Cj-tunes v6 19t in Denver/Minnesota - The Saab Link Forums

Go Back   The Saab Link Forums > Saab New 9-3 '03+ Forum > Performance Modifications for the New 9-3

Performance Modifications for the New 9-3 This forum contains PERFORMANCE related Q&A's for the new 9-3. This may also include suspension.

SaabLink.net is the premier Saab Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-01-2012, 09:32 AM   #1
JZW
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boulder Colorado
Posts: 3,153
Cj-tunes v6 19t in Denver/Minnesota

I found this truely amazing, the power losses from sea-level to Denver on the V6 car with 19T turbo. We had a lot of people second guessing Eric's 19T turbox car when we posted sae dyno numbers. What we thought was correct and what we could prove was two different things. Now that CJ has confirmed what we thought the power losses would be from looking at other cars at sea-level and Eric's car at elevation, we now have some confirmation.

CJ had his car custom tuned in Denver with me and it made exactly what Eric's turbo x made in airmass flow through the engine, 31.22 # per minute.

CJ got back to Princeton Minnesota and data logged for me and I was hoping, but still surprised to see 39.22 # per minute ! That is a big gain in power and I am amazed at the losses at elevation. It was in the 90's, so the losses are higher, but I expect him to crack 40# per minute no problem once he gets a decent cool day out there. We were seeing a # per minute gain here in Denver from the daytime to the cooler night time air

Here is the screen shots of the data log from Denver at 31.22# per minute and the Princeton Minnesota log of 39.22 # per minute, you can see all the other data, changes in timing, fuel used, etc.

I can't wait to see the dyno, should be over 400bhp for sure...

John
Attached Images
File Type: jpg CJ-Denver-31.22# per minute.jpg (307.3 KB, 20 views)
File Type: jpg CJ-39.22# per minute.jpg (313.3 KB, 15 views)
__________________
b234r ng900, E-85 Holset Super [email protected] mph a mile high 645whp/650wtrq Sae Denver
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
JZW is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-02-2012, 02:52 PM   #2
Flirting With TSL Addiction
 
Moosepuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 422
Thumbs up

damn...that's awesome. I can't wait to get into this 2.8.... I've barely owned the car, but the way it handles is amazing in comparison to the NG's.... I don't even have my stage 3 yet and I can't wait to get the 19T upgrade bits and take her to stage 5... many parts on the way!
__________________
06 W211 E55 AMG (his)
08 9-3, Aero vert, 2.8t(hers)
Gone but not forgotten: several NG' and C's
Moosepuck is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-02-2012, 06:37 PM   #3
 
mike saunders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 6,468
No has said there wouldn't be power loss at altitude. Everyone expects it, which is why the car is programmed from the factory to anticipate it.

The only issue, as it is for all FI cars, is the amount of SAE correction applied.

A better test might have been to take the SAME car and dyno it at altitude, then dyno it closer to sea level. Yes, the dynos would have been different, but the car would have been the same to eliminate one variable.
mike saunders is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2012, 08:15 PM   #4
JZW
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boulder Colorado
Posts: 3,153
Airmass through the engine is a good indication of power for sure, Eric and CJ made exactly the same airmass at elevation, the sae power that Eric made would be close to what CJ is now making near sea-level. It actually looks like CJ will make more than 400bhp, but will have to wait for the dyno to see what it actually puts down.

What is amazing to me is the 20% loss in airmass, that is huge, there is tons of dynos with airmass numbers at sea-level, I have lots of logs, so it matches up very well. 20% loss on these V6 cars in the summer with a turbo is a lot of lost power.

Everyone said there is no way Eric would go up enough in airmass, they said that he would have to make close to 40# per minute and that was impossible, we were inflating numbers and all that, so we have some vindication now. Its kind of funny too, everyone that was saying we were crazy to say such things are suprisingly quiet now

Its funny how that works, people love to say how crazy inflated the sae Denver numbers are with the Saabs, but when you show them data that shows the cars actually make more at sea-level than the Sae numbers at elevation, they say nothing.

Once we have the dyno, I will have another car with data showing the losses at elevation with a turbo Saab.

John
__________________
b234r ng900, E-85 Holset Super [email protected] mph a mile high 645whp/650wtrq Sae Denver
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by JZW; 08-02-2012 at 08:20 PM.
JZW is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-02-2012, 08:22 PM   #5
JZW
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boulder Colorado
Posts: 3,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosepuck View Post
damn...that's awesome. I can't wait to get into this 2.8.... I've barely owned the car, but the way it handles is amazing in comparison to the NG's.... I don't even have my stage 3 yet and I can't wait to get the 19T upgrade bits and take her to stage 5... many parts on the way!
I love the combo with 19T, thinking about getting one myself, they pull like a freight train and if I get a 19T and tune, it will run as good as your car with tune only at Sea-level, how you like them apples

I can't wait to use my new I-flash, will be able to finally remove the speed limiter and you can also change wheel size if you are so inclined, check and clear and see diagnostic data too, should be a cool tool. I could get them for bmws too, but have not gotten into that scene much, have always thought a turbo M3 would be bad-ass though !

John
__________________
b234r ng900, E-85 Holset Super [email protected] mph a mile high 645whp/650wtrq Sae Denver
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by JZW; 08-02-2012 at 08:30 PM.
JZW is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-02-2012, 09:06 PM   #6
Avid TSL User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wentzville, Missouri
Posts: 297
Send a message via AIM to gytre1 Send a message via Yahoo to gytre1
john, pm me about what it costs for 19t upgrade/swap and what else i need for stage 4 tuning. i have full 3" already. I have a 2.8 fwd
gytre1 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-03-2012, 04:54 AM   #7
 
mike saunders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 6,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by JZW View Post
Airmass through the engine is a good indication of power for sure, Eric and CJ made exactly the same airmass at elevation, the sae power that Eric made would be close to what CJ is now making near sea-level. It actually looks like CJ will make more than 400bhp, but will have to wait for the dyno to see what it actually puts down.

What is amazing to me is the 20% loss in airmass, that is huge, there is tons of dynos with airmass numbers at sea-level, I have lots of logs, so it matches up very well. 20% loss on these V6 cars in the summer with a turbo is a lot of lost power.

Everyone said there is no way Eric would go up enough in airmass, they said that he would have to make close to 40# per minute and that was impossible, we were inflating numbers and all that, so we have some vindication now. Its kind of funny too, everyone that was saying we were crazy to say such things are suprisingly quiet now

Its funny how that works, people love to say how crazy inflated the sae Denver numbers are with the Saabs, but when you show them data that shows the cars actually make more at sea-level than the Sae numbers at elevation, they say nothing.

Once we have the dyno, I will have another car with data showing the losses at elevation with a turbo Saab.

John
John, the issue is: how much is the SAE correction value between the same car dynoed at 5,000 feet and one at sea level? If the airmass loss is 20 percent, but you're getting a 25 percent or more (!) bump from the SAE correction, then is the SAE corrected value actually valid?

I don't recall anyone saying that the car's power would be the same, only that the amount of SAE correction was inflated -- something that has been known for years. This was a fantastic opportunity to put those questions to rest.


and about using BHP instead of WHP...

Yes, Maptun does that and I think Nordic and some of the English tuners, but isn't that because they use the Rototest hub-mount dynos that reduce some of the wheel losses and give a more accurate measurement of actual engine output?

(I know that 12 percent is a commonly accepted factor for FWD drivetrain loss, but wouldn't adding an estimated figure to another estimated figure tend to increase the level of uncertainty to the final result? It's been a loooooong time since my statistics classes, but that's what I recall.)

So....Your WHP numbers are seriously impressive as is. Just use them. Screw those other guys.....
mike saunders is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-03-2012, 05:08 AM   #8
Flirting With TSL Addiction
 
Moosepuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by JZW View Post
....... I could get them for bmws too, but have not gotten into that scene much, have always thought a turbo M3 would be bad-ass though !

John
Building a turbo M3 is very expensive, e36 or e46.....which is why I never took mine to that level, but hell yes, it would've been a blast! The tuners those guys have are very expensive as well, might be worth checking into.
__________________
06 W211 E55 AMG (his)
08 9-3, Aero vert, 2.8t(hers)
Gone but not forgotten: several NG' and C's
Moosepuck is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-03-2012, 06:54 AM   #9
ERP
Flirting With TSL Addiction
 
ERP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 546
Send a message via AIM to ERP
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike saunders View Post
If the airmass loss is 20 percent, but you're getting a 25 percent or more (!) bump from the SAE correction, then is the SAE corrected value actually valid?
The SAE correction is never constant, it varies with the temperature and air density at the time of the dyno. 20% is a nice round number so you will see it thrown out a lot, but a high temperature low pressure day can add one or two thousand feet to the air density. In the 8 years I've lived at altitude I've dyno'd 3 different cars a total of 10 or 12 times, I just did a quick review of my SAEs and it varies from 1.21 to 1.26.

Also know that it is rare for a dyno jet to run at exactly 1.00 SAE. Most of the time there will be some small correction. Unfortunately most people don't post the correction factor, but when they do, even for low elevations the SAE will range from 0.95 to 1.10.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike saunders View Post
...and about using BHP instead of WHP...
I don't like using BHP either, but not everyone understands their cars as well as you. How often have you seen a dyno posted and someone will comment that the numbers look really low? Then there are 2-3 post explaining drivetrain loss. I wish cars were only rated at the wheels, but for universal comparisons BHP must be used. Personally I try to post my estimated loss percentages so you can try your own numbers if you think mine are wrong.
__________________
2008 Turbo X 19T JZW Stg 4, 415 hp, 532 tq
2006 Lotus Elise - Supercharged, 6.9 lbs/hp
2005 9-2x Aero Stg 2
1996 900 'Aero' 2.3t Sold -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ERP is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-03-2012, 07:24 AM   #10
Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 10,075
Send a message via AIM to Jameson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosepuck View Post
Building a turbo M3 is very expensive, e36 or e46.....which is why I never took mine to that level, but hell yes, it would've been a blast! The tuners those guys have are very expensive as well, might be worth checking into.
I did my boosted setup on the cheap. Very happy with 13psi, though I will likely do 15-16psi because I can lol.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jameson is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-03-2012, 07:26 AM   #11
Flirting With TSL Addiction
 
Moosepuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jameson View Post
I did my boosted setup on the cheap. Very happy with 13psi, though I will likely do 15-16psi because I can lol.
I bet she's a blast!
__________________
06 W211 E55 AMG (his)
08 9-3, Aero vert, 2.8t(hers)
Gone but not forgotten: several NG' and C's
Moosepuck is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-03-2012, 07:39 AM   #12
JZW
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boulder Colorado
Posts: 3,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike saunders View Post
John, the issue is: how much is the SAE correction value between the same car dynoed at 5,000 feet and one at sea level? If the airmass loss is 20 percent, but you're getting a 25 percent or more (!) bump from the SAE correction, then is the SAE corrected value actually valid?

I don't recall anyone saying that the car's power would be the same, only that the amount of SAE correction was inflated -- something that has been known for years. This was a fantastic opportunity to put those questions to rest.


and about using BHP instead of WHP...

Yes, Maptun does that and I think Nordic and some of the English tuners, but isn't that because they use the Rototest hub-mount dynos that reduce some of the wheel losses and give a more accurate measurement of actual engine output?

(I know that 12 percent is a commonly accepted factor for FWD drivetrain loss, but wouldn't adding an estimated figure to another estimated figure tend to increase the level of uncertainty to the final result? It's been a loooooong time since my statistics classes, but that's what I recall.)

So....Your WHP numbers are seriously impressive as is. Just use them. Screw those other guys.....
We could argue it all day I guess. I feel airmass numbers are actually a better indication of power than a dyno, there is no cf or variable there, if two engines flow the exact same airmass, you can bet your ass the hp numbers are very close, sure you can get a little more and a little less by changing fuel and ignition timing, but when its the same tuner, well.....

I have multiple Saabs that were dynod in Denver with Sae and then the same exact model with the same hw and the same exact tune were put on the same brand dyno-jet near sea-level and actually made more than the big inflated sae numbers that you speak of. The dyno jet systems run off a weather station, there is no changing parameters to make them read different, as there is with superflow and mustang type dynos. I was told you cannot even change the elevation as it will throw an error if its off from the pressure readings from the weather station. You do have two variables, a different dynojet dyno and a different car, but I have seen enough data from these to filter out the variables, the numbers are close and the biggest thing is it has been repeatable.

Once you see this is multiple times, you start to realize that if you add 3+2 and get 5, that just maybe, the answer is actually 5. Even if you really feel the answer should be 4...

This is just another example that supports the sae numbers are not far off in regards to T8 Saabs and V6 Saabs in particular... This is the data that I have and it supports everything that I have been saying for years,

John
__________________
b234r ng900, E-85 Holset Super [email protected] mph a mile high 645whp/650wtrq Sae Denver
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by JZW; 08-03-2012 at 07:44 AM.
JZW is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-04-2012, 11:56 AM   #13
JZW
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boulder Colorado
Posts: 3,153
Striving for 40# per minute, sooo close ! 39.92, once the weather drops a little more in temp, then we will have it. I can't wait for the dyno, I am thinking 355whp or close to 420bhp, but we will have to see what the ol dynojet says near sea-level...

Sooo close.... And closer, 39.99 and 300 grams per second, which is 40# per minute

We are starting E85 flex fuel tuning now, seems to run pretty good right out of the gate ! Flex fuel will be no problem it seems...

John
Attached Images
File Type: jpg cj-39.92# per minute.jpg (305.0 KB, 7 views)
File Type: jpg cj-39.99# per minute !.jpg (318.9 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg cj-300-grams-per-second.jpg (259.9 KB, 8 views)
__________________
b234r ng900, E-85 Holset Super [email protected] mph a mile high 645whp/650wtrq Sae Denver
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by JZW; 08-04-2012 at 08:56 PM.
JZW is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2012, 04:31 PM   #14
SAABeginner
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 11
My car definately flys! Can't wait to get it on the dyno, should be making anywhere from 350-400whp. I made 304whp at like 29-30lbs/min so I'm thinking about 380whp be sweet if it hit closer to 400whp though.
MNSlaab is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2012, 08:04 PM   #15
JZW
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boulder Colorado
Posts: 3,153
I am dying to see the dyno too, hury up and get over there ! You got your 40# per minute, 300grams is right at 40#, so we got that and now I want to see what power it makes on corn !

I wish I could feel that power, you are up at least 100bhp over what you were here in Colorado when we tuned it. I can't hardly imagine how much faster it must be with that kind of power increase, that is like putting a larger turbo !

John
__________________
b234r ng900, E-85 Holset Super [email protected] mph a mile high 645whp/650wtrq Sae Denver
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
JZW is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-19-2012, 08:10 PM   #16
JZW
Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boulder Colorado
Posts: 3,153
40# per minute

Couple of tweaks and some cooler air, CJ finally hit 40.37# per minute with the 19T and 650cc injectors. Some said it could not be done, but its all in the pudding with some proof or something...

302 grams per second.

JZ
Attached Images
File Type: jpg cj-40#-perminute.jpg (312.6 KB, 10 views)
File Type: jpg cj-302-grams per second.jpg (252.6 KB, 10 views)
__________________
b234r ng900, E-85 Holset Super [email protected] mph a mile high 645whp/650wtrq Sae Denver
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
JZW is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the The Saab Link Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Vehicle Info.
Enter your vehicle information (year, model, mods)
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
All content is copyright The Saab Link and it's original authors.


 

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.