore the power numbers as I can only take them with a grain of salt.

I like the people who are afraid to ask questions, like their dad is going to beat them. Its a simple fucking question..."how did you make the power?" If they threw down chicken bones on the dyno and lit and herb, at least they have something to explain it. Maybe I'm daft, probably not though considering my genetic superiority.

The biggest problem with their numbers is the EBC on the Hydra, IMO. The Hydra uses closed-loop control to aim for a certain absolute pressure number, say 170kpa. So the car makes 10psi of boost at sea level.

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.

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.

Not that it really makes a difference, but the car was running and MBC with the Hydra and an EBC with the Link.