Need comments 20v dyno chart

[speedmaster]

Can anyone comment on my dyno chart? i feel that the torque is not as high as i expected it to be. is there any way to improve the torque?

Engine setup

20v Blacktop 1600cc
CnC ported head
Toda 264 272 9.0mm
CP 82mm 12cr piston
H beam rods
0.8 TRD metal gasket
Adaptronic e420c management
Evo coil pack
Snow Performance stage 1 water meth injection

if you need any other info, let me know. thanks again for any comments.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uuw7l5za0oawfx2/IMG-20131007-WA0000.jpg

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Your graph didn't post.
Torque is irrelevant until you assign it RPM then you have a measurable unit of work. In the US this unit of work is usually called HP.
What you are looking for is more low end horsepower.
We would have to look at your graph and compare it to some others to see if it looks healthy. If it is healthy then things that will increase low end power will tend to sacrifice high end power.

[speedmaster]

im sorry the picture didnt load. i already edited the link

[jondee86]

Your graph didn't post.
Torque is irrelevant until you assign it RPM then you have a measurable unit of work.
In the US this unit of work is usually called HP.
What you are looking for is more low end horsepower.
We would have to look at your graph and compare it to some others to see if it looks
healthy. If it is healthy then things that will increase low end power will tend to
sacrifice high end power.

It often seems that people are confused about the relationship between POWER
and TORQUE. For example, we have heard engine builders, camshaft consultants, and
other technical experts ask customers:
"Do you want your engine to make HORSEPOWER or TORQUE?"

And the question is usually asked in a tone which strongly suggests that these experts
believe power and torque are somehow mutually exclusive.

In fact, the opposite is true, and you should be clear on these facts:

POWER (the rate of doing WORK) is dependent on TORQUE and RPM.
TORQUE and RPM are the MEASURED quantities of engine output.
POWER is CALCULATED from torque and RPM, by the following equation:

HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252

(At the bottom of this page, the derivation of that equation is shown, for anyone interested.)

An engine produces POWER by providing a ROTATING SHAFT which can exert a given
amount of TORQUE on a load at a given RPM. The amount of TORQUE the engine can
exert usually varies with RPM.

To summarise; HP is a derived figure... it cannot be measured directly. You can measure
TORQUE, and you can measure RPM, but you can only calculate HP as outlined above.

Cheers... jondee86

PS: Info quoted above borrowed from...
http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_te ... torque.htm

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Your torque graph is completely bogus and that is never good for the legitimacy of a dyno. The torque should be above the HP until about 7k in your case. The fact that it is below the HP till 4500 is real fishy and a mathematical impossibility.

If we just focus on your power curve though it looks pretty dang nice to me.
Here is a thread of 20v dynos.
http://forums.club4ag.com/zerothread?id=6288
The fact that you are running big cams and have kept the low end power higher than most of the cars in that thread running stock cams is a real good sign to me. You have picked up power across the board.
The one dyno that does better than yours across the board is katopunk's but his is an engine dyno. Once you factor for drive train loss I'd suspect your dynos would look nearly identical across the board.

If you are on the stock ECU which I doubt, you could try advancing the timing if you aren't getting knock yet. Unfortunately you would only be able to set the base timing to your lowest common denominator.
If you are running aftermarket engine management you can try advancing the timing as much as possible. If this is the case you can set the timing in individual locations but you would want it as advanced as possible across the board.
To do this right you would want a detcan or a J&S or something.

Increasing compression would give you more power across the range up to the point of detonation. With your build and cams I think you could go a little more than 12:1.

Everything else will sacrifice high end for low end. Cam timing, intake and exhaust tuning, etc.

Honestly I'd be pretty happy with it. If you have the means to monitor knock you could play with ignition timing a little more and try to maximize the setup as much as possible but it looks good.

[Duy-]

Your torque graph is completely bogus and that is never good for the legitimacy of a dyno. The torque should be above the HP until about 7k in your case. The fact that it is below the HP till 4500 is real fishy and a mathematical impossibility.

does this have anything to do with the fact that its in n-m not ft-lbs?

[Gsolo]

does this have anything to do with the fact that its in n-m not ft-lbs?

Yes. Using newton meter and horsepower the RPM figure is roughly 7120 rpm instead of 5252 rpm used with lb-ft

[Gsolo]

Is this dyno at the wheels? If so impressive

[speedmaster]

Im running Adaptronic e420c management with Snow Performance stage 1 water meth injection

[speedmaster]

Your torque graph is completely bogus and that is never good for the legitimacy of a dyno. The torque should be above the HP until about 7k in your case. The fact that it is below the HP till 4500 is real fishy and a mathematical impossibility.

is there any way to fine tune my torque?

[speedmaster]

Is this dyno at the wheels? If so impressive

yes, but im still concerned about the torque

[burdickjp]

To me the torque looks decent for a 4A. Dip at ~5700 is VVT, correct? That transition can be difficult, but should be worked on. You have >140 Nm from 5500 to 8000. That's not bad.

[speedmaster]

To me the torque looks decent for a 4A. Dip at ~5700 is VVT, correct? That transition can be difficult, but should be worked on. You have >140 Nm from 5500 to 8000. That's not bad.

Hi bro. Im using an adjustable aftermarket pulley. No more vvt. And now that u mentioned the dip I just remembered I did not disconnect the solenoid socket..... awww man

[jabran200]

I have to say that torque curve is very strange for an N/A engine. Have a look at my post I made with my graph and cal file for a 16v, you are looking for something like that in the torque curve. Send me your ecu file, I'll have a look and see if there is anything odd there

[speedmaster]

I have to say that torque curve is very strange for an N/A engine. Have a look at my post I made with my graph and cal file for a 16v, you are looking for something like that in the torque curve. Send me your ecu file, I'll have a look and see if there is anything odd there

sure thing, whats ur email? i find it weird also as a mate of mine dynoed a stock BT and got himself 150nm of torque

[jabran200]

info@dynoperformance.co.uk

[speedmaster]

sending them now. and thanks for the help in advance

[yoshimitsuspeed]

is there any way to fine tune my torque?

I just realized that your torque graph is scaled way different than your HP graph. That's why I was so thrown off.
I saw the HP graph and saw the other graph peaked at about the same and didn't even think to look at the bottom where it's significantly different. This seems pretty stupid to me since it throws of the scale of the two and also wrecks the natural appearance of the torque curve.
You should just take some white out and get rid of it.

Also stop thinking in torque. Torque is meaningless until you figure out how much work it can do and that is dictated by RPM.

Are you looking for more power within a certain RPM range? Like say is it more important that you make more TQ/HP from 3k to 5k RPM?
If so are you willing to sacrifice TQ/HP from 5k RPM to redline?

[speedmaster]

is there any way to fine tune my torque?

I just realized that your torque graph is scaled way different than your HP graph. That's why I was so thrown off.
I saw the HP graph and saw the other graph peaked at about the same and didn't even think to look at the bottom where it's significantly different. This seems pretty stupid to me since it throws of the scale of the two and also wrecks the natural appearance of the torque curve.
You should just take some white out and get rid of it.

Also stop thinking in torque. Torque is meaningless until you figure out how much work it can do and that is dictated by RPM.

Are you looking for more power within a certain RPM range? Like say is it more important that you make more TQ/HP from 3k to 5k RPM?
If so are you willing to sacrifice TQ/HP from 5k RPM to redline?

engine is built for 1/4 mile drag race only. and yes im willing to sacrifice low TQ HP for high rpm.

I managed 13.5s @ 1/4 mile with this setup which i got 1st placing on 1600cc class and 2nd placing on 1800cc class. it good enuf for me but im just wondering if i could retune to get better reading.

[jabran200]

I agree a silly way to scale, makes dips etc seem way larger than they are

[yoshimitsuspeed]

engine is built for 1/4 mile drag race only. and yes im willing to sacrifice low TQ HP for high rpm.

I managed 13.5s @ 1/4 mile with this setup which i got 1st placing on 1600cc class and 2nd placing on 1800cc class. it good enuf for me but im just wondering if i could retune to get better reading.

Playing with cam gears might help move the power around a little bit. You might be able to cut a little off the top to gain some in the mid RPM.
Different velocity stacks can help move the power curve lower. I'm not familiar with tuning the 4A ITBs with stacks so I can't make any direct suggestions but generally a thinner longer stack will increase low end performance at the cost of some high end.
Exhaust tuning can do the same but the 4A world just doesn't have systems with dyno proven results so you would have to dive into the black art of exhaust tuning.
If you are interested in this then this book would be a great place to start. http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Exhaus ... ke+exhaust
Like I said though it's half science and half black art. It's not likely you will build your first exhaust to do what you want. You would need to design and build several, test them and then use that knowledge for further design and refinement.

You could also try a cam that allows you to run VVT.
Is your 264 cam on the intake side?
If so you could run an intake side poncam which has the same specs but keeps VVT.
http://matrixgarage.com/products/tomei- ... int-256-ex
This will help broaden your power curve and may actually allow some gains down low and up top or may allow you to tune for even more down low while maintaining the same peak power.
If you went with both the intake and exhaust side poncam you would probably loose a bit up top due to the exhaust side cam being smaller but you would probably gain a good bit in the mid RPM.

[speedmaster]

thank you for the reply. im using stock airbox with imec short stacks. yes, im running 264 on the intake side.

[jabran200]

Who mapped it?

I have to say it looks like not much work has been done in the cruise areas in terms of ignition timing and espeically low end timing from 1800-2400 rpms at WOT.

There are defiantely gains to be head on reall low down torque and possibly some mid but at the top end it looks pretty maxed out.

Do you have a/f graphs?

[speedmaster]

a/f graphs is in the same paper. at the bottom

[yoshimitsuspeed]

thank you for the reply. im using stock airbox with imec short stacks. yes, im running 264 on the intake side.

I'd jump to a cam that would allow you to run VVT on the intake.
You might try a few different stack designs too.

[jabran200]

early on between 2500-4500 it is too lean will cause the car to fell like it is holding back. Then after 4.5-6.5 it is leaning out again which I believe is contributing towards that dip at 5700. From 6.5-7.5 the ratios look somewhere I would like to be (every engine is different) after that it begins to get a bit too close to 14 for my liking.

I could perhaps send a revised file out but you would need to have det cans at the very least and an afr gauge for me to do it.

I agree get a cam that allows vvt, will be soo much better to drive.

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Good call on the AFRs. I missed that graph. That lean spot is in perfect coincidence with the power dip.
Once you get rid of that it would be good to do a run running a little richer and see if you gain any power across the board.

[gaijin_rokurunner]

if you want more torque and hp ur going to have to scrap the VVT and get a higher lift set of cams...

[speedmaster]

thank you for the reply. im using stock airbox with imec short stacks. yes, im running 264 on the intake side.

I'd jump to a cam that would allow you to run VVT on the intake.
You might try a few different stack designs too.

Im using water methanol injection so I need to keep my airbox. I have several stacks but cnt fit in them. The only I can fit in is the imec stacks

[speedmaster]

early on between 2500-4500 it is too lean will cause the car to fell like it is holding back. Then after 4.5-6.5 it is leaning out again which I believe is contributing towards that dip at 5700. From 6.5-7.5 the ratios look somewhere I would like to be (every engine is different) after that it begins to get a bit too close to 14 for my liking.

I could perhaps send a revised file out but you would need to have det cans at the very least and an afr gauge for me to do it.

I agree get a cam that allows vvt, will be soo much better to drive.

Its not going to be a daily driven car