xjay1337
Veteran Member
115 should be plenty according to Mac... see how he gets on
Wonder if ecu allows parameter "a lot"? Usually it's mg/str. 130 should be close enough for 340hp.A lot
My dyno graph is on my build thread.
The dyno/insoric measurement I did some time back I had 73,7mg/str on BPP 2,7tdi, which gave ~250HP at 4000rpm (282HP peak). If I scale your numbers I get 527HP * (73,7/107) * (2,7/4,2) = 233HP. So numbers are in the ballpark of maybe 20HP delta. Obviously setups are different and as you said if there are restrictions, differences in loss mechanisms, it will show up. But if you have good breathing/temps I would think IQ numbers track fairly well. I mean once you get your fueling working and sufficient lambda, then you essentially have a bit of timing to play with.Every engine and setup and dyno is different so no need to be secretive. im more interested in the ballbark +/- 5mg/str. To stop bs and talk numbers i will be first, 107mg @4000rpm gave me ~388kw from engine (BVN). So approx 260hp from r4 16v cr. I had quite small exhaust housings (high emp) so maybe the figure was more to the low side. Boost 2.3bar. Dyno is also showing rather less then more. Anyone some comparison?
lol dude. you don't have to count for displacement. cylinder # counts. 6 vs 8, not 2.7 vs 4.2The dyno/insoric measurement I did some time back I had 73,7mg/str on BPP 2,7tdi, which gave ~250HP at 4000rpm (282HP peak). If I scale your numbers I get 527HP * (73,7/107) * (2,7/4,2) = 233HP. So numbers are in the ballpark of maybe 20HP delta. Obviously setups are different and as you said if there are restrictions, differences in loss mechanisms, it will show up. But if you have good breathing/temps I would think IQ numbers track fairly well. I mean once you get your fueling working and sufficient lambda, then you essentially have a bit of timing to play with.
I thought about cylinder count but if you divide again with 6/8 the number is way off. So volume seems to track and altz1 also did not use cylinder count in his comparison to V8. Actually I compared my BPP with a BMK at same IQ and it made slightly more power. So maybe loss theory is exaggerated.lol dude. you don't have to count for displacement. cylinder # counts. 6 vs 8, not 2.7 vs 4.2
as an example, an 2.7 vs a 3.0, with same mass airflow and same boost/emp ratio, the 2.7 will make slightly more power at the crank than a 3.0 for a given IQ, because of the lower mechanical friction losses.
I think we are getting way off topic here. Somebody asked for an IQ number and because of the nature of this forum an answer was not given. Usually west of me in Hannover in Europe I dont bother asking questions any more. I was merely trying to help him out with my numbers and try to find some ball park way to compare my numbers with his. This is usually when you come online and poke holes and have a laugh.sure, tell that to all OEM doing downsizing for 15 years
No, because in actual comparison above case the volume, cylinder count and fueling tracked fairly linearly. 2L/4cyl/4injectors 2,7L/6cyl/6injectors and 4,2L/8cyl/8injectors, which is why altz1 also did the 50% of 4,2 litre comparison to 2L.sure, tell that to all OEM doing downsizing for 15 years
if we use your theorie a 4 cylinder 2l engine makes same power with 100 mg IQ than a 2 cylinder 2l engine doing also 100 mg IQ, even tough per time the 4 cyl has double amount of injections and hence also double mdot fuel...
please. he did /2 because of 8 vs 4 cylinder. leave the displacement alone next time....altz1 also did the 50% of 4,2 litre comparison to 2L.
yeah and 6 is half way between 4 and 8, or don't you still get it.please. he did /2 because of 8 vs 4 cylinder. leave the displacement alone next time.
I got that, but as I said it is not totally wrong because in most cases vol/# cylinders ratio is tracking fairly well. 2,7litre(BPP)/4.2litre gives 0.65 3litre(BMK)/4.2 litre gives 0.71 and 6/8cylinders is 0.75. Taking just 0.75 puts me up at 272HP which is then also 22HP off.I get it but you shouldn't use incorrect methodology on a forum (where other might read and assume your daft way of thinking is physically correct) if you have no clue what you are talking about. you use 2.7/4.2 which is wrong. other line
if you use 6/8 I would have totally agreed with you.
corrected for you.I think this must be the IQ map:
morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_
morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_
morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_
morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_
morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_
morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_morethanU_
1/4Ml terminal speeds are much truer indication. Also generally are flatter. Beats using a long downhill stretch on the local highwayI think we should start comparing 100-200 km/h times since its much more relevant.
Actually not.1/4Ml terminal speeds are much truer indication.
Who said the head and pump were stock?1/4Ml terminal speeds are much truer indication. Also generally are flatter. Beats using a long downhill stretch on the local highway
Besides why post factual information when in Romania cars are apparently doing 290hp on stock head and stock fuel pump?
Ummm all the Romanian and Italian tuners who claim 275-280-285-290 from CR with simply GTB2260 kit.Who said the head and pump were stock?
don't forget their dyno's are more accurate to1/4Ml terminal speeds are much truer indication. Also generally are flatter. Beats using a long downhill stretch on the local highway
Besides why post factual information when in Romania cars are apparently doing 290hp on stock head and stock fuel pump?
thats why they are all WR cars.don't forget their dyno's are more accurate to