R53 JCW 210 healthy number?
#1
R53 JCW 210 healthy number?
Hi guys,
Been on the dyno today for a remap for my JCW 210 (with GP cooler and ITG filter):
206 hp
240 nm
Rev limit upped 6900 > 7200
(Crank numbers)
I know this dyno reads a bit low, from what i've read, but whatever..
I have the dyno sheet at home, so could post that tomorrow.
Do you guys think this is a healthy number?
Been on the dyno today for a remap for my JCW 210 (with GP cooler and ITG filter):
206 hp
240 nm
Rev limit upped 6900 > 7200
(Crank numbers)
I know this dyno reads a bit low, from what i've read, but whatever..
I have the dyno sheet at home, so could post that tomorrow.
Do you guys think this is a healthy number?
#2
Using their calculations, i should have 170 hp on the wheels, i honestly thought it would make 180 at least.
Quess i was wrong..
They did the dyno test with the hood opened up, does someone know if this makes a difference for the cooling/intake charge?
Are there any things i should check?
Thanks,
Otto
Quess i was wrong..
They did the dyno test with the hood opened up, does someone know if this makes a difference for the cooling/intake charge?
Are there any things i should check?
Thanks,
Otto
#3
Using their calculations, i should have 170 hp on the wheels, i honestly thought it would make 180 at least.
Quess i was wrong..
They did the dyno test with the hood opened up, does someone know if this makes a difference for the cooling/intake charge?
Are there any things i should check?
Thanks,
Otto
Quess i was wrong..
They did the dyno test with the hood opened up, does someone know if this makes a difference for the cooling/intake charge?
Are there any things i should check?
Thanks,
Otto
Regards,
Jerry
#4
Maybe someone can explain this method to me..
I've asked their correction factor and it's 1.22, which seems a bit high to me..
170 x 1.22 would be approximately 206 hp, that's why i calculated it back to that.
Regards,
Otto
Last edited by DutchMini; 06-26-2016 at 04:01 AM.
#6
Sorry, don't know the brand, but they measure torque by putting load on the wheels every 1000 rpm.
Maybe someone can explain this method to me..
I've asked their correction factor and it's 1.22, which seems a bit high to me..
170 x 1.22 would be approximately 206 hp, that's why i calculated it back to that.
Regards,
Otto
Maybe someone can explain this method to me..
I've asked their correction factor and it's 1.22, which seems a bit high to me..
170 x 1.22 would be approximately 206 hp, that's why i calculated it back to that.
Regards,
Otto
Ok, so wheel hp was 170. I don't know much about that dyno, I am familiar with Dynojet and Mustang (which reads lower than a Dynojet).
If you use a standard correction factor (friction losses) or 15% for a 2wd vehicle, you come up with 200 bhp.
For comparison, my recent dyno run on a Dynojet put out a best of 183 rwhp compared to your 170. That is with an AFR of 10.5 (too rich), so there is some hp left with good tuning.
Regards,
Jerry
#7
Ok, so wheel hp was 170. I don't know much about that dyno, I am familiar with Dynojet and Mustang (which reads lower than a Dynojet).
If you use a standard correction factor (friction losses) or 15% for a 2wd vehicle, you come up with 200 bhp.
For comparison, my recent dyno run on a Dynojet put out a best of 183 rwhp compared to your 170. That is with an AFR of 10.5 (too rich), so there is some hp left with good tuning.
Regards,
Jerry
If you use a standard correction factor (friction losses) or 15% for a 2wd vehicle, you come up with 200 bhp.
For comparison, my recent dyno run on a Dynojet put out a best of 183 rwhp compared to your 170. That is with an AFR of 10.5 (too rich), so there is some hp left with good tuning.
Regards,
Jerry
Do you think it could be something to do with the cooling (heatsoak)?
Obviously this is something i can't check, apart from the fact they measured with the hood open and i honestly believe wind from driving is more effective..
The car drives very good and smooth, it also reaches 1 bar of boost, so i quess no leaks (stock JCW pulley).
A friend of mine has a regular S (2003) with a CAI, 17% pulley, GRS intercooler, remap and full exhaust (one ball + decat).
We had some runs and our acceleration was pretty much identical.
Is this normal or should one of us be noticeably faster than the other?
Otto
Trending Topics
#8
Hmm, okay then..
Do you think it could be something to do with the cooling (heatsoak)?
Obviously this is something i can't check, apart from the fact they measured with the hood open and i honestly believe wind from driving is more effective..
The car drives very good and smooth, it also reaches 1 bar of boost, so i quess no leaks (stock JCW pulley).
A friend of mine has a regular S (2003) with a CAI, 17% pulley, GRS intercooler, remap and full exhaust (one ball + decat).
We had some runs and our acceleration was pretty much identical.
Is this normal or should one of us be noticeably faster than the other?
Otto
Do you think it could be something to do with the cooling (heatsoak)?
Obviously this is something i can't check, apart from the fact they measured with the hood open and i honestly believe wind from driving is more effective..
The car drives very good and smooth, it also reaches 1 bar of boost, so i quess no leaks (stock JCW pulley).
A friend of mine has a regular S (2003) with a CAI, 17% pulley, GRS intercooler, remap and full exhaust (one ball + decat).
We had some runs and our acceleration was pretty much identical.
Is this normal or should one of us be noticeably faster than the other?
Otto
If runs are pretty much identical, then given equal driving skills, cars should be putting out similar power.
Some cars are slightly more powerful than others, but usually engines test within abut 3-5%.
Tune is very important, especially as cars get older. When you put the car on a dyno, they should give you a readout that includes the AFR across the rev range. That will tell you how well the engine is running. Too rich or too lean robs power, with lean being dangerous. As such, most cars run rich, and that is where tuners make some power by leaning it out some.
I am not sure where the AFR's should be on our cars. On another SC car I have, best power is low 13's. But that is a little lean for street driving, so that car runs in the high 12's AFR's.
I am guessing our cars should be in the same range, but I don't know.
Regards,
Jerry
#12
I just Dyno my car yesterday and i made pretty good numbers. Up to 6800 RPM. I love the liner powerband.
03 MCS (not JCW)
Street Cams
17% pulley
Hot air intake
Aluminum Intercooler
Exhaust Manifold (no Cats)
Stock Injectors
Average Wheel HP/TQ
181whp and 148wtq
+15% Lost thru drivetrain
Flywheel HP
208hp and 170tq
If we do it by
+12% Lost thru drivetrain
Flywheel HP
202hp and 165tq
If we do it by
+10% Lost thru drivetrain
FLywheel HP
199hp and 163tq
03 MCS (not JCW)
Street Cams
17% pulley
Hot air intake
Aluminum Intercooler
Exhaust Manifold (no Cats)
Stock Injectors
Average Wheel HP/TQ
181whp and 148wtq
+15% Lost thru drivetrain
Flywheel HP
208hp and 170tq
If we do it by
+12% Lost thru drivetrain
Flywheel HP
202hp and 165tq
If we do it by
+10% Lost thru drivetrain
FLywheel HP
199hp and 163tq
#13
#14
It's still rich AF, so maybe a bit more when they lean it out.
I wanted it a bit rich for future mods..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MarkRNH
F55/F56 :: Hatch Talk (2014+)
11
08-31-2018 10:54 AM