-
Guest, 🚨New Stock alert: Premium CUPRA valve caps now available in the store 👉 Order now from the merchandise store
RR graph is it running "LEAN* - YES! - now with logs
- Thread starter super_electric
- Start date
-
- Tags
- logs
lol....... no it’s a "LCR" 2003.... Starting life as a 210
Assuming 210bhp to start with, we are looking at 16% losses. Which would mean you have 246bhp now - a 36bhp increase.
Last edited:
To be honest, I'd say if it drives as well as you say (and I believe that it does) then just use the rolling road figures as proof of the increase that you've gained.
You've got a 17% increase over stock, which would take a LCR 210 to 246bhp. There are so many variables with a RR, they really can only be used to test improvements made in your vehicle, rather than comparing to factory figures. Without knowing how other LCRs have done on the dyno on the same day I really wouldn't worry. And if you never had a remap you'd still believe you had a 210bhp car, so enjoy the 246bhp I say!
You've got a 17% increase over stock, which would take a LCR 210 to 246bhp. There are so many variables with a RR, they really can only be used to test improvements made in your vehicle, rather than comparing to factory figures. Without knowing how other LCRs have done on the dyno on the same day I really wouldn't worry. And if you never had a remap you'd still believe you had a 210bhp car, so enjoy the 246bhp I say!
Last edited:
Dyno Lottery
AFR wise confirm the car with logging cars lambda value under same gear/acceleration run
lean is usually maf demise
AFR wise confirm the car with logging cars lambda value under same gear/acceleration run
lean is usually maf demise
Am I slow here, how do I have a 246bhp when I first got the car it was 207bhp at best and now “236 bhp” that’s only a extra 29bhp…. Or am I retarded lol
Heh no worries, I am simply assuming that your car was a known 210bhp when it went on the rolling road and got 176bhp at the wheels - a 16% loss.
Now, if you extrapolate that back up from your new 207bhp at the wheels - you get 246bhp at the fly!
Try it and see: 210x0.84=176 and 246x0.84=207
Bigbhp18t
Guest
I have played with over 12 rolling roads across the UK and I have found to take fly wheel HP with a pinch of salt. One DD dyno gave a 164 wbhp and 205bhp at the fly, if we are working on 15% lossess then the fly bhp should have been close on 190bhp?? Then another DD rolling road and another car gave 187wbhp and 217bhp at the fly? Using the maths from the 1st DD dyno of whbhp / 0.8 = fbhp then the 187whbhp should have made 233bhp at the fly not 217bhp? Both dynos ran in shoot out mode and the cars both Golf mk4 AUM 5 speed.
The rolling road I use will give the same wbhp time after time, but the coastdown can vary up to 8bhp on the same car
We need to be looking at the wheel bhp and the exact wheel bhp gains, plus we need to take in to account the correction factor one correction will give a uncorrected 200bhp wbhp 202wbhp corrected and another factor could give 206bhp corrected.
I found the following links which are really helps getting your head around this dyno stuff.
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/coastdwn.htm
I can comfirm the gear cost down in 3rd, 4th 5th & 6th can differ from 19bhp in 3rd gear to 43bhp in 6th gear. The power run in 5th gave the most realistic coast down result on a stock Leon 150pd.
An few more links
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/POWER3.htm
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/setup01.htm
Not my write ups, just wish I could do a write up like them but I am crap at putting what I know in to text, I was gifted with a good gob..lol
And a really good write up from JKM http://www.jkm.org.uk/performance/dynotesting.htm
Ben
The rolling road I use will give the same wbhp time after time, but the coastdown can vary up to 8bhp on the same car
We need to be looking at the wheel bhp and the exact wheel bhp gains, plus we need to take in to account the correction factor one correction will give a uncorrected 200bhp wbhp 202wbhp corrected and another factor could give 206bhp corrected.
I found the following links which are really helps getting your head around this dyno stuff.
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/coastdwn.htm
I can comfirm the gear cost down in 3rd, 4th 5th & 6th can differ from 19bhp in 3rd gear to 43bhp in 6th gear. The power run in 5th gave the most realistic coast down result on a stock Leon 150pd.
An few more links
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/POWER3.htm
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/setup01.htm
Not my write ups, just wish I could do a write up like them but I am crap at putting what I know in to text, I was gifted with a good gob..lol
And a really good write up from JKM http://www.jkm.org.uk/performance/dynotesting.htm
Ben
The answer to this thread was yes, Motorscope's sniffer was bang on, the car was running very lean to 4280 rpm, then rich.
well i ran mines on a dastec roller an i got bhp=251.5 torque=240.9 (cc) and they says mine was running lean aswell
Ok, this thread came about from Richard's car having a RR run and the operator said it was running dangerously lean. Following that, I logged the car and my logs confirm the lean running.
Richard went back to the tuner, who adjusted the map. Due to water pump failure, we haven't had a chance to relog the car until tonight. Here are the results...
A warm evening, but only 3 power runs done - not thrashing the car to heatsoak it. I am very concerned about the requested fuelling, which seems worse than a month ago.....
Code:
Wednesday 22 July 2009 18:39:01
1ML 906 032 1.8l R4/5VT 0001
'003 '020
RPM Mass Flow Load Ign. Timing Idle Stabilization
/min g/s % °BTDC CF CF CF CF
2640 88.19 96.5 8.3 0 0 0 0
2880 100.53 99.2 3.8 0 0 0 0
3160 110.06 100 9.8 0 0 0 0
3400 119.03 100 10.5 0 0 0 0
3640 121.89 100 12 0 0 0 3
3880 135.28 100 12.8 0 0 0 3
4160 147 100 13.5 0 0 0 2.3
4360 155.81 100 12 0 0 3 2.3
4600 164.11 100 12 0 0 3 1.5
4840 169.44 100 7.5 3 3 6 4.5
5040 178.75 100 8.3 6 6 6 4.5
5200 181.22 100 5.3 6 6 5.3 7.5
5360 186.47 100 9 6 9 8.3 7.5
5560 189.08 100 8.3 5.3 9 8.3 7.5
5720 183.97 100 10.5 5.3 8.3 7.5 6.8
5880 184.83 100 11.3 4.5 8.3 7.5 6.8
6000 182.14 100 12 7.5 7.5 6.8 6
6160 186.64 100 15 7.5 7.5 6.8 6
5400 5.78 8.6 4.5 6.8 7.5 6.8 6
5000 196.75 96.9 10.5 4.5 5.3 4.5 3.8
5080 181.83 100 5.3 7.5 7.5 7.5 6
5040 6.69 8.2 5.3 0 0 0 0
Code:
Wednesday 22 July 2009 18:42:29
1ML 906 032 1.8l R4/5VT 0001
'115 '031
RPM Load Absolute Pres. Absolute Pres. Lambda Factor Lambda Factor
/min % mbar mbar
2360 106.8 1680 1280 0.938 1
2560 136.1 1740 1660 1.008 1
2800 178.9 2160 2240 0.953 0.953
3080 182 2180 2190 0.953 0.953
3280 182 2210 2220 0.945 0.953
3600 182 2250 2180 0.945 0.953
3840 191 2250 2310 0.922 0.953
4040 184.2 2260 2250 0.914 0.922
4280 186.5 2250 2230 0.821 0.828
4520 182.7 2240 2220 0.75 0.766
4760 180.5 2230 2210 0.75 0.774
4960 182.7 2230 2210 0.828 0.828
5200 181.2 2210 2190 0.852 0.852
5400 178.2 2190 2190 0.75 0.727
5560 180.5 2170 2160 0.75 0.672
5720 177.4 2150 2130 0.75 0.719
5880 171.4 2110 2140 0.75 0.758
6000 172.9 2090 2090 0.75 0.782
6120 175.2 2100 2020 0.75 0.727
6280 166.9 2100 2050 0.75 0.68
6400 152.6 2080 2150 0.75 0.696
6520 163.9 2070 2100 0.75 0.704
6680 139.8 2050 2090 0.75 0.696
6760 162.4 2050 2000 0.75 0.688
6880 138.3 2020 2010 0.75 0.688
6840 80.5 970 1870 0.766 0.696
Code:
Wednesday 22 July 2009 18:45:31
1ML 906 032 1.8l R4/5VT 0001
'118 '032
RPM Temperature Load Absolute Pres. Lambda Lambda
/min °C % mbar % %
2760 30 0 990 -0.2 -7.8
2800 30 57.6 1170 -0.2 -7.8
3000 30 88.6 1900 -0.2 -7.8
3240 29 78 2280 -0.2 -7.8
3520 29 79.2 2230 -0.2 -7.8
3800 29 79.2 2220 -0.2 -7.8
4040 30 78.8 2240 -0.2 -7.8
4280 31 78.8 2260 -0.2 -7.8
4480 32 79.2 2240 -0.2 -7.8
4720 33 79.6 2210 -0.2 -7.8
4920 35 80.4 2230 -0.2 -7.8
5120 36 80.8 2250 -0.2 -7.8
5320 39 83.1 2190 -0.2 -7.8
5520 39 84.3 2170 -0.2 -7.8
5720 42 83.9 2140 -0.2 -7.8
5880 45 83.1 2080 -0.2 -7.8
6040 46 80.8 2120 -0.2 -7.8
6200 48 82.7 2040 -0.2 -7.8
6280 49 81.6 2160 -0.2 -7.8
6440 50 82.4 2120 -0.2 -7.8
6560 51 82.4 2100 -0.2 -7.8
6720 52 79.2 2070 -0.2 -7.8
6760 54 81.6 2100 -0.2 -7.8Richard went back to the tuner, who adjusted the map. Due to water pump failure, we haven't had a chance to relog the car until tonight. Here are the results...
Code:
Wednesday 19 August 2009 18:07:59
1ML 906 032 1.8l R4/5VT 0001
'003 '020
RPM Mass Flow Load Ign. Timing Idle Stabilization Idle Stabilization Idle Stabilization Idle Stabilization
/min g/s % °BTDC CF CF CF CF
2120 47.56 87.8 12 0 0 0 0
2320 61.36 91.8 9 0 3 0 0
2520 83.39 95.3 3 0 3 0 0
2760 107.97 97.6 3.8 0 2.3 0 0
3040 101.86 100 7.5 0 2.3 0 0
3320 106.72 100 7.5 0 1.5 0 0
3560 121.75 100 11.3 0 1.5 0 0
3800 122 100 12 0 0.8 0 0
4040 137.25 100 12.8 0 0.8 3 3
4240 148.81 100 9 3 0 3 3
4440 158.44 100 8.3 3 3 2.3 3
4640 159.56 100 7.5 3 3 2.3 2.3
4840 171.56 100 9 5.3 2.3 5.3 2.3
5080 179.44 100 9 5.3 2.3 5.3 5.3
5280 184.19 100 7.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3
5400 186.97 100 3.8 7.5 5.3 7.5 7.5
5600 185.42 100 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
5760 182.75 100 9.8 7.5 7.5 6.8 10.5
5960 183.64 100 12 6.8 10.5 9.8 10.5
6080 182.44 100 12.8 6.8 10.5 9.8 9.8
6200 184.53 99.6 11.3 6 9.8 9 9.8
6320 188.47 100 8.3 6 9.8 9 9
6440 186.89 99.6 10.5 5.3 9.8 8.3 8.3
6560 187.56 100 12 5.3 9 8.3 8.3
6640 186.64 99.2 12 5.3 9 8.3 7.5
6760 188.78 99.6 12 4.5 8.3 7.5 7.5
Code:
Wednesday 19 August 2009
1ML 906 032 1.8l R4/5VT 0001
'115 '031
RPM Load Absolute Pres. Absolute Pres. Lambda Factor Lambda Factor
/min % mbar mbar
2080 104.5 1910 1380 0.977 1
2240 118 2110 1530 0.977 0.969
2440 145.9 2180 1850 0.961 0.953
2680 178.2 2160 2290 0.945 0.953
2960 174.4 2120 2190 0.961 0.953
3200 171.4 2130 2150 0.945 0.953
3440 171.4 2150 2140 0.938 0.953
3640 175.2 2180 2170 0.945 0.953
3920 172.9 2210 2190 0.953 0.953
4120 172.9 2240 2210 0.945 0.953
4320 181.2 2290 2230 0.93 0.953
4520 182 2310 2290 0.969 0.953
4760 181.2 2300 2280 0.93 0.93
4920 179.7 2300 2280 0.867 0.813
5120 182.7 2270 2270 0.75 0.735
5320 185.7 2230 2230 0.75 0.774
5480 178.9 2190 2230 0.867 0.86
5640 178.9 2140 2160 0.875 0.891
5800 168.4 2090 2080 0.75 0.68
5960 162.4 2020 2050 0.75 0.649
6080 156.4 2000 2040 0.75 0.649
6200 165.4 2000 1920 0.75 0.649
6360 153.4 2000 2060 0.75 0.727
6440 155.6 1980 1970 0.813 0.805
6560 155.6 1980 1940 0.75 0.758
6440 56.4 980 1970 0.75 0.649
Code:
Wednesday 19 August 2009 18:06:07
1ML 906 032 1.8l R4/5VT 0001
'118 '032
RPM Temperature Load Absolute Pres. Lambda Lambda
/min °C % mbar % %
1920 34 0 1030 0 0
1960 36 0 1010 0 0
2040 36 95.3 1010 0 0
2160 35 95.3 1250 0 0
2360 34 95.3 1510 0 0
2560 33 95.3 1920 0 0
2840 33 75.3 2510 0 0
3160 33 74.9 2150 0 0
3480 33 75.3 2150 0 0
3760 33 76.1 2140 0 0
4000 34 76.9 2200 0 0
4240 35 78.4 2230 0 0
4480 36 80 2270 0 0
4680 37 80.4 2280 0 0
4920 39 82.4 2280 0 0
5160 40 82.7 2300 0 0
5320 43 83.9 2230 0 0
5480 45 82.4 2200 0 0
5600 48 80.8 2170 0 0
5760 49 79.6 2110 0 0
5880 51 78 2050 0 0
6040 52 77.3 2030 0 0
6160 54 77.3 2010 0 0
6280 54 76.9 2010 0 0
6360 56 76.1 2040 0 0
6440 57 76.1 1970 0 0
6520 57 75.7 2000 0 0
6600 57 76.9 2020 0 0
5400 54 0 1180 0 0A warm evening, but only 3 power runs done - not thrashing the car to heatsoak it. I am very concerned about the requested fuelling, which seems worse than a month ago.....
Last edited:
The plot thickens thanks again tho Dave for taken “time out” to log the info, but looking like back to where I started!!.. hmmm
Similar threads
