View Full Version : Translation of Dyno Results Please ...
Right I had my VTS RR'd last weekend and i'd like your opinions of my results.
The car achieved 108 BHP @ the wheels and the torque figure stood at 89.98 (also @ the wheels)
Sorry the facility only supplied @ the wheels results.
My VTS seemed a little bit down on other 16v engines which were tested with similar mods. They varied between 111 and 113 ATW's. My Air/Fuel Ration was absolutely spot on with a nice horizontal line.
My Performance Mods are -
BMC CDA
Raceland 4-2-1 (Heatwrapped)
Magnex Exhaust System and Magnex De-cat.
It's a 2002 (52) engine on 58,000 miles.
Does anyone know what the standard 16v results are ATW's? Does it seem down on power? Strange thing is my car is quicker on the road than one of the 16v engines which stood at 112 ATW's iirc (obviously driver error is a possibility on the road) and my car is running perfect and lovely and nippy. Also I did lose a few BHP's when the BMC was fitted opposed to just the throttle body sitting open on one run.
Cheers for any replies in advance... :y:
KamRacing
8th July 2008, 21:25
what makes you faster on the road is a better spread of power across the rev range rather than peak power
Mr_suv
8th July 2008, 21:28
^^^^^as kam said
sim69er
9th July 2008, 08:50
also when its on a rollers, the bonnet is up and huge fans blowing air if any of the other 16v had open filters this will have made them produce a higher reading
I thought torque readings were not manipulated like BHP fly figures. Standard torque should be around 107lb/ft. 90lb/ft is very low.
Anyway, 108BHP at the wheels is very high IMO. I would assume somewhere around 95 would be a there or there abouts for a stock set up.
piggy123
9th July 2008, 12:29
my westie got 90lb/ft of torque on r/r so yours should be much higher!!!
as toad said around 105-110!
Thanks for the replies guys... The torque reading is the one that worries me tbh. It does seem very low but surely if it was that bad i'd notice it on the road and wouldnt be able to pass 16v's with a standard setup and others with similar modifications as my VTS.
ryhornvtr
9th July 2008, 21:56
Mine, with a K&N panel filter, no cold air feed just the standard box, std manifold, magnex decat and system made 103bhp atw. I thought that was poor.
Since fitting a cold air feed its much better, but havnt had it rr.
Others with proper induction and full systems inc mani made more than me, between 105-115 atw.
I think if you add 22-23% you will get a flywheel figure.
Toad
10th July 2008, 08:28
Thanks for the replies guys... The torque reading is the one that worries me tbh. It does seem very low but surely if it was that bad i'd notice it on the road and wouldnt be able to pass 16v's with a standard setup and others with similar modifications as my VTS.
Go somewhere else for another read. :) Post the results up of the RR you have presently, and I'll have a gander.
Toad
10th July 2008, 08:30
Mine, with a K&N panel filter, no cold air feed just the standard box, std manifold, magnex decat and system made 103bhp atw. I thought that was poor.
Since fitting a cold air feed its much better, but havnt had it rr.
Others with proper induction and full systems inc mani made more than me, between 105-115 atw.
I think if you add 22-23% you will get a flywheel figure.
You won't make a real 115BHP at the wheels with stock cams on an NA set up. So many places seem to give high readings to attract customers. :panic:
dannygti
10th July 2008, 08:32
i "only" made 102@wheels, but it doesnt matter as its very quick on the road, also on track i can pass cammed vts's etc
samcook
10th July 2008, 08:42
do you really care that much about figures, you stated your car is lovely and nippy so be happy with that, RR figures are bolloxs
Ferg
10th July 2008, 11:02
Yeah i'm really happy with the VTS atm. It's running brillantly and hasn't missed a beat. Generally not that bothered about the results, it was just abit surprising thats all. Considering a GTi got 116 with mani and exhaust.
I'll post the graph up in abit ...
194bhpvtsturbo
10th July 2008, 11:23
do you really care that much about figures, you stated your car is lovely and nippy so be happy with that, RR figures are bolloxs
how can RR figures be bollocks thats the proof lol
craigy_87
10th July 2008, 11:35
there bollocks as in they mean nothing, thats already been proved in the thread
samcook
10th July 2008, 11:36
how can RR figures be bollocks thats the proof lol
lol at it being the proof, the way it drives is all the proof you need
the RR will read whatever the operator wants it too, the difference between one RR to another can be fairly big
Toad
10th July 2008, 12:22
For tuning, they can be very useful, but for measuring the performance of a car, they can be very misleading, especially if you just look at the max torque and BHP figures produced.
Fergie, similar to what Kam has stated already... If one of the cars that got a "better result" only produced that higher BHP for a very small area in the RPM range, a car with a lesser high BHP figure, could still be faster around the track, as it may produce good BHP in other used areas of the RPM range.
Ferg
10th July 2008, 12:27
Yeah I understand what your saying Toad. Afterall everyone car is different even if they have the same engine etc. This RR test was produced whilst being in 4th Gear, which might not be as strong on my box as 1st, 2nd or 3rd.
Just uploading the graph anyway...
Karl
10th July 2008, 12:37
ferg you said your motor was quicker than the GTi that made more digits than you,
so dont worry about it.
Plus your skinny as feck...lol.
Ferg
10th July 2008, 12:56
ferg you said your motor was quicker than the GTi that made more digits than you,
so dont worry about it.
Plus your skinny as feck...lol.
Yeah it's quicker but it annoyed me that my results weren't as good as others. Only advantage of being a skinny fucker tbh :y:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j163/fergie127/2002%20VTS/RRScan11.jpg
Karl
10th July 2008, 12:59
you have a 100lb of torque there?
Ferg
10th July 2008, 13:02
That's what I thought?
Karl
10th July 2008, 13:05
They just gave you your torque reading at max bhp.
your car still produces 100lb of torque.
Toad
10th July 2008, 13:08
According to that graph, you produce 100lb/ft @ 3400rpm and then again @ 4500rpm, with a dip in between. Doesn't appear correct to me. Stock set up should produce its maximum lb/ft around 5200rpm, and this figure would be considerably lower before and after this RPM spot.
Ferg
10th July 2008, 14:17
It is strange because it does appear to peak @ 5200 RPM, and then drop off considerably from there. But as you say, there are two peaks before 5200 RPM. Any reasons you think for this?
bytor
10th July 2008, 16:21
fergie, how many runs did you have?
Ferg
10th July 2008, 19:37
I had 3 runs mate... got progressively better each time.
bytor
10th July 2008, 19:44
Like everyone has said, as long as its fast to drive, and pulls well I wouldn't worry about it too much. However if you can get on the rollers again to find out why its reading low on torque might be worth £35 or so!
snottybadger
10th July 2008, 21:22
what makes you faster on the road is a better spread of power across the rev range rather than peak power
do you really care that much about figures, you stated your car is lovely and nippy so be happy with that, RR figures are bolloxs
:y:
A localish place to me had a RR that was about 20bhp out (Redtop Vauxhall with basic mods came out @ 180bhp). So don't get hung up on figures.
I would expect less than what you got ATW tbh. Seems a bit high.
RRs are good for the graphs and thats about it IMO. Useful for testing things back to back too, eg before a mod and after.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.