SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
55,918 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I did some base-line pulls this morning - stock, 18" pegs - Advanced & Sport modes attempted - 3rd gear.<p><IMG SRC="http://www.icstew.com/06_project_v70r/dyno/roller_01.jpg" BORDER="0"><p>Best WHP: 252.18<br>Lowest WHP: 247.13<p>Best Torque: 278.20<br>Lowest Torque: 272.20<p>Air Fuel: low-mid 11s above 5500rpm<p>We'll see how a few mods will improve these numbers. <p><IMG SRC="http://www.icstew.com/06_project_v70r/dyno/stock_all_runs_hp.jpg" BORDER="0"><p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63,543 Posts
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. ([email protected])

Isn't AF of low 11's a bit lean here?<br>I though 13 or so was optimal
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
55,918 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. (JRL)

yeah - dyno operator thought it was a bit lean for a stock ECU setup. Interestingly, this was the same dyno that Kai was using to setup his custom S60R - I didn't know that.<br>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,121 Posts
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. ([email protected])

It's my understanding that the stock tune does that after 5500 rpm . . . that's why, stock, the car always feels like it's running into a brick wall at that rpm. Not enough fuel going in.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
55,918 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. (R Salesman)

<IMG SRC="http://www.icstew.com/06_project_v70r/dyno/roller_02.jpg" BORDER="0"><p>There was a couple of nice toys there, I found this one interesting <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/wink.gif" BORDER="0"><p>Getting a set of custom color matched 20" rims installed:<br><IMG SRC="http://www.icstew.com/06_project_v70r/dyno/ultimate_01.jpg" BORDER="0"><br><IMG SRC="http://www.icstew.com/06_project_v70r/dyno/ultimate_02.jpg" BORDER="0"><br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. (JRL)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>JRL</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Isn't AF of low 11's a bit lean here?<br>I though 13 or so was optimal</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I think you mean rich, don't you? The lower you go is the richer you get. Higher is leaner. Optimal is 12.5 or so (for a turbo application like ours). <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/embeer.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>EDIT: Good numbers Chris <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://********************/smile/emthup.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
55,918 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Re: (nikhsub1)

full on AWD, DSTC reduced, the R did not like DSTC engaged <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/smile.gif" BORDER="0"> - no FWD, fuse pullin' cheating happening on these runs. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/tongue.gif" BORDER="0"> j/k guys.<p>93 octane from Sunoco<p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,856 Posts
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. (IwantaS60R)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>IwantaS60R</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think you mean rich, don't you? The lower you go is the richer you get. Higher is leaner. Optimal is 12.5 or so (for a turbo application like ours). <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/embeer.gif" BORDER="0"> <p> </TD></TR></TABLE><br>beat me to it. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/sly.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/tongue.gif" BORDER="0"> <br> <br>Nice job Chris! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://********************/smile/emthup.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://********************/smile/emthup.gif" BORDER="0"> Next time, call me! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/sly.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
816 Posts
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. ([email protected])

Chris, why didn't you make your runs in 4th gear, thats closest to a 1:1 ratio with the R tranny. Also, an 1:11 AF ratio is a bit rich not lean. The BSR tunning leans out to around 1:13.5 and it starts pinging.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
55,918 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. (RhaRdeR)

actually our last run was in 4th gear and the run took a while (#6 on the graph above). I did a frantic search throught the R forum during one of the cool down breaks but didn't find any specific details on "dyno setup recommendations" -- i think we should make a sticky thread with links to or include specifications for optimal results.<p>The charge pipe, and everything else in general was really hot so we did about a 5min cool down between each pull - it was hot outside as well as pretty warm in the shop, mid-80s around the dyno.<br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. (JRL)

JRL,<br>We probably belong to different generations, but I'm with you on the 11:1/13:1 idea. Actually, I was raised to believe that stoichiometric ratio was a bit richer than just 13:1. My understanding has been that going leaner (as in 11:1 direction) would first wreck BHP, finally even MPG.<br>Going toward 14:1 would first drop MPG then BHP.<br>Bottom line , I'd fear 11:1 under load, and be sure power would jump immediately going a bit richer. Safer, too.<p>Jer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. (IwantaS60R)

Here comes the OLD fart again <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/zeroforum_graphics/screwy.gif" BORDER="0"> I was raised to understand the numbers are AIR:FUEL. In post above, I lost it <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vortexmediagroup.com/images/banghead.gif" BORDER="0"> <br>At any rate, Agree with the 12.5 level. Still contend that going leaner will cost power first; going richer will cost economy first. In old carbureted days, smart move was to bias to rich if in doubt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,341 Posts
the lower the number the richer it is 11 is pretty rich for stock but thats cause there is so much heat up close to redline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Re: (BOOSTED S60R)

Also, where was the WB02 placed? At least one manufacturer of WB meters (Innovate Motorsports) advises that a bung for a WB02 sensor should be placed before cats to get the most accurate reading. I can't remember which way the observed 02 reading swings pre vs. post cat.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,856 Posts
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. (senilesurfer)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>senilesurfer</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">JRL,<br>We probably belong to different generations, but I'm with you on the 11:1/13:1 idea. Actually, I was raised to believe that stoichiometric ratio was a bit richer than just 13:1. My understanding has been that going leaner (as in 11:1 direction) would first wreck BHP, finally even MPG.<br>Going toward 14:1 would first drop MPG then BHP.<br>Bottom line , I'd fear 11:1 under load, and be sure power would jump immediately going a bit richer. Safer, too.<p>Jer</TD></TR></TABLE><br>you've got it backwards, 11:1 is rich 15:1 is lean. Nothing wrong with runing 11:1 under load, now runing 16:1 or 15:1 under load and you may have some issues..
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
55,918 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. (gdogg16)

the A/F sensor was placed in the left tailpipe -- assuming the airflow is nearly equal coming out of the "dual" tips
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,050 Posts
Re: Project V70R: Baseline Dyno Results. ([email protected])

My unvalidated theory on stock A/F calibration...<p>1. For most of the torque curve, the A/F is "relatively" lean. I theorize that for the existing conditions (boost level, timings, octane, IMT) there is no real need to go richer because the engine is already meeting it's TARGET TORQUE LEVELS. It is essentially de-tuned to avoid exceeding the target (probably a max allowable torque imposed by the transmission). Going richer here would serve no purpose and only waste fuel and perhaps over-temp the catalyst.<p>2. At the highest revs, it's a little tougher to meet target horsepower. The intake temperatures are higher and therefore there is a greater tendency towards knock. Extra fuel is thrown into the mix for knock protection.<p>It's interesting to note the transition from sorta-rich to really rich that occurs at 4500 rpm in one case and 5500 rpm in the others. Which curve was run in 4th gear? Could it be that the ECU felt the need for knock protection a little earlier in the pull?<p><br>Great data!
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top