When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
There is a number that is correct. Simply claiming that all numbers are wrong is obviously not that correct answer.
I never claimed all numbers were wrong... just the one you stated.
Originally Posted by RacerX
The dyno numbers match perfectly, its the shape of the curves that don't match. Comparing the relative shape of the curve is the comparison that you are advocating. We are making the exact same argument.
Dynos don't match, especially different styles. That's what you don't understand. Correction factors can get you within the ballpark, but even then you can get 10%+ variations from dyno to dyno on the same day.
Originally Posted by RacerX
I already posted the dynos that show my car not overheating with more HP and oil weight as the only variable. Stuarts baseline and tuned R displays the same fall off. I think you are the only one giving an opinion without proof.
A dyno cannot show your car not overheating. It cannot tell why there was a horsepower change, only that there was one. Oil weight is not going to magically stop a car from "overheating" on the dyno.
A dyno cannot show your car not overheating. It cannot tell why there was a horsepower change, only that there was one. Oil weight is not going to magically stop a car from "overheating" on the dyno.
If you really think oil doesn't magically stop a car from overheating, take it out.
If you really think oil doesn't matter, take it out.
Huh?
Originally Posted by RacerX
If you really think oil doesn't magically stop a car from overheating, take it out.
I don't understand your logic at all. If you ran without oil, the engine would seize before the coolant temperature even got to to the normal operational level.
Removing all the gasoline will keep the engine from overheating, so does gasoline cause overheating?
This is all WHP. I think -8% is pretty reasonable for a ZF8, I've seen documentaries claiming 7-8% losses. Even a modern double shaft dual clutch can achieve close to the old 15% guideline.
For the transmission alone? Sure, 7-8% loss is probably achievable. Now you need to add in Drive Shaft, Differential, Half-Shafts, Hubs, Wheel Bearings, Wheel and Tires. I'm probably forgetting something. Don't forget to factor in Tire Pressures, and remember that running the same car in 2 different gears can show an increase/decrease in power.
8% for the entire drivetrain is *extremely* low, although using an Inertia type dyno compared to a loading dyno like a Superflow is always going to yield a much higher number. For example - another car that we have run on the exact same dyno is a 17,000 mile 2007 V8 Vantage. Made 288WHP.
Originally Posted by RacerX
I have to disagree that "rated HP" is a good baseline, otherwise there would be no dynos. Also, the hardware is the same with the V8 S and R, only the software upper end limits are different, so the OEM rating is not relevant when changing the upper end limits via modifed software. I think thats apparent with the stock S being slightly stonger than this particular R in low band RPM and the same to better in mid and high band. Since a dip in the R's torque curve is the disadvange, not the height of the same shaped curve, it seems clear this is a car sample difference.
The two engines are identical starting points pre-tuning, so VAP claiming an 55 extra HP from the OEM tune, when that tune is no longer in place, seems optimistic.
'Rated HP' is an imperfect baseline, I'll give you that. It relies upon us accepting the precept that the manufacturer's stated output is accurate. However it is still useful in determining roughly where the final output falls by using the WHP measurement to infer drivetrain losses from the manufacturer's stated output. Certainly I wouldn't take it as 100% Gospel but it's a commonly accepted practise for demonstrating crank output vs. stock (maybe not on a 300,000 mile motor but we're not talking about that.)
If we are to accept your suggestion that our dyno graphs of an 'R' demonstrate the same (or pretty damn close to the same) output as your 'S' post-modification, then that means we have to accept the belief that your 495BHP factory rated 'S' makes 23WHP (let's say around 25BHP to be conservative) MORE than a 550BHP factory rated 'R'. That means either the R actually makes 470BHP at the crank, and Jaguar is lying to the tune of 80BHP about the R. Or, the 'S' actually makes the same 575BHP as the SVR, and Jaguar is understating it's output by 80BHP. Or, some combination of the two.
Or, another explanation is that dynos (especially Inertia vs. Loading dynos) read very differently and are effective tools for measuring a Delta, the manufacturers stated outputs are fairly accurate, and the numbers I posited in an earlier post are fairly accurate.
So... Jaguar is either lying by *around* 80BHP, or the numbers I've suggested are *around* what I've suggested.
However, I agree with you. The only things we can state with 100% accuracy are the following:
Your 495BHP Factory Rated 'S' gained 72WHP with upper pulley, lower pulley + Race Chip
If you really think oil doesn't magically stop a car from overheating, take it out.
Changing out your engine oil is NOT going to prevent overheating. If you happened to do this and noticed a difference, that would only mean your previous oil was overdue or not rated to spec. Drive your car for 15k, change the oil and you'll notice a HP/TQ increase easily from a fresh batch(maybe 4-5whp on an engine dyno). If you also notice a timing pull on your old oil, swap it out and new oil runs better timing..odds are your oil was fuel saturated, but had nothing to do with the actual engine oil brand causing the issue of timing pull if spec approved and not overdue.
Same goes with using AMSoil/RP/Redline, etc instead of Castrol, for power improvements. You might get some power gains from the additives being used to reduce friction, but you would see more power just by switching from a heavy viscosity to something lighter. As for heat soaking, your block is going to maintain the same temp running on Castrol, AMSoil, RP, Redline of similar SAE. The Supercharger temp has "ZERO" relation to engine temp caused by different engine oils "meeting spec". The engine oil is going to be maintained around 230-260 degrees, while coolant temp is maintained to 180-190 degrees. Your charged temp will be 120 degrees on a long pull with sufficient air cooling, if heats soaked it can breach 180 degrees.
For your oil theory to be correct, the engine oil would need to get hotter than 260 degrees and somehow transfer this extra delta temp to the charged air AND not the block to increase engine coolant temp past 190 degrees (aka..overheating the engine and triggering limp mode). So this magical engine oil would in theory work to thermosiphon the heat from engine oil straight to the blower?? I find this unlikely...
For the charts you posted from a DynoJet, the 2 cars would NEVER display the same curves/results. You ran the car on a Inertia Dyno, I ran the test car on a Loaded Dyno. This means a load was applied to dyno rollers at 35mph till redlined (redline 6500 @around 157mph). Yes..157mph, which means 5th gear was used for 1:1 scenario and total run averaged 35 seconds!! Your run was most likely no longer than 7-10 seconds and could not build charged pressure effectively (no load = peak charged pressure impossible to reach). Sure, that's a bold statement..Nonetheless you proved this statement by posting that DynoJet graph with the flat torque data and showing a inertia dyno result.. Charged pressure is obviously going to increase as rpm's rise (providing internal bypass is closed). If charged pressure raises; your going to create more torque..aka creating a rounded curve as torque result (like our dyno runs). If your creating a flat torque result on supercharged induction, either the bypass is opening to vent excess or not building charged pressure (engine consuming more than blower can output or not enough load is generated).
__________________
________________ Christopher Edgett Technical Director Velocity Automotive Performance Limited 214 Maple Ave. Oliver, BC Canada V0H 1T9 Office Tel: (250) 485-5126 www.VelocityAP.com Tuning@VelocityAP.com
For the transmission alone? Sure, 7-8% loss is probably achievable. Now you need to add in Drive Shaft, Differential, Half-Shafts, Hubs, Wheel Bearings, Wheel and Tires. I'm probably forgetting something. Don't forget to factor in Tire Pressures, and remember that running the same car in 2 different gears can show an increase/decrease in power.
8% for the entire drivetrain is *extremely* low, although using an Inertia type dyno compared to a loading dyno like a Superflow is always going to yield a much higher number. For example - another car that we have run on the exact same dyno is a 17,000 mile 2007 V8 Vantage. Made 288WHP.
What year was the R you dyno'd above? Is it AWD? How is the dyno hooked up to the drive wheels and how is TC config'd?
'Rated HP' is an imperfect baseline, I'll give you that. It relies upon us accepting the precept that the manufacturer's stated output is accurate. However it is still useful in determining roughly where the final output falls by using the WHP measurement to infer drivetrain losses from the manufacturer's stated output. Certainly I wouldn't take it as 100% Gospel but it's a commonly accepted practise for demonstrating crank output vs. stock (maybe not on a 300,000 mile motor but we're not talking about that.)
If we are to accept your suggestion that our dyno graphs of an 'R' demonstrate the same (or pretty damn close to the same) output as your 'S' post-modification, then that means we have to accept the belief that your 495BHP factory rated 'S' makes 23WHP (let's say around 25BHP to be conservative) MORE than a 550BHP factory rated 'R'. That means either the R actually makes 470BHP at the crank, and Jaguar is lying to the tune of 80BHP about the R. Or, the 'S' actually makes the same 575BHP as the SVR, and Jaguar is understating it's output by 80BHP. Or, some combination of the two.
Or, another explanation is that dynos (especially Inertia vs. Loading dynos) read very differently and are effective tools for measuring a Delta, the manufacturers stated outputs are fairly accurate, and the numbers I posited in an earlier post are fairly accurate.
So... Jaguar is either lying by *around* 80BHP, or the numbers I've suggested are *around* what I've suggested.
I don't see what you mean. There isn't any difference between these dynos/cars at peak torque because its occurring around 4500 RPM. I think everyone would agree that the V8 S and the V8 R should match curves and values at 4500 RPM because any boost limits imposed by Jag would not occur until near max boost, near peak HP. So while dynos strive to match, but may not always match from one to the next, ours amazingly match within 1 foot-pound. So I disagree that we see any divergence from Jag's ratings up to peak toque.
At peak HP there are more variables at play, and that is where is gets different and interesting. But I agree with you that one would expect the two stock cars to be farther apart in the high band. OTOH, they could be closer to identical from the factory than the ratings suggests, the S might just be more conservatively rated for the first MY.
However, I agree with you. The only things we can state with 100% accuracy are the following:
Your 495BHP Factory Rated 'S' gained 72WHP with upper pulley, lower pulley + Race Chip
Beyond that, we can't directly compare the two final outputs with 100% certaintly.
Not quite. Racechip, as you know, cannot integrate a lower pulley, so my car only has a SC pulley.
I'm certain your two-pulley tune would exceed Racechip + SC pulley's peak HP if you find a way to control the timing pull occurring ~5700-6500 RPM. My 560 WHP dyno already reflects a fix for the same issue. As I've said a few times but its worth repeating for people who don't love the idea of timing being pulled at the top end to protect the car - eliminating that issue was only a matter of replacing the economy oil with a reasonable performance oil. If we compare my car's best dyno on 5W-20 it loses this comparison by 25 HP instead of tying without a crank pulley.
Changing out your engine oil is NOT going to prevent overheating. If you happened to do this and noticed a difference, that would only mean your previous oil was overdue or not rated to spec. Drive your car for 15k, change the oil and you'll notice a HP/TQ increase easily from a fresh batch(maybe 4-5whp on an engine dyno). If you also notice a timing pull on your old oil, swap it out and new oil runs better timing..odds are your oil was fuel saturated, but had nothing to do with the actual engine oil brand causing the issue of timing pull if spec approved and not overdue.
Same goes with using AMSoil/RP/Redline, etc instead of Castrol, for power improvements. You might get some power gains from the additives being used to reduce friction, but you would see more power just by switching from a heavy viscosity to something lighter. As for heat soaking, your block is going to maintain the same temp running on Castrol, AMSoil, RP, Redline of similar SAE. The Supercharger temp has "ZERO" relation to engine temp caused by different engine oils "meeting spec". The engine oil is going to be maintained around 230-260 degrees, while coolant temp is maintained to 180-190 degrees. Your charged temp will be 120 degrees on a long pull with sufficient air cooling, if heats soaked it can breach 180 degrees.
For your oil theory to be correct, the engine oil would need to get hotter than 260 degrees and somehow transfer this extra delta temp to the charged air AND not the block to increase engine coolant temp past 190 degrees (aka..overheating the engine and triggering limp mode). So this magical engine oil would in theory work to thermosiphon the heat from engine oil straight to the blower?? I find this unlikely...
For the charts you posted from a DynoJet, the 2 cars would NEVER display the same curves/results. You ran the car on a Inertia Dyno, I ran the test car on a Loaded Dyno. This means a load was applied to dyno rollers at 35mph till redlined (redline 6500 @around 157mph). Yes..157mph, which means 5th gear was used for 1:1 scenario and total run averaged 35 seconds!! Your run was most likely no longer than 7-10 seconds and could not build charged pressure effectively (no load = peak charged pressure impossible to reach). Sure, that's a bold statement..Nonetheless you proved this statement by posting that DynoJet graph with the flat torque data and showing a inertia dyno result.. Charged pressure is obviously going to increase as rpm's rise (providing internal bypass is closed). If charged pressure raises; your going to create more torque..aka creating a rounded curve as torque result (like our dyno runs). If your creating a flat torque result on supercharged induction, either the bypass is opening to vent excess or not building charged pressure (engine consuming more than blower can output or not enough load is generated).
It goes without saying that a suitable performance oil has higher film strength and greater thermal inertia to resist quick peaks in temp. That is the reason for this.
As for my car, I change oil every 1500-2000 miles to remove soot and smaller pulverized metals smaller than the 15+ microns scavenged by even the very best oil filters. Studies show that 80% of wear is caused by impurities the filter cannot remove.
As for Jag's recommended 16K oil changes, I hope all car guys know that is to save included maintenance plan costs and to bring the most malleable customers back to the new car buying table as quickly as possible. The "recommended" 16K interval is in Jag's best interest, not yours. Its the same reason they use a super thin economy oil to boost fleet mpg and avoid heavy EPA fines. Again, that's the only oil that "meets requirements," meaning Jag's requirements, not yours.
If anyone out there is actually doing 16K intervals and 0W-20 changes, just FYI your car would drop to the bottom of my shopping list. I concede that most secondary market buyers wouldn't notice.
As for the difference in torque bow, we already pointed out that due to your dyno is picking up torque below 2750 RPM and mine did not, aside from that, they match in both appearance and values. Your stock R pulls timing a bit more at the top end, not all that unexpected given both cars are dropping off big time near 6K RPM on 0W-20. There is no drop-off whatsoever on 5W-40 .
What year was the R you dyno'd above? Is it AWD? How is the dyno hooked up to the drive wheels and how is TC config'd?
2WD, with TC off.
Originally Posted by RacerX
I don't see what you mean. There isn't any difference between these dynos/cars at peak torque because its occurring around 4500 RPM. I think everyone would agree that the V8 S and the V8 R should match curves and values at 4500 RPM because any boost limits imposed by Jag would not occur until near max boost, near peak HP.
Except that this isn't how the ECU calibration works. The torque driver demand on an 'S' is tapered in much more gradually than it is on an 'R' and it never reaches the same maximum percentage in the file. Which is consistent with Jaguar's rating of 461ft/lbs versus the R's 517. It is orders of magnitude more complex than just opening and shutting the bypass valve. How do you even know that the 'boost' limits imposed by Jag are the same for the S and the R?
Originally Posted by RacerX
the S might just be more conservatively rated for the first MY.
I am not ruling out this being the case entirely however in order for us to accept your posit that the dyno results are equal we would also have to accept that the 'conservative rating' actually = the R making 25BHP less than the S. Which I have a difficult time accepting.
Originally Posted by RacerX
As I've said a few times but its worth repeating for people who don't love the idea of timing being pulled at the top end to protect the car,
Chris actually spent days and weeks creating a proprietary datalogging system for this car so we could see the level of detail we wanted for this vehicle instead. Literally not a single commercially available option available for what we needed to do. So it was datalogged the entire time (commanded versus actual) and none of the runs we've documented showed any ignition timing pull.
It goes without saying that a suitable performance oil has higher film strength and greater thermal inertia to resist quick peaks in temp. That is the reason for this.
As for my car, I change oil every 1500-2000 miles to remove soot and smaller pulverized metals smaller than the 15+ microns scavenged by even the very best oil filters. Studies show that 80% of wear is caused by impurities the filter cannot remove.
As for Jag's recommended 16K oil changes, I hope all car guys know that is to save included maintenance plan costs and to bring the most malleable customers back to the new car buying table as quickly as possible. The "recommended" 16K interval is in Jag's best interest, not yours. Its the same reason they use a super thin economy oil to boost fleet mpg and avoid heavy EPA fines. Again, that's the only oil that "meets requirements," meaning Jag's requirements, not yours.
If anyone out there is actually doing 16K intervals and 0W-20 changes, just FYI your car would drop to the bottom of my shopping list. I concede that most secondary market buyers wouldn't notice.
As for the difference in torque bow, we already pointed out that due to your dyno is picking up torque below 2750 RPM and mine did not, aside from that, they match in both appearance and values. Your stock R pulls timing a bit more at the top end, not all that unexpected given both cars are dropping off big time near 6K RPM on 0W-20. There is no drop-off whatsoever on 5W-40 .
How can you claim our runs pulled more timing than yours or even run a bogus claim comparing 0W20 vs 5W40 pulling more timing. You have zero research on this with absolutely no data beyond a graph. Where's the log showing command timing versus the actual timing, log for oil temp versus charged temp? oil temp versus timing retard vs both oil brands/grades?? Anyone can make claims with zero data..check this: FYI, all precious metals are going to skyrocket tmr at exactly 13:06, everyone buy now.. (disclaimer; I read an article and it said so and saw a chart)
Nonetheless, if that's what you pulled out from my post, then I don't believe any further explaining will help educate you.
Obviously you have zero understanding of differences between Inertia vs Load,
LMAO engine oil correcting your ignition timing retard of a different viscosity?? Maybe VVT correction due for hydraulic actuator supply but ignition angle is complete B.S...engine coolant temp would be overheating at that point
You've done your own research, but it's obvious you've been wrongly informed OR simply refuse to understand all the data. Before spreading false data/info into this thread, please stay on topic. If you would like to spread/share your personal research on oils, claiming oil brand/viscosity vs timing retard, it's an open forum so feel free to create your own topic claiming this result.
__________________
________________ Christopher Edgett Technical Director Velocity Automotive Performance Limited 214 Maple Ave. Oliver, BC Canada V0H 1T9 Office Tel: (250) 485-5126 www.VelocityAP.com Tuning@VelocityAP.com
Except that this isn't how the ECU calibration works. The torque driver demand on an 'S' is tapered in much more gradually than it is on an 'R' and it never reaches the same maximum percentage in the file. Which is consistent with Jaguar's rating of 461ft/lbs versus the R's 517. It is orders of magnitude more complex than just opening and shutting the bypass valve. How do you even know that the 'boost' limits imposed by Jag are the same for the S and the R?
I am not ruling out this being the case entirely however in order for us to accept your posit that the dyno results are equal we would also have to accept that the 'conservative rating' actually = the R making 25BHP less than the S. Which I have a difficult time accepting.
All we know for sure is that in these particular cars and dynos, the torque curve is of almost identical shape and within 1 ft-lb of maximum at 4500. The rest is speculation without much need IMO, since they are such a close match.
As you know, HP is not measured it is calculated from measured torque. The fall-off of both these stock cars near peak HP is a little different, but neither is a clean rise to red line like one might expect so there is what looks like strong ECU intervention in both cases.
Chris actually spent days and weeks creating a proprietary datalogging system for this car so we could see the level of detail we wanted for this vehicle instead. Literally not a single commercially available option available for what we needed to do. So it was datalogged the entire time (commanded versus actual) and none of the runs we've documented showed any ignition timing pull.
How do you explain the collapse in high RPM torque measured on both cars by both dynos? How do you explain the perfectly linear HP curve all the way to redline with 5W-40 as the only change? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.
Also, have you tested/tuned/dyno'd/raced an V8 F with a suitable performance oil, as used by literally every single automaker in existence except Jag's stated "Fuel Saver" factory oil specification? I have around thirty 1320s and countless 0-60s most verified by Dragy data supporting the use of 40 SAE as consistent ~20-30HP real world performance difference. 5W-40 is "Stage 1" for the F-Type. This should really be a no brainer, I kind of can't believe our community is so green about basic oil performance considerations.
I encourage you guys to post a question in any other performance car forum asking why they don't run 0W-20 as the "obvious" best choice for ultimate tuning and racing performance. And I'm not saying better oil protection adds HP, thats obviously a misinterpretation. I'm saying it allows the ECU not to reduce performance. That's a nuance you both seem to have missed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating RC over VAP. VAP is clearly superior in its ability to integrate a crank pulley. I am pleased and surprised how well RC works for the ease installation/de-installation and resulting warranty dodge. The SC pulley was a bit of a gamble, but my 2014 only has 6 months of factory warranty left at this point. Once I'm out of warranty, I will certainly consider VAP with a crank pulley.
Not my car, but I found this dyno online which seems more inline with my stock V8 S dyno results. The image doesn't specify the tune but the curves don't look like yours so it seems worth posting.
In stock form this 2016 R is apparently putting down 489 ft-lbs / 514 HP. A 7.5% difference between WHP and Jag's 550 HP.
Chris,
It's not worth carrying the conversation any further. Using inertial dyno results to compare with a load bearing dyno is an apples to oranges effort.
Chris,
It's not worth carrying the conversation any further. Using inertial dyno results to compare with a load bearing dyno is an apples to oranges effort.
Its definitely worth trying to mitigate the 5800+ RPM torque drop recorded by all the dynos. That could add 20-30 peak HP as it did here. Especially with two pulleys.
Its definitely worth trying to mitigate the 5800+ RPM torque drop recorded by all the dynos. That could add 20-30 peak HP as it did here. Especially with two pulleys.
Now I'm lost at which dyno graphs your even trying to relate..
Your graph shows@5800 till redline, torque @450wtq and falls to 375wtq. Loss of 75wtq (inertia dyno)
Our stage 1 shows @5800rpm till redline, torque @450wtg and fall to 425wtq. Loss of 25wtq.(load bearing dyno)
Where's the similarity between the runs? I mean both sheets show 4 colored lines, they also scale across the graph in a linear motion...beyond this, no common values.
Even the Dual Pulley didn't lose 75wtq and it was hitting 180 degrees charged air temps requiring excessive cool downs after 30+ runs in same day. In total this car was in over 130 dyno pulls from stage 1 to stage 3. How many runs did you perform to prove this oil analogy?
Nonetheless you won't know what your charged air temps were or what load was being commanded, or what your engine oil temp even reaching to prove weight oil adding power in upper rpm. I bet you would also discredit the facts of a heavier oil adding extra load to the powertrain on an inertia dyno; extra load on inertia dyno = more load commanded = more ignition timing = more charged pressure. Yet if you were on a loaded dyno, this heavier oil weight wouldn't of shown any results. The only way you could even remotely try to quote figures of oil would be on an engine dyno, not an chassis dyno...
Here's our stage 1 vs stock graph for you to compare if desired:
__________________
________________ Christopher Edgett Technical Director Velocity Automotive Performance Limited 214 Maple Ave. Oliver, BC Canada V0H 1T9 Office Tel: (250) 485-5126 www.VelocityAP.com Tuning@VelocityAP.com
I know it is difficult to discuss nuances in charts verbally, does this help? The green dots show both baseline cars drop torque, very likely due to overheating since the OEM tune pulls timing earlier as the car gets hotter.
VAP does a good job managing the HP, but the OEM tune running Racechip clearly doesn't like pushing the car, with or without a pulley, until temperature is better controlled - that is shown both on the left and right charts. The Racechip runs were 106F ambient in the bay which might contribute.
The oil weight is a hypothesis, but SAE 40 is extends Tq/HP without a hitch and is doing so under the highest boost conditions. Without the smooth torque extension all the way to 6500 RPM, Racechip would not be able to make 560 WHP even with a SC pulley.
I know it is difficult to discuss nuances in charts verbally, does this help? The green dots show both baseline cars drop torque, very likely due to overheating since the OEM tune pulls timing earlier as the car gets hotter.
VAP does a good job managing the HP, but the OEM tune running Racechip clearly doesn't like pushing the car, with or without a pulley, until temperature is better controlled - that is shown both on the left and right charts. The Racechip runs were 106F ambient in the bay which might contribute.
The oil weight is a hypothesis, but SAE 40 is extends Tq/HP without a hitch and is doing so under the highest boost conditions. Without the smooth torque extension all the way to 6500 RPM, Racechip would not be able to make 560 WHP even with a SC pulley.
So your comparing our baseline run against your RC stage 1, this is what leads you to believe the oil temps(causing timing retard) are the reason of our stock run power dying off?
A little research:
An F-Type will create max available pressure with no limits for 10 seconds. It's coded into the mapping, after which it goes into a timeout phase, our stock run to breach the overboost map limit of 10 seconds @3000rpm (our dyno runs is 35 seconds), which triggers the SC internal bypass to open, venting charged pressure and resulting in power drop. Being the overboost mapping is on a time-out phase, the max charged protection tables become active. At 4,500rpm the max peak will breach overboost and start to open the internal bypass more, by the time 6500rpm is reached, bypass is almost open 30-40%.
Higher engine oil temperature, will definitely trigger timing retard, but that's not the case in any of these graphs. You've only done 3 runs in 1 session or 6 if you broke both graphs in 2 sessions. We've done 3 sessions, 130 runs total. In our 130 runs of 35 secs each, we didn't breach any oil overtemps, highly doubt your 6 runs of 10 seconds a piece somehow performed hotter oil temps with only inertia load. Nonetheless, if any of the runs did pull timing, power would not drop off sharp and be sustained at that level(like your analogy), if it was just timing pulling then it would create sharp waves/spikes.
I keep stating your runs are 10 seconds, more like 11-12 seconds until you had the RC with SC pulley. Your hitting the overboost limits on stock run @5600rpm, stg1 @5750rpm, Racechip @5900rpm. With SC pulley and stock file, hitting overboost limit @ 5650 and the stg2/RC look the same and not being breached till around 6200rpm, never seeing the full affect because run was shorter time. More power on a inertia dyno = less time lapse of run. As you increased power, your runs became shorter ever so slightly. By getting closer to that 10 seconds limiter, you were able to sustain a run without massive pulls from overboost limiter.
Btw, if your still believing oil was the issue of your concern, our mod runs were all on the same engine oil. For your thesis to be correct, what kind of black magic prevented all of our mod runs from not doing this same dip your referring to as oil viscosity differences?
__________________
________________ Christopher Edgett Technical Director Velocity Automotive Performance Limited 214 Maple Ave. Oliver, BC Canada V0H 1T9 Office Tel: (250) 485-5126 www.VelocityAP.com Tuning@VelocityAP.com
So your comparing our baseline run against your RC stage 1
No, the left side shows bone stock vs stage 1 (the tunes, by themselves) in both cases. The right side adds a SC pulley.
this is what leads you to believe the oil temps(causing timing retard) are the reason of our stock run power dying off?
Addressed above.
A little research:
An F-Type will create max available pressure with no limits for 10 seconds. It's coded into the mapping, after which it goes into a timeout phase, our stock run to breach the overboost map limit of 10 seconds @3000rpm (our dyno runs is 35 seconds), which triggers the SC internal bypass to open, venting charged pressure and resulting in power drop. Being the overboost mapping is on a time-out phase, the max charged protection tables become active. At 4,500rpm the max peak will breach overboost and start to open the internal bypass more, by the time 6500rpm is reached, bypass is almost open 30-40%.
Higher engine oil temperature, will definitely trigger timing retard, but that's not the case in any of these graphs.
I asked before, what is your explanation for the area under the green dots on both dynos? It is clear that the OEM tune (Racechip is the OEM tune) retards power and does so earlier when hotter, including running the OEM tune on your R.
I agree you are asking a good question, why does the OEM tune pull power on your R baseline but the VAP tune doesn't? Racechip is always running the OEM tune, as you know, its just a sensor bender so all the engine mgt software and safety algorithms are Jaguar OEM.
You've only done 3 runs in 1 session or 6 if you broke both graphs in 2 sessions. We've done 3 sessions, 130 runs total. In our 130 runs of 35 secs each, we didn't breach any oil overtemps, highly doubt your 6 runs of 10 seconds a piece somehow performed hotter oil temps with only inertia load. Nonetheless, if any of the runs did pull timing, power would not drop off sharp and be sustained at that level(like your analogy), if it was just timing pulling then it would create sharp waves/spikes.
I keep stating your runs are 10 seconds, more like 11-12 seconds until you had the RC with SC pulley. Your hitting the overboost limits on stock run @5600rpm, stg1 @5750rpm, Racechip @5900rpm. With SC pulley and stock file, hitting overboost limit @ 5650 and the stg2/RC look the same and not being breached till around 6200rpm, never seeing the full affect because run was shorter time. More power on a inertia dyno = less time lapse of run. As you increased power, your runs became shorter ever so slightly. By getting closer to that 10 seconds limiter, you were able to sustain a run without massive pulls from overboost limiter.
Btw, if your still believing oil was the issue of your concern, our mod runs were all on the same engine oil. For your thesis to be correct, what kind of black magic prevented all of our mod runs from not doing this same dip your referring to as oil viscosity differences?
The dyno operator did the analysis. I wouldn't even hazard a guess how many runs he does a year. He pointed it out immediately.
A better question is why you think the OEM tune is dropping torque/timing on your R above 5800. Its clear as a bell on all three cars and all dynos, thats including the third party dyno I liked above.
I get the impression you guys are offended by the conversation, so no biggie, I was just pointing out that's how I got RC + one pulley to 560 WHP without the OEM software retarding for overheating near peak output. And it doesn't sound like a can of coins like some members have posted. I thought you guys might be interested. My mistake.
04-05-2020, 06:24 PM
