Quote:
Originally Posted by lancer_rit One thing I did not understand is why each of the dyno charts (including your 1st run and that of the other cars)has a different X-axis aka rpm range ? To make an easy comparison, each run should be in the same RPM range, and IMHO, it should start atleast at 2000rpm if not lower.
Secondly, from the 3 charts on your runs, I could not discern any difference in torque/bhp at the lower RPM range ! However, you confirmed that city driving is much easier and pickup is smoother. So, it may have to do with the fact that the RPM range is way too high in the dyno chart to show the difference in the critical path "1000-1700/1800" rpm when the pull is really bad ? |
Unfortunately this is a bit of a problem with the land and sea. It has to be preset all the time and overlays have a software bug problem. I have complained quite a few times to Land and Sea, but the problem is not fixed. The have a funny way of referencing the charts.
The dyno charts and GTOs findings on the road might contradict each other, but this does not mean that GTO is wrong with his impressions. What most people frorget is that the dyno is only an aid to determine power, but is not capable of representing the real drive. The load simulation provided by the rollers does not represent reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Invinsible Have you considered do the CAI too ? Getting a reasonably sized air filter should make difference in the low end. |
The size of the filter is virtually irrelevant at the amount of air that is shifted in this engine. It is much more important to get the turbulence factors as little as possible and make sure that the filter is not starved of air when the car is moving (due to chassis specific drag) as well as getting the gas spped volme ratio correct as the main issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancer_rit Please do. As I mentioned, possibility to graph from lower rpm, would have also shown up the improvement you feel driving with the free flow @ low rpm. Also, using the same rpm range for all measurements, will allow a top/bottom easy comparo :-) |
It should be done with the same setting for cut off. Otherwise the Kand and Sea will show distorted figures in relation to to base graph it referencesw gthe other to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mpower Is KS able to give you a overlay of old and now hp curves so that we can see where exactly the improvement is |
He can overlay, but might hit the above mentioned problem, which is something Land and Sea have to sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by black12rr Hmm ,if you are spending 20-25 K on FF ,is 4-5 bhp ok ?. I would expect atleast 10-15 bhp for that money spent (asking more?).Off course the advantage is the low end and growl .I dont care about the growl , but would it be possible to increase the low end without free flow ? |
The improvement is absolutely ok for the money spent. 10 to 15bhp is illusive on its own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zappo GTO, I was wondering one thing here. With the CatCon gone do you think you will have a problem in clearing the next PUC certification? PUC certification/testing databases maintain a limit for the exhaust gases for the BS-I, BS-II, BS-III etc. The system catches that using the year of manufacture.
My friend had a problem clearing the PUC with his car when he removed the CatCon as he had some exhaust related issues. The new CatCon was costing him around 18k. He thought he will skip a new CatCon but had to order one finally as his car could not clear the PUC certfication even after 3 attempts at the different testing places. Of course depending on manufacturer, and particularly since Honda engines are anyhow some of the cleanest on earth, may be it will not be an issue for you. |
It depends first of all on the state of the engine, whether it will pass the tests. Fuel quality and some other factors have their share too.
Honda engines being the cleanest engines is a myth. There is cleaner engines around and local factors influence the outcome of the tests. The governmental emission tests have only limited meaning to how clean an engine is. To evaluate the pollution levels properly a gas collector is needed and testing with these is very involved. An engine failing the test might be cleaner than one just failing the test. The point for the owners is to get through the emission regulations, which a lot of the engines will pass withjout cat, but most will definitively pass with the cat fitted. And just for the records: Abolishing the cat would be better for the environment, our health and our finances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pranavt Brainfart. The intake is on the driver's side. Nonetheless, no bolt-on sets for this engine. |
Anything can be made if people will ask for it. Just because demand isn't there doesn't mean it is not worth improving. And from experience I know that there is room for improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitrous Congratulations on the 5 bhp.
1.You gained mostly from the removal of the cat con.
2.Don't worry about headers. Honda engines flow very well.
3.I have a feeling there are no SS pipes sold in the steel market with diameter values between 1.75" and 2.0".
My puny 85hp 1.3 now runs the same 1.75" albeit mild steel.
The Fiesta 1.6S 100hp comes with 1.75" exhaust piping from the factory.
And now your 130hp civic is running 1.75" aftermarket SS piping.
Can't a 1.85" be sourced?
Or were you really stressing on the bottom end torque to automech? |
A lot of cats aren't as much a restriction as people think. The cat cell itself is usually contributing less to losses than the design of many cat housings.
Just changing the Diameter of the collector pipe is not making a real difference. The collector pipe results from the calculation of the primaries (and secondaries if existing), which in turn are calculated from the cam shaft parameters. By just going up in collector pipe diameter you might gain peak power, but sometimes you might shift the peak power point outside the rpm range, which means that the theoretical power gain is actually a loss in the existing rpm range. Also you often create flat spots, which is the answer of maths when we try to create a system that is mathematically out of balance.
Unfortunately the terms free flow exhaust and back pressure are two totally misunderstood terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk1979
So the "increase" in low end driveability could be a placebo effect due to sporty noise. |
Not necessarily. The dyno run is no way near the real driving situation and is done on full throttle, which would show different results than on the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTO We had prepared an overlay too. But considering the glaring difference in rpms reported on the dyno (difference of upto 300 rpm between the three runs), I thought its inaccurate. Note the difference between their start & end points.
I'm going to get her VBox tested for 0 - 40, 0 - 50, 20 - 60, 30 - 80 times and compare with the same for a stock Civic. |
Welcome to the problems of the world of dynoing.
It is good to use the Vbox for additional testing. I hope you will integrate thes in future reports, which will give a much clearer indication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valhallen.282
Someone please clarify if I'm right or wrong. Torque and revs don't like each other very much. So torquey engines don't rev much (muscle cars and diesels) and revvy engines don't torque a lot :P (rx-7, lancers) |
From what you see in terms of cars on the road you seem to be right.
But you aren't right in general. A lot more effort is needed to get the torque with power on normally aspirated engines. To overcome it with static camshaft anglesis very involved. Variable valve timing makes it a bit easier. The new system like the Schaeffer valvae control system employed by Fiat (known as multi air) or or the superior system of FEV Aachen help to widen the window greatly.
However, there is always some compromise to be made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid6639 The same as everyone, I think the 4-5bhp is more due to the cat con removed than the exhaust.
In my FFE on the Alto with headers, the low end actually dropped and the high end improved. This when the FFE was supposed to be for low end. The sound made the car feel peppier initially till I realised the placebo effect. |
someone did not consider the cam parameters when making your exhaust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrus43 Hmm. This is interesting. What this basically shows is how well a Stock system actually works. Dad will be Gleaming when he reads this. HE has always maintained that stock is the best you can have........in most cases! |
I beg to differ. Stock systems are pretty bad in these days. and many of the Honda ones are among the worst alongside some other Japanese. The only system that was beating them was the one on the original Dodge Viper. Supersprint showed them how to increase power by (a ceritifed) 70bhp without loosing any torque! This system later was adapted, which was responsible for the power gain in later Vipers from factory.