Bmw E30 1uzfe dyno results :)
- Thread starter drifty325i
- Start date
The 1UZFE EGR Delete Kit is available for sale here.
Excellent and believable. 279rwhp would be VERY hard to believe!
Can that shop give you the actual RWHP number without the estimate added to get the flywheel estimate?
Flywheel numbers are nice but it is the actual power at the road that matters.
From your numbers and car I would estimate your real road (rwhp) to be around 230rwhp.
Its not at the flywheel its at the wheels, unless I am missing something fundamental here.
You get torque at the motor because it calculates it at the motor from the diff.
maybe this bit?
"all i no its an est at the flywheel not the wheels so 279hp at the fly is the est"
in post number 32 of this thread... lol
so, 280 at the flywheel.... 15-20% loss = 224 - 238rwhp...
which makes it 167 - 177RWKW while stock, they make 130 - 150rwkw...
v8commy
New Member
i sure as hell would not trust nzefi for a second, and would not take my car to them if they were the last dyno guys in town, i have heard from very reliable sources about some horror storys from their so called professional workshop. you guys need to think out side the square when it comes to engine tuners and not follow the crowds like sheep just because you think they have a good name or your too lazy to ask around for a good tuner with a good dyno. in all of christchurch there is only 2 guys i would trust with big $$ cars and nzefi is not one of them!
the above mentioned..LOL
SAE correction factors make ESTIMATES of the power used to drive auxilliary components, water pump/fan/air con/pwr steer/air cleaner etc.
Until someone puts their engine on an engine dyno, and quotes the actual air temp and pressure at the time the raw figures were obtained, we will only have estimates.
A chassis dyno is a tool to show a customer the difference between what he came in with and what he drove out with, nothing more - nothing less, too many estimates and fudge factors.
How about we stop kidding ourselves that mine is bigger than your's!
Gee, I must be getting a grumpy old busted :swordfight:
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has created a standard method for correcting horsepower and torque readings so that they will seem as if the readings had all been taken at the same "standard" test cell where the air pressure, humidity and air temperature are held constant. Furthermore, the standard includes an assumed mechanical efficiency of 85% in order to provide an estimate of the true engine horsepower (without accessories).
SAE J1349 Update:
In August 2004 the SAE released J1349 Revised AUG2004 which specifies that the preferred method of determining the friction power used by the motor accessories is actual measurement, and that the assumption of 85% mechanical efficiency (as formerly used in SAE J1349 Revision JUN90) should only be used when actual friction data are not available.
The equation for computing brake horsepower, assuming 85% mechanical efficiency, was very slightly revised .
The AUG2004 revision also makes it clear that this correction factor is not intended to provide accurate corrections over an extremely wide range, but rather that the intended range of air temperatures is 15 to 35 deg C, and the intended range of dry air pressures is 900 to 1050 mb.
Until someone puts their engine on an engine dyno, and quotes the actual air temp and pressure at the time the raw figures were obtained, we will only have estimates.
A chassis dyno is a tool to show a customer the difference between what he came in with and what he drove out with, nothing more - nothing less, too many estimates and fudge factors.
How about we stop kidding ourselves that mine is bigger than your's!
Gee, I must be getting a grumpy old busted :swordfight:
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has created a standard method for correcting horsepower and torque readings so that they will seem as if the readings had all been taken at the same "standard" test cell where the air pressure, humidity and air temperature are held constant. Furthermore, the standard includes an assumed mechanical efficiency of 85% in order to provide an estimate of the true engine horsepower (without accessories).
SAE J1349 Update:
In August 2004 the SAE released J1349 Revised AUG2004 which specifies that the preferred method of determining the friction power used by the motor accessories is actual measurement, and that the assumption of 85% mechanical efficiency (as formerly used in SAE J1349 Revision JUN90) should only be used when actual friction data are not available.
The equation for computing brake horsepower, assuming 85% mechanical efficiency, was very slightly revised .
The AUG2004 revision also makes it clear that this correction factor is not intended to provide accurate corrections over an extremely wide range, but rather that the intended range of air temperatures is 15 to 35 deg C, and the intended range of dry air pressures is 900 to 1050 mb.
4000GT
New Member
From the net 
SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), USA - Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25°C). This SAE standard requires a correction for friction torque. Friction torque can be determined by measurements on special motoring dynamometers (which is only practical in research environments) or can be estimated. When estimates must be used, the SAE standard uses a default Mechanical Efficiency (ME) value of 85%. This is approximately correct at peak torque but not at other engine operating speeds. Some dynamometer systems use the SAE correction factor for atmospheric conditions but do not take mechanical efficiency into consideration at all (i.e. they assume a ME of 100%).
STD or STP - Another power correction standard determined by the SAE. This standard has been stable for a long time and is widely used in the performance industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5°C). Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 4 % higher than the SAE power numbers. Friction torque is handled in the same way as in the SAE standard.
ECE (European Community), Europe - The ECE standard is based on the European Directives. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 99 kPa (29.23 InHg) of dry air and 25°C (77 F). Friction torque is not taken into consideration at all.
DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung (German Institute for Standardization)), Germany - The DIN standard is determined by the German automotive industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 101.3 kPa (29.33 InHg) of dry air and 20°C (68 F). With the advent of European legislation and standards, national standards such as the DIN (formerly widely used) are now less significant.
Since DIN standard uses a lower temperature, the horsepower rating will be slightly higher than SAE.
SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), USA - Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25°C). This SAE standard requires a correction for friction torque. Friction torque can be determined by measurements on special motoring dynamometers (which is only practical in research environments) or can be estimated. When estimates must be used, the SAE standard uses a default Mechanical Efficiency (ME) value of 85%. This is approximately correct at peak torque but not at other engine operating speeds. Some dynamometer systems use the SAE correction factor for atmospheric conditions but do not take mechanical efficiency into consideration at all (i.e. they assume a ME of 100%).
STD or STP - Another power correction standard determined by the SAE. This standard has been stable for a long time and is widely used in the performance industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5°C). Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 4 % higher than the SAE power numbers. Friction torque is handled in the same way as in the SAE standard.
ECE (European Community), Europe - The ECE standard is based on the European Directives. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 99 kPa (29.23 InHg) of dry air and 25°C (77 F). Friction torque is not taken into consideration at all.
DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung (German Institute for Standardization)), Germany - The DIN standard is determined by the German automotive industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 101.3 kPa (29.33 InHg) of dry air and 20°C (68 F). With the advent of European legislation and standards, national standards such as the DIN (formerly widely used) are now less significant.
Since DIN standard uses a lower temperature, the horsepower rating will be slightly higher than SAE.
Haven't confirmed the following but it makes sense:
"understand Toyota's marketing technique with the new SAE J1349 revisions. The 07 Camry and 07 ES350 use the same 3.5L, but Toyota tests Toyota-branded cars with 87 octane, while testing Lexus-branded cars with 91+ octane.
The 07 Camry is capable of 275hp, as is the Toyota Avalon, but you have to use 91+ octane. Before the SAE revision, the 05 Avalon was rated at 280hp @ 6200rpm/260lb-ft @ 4700rpm. SAE J1349 states that manufacturers must use the required fuel octane rating of the engine. Toyota requires 87 octane, but recommends 91+ octane for "better performance." All of Toyota's engines are equipped with knock sensors, so using 87 octane will retard the timing and reduce power on high compression powerplants. The 3.5L is rated at 10.8:1 in the Camry/Avalon/RAV4/ES350 and 11.8:1 in the IS350"
"understand Toyota's marketing technique with the new SAE J1349 revisions. The 07 Camry and 07 ES350 use the same 3.5L, but Toyota tests Toyota-branded cars with 87 octane, while testing Lexus-branded cars with 91+ octane.
The 07 Camry is capable of 275hp, as is the Toyota Avalon, but you have to use 91+ octane. Before the SAE revision, the 05 Avalon was rated at 280hp @ 6200rpm/260lb-ft @ 4700rpm. SAE J1349 states that manufacturers must use the required fuel octane rating of the engine. Toyota requires 87 octane, but recommends 91+ octane for "better performance." All of Toyota's engines are equipped with knock sensors, so using 87 octane will retard the timing and reduce power on high compression powerplants. The 3.5L is rated at 10.8:1 in the Camry/Avalon/RAV4/ES350 and 11.8:1 in the IS350"
The chassis dyno SHOULD be a PERFORMANCE tool but more often than not it has become a MARKETING tool.
People are vain and tend towards the shop with the higher dyno numbers.
Ask yourself honestly, would you give up 10rwhp for a faster car? Give up 20rwhp again for a faster car? How about 30hp? 40hp?
Impossible? Here is one example: The 2002 Lexus LS430 is rated 290hp. the 2002 Infiniti Q45 is rated 340hp.
From Edmunds: " Although Infiniti estimates a 0-to-60 time of 5.9 seconds, our best run yielded a somewhat less impressive 6.7 seconds. Even in the more horsepower-friendly quarter-mile category, the Q45 only managed a 15.1-second pass. Considering that we were able to wring faster times (6.4 and 14.8) in both categories from a slightly heavier LS 430, we can't help but wonder: Where did all the horsepower go?"
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=46967
There are several other examples including my personal experience of my 1999 LS400 vs my buddies 2002 Q45.
The bottom line is PERFORMANCE. You can use a dyno to improve performance or you can use it for deception (self or otherwise).
I cannot comment on the dyno numbers quoted here from NZ but I have never seen a dynojet on any VVTi 1UZFE or 3UZFE cars regardless of bolt ons (no nitrous, turbo or supercharger) that exceeded 270rwhp. The 1998+ engines have much better heads, intake manifolds and have higher compression. I think the best next step here is to get an accurate weight of the vehicle (with fuel and driver) and some accurate acceleration testing.
People are vain and tend towards the shop with the higher dyno numbers.
Ask yourself honestly, would you give up 10rwhp for a faster car? Give up 20rwhp again for a faster car? How about 30hp? 40hp?
Impossible? Here is one example: The 2002 Lexus LS430 is rated 290hp. the 2002 Infiniti Q45 is rated 340hp.
From Edmunds: " Although Infiniti estimates a 0-to-60 time of 5.9 seconds, our best run yielded a somewhat less impressive 6.7 seconds. Even in the more horsepower-friendly quarter-mile category, the Q45 only managed a 15.1-second pass. Considering that we were able to wring faster times (6.4 and 14.8) in both categories from a slightly heavier LS 430, we can't help but wonder: Where did all the horsepower go?"
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=46967
There are several other examples including my personal experience of my 1999 LS400 vs my buddies 2002 Q45.
The bottom line is PERFORMANCE. You can use a dyno to improve performance or you can use it for deception (self or otherwise).
I cannot comment on the dyno numbers quoted here from NZ but I have never seen a dynojet on any VVTi 1UZFE or 3UZFE cars regardless of bolt ons (no nitrous, turbo or supercharger) that exceeded 270rwhp. The 1998+ engines have much better heads, intake manifolds and have higher compression. I think the best next step here is to get an accurate weight of the vehicle (with fuel and driver) and some accurate acceleration testing.
drifty325i
New Member
Interesting debate, all i no its an est at the flywheel not the wheels so 279hp at the fly is the est, im really REALLY happy with that,its more than ANY other stock 1uzfe they have ever had on there dyno,and with a little more tuning 290hp at the FLY is possible
if it was 279.1 rear wheel horsepower i would be TOTALLY AMAZED!
if it was 279.1 rear wheel horsepower i would be TOTALLY AMAZED!
Excellent and believable. 279rwhp would be VERY hard to believe!
Can that shop give you the actual RWHP number without the estimate added to get the flywheel estimate?
Flywheel numbers are nice but it is the actual power at the road that matters.
From your numbers and car I would estimate your real road (rwhp) to be around 230rwhp.
4000GT
New Member
Its not at the flywheel its at the wheels, unless I am missing something fundamental here.
You get torque at the motor because it calculates it at the motor from the diff.
Death By Bass
New Member
maybe this bit?
"all i no its an est at the flywheel not the wheels so 279hp at the fly is the est"
in post number 32 of this thread... lol
so, 280 at the flywheel.... 15-20% loss = 224 - 238rwhp...
which makes it 167 - 177RWKW while stock, they make 130 - 150rwkw...
