gmc
Ready to race!
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Car(s)
- MK7 2014 Golf R
Managed to get the car onto the new dyno this afternoon and did a couple of runs firstly with the Bluefin and 20mins later after restoring the std map.
V
Bluefin - Back to back dyno runs
- Thread starter gmc
- Start date
gmc
Ready to race!
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Car(s)
- MK7 2014 Golf R
No mods whatsoever. Totally stock.
My mate took it for a blast up the road just before hand and came back shaking his head... reckon's it's the best $1,500 he's ever felt...
I think it was Caltex 98, or V-Power. We regularly use both depending on what's close by when it's needed.
DSG in 5th gear, which is closest to 1:1 on all the ratios.
Dyno was fitted and calibrated/tested by Dyno Dynamics 2-3 weeks ago, so I'd imagine that it's spot on for what it's worth...
The standard map run was immediately after restoring the factory map. Just a quick idle up, test the A/F, then fully into it.
My mate took it for a blast up the road just before hand and came back shaking his head... reckon's it's the best $1,500 he's ever felt...
I think it was Caltex 98, or V-Power. We regularly use both depending on what's close by when it's needed.
DSG in 5th gear, which is closest to 1:1 on all the ratios.
Dyno was fitted and calibrated/tested by Dyno Dynamics 2-3 weeks ago, so I'd imagine that it's spot on for what it's worth...
The standard map run was immediately after restoring the factory map. Just a quick idle up, test the A/F, then fully into it.
So a run in 5th gear would explain lower figures then the 4th gear runs in Canberra? I don't know much about dyno runs. With the stock map I imagine that if the car was driven for a little while afterwards it would have settled in the variables. I remember when I got my car back after the ECU recall it felt really shit until I had done about 10km in it. Could this give a lower number on the stock figure?
All very confusing to me. I think I'll ignore the actual figures and just look at the increase from one to another. I should have done a stock run on the Canberra dyno to see the difference ratio as well.....
All very confusing to me. I think I'll ignore the actual figures and just look at the increase from one to another. I should have done a stock run on the Canberra dyno to see the difference ratio as well.....
gmc
Ready to race!
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Car(s)
- MK7 2014 Golf R
Usually, most cars run the base factory defined may when at 100% WOT as the closed loop function will have switched off. I'm not sure about the Motronic system in the GTI though.
After looking at the figures and calculating losses he's seen previously and other vehicles, the figures that are shown are what's expected. He's a good mate and was just as interested as I was to see what the difference in the 2 maps was.
The AF was mega rich and below what the Lamba sensor would read down to for most of the runs, even on the factory map. It did come up close to 13s towards the end of the rev range though, perhaps boost levels dropping.
After looking at the figures and calculating losses he's seen previously and other vehicles, the figures that are shown are what's expected. He's a good mate and was just as interested as I was to see what the difference in the 2 maps was.
The AF was mega rich and below what the Lamba sensor would read down to for most of the runs, even on the factory map. It did come up close to 13s towards the end of the rev range though, perhaps boost levels dropping.
gmc
Ready to race!
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Car(s)
- MK7 2014 Golf R
I hope it's not caused by that faulty fuel pump/regulator issues that's been circulated...
gmc
Ready to race!
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Car(s)
- MK7 2014 Golf R
No idea about what's causing the dip.
gmc
Ready to race!
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Car(s)
- MK7 2014 Golf R
Your chart shows less fuel being used after 136km/h. Looks like the map starts to run leaner as the power drops off.
mrx
Connoisseur
- Location
- Perth, Australia
- Car(s)
- 2007 CW Golf GTI 5dr
Excellent work gmc, some meaningful results at last!
So to summarise:
By quickly eyeballing the graphs it looks like the Bluefin is giving approx a 20% gain in peak power and 25% increase in torque across a large portion of the band. The power band is also extended by 600rpm or so.
Equating that back to the flywheel figures, assuming the engine is putting out 147kW and 280Nm in standard form, that would mean the Bluefin is producing 176kW and 350Nm.
These figures make much more sense to me than from the Canberra Dyno day, and would also make sense when compared to the supposed gains from the other chip reflashing companies. My butt dyno also concurs.
So to summarise:
By quickly eyeballing the graphs it looks like the Bluefin is giving approx a 20% gain in peak power and 25% increase in torque across a large portion of the band. The power band is also extended by 600rpm or so.
Equating that back to the flywheel figures, assuming the engine is putting out 147kW and 280Nm in standard form, that would mean the Bluefin is producing 176kW and 350Nm.
These figures make much more sense to me than from the Canberra Dyno day, and would also make sense when compared to the supposed gains from the other chip reflashing companies. My butt dyno also concurs.
sausage
Ready to race!
- Location
- Australia Brisbane
that dip in power... its fairly obivous on both the power and the torque line...
its probably noticeable in driving conditions i'm guessing
its probably noticeable in driving conditions i'm guessing
The dip could be a couple of things... cams just coming "on" or if there's a secondary butterfly or similar in the intake that only opens above a certain load. For example the Mazda i had has a twin chamber intake, part of it is closed for light throttle driving then a butterfly opens above a certain revs to improve air flow and you find a sharp rise in the power graph.
For reference as well... the difference in final power figures between gears like 3, 4, 5 is only a few kws. Sure its most accurate to have the ratio as close to 1:1 as possible but in the scheme of things makes little difference. The torque graphs will be massively different for different gears though.
For reference as well... the difference in final power figures between gears like 3, 4, 5 is only a few kws. Sure its most accurate to have the ratio as close to 1:1 as possible but in the scheme of things makes little difference. The torque graphs will be massively different for different gears though.
CiaranGTI
Schwam, Doo, Doo and heif
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
nice work gerard!
just one question, what MY is your model? 144kw is what I originally expected given the dyno plots I saw previously.
Like I mentioned previously, we need to run different model years to see if that causes any difference. Not sure if it will, and to be honest I would have been massively happy with 145kw atw! But before I get really happy about my 162kw run, I need to substantiate it against other cars to be sure it isnt bullshit.
Looking forward to that dyno day!
just one question, what MY is your model? 144kw is what I originally expected given the dyno plots I saw previously.
Like I mentioned previously, we need to run different model years to see if that causes any difference. Not sure if it will, and to be honest I would have been massively happy with 145kw atw! But before I get really happy about my 162kw run, I need to substantiate it against other cars to be sure it isnt bullshit.
Looking forward to that dyno day!