alanbell

iTrader: (6)

well lane ,>>> I think theres a scoob day in Feb , You should try and get in , and may-be >>> just may-be beat my lightly modded 96uk, LoL cheers , alan.

john banks

http://dyno.scoobynet.co.uk/WLuk/mike_ferries.htm

269 BHP from a MY00 with a decat and panel filter? I don't think so.

john banks

Decat MY00 at Star.... see the problem of rolling roads?

Ninnybobs

RR,

If it's only for your own use, nip down to Autogas 2000 at Carlton Miniott, near Thirsk.
Very professional setup with new rollers just installed.

They won't consider RR days but will take individuals as long as pre-booked

Martin

RR

Sounds like an Idea Martin. I will pop down 1st thing in the New Year and see what it makes and report back.

StickyMicky

i would agree with that
just today sumbody came into the car wash and enquired about the scoob, told me that he used to own a 340bhp scoob, first thing you ask in these situations is "what turbo did you have fitted"

to which he replied with "it had a FMIC"
belive him?? nope

another bloke told me he had 330bhp and then told me he had a td04 fitted

i dont know what my proper power figure is, but i do know im maxing out the vf23 and the fuelings fine, i find it better to tell them 276bhp lmao

RR

Auto Express magazine tested the Noble GTO-3R and achieved the following set of acceleration figures using Racelogic satellite-driven timing equipment at a private test facility.

0-60mph (0-97kmh) 3.7 seconds
0-100mph (0-160kmh) 8.8 seconds
30-70mph (48-113kmh) through gears 3.2 seconds
30-50mph (48-80kmh) in third gear 2.0 seconds
40-60mph (64-97kmh) in fourth gear 2.5 seconds
50-70mph (80-113kmh) in fifth/sixth gears 3.5/6.1 seconds

Its strange but a IHI stage3 with a LSD 0-100mph is roughly 10.5-10.7secs. Its 0-60mph is slower than the Noble by roughly 2 seconds. And the Noble is roughly 2 seconds faster to 100mph. Rwd is one of the reasons why and probably the biggest reason why. But if u look at it the 60-100mph time is very similar and thats a 350bhp Noble which weighs less than the Ibiza. 60-100 Noble 5.1 secs. Ibiza roughly 5-5.2 seconds. So i would suggest Johns Blackdyno is saying more than 255bhp @ the wheels as that would roughly be 280-300bhp flywheel. And a 280-300bhp 1119kg car aint going to get anywhere near a 350bhp 1050kg car. Just another observation to throw into the melting pot. Very confusing now.

john banks

It's tricky I agree. Interesting how a Porsche GT3 accelerates compared with Nobles with far higher power to weight though as an example the other way? Maybe Porsche are a bit more conservative with their power figures?

RR

I aint getting my head around this at all it does not seem to add up. Where am i going wrong?.

Ibiza IHI 60-100 5-5.2 seconds
Noble 350bhp version 60-100 5.1 seconds
Gt3 Porsche 0-60 4.5s 0-100 9.4 seconds 60-100 4.9 seconds. Gearing has to play at part at some point in the equation but your 304bhp scoob from 60-80 mph is .4 of a second quicker than the Ibiza with IHI in just a 20mph slot of time that would mean the 304bhp scoob is out accelerating the IHI'd Ibiza/ Noble/ Gt3 from 60 upwards by quite a margain. Or am i reading it wrong along the line somewhere. I want to understand this topic better but i just cant seem to figure it out.

Times below for comparrison.

40-60mph
Gallardo: 1.7 sec (first gear)
360 Modena: 2.1 sec (second gear)
385hp Z06: 1.9 sec (second gear)
SRT-10: 1.9 sec (second gear)
911 GT3: 2.1 sec (second gear)

60-80mph
Gallardo: 2.3 sec (second gear)
360 Modena: 2.9 sec (third gear)
385hp Z06: 2.7 sec (third gear)
SRT-10: 2.0 sec (second gear)
911 GT3: 2.9 sec (third gear)

Andy.F

Subtracting the 0-60 from the 0-100 is not the best way of getting the proper 60-100 time. If for example one car has the 2-3 shift at 58mph and the other has it at 62mph it will make rubbish of the figures, also the 3-4 shift ? 98mph or 101 mph and so on.
One car could actually be quicker than the other even although the times did not reflect it.

Andy

RR

[QUOTE=Andy.F]Subtracting the 0-60 from the 0-100 is not the best way of getting the proper 60-100 time. If for example one car has the 2-3 shift at 58mph and the other has it at 62mph it will make rubbish of the figures, also the 3-4 shift ? 98mph or 101 mph and so on.
One car could actually be quicker than the other even although the times did not reflect it.

Andy[/QUOTE

I see where your coming from Andy. But a 308bhp scoob it pretty much seeing off all the cars mentioned or is matching them. I am just wondering if a 300bhp P1 would do this to the cars above. Unless once again i am not looking at it in the right way. I have seen a p1 tested at 4.7secs to 60mph and 0-100mph in 12.4 seconds. Could adding an extra 30bhp allow it to drop into the 10's to 100mph bracket?.

john banks

The "304" BHP Scooby also did mid 12 quarters with fairly gentle launch on road tyres at about 115 mph IIRC. It has run more power (341 BHP) on other rollers in the same spec (I worked out it had about the same power to weight ratio as a 996TT) though and feels quick, running a TD05 about as hard as you can on Optimax, plus it has FMIC, headers, *lots* of custom mapping work etc. I think on some other rollers it would probably be over 380 BHP, but I don't believe that would be genuine. It seems to pull slowly away from an E46 M3 at speed, and did quite well against a 993 C2.

I've seen a UK car on another dyno with just a VF28 and exhaust (no remap) that did about 370 BHP. From my knowlegde of the VF28 I don't see how that car would be a patch on the above car which has done "304" BHP at its last dyno test.

I wonder if there are just too many errors and inconsistencies in chassis dyno testing AWD turbocharged cars in particular?

Same rollers, same day, same car type, even that may be pushing so that there are too many biasing factors?

Pavlo

The Ibiza figures seem suspect to me. It takes the car twice as long to go from 100 to 120 as it does to get from 60 to 100, that doesn't seem right to me given the gentle reduction in G force. I haven't actually done any calculation though, and don't care to as I am being lazy today!

Paul

RR

LOL Thats fair enough.

I aint looking for a mines faster than yours (and by saying that i am not saying u are). But answers to question i have asked myself for a long time. And to be honest i change my mind everyday about what i believe to be the truth about performance figures and figures from Rolling Rds.

RR

Very intresting. I have had a Bmw M3 (e46) behind me waiting for me to go so that he could come past. I was in 3rd at about 60-70mph when the road cleared i went through 3rd and 4th and when i looked behind at the end of 4th i would say it was 8-12 cars behind, so it had dropped away quite quickly. It could have worked either way, he was already on the gas as the car cleared ahead of me or he waited for me to go or he decided not to bother. I am pretty sure he was trying his best. I have also watched a IHI stage3 hold onto an mr340 in 2nd and go past in 3rd and continue to go away from it very convincingly. I dont think theres any easy answer do u belive the on road performance (should really) or trust a dyno. I have also been a passenger in a IHI stage3 car and from 20-30mph to about 110-120mph put about 2 car on a c4s but once into 4th the gap really grew. The one thing is i dont know is how hard the guy was trying past the 110mph point. U are saying the 304bhp scoob was genuine in that form but on some rollers would see 380bhp+. Thats a huge variation and it cant just be confined to that one car. LOL i am more confused now than i was before. The only way is to go against a know car which is stnd and use that as a bench mark. But say a stnd P1 makes 270-280bhp @ Well Lane or Power Engineering then surely this is proof of the accuracy on that Rolling Road. And then all other figures can be worked from there?.

Tone Loc

iTrader: (1)

The M3 was 12 car lengths behind by the time you reached the limit of 4th ..... i'm driving the wrong car!!!!! Tell me more about this stage III!!

Tony.

P.S my Friends M3 E46 makes my 275bhpish Impreza feel like a 1.1 Corsa

RR

I said 8-12 cars its hard to judge, and its also hard to be sure how good he was and how quick he was on the gas after i had put my foot down. If he gets his foot down when he see's me pulling away i may have been at full throttle for 2-3 seconds and once the gap is made and the cars above 4000rpm it gonna be hard to close the gap at all. A better test would to be the following car and then if you go past you really do have a faster car.

Tone Loc

iTrader: (1)

Not disagreeing with you, like you say if get a 'jump' on the guy that's a good few car lengths already. Just having been in an E46 M3 it's hard to see something pulling away like that..... no disrespect but especially a Seat.

Do Jabbasport have a website worth looking at?

Tony.

SiHethers

RR

I think on the road it is so hard to judge because as you say you don't know whether he was trying etc, but more importantly which gear he was in. If the M3 was in 4th and you started in third, your description of what happened could be due to that, ie you trounced him. Adding an extra persons weight to the car can make a huge difference also, that would dent my 3rd gear times given earlier by about 0.3s each or more.

John, thanks for your correction, that "per ton" shouldn't have been in there

I would say in-gear times knowing the weight of the car as tested and length (mph/1000rpm) of each gear would give you a good basis for making comparisons.

Simon

john banks

To prove rollers I think you would have to be interpolating against known figures, not extrapolating which is what you do when you say a standard car reads correctly. Some errors would only come to light at higher power, eg. residual eddy currents, or slip etc.

The "304" or "341" car (same car) against the M3 I did not witness. T-uk is fairly modest, when we completely annihilated a Golf R32 that was behind and wanting to play he said he had only just beat it, understatement of the year, he put about 15 car lengths on it. I waved at the guy (bye bye through the back window) before T-uk put his foot down and he told me off T-uk said that he let the M3 come part way past and then went for it, and there was half a car length gain to the Scooby in the end, but the Scooby could have been going 10-20mph slower by the time he went for it. Maybe the M3 had SMG, maybe not, maybe he could change gear well, maybe not. Again too many variables.

I'd go by how you feel the on road performance is. It is very difficult to compare any dyno figures.

Pavlo

That is about the best attitude you can hope to have. If you can be sure your favoured dyno is consistent from day to day, then there is little reason to go anywhere else except in the pursuit of absolute figures to compare with others or asses power claims you are paying for.

If your ultimate aim is on the road performance, your turbo size is going to be dictated by the maximum lag you can put up with against the minimum power you want. If you feel you could live with more lag, then get a bigger turbo, or at least try one. It's one of those things where the expectation is often different from reality.

Perhaps some dyno figures from Jabbasport for a bog standard car done under the same conditions as yours would help you asses your performance increase, and help you decide where to go next if anywhere.

Paul

PICKLE

This is a dyno graph of the car I saw at Castle Combe in the summer. I hope the parties involved won't mind!

Not sure of the rollers, but it is a Cupra R Ibiza with the stage 3 mods.

http://www.seatcupra.net/files/jbsrr...sults/bill.pdf


It came from here : http://www.seatcupra.net/JBSrollingroadday_071104.htm

RR

The Ibiza above is more powerful than mine, i have asked the questions before but i have never come up with anything concrete. Like i have said i put my mind at rest and then u see some more info that possibly disputes what you previously believed to be true. The person above is not linked to me and i dont want him linking with myself. I am here trying to find answers to MY questions/doubts. I have more intrest in Scoobynet due to the IHI vf34 i use and is someways i have more to gain from looking at threads like this as there are far more scoobs running vf34's than ibiza's. And this being the case possibly more info for me to try and use to come to some form of informed conclusion. I hear the likes of Mark Shead who tunes a lot of stuff scoobs/Evos/ cossies does not use a Rolling Road now i know why. Once again i am left with nothing but questions without 100% correct answers to them. And i know if i find what i think to be right it will have been tainted by some conflicting info somewhere along the line. Time for a Beer and some contemplation.

PICKLE

RR, I'm not trying to cause arguments etc, I was just hoping that last post would help some people understand the points put across in this thread. It is a thread about the VF34 turbo after all . I am also watching this thread as I am well impressed with the performance of the Ibiza's with this turbo/fmic/etc fitted. I believe they are Scooby beaters upto a point!

RR

I never thought you were trying to cause an argument. I just dont want myself linking to an individual/forum/car. Any info is more than welcome as far as i am concerned. So thanks for your input i hope i never gave the impression that i thought your were trying to cause an argument.

Daveo

Pavlo,

I have Mike's MD304 dyno run print out's from prosport. The turbo is getting fitted to my v6 wagon as we speak.

I can verify his figures are correct.

Dave

john banks

Perhaps the best and only real use for a chassis dyno is to hold a car in a load zone to tune for best torque with the right combination of boost, timing and fuelling.

(However, even that is tricky as airflow and load don't reflect the road, and transients can be flat if mapped on a dyno in this way).

It is interesting to look at the various figures, as with only 258 WHP/ton, and then plus fuel plus driver plus passenger, and using two (non-brutal) gearchanges my old setup did 60-100 in 4.7 seconds, as part of an 8.7 0-100 and 12.1 0-125 in the wet.

The dyno is conservative, IMHO grossly overestimates the AWD losses, and the engine was torquey with an incredibly wide torque curve and not peaky at all, plus was quite easy to launch in the wet because it was so forgiving for the RPM used, and didn't bog down.

StickyMicky

rolling roads are only good to use as ammo to wind up your mates IMO

i have a mate whos car did 250bhp at well lane and it does 13.1/13.2 1/4miles
i cant rember his torque but it wasnt very high, thats with a hard launch, but its still a fast time for a low powerd lardy uk car

i deathed my wrx when it just had a cat back system/pannel filter and managed 12.97 as a best , and theres not much in the 2 times, when his car was RR`d at 250 mine was RR`d at 280/258lbft (276bhp wrx on 100 fuel, running on optimax and booster)

does that mean my figure was off, or his? we launch the cars exactly the same way, i dont think the drag times could be improved without car mods

that to me says that a rolling road is just to inconsistent to be taken seriously

RR

When u think about it if u contacted 15 rolling roads places in the New Year and ran it on them all every figure would be diff from the other. Every place would claim there figures to be correct. All i can claim is that my car is running a modified (in what way i dont know) IHI vf34 .18 housing with a new designed manifold which has been flowed and coated matched upto an uprated downpipe, sports cat and ss 2.5" cat back exhaust. Added to this an uprated fuel pump, 4bar fpr, 440cc injectors, chargecooler, induction kit, larger maf housing. The boost spikes @ 20psi and the air fuel ratio has been mapped to suit on a rolling road. I am put of rolling roads all together now and may well just give them a miss in the future. Maybe a in car vid is required and people can make there own minds up. Either way i am glad to have had peoples input good or bad. Its better to see both sides of the picture and then some form of balanced opinion can be formed.

V LTD sti type RA

racing is simple. If you get a 1996 type RA ur half way there with standard figures.power to weight is so, so important.body kits look nice but it doesnt make you go quicker. the new m3 is 343 horsepower but weighs 1.5tonnes. if my RA weighs just over 1 tonne then i can take off the power of the bmw over my 275(standard) and add it to mine.(if there were a calculation) maybe 25%. so take my power 276 add 25% of that = 70 = 276+70=346bhp. so now a race between an m3 and a standar type RA would be quite similar.but then theres the close ratio gearbox,AWD................. any1 else agree?