Brettus Turbo install thread
11-06-2008 | 09:00 PM
#77
Thread Starter
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,602
Likes: 1,534
From: Y-cat-o NZ
The coil dwell is in milliseconds, so 395 is .395ms, which is the stock value across all voltages at 9000. I've seen Scott recommend using values of 3-3.5ms for FI, and how 2.0 is "adequate" for NA applications. But I've never seen the actual ratings for the Mazsport coils posted anywhere.
Regardless, the stock table interpolates the values from highest value top down by battery voltage, and right to left by RPM so I find it unlikely that 3000 or 3500 would be what you'd want to set it to at 9K.
Regardless, the stock table interpolates the values from highest value top down by battery voltage, and right to left by RPM so I find it unlikely that 3000 or 3500 would be what you'd want to set it to at 9K.
so 395 = 3.95ms .
Going back to first principles ....
at 9000 rpm we have 3000 rpm of the rotor but 3 firings per rev so 9000 firings per min = 1 firing every 6.7ms
So the stock dwell of 3.95ms makes sense
Also at 1000rpm we have a firing every 60ms and the table is 1800 at 1000rpm .
Again 18ms of dwell would make sense there as well . 0.18ms or 1.8ms does not .
Last edited by Brettus; 11-06-2008 at 10:33 PM.
11-07-2008 | 03:47 AM
#78
Registered
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,802
Likes: 10
From: QLD .au
11-11-2008 | 07:40 PM
#85
Thread Starter
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,602
Likes: 1,534
From: Y-cat-o NZ
You asked for the videos so here goes .
First one is through the gears , not really trying i get 0-160km/hr in 12.7 sec . Would be under 12s if i took it to 9k in third !!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkiV4sgu65E
This one is from when I was still NA , 0-160km/hr in 15.7sec with one less gear change (higher red line)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlvSC_8N-Y
If you have them both open at once and click on the Turbo one after the NA has been running 4sec you will get a good idea of the difference .
First one is through the gears , not really trying i get 0-160km/hr in 12.7 sec . Would be under 12s if i took it to 9k in third !!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkiV4sgu65E
This one is from when I was still NA , 0-160km/hr in 15.7sec with one less gear change (higher red line)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlvSC_8N-Y
If you have them both open at once and click on the Turbo one after the NA has been running 4sec you will get a good idea of the difference .
Last edited by Brettus; 11-12-2008 at 03:27 PM.
11-11-2008 | 09:28 PM
#87
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 21,958
Likes: 115
From: portland oregon
The following users liked this post:
rob babicki (06-15-2021)
11-11-2008 | 09:54 PM
#90
Doppelgänger
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,192
Likes: 1
From: Florida
Here's one of mine to compare. I was down over 40 whp on the dyno with this configuration.
Code:
Coolant MAF ThrottleO2 Load IAT RPM MPH 203 241.43 100 12.07 86.67 93 5668 59.03 203 248.71 100 12.06 86.27 93 5779 60.28 203 250.98 100 12.18 86.27 93 5869 61.52 203 256.99 100 12.39 86.67 93 5959 62.14 203 261.31 100 12.55 85.88 93 6069 63.38 203 263.7 100 12.62 85.49 93 6153 64.63 203 270.9 100 12.48 84.71 93 6256 65.25 203 270.9 100 12.27 83.92 93 6334 66.49 203 265.14 100 12.14 81.57 93 6436 67.11 203 271.38 100 12.66 81.18 93 6542 68.35 203 277.14 100 12.74 81.57 93 6648 69.6 203 289.79 100 12.5 83.53 93 6743 70.84 203 295.88 100 12.43 83.53 93 6860 71.46 203 301.48 100 12.29 82.75 93 6970 72.7 203 309.97 100 12.29 82.75 93 7062 73.33 203 305.7 100 12.22 83.14 93 7138 74.57 203 314.24 100 12.09 83.14 93 7239 75.81 203 314.24 100 11.99 82.35 93 7340 76.43 203 324.02 100 11.85 82.35 93 7410 77.68 203 317.98 100 11.64 80 93 7510 78.3 203 318.51 100 11.65 80.39 93 7557 78.92 204.8 321.25 100 11.68 79.61 93 7673 80.16 204.8 322.91 100 11.78 77.65 93 7785 80.78 203 331.24 80 11.82 78.04 93 7786 82.02 204.8 318.54 24.31 11.35 65.88 93 7847 81.4 204.8 27 3.92 11.87 14.51 93 7327 81.4 204.8 33.41 3.53 11.33 8.63 93 6888 80.78
11-11-2008 | 10:33 PM
#92
Thread Starter
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,602
Likes: 1,534
From: Y-cat-o NZ
/\ quite a noticable difference - what PSI were you running ?
A little experiment . The Greddy gives peak power at around 6krpm so I thought I would try some short shifting to see if it is worth going past 7k shift point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ItRibHBMLc
Result 13.0s flat 0-160km/hr . A tad slower but in the same ballpark - interesting . I think i'll shift around 7500 at the track
A little experiment . The Greddy gives peak power at around 6krpm so I thought I would try some short shifting to see if it is worth going past 7k shift point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ItRibHBMLc
Result 13.0s flat 0-160km/hr . A tad slower but in the same ballpark - interesting . I think i'll shift around 7500 at the track
11-11-2008 | 10:48 PM
#94
Doppelgänger
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,192
Likes: 1
From: Florida
OK, here's the dyno run when I was really down on HP. I also data logged and video tapped it.
The MAF and RPM numbers that were logged during the dyno session:
It's going to be difficult to make sense of this since the car wasn't working properly. I guess this is a good example what it looks like with the AP and not setting the dwell on the "upgrade" coils. So with properly functioning coils the same g/sec would likely have produced more power. I don't have data logs of previous dyno runs to compare unfortunately.
Here is the video footage of the dyno run: http://tyrannical.org/baddyno.wmv
You can hear it breaking up..
And finally, here's the dyno chart (I'm also including the raw .csv and .drf):
The MAF and RPM numbers that were logged during the dyno session:
Code:
MAF RPM 302.01 6622 309.97 6719 316.38 6791 317.45 6896 331.24 7007 335.13 7094 339.07 7202 340.78 7287 343.07 7393 344.21 7492 331.24 8085
Here is the video footage of the dyno run: http://tyrannical.org/baddyno.wmv
You can hear it breaking up..
And finally, here's the dyno chart (I'm also including the raw .csv and .drf):
Last edited by mysql; 11-11-2008 at 11:12 PM.
11-11-2008 | 11:11 PM
#96
Doppelgänger
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,192
Likes: 1
From: Florida
boost levels are likely different. I was only data logging because the car wasn't running properly. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered making logs..
I posted the wrong dyno picture earlier, so I've corrected it and included the raw log from the data logger and the dynojet .drf file.
I posted the wrong dyno picture earlier, so I've corrected it and included the raw log from the data logger and the dynojet .drf file.
11-12-2008 | 12:12 AM
#98
Thread Starter
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,602
Likes: 1,534
From: Y-cat-o NZ
So ...... it seems your problem is more likely caused by wrong dwell when you were running the Int x .
Stock dwell seems ok . If anyone can shed more light on this i'm all ears .
11-12-2008 | 10:26 PM
#100
Thread Starter
Boosted Kiwi
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20,602
Likes: 1,534
From: Y-cat-o NZ
Here is the dyno
Red line is without the boost controller.
Blue line is with boost set to 8PSI
Impressed with the top end vs the stock Greddy
The peak number is OK but not startling 193kw = 259hp
Red line is without the boost controller.
Blue line is with boost set to 8PSI
Impressed with the top end vs the stock Greddy
The peak number is OK but not startling 193kw = 259hp