2.0 CR big turbo build, aiming to set WR

115 should be plenty according to Mac... see how he gets on

xjay1337 said:

A lot
My dyno graph is on my build thread.

Click to expand...

Wonder if ecu allows parameter "a lot"? Usually it's mg/str. 130 should be close enough for 340hp.

I think i have limited knowledge but 130mg seem too much for 340hp
Maybe more like 125?
We are not thinking of increasing anything right now, just concentrating on the 5000+ rpm
By the end of the week we should be there!

HP ~ IQ*rpm minus (friction+pumping losses)

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?

I dont think numbers are so important as to keep them secret.
For example, we use max 115mg iq, and that tells you almost nothing. You know the number, you can guess the boost, but you know or dont how to get there. There is the secret, getting there. The tweaks to do in order to keep it going as it should.

We can guess Jamie here is using around 125mg maybe with 2.6 boost ...but this info alone only tells that he has "that" amount of power.

I think this must be the IQ map:

£££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££

altz1 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

eddie_1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Rub87 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

Rougly its 2.5hp/1mg/str@4000rpm on lawnmover engine.

Rub87 said:

sure, tell that to all OEM doing downsizing for 15 years

Click to expand...

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.

Rub87 said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Dont expect any straight answers from Jamie, everything is top secret although numbers dont mean much like i said above, but its still a secret
If you do the math you come up with maybe 125mg iq and 2.6 boost

I think we should start comparing 100-200 km/h times since its much more relevant.
I have a dyno queen in my garage..the 1st to admit that.

eddie_1 said:

...altz1 also did the 50% of 4,2 litre comparison to 2L.

Click to expand...

please. he did /2 because of 8 vs 4 cylinder. leave the displacement alone next time.

Rub87 said:

please. he did /2 because of 8 vs 4 cylinder. leave the displacement alone next time.

Click to expand...

yeah and 6 is half way between 4 and 8, or don't you still get it.

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.

Rub87 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

As I already wrote, I also disagree about the point of the forum. If someone asks a simple question and an answer cannot be given, then the forum is pointless. If then someone else tries to share their information and has a slight calculation difference, what is the point at laughing at them to show you know a basic textbook formula better??? As someone said this is not rocket science, it is making tractors go faster. For me it is a hobby. Since when did someone need 100% correction to post something in a forum or did not receive a constructive and not destructive feedback.

You just have to use the correct way of thinking. this is more important then getting the after the comma correct result, which you in this matter anyway cannot achieve.

eddie_1 said:

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_

Click to expand...

corrected for you.

Macradiators.com said:

I think we should start comparing 100-200 km/h times since its much more relevant.

Click to expand...

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?

xjay1337 said:

1/4Ml terminal speeds are much truer indication.

Click to expand...

Actually not.
100-200kmh runs are quite good performance indicator with 5hz+ gps measuring instrument, not potato instument. Usually with one gearshift and less errors compared to 1/4 trap speeds.
And its not that hard to find short straight road for the measuring.

xjay1337 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Who said the head and pump were stock?

Apart from a dyno run and lot of BS we havent seen any indicator of performance from Jamie, worth just as much as a fart in the wind.
100-200 is more relevant than 402m run.

Actually the fastest street diesels are here in romania for the moment so i would be a little more humble if i were you. 11.5, 11.6 seconds / 402m
Whats the fastest street in uk? 12.1?

Anyway its not a pissing contest, i was just telling about my fueling issues and what we are doing.

I did 100-200km/h and it was very slow, 14.2 seconds measured with 10hz GPS on long straight road (Jamie can see it on FB) 10HZ is much more accurate than vcds results.



Anyway: turbo setup is sold, so is the manifold and cp3 kit.

As soon as the new setup arrives we will concentrate on a better result. Once the fuel pressure is solved, there will be no issues.

mrchill said:

Who said the head and pump were stock?

Click to expand...

Ummm all the Romanian and Italian tuners who claim 275-280-285-290 from CR with simply GTB2260 kit.

And when we actually log data and share it (in my build thread, lambda logs with ridicilous fuel and boost) people don't believe us.

When my 1/4 ml speed and time at 255hp were identicle to the 1/10th with Aurons car at 280hp and he has DSG and ssp packs and I'm manual .... who is faking

When we share info for boost and IQ for 255hp (the limit on my stock head) we are told "must be crap tuner" or "hardware is bad". As some people on here seem to think you can tune to allow for more airflow in a cyl head.

So why should we share any useful data. People already get their hands on info in immoral ways......
And don't believe us when we do.

You and your friends don't believe the power my car makes? Well good for you and them. We have no reason to lie


#saynotofakeHP
Its not fake when my car suffers no rail pressure issues and runs clean and 90% smokefree at WOT and safe egt

I'm not about to go and do 125mph on the public road and risk a ticket, ban/jail sentance and job/house loss to prove something to people who wouldn't believe us anyway

Good luck Mac I really do wish you the best with your proj and hopefully we can make it to mutual ground for some fun in the cars one day.

xjay1337 said:

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?

Click to expand...

don't forget their dyno's are more accurate to

Apparently some are , and some are far from the true.
Raffshore since you came here to stab a man down, let me tell you that superflow dynos are a little optimistic too, 8-10% at least.
Im sure Ruben did a good job on your car as he seems capable and surely knows what he's talking about.
I was wrong to question him and probably i was a little bit of an *******, i apologize for that. I made peace with him, and probably he with me.


We have the famous JD making 450hp on stock everything on the 3.0 bitdi which is not possible (it is on superflow)


My results for the moment are ****, not afraid to admit that. I came to understand many things lately.
There are some really shady people in this tuning business and dio performance is one of them.

What i can say is that i have a strong well built engine, a working CP3 with no rail drop @5200rpm
Finturbo is preparing a nice special turbo and for the 1st time we have a correctly working setup.

@Jamie: I have a 3km long desert road which i use for testing, traffic is close to 0, so no real danger in going 200km/h, and the best part : ITS FLAT

Very glad I did not change my tuner from Bobby to Eric as you suggested before

raffshore said:

don't forget their dyno's are more accurate to

Click to expand...

thats why they are all WR cars.

at least darksides dyno is accurate