212 HP at 8250RPM with G-timer
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
212 HP at 8250RPM with G-timer
A colleague of mine who has used in-car dynos for many years is very impressed with the new G-timer by Passport.
We did a tremendous number of calculations and calibration of the sensor itself to come up with an engine power of 212HP at 8250RPM.
We factored in a 10% drivetrain frictional losses (arbitrary) and a 15.6% inertial loss (calculated for run done in 2nd gear) for a total of 25.6% losses. FYI, the Passport only does frictional drive train loss and it is fixed regardless of gear so we had to do or own calculation for the interial loss.
I only went full throttle to 8250 RPM (I didn't mean to go that high, oops
) so if the torque curve is flat there could be another 6HP at 8500 RPM. Also, the car only had 160 miles on it so after a little more break-in I could be up 10HP more like other forum members. That would be a grand total of 228HP peak. Still short of the claims by Mazda, but within 5%.
When Passports software improves (graphing sucks currently), I will post graphs generated by the software. I will also also redo the testing when I get more miles on the car to see if I do infact get 10HP with a little more break-in.
-Mr. Wigggles
We did a tremendous number of calculations and calibration of the sensor itself to come up with an engine power of 212HP at 8250RPM.
We factored in a 10% drivetrain frictional losses (arbitrary) and a 15.6% inertial loss (calculated for run done in 2nd gear) for a total of 25.6% losses. FYI, the Passport only does frictional drive train loss and it is fixed regardless of gear so we had to do or own calculation for the interial loss.
I only went full throttle to 8250 RPM (I didn't mean to go that high, oops
![Smilie](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)
When Passports software improves (graphing sucks currently), I will post graphs generated by the software. I will also also redo the testing when I get more miles on the car to see if I do infact get 10HP with a little more break-in.
-Mr. Wigggles
Last edited by MrWigggles; 09-28-2003 at 04:02 PM.
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am considering getting one of these devices, either a Passport of a G-Tech pro.
What made you choose the Passport over the G-Tech? If you don't mind, I would also appreciate a PM with where you bought it.
What made you choose the Passport over the G-Tech? If you don't mind, I would also appreciate a PM with where you bought it.
#4
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally posted by jmanolov
Get a GTech Pro Competition. It is much much better device than the Passport.
Get a GTech Pro Competition. It is much much better device than the Passport.
-Mr. Wigggles
#5
Senior Geek
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 212 HP at 8250RPM with G-timer
Originally posted by MrWigggles
A colleague of mine who has used in-car dynos for many years is very impressed with the new G-timer by Passport.
We did a tremendous number of calculations and calibration of the sensor itself to come up with an engine power of 212HP at 8250RPM.
We factored in a 10% drivetrain frictional losses (arbitrary) and a 15.6% inertial loss (calculated for run done in 2nd gear) for a total of 25.6% losses. FYI, the Passport only does frictional drive train loss and it is fixed regardless of gear so we had to do or own calculation for the interial loss.
I only went full throttle to 8250 RPM (I didn't mean to go that high, oops
) so if the torque curve is flat there could be another 6HP at 8500 RPM. Also, the car only had 160 miles on it so after a little more break-in I could be up 10HP more like other forum members. That would be a grand total of 228HP peak. Still short of the claims by Mazda, but within 5%.
When Passports software improves (graphing sucks currently), I will post graphs generated by the software. I will also also redo the testing when I get more miles on the car to see if I do infact get 10HP with a little more break-in.
-Mr. Wigggles
A colleague of mine who has used in-car dynos for many years is very impressed with the new G-timer by Passport.
We did a tremendous number of calculations and calibration of the sensor itself to come up with an engine power of 212HP at 8250RPM.
We factored in a 10% drivetrain frictional losses (arbitrary) and a 15.6% inertial loss (calculated for run done in 2nd gear) for a total of 25.6% losses. FYI, the Passport only does frictional drive train loss and it is fixed regardless of gear so we had to do or own calculation for the interial loss.
I only went full throttle to 8250 RPM (I didn't mean to go that high, oops
![Smilie](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)
When Passports software improves (graphing sucks currently), I will post graphs generated by the software. I will also also redo the testing when I get more miles on the car to see if I do infact get 10HP with a little more break-in.
-Mr. Wigggles
In other words, they probably offer a good quantitative comparissons. But I don't think they are very reliable for quality measurements. Anyone feel free to make me shut up and realize I'm wrong.
MrW. have you gotte the car on a dyno? it would help you (me) a lot to have those reference points in a future. How much does a wheel dyno spit out? how much does the G tells you?
Anyways, keep up the research going on! I wish I had the will to go through some of it....
Cheers!
#6
Registered
Re: 212 HP at 8250RPM with G-timer
Originally posted by MrWigggles
We factored in a 10% drivetrain frictional losses (arbitrary)
We factored in a 10% drivetrain frictional losses (arbitrary)
Regards,
Gordon
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Re: Re: 212 HP at 8250RPM with G-timer
Originally posted by Gord96BRG
I'll say that's arbitrary! How did you arrive at that figure? The absolute lowest number I've ever seen suggested is 17%, and a few people think it's closer to 20%. When you add back in the 7% additional loss that you neglected, your flywheel HP goes up by at least 10 - there you go!
Regards,
Gordon
I'll say that's arbitrary! How did you arrive at that figure? The absolute lowest number I've ever seen suggested is 17%, and a few people think it's closer to 20%. When you add back in the 7% additional loss that you neglected, your flywheel HP goes up by at least 10 - there you go!
Regards,
Gordon
As I am sure you know there are both frictional drivetrain losses and interial drivetrain losses during an in-car dyno. Escort recommends using 15% total but that would be more appropriate for third gear or forth gear testing. Since I did testing in 2nd gear, I am using 25.6% total not the 10% if I wasn't clear earlier.
-Mr. Wigggles
Last edited by MrWigggles; 09-29-2003 at 11:47 AM.
#8
Registered User
Thread Starter
Re: Re: 212 HP at 8250RPM with G-timer
Originally posted by RX8-TX
...
MrW. have you gotte the car on a dyno? it would help you (me) a lot to have those reference points in a future. How much does a wheel dyno spit out? how much does the G tells you?
Anyways, keep up the research going on! I wish I had the will to go through some of it....
Cheers!
...
MrW. have you gotte the car on a dyno? it would help you (me) a lot to have those reference points in a future. How much does a wheel dyno spit out? how much does the G tells you?
Anyways, keep up the research going on! I wish I had the will to go through some of it....
Cheers!
Having designed accelerometer systems for NASA and the military for the last 6 years I am very impressed with G-timer GT2. It is lightweight and has very good accuracy. (I have heard problem about the older G-techs but I haven't used the G-tech Pro)
-Mr. Wigggles
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the G-Timer 2.
Its defaulted to 15%, I am currently using 18% Drivertrain loss and getting 241.7HP
I can't think of 1 reason why you would use 10% as a DT loss. And fudging with numbers and estimating losses and your HP estimate is worth garbage.
As far as I know you set the speed where you want it to measure the HP and just run it hard as you can thru the gears and you get your HP.
Mine is set to 30-50MPH @ 18% = 241.7HP. It supposed to do all the math internally.
So set it to 18-20% for your car, set it to 30-50mph and just do basically a 0-60 run and you will get your output.
Also my best runs with my G-TImer 2 so far (only about 5 total runs) are.
0-60:
5.25s
5.27s
5.34s
Best 1/4:
13.82@102.3mph
Its defaulted to 15%, I am currently using 18% Drivertrain loss and getting 241.7HP
I can't think of 1 reason why you would use 10% as a DT loss. And fudging with numbers and estimating losses and your HP estimate is worth garbage.
As far as I know you set the speed where you want it to measure the HP and just run it hard as you can thru the gears and you get your HP.
Mine is set to 30-50MPH @ 18% = 241.7HP. It supposed to do all the math internally.
So set it to 18-20% for your car, set it to 30-50mph and just do basically a 0-60 run and you will get your output.
Also my best runs with my G-TImer 2 so far (only about 5 total runs) are.
0-60:
5.25s
5.27s
5.34s
Best 1/4:
13.82@102.3mph
Last edited by Blue 350z; 09-29-2003 at 12:07 PM.
#10
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Blue 350z
I have the G-Timer 2.
....
I can't think of 1 reason why you would use 10% as a DT loss. And fudging with numbers and estimating losses and your HP estimate is worth garbage.
...
I have the G-Timer 2.
....
I can't think of 1 reason why you would use 10% as a DT loss. And fudging with numbers and estimating losses and your HP estimate is worth garbage.
...
Mine is set to 30-50MPH @ 18% = 241.7HP. It supposed to do all the math internally.
So set it to 18-20% for your car, set it to 30-50mph and just do basically a 0-60 run and you will get your output.
Also my best runs with my G-TImer 2 so far (only about 5 total runs) are.
0-60:
5.25s
5.27s
5.34s
Best 1/4:
13.82@102.3mph [/B]
Also my best runs with my G-TImer 2 so far (only about 5 total runs) are.
0-60:
5.25s
5.27s
5.34s
Best 1/4:
13.82@102.3mph [/B]
-Mr. Wigggles
#11
Momentum Keeps Me Going
Re: Re: 212 HP at 8250RPM with G-timer
Originally posted by RX8-TX
I don't really trust these GPS devices that much.
I don't really trust these GPS devices that much.
these devices use this method for calculation (from gtechpro web site) and they are extremely accurate if correct setup info is fed to them:
"At the heart of G-TECH/Pro is a precision 3-axis accelerometer.
The G-Tech measures your speed and distance travelled by integrating forward (the forward direction is chosen automatically) acceleration over time. Basically, if you know how fast you are accelerating for a certain time period you'll know how much your speed changed after that time period. So if you start off from zero speed then you'll know what your speed is after every time period. These time periods are very small (a few thousandths of a second) and that's how G-Tech maintains its accuracy. "
Last edited by Spin9k; 09-29-2003 at 07:06 PM.
#13
Momentum Keeps Me Going
...for what these are (amazing for starters) try www.gtechpro.com :D
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: Re: 212 HP at 8250RPM with G-timer
Originally posted by Spin9k
"At the heart of G-TECH/Pro is a precision 3-axis accelerometer.
"At the heart of G-TECH/Pro is a precision 3-axis accelerometer.
Last edited by Blue 350z; 09-30-2003 at 07:43 AM.
#15
Registered User
Thread Starter
The G-timer GT2 is a 2-axis accelerometer while the G-tech Pro uses a three-axis.
With proper callibration and installation, all that is needed is the two-axis.
-Mr. Wigggles
With proper callibration and installation, all that is needed is the two-axis.
-Mr. Wigggles
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by MrWigggles
The G-timer GT2 is a 2-axis accelerometer while the G-tech Pro uses a three-axis.
With proper callibration and installation, all that is needed is the two-axis.
-Mr. Wigggles
The G-timer GT2 is a 2-axis accelerometer while the G-tech Pro uses a three-axis.
With proper callibration and installation, all that is needed is the two-axis.
-Mr. Wigggles
#17
Momentum Keeps Me Going
The 3 axis GTECHPRO Comp needs NO calibration at all... a major, major improvement IMO.
I don't understand what is 'silly' about a pro model? (or any model?)
I don't understand what is 'silly' about a pro model? (or any model?)
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Spin9k
I don't understand what is 'silly' about a pro model? (or any model?)
I don't understand what is 'silly' about a pro model? (or any model?)
The way I used "silly" in that sentence was to explain "awe" or to describe it as high tech or having many features. So let me rephrase the sentence for the older folk or the "un-hip" folk that cannot figure out simple things.
So here I go for Spin9k:
Golly gee, that G-Tech Pro is wonderful, so many nice and useful features were included into the design. To think that no calibration is needed is super duper!
Better??
Spin9k, are you an accountant or a librarian? Because everytime I have a chance to speak with either its like talking to a robot with no sense of humor, emotion or even 1 hip bone in their body.
#20
Momentum Keeps Me Going
Originally posted by Blue 350z
I guess Spin2k is way out of the "Generation X" age where sometimes people use strange words to describe something.
The way I used "silly" in that sentence was to explain "awe" or to describe it as high tech or having many features. So let me rephrase the sentence for the older folk or the "un-hip" folk that cannot figure out simple things.
So here I go for Spin9k:
Golly gee, that G-Tech Pro is wonderful, so many nice and useful features were included into the design. To think that no calibration is needed is super duper!
Better??
Spin9k, are you an accountant or a librarian? Because everytime I have a chance to speak with either its like talking to a robot with no sense of humor, emotion or even 1 hip bone in their body.
I guess Spin2k is way out of the "Generation X" age where sometimes people use strange words to describe something.
The way I used "silly" in that sentence was to explain "awe" or to describe it as high tech or having many features. So let me rephrase the sentence for the older folk or the "un-hip" folk that cannot figure out simple things.
So here I go for Spin9k:
Golly gee, that G-Tech Pro is wonderful, so many nice and useful features were included into the design. To think that no calibration is needed is super duper!
Better??
Spin9k, are you an accountant or a librarian? Because everytime I have a chance to speak with either its like talking to a robot with no sense of humor, emotion or even 1 hip bone in their body.
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Spin9k
Here's some words of wizdom from an old fart esp. for you Blue 350Z ---- just because you're an ***, no need to talk **** to your elders.
Here's some words of wizdom from an old fart esp. for you Blue 350Z ---- just because you're an ***, no need to talk **** to your elders.
BTW- Its spelt wisdom, not wizdom. Stop trying to make a hip new word :p
#22
get an engine dyno
The point of a measurement device is remove uncertainty. When you assume 10% drivetrain losses, and 10 hp for break-in and 6 for the fact you didn't rev it to max power, you add uncertainty and your "measurement" is total garbage.
You didnt' even rev it to max power, you just assumed the torque curve is flat. But in fact, max power come AFTER max torque, so the torque curve is actually going to be sloping downward at max power.
And you assume a random 10% drivetrain loss? And then use 15.6 for inertia. That's a whole magnitude greater accuracy! For every 1% off you are on your guess of 10% the car would gain 1.58hp!.
Get a real flywheel power measurement tool, like an engine dyno, rip a renesis out on an RX8, test the actual flywheel power, and then post your results. Until then stop saying the car doesn't make the power Mazda says it does. You don't know the flywheel power because you've never measured it.
You didnt' even rev it to max power, you just assumed the torque curve is flat. But in fact, max power come AFTER max torque, so the torque curve is actually going to be sloping downward at max power.
And you assume a random 10% drivetrain loss? And then use 15.6 for inertia. That's a whole magnitude greater accuracy! For every 1% off you are on your guess of 10% the car would gain 1.58hp!.
Get a real flywheel power measurement tool, like an engine dyno, rip a renesis out on an RX8, test the actual flywheel power, and then post your results. Until then stop saying the car doesn't make the power Mazda says it does. You don't know the flywheel power because you've never measured it.
#23
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sandy Eigo, CA
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the Passport Gtimer the same unit as the Beltronics Vector?
http://www.beltronics.com/fx.html
http://www.escortstore.com/gtimer.htm
The copy on the sites look identical and do does the display... just different casings?
-Chris
http://www.beltronics.com/fx.html
http://www.escortstore.com/gtimer.htm
The copy on the sites look identical and do does the display... just different casings?
-Chris
#25
Registered User
Thread Starter
Re: get an engine dyno
Originally posted by GoBerserk
The point of a measurement device is remove uncertainty. When you assume 10% drivetrain losses, and 10 hp for break-in and 6 for the fact you didn't rev it to max power, you add uncertainty and your "measurement" is total garbage.
You didnt' even rev it to max power, you just assumed the torque curve is flat. But in fact, max power come AFTER max torque, so the torque curve is actually going to be sloping downward at max power.
And you assume a random 10% drivetrain loss? And then use 15.6 for inertia. That's a whole magnitude greater accuracy! For every 1% off you are on your guess of 10% the car would gain 1.58hp!.
Get a real flywheel power measurement tool, like an engine dyno, rip a renesis out on an RX8, test the actual flywheel power, and then post your results. Until then stop saying the car doesn't make the power Mazda says it does. You don't know the flywheel power because you've never measured it.
The point of a measurement device is remove uncertainty. When you assume 10% drivetrain losses, and 10 hp for break-in and 6 for the fact you didn't rev it to max power, you add uncertainty and your "measurement" is total garbage.
You didnt' even rev it to max power, you just assumed the torque curve is flat. But in fact, max power come AFTER max torque, so the torque curve is actually going to be sloping downward at max power.
And you assume a random 10% drivetrain loss? And then use 15.6 for inertia. That's a whole magnitude greater accuracy! For every 1% off you are on your guess of 10% the car would gain 1.58hp!.
Get a real flywheel power measurement tool, like an engine dyno, rip a renesis out on an RX8, test the actual flywheel power, and then post your results. Until then stop saying the car doesn't make the power Mazda says it does. You don't know the flywheel power because you've never measured it.
Each paragraph contains one or more incorrect assertion and/or calls for something that is totally impractical. Can you spot them?
I wish I could make this game more difficult. Finding the "Waldos" should be very easy.
-Mr. Wigggles
Last edited by MrWigggles; 09-30-2003 at 02:15 PM.