McGlynn's 306 HDi Dyno Video

[mcglynn]

Well got my car on the rollers today!

Car ran perfect all the way there, then when it was my turn to roll it refused to start. Typical i thought, although it seemed to be a bad connection on the relay for the fuel pump. Got a bit of help from the guys who ran the dyno day who bench tested my LP pump which worked perfect and we then turned out eye to the relay & that sorted it!

Jammapic was able to watch eagerly on the live stream as we had been waiting on this result for a few months now, just slowly tieing it all together on both mine and his end.

Can't thank him enough tbh, been a great help!

Results;

- 163.8Bhp & 278 Lb/ft

Car Spec;

FMIC
Standard GT15
2.25" Straight Through Exhaust
CG 5 Paddle Clutch
APS 255LPH Lift Pump
R70 High Pressure Pump
Mumby Boost Controller set @ 23 psi
Standard Fuel Pressure Sensor (retained stock 1350 bar setting throughout)

Stage 2 Mapping by JP which i am more than happy with! Will get the graph of the two runs up when i get them via email.

VIDEO:

http://youtu.be/2Zrh4k2q1og

[Poodle]

Next step: proper sized exhaust! That and the gt15 are your restrictions at the moment i should think, especially at that kind of boost. Good result though!

[karl1989]

Nice results there. What's up with the fuel pressure been standard?

[jammapic]

Stops the injectors and high pressure pump taking a beating.

Also, after extensive testing / dyno sect, I've found you make very little extra power for lots more fuel pressure... Simply due to losses in the system.

JP

[mcglynn]

Cheers guys, yeah it does struggle a bit up top to push enough air so itl be the turbo/exhaust like you say poodle!

Cant wait to go for a different turbo but I can't do it until summer ss the car is my daily lol

Yeah as JP said he had experimented with his own car and made some calculations which proved that for the outcome versus injector wear etc it isnt all its made out to be

[Connor]

That brown relay is a right bastard lol definitely need to sort the exhaust, surprised how quiet it was for a straight through

[mcglynn]

Haha have you put it onto proper speaker's? It is far from quiet lol!

[maffy]

Good results here, you'll be singing now when you get a big blower thrown in the mix! Had a 30psi stage 1 HDi back in 09 myself, really fun cars with that sort of power! Health to enjoy!

[mcglynn]

Cheers man, 30psi stage 1 :O lol
This just needs its handling to match now

[padge]

as said on facebook well done! probably most power hdi in Ireland now haha.

[mcglynn]

Think theres a fella over here builds them quite high specced although its not a mass produced thing like, vaguely heard of work being done to see 200+ by him.

Will need to confirm though

[Mr Whippy]

Stops the injectors and high pressure pump taking a beating.

Also, after extensive testing / dyno sect, I've found you make very little extra power for lots more fuel pressure... Simply due to losses in the system.

JP

Exactly.

People always want more rail pressure like it's an isolated variable that you just turn up and et voila, more power comes out.

Unfortunately the system is a massive feedback loop of pros/cons and balancing them all off against each other nicely is more important than just having 'big' values in isolation like headline figures.


I think the fact that our HP pumps have a 3rd piston de-activator at low-load shows that there is parasitic losses significant enough to warrant that feature being added. Imagine the extra power needed to provide big injections AND more rail pressure just to run the pump. Chances are when we are running up against the limits of the standard turbo's turbine flow limits already, that extra potential gained from slightly earlier EOI and torque boost is probably lost right away in mostly more turbine intake pressure and power used to turn the HP pump!

Never mind the rail control valve duty cycle mapping is nicely calibrated for OEM range injections and pressures. Get too far out again and it's just not really doing what you expected it to do, so staying near standard as much as possible where you don't NEED to make changes, makes everything work better generally.



As per the dyno results, looks ok but it's always so hard to tell without all the dyno details and an @ wheels plot. Was it dyno dynamics?

Dave

[jammapic]

Totally agree Dave.

I am actually battling with exactly this at the moment... Car has an 1800bar sensor, so less resolution, more loss, more stuff to muck about with to get it to run right and no real gains in power to be seen I expect...

JP

[Mr Whippy]

It doesn't help that most maps are just designed to cover the standard range of rail pressure available on the OEM sensor, so about 1500bar. I'm pretty sure with the likely changes you've made at that point the RP control valve duty cycle map will need re-building so it even delivers what you are asking it to at the kinda IQ's you'll be requesting.

Obviously you can de-calibrate and over-reach stuff, or re-range maps etc etc... but yes it's just becoming a matter of damage-control type mapping rather than exact setting of desired variables.

Like Ruan (I think it was) mentioned, why we are so obsessed with rail pressure is funny really. In practice 1500bar is a HUGE amount and with a good enough fuel pump and bigger injectors the whole opening time/atomisation issues become kinda irrelevant.

But then that is it's own can of worms wrt getting calibrations perfect for idling/cold start etc.

Needless to say, go too far and things just become shades of "bodge grey" rather than the clear black and white approach we enjoy up to about 140bhp


Oh for a software for one plug and three plug ECU's that just had everything re-ranged and rebuilt to 2000bar/100mm3/1500MAF hehe
Like you say though, resolution is probably becoming an issue on some maps so you'd want them to be bigger maps... new can of worms.

Would be nice to get an OEM SDK/compiler for this ECU

Dave

[mcglynn]

Stops the injectors and high pressure pump taking a beating.

Also, after extensive testing / dyno sect, I've found you make very little extra power for lots more fuel pressure... Simply due to losses in the system.

JP

Exactly.

People always want more rail pressure like it's an isolated variable that you just turn up and et voila, more power comes out.

Unfortunately the system is a massive feedback loop of pros/cons and balancing them all off against each other nicely is more important than just having 'big' values in isolation like headline figures.


I think the fact that our HP pumps have a 3rd piston de-activator at low-load shows that there is parasitic losses significant enough to warrant that feature being added. Imagine the extra power needed to provide big injections AND more rail pressure just to run the pump. Chances are when we are running up against the limits of the standard turbo's turbine flow limits already, that extra potential gained from slightly earlier EOI and torque boost is probably lost right away in mostly more turbine intake pressure and power used to turn the HP pump!

Never mind the rail control valve duty cycle mapping is nicely calibrated for OEM range injections and pressures. Get too far out again and it's just not really doing what you expected it to do, so staying near standard as much as possible where you don't NEED to make changes, makes everything work better generally.



As per the dyno results, looks ok but it's always so hard to tell without all the dyno details and an @ wheels plot. Was it dyno dynamics?

Dave

Fair post Dave.

Me and JP have came up against problems with rail ressure in this car, even on a small extent to try and clean up the burn a little it doesnt seem to like it (i guess at a sensor issue).

I guess he was looking to point out it isnt as necessary as people seem to think. The car still has the standard sensor on there and it didnt see a raise over 1350bar for this dyno run, showing that its totally possible to pull a good figure with a bit of smoke on a standard turbo without a peak rail pressure rise.

The figure ATW was displayed on the 'figure calculation' program, i think it was named TAT Flywheel Calculations or something along those lines. I dont think the dyno is dynodynamics either, although i couldn't tell you a brand.

I should have the graphs by tonight and i will post them up for everyone to look at/comment on. Hopefully they make the results a bit more believeable and will give me and JP a good idea where the map can be fine tuned & tweaked, although much of this was done in preparation for the rolling road.

There was cars on the day like new shape Civic Type R that sounded like it had a bit of work, which rolled ~ 209 bhp i think which isnt a bad figure in terms of accuracy, as well as a few other cars but ive a bad memory and cant remember results lol.

[jammapic]

It doesn't help that most maps are just designed to cover the standard range of rail pressure available on the OEM sensor, so about 1500bar. I'm pretty sure with the likely changes you've made at that point the RP control valve duty cycle map will need re-building so it even delivers what you are asking it to at the kinda IQ's you'll be requesting.

Obviously you can de-calibrate and over-reach stuff, or re-range maps etc etc... but yes it's just becoming a matter of damage-control type mapping rather than exact setting of desired variables.

Like Ruan (I think it was) mentioned, why we are so obsessed with rail pressure is funny really. In practice 1500bar is a HUGE amount and with a good enough fuel pump and bigger injectors the whole opening time/atomisation issues become kinda irrelevant.

But then that is it's own can of worms wrt getting calibrations perfect for idling/cold start etc.

Needless to say, go too far and things just become shades of "bodge grey" rather than the clear black and white approach we enjoy up to about 140bhp


Oh for a software for one plug and three plug ECU's that just had everything re-ranged and rebuilt to 2000bar/100mm3/1500MAF hehe
Like you say though, resolution is probably becoming an issue on some maps so you'd want them to be bigger maps... new can of worms.

Would be nice to get an OEM SDK/compiler for this ECU

Dave

Agreed.

I've never NEEDED to go over 1400bar to make any decent power and fine trim the smoke. I have tested all the way up to 1780bar, but it just becomes 50 shades of grey as you say!

In a nutshell, these cars do not need loads of pressure. With the stock setup, 200hp is achievable, but in my humble opinion it's on the limit of what is possible.

Next step would be some injector nozzles, but like you say - peak power aside, theres a real compromise to be made in terms or drivability... and lots of dev work to get as near as damnit.

JP

[mcglynn]

Theres the graph

[Piggy]

Holds it power nicely there...shame on the torque fall though...

Amazed its done so well with a tiny baby snail and a pea shooter!

[jammapic]

I have to start pulling the fuelling back pretty heavily after 3200rpm as the turbo just can't keep up and it would smoke its absolute bollocks off if I didn't!

Mcglynn, there's maybe a bit to be gained between 2000 and 3000rpm, but I think we're getting towards the limit of your turbo! :p

JP

[Mr Whippy]

Hmmm, it's so hard to tell what is really going on with these dynos.

I only ever went to Dyno Dynamics because even back then (mid 2000's) it was agreed that their @ wheels figures were the only generally comparable or trustworthy ways to get an idea of before/after power gains and torque gains.

Did you run a dyno before remapping on this dyno to get an idea of accuracy?


Not to say I don't believe the peak power. I know a few owners who've had 160bhp dyno figures with relatively lower looking torque figures and that is usually due to a k03 turbo... However 160bhp at 4000rpm seems VERY high for a GT15 turbo.

If that is correct I'd be very cautious of high EGT causing turbo damage if driven at sustained high rpm and high load. Given the power plateau width and short gearing in the HDi90 I can't see the point of having power so high up the rpm range. It's no faster except in 5th gear (110mph+ hehe), and when used in that condition EGT management is going to be a huge consideration.


I'm excited to see how this car goes when driven hard using that higher rpm power band for sustained periods... in summer

---

Me and JP have came up against problems with rail ressure in this car, even on a small extent to try and clean up the burn a little it doesnt seem to like it (i guess at a sensor issue).

What hardware and software is your ECU?

Is it a 162?

[mcglynn]

Its a 162 yeah, with an ATW figure of 138 hp. The dyno in question has been proven on copious occasions and is a reputable tuning company over here. They do in fact do before & after runs but they didnt do the tuning & it was a cheap dyno day organised by another forum, so I wasnt able to get any more runs etc done as 42 cars rolled that day. Like I say a few cars rolled that day and got expected figures, nothing out of the ordinary.

The car is fuelling hard which JP said from the start, but we are now able to take the slight top end smoke away due to knowing the real world peak hp.

Its been a great feat considering he hasnt seen the car at all & is going on info I can relay back to him. I have seen tuners do worse with the car in front of them lol

Will be able to add a bit more fuel in the midrange too as it burns clean enough here.

[jammapic]

Coastdown dynos are always a comprimise, I know. I was keen for McGlynn to get on the dyno to use it as a tuning tool, so, as he says we can pull out the extra fuelling where it's not needed and add more where it's clean.

The car makes brilliant torque due to the good setup. McGlynn has put a lot of hard work into ensuring the R70 high pressure pump and APS low pressure pump, decent intercooler, air intake etc all work well together. The mapping was the final piece of the puzzle.

I say personally, it's a good result on a well setup car - so credit to him... The videos show it goes well and McGlynn is happy... until he gets the need for a bigger turbo, I'm sure!!

JP

[mcglynn]

I would like to add, the 'estimated' horsepower & torque figures were bang on and that was JP doing his own calculations.

So it seemed again to be a pretty accurate result.

People will argue black with white when it comes to a good dyno run, but it really just gives us a chance to fine tune and to assess the health of the engine.

[Mr Whippy]

Just trying to help out based on my experiences.

Maybe Mcglynn had really bad pumps so uprated ones made sense given his tuning plans... but those mods are not essential to a torque output of that level... just as reference to other owners.

With a GT15, 275lbft should be possible with just an FMIC and de-cat... and a fancy clutch. Though I've seen 270lbft on a new LuK. All these are Dyno Dynamics shoot-out figures too.

My car had twin centre boxes for the exhaust, and standard pumps, with 22psi boost at peak torque and boosted rail pressure, and I made 285lbft at 2500rpm without any cutting out issues.
I've even gone further on similar spec cars.


This is why I'm just curious about the dyno because at the limit of the GT15 with those mods I'd have expected more like 300lbft in the mid-range would be possible.

Maybe it just needs the rail pressure request boosting in the 2000-3000rpm region (ie, not boosting the peak, but boosting the mid-range values)
That will get the injection ending earlier and getting peak cylinder pressure moving back to maybe develop more torque?!

Worth a tinker with that *if* you want more torque maybe

Dave

[mcglynn]

Yeah my pumps were both bad.

The lift pump needed changing very early on (even before tuning) so an upgrade was a good bet at ~ £50.

This probably wasnt helping it. Was also getting the features in place for.a bigger turbo if I go that route.

---

From my end I have always been told to be skeptical of and avoid where possible dyno dynamics aswell. This was most definately the case on ths mg /rover scene.

Again its a touchy subject, but your opinion differs from mine just, if I have to I will find the reasons I was given to avoid them.

[jammapic]

Dave, I've done that on a later mod for mcglynn, but he's battling some electrical gremlins atm!! :p

JP

[Mr Whippy]

I was just doing some remap files here and was looking at SOI/EOI curves a bit again...

I guess a bit of advance in the mid-range high IQ's might just boost the torque a bit too... but the risk there is that the high IQ's need advance but the mid-range IQ (55/60mm3) don't... and those mid-range ones might end up being too early hehe...

Always a compromise... I guess this is why rail pressure tinkering is nicer because it's a better compromise than SOI tinkering and the compromises there.


Still, in the end high torque isn't everything. This is why I like the idea of a hybrid on these more and more. Simple, easy to fit, no fancy mapping needed. Just fit, map, and away you go with a big boost in power at higher rpm, which is exactly what these cars need with their silly short gearing

Dave

[mcglynn]

i thought my 'willy waving' 163.8 peak figure was quite good whippy?

haha figures can speak volumes but the car drives a lot better, and it actually ACCELERATES hard.... ish with a big ass trailer on it lol! Glad i uprated the clutch now ;D