Oooo dont mention the track around here. Some people like to hide behind numbers and their keyboards Numbers mean nothing if you dont know how to use them

 

Agreed. Here's some people who have actually drag raced their cars:

http://www.ross-tech.net/andy/mini/d...artermile.html

Some of those same people also know what numbers mean. :smile:

 

How often is this updated ? i know of 1320autos over here that has posted on NAM with some good results on regular drag strip running...how do they add theyre figures to this ?

 

 

 

Anyone who wants their time added needs to email their info to me.

 

We should put together something like that but with numbers that matter, like track times

 

I calculated torque from the change in speed over the change in time. The numbers are a bit off (+/- 2 lb-ft or so) from what the dyno showed due to smooth, rounding, and sample rates, but the finishing order should be the same:

1 Bob Nigbor 183.3 lb-ft (181.8 peak whp)
2 Mike Leggit 163.3 lb-ft (191.6 peak whp)
3 Tamoosh 161.6 lb-ft (179.8 peak whp)
4 Dave Chen 157.6 lb-ft (169.4 peak whp)
5 Cosworth 157.2 lb-ft (201.8 peak whp)
6 Jason Partin 148.6 lb-ft (168.5 peak whp)
7 Robert Works 148.5 (171.7 peak whp)

As you can see, despite having the highest whp, the Cosworth car has considerably less peak torque than some of the others. Also, this should negate the argument that the dyno shows low torque for all the cars.

 

Andy you have to much time on your hands god knows how you work all that stuff out but it does give us all a different vision of whats going on.

Unfortunatley a lot of people look at peak numbers where as you better off sacrificing peak if you can have acceleration as shown above, that speaks volumes.

The real world dyno is either a drag strip or a circuit and if you come away with a quicker et you're going in the right direction, simple as that.

I wonder what would happen if those same cars met at a drag strip and then went off to a circuit, at least there is no skill involved getting down the 1/4.

If the 1/4 mile thing did happen don't forget to weigh them.

 

What's up with Bob Nigbor having more TQ than HP - has he got a diesel or a V8 or something??
Speaking of, Shawn with 163.8 whp stock?! That's a tight motor!

 

Bob Nigbor's car accelerated VERY strongly at low rpm, but died off as the revs climbed. That's why his peak whp was lower than the much weaker overall Cosworth car.

 

Hi, I'm very new here and just found this Cosworth thread.
I am now considering a Cossie for my due to arrive MCS. Old Gray!

This data does leave one to wonder and then again, some of it here makes me laugh... Who was speaking of 1/4 mile times? Why would we want to run 1/4 mile runs in the nimble MINI? To me, I see the MINI as a quirky corner cruncher that is more suited for bends than straights. I may be wrong...

This arguement fells silly tho. I applaude the Cosworth Guy here for bringing the details to us. I'm sure on a road course it has huge benefits.

Dyno Schmyno

 

Pathetic Andy....
You are wrong and you know it, the fan was used to push air thru the stock intercooler, which is a common practice with all tuners. And as I already
told everyone in the previous mangled thread the fan pushes air thru
the IC, the air is diffused, and is nowhere near the TB, so having the nerve to tell everyone, over and over again that we forced air in to
the TB is certifiably stupid and showing how you are just trying really hard
to making the Cosworth kit look bad. The difference between filter and no filter is an insignificant 1hp, which is well within the statistical background
noise level IE. who gives a .......

Horse power is ovious hard to come by, on this particular dyno, as the list
of cars with low power numbers prove, we got over 201.8 which is excactly where we wanted to be. If we want 202.8 hp we'll take the filter of

As for price who came up with $5500 is beyond me, its $4850.00 and if you ask nicely I might throw in some other goodies.....that's not pricey in my book.



peter
Team M7
562-608-8123

 

Next time you guys have a dyno day, please make sure you all use the same procedures, that way we don't have to hear this non-sense, I don't have a Cosworth kit but I've been on dynos with various car, I even spent a day watching cars on a dyno as as Peter said the fan was not blowing in the intake, there was guys using water, how about them, did they make more power because of it, maybe for next time, if one uses the fan make sure you all use it, that way nobody can find excuses. :impatient

 

Well if you want to talk on about big changes then what is the deal with the cosworth car using race gas? This would allow for higher ignition advance which leads to increased torque and power.

 

Andy we already went around this once and only a few days ago.Did you forget already? The carpet fan was there for ANYONE to use. It is part of the shop equipment. I would find it strange if no one else picked it up and gave it a try.Additionally most of the other cars were having water sprayed on the intercoolers during the runs by the dyno techs . How does that factor into the equation . You are basing your ASSumption on the report of someone that got there at the end of the testing . The tests with the air filter removed were to determine if there was any possible hp loss with the filter in place . There was ONE hp loss which could easily be factored out as a normal dyno variance. We never set out to build the car with the most HP . We built this as a competitive package and viable alternative the the JCW program. With every JCW car we have matched up in the REAL world we have achieved this goal a big way. You should actually drive the car sometime instead of your calculator. You would be as impressed as the writer from Autoweek . Any chance of you being at SEMA this year?

Randy
M7 Tuning

 

The owner of the car had a little side bet with a fellow club member as to who's car had the most HP in the same trim as they last raced at the track. That made it imperative that he use the same fuel which is his case was bout 50/50 race gas ( 94 octane) and 91. The result ? The car had two LESS hp than his last visit to the same dyno when he ran only 91 and the exact same hardware configuration.Our only idea as to why it ran worse was that the software map was written for 91 and not 94. Next question ?
Randy
M7 Tuning

 

Sure, my next question would be what was the air temp and humidity on both days these numbers were recorded?

 

The numbers for the second day are listed in the begining of this thread. The owner of the car will have to check and see if he has the info on the first days runs if he would be so kind

Randy
M7 Tuning

 

 

This one is going to get just as mangled as the first one. Me, I love the work Andy does. The info he posted in this thread is EXACTLY to kind of info I want to help determine my mods. I couldn care less about peak HP, but the acceleration times in X rpm range let me know what each mod can do.

And yes, unless you built some sort of funnel type thing to make sure the fan was blowing only on the IC, then the fan would help circulate the air in the engine compartment...not much, but on the dyno every bit helps.

But, if I had $5500 to spend on my car, I know where it would go. Pre-packaged upgrades are not my thing, I want the best combination of each part I can get.

What JCW kit were on those two that were in the 172whp range? 200 or 210?

 

I'm actually a bit surprised at what you're saying, Andy. Of all the people in here, I'd expect, if nothing else, that you would understand how insignificant an effect you would get from putting a carpet fan in position to blow into the intake. I wasn't there, so I can't quote size and numbers, but a fan moving a few hundred CFM over a comparitively large area isn't going to impact the air moving into the intake of a supercharger enough to impact the HP numbers beyond measurement uncertainty. Meaning not at all.

And this goes for anyone else who believes this fan on the intake could do jack for numbers. If you believe it, go buy yourself one of those "sweet" electric superchargers and get your +20 HP.

Or you could try to be smart about it, unless that's just too difficult for you.

 

Andy,

I remember this type of calculation very well. In fact, I made this calculation in the AGS dyno thread. At that time, though, Alta posted this:

"Either way the time doesn't matter that much. If you have a car that does 200WHP and the run takes 13 sec. Then this other car does 150 and it takes 13sec, the dyno calculated more WHP on the first car, it will be faster, even though they took the same time. Its all in how they have the dyno setup. They could have the dyno programed to run the same time no matter what WHP its putting down. But the computer knows how much load it is applying to calculate HP. I am not familiar with dynojets and how they can be setup, but nearly all others can do this."

At the time, I shrugged it off, but in reading up, I do believe they were right. Dynos will compensate for load borne by adjusting resistance on the rollers. Put another way, if your car puts less stress on the rollers, it less you go easily. If you grip them like mad, it will try to keep from being spun to shreads. All along, though, the computer inputs the rate of spinning, applies correction for the resistance used, and records torque and hp. I think all of the measurements you just made [which are strikingly similar to those I first made !], are intact but missing an important variable. It is critical that I point this out since xx people afterwards believed you (, sorry I had to jlm).

I will be beating the hell out of my car, at the drags amongst other places. I will get you guys intact numbers. I am no professional drag racer [i have never even drvien my car on 1/4!], but I will do that, and I will let you know. Ok? . Have a great day everyone.

PS: I will 'post my paper,' so to speak. Just don't laugh at my 0-60....I'm on S Lites !

 

"I will be beating the hell out of my car, at the drags amongst other places. I will get you guys intact numbers. I am no professional drag racer [i have never even drvien my car on 1/4!], but I will do that, and I will let you know. Ok? ."

now we're talkin'

 

I'm confused. Why is it okay to do this: But in Randy Webb's pulley eval thread, when he wrote this:

Here are the acceleration numbers:

3rd gear
Time from 3500 to 6000 RPM
Before: 7.5 seconds
After: 6.6 seconds

That is the average of five runs in each mode. The times were recorded using a Rubic stopwatch.

Andy wrote:
That's a 14.3 % difference in horsepower, or 25 WHP on a 175 WHP car. I have trouble believing that sort of gain, even with a crank pulley that has no mass at all.

When Randy performed actual dyno tests that showed a differential in time (averaged over 5 attempts), the results were dismissed.

But isn't the same sort of calculation being performed with Andy's comparison? Except it's a calculation based on one dyno run, not the average of several? Isn't this the same number that was dismissed in Randy's eval?

I'm confused, help!