Increasing Performance of the H6

[Swipez]

I honestly could not care less about a 'number'.

I want to make 400kw atw on E85

Love the digs....

[alexeiwoody]

I honestly could not care less about a 'number'.

I want to make 400kw atw on E85

Love the digs....

You have to admit - he's got you there...

[Swipez]

Well it's a way to gauge my goal, not to boast about.

[Swipez]

I want to run low 11's... Is that good enough for you?

[KiDo_Tuning]

Re: justin's - you're not seriously comparing airflow and charge density on a twin turbo h6 to supercharged one are you? 9psi through two 45lb/ min compressors is NOT the same as 9psi through a belt driven supercharger.

223kw atw is impressive on 98. So why didnt it make 360whp?

Why speculate when it could have actually done it since it was on the dyno?

Justins only just broke 350g/sec... that is on scaled MAF/Injectors etc and consistent with the fuel usage, just had more midrange torque than a SC car.

223Kw atw with spark break down... peak power made at 4400rpm so it would be obvious based on every other SC graph having power climb as rpm increases, a 50% increase in rpm(6600rpm) if torque held flat would be 334.5Kw atw... since Hp = (FtLbs x rpm) / 5252 but if torque tapered off by 20% at peak power which would be realistic, your looking at 270Kw@wheels

[KiDo_Tuning]

Do you have any graphs and specs from bianca's 2011 ez36?

She ran it on dyno up north in January She fitted a new turbo so was checking how it was performing.

You should add her on FB and get her to take you off 'Restricted' since 90% of her posts are friends only

[dr20t]

Re: justin's - you're not seriously comparing airflow and charge density on a twin turbo h6 to supercharged one are you? 9psi through two 45lb/ min compressors is NOT the same as 9psi through a belt driven supercharger.

223kw atw is impressive on 98. So why didnt it make 360whp?

Why speculate when it could have actually done it since it was on the dyno?

Justins only just broke 350g/sec... that is on scaled MAF/Injectors etc and consistent with the fuel usage, just had more midrange torque than a SC car.

223Kw atw with spark break down... peak power made at 4400rpm so it would be obvious based on every other SC graph having power climb as rpm increases, a 50% increase in rpm(6600rpm) if torque held flat would be 334.5Kw atw... since Hp = (FtLbs x rpm) / 5252 but if torque tapered off by 20% at peak power which would be realistic, your looking at 270Kw@wheels

Show me and ill shut up

Otherwise you're talking shit, Matt

I struggle to believe a sc h6 made 223atw @ 4400rpm with 9psi

Dunno why you find the need to say this sort of crap I really don't. You do some good work then ruin it with your shit talking. Despite this, even as late as yesterday I'm still recommending you to people for a tune, as I believe you can do that most of the time.

But please stop with the exaggerated numbers and figures ffs

[KiDo_Tuning]

3rd gear, peak power at just over 100kph... from memory, 3rd gear normally revs a bit higher than 110kph

100_1283.JPG

100_1289.JPG

So say 50% more rpm(6600rpm) and say 20% less torque is 360whp.

Show me and ill shut up
Otherwise you're talking shit, Matt
I struggle to believe a sc h6 made 223atw @ 4400rpm with 9psi
Dunno why you find the need to say this sort of crap I really don't. You do some good work then ruin it with your shit talking. Despite this, even as late as yesterday I'm still recommending you to people for a tune, as I believe you can do that most of the time.

But please stop with the exaggerated numbers and figures ffs

Did you not read the dyno graph? It clearly shows it made 223Kw at around 100kph, the dyno graph showed on the dyno screen in above pictures CLEARLY shows it peaked and fell back as roller speed increased. We knew that day it had a issue(clutch smoke pouring out of the engine bay making Grant freak out and also coil pack break down and fuel pump issue that has now been fixed)

Car now has a Jim Berry clutch, new fuel pump and ignition system is solved... Grant will confirm the top end power pulls hard to redline now, more than it ever has!

[KiDo_Tuning]

Another way to think about it, I have around 100 EJ255's running the Flex Fuel tune on stock injectors now. At max fuel flow on 4x Dark Blue 565cc injectors we typically get around 200Kw@wheels from 44400rpm to nearly redline, since injectors pretty much max out at 11psi at redline and 210g/sec of airflow.

So with six of those very same injectors with a FPR running slightly higher rail pressure for better atomisation, pushing 330g/sec of airflow and maxing out their fuel flow... what would their power potential be?

Then let us reverse engineer it
Four x ID1000's max out around 330Kw@wheels on an EJ25 on 45psi rail pressure. That is just under 4000cc of fuel flow every minute... Six 565cc is just under 3.4L/min or 15% less flow than four ID1000's is essentially around 280Kw of fuel flow.

[Boogs]

Re: justin's - you're not seriously comparing airflow and charge density on a twin turbo h6 to supercharged one are you? 9psi through two 45lb/ min compressors is NOT the same as 9psi through a belt driven supercharger.

223kw atw is impressive on 98. So why didnt it make 360whp?

Why speculate when it could have actually done it since it was on the dyno?

Justins only just broke 350g/sec... that is on scaled MAF/Injectors etc and consistent with the fuel usage, just had more midrange torque than a SC car.

223Kw atw with spark break down... peak power made at 4400rpm so it would be obvious based on every other SC graph having power climb as rpm increases, a 50% increase in rpm(6600rpm) if torque held flat would be 334.5Kw atw... since Hp = (FtLbs x rpm) / 5252 but if torque tapered off by 20% at peak power which would be realistic, your looking at 270Kw@wheels

Show me and ill shut up

Otherwise you're talking shit, Matt

I struggle to believe a sc h6 made 223atw @ 4400rpm with 9psi

Dunno why you find the need to say this sort of crap I really don't. You do some good work then ruin it with your shit talking. Despite this, even as late as yesterday I'm still recommending you to people for a tune, as I believe you can do that most of the time.

But please stop with the exaggerated numbers and figures ffs

This is the exact reason why I give Matt so much shit. Or any of his tunes shit.

[KiDo_Tuning]

Because you love ignoring the post above you that contains all the relevant data?

[alexeiwoody]

It's not data, or relevant....

Just more talking. And we've heard it all before here.

You want bragging rights? We want to see 1/4 slips.

[KiDo_Tuning]

It's not data, or relevant....

Just more talking. And we've heard it all before here.

You want bragging rights? We want to see 1/4 slips.

Dyno sheets clearly show 223Kw of data... must of been that 150Hp shot of giggle gas?


Here is Tony's H6 data

SCH6E85.png (28.75 KiB) Viewed 2801 times

[alexeiwoody]

We've already covered in this thread, quite extensively, that different dynos read differently. Any serious tuner knows it's just a tool.

Must have*

That's a funny looking 1/4 slip. Or maybe the slips just aren't loading for me?

[Swipez]

:/