Myxalplyx Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Hey all, Just got back from the dyno shop. The car dyno'd today is a 1988 1.8ltr Subaru RX Turbo (FT4WD,Manual). I did a baseline run previously and you can see the results here: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24534&highlight=rx+turbo+dyno Today I went about testing three things. First thing I tested was the 'Garner Pulley' I had installed. The Garner pulley was made by a member here who goes by the name *drumroll* Garner. So, I named it so. Since my previous dyno session the only thing done to the car was the addition of this pulley. If you want look/weight info/size/etc, you can find the pulley info here: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=26139&page=1&highlight=garner+pulley The second thing I wanted to test was the air filter. I had one Autozone air filter that I thought may have been restrictive due to what had happened when I cleaned it. A K&N air filter of a different design was put in it's place to see if a difference in hp/torque would be observed. More info can be found here: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=27803&highlight=air+filter The last thing I tested was the affect on putting on an intercooler. Now remember, all intercoolers are not created equal. I used an air-to-air intercooler that's used on the Ludespeed Stage II turbo kits for the Imprezas. This does not make the intercooler special by any means. This is where I got the intercooler from (I had a Ludespeed kit installed on another car then I uninstalled it). More info on the intercooler's look/placement/etc can be found here: http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=26592&page=1&highlight=Intercooler+dummies Ok, now for the dyno. I've learned from dyno'ing my cars to NEVER expect anything. You don't know how your car has changed from the last dyno and you don't know what changes in modifications will yield what result. DO NOT go into a dyno session expecting 'X' amount of hp/torque. You may end up being disappointed and even blaming the dyno operator's machine saying something is wrong with it. They don't like that. I know because I've heard of the stories. I did a total of 12 pulls. Cool down, 2 pulls, cool down, 2 pulls, make change (Ex: air filter), cycle starts again. Out of the 4 pulls, I always pick the 2nd highest of the consistent runs. If all 4 are consistent, I pick the 3rd highest. Just a habit of mine. No pulls were done unless the throttle body/intake manifold was 89F or less. This was measured by a laser beam temp sensor the shop (Xotic Motorsports) own. Enough talking...lets see some numbers. *Thread not done---Rebooting computer to complete* You're kill'n us here! Sorry! Cont'd........ Here are the charts to compare the horsepower and torque of the stock run vs the Garner Pulley run. The max hp of my stock run is 79.24hp while the Garner pulley max was 75.82hp. Stock torque max is 95.19lb-ft while the Garner pulley's torque is 92.19lb-ft. Why the loss in hp and torque? So you may ask, what the heck is going on? Why is the Garner pulley run making less hp/torque than your baseline run when the Garner pulley is lighter? I haven't made any other changes to the car. I had to replace a tire that was flat but it has the same tire on it when I originally tested and all those tires were new. I did clean the air filter recently but that wouldn't make for less hp/torque. The only answer I can say lies with the air/fuel ratio. Notice how much leaner I am running now vs when I originally ran. I do not know why I am running lean. I have no means to controll the air/fuel ratio at this time. I have no detonation/pinging as far as I know. Perhaps it has something to do with the 93 octane I'm using. Turbo'd Subarus are typically happy around 12.0:1 air/fuel ratio. No excuses! This is what it is and this is what I got. So now I'm starting off at a lower point. Next post will compare the Garner pulley (with Autzone filter that is already on it) vs Garner Pulley with a K&N air filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorganM Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 *Thread not done---Rebooting computer to complete* You're kill'n us here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garner Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Ooops, I must have used the "bling aluminum" instead of the performance stuff....It definately adds visual hp though..... Myx, you are the man we aught to all send you money for your dyno testing, you are giving us real #s and not just a bunch of "I estimate I'm putting down X" As for the results, I am surprised. I didn't expect more than a couple hps out of the pulley but I wonder why it's lower? not a chance the results were reversed? I would also think the torque would go up as more could get to the wheels.. It is odd that the AFR is so different, I can't explain that with no changes to fuel delivery or intake...very odd....It was colder on the second run session which could explain a little leanness but not that much... I've said it before but try a pull with the AC belt removed, I'm really curious how much hp that compressor robs... keep it up and keep us posted garner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myxalplyx Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 Dyno runs part #2. Autozone Filter vs K&N air filter Again, these runs are with a Garner pulley and Autozone air filter vs Garner pulley with K&N air filter. Both filters have been cleaned on the same day 2 days ago. Air filter was changed on the dyno. Link of pics of the air filters is in the first post. Here are the results: What you are looking at may be confusing. The first chart is a horsepower comparison of the Garner pulley/Autozone air filter combo vs the Garner pulley/K&N air filter combo. The second chart is a torque comparison of the Garner pulley/Autozone air filter combo vs the Garner pulley/K&N air filter combo. Notice the K&N air filter is making a little more horsepower and torque than the Autozone air filter. The Autozone unit makes a max of 75.82hp vs the K&N's 77.22hp. As far as torque, the Autozone unit made a max of 92.19lb-ft vs the K&N's max of 96.48lb-ft. I picked a random point on the graph so you could see the difference in hp and torque. Notice at these points the K&N makes 4hp more and 6lb-ft more of torque at 3800rpm. Just something to look at in case you are thinking about getting a random air filter from Napa, Pep Boys, Walmart, etc. You may be better off getting a Greddy, K&N or other name brand filter. *Garner, trust me buddy, it's not your pulley that's the problem. I KNOW it's freeing up hp/torque. Something else changed with my car from the last run to this run but I have to post real world results. The best way to do this is for me to change the crank pulley on the dyno but that's $$$ due to time restraints. I'm sorry. I'm definitely keeping it on though. The weights on the scale doesn't lie and it's lighter by 2lbs. Thanks gain* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myxalplyx Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 This comparison is of the RX turbo with and without an intercooler. Mods at this point are the Garner Pulley and K&N air filter. The blue line is with an intercooler and the red line is without an intercooler installed. For details about the intercooler being used, see link provided in the first post. The first dyno chart is a horsepower comparison while the 2nd is a torque comparison. Boost is stock. Let's look at the graphs: The hp graph shows that with the intercooler installed, there was a LOSS of max hp. Max hp without the intercooler installed was 77.22hp while max hp with the intercooler installed was 76.13hp. Max torque without the intercooler is 96.48lb-ft while max torque with the intercooler is 104.41lb-ft. Take a look at that point between 2300rpm and 3300rpm. See that nice fat spike in hp/torque there? That's not a fluke. All 4 of the dyno runs I did with the intercooler installed had this jump in torque right here. None of the other 8 dyno runs I did had it. I picked a random point in this jump (2700rpm) to demonstrate just how substantial that spike is. At 2700rpm, non-intercooled the RX turbo made 43.82hp and 83.75lb-ft of torque. Now intercooled, the RX made 54.41hp and 103.98lb-ft of torque. That's a 10hp and 20lb-ft of difference in torque. You can feel this torque while driving, not as a push your head back in the seat type of feel but the car feels lighter. I could add more but I have to go to pick my wife up. I can say the ride home was quite different than the ride up to the dyno shop. The car felt lighter AND faster throughout the whole rpm range despite what the dyno shows. Shifts are smoother and I do not know to this day how the intercooler does this. Between shifts isn't jerky like it is without and intercooler. I noticed this after the first install but attributed to a fluke or my imagination. It's real. So there you have it. This does not mean that your pulley, air filter and/or intercooler will yield the same or similar results. It does help us keep some things in perspective and not get carried away thinking we will gain 'X' amount of hp/torque doing certain mods. There are many other intercooler combos and such that could use testing. Choose your mods wisely. L8Rs.... *BTW: If I've made any spelling or grammar errors, please let me know. Also, if any misinformation is posted, please PM me so I can correct it. I'm tired at the moment and typed through this pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWX Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 did you have a fan on the intercooler? that might be the HP drop, I figure at that RPM it is making more heat than at a lower one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingbobdole Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Thats a good point! I would assume that you have some sort of fan on the car to keep it from overheating, but you might try and get a small fan just for the intercooler for dyno pulls. Gotta keep it flowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowman Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Yeah, put a fan on that sucker. I'm guessing that aside from that one place where it boosts the torque, the greater intake restriction of the IC is enough to over-ride the cooling effect that it generates. If you increase the cooling efficiency, it's likely to go the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subarutex Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 OMG Real numbers!! I love it. I'd like to see a couple runs at some higher PSI. I'm a firm believer that a couple more PSI should be added with an IC. Very nice work Kevin. I wish we had a relatively cheap dyno around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthWet Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 ...As for the results, I am surprised. I didn't expect more than a couple hps out of the pulley but I wonder why it's lower?... Newton's First Law of Motion: "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." A pulley moving at a uniform rate of motion (angular or otherwise) neither absorbs or releases energy. The pulley could weigh 1 gram or a ton, and the dyno will show the same power produced by the engine. The difference comes when the rate of motion changes (i.e. accleration or deceleration), in which case their will be an exchange of energy between the pulley and the engine; an engine with the lighter pulley will feel more responsive. But it will not result in differences in steady-speed dyno numbers. Regarding the intercooler, I didn't see any pressure figures for the intake system. This could show (especially as a differential to the turbo outlet pressure) whether the IC was too restrictive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garner Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I know, Newton was a pretty smart guy, but check this out http://www.unorthodoxracing.com/dyno_wrx.html 10hp and 18flbs over stock on a wrx. I don't believe dynos lie, companies maybe..... or this from Perrin http://www.perrinperformance.com/Products/WRX/Crank_Pulley.htm I know that on my motor the light flywheel mostly and light crank pulley make the thing spin up like a friggin jet.... I don't totally believe the hype when it comes to after market crank pulleys but I do believe that they "free up power" not actually make it but let the engine get more torque and hp to the ground Just some thoughts/observations... garner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myxalplyx Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 did you have a fan on the intercooler? that might be the HP drop, I figure at that RPM it is making more heat than at a lower one.Nope! No fan on the intercooler. There was a large fan in the front of the car but none on the intercooler itself. It's cool! There are other tests to see the benefit of the intercooler. G-Tech Pro and 1/4 mile times. I'm done testing it on the dyno though. Time to get those Techworks parts installed and get to cranken up the boost. It'll be a while before you guys get some numbers from me though. I looked at the bottom of my radiators and didn't like the look of what oxidation and rust was doing to them. Just touching the radiator turned it to a fine powder. After taking care of the cooling system (new radiator, cooler thermostat, etc) and installing some gauges (fuel pressure and EGT), the the fun with boost begins. I'm sure others here will have some concrete numbers of what some of the Techworks parts does though. Thanks for the support guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myxalplyx Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 A pulley moving at a uniform rate of motion (angular or otherwise) neither absorbs or releases energy. The pulley could weigh 1 gram or a ton, and the dyno will show the same power produced by the engine. The difference comes when the rate of motion changes (i.e. accleration or deceleration), in which case their will be an exchange of energy between the pulley and the engine; an engine with the lighter pulley will feel more responsive. But it will not result in differences in steady-speed dyno numbers. Interesting you pointed this out. I didn't know about this law. The only reason I got to getting pulleys for my cars is because of some old magazine articles of Sport Compact car I used to love reading. They used to show before and after results of modifications on a dyno of the project cars. They don't do it as much anymore so I cancelled my subscription. I just to love those magazine articles and it was 90% of the reason why I purchased the magazine. The pulleys were always consistently showing some horsepower/torque gain on the dyno. We know it's not more power made but more power available for the car to use. Here, I'll show you some examples. " Adding the crank pulley can be a little deceiving compared to other mods because there isn't a definite surge anywhere in the powerband, so the seat of the pants dyno is no good here. To verify the increases we headed up to R & D dyno to measure the results. There's a progressive gain in power of 2-3 hp from 2-4K RPM, after this the increase in hp is approximately 4-5 until 5K RPM where we gained 6.5 hp over stock and 3 lb ft of torque." Project Altima 3.5 From here: http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/november02/altima_ur/ "At peak, we gained 1 to 2 horsepower. However, in the usable area of the powerband, 4000-5500 rpm, the power gain was 4 to 5 horsepower. A very respectable gain for a relatively inexpensive part, with no adverse effects." Project 200SX From here: http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/january02/ur.shtml 1996 Neon ACR "Maximum Gains: 8.2 HP 5.6 FT-LBS" From here: http://www.modernperformance.com/dcx/neundyno.shtml These are just some examples of why I considered doing a pulley install and test. Just didn't work out the same for me. Hehe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrKrazy Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Just like the others said, Myxalplyx you rule man. I also agree that a fan on the IC would prob make a big difference while on the dyno, I have been experimenting with running mine in traffic/stoplights and it does make the car seem slightly beefer. You are defintely the man for showing us these dyno tests. It's great seeing these comparisons (I need to find an AWD dyno around here) I would pay decent cash for one of those pulley's, as I'm sure it at least helps with the engine being able to spin up a tad faster..and the bling alone is worth it. Can't wait to see the Techworks numbers, then maybe it will be time to buy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myxalplyx Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 I am not clear on the results you just posted from that article, were those underdrive pulleys? I wasn't sure so I checked. Here are some of the things I read from the link I provided above. " Eighty percent of the benefit of adding Unorthodox Racing's under-drive pulley for the Altima is from the weight savings. The other twenty percent is gained from under-driving the rest of the accessories like the power-steering, water pump, alternator and A/C." From here: http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/november02/altima_ur/ "Approximately 85% of the gains produced from the UR lightened pulleys can be attributed to weight reduction. The stock GA16DE pulley weighed in at 4 lbs 12.6 oz, The Unorthodox pulley weighs 1 lb 7.8 oz." From here: http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/january02/ur.shtml It seems that most of the 'gains' that are were made were due to the weight of the pulley. The remaining gains (15 - 20%) were do to underdriving the pulley. I dunno about these things but that's what the folks at those links say. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now