That engine was dyno'd on Norris Designs engine dyno.

 

Well yes they do, and I've just confirmed again with Andrew that shootout44 mode gives higher numbers than a Dynojet, and that is a fact, plain and simple.

EVO VIII

205whp - Dyno Dynamics in regular mode with "1.0" correction

235whp - Dynojet

265whp - DD in shootout44 mode


My GT35R 2.0L delivered 397whp on a DD in regular mode with pump fuel, which is roughly 450whp on a Dynojet. Extrapolated to shootout44 mode works out to ~515whp, and I did it with much less manifold pressure and sharp tuning.

 

Ted B, did you ever consider that one person could be wrong?

I've read the MLR for over 4 years, and pretty much the only damn dyno they have out there is DD. I don't even live in the UK and can name the following operators:

WRC
G-Force
Racing Line
Scooby Clinic

And I can confirm that all results posted in the UK seem to have the Shoot44 at the bottom.

And I can confirm that the MLR has standardised on what is called a 24% Fudge Factor on making a guess at flywheel figures. Yes it is a guess but has proved close and was initially determined by taking a car from engine dyno to DD directly.

So Ted with this new info would you at least leave room for the possibility that DD Shoot44 is nothing close to DynoJet / Flywheel.

 

Ted, the very best Evo IXs run on pump fuel on the stock turbos with exhaust, induction, fuel pump, reflash are doing 300-320 WHP on Dyno Dynamics shootout mode in the UK. Most of the higher numbers are from Mg compressor wheels. These are not flywheel figures, on dynos such as Dastek or Maha which apply a coastdown run, the 320 WHP cars are doing about 400 BHP.

 

I dont understand why you guys can just see what we are talkig about, there are many ways to fudge and change a Dyno graph and the fact that you guyd from the UK are disagreeing with us about Flwheel numbers and Whp numbers. i dont see why its confusing. its pretty simple to see whats going on here.

 

And lest you missed a previous discussion, we debunked said universal 'fudge factor' of 24% as bollocks, as the drivetrain losses do not magically rise at the same rate as increases in engine power. How convenient if that were the case, but it isn't. The percentage of drivetrain losses is reduced as engine power is increases, so one can't pose such extrapolations as gospel and universally applicable - they aren't.

As for the dyno data, there are quite a few different variables that can be manipulated to make comparisons useless, and therefore, using that to come here and imply that everyone in the UK is magically obtaining much more power with the same equipment is, putting it kindly, unlikely.

Again, I'll say show me trap speeds, and I'll entertain a discussion. Otherwise, it's useless and largely baseless unless it's all done on the same dyno, with the same settings.

 

Agree, the adjustment is likely to be closer to an addition/subtraction rather than a multiplier/divider.

By demanding trap speeds in your comparison you introduce a whole load of other variables as well.

Norris Designs has run his engine on the same engine dyno (it is his) and has 9 sec drag runs, I'm sure someone will come up with the results, but it isn't a GT35R and it isn't run on pump fuel.

I think it is incorrect to imply that either side of the pond are tuning better than the other.

One thing to consider is that very few in the UK run anything much bigger than the standard turbo without building the engine. This may be why we often run higher boost on pump fuel because the cylinder pressures (without detonation of course) can be higher. In combination with the poor availability and price of race fuel it should be considered interesting rather than ridiculous to run GT35Rs over 2 bar on pump. I think if they made more power and torque at lower boost the several capable mappers that are setting up these engines would have realised by now. Whilst I hugely appreciate the benefits of higher octane fuel, there is a lot more emphasis about it on the US boards both Subaru and Mistubishi. Whilst it is stretching things a little far, it is worth considering the huge boost levels run on WRC engines with mediocre octane. I'm not an expert in the regulations, but with the correct hardware it can be done even at high compression.

 

Yes, I understand what you're saying. To be quite honest, I think there's a good deal more to this than has been suggested here. As they say, the 'devil' is in the details, and I feel confident there are a lot of details . . .

 

Ted I mentioned the 24% number only to illustrate the ballpark of number (eg atw not atf).

This is my fault. In a previous post I might have gave the impression I thought more power was being made in the UK. Actually I just meant specifically GT35R on pump fuel cars.

Good point and I agree. Unfortunately they don't have the penchance for that type of racing in the UK. But you know I swear, why can't a damn dyno result be comparable given the same machines.

 

I do think the UK cars will be making more power on pump on GT35R simply because most US cars don't seem to push on the GT35R and pull out the race gas with nearly every dyno plot you see. Because of availability of race fuel I just ignore all the US race fuel numbers to be honest, they are as irrelevant to me as our 2 bar UK cars on pump are to them.

 

The various settings that are frequently manipulated on these dynos (for whatever reason) tend to make comparisons risky at best. We just can't segregate the red apples from green apples by feeling in the dark.

As for the engine dyno figures, I'd like to know more about the details of the engine and turbo setup (e.g. hotside specifics). Like I mentioned above, the details are as pertinent and revealing as the basics. By no means am I diminishing the importance and interest of the work of these builders and tuners, so let me state that for the record.

 

I might add that there is more to fuel than octane ratings (i.e. composition differences), and therefore if Optimax represents a significant step up from 98 RON, it probably isn't directly comparable to U.S. 93 octane. After all, methanol has a octane rating of ~100 (U.S. method), but it definitely doesn't behave like 100 octane petrol.

IF this is the case, that goes a long way toward explaining the ability to run such boost pressures with Optimax, because it doesn't work that way here with our pump fuel.

 

This thread contains to much comparison of numbers measured on different scales and viewed as the same to actually be useful. I salvaged absoloutly not one shread of usable information from 5 pages of otherwise extremely knowledgable people talking.

 

Yes, it's a bit like trying to assemble a puzzle with the pieces constantly changing shape.

Nevertheless, for the sake of discussion, here are a couple of examples that seem to put the Norris results into a plausible perspective:


Norris Designs
2.25L
Cams, Kansai intake manifold, ported head
Full Race GT35R kit
605bhp/534ft-lbs - Engine dyno
2.4 bar (35 psi)
Optimax fuel

Buschur Racing
2.3L
PT67R
Cams, AMS intake manifold, ported head
515whp/362 ft-lbs - Mustang Dyno (reads like a DD in regular mode w/1.0 correction)
1.5 bar (22 psi)
U.S. 93 octane

"evolution31"
2.0L (?)
Innovative GTS70 FM
Mild cams, intake?, head?
568whp/438 ft-lbs (Dynojet)
probably 1.6 bar or less boost pressure
U.S. 93 octane


Given these examples and knowing the Norris results are reported with an engine dyno, said results seem believable, and I see no debate there. At this point, the only real outstanding question I have pertains to fuel and boost pressure of the Norris results.

 

Yeah, that sounds about right, why so much boost and so little power. Thats about high 400's on a regular chassis dyno if im not mistaken, so whats the deal with the boost numbers that we see high 500's on in the states with methanol?