Re-Mapped Optra Magnum TCDI. EDIT:Dyno Graph on Pg 4

brraj · 31st December 2010, 14:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by pranavt

So it's a remap for a turbo upgrade, correct?

Yes, and what ever mod Remap will be there.

There are 3 stages
stage 1 - 145bhp - remap
stage 2 - 172bhp - remap
stage 3 - Remap with turbo, clutch upgrade and lot more. Yet to find out figures for this one.

Akshay1234 · 31st December 2010, 14:29

Brraj - Can you ask your tuner to do before and after dyno runs next time? It would be nice to see the actual gain.

brraj · 31st December 2010, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Brraj - Can you ask your tuner to do before and after dyno runs next time? It would be nice to see the actual gain.

Have informed them and moreover he is already busy with creating diesel monster which will be out on march 2011.

Shan2nu · 31st December 2010, 15:04

Damn, at this rate Chevy will have to start rolling out AWD models of the Cruze. Coz 552nm at the wheels, on a FWD is pure madness!!!

Shan2nu

ravikn · 31st December 2010, 17:33

@Brraj

AM finding this thread very late and went through every post of all the 8 pages. Find this tuning thing very interesting.
Am looking at upgrading the brakes and Suspension setup of my Palio 1.6GTX. Could you please share how much you paid for the same for your chevvy. Remember it to be around 20K from one of the previous posts. Appreciate if you could help me to get the actual figures

kj302 · 2nd January 2011, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by brraj

Which package are you going for? A remap or turbo upgrade.

I first want to check out the brake and suspension upgrades.I will go for a remap later

killjoy · 2nd January 2011, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by akshay1234

223 Bhp at the wheels would be about 250 bhp at the crank. How is a 100bhp increase possible with just a remap? Are there other mods too on that car?

I mean 100bhp from just a remap would be fine on like a Q7 V12 TDI but on a Cruze?

Either way, I doubt it will be too reliable since it would be running on its limits.

I hope I have to eat my words, since if it is reliable we have a good alternative to Petes which makes more power.

Guys, both this and the other graph show 26% correction for frictional losses, so in effect this is bhp at the crank that is being reported

Akshay1234 · 2nd January 2011, 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by killjoy

Guys, both this and the other graph show 26% correction for frictional losses, so in effect this is bhp at the crank that is being reported

Oh is that so? No wonder the cars are showing such high HP. Isnt 26% a bit much for a manual transmission car?

Also were the first few dyno graphs from RRP, where the stock Civic and Corolla etc were tested, without this 26% correction?

kpzen · 2nd January 2011, 19:39

killjoy - fantastic observation

Quote:

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Oh is that so? No wonder the cars are showing such high HP. Isnt 26% a bit much for a manual transmission car?

Also were the first few dyno graphs from RRP, where the stock Civic and Corolla etc were tested, without this 26% correction?

Its the TCF constant. As per the graph, its 1.26 times of the power generated at the flywheel.

AFAIK, Rest of graphs from RRP doesn't need correction bcos TCF constant is 1.00.

Akshay1234 · 2nd January 2011, 23:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpzen

Its the TCF constant. As per the graph, its 1.26 times of the power generated at the flywheel.

AFAIK, Rest of graphs from RRP doesn't need correction bcos TCF constant is 1.00.

Im sorry, can someone tell me the full form of TCF?

KP, if the other cars were tested with this constant at 1 then that would be the true wheel horse power right?

So with the TCF at 1 Brrajs Optra makes 130 odd bhp and the Cruze is 165bhp, at the wheels?

Brraj im not posting any of this to insult or offend you in any way, just trying to figure out the results which are shown, which seemed very high to me, but now are much more believable after it was pointed out they were crank power.

Dont any of you guys think 26% correction is too much?

killjoy · 2nd January 2011, 23:29

Akshay, TCF 1 should show correct power at the wheels.

26% is acceptable losses as if you compare a stock car at the wheels vs. factory claims, this is approximately what it shows...

kpzen · 2nd January 2011, 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Im sorry, can someone tell me the full form of TCF?

Total Correction Factor

Quote:

Originally Posted by akshay1234

KP, if the other cars were tested with this constant at 1 then that would be the true wheel horse power right?

Should be.

To be sure, we would need to compare the remapped dyno graph with dyno graph of stock car @ 1.26 TCF.

brraj · 3rd January 2011, 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravikn

Am looking at upgrading the brakes and Suspension setup of my Palio 1.6GTX. Could you please share how much you paid for the same for your chevvy.

Suspension job - 20k
Slotted rotors - 18k

Quote:

Originally Posted by akshay1234

So with the TCF at 1 Brrajs Optra makes 130 odd bhp and the Cruze is 165bhp, at the wheels?

I am still not able to believe this because the power that comes out at 2 and 3rd gear will blow you out and with just 130 bhp is that possible?

Quote:

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Brraj im not posting any of this to insult or offend you in any way, just trying to figure out the results which are shown,

No offence taken dude because even i am new to these dyno readings and remaps.

Akshay1234 · 3rd January 2011, 11:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by brraj

I am still not able to believe this because the power that comes out at 2 and 3rd gear will blow you out and with just 130 bhp is that possible?

No offence taken dude because even i am new to these dyno readings and remaps.

I think a stock Magnum should show around 105-108 bhp at the wheels without this correction. So if yours is showing 130, then 22 bhp at the wheels is a pretty big gain. Enough to make it feel much more powerful than stock.

brraj · 3rd January 2011, 11:36

Spoke to tuner he says..

"There are lot of factors which depends on setting the TCF.. ask them to contact me directly so that i can explain".

31st December 2010, 14:29	#107
Akshay1234 Distinguished - BHPian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Mumbai Posts: 10,327 Thanked: 12,914 Times	Re: Re-Mapped Optra Magnum TCDI. EDIT:Dyno Graph on Pg 4 Brraj - Can you ask your tuner to do before and after dyno runs next time? It would be nice to see the actual gain.
	() Thanks

31st December 2010, 15:04	#109
Shan2nu Senior - BHPian Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hubli - Karnata Posts: 5,533 Thanked: 127 Times View My Garage	Re: Re-Mapped Optra Magnum TCDI. EDIT:Dyno Graph on Pg 4 Damn, at this rate Chevy will have to start rolling out AWD models of the Cruze. Coz 552nm at the wheels, on a FWD is pure madness!!! Shan2nu
	() Thanks

31st December 2010, 17:33	#110
ravikn BHPian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bangalore Posts: 345 Thanked: 25 Times	Re: Re-Mapped Optra Magnum TCDI. EDIT:Dyno Graph on Pg 4 @Brraj AM finding this thread very late and went through every post of all the 8 pages. Find this tuning thing very interesting. Am looking at upgrading the brakes and Suspension setup of my Palio 1.6GTX. Could you please share how much you paid for the same for your chevvy. Remember it to be around 20K from one of the previous posts. Appreciate if you could help me to get the actual figures
	() Thanks

2nd January 2011, 23:29	#116
killjoy BHPian Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Bangalore Posts: 755 Thanked: 318 Times View My Garage	Re: Re-Mapped Optra Magnum TCDI. EDIT:Dyno Graph on Pg 4 Akshay, TCF 1 should show correct power at the wheels. 26% is acceptable losses as if you compare a stock car at the wheels vs. factory claims, this is approximately what it shows...
	() Thanks

3rd January 2011, 11:36	#120
brraj BHPian Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: bangalore Posts: 926 Thanked: 1,316 Times	Re: Re-Mapped Optra Magnum TCDI. EDIT:Dyno Graph on Pg 4 Spoke to tuner he says.. "There are lot of factors which depends on setting the TCF.. ask them to contact me directly so that i can explain".
	() Thanks