SVX gravel rally car...surely not? Absolutely... - Page 15

TomsSVX · #**211** 06-01-2007, 11:34 AM

ouch!! sorry to hear it man... Hope you can get her all fixed up... sorry to hear about the accident and I hope your head will heal quickly

Tom

subbieatnz · #**212** 06-02-2007, 08:31 AM

awww man that sooo suxs

at least ya are ok. wish ya all the luck 2 gettin it fixed again

AGREENTREEFROG · #**213** 06-03-2007, 06:32 PM

i wondered why i couldnt find you....damn hope you both (you and the car) heal quickly and you get your enthusiasm back....drove four hours to see ya too....and for the ride in simon evans corrolla...

dynomatt · #**214** 06-03-2007, 06:34 PM

sorry Andy...hope your ride with Simon was great (I know I'd like to go for a ride with him!!)

M

AGREENTREEFROG · #**215** 06-03-2007, 07:58 PM

it was an awesome ride i had agreat wkend
felt bad for ya but when i got back and read this
whats the plan now...after ya heal that is...?

dynomatt · #**216** 06-16-2007, 05:34 AM

Here's the dyno graph before the engine blew up.

We tried the IRIS system a few different ways...turns out it's not so effective (as posted before)...

Revs....not where we thought, so we'll play with static cam timing.

Matt

TomsSVX · #**217** 06-16-2007, 09:09 AM

so motor had a melt down already?? I am also suprised at the seperation of tq and hp on your dyno plots...

Tom

dynomatt · #**218** 06-16-2007, 04:12 PM

Yep big end...probably won't know for sure until I've pulled it out and apart, but I'm wondering whether it's an oil problem like in LAN's other threads. I'm reasonably (at this stage) confident that the engine failure wasn't to do with what we did, however, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

What do you mean by the separation? How they're represented on the page, or how the engine was performing?

I'd be interested in comments...also wouldn't mind seeing a factory torque graph if anybody has one (I'll search).

M

Trevor · #**219** 06-16-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

so motor had a melt down already?? I am also suprised at the seperation of tq and hp on your dyno plots...

Tom

The difference in the two curves also interested me, as on mathematical terms they do not add up.

I did not immediately comment, as my presumption was/is that figures from these machines are so suspect as to be useless, except possibly as a means to compare adjustments made during a single test session. I would consider a better use for the costly piece of paper.

dynomatt · #**220** 06-17-2007, 04:25 PM

Trevor...disputing the numbers is one thing (and I agree with you), but disputing the validity of the graphical information is grounds for a Trade Practices Act lawsuit?

I am interested in comments from the membership on the graphs presented.

FWIW, the factory IRIS section of the manual suggests the engine torque curve is the same as this...ie, two distinct humps, but the IRIS is supposed to flatten this out...we were unable to get the IRIS to do this on the dyno.

I'm seeking input from others please...anybody care to comment?

Matt

TomsSVX · #**221** 06-18-2007, 12:20 AM

either the dyno's way of calculating HP is WAY off or the way of measuring torque is WAY off.. There is no way to have THAT much seperation Throughout the rpms

Tom

XT6Wagon · #**222** 06-18-2007, 01:08 AM

Its using ugly old metric numbers not our sane english numbers.

doing conversions it looks like its legit, just in the wrong units

dynomatt · #**223** 06-18-2007, 06:01 AM

Sorry Tom...I'm still missing the separation thing. Is it about how it's displayed on the page, or the numbers themselves?

Or are you talking about the separation of the torque humps?

It must be a US v Australia thing...coz I'm just not understanding what you're meaning.

The units are in metric...so newton metres and kilowatts. Rough translations are 182hp at about 6000rpm...and 165 foot pounds (is that what you guys use for torque?) at about 4750rpm...with another torque peak of slightly less at 5800rpm.

Matt

TomsSVX · #**224** 06-18-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynomatt

Sorry Tom...I'm still missing the separation thing. Is it about how it's displayed on the page, or the numbers themselves?

Or are you talking about the separation of the torque humps?

It must be a US v Australia thing...coz I'm just not understanding what you're meaning.

The units are in metric...so newton metres and kilowatts. Rough translations are 182hp at about 6000rpm...and 165 foot pounds (is that what you guys use for torque?) at about 4750rpm...with another torque peak of slightly less at 5800rpm.

Matt

AHHHHHHHH... Now I see whats going on sorry for the confusion

Tom

SVXRide · #**225** 06-18-2007, 09:02 AM

Tom,
Yeah, I did metric-to-English conversion and got 183.58 Hp and 164.77 ft-lbs of T. Matt's numbers are close to GEST24's, except Matt's torque figure is low. I'm wondering if a smaller diameter exhaust might help a bit.
-Bill