club.liberty.asn.au

On2youliberty wrote:fuck how much reading did I just do. gen v auto kills all of your asses

Who's manual Gen V did a faster time at WSID?

6MT for me any day!

195kw@wheels from an Auto LGT today Alexei.
Mods? Decatted dump pipe plus tune.

KiDo_Tuning wrote:195kw@wheels from an Auto LGT today Alexei.
Mods? Decatted dump pipe plus tune.

Going to sound like a douche. Apologies in advance. But we've covered this a number of times - and still no graph or info about dyno. For example - what did it make stock?

Your 195kw auto is slower than a 200kw manual, even with a slower launch.

An auto 200kw gen4 wagon with the same launch time was a full 0.6 of a second faster.

And lastly considering how much more advantageous the gen5 auto setup is...that really tells us something isn't right.

Let's just say I still call BS, and you've got the facts against you.

In the end, as long as it drives well, that's all that matters

alexeiwoody wrote:

KiDo_Tuning wrote:195kw@wheels from an Auto LGT today Alexei.
Mods? Decatted dump pipe plus tune.

Going to sound like a douche. Apologies in advance. But we've covered this a number of times - and still no graph or info about dyno. For example - what did it make stock?

Your 195kw auto is slower than a 200kw manual, even with a slower launch.

An auto 200kw gen4 wagon with the same launch time was a full 0.6 of a second faster.

And lastly considering how much more advantageous the gen5 auto setup is...that really tells us something isn't right.

Let's just say I still call BS, and you've got the facts against you.

In the end, as long as it drives well, that's all that matters

Bretts car is still conservative due to the dump pipe and our tuning schedule clash.
195kw car is not his. It went to the drags previously though and should be going back shortly to see the improvements in mph and ET.

Also if you think peak power was good... wait til you see the power output at peak torque

KiDo_Tuning wrote:

alexeiwoody wrote:

KiDo_Tuning wrote:195kw@wheels from an Auto LGT today Alexei.
Mods? Decatted dump pipe plus tune.

Going to sound like a douche. Apologies in advance. But we've covered this a number of times - and still no graph or info about dyno. For example - what did it make stock?

Your 195kw auto is slower than a 200kw manual, even with a slower launch.

An auto 200kw gen4 wagon with the same launch time was a full 0.6 of a second faster.

And lastly considering how much more advantageous the gen5 auto setup is...that really tells us something isn't right.

Let's just say I still call BS, and you've got the facts against you.

In the end, as long as it drives well, that's all that matters

Bretts car is still conservative due to the dump pipe and our tuning schedule clash.
195kw car is not his. It went to the drags previously though and should be going back shortly to see the improvements in mph and ET.

Also if you think peak power was good... wait til you see the power output at peak torque

Matt, this convo is all a big wank. Sorry. You're never wrong, even when a manual beats your auto.

I understand the car that ran the 13.66 wasn't the 195kw car. I was assuming you can get consistent results between cars, both basically stock cars (only a dump).

I'm not particularly enjoying pointing out flaws in other people's cars and I know you're tired of this silliness.

Just tune the cars. Let the owners run some times, if they're that way inclined. Everyone can see what's what.

So far - you're not exactly winning in the 1/4 time area, but at least it appears the two 5eat gen5 owners are quite happy with their cars.

(Just to take the discussion down another path)

alexeiwoody wrote:I was assuming you can get consistent results between cars, both basically stock cars (only a dump).

If only this were true. Unfortunately, even two brand new stock cars with exactly the same setup can (and invariably do) have different power outputs, thanks to the interaction of manufacturing variances across all the components that go into each car. Add an aftermarket dump, and unless they're the same design (and even then...), yoiu're just adding another variable.

The only way to get reliable consistent power outputs out of two engines is either blueprint them, or be talking about high performance engines built to exacting standards (things like AMG hand-built engines, where they're really bloody careful to make things as consistent as possible). On mass produced engines, that's just not going to happen.

Manaz wrote:(things like AMG hand-built engines, where they're really bloody careful to make things as consistent as possible). On mass produced engines, that's just not going to happen.

Actually Rob, it's the other way around. Cars such as AMG hand built engines or Nissan GTR35s for example, will never have 2 cars exactly the same. It's so inconsistent that 1 GTR may have 50hp more out of the factory than the 1 next to it, which we have found on numerous chassis dyno runs.

Manaz wrote:(Just to take the discussion down another path)

alexeiwoody wrote:I was assuming you can get consistent results between cars, both basically stock cars (only a dump).

If only this were true. Unfortunately, even two brand new stock cars with exactly the same setup can (and invariably do) have different power outputs, thanks to the interaction of manufacturing variances across all the components that go into each car. Add an aftermarket dump, and unless they're the same design (and even then...), yoiu're just adding another variable.

The only way to get reliable consistent power outputs out of two engines is either blueprint them, or be talking about high performance engines built to exacting standards (things like AMG hand-built engines, where they're really bloody careful to make things as consistent as possible). On mass produced engines, that's just not going to happen.

Subarus are fairly consistent. They're not going to be 25kwatw different.

Variance between dynos is the bigger problem.

Let's just see the times when the owner decides to run the 1/4.

alexeiwoody wrote:
Matt, this convo is all a big wank. Sorry. You're never wrong, even when a manual beats your auto.

I understand the car that ran the 13.66 wasn't the 195kw car. I was assuming you can get consistent results between cars, both basically stock cars (only a dump).

I'm not particularly enjoying pointing out flaws in other people's cars and I know you're tired of this silliness.

Just tune the cars. Let the owners run some times, if they're that way inclined. Everyone can see what's what.

So far - you're not exactly winning in the 1/4 time area, but at least it appears the two 5eat gen5 owners are quite happy with their cars.

Bretts car that ran at WSID is a decatted pipe section off the turbo being all of around 30cm long. The other car in question is a dump pipe in the traditional GenIV format of turbo outlet to the start of mid section pipe of around 1.2 metres, which for its last run at Willowbank in stock form, despite still being on low WGDC thus low boost(around 14psi peak) at the time as owner was going to fit an exhaust a few weeks after I initially tuned it(that turned into 9 months later) yet this stock car on low boost was doing near flat 5's and was tuned before I found the 1st/2nd gear torque limiting table that would have had it into the 4's and then ran pretty decent time at Willowbank... so lets see what the gains in 0-100kph times and 1/4 mile times are after the retune?

So the flaw is not whether comparing two GenV autos but whether the title thread of this post is relevant

What is the best bang for bucks mods to a GenV?

The best bang for buck mod for pretty much any subaru is a dump pipe and tune. My Forester ran low 13s with just a dump and tune.

Matt, that dyno graph of tat 195KW gen 5 looks like boost was spiking cause the bump in power and torque towards the end of the pull. That can't be healthy if there's spike/creep like that. Got a graph showing the boost?

Time has very little to do with power. 200kw at 1500kgs should trap about 103 mph. Simple as that.

dazzz168 wrote:The best bang for buck mod for pretty much any subaru is a dump pipe and tune. My Forester ran low 13s with just a dump and tune.

Matt, that dyno graph of tat 195KW gen 5 looks like boost was spiking cause the bump in power and torque towards the end of the pull. That can't be healthy if there's spike/creep like that. Got a graph showing the boost?

As per FB, the ECU has AVCS IAT compensations due to the header length and turbo response. The torque bump was actually the WG opening to extend the torque curve by letting the WG flap breath gas and increase VE past peak power. Obviously trying to push exhaust gas through the turbine is counter productive when the WG flap flows significantly better on such short headers so it was actually boost dropping as header flow improved. The GenV actually has trouble maintaining boost at high rpm so its easier to increase compressor flow by letting headers flow.

Why is IAT relevant? Because the cam timing affects torque and boost curve but when your running 0 degrees at the point that torque rises. Take a look at a GenV ECU Turbo Dynamics IAT tables and you can see why it is relevant to my above comments

kiahatsiu wrote:Time has very little to do with power. 200kw at 1500kgs should trap about 103 mph. Simple as that.

Agreed. Check the previous 1/4 mile results and like me, you might question the GenV on E85 in the USA's result and if an Australian tuned GenV 6MT is quicker mph

kiahatsiu wrote:Time has very little to do with power. 200kw at 1500kgs should trap about 103 mph. Simple as that.

Agreed! There's a lot of variables that affect time.

Matt, Post up the boost graph of that run if you have it. I've never seen a weird bump in torque and power like that in that rev range apart from a boost spike or a misbehaving dyno. It's also interesting that it drops back down to it's original power curve which obviously would have resulted in a lower power figure than what it got during the spike.

But yeah, as long as the owner is happy with how it drives which I do not doubt, but if it were spiking boost in that range... It would be better if sorted rather than left as is for the sake of bragging rights and a few killer wasps.

kiahatsiu wrote:Time has very little to do with power. 200kw at 1500kgs should trap about 103 mph. Simple as that.

I'd like to see 105mph to be convinced, but 103 will be impressive for just a "dumped" car.

As far as time and power relation - I'm comparing to a nearly identical car - and to boot it's auto vs auto. In this case, the variables are few

Agree, if we compared different setups/makes of cars with the same power etc, then we'd just be wind-bagging.

Actually pretty excited to see the result...if this thing really makes 200kw on ze auto - the results will speak for themselves