Indie. Rolling Road Results

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by WAYNET5ER

I have read the posts several times now,and tbh all i can see is critiscism towards VT for some reason?????

for exmaple?

[WAYNET5ER]

Originally Posted by bobcat

well as you have stated hamish, you see a road-a-matic 12. and with your 20 vaaast years of experience i hope your would stand by your judgement.

also nat claims that you had exactly the same as the ones in the dyno day photos and that they were about 25 years old.

so can we take that as a yes hamish?

Here is one,if you read it in the way that i have and as most people would it seems like you are pointing critiscism towards Hamish for one and his experience,and two towards what equipement VT use???.This is how the post seems to come across bobcat.

[WAYNET5ER]

May i also ask you bobcat what experience you have in tuning cars and RR!

Originally Posted by bobcat

however im glad ren did go to powerstation as it has proved the sw dyno to be accurate.

You have stated on your dyno day that transmission losses were approx 15% and from his recorded wheel power figure of 202 you calculated this to be 232 BHP at the 'fly'. The powerstation dyno gives Ren an engine power figure of 278.8 BHP (uncorrected) from a wheel power of 184.9 indicating that there is a huge discrepency in both the wheel figures and the 'quoted' engine power between these 2 dynos (that you state are the same make and model).
TJMurphy is now also confused by these findings as he says (on another forum) you recorded approx. 230 bhp at the wheels. By your calculations that gives an engine power of 265 approx. If you where to apply Powerstation drag losses this would give an engine power of approx. 320 bhp. which according to certain people on this forum is impossible to achieve even 300 bhp with just an ECU upgrade.
I ask you Bobcat to please clarify which dyno is correct.

Regards,
Hamish.

ps. Edited to correct figures achievable with ECU upgrade in response to Wayne.

[WAYNET5ER]

Originally Posted by hamish

You have stated on your dyno day that transmission losses were approx 15% and from his recorded wheel power figure of 202 you calculated this to be 232 BHP at the 'fly'. The powerstation dyno gives Ren an engine power figure of 278.8 BHP (uncorrected) from a wheel power of 184.9 indicating that there is a huge discrepency in both the wheel figures and the 'quoted' engine power between these 2 dynos (that you state are the same make and model).
TJMurphy is now also confused by these findings as he says (on another forum) you recorded approx. 230 bhp at the wheels. By your calculations that gives an engine power of 265 approx. If you where to apply Powerstation drag losses this would give an engine power of approx. 320 bhp. which according to certain people on this forum is impossible with just an ECU upgrade.
I ask you Bobcat to please clarify which dyno is correct.

Regards,
Hamish.

Hamish can you tell me if it is at all possible to get 320 bhp form just a ecu upgrade as i did not think it was???.I would have thought that it would poss require a hybrid turbo,plus aftermarket downpipe race cat and performance exhaust system aswell.
Thanks
Wayne

[bobcat]

where did i state this hamish? just using a typical transmission loss will not give correct engine power as it does not account for drag, as i believe i stated early on in this thread.

This is why, if you watch ren's video you will see the coast down which is when drag is measured and the whp figures are corrected.

Originally Posted by hamish

You have stated on your dyno day that transmission losses were approx 15% and from his recorded wheel power figure of 202 you calculated this to be 232 BHP at the 'fly'. The powerstation dyno gives Ren an engine power figure of 278.8 BHP (uncorrected) from a wheel power of 184.9 indicating that there is a huge discrepency in both the wheel figures and the 'quoted' engine power between these 2 dynos (that you state are the same make and model).
TJMurphy is now also confused by these findings as he says (on another forum) you recorded approx. 230 bhp at the wheels. By your calculations that gives an engine power of 265 approx. If you where to apply Powerstation drag losses this would give an engine power of approx. 320 bhp. which according to certain people on this forum is impossible with just an ECU upgrade.
I ask you Bobcat to please clarify which dyno is correct.

Regards,
Hamish.

[Dan F]

Originally Posted by bobcat

pyaap asked the question.

however i fail to see the difficulty in you stating whether the one in the photos is the same as the one you had, when nat has allready stated this to be true.

Bobcat, please just say which model it is!

Also, you haven't answered any of my questions over the last few days.

Here's a selection....

*How do you calibrate your dyno.
*Who was there to *independently* verify that you indeed calibrated it in a neutral fashion?
* Is it a MAHA LPS 3000 or a SUN R-O-M 12?
* why, if it is an LPS 3000, are you not going to use their more than capable software?
*Why do any dyno runs (which seem to be more of a general guide than anything else using the analogue dials) before you have completed the install of everything you need for a proper, all sensors attached, computerised run?
Seems a bit of a loss leader/waste of time to me.
Also:
*Can we assume you are now to be considered as representing a commercial party? If so, (can't see how you can't be as you are so closely associated with SWAutos these days), are you not bound by the following rules?

http://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=13803

I look forward to your direct answers to my (and other people's) questions.

Cheers.

[pyaap]

Originally Posted by WAYNET5ER

Also not a direct hit at anybody or name calling or anything but it seems that most people that have replied to this thread seem very biased towards SW Auto`s.

Hi Wayne,

Sorry but I nearly wet myself reading your post. Perhaps, for the benefit of other forum members, they could peruse this thread which you yourself initiated:

http://www.vpcuk.org/forums/showthre...ecu+experiment

Isn't it strange that you appear to be actively contributing to and supporting the very thing you purport to object to on this forum???

Originally Posted by WAYNET5ER

I have read the posts several times now,and tbh all i can see is critiscism towards VT for some reason?????

So what then is the reason for your statement in post number 8 of the following thread, which is unquestionably directed at Don from Kalmar Union?

http://www.vpcuk.org/forums/t12183-1...-for-sale.html

Originally Posted by WAYNET5ER

I thought that everybody was allowed equal oppertunities in life?????.Never mind

Well, here on the VOC they most certainly do!
You need to learn that you can / will be held to account when posting on VOC fora, unlike some others out there which condone members openly criticising competitive commercial companies on the basis that they are denied access to the forum and hence not able to defend themselves.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by WAYNET5ER

Here is one,if you read it in the way that i have and as most people would it seems like you are pointing critiscism towards Hamish for one and his experience,and two towards what equipement VT use???.This is how the post seems to come across bobcat.

hamish claims to have 20 years vast experience, and states what dyno he thinks it is. Also his business partner has stated them to be the same rollers (not dials) as the swautos one.

so in my view that is implying that they had a road-a-matic 12.

[Dan F]

Originally Posted by bobcat

however im glad ren did go to powerstation as it has proved the sw dyno to be accurate.

One other rolling road out of xxx in the UK, I am afraid, proves 'diddly squat'.
Could be a complete coincidence......