Welcome to the SR20 Community Forum - The Dash.
SR20 forum logo

Thread: Yada yada, more dynos.

+ Reply To Thread
Posts: 51-60 of 262
2009-09-15 19:01:08
Well there is alot of variables to take into account, Setup that works well together is probably the biggest one and again elevation.

I dynoed basicly at a few hundered feet above sea level on my built det, stock head no port work or anything, stock manifold and made 407whp, 365wtq at 19psi. 24psi again was 461, 391wtq, im hoping to hit above the 450whp mark at the same 19psi when comparison testing is done on the manifold.
2009-09-15 19:03:25
What I loved about Manny's set-up was the simplicity of it. Basic Wiseco/Eagle combo, N1 intake manifold, stock 2.0 cams set at zero, SC-61 and a pro-tech manifold (not an equal length)

There was nothing special to it. I have had a lot of fast SE-R's in my hands but, nothing like this car.
2009-09-15 19:05:25
And thats the key, N1 manifold and TB would be a nice gain over the stock ve one as well. Stock cams are fine for making serious power, Hell the stock ve cams have more of a profile on them than the JWT S4's im using. Match with the right size turbo and your good to go. Hell im using an ebay tubular and its fine.
2009-09-15 19:09:24
Coheed man... you NEED to know the settings on the dyno it could be reading very low...without knowing this you are only speculating, plus you do not have the right tools to measure all the data you need to take advantaje of your concurrent setup.
the 0.78 its not the prob here.
2009-09-15 19:18:00
Now I know I have said this before. Any chance the conservative JWT tune is the culprite?

Coheed do you have any type of piggy back?
2009-09-16 01:04:51
Originally Posted by SE-Rican
Like I have said before Manny's old VE-T set up at 25 psi was well over 500 whp and over 400 ft tq. This was with a smaller end SC-61 with a .63 rear At 15 psi he was over 400 whp.

Not taking anything away from Coheed. I just feel the car is not making the power that it should. My old DE at 16 psi was making 363 whp with 302 ft tq. At 20 psi I should have been over 400 whp.

I agree The JWT tune is probably imperfect but Ashton is right about the elevation and don't forget the heat. Your 363hp setup was a UK 10:1 motor too no? Manny's old setup was pretty ridiculous. Insane.
2009-09-16 01:15:00
screw the damn dyno. Who gives a crap you didnt build it to strap it on a dyno and say hey look at me you built it to drive the thing until it blows up and do it all over again. sure its good to know your numbers but go have fun with it and those numbers dont mean jack to you anymore.
2009-09-16 04:51:25
Originally Posted by jpsr20det
Coheed man... you NEED to know the settings on the dyno it could be reading very low...without knowing this you are only speculating, plus you do not have the right tools to measure all the data you need to take advantaje of your concurrent setup.
the 0.78 its not the prob here.

Agreed there is a restriction but its isnt the housing.

What year is your head from? i have a suspicious feeling that you might have one of the earlier "good" heads, this could be some of your problem. The other thing i noticed is that you have quite low compression for a vet set up 8.5:1 right? The high overlap cams like compression. Then there is also the tuning this could be costing loads of whp.
2009-09-16 05:21:15
Originally Posted by Coheed
YouTube - UtahNissans.com Dyno Day 2009

You see my car dyno about half-way through. You can hear it, and you can't really see any blowby from the oil catch. Motor sounds healthy. Then I loaded up with some peeps and went for a spin. Oh ya.

When on the road it sounds like once you hit bigger lobes you loose all your traction.

Also the Mazda Speed 3 shouldn't have been on there, it didn't even sound like he was flooring it

Now is your JWT tune designed to go that high in PSI? What are the odds that it's giving too much timing and thus causing the ECU to retard the timing?

As I've just started learning about TP scales, I also learned that the higher you go in boost the less timing you want. Thus if you tune your TP scales to have a particular set of aggressive timing at 10 psi, but then tune it to have lower timing at anything above that. This could help your car's power in lower RPM ranges too.


Originally Posted by GT2871RBLUBIRD
not to get off topic is that tealish color car a dodge spirit or or the sort? i thought it was a beater lol but damn definitly a sleeper

Not to mention that it almost flew off and killed half of the people in the room. Probably should be a rule, if you have a new clutch and your not used to it, don't come to the dyno hehe.
2009-09-16 06:49:58
hahaha. Vadim.

I know the dyno is not the issue. I know the setup isn't the issue. I tried playing around with timing a little bit on 15psi on the dynojet a few weeks ago, but it didn't seem to make much more power. The a/f were pretty decent, but getting too rich up top.

The .78 may not be that much of a restriction, but lets face it: when the VE cams were in they didn't make ANY more power than the VET cams on the same boost level. Actually, they seemed to make LESS than the VET cams. Why would that be, unless there is a restriction somewhere?

These pistons were custom made, I wonder if they did get the C/R too low?

I don't think the JWT is the issue, DE guys are making the same numbers as I am. Maybe the .78 isn't the restriction, but the VE cams should make more than 4whp increase when the intake switches. On the VET cams I gain 20whp when the intake cam switches. You can see it on my dynojet graphs.

Exhaust isn't the issue, there isn't one. The manifold is no longer an issue, it is a very well-build manifold. Tuning? Not huge, but leaves some room on the table. Cams? VE cams are supposed to flow better than the VET cams?

Head? Maybe. This is an SR16VE head, and I have no idea what year. It came with a blue valve cover, and 34mm intake valves. Didn't even measure the exhuast. Compression is a bit low, but leakdown is good. I need more revs for sure though.

Here's what I am trying to work out: I swapped out the log manifold, and put on this tubular mani. The only other thing that changed was the exhaust housing. So apparently changing from a log manifold to a tubular=no power increase at all?

I'm gonna get to the bottom of this!
+ Reply To Thread
  • [Type to search users.]
  • Quick Reply
    Thread Information
    There are currently ? users browsing this thread. (? members & ? guests)

    Back to top