V6 Dyno's

[Jinja]

Well peeps got the V6 dyno'd today and it's good and bad news.!!!

Bad news first: The Super Charger is not working..!!! Apparently the gate is opening too early so it's not building any boost. So is not working, as you'll see on the dyno below.

Good news: Still managed to make 267hp with no SC so all that head work really has paid off.

Can't wait to get the 7psi pulley and the Haltech ECU as it has a boost controller included and hopefully that'll sort the SC out :thumbsup:

Here are the dyno's:

http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2007/04/239.jpg

http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2007/04/240.jpg

http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2007/04/241.jpg


Let me know your thoughts, cheers :)

[Jiff Lemon]

267! and thats WITHOUT the charger? :eek2:

[msherry21]

How much power do you think the head work released mate? Do we have a standard figure on the V6 yet?
267bhp is great though, good news indeed.

Any idea why the gate is opening early on the SC?

[biteme]

Hmmm. Interesting on the S/C there dude.

Haltech boost control would probably be for solenoids over a wastegate on a turbo - and would not be suitable for a turbo, at least that's my first thought.

Be interesting to get an answer on that, and both us have the charger installed the same way, so maybe mine is not working, as in building boost, either? Interesting stuff this. Fingers crossed!

[Garbe]

267 with no SC.
On just the headwork bloody great, standard is 185-200.

Get that SC sorted it's gonna fly

[Jinja]

The first graph isn't torque it's PSI...!!!! Really shows how poor the SC is behaving, basically at 0.2 psi..!!! NO FCUKING BLOODY BOOST...!!!!

The second graph is torque and the third graph is lambda. (clue is at the top right hand corner guys..lol)

Talking to the chaps at DSA it will be possible to bypass the actuator with a solenoid and use the boost controller that comes with the Haltech Johnny. So this is definately being fitted in the next 6 weeks.

At least this dyno gives me a base figure to work from :thumbsup: Next dyno will be after the Haltech is fitted and mapped then another after the 7psi pulley is fitted.

Watch this space :)

[OlberJ]

Holy shit. And there i was today, with the heads in my hands going, "Ach, it's no much of a gain for the money"

:shock:

[Paul Woods]

i dont understand this at all,the boost gauge reads 2.5psi...the SC is plumbed like phils and johnnys and you can hear it work at WOT...if its not working where is the gauge reading positive boost from? just not possible on a normally aspirated engine for it to produce 2.5psi of positive pressure(assuming the SC isnt working) ...really confused!

great result if thats at no boost though mate! theres a lot of potential with this engine.

[biteme]

The first graph isn't torque it's PSI...!!!! Really shows how poor the SC is behaving, basically at 0.2 psi..!!! NO FCUKING BLOODY BOOST...!!!!

The second graph is torque and the third graph is lambda. (clue is at the top right hand corner guys..lol)

Talking to the chaps at DSA it will be possible to bypass the actuator with a solenoid and use the boost controller that comes with the Haltech Johnny. So this is definately being fitted in the next 6 weeks.

At least this dyno gives me a base figure to work from :thumbsup: Next dyno will be after the Haltech is fitted and mapped then another after the 7psi pulley is fitted.

Watch this space :)

Well my headwork is not as extreme as yours, but I do have the manifold and Y pipes all sorted. So I think I'm 265-270 bhp area - and it certainly feels that much.

Roll on the Whipple for me is all I can say. Did you hear that Paul? :P

ROLL ON THE WHIPPLE!

[Jinja]

What I have noticed Paul is that it hits the 2.5psi but immediately goes back down like the needle bangs it if you know what I mean..!!

I think we're getting something out of the charger just not sure what or how much!!

Not to worry mate :) I'm definately gonna get a solenoid on there and use the Haltch to control the boost and this "should" cure all our probs in one swoop :fingersx:

[biteme]

http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2007/04/239.jpg


Just one more point ladies.

Looking at this graph. That is TYPICAL roots blower behaviour. Peaks early and provides off idle response - but tails off quickly in the high revers.

Paul, because of the rapid rise in boost, it could well have been a "spike" on the gauge. How accurate is it?

I did quote around 2psi to according to my highly inaccurate gauge though... So, maybe 4psi on the TRD with the 3VZ and headwork produces even lower boost than we thought?

[OlberJ]

I think it's time to build a remote turbo V6, these S/C's are pish :hidesbehi

[biteme]

I think it's time to build a remote turbo V6, these S/C's are pish :hidesbehi

Indeed!!!

And tell me about the S/C in a few weeks! ;)

[Marksman]

Take the belt off and do another run... :hidesbehi

O.S.

[OlberJ]

Would that work ok?

Good comparison if it does.

[biteme]

Take the belt off and do another run... :hidesbehi

O.S.

The S/C would be restriction then mate!! The rotors would not be rotating so would be heavily restrictive! At least thats how I see it. Anyone? Paul, Tone?

[GaryA]

The charger must be working to get a result like that , 70hp from head work with standard fuel and ignition and cams . Must just be case of the blower not being big enough at higher RPMs to make loads of positive boost

[Jinja]

Well according to that graph max psi was 1.2psi at 3200 revs then dropped drastically that is not the action of a well SC plus that's well too early for max boost, 3000 revs max boost? no way..!!!

[OlberJ]

Either way, setup right, you've got a hell of a lot of prospect there Jinja.

[Jinja]

I know mate. Even though I was expecting 280/300 today it wasn't as big a disappointment as I thought at first. Cheers Olber :)

[Marksman]

Yes i was joking about the belt thing.

That said the roots on the 4agze has a magnetic clutch, when the clutch is disengaged (supercharger off) then air can be drawn into the engine via a supercharger air bypass valve. However this bypass valve can be removed and then the air is sucked in though the idling SC. Users have reported little change over the stock set up... Dunno if that relates at all to the V6 and TRD SC though?

O.S.

[Fizzy]

Well, I was well chuffed with mine - 230.4 bhp (the .4 makes all the difference! lol ), and peaked about 210 lb/ft torque from what I can make out from the graph (no max figure given). Apparantly 187.9 bhp at the wheels....(?)

Looks like going by Jinja's results, if his SC isn't kicking in for some reason, then the headwork has released about 30-40bhp? Wow! :thumbsup:

As soon as I remember where I put my scanner I'll get my sheet posted up. :D

Gutted for you though Jinja that it wasn't working up to its potential today. Hopefully an easy fix will get it to some awsome power levels though!

[Fizzy]

Managed to scan in my dyno plot/chart.....

http://www.wizardry.plus.com/mr2pics/dynoplot1.jpg

[Jinja]

Yeah cheers fizzy :)

That was an excellent run for you mate 230 is a great figure for a standard V6 (apart from those mods you forgot to mention....lol)

It's very interesting to notice the difference the head work has made such as your max bhp was at 6000rpm where mine was 7500rpm..!!

Some guy on the OC said to me that having headwork done is pointless..!!! Apparently he has a mate who used to work for McClaren..!!! What a TWAT :)

[msherry21]

7500rpm on a V6.....Thats awesome! Thats the same as the 3SGTE, I like the sound of that, must resist.....

[Paul Woods]

tone/fizzy,do you mind me asking whats been done to that engine to get 230bhp,thats mighty impressive for a stock v6! :thumbsup:

[Gary.H]

Feck me mate, surely you can't get 267bhp out of a V6 with just headwork ? Can you ?

[Fizzy]

tone/fizzy,do you mind me asking whats been done to that engine to get 230bhp,thats mighty impressive for a stock v6! :thumbsup:

Hmm... lemme think.

Fidanza Flywheel
Custom exhaust mid section
Left walbro 255 fuel pump in from turbo conversion. Also had new fuel filter fitted.
Fitted k&n air filter when the el-cheapy ebay one fell appart.
Magnex exhaust with decat.
Had tony fit the new valve stem seals, which meant he also had to regrind the valves and reshim it.

...other than that I believe thats it....?

Edit :- Oh yeah had a tankfull of "v-power" in as well.... ;)

I even thought it was missing occasionally, and checking the spark leads I found they were of various dates from 93-2004. Ordered a new set from mr t too. I'll pick them on on monday.

[biteme]

So Fizz, you've not even had headwork done?

OH MY GOD GET IT DONE

Mapping will release some more horsies tooooo

[GaryA]

Does it have the timing and AFM mod done to it ? They are some mighty specs for a standard-ish engine - you must be well happy . When i was doing my heads i was looking at the exhuast ports thinking how crap are they ! Just goes to show you can't go by looks

[Fizzy]

So Fizz, you've not even had headwork done?

OH MY GOD GET IT DONE

Mapping will release some more horsies tooooo

Well, as mine was a fairly early car options were being discussed at the time. Knowing what I know now I would have had the heads done during the conversion. The heads were off a few times as it was... ;)

Its a little tricker now though, as it would mean not only would I have to get the heads done, I would need to get them off - so new head gaskets (again), new head bolts, yada yada yada.... all quite costly now that the engines in.

If I can save up enough cash, then I will defo get the heads done, and an aftermarket ecu... but thats a couple of k at least there...?

[Fizzy]

Does it have the timing and AFM mod done to it ? They are some mighty specs for a standard-ish engine - you must be well happy . When i was doing my heads i was looking at the exhuast ports thinking how crap are they ! Just goes to show you can't go by looks

The AFM and timing have been left untouched according to Tony - however, it may have been tweaked while in the camry - you never know!?

Yup - well happy. I was using V-Power in it as well at the time, and have done for some time - so perhaps its taken advantage of the better fuel?

[Fizzy]

Hmm.... comparing plots shows at about the point where mine starts to drop off power (6000 rpm)/at peak power, Jinjas is outputting around the same level of power....?

Looks like the real benefit of the free-flowing heads is that keeps on going to a far higher rev limit, and doesn't even seem to drop off at all. Seems to be where the extra power is gained. Guess stock heads reach their flow limit at 6000 rpm or so...?

Whats the rpm/power limit of stock components, such as the valve springs, pistons, bearings etc, before parts need to be upgraded?

Well chuffed with mine though, especially as its done over 200k miles now. Obviously just run in. :rofl:

[biteme]

Well, as mine was a fairly early car options were being discussed at the time. Knowing what I know now I would have had the heads done during the conversion. The heads were off a few times as it was... ;)

Its a little tricker now though, as it would mean not only would I have to get the heads done, I would need to get them off - so new head gaskets (again), new head bolts, yada yada yada.... all quite costly now that the engines in.

If I can save up enough cash, then I will defo get the heads done, and an aftermarket ecu... but thats a couple of k at least there...?

Well, yeah I'd say 750 for the heads and then 100 for bolts and 1300 ish for ECU... I reckon there's 40bhp to be gained in both from yours.

[biteme]

One thing ive noticed is the torque curve on fizzys seems a little low.
It should be up in the 180 foot pounds range.
Wonder if the acis is working ok?

Am I reading it wrong mate? It's looking over 200lb/ft according to the axis on the right hand side?

Hmmm... I hope it's not hangover related...

[Fizzy]

One thing ive noticed is the torque curve on fizzys seems a little low.
It should be up in the 180 foot pounds range.
Wonder if the acis is working ok?

Erm - yup its working. You can see the dip around the middle where it switches over. The noise changes too...

Also the torque scale is on the right hand side of the chart, and looks like it peaks at around 210 lb/ft of torque..... :thumbsup:

[Fizzy]

Isn't jinja running an na gearbox, clutch and driveshaft setup, with an uprated na clutch?

I'm using a rev 3 turbo setup, with lsd and standard turbo clutch...

...would that have any effect on the results/difference at all do you think?

[biteme]

Isn't jinja running an na gearbox, clutch and driveshaft setup, with an uprated na clutch?

I'm using a rev 3 turbo setup, with lsd and standard turbo clutch...

...would that have any effect on the results/difference at all do you think?

I can't see it to be honest, maybe 1-2 bhp max if anything.

[Fizzy]

I can't see it to be honest, maybe 1-2 bhp max if anything.

Didn't think it would, just wanted to be sure as its one other thing different from his (in addition to headwork and SC).

[adamh]

aweosme figures guys. i wouldnt mind a v6 like that :)

[GaryA]

Gonna be a few v6 owners knocking up some extra special y pipes next weekend :mrgreen: Who needs VVT !

[OlberJ]

Aye methinks a decent exhaust is a winner.

[Fizzy]

hehehehe - well, the section of the biuld thread of my car with the exhaust section pics is here...

http://forums.twobrutal.com/showthread.php?t=4127&page=23

...although that was kept at 3" exit as it mated up with a turbo mongoose exhaust.

I've since had an adapter section made (essentially a 90 degrees bend of 3") to mate up with an na magnex exhaust and decat pipe.

When I had the bend made and fitted with the magnex, the exhaust guy said I would loose a bit of power as the exit pipes on the magnex are smaller than the ones on the turbo mongoose exhaust....

....so perhaps it would be even better with that on. :mrgreen: Loads louder too - but I guess that would only be a couple of hp at most though?

[foxy-stoat]

Managed to scan in my dyno plot/chart.....

http://www.woodsport.org/forum/images/recovered/2005/04/52.jpg

Thats cool power output there my man !!!:eek2:

Anyone know what the donald duck is going on with my dyno readings, comparing them to Fizzys???

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f304/foxy-stoat/hpatfly.jpg

Mine was standard engine with no mods to the exhaust, AFM or timing, n/a fuel pump and standard fuel.

The graphs look similar tho.

Sorry for the hijack BTW !!!!

[Paul Woods]

spookily similar graphs only one is moved higher up,almost as if the dyno isnt calibrated properly or its telling lies somehow.

My V6 demo car (turbo running gear) had an opened up Y pipe and had a very similar graph to both foxys and fizzys but recorded 185bhp too.

If i was to guess id say something isnt right with that dyno,cant see where all the extra powers coming from???

[Rowdan]

If i was to guess id say something isnt right with that dyno,cant see where all the extra powers coming from???

Lot of cars on the dyno that day do the other figures look too optimistic?:shrug:

Juggernort - MR2 Rev2 NA - Fly: 165.7bhp Wheels: 136.5bhp
Rob Butcher - MR2 Rev2 NA - Fly: 161.9bhp Wheels: 133bhp
Rob Butcher - 2nd run with Buddy Club piggy back ECU fitted - Fly: 170.9
Ian Harrison - MR2 V6 N/A - Fly: 230.4bhp Wheels: 187.9bhp
Jerry Phipps - MR2 GTS Turbo - Fly: 264bhp Wheels: 222.8
MR2 Only Simon Skinner - Rev3 GTS Turbo - Fly: 308.4bhp
Mark Banham - Rev 3 N/A - Fly: 173.7 Wheels: 143.6bhp
Gary (Twiglet) - Rev 2 Turbo - Fly: 208bhp Wheels: 175bhp
Lee Larholt - MR2 Supercharged V6 - Fly: 267.8bhp Wheels: 219.5bhp
David Millward - MR2 Rev3 Turbo - Fly: 277.8 Wheels: 234.4bhp
Andy Barclay - MR2 G-Limited with rev2 turbo engine - Fly: 241.9bhp
MR2 Only Steve - MK1 AW11 - Fly: 126.2bhp Wheels: 102.5bhp
Nick - DSA - Mk2 Rev3 Turbo - Fly: 342bhp

(figures cut'n'pasted from IMOC hope no-one minds)

[Paff]

I'd say some look right and some look wrong, wierd that.

Teiglets rev2 looks seriously down considering the Rev2 is meant to have more bhp than the rev1 and Podge's Rev1 engine managed 198 at the wheels with the cat still in place

[Rowdan]

A stupid idea really as have no idea what mods any of the cars are running so can't guesstimate.:banghead: Though the Mr2only Mk1 is standard and 126.2 doesn't seem unrealistic.

[Fizzy]

If i was to guess id say something isnt right with that dyno,cant see where all the extra powers coming from???

I recon its the "fidanza" sticker I have in my glove box which has given it an extra 20 - or perhaps it was the "Rolling Road Tested" sticker I was given on saturday....

....I think the K&N filter may be helping a bit as it seems a lot better than the el-cheapy one I bought off ebay. Also had "for rally use only" or something like that on the box... :)

Discussing on another forum and there is 30 or so difference "at the wheel" power to a previously dyno'd V6, yet 41 or so difference to flywheel power.

How are these figures calculated - "at the wheel" power then try and calculate flywheel power through monitoring or known transmission loss? Could the lightened flywheel be reducing transmission loss, yet they are not taking that into account when working out flywheel figures?

Only way to see if this is an odd reading is to go on another session with a previously dyno'd v6 to compare.....:thumbsup:

[foxy-stoat]

Well, its just figures on a dyno sheet, and my car pulls well. I was just concered that i had a problem with my V6.

I'll have a wee go in Fizzy's one at the end of the month...

:)

[Marksman]

Flywheel wont create a power hike Ian, it only allows rapid acceleration of the engine due to less rotating mass.

I don't think that was what he meant Tony. Agreed the fly won't generate power but I believe the question was that if the dyno measures at the wheels and then the flywheel data is interpolated from that, then could the estimated figure be skewed?

O.S.

[Fizzy]

I don't think that was what he meant Tony. Agreed the fly won't generate power but I believe the question was that if the dyno measures at the wheels and then the flywheel data is interpolated from that, then could the estimated figure be skewed?

O.S.

Yes, thats what I was trying to get at. Considering theres 30bhp diff at the wheels, yet 40 at the fly - perhaps the more likely flywheel figure is 220ish?

I think the RR reading was "accurate" as far as the rollers go as they did 3 runs and seemed to be generally pleased with each output. Even saw the driver say "bl**dy hell" when he saw the graph after his first run. I think he would have commented if he thought it was 30-40bhp off as I'm sure he would have felt the difference - or is that just me being hopefull? It certainly seemed to be trying to push itself off the rollers pretty hard.... ;)

Peebs has also commented when they were testing my car after the conversion work it did seem/feel a bit faster than his, which he believed was due to the exhaust work, and possibly the rev 3 running gear....?

We need a group of V6's on the same rollers/session to compare I guess.

When we having a twobrutal RR day then? :mrgreen:

[Marksman]

Fairy snuff :thumbsup:

O.S.

[Marksman]

We need a group of V6's on the same rollers/session to compare I guess.

When we having a twobrutal RR day then? :mrgreen:

Substitute the word "rollers" for "runway" and then it gets interestin'

:driving: :driving: :driving: :driving: (Some MK2V6's)



























:driving: (Mk1 V6)

O.S.

[Fizzy]

Substitute the word "rollers" for "runway" and then it gets interestin'

:driving: :driving: :driving: :driving: (Some MK2V6's)



























:driving: (Mk1 V6)











:driving: (mk2 V6 SC) - well Johnny G's V6 whipple SC anyway :rofl:



That would be fun... ;) Shame I'm crap at launches anyway. :rofl:

[Marksman]

Good reply but I'm sure you can tell where this is going can't you?

Any way I'm sure after a little training from Johnny you'd be fine. Oh no hang on it's lunches he's good at :slap:

O.S.

[MegatronUK]

I don't think Fizzy's dyno chart is right... there's something fishy about it - why does the power line cross the torque line before 5252 for example?

[MegatronUK]

Notice how on foxy-stoats dyno chart the power and torque lines cross at 5252rpm? That's how all charts should read if they are using lbft and bhp (PS/DIN and Nm are different).... I don't understand why Fizzy's chart doesn't read like that. I think something is majorly wrong with the chart and figures.

By any chance did they not run the engine up to full speed on the 230bhp chart?



http://www.woodsport.org/forum/images/recovered/2005/04/52.jpg

Thats cool power output there my man !!!:eek2:

Anyone know what the donald duck is going on with my dyno readings, comparing them to Fizzys???

http://www.woodsport.org/forum/images/recovered/2005/04/52.jpg

Mine was standard engine with no mods to the exhaust, AFM or timing, n/a fuel pump and standard fuel.

The graphs look similar tho.

Sorry for the hijack BTW !!!!

Jinja also has the correct torque/power crossover at 5252...

http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2007/04/240.jpg

[MegatronUK]

BTW, what the's the story with the 3rd gear dyno runs? (Jinja and Fizzy)... I was under the impression that dyno runs should be conducted in 4th gear so that the engine to drive ratio is at 1:1? I wonder what gear Foxy-Stoat had his dyno run conducted in?

I don't want to take anything away from you guys, but there's too many odd things about these graphs!

[MegatronUK]

Slippage on the rollers maybe?

No, it can't be that... power is calculated from the amount of torque, and the formula is fixed, the lines should always cross at 5252rpm if using bhp and lbft.

[Marksman]

Indeed good point Megatron, Are there any other graphs on the web from that day? That's full refund type territory!

Owen.

[MegatronUK]

Taken from one of the many explanations of torque/bhp and dyno explanations on the 'net....

"Torque = Horsepower x 5252 / rpm

Hopefully you can also see that when an engine is turning at 5252 rpm, its torque and horsepower figure is the same.
Next time you see a graph of the torque and horsepower of an engine check to see that the lines cross at 5252 rpm. If not then the graph is wrong.

This only applies of course if the power is being measured in horsepower and the torque in foot pounds and both lines are shown on the same axes. There are many other units in which torque and horsepower can be measured - for example power can be measured in Watts and torque in Newton metres. Unless we need to convert to such continental measures we can usually stick to horsepower and foot pounds."
from http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/POWER1.htm

Also for explanations & formulae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower_.28bhp.29

[Fizzy]

Notice how on foxy-stoats dyno chart the power and torque lines cross at 5252rpm? That's how all charts should read if they are using lbft and bhp (PS/DIN and Nm are different).... I don't understand why Fizzy's chart doesn't read like that. I think something is majorly wrong with the chart and figures.

By any chance did they not run the engine up to full speed on the 230bhp chart?

Erm... not sure what you mean by that? It certainly sounded like they revved it up high, and a standard head/engine seems to get max power at 6000 rpm anyway.... ? Also puzzled that they did 3 runs and didn't have any major differences between them - surely slippage on the rollers or some other anomaly would give varying readings?

My rear tyres were pretty much on the limit of tread, so could possibly have been slipping - but wouldn't slippage actually result in LOWER figures as theres less power being transfered to the rollers?

I must admit though I have noticed that sometimes my car seems relatively "padestrian", yet other times seems to go like a rocket - perhaps something is amiss with timing or something wandering around?


Jinja also has the correct torque/power crossover at 5252...

http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2007/04/240.jpg

Erm.... can't quite make out the figures on the scale, but looks more like it meets quite a lot below 5000 rpm?

Perhaps Jinja's sheer power broke the rollers as I was after him. lol.

Guess to sort this out for sure I'll need to do another RR then, preferably with another V6 there as well to compare. :thumbsup:

Edit - actually, that may be the issue. Jinja was 9th, I was 10th and I think there was one car after us - perhaps the RR was overheating/not taking the abuse that well?

[MegatronUK]

Erm.... can't quite make out the figures on the scale, but looks more like it meets quite a lot below 5000 rpm?

Perhaps Jinja's sheer power broke the rollers as I was after him. lol.

Guess to sort this out for sure I'll need to do another RR then, preferably with another V6 there as well to compare. :thumbsup:

Edit - actually, that may be the issue. Jinja was 9th, I was 10th and I think there was one car after us - perhaps the RR was overheating/not taking the abuse that well?

Actually, now that I've looked closer at that graph (you're right, it's a fair bit lower than 5000rpm where they cross) I'm convinced that neither of them are in the least bit accurate; the 230bhp or 267bhp charts - the only one I really believe is the 180-odd bhp one. Without an accurate dyno with torque and power crossing at 5252 then it's no use to you whatsoever, you could just as easily had drawn the line on the graph yourself.

I'd seriously try and get a refund mate, I think you've both been done.

[Fizzy]

Taken from one of the many explanations of torque/bhp and dyno explanations on the 'net....

"Torque = Horsepower x 5252 / rpm

Hopefully you can also see that when an engine is turning at 5252 rpm, its torque and horsepower figure is the same.
Next time you see a graph of the torque and horsepower of an engine check to see that the lines cross at 5252 rpm. If not then the graph is wrong.

This only applies of course if the power is being measured in horsepower and the torque in foot pounds and both lines are shown on the same axes. There are many other units in which torque and horsepower can be measured - for example power can be measured in Watts and torque in Newton metres. Unless we need to convert to such continental measures we can usually stick to horsepower and foot pounds."
from http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/POWER1.htm

Also for explanations & formulae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower_.28bhp.29

That sounds about right. Do the torque and power scales need to be the same for this to be true though?

The scale for power on the left goes from 0 - 315, whereas the scale for torque goes from 0 - 450 on my chart?

[OlberJ]

No it'd just need to cross at 5252rpm, will do that up or down or left or right depending on the scale.

[MegatronUK]

They're both on the same RPM scale, which is what matters... all the different vertical scales (0-315, 0-450) would alter is whether one line looks 'flatter' than the other; they would still cross at 5252.

[Fizzy]

No it'd just need to cross at 5252rpm, will do that up or down or left or right depending on the scale.

Checked on the 185 bhp chart and the scales on both left and right are 0-270, which produces the crossover at 5252.

On mine, as the torque is over a scale with the larger range than the power, the resulting line is lower down and therefore crosses earlier. They should have stuck to the same scale on both sides.

I'll see if I can work out some of the graph values and readjust for the same range/scale for both, and see what its like then....?

[OlberJ]

Aye but it's just where the power and torque crosses, should always be at 5252rpm, no matter whether thaat rpm is all the way at the left or right.

[Fizzy]

They're both on the same RPM scale, which is what matters... all the different vertical scales (0-315, 0-450) would alter is whether one line looks 'flatter' than the other; they would still cross at 5252.

Sorry, I disagree. BOTH the rpm scale and value need to be the same. Its common sense - x,y cordinates essentially? If the vertical scale spacing was the same (i.e. 0-450 scale was 1.5 times higher than 0-315 scale) it would be ok.

I'll spend some time trying to recreate the chart correctly......

[Marksman]

They're both on the same RPM scale, which is what matters... all the different vertical scales (0-315, 0-450) would alter is whether one line looks 'flatter' than the other; they would still cross at 5252.


Sorry I disagree with that.

If we look at this graph and then imagine the right scale reduced so that it read up to 1000 then the lines wouldn't even touch.

I'm fairly sure that if that data was redrawn with equal scales then all would be well.

http://www.woodsport.org/forum/images/recovered/2005/04/52.jpg

O.S.

[foxy-stoat]

Not sure what gear the dude was in when he did mine runs.

I thought mine was a little down on power, showing more or less standard HP from the factory with air filter and exhaust mods, but i never really think these sort of mods make any really difference on a n/a.

Have to say, dyno charts mean nothing, its all in the driving for me...and when i start to sort the exhaust, heads etc, i should be able to see actual gains on the rollers.

Wayne

[OlberJ]

No, you're missing the point here. For the scales to be correct, the power and torque "lines" will have to cross at 5252 rpm on the linear axis (along the bottom.

How high up the vertical axis this occurs doesn't matter, just that the "lines" cross at 5252rpm.

[MegatronUK]

No, you're missing the point here. For the scales to be correct, the power and torque "lines" will have to cross at 5252 rpm on the linear axis (along the bottom.

How high up the vertical axis this occurs doesn't matter, just that the "lines" cross at 5252rpm.

I thought I had confused myself, but yes that's my understanding as well.

[MegatronUK]

I'll just re-iterate, cos it sounds like I'm a grumpy bastard!, I'm really not trying to take anything away from you both... the cars are great, and they sound as if the V6 is a good performer (for me it would have to have a turbo on, but that's by-the-by, who's going to come up with the first turbo V6? ;) ) - but I'm just concerned that the dyno's just don't look right at all.

[Fizzy]

No, you're missing the point here. For the scales to be correct, the power and torque "lines" will have to cross at 5252 rpm on the linear axis (along the bottom.

How high up the vertical axis this occurs doesn't matter, just that the "lines" cross at 5252rpm.

Yes, but it only works if BOTH the power and torque charts use the SAME vertical scale/range.

I've just checked, and taking a reading on my plot at 5250 shows that power is at 210bhp (using the left side scale) and 210 lb/ft torque (using the right side scale) which matches up with the theory - its just that the right side scale should also have been 0-315 to make everything "look ok" on the chart.

[Fizzy]

And 'cos I think a piccy is as good as a thousand words - a rough plot using the data taken off the plot at 500 rpm steps, on a common scale....

http://www.wizardry.plus.com/mr2pics/quickplot.JPG

..shows it crosses about where expected (given the slight innaccuracy of taking values off wide spaced plot points on a printout ;) ).

Sorry to have gone on about this, but wanted to make sure that this wasn't the issue - as otherwise it essentially meant I drove for 3 hours each way, spent a load on petrol and the RR session for a duff printout. :rant:

[MRV6]

When I had mine on the rollers it produced about 205 bhp, then I had the walbro fitted and that seemed to make a big difference to the car in terms of drivability and performance. Then I had the supercharger fitted and the power went to 272 bhp.

Great figs by the way for both cars :thumbsup:


http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2006/03/21.jpg

[Garbe]

thanks for the walbro info, the almost 2 days taking the tank off and refitting seem worthwhile.

[MRV6]

Yeah Paul loves doing the fuel pumps:liar:

[Garbe]

I think i must have spent 9-10 hours total doing it, but 1.5 hours of that was trying to sort a bloody broken bolt.

[MRV6]

Yeah mate I give Paul a hand it was a twat of a job.

[Jinja]

I have to say that i thought my torque figure seemed a little low! I was expecting it to be higher. It certainly feels like it when driving. I am sure Paul will confirm this :)

BTW...going to get another dyno done next week locally so will hopefully have a second one to compare. Will let you all know :)

[Fizzy]

When I had mine on the rollers it produced about 205 bhp, then I had the walbro fitted and that seemed to make a big difference to the car in terms of drivability and performance. Then I had the supercharger fitted and the power went to 272 bhp.

Great figs by the way for both cars :thumbsup:


http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2006/03/21.jpg

Ahhhh I remember this chart as it was something I checked out a lot and compared to my rev 3 turbo plot to decide which path I wanted to go down.

Did you have any head work done when you had the SC fitted, or was the SC and walbro the only upgrades between the two plots? Only goes up to 5500-6000 rpm too, whereas Jinja's monster went up to 7500 or something like that. :mrgreen:

I thought that the SC was only good for 30-40bhp or so as its "only" 4-5 psi, so must mean the fuel pump does indeed make a fair bit of difference.

We really must get a list of expected gains per component sorted out... :thumbsup:

[Fizzy]

I have to say that i thought my torque figure seemed a little low! I was expecting it to be higher. It certainly feels like it when driving. I am sure Paul will confirm this :)

BTW...going to get another dyno done next week locally so will hopefully have a second one to compare. Will let you all know :)

Well, isn't the cvis/acis/whatever it is valve thingy on the standard inlet there to assist in torque/power levels? With your SC not working on saturday you essentially had a bog standard inlet setup with no "tweaks" in place, which may be why your torque level was relatively low? Of course if the SC was working it would soon sort that out. ;)

[MRV6]

Ahhhh I remember this chart as it was something I checked out a lot and compared to my rev 3 turbo plot to decide which path I wanted to go down.

Did you have any head work done when you had the SC fitted, or was the SC and walbro the only upgrades between the two plots? Only goes up to 5500-6000 rpm too, whereas Jinja's monster went up to 7500 or something like that. :mrgreen:

I thought that the SC was only good for 30-40bhp or so as its "only" 4-5 psi, so must mean the fuel pump does indeed make a fair bit of difference.

We really must get a list of expected gains per component sorted out... :thumbsup:

Hi Fizzy, no mate, no headwork. The only mods were the supercharger and the fuel pump. Some people say head work doesn't matter in forced induction cars, I don't know esp when the camry's heeds are designed for economy. Me thinks at some stage I'll get mine done then I can compare a before and after figs!

[biteme]

There's massive gains to be had from economy heads - and more when you add in forced induction.

Gingers car shows that. If I had my f'kin car. I'd get the bastard dyno'd

[MRV6]

There's massive gains to be had from economy heads - and more when you add in forced induction.

Gingers car shows that. If I had my f'kin car. I'd get the bastard dyno'd

You have not got you car any more mate you sold it.

[superchargedsam]

Phil dont wind him up he is in a bad enough modd over it as it is!

[biteme]

I'm actually contemplaiting just going to get my fucking car off him - fucking fed up I am

[Jinja]

Go on Johnny DO IT mate.... :twisted:

[MRV6]

I'm actually contemplaiting just going to get my fucking car off him - fucking fed up I am

He hasn't got it man, you sold it.

[biteme]

You're in for a slap Phyllis!!

[lodgeman]

i heard they flogged the engine to someone that owned a mk1 :hidesbehi and scrapped the rest!!:rofl:

[MRV6]

I heard he sold it to fund bigger breast implants.

[OlberJ]

implants? Who said anything about implants? lol

[Marksman]

...melted it down to replace some of the crash barriers others of it's kind have destroyed...

O.S.

[biteme]

...melted it down to replace some of the crash barriers other's of it's kind have destroyed...

O.S.

Owen, you should be boiled down and used for glue!

:thumbsup:

[hot-chili]

I will test my new V6 if it is installed at dyno too.
First I take the test with my old 175 94+ 3S-GE Engine, there I did this:

- open air chanels from airfilter to heads.
- my own produced 100 cells catalytic converter
- remus exhaust

The V6 will get:
- special air filter box
- open air chanels from airfilter to heads.
- Y-exhaust with 46mm (1,8") inside fit togehter in front of cat to 66mm (2.6") inside
- 100 cells converter
- remus exhaust from 3S-GE
- perhaps better fuel pump

Then I will testing at dyno.

After that I will test more changes:

- Another fuel like V-Power
- earlier ignition like 2-5° (I drive my 175hp engine some time (my repairstation make a mistake) with 17° earlier ignition, that was crazy, much more power and 1 liter less fuel!!!)
- perhaps new exhaust
- no EGR system (but I don´t know if I then reach the exhaust law here in germany..)

Stay tuned...

I have a question, did anybody oversize his "Drosselklappe" (the part after the airfilter/TPS) I don´t know the english word, it is to adjust the airflow with the foot.

[Garbe]

Tony have you completed the porting on the heads you have? When are you going to test them on the celica?

[biteme]

Yes.. we want answers, Turkish!

[hot-chili]

Yes, I mean the throttle body.

I open the throttle body to maximum:
http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2007/06/194.jpg

And I optimize the big air bridge and open the chanals, but it is very difficult to reach there any part....
http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2007/06/195.jpg

And I open the small air bridge:
http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2007/06/196.jpg
http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2007/06/197.jpg

The heads I not opened until now:
http://www.twobrutal.co.uk/forum/images/recovered/2007/06/198.jpg

[biteme]

I don't think opening the throttle body will do too much to be honest as it's not a restriction?

[arcturius]

And 'cos I think a piccy is as good as a thousand words - a rough plot using the data taken off the plot at 500 rpm steps, on a common scale....

http://www.woodsport.org/forum/images/recovered/2005/04/52.jpg

..shows it crosses about where expected (given the slight innaccuracy of taking values off wide spaced plot points on a printout ;) ).

Sorry to have gone on about this, but wanted to make sure that this wasn't the issue - as otherwise it essentially meant I drove for 3 hours each way, spent a load on petrol and the RR session for a duff printout. :rant:


Thanks, Fizzy.

If anyone is still confused about how this all works, just go back to your elementary algebra/graphing, and realize that this graph isn't really showing the torque curve, it's showing the torque curve scaled down to about 85% and shifted down by 15, so it's no wonder that the curves intersect at a place that is definitely _not_ 5250 RPM. :)

[Tim Higgott]

Hello all. Just been through this thread and im still confused:confused: which isnt that hard to be honest. Are we saying that if you have a V6 engine put in it is worth while havin the heads done, new valves and reshim, fitting a walbro pump, fidanza flywheel, custom y pipe.

This maybe a stupid question but how does havin a stand alone ecu make the engine produce more power?:confused:

At what point (BHP) should i consider having upgraded pistons put in the V6 as im also looking at putting a turbo on. If my sums are right this is were my budget hits the limit.

As you can see im trying to get a list together of what i need doing when i have mine fitted.

Thanks All.:thumbsup:

[biteme]

Pistons are pretty much dependant on your turbo choice, boost pressure and desired hp.

Do you have anything in mind?

[Fizzy]

Hello all. Just been through this thread and im still confused:confused: which isnt that hard to be honest. Are we saying that if you have a V6 engine put in it is worth while havin the heads done, new valves and reshim, fitting a walbro pump, fidanza flywheel, custom y pipe.


Well, they are not exactly required as such, but while the engine is out its worthwhile doing what you can to save haveing to take it out in the future.

New valves aren't generally required (unless you intend to create a high revving engine ;) ) - regrind and reshim is generally done as part of the head work. I had mine reground/shimmed as I had the valve stem seals changed.

Walbro pump again not essential, but would be required if you intend to up to power a fair bit. If you have plans to go sc/turbo then it is required, or a turbo fuel pump (?).

Fidanza flywheel again is an option - depends on which gearbox you are using. As I was using a turbo gearbox, the manual camry fidanza flywheel is a direct fit and requires no additional modifying. You can modify your existing flywheel to fit - which I understand is pretty much regardless if you are using an na box?

Custom Y-pipe is the same - as you need to mate up the Y pipe to your exhaust of choice with a custom mid section, may as well get the Y pipe done at the same time to free up a few horses (known restriction apparantly) and probably won't cost you much more if you do it as part of the biuld exhaust work.


This maybe a stupid question but how does havin a stand alone ecu make the engine produce more power?:confused:

Not a stupid question at all. Basically, the ecu from the camry is designed for an autobox cruising car, and is tricked to work with a wiring fix. The engine also tends to run very rich at stock. An aftermarket ecu would be setup to work specifically to your own engine, correcting fueling and making the most of any mods fitted - not to mention set it up nicely for manual gearboxes. Basically it optimises performance for your engine.

Again, not exactly required if your on a budget - but if you have some money to spend and want the most of your engine (or if you plan to increase the power a lot) an aftermarket ecu is worth its weight in gold... well, silver maybe. :P


At what point (BHP) should i consider having upgraded pistons put in the V6 as im also looking at putting a turbo on. If my sums are right this is were my budget hits the limit.

Bit of an unknown at the moment. If you plan a mild boost upgrade, such as an sc, then the stock pistons should be fine. If you are going for mega power then I guess the rough figure would be 270-300bhp? Thats around the same area you would start considering uprated injectors and the like too..

There's a few guys on here working on high bhp V6's, and also supplying uprated parts - I'm sure they will pop along shortly with the info.


As you can see im trying to get a list together of what i need doing when i have mine fitted.

Thanks All.:thumbsup:

You're welcome. You better plan a budget (and try and stick to it) as power is addictive. :P ;)

[Tim Higgott]

Pistons are pretty much dependant on your turbo choice, boost pressure and desired hp.

Do you have anything in mind?

Thanks Johnny. 300 BHP. New pistons are gonna cost £1500 and with the other stuff being a priority this is were i may need to restrict the turbo.

[OlberJ]

3VZ will handle 300BHP i should reckon no problems, they're strong engines.

[Tim Higgott]

Thanks Fizzy.

Yeah power is addictive and ive yet to have a V6.rotflmao .

With the round trip to Woodsport being 540 miles i would like it all to be done at once or get a plan together for doing it in stages.

Ive been looking at Shugsta thread on his bodykit and im in love. I have the normal rust round the edges so need that sorted and also my paint is flat, need to get a price and how busy Woodsport are in their paint dept.

Budget wise it seems to be going up.

I thought FAME costs but obviously fast cars do to.rotflmao

[biteme]

Stage 1
--------
Installation
Headwork
Fuel Pump
Exhaust
Y Pipe
ECU? (maybe)

Then you need to decide if you want turbo or S/C then go from there.

[Tim Higgott]

Cool johnny thats great.

Gonna go turbo as i think s/c is gonna be to hard to find.

[sixafterfour]

Thanks Johnny. 300 BHP. New pistons are gonna cost £1500 and with the other stuff being a priority this is were i may need to restrict the turbo.
not quite:P

http://sea2skytuning.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=6&category_id=1&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1

850 canadian. or £424
plus shipping and tax.

or chance yourself with this
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Toyota-3-0L-3VZFE-Master-Rebuild-Kit-92-93_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1638Q2em118Q2el1247Q QcategoryZ33620QQihZ006QQitemZ160136063858QQrdZ1QQ sspagenameZWD1V

complete rebuild kit. pistons and all. with a .040" overbore max.
not many specs on the pistons, HOWEVER, i think that they would be ATLEAST on par with stock ones. New stock ones, and can probably handle soemthing decent. and for 500 candian, or £250 i dont think you could go wrong.

[Tim Higgott]

not quite:P

http://sea2skytuning.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=6&category_id=1&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1

850 canadian. or £424
plus shipping and tax.

or chance yourself with this
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Toyota-3-0L-3VZFE-Master-Rebuild-Kit-92-93_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1638Q2em118Q2el1247Q QcategoryZ33620QQihZ006QQitemZ160136063858QQrdZ1QQ sspagenameZWD1V

complete kit. pistons and all. with a .040" overbore max.
not many specs on the pistons, HOWEVER, i think that they would be ATLEAST on par with stock ones. New stock ones, and can probably handle soemthing decent. and for 500 candian, or £250 i dont think you could go wrong.

Cheers and thanks for the info, very interesting. Not sure if id put standard pistons back in would probably upgraded ones, the ones from Canada look good or i was thinking of the ones from vmototsport.

[superchargedsam]

Johnny and vmotorsport are european distributors of sea2sky tuning parts so defo worth speaking to Mr G!

[sixafterfour]

i am personally going with the whole rebuild kit with the .040" over bore when i get mine.

Sure i dont know the quality of those pistons but im going to hope they will withstand a supercharger.

[MRDrift2]

Hmmmm.. just read this thread and there are alot of strange lil happenings indeed.

The axis crossover point being one - well picked up on guys!

another thing, call me pesamistic but....60-70bhp from headwork???!?

all the cars (with headwork) i've ever seen on rollers over the years, all having had headwork done by a professional companies, have recieved gains but never to 60-70bhp worth!! (iirc)

if that was the case its a thing that people would commonly have done without debate these days! lol

(obiously every engine would gain differently anyway, especially from car to car)

personally i reckon a bhp gain of alot nearer 28-30bhp maybe, at best... but 60-70bhp??? just cant see it personally.

no offence, not trying to take any respect away from you guys... all yours cars are brilliant and you've all got good power levels showing and i respect that.. and whoever done the heads has obviously done a brilliant job tbh.

how does the person who's done the heads feel about the 60-70bhp gains, does that seem likely in their professional view of things, were the heads checked/flow tested and does their figures seem to agree with the 60-70bhp gain???

As for the supercharger...now thats a intresting one.
my opinion would be that it might be working, but not holding boost.. i dont know ALOT about s/c's... i've always had turbo's.

but i would guess the principle may be similar... does the s/c have any kinda of wastegate styled system that wud lead me to believe that the s/c could be leaking boost???

Im very curious as trying to work out what paths to take my own V6 setup.. needless to say if the headwrok is adding 60-70bhp then im damn sure im booking mine in with the same chap that done jinja's! lol

tbh, theres not a huge amount of point guess-timating the results ect or trying to plot your own graphs as this would be so innaccurate given the date we currently have ect.

My advise.. book in at another roller sesh, without changing any of the variables.. that'll determine the answers.

after all you cant really boast to you mates that my bhp is this.. oh and by the way to get the result you have to turn it upside down, read it thru 3-d glasses, squint, then take the results and plot a new graph for it!

Tom :thumbsup:

hope the above dosnt offend anyone..its just my account of things....and im not being catty. tah ;)

[Fizzy]

Hmmmm.. just read this thread and there are alot of strange lil happenings indeed.

The axis crossover point being one - well picked up on guys!

another thing, call me pesamistic but....60-70bhp from headwork???!?

Erm - yes, that's a way too high figure. When jinja had his heads fully ported, I understand that a lot of metal was taken out and he was informed it should give good gains, around the 15-20% mark was thrown about - so thats around 40 bhp at most (from stock). However, jinjas is now a lot more free flowing, and easily bounces off the rev limiter - so I guess it could actually be making some additional power at top end just because of that.

I don't think anybody who has done the conversion and paid for extensive headwork has skimped on the exhaust side of things either, so not sure if there is any dyno's/figures which show results from just the head work. It also tends to help any other engine mods too from what I understand.

The other major difference is that although the SC wasn't working, it replaced the inlet chamber and therefore looses the flaps (can't remember what they are called at the mo) which in itself may improve flow..

Its all still fairly early days yet, and not many of us have been on dynos. It was nice to see both mine and jinjas on the same rolling road day, but he has done a lot more to his - and a lot more since. :thumbsup:

p.s. There's only about 50bhp difference between mine and jinjas max bhp figure, and I haven't had any headwork done, not done anything with timing etc etc etc - so not sure where you got the 60-70 figure from?

[MRDrift2]

I got that figure from the fact i thought the 3vz-fe engines kicked out 185bhp in standard form..and if it was the late model just before the 1mz-fe engine like mine they came at a 200bhp base bhp figure.

i read all the mods he's had done..and most of the extra gain will come from headwork.. so reading back thru the thread, people are seeming to imply that a 60-70bhp gain is thru his headwork...

i mean write a list of his car spec and in brackets nominate the amount of gains you expect or that you feel he's achieved from various tuning bits.. you'll find yourself strugglin to make the numbers up bud.

if it is then fair frickin play... but being an ex race driver and my family and relatives all working closely in motorsport...i just cant see them kinda gains from the headwork thats been done..

Example. - A good race spec air filter vs the standard economical crap that comes on most cars, GREATLY improves air flow...but you can expect like anything from 5-7 bhp.... very rarely have i seen proper race cars get 15bhp gains from mental carbon air filters ect.

theres usually alot less bhp gains to be had from all types of flow work on engines then most people hope for.

the trick to it is just like exhausts, manifolds, headwork, airfilters ect.. they all add a tiny amount of bhp here and there..and the overall package adds up to be a descent figure.

and like i said... car wise.. i seen headwork get from 8bhp - about 28/30 bhp gains... the 30bhp gains tend to be the approx average for high spec'd cars wil EXTENSIVE headwork... i just cant see how 60-70bhp gains have been achieved.. thats massively different to what most performance cars can expect to gain headwrok tuning.

I do understand completely what your saying tho mate... even expensive custom made, pro flow exhausts usually only count for 10bhp MAX!! and if you get that from an exhaust then you know it..


now...whats more likely???

excessive gains that defy belief, or a technical error on the rollers!? ;)

i spent £40,000 on my Full blown WRC escort cosworth, and saved a shed load of money doing alot of work myself.. i paid BIG bucks to have pro's do the things like headwork ect..and i got like half the gains that jinja's 3vz-fe boasts.

yet i had "ford Racing" and the "cosworth race" team do my headwork, surely they wudda done a good job??

do some research.. and i think you'll struggle to find performance cars that can prove they have gained anything like 40-50+bhp from headwork mate.

im not being piccy bud, just know a fair bit on race tuning and gains to be expected.

Like i said.. stick it on another roller and compare the results closely, its really the only way.. my race cars spent days/weeks on and off rollers before events.

roll'd , roll'd and roll'd some more to eliminate every possiblity and achieve the best results from the work we put in.

Tom :thumbsup:

ps - keep up the good work guys and best of luck with all the future tuning.

[Rowdan]

Not saying that 70bhp from head porting is an attainable figure, however you have to consider that the 3vzfe was not a toyota performance engine.
What my point is, is that performance gains become harder and more expensive when you start from a tuned unit like 3sgte or cossie compared to a 3vzfe which essentially was a de-tuned engine with potential.
At least that's my understanding, I am as always willing to be shot down in flames. ;)

[biteme]

You're comparing a sports engine to an economy engine.

Bottom line is that this is all guess work at the moment and nobody knows for sure - the quality of the headwork will also have a big impact.

At the end of the day, you'll get more of an increase from a 3VZ-FE, against what you would if Toyota had released a 3VZ-GE.

Bit of an unfair comparison, IMO.

[MRDrift2]

Nah guess you got a point guys... my bad!

your right rowdan about the harder to tune a already tuned performance engine then get increase from something delibertaely de-tuned i guess.

or maybe could work the other way...

because a tuned engine already produces the power and delivery.. the headwork is merely trying to remove the last of the restrictions of the engines true performance.

either way.... likewise equally happy to be shot down!

just throwing my 2p's worth into the convo, not looking to piss anyone off or rock the boat.

i just thought 40bhp or more from head porting and stuff sounds a hell of alot IMHO.

Tom. :thumbsup:

[sixafterfour]

sounds like alot yes.

But we have to remember there is a good chance he has an aftermarket exhaust, much shorter and more free flowing the the stock econobox one.

Same goes with the airfilter, and the heads.

Its not like the engine is a 2jz-gte where the engine is already built up to be sporty. The heads are finished nicer.
But with the 3vz-fe it was all econobox, so the improvements from econo to a fine finish is much greater then from sport to a fine finish.

Stock HP in 94+ was 204hp. that was simply because the either leaned out the fuel or made it richer. Now with that simply tuning, a big improvment on heads, a big improvement on exhaust could make 270hp.

A bmw 3.0L 24v made 286hp, 95 bmw m3 euro
toyota 2jz-ge 3.0L made 230hp
a nissan vg30de makes 227hp


I mean a decent fuel mixture, exhaust and intake work may just make that hp if you are lucky.

Although i think what is happenign is that the s/c is spinning a bit, and give some extra air to make it the 270hp

[biteme]

Yep...

I know Jinja had to have his base fuel pressure raised to cope with the extra power of the S/C - it was running lean top end, even when being mapped. It's all very interesting stuff, though.

[OlberJ]

Do we know where Fizzy's engine came from?

Possibly had work when it was in the camry?

Any pics of Fizzy's exhuast system?

[Poohbear]

Mine has had the same headwork as Jinja's plus the exhaust has been nicely merged (thanks Paul) and I can tell you it's fooking quick...much much quicker than my quite perky 3S-GE was (166 bhp RR). Butt dyno says 220-240bhp but I won't know for sure until I get it on the rollers, which hopefully will be sometime soon :)

Bob

[biteme]

Don't be telling the turbo boys that, they'll shoot you down lol

[Jinja]

I still have a major restriction in mine that it has been mapped with a rev limit of 6750rpm as the injectors are at 100% duty at 7000rpm. I've also had to have the fuel pressure regulated to a constant 4.2bar and the spark gaps changed because of the fuel pressure...lol

I do have some new injectors (750cc's low imp) on order from the States. I'm then having the Hydra (good ECU but fuck all back up in this country!!)ripped out and a Link G3 ECU put in and a complete dyno and road map done.

Once this has been done I will have it dyboed again. There really isn't much point yet as there is too many things STILL not quite right. Should all be sorted in the next couple of months though.

I hit 267bhp with the SC working at a max of 1.2psi - it's now boosting at a constant 7psi. The 267 dyno was also before the standalone ECU was fitted and there was a vacuum problem as well at the time. When it was dynoed at 267 it was not a healthy car so I should see a massive improvement from that one. I will be dynoing at the same place to get some sort of consistency for the dyno's.

I used to own a TVR Chimaera 450, that was 285bhp & 305lb torque - the 2 feels faster but not as torquee. Bum dyno guess is 300-320bhp will confirm when I have it in black & white :)

[Paul Woods]

There really isn't much point yet as there is too many things STILL not quite right

mapping issues lee or something not right with the conversion?

267bhp @1psi is pretty impressive though,but i never did get to find out what that mysterious vacuum problem was,i doubt there ever was one knowing tracktive now and your car was plumbed the same as everyone elses on a TRD SC.

Did they ever explain it mate?

[Jaemus]

im no expert, but reading the last few pages, i think alot of what isnt being considered strongly, tho Tony touched on it briefly, is that the figure of 185bhp for a stock motor is with the horrifically restrictive stock exhaust merge full of baffles and press bends and death. Fizzy, as tony said, has a sweet setup. Given how the top end feels on these FE type engines, i suspect a free flowing exhaust is making a bit more difference than we may be thinking.

Im planning to totally re-arrange my exhaust during the (as yet, still secret) next phase of my project ;)

[Jinja]

Not sure Paul....It's mainly to do with the injectors etc etc. They never really did explain what the problem was only that it was gone when I picked it up.

Still have a problem of the revs bouncing around from cold AND when ever I pull up to a junction etc also when I put the the clutch in the revs stay high for a while (think this is clutch slave though). Did you pocvip the revs to stay over 1,000k at idle? As they never go below 1100...!!

The main thing is the restriction on the injectors and the god fucking awful mapping of the ECU once I get those sorted it will be a different beast again I'm sure :)

At least mine is still officially the fastest MKII V6 in the country :thumbsup:

[Paul Woods]

ah im afraid the idle speed controller is now at the mercy of the hydra lee,it should be mapped for idle control so that it idles correctly.We managed to cure the problems with the camry ecu and idle control many moons ago but in the case of standalones if its not idling correctly its in the mapping.... unless of course it has an air leak on the intake somewhere but i doubt that.

Also id like to send you a modified tach board for your clocks,we are now doing them according to sengs thread on the mr2board that makes the tacho read very very close to spot on.So i will send you a modified board for your clocks mate,that goes for anyone who has previously had one of my conversions done,consider it a free hardware upgrade lol

Note i will need old tach boards back so i can continue to offer this as a service to customers :thumbsup:

[biteme]

Not sure Paul....It's mainly to do with the injectors etc etc. They never really did explain what the problem was only that it was gone when I picked it up.

Still have a problem of the revs bouncing around from cold AND when ever I pull up to a junction etc also when I put the the clutch in the revs stay high for a while (think this is clutch slave though). Did you pocvip the revs to stay over 1,000k at idle? As they never go below 1100...!!

The main thing is the restriction on the injectors and the god fucking awful mapping of the ECU once I get those sorted it will be a different beast again I'm sure :)

At least mine is still officially the fastest MKII V6 in the country :thumbsup:

Tracktive/Hydra have been dropped from the VM lineup - for the reasons you state, Lee - they offer PISS POOR service on aftersales.

[Jinja]

Also id like to send you a modified tach board for your clocks,we are now doing them according to sengs thread on the mr2board that makes the tacho read very very close to spot on.So i will send you a modified board for your clocks mate,that goes for anyone who has previously had one of my conversions done,consider it a free hardware upgrade lol

Note i will need old tach boards back so i can continue to offer this as a service to customers :thumbsup:

Look forward to receiving that Paul as I've had mine confirmed that when is at 7k on the tach it's actually only 6k in real life...!!

Would also like your opinions - if I get the crank reground (stage 2ish) will it help the revs get higher? Bearing in mind I have a 1000bhp FPR now and will have 750cc injectors?



PS.......Johhny you still owe me 2 grand for the Hydra mate ;)

[biteme]

Look forward to receiving that Paul as I've had mine confirmed that when is at 7k on the tach it's actually only 6k in real life...!!

Would also like your opinions - if I get the crank reground (stage 2ish) will it help the revs get higher? Bearing in mind I have a 1000bhp FPR now and will have 750cc injectors?

If you want to make it more rev-happy, there's only so much you can do as the piston-rod ratio is a factor, and that's set, unless you de-stroke the engine and therefore lose capacity, which I take it you don't want to do!!

The key to making it rev better is to increase the efficiency and to translate the energy into something more useful - i.e. power.

Because Force = Mass x Acceleration, the mass of the rotating assembly, i.e. rods and pistons will have an effect on the force required to change their directions - as will balancing, but to greater effect in increased RPM's.

Having the crank lightened and balanced will be a good start, but for the gains, probably not 100% worth it, unless you're going WAYYY up in the power.
Rods and pistons? Maybe. I think the rods would have the biggest effect on the 3VZ, as the lightweight ones are significantly lighter than the stockers.




PS.......Johhny you still owe me 2 grand for the Hydra mate ;)
rotflmao

[Paul Woods]

yeah we have known for some time the camry tach mod has about a 1000rpm discrepancy at max revs,its better than the mr2 tacho but still out... the new improved modified tach gets it pretty much bang on.

[whoozy]

Idle probs are definately the map as mine hunts all the time when at a stop,and cuts out most of the time when comeing to a stop.

[Poohbear]

yeah we have known for some time the camry tach mod has about a 1000rpm discrepancy at max revs,its better than the mr2 tacho but still out... the new improved modified tach gets it pretty much bang on.

You might want to revise that statement Paul as mine with the new board mod and on it's current resistance setting is reading approx 750 rpm over @ 4000 rpm indicated. I believe it's just a case of getting the correct resistance value on the variable potentiometer.
What I'm planning to do is to de-solder the pot from the board and re-connect it on a short flying lead so that I can adjust it with all the instruments in place while looking at the Automotive tachymeter I have just bought to calibrate it. Once done the flying lead and pot can be tucked away into the dash.

Bob

[biteme]

Bet there's different resistances between the tubby and n/a tacks ...

[loadswine]

Do you reckon the new tach mod would be effective with my digi clocks Paul?

[jimgreen]

What I'm planning to do is to de-solder the pot from the board and re-connect it on a short flying lead so that I can adjust it with all the instruments in place

I've done this bob, with a nice small preset pot and a bit of heatshrink it looks pretty cool. Going to set mine using a oscilloscope.

[Poohbear]

Great stuff Jim, we will have to compare the resistances we come up with. I'm hopefully going to get mine done this weekend :)

Bob

[Paul Woods]

yeah theres probably an NA/turbo difference as johnny says,or maybe not who knows..... ah well 750 rpm out,we are getting closer! at least it is now adjustable so getting it perfect will be easy.

Putting the potentiometer on extension leads is a great idea,why didnt i think of that....

[Marksman]

For owner's cars having a straight conversion how about taking note of the exact rpm indicated at say 70 mph in 5th before the swap and then Paul can adjust the conversion to that after the swap.

Owen.

[OlberJ]

Another dyno run is the only way to step forward.

It's not conclusive but it'd certainly help.

[Poohbear]

Went out today and did some adjusting of the potentiometer today...previously when the GE was in the car, the speed rpm ratio was the following checked by GPS:

70mph.....3250rpm
75mph.....3500rpm
80mph.....3750rpm
85mph.....4000rpm

To achieve this using Sengt's method I have had to set the potentiometer to 1.8K Ohms.

All is now good....and the rev limiter cuts in @ exactly 7000rpm

Bob

[OlberJ]

Hmmm, rev limiter should be 7,100rpm IIRC.

[Poohbear]

Hmmm, rev limiter should be 7,100rpm IIRC.

What's a hundred revs give or take lol....previously the needle was burying itself in the red before hitting the rev limit so it's close enough :)

Bob

[OlberJ]

Very true chief, was only pointing out what the cut actually is.

Good to know we have a new value for the potentiometer that's damn close.

This on N/A or Turbo clocks?

[Poohbear]

N/A clocks

Bob