Saab Link Forums banner
1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Vigge had asked me to make some 4th gear data logs. Tonight it was a chilly 43 degrees Fahrenheit, and the car was feeling quite strong. I had a good feeling about it, and that feeling was confirmed!!

I set up the logger to only record RPM and MAF flow, which sped up the sample rate to about .5 seconds between each MAF reading, and RPM reading.

Here are some peak MAF flows in the 4 data logs I made tonight:

26.89 @ 5,700 RPM in 3rd gear "Coolant Temps 1"

26.42 @ 5,500 RPM in 3rd gear "Coolant Temps 2"

26.83 @ 5,800 RPM in 4th gear "MAF Log 1"

26.69 @ 5,850 RPM in 4th gear "MAF Log 2"

Here are the 4th gear runs (and one 1-3 gears run) with the RPM in a log below each for Vigge ... watch how long the high flow is maintained:













The longest sustained period in excess of 26 lbs/min was 3.656 seconds between 5,550 RPM and 5,950 RPM in the second MAF log.

The longest sustained period in excess of 25 lbs/min was 8.625 seconds between 4,900 RPM and 6,100 RPM in the first MAF log.

For reference 25 lb/min and 26 lbs/min is enough air to generate 273 and 283 hp in ideal conditions respectively. The peak of 26.89 is enough to generate 293 hp in ideal conditions.

230 hp requires about ~21.1 lbs/min of airflow. The car reaches 21 lbs/min at as low as 4,000 RPM. :shock:

Adrian W~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,976 Posts
Found out some interesting stuff that goes along with your findings there Adrian. After speaking to a gentlemen who is a SAAB Service trainer I got to find out some interesting facts on the T7 cars with 205R and 235 motors in them. He says the information is substantiated in the SAAB factory service manuals. I know that alot of other car makers do the same thing and under rate the power output of their cars so maybe this is the case here as well.

I was told that the2000+ 9-3 SE HOT is factory rated at 205HP (Crank) and 178HP (WHP) but that the car actually came shipped from the factory with an average of 195-205 (WHP) and more in the nature of 220-230 Crank HP with the ability to run slightly higher in a similiar overboost situations. That would explain why I have seen so many T7 cars of the HOT type that produce larger HP numbers than what they were factory rated at. These are not substantially higher HP number but high enough to support a 20% +/- adaptation ability over stock HP claims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I've been told by a very reputable source, however, that the stock engine is very inefficient and does not make more than 230-240 hp. This makes no sense to me what so ever.

The WRX engine is VERY inefficient and makes a great deal of hp with LESS airflow than this. It has lower compression and runs just as rich.

However, I'm also told that an 06 CM housing on a stock T7 will make a HUGE improvement even without software. I'm getting tempted. ;)

Adrian~

edit: Also, somehow Vigge's Viggen runs almost exactly the same peak airflow with the same exhaust housing (which limits flow above 4500 as I discussed before) and an upgraded intercooler. Without flowing any more air somehow he gets 290 hp. No additional timing, and no less fuel.

And WHY do all the tuners want you to upgrade the fuel system if they don't even increase the airflow through the engine? That makes no sense to me. There's no way they are running richer than the stock 11:1. :shock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
SaabTuner said:
edit: Also, somehow Vigge's Viggen runs almost exactly the same peak airflow with the same exhaust housing (which limits flow above 4500 as I discussed before) and an upgraded intercooler. Without flowing any more air somehow he gets 290 hp. No additional timing, and no less fuel.
What are you comparing the 290hp to.....the theoretical numbers you came up with above? Also, how did Vigge come up with 290hp....I assume this is crank hp, i.e. calulated from wheel hp.....key word there is 'calulated'. only way to get true crank hp is on an engine dyno....not calculated from a chassis dyno. I'm sure that 290 number is highly suspect if it is indeed crank hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
And WHY do all the tuners want you to upgrade the fuel system if they don't even increase the airflow through the engine?
This is not done to increase fuel but to decrease the amount of time the injector is open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Vigge has never shown his wheel horsepower numbers as far as I know. His car has a custom MapTun ECU, upgraded intercooler, full exhaust, and BSR intake IIRC.

His peak flow values aren't any higher. That doesn't mean he can't make more power, and he certainly makes MUCH more torque since his MAF values in midrainge are much better. But I just can't figure out where the extra hp is coming from at top end. To make power you need airflow. It just isn't getting any more at peak flow. :?

Gonna work on some video runs. I'm getting a lock of flack for even suggesting that my airflow has anything to do with horsepower over on SaabScene. Strangely, it's always people who've spent lots of money on upgrades who are most upset by it. Go figure? :)

Adrian~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
perkj said:
SaabTuner said:
edit: Also, somehow Vigge's Viggen runs almost exactly the same peak airflow with the same exhaust housing (which limits flow above 4500 as I discussed before) and an upgraded intercooler. Without flowing any more air somehow he gets 290 hp. No additional timing, and no less fuel.
What are you comparing the 290hp to.....the theoretical numbers you came up with above? Also, how did Vigge come up with 290hp....I assume this is crank hp, i.e. calulated from wheel hp.....key word there is 'calulated'. only way to get true crank hp is on an engine dyno....not calculated from a chassis dyno. I'm sure that 290 number is highly suspect if it is indeed crank hp.
Yes Perk, Its calculated, but the dyno is little modern from technical view point than a dynojet can ever be :lol: www.amworks.com. Like I tend to write, I dont believe that any numers measured with a dyno are absolute. To show that the dyno is about in the ballpark, a maptun stage III 9-3 Se got the number of 264hp. I can get you more results from other cars, if you like.

One can draw their own conclusions from acceleration. Here is 80-190kmh in fourth gear.
To clalify the picture, time starts running at 80kmh and duration is marked in every 10kmh interval.
Adrian can tell what the stock viggen can about do.

Car has the mods Adrian told, no BSR intake, I tossed that out a long time ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Vigge, I agree no dyno is absolute.....best you can do is only compare runs on the same dyno, on the same day.


By chance do you have your stock hp numbers from that dyno (hopefully from the same day)? This will give us a better understanding of what the car put out stock vs. what improvements you've made (IC, ECU, etc).


Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
perkj said:
Vigge, I agree no dyno is absolute.....best you can do is only compare runs on the same dyno, on the same day.

By chance do you have your stock hp numbers from that dyno (hopefully from the same day)? This will give us a better understanding of what the car put out stock vs. what improvements you've made (IC, ECU, etc).

Jason
Jason, here is a dynosheet from the same dyno, 9-3 aero (SE in states) both stock and with Maptun stage III. Can't say the dyno is too optimistic :lol:
No correction parameters where tampered between his run an mine.

What comes to the discussion between wheel hp and flywheel, both have assumptions you know :lol: To my knowledge whp does not correct for wheel deformation which by sources can affect results by 4%. This can be corrected to flywheel, but losses are always somewhat a "mystery". This dyno uses a downrun for lossmeasurement, so it should be "more" close than a general guess.

I never dynoed my car stock in that dyno, since that dyno was not even build at that time, nor did I dyno it any other place. I have dynoed my car with
SP stage I twice
maptun stage III twice in two different dynos
maptun custom twice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
No offense, Vigge, but it doesn't look any more "modern" than the DynoJet dyno's. It's just a different kind of dyno; double roller instead of single, probably a water-resistance instead of inertia.

Some people prefer one over the other, but there's no way to know of putative accuracy in either.

Vigge, sometime tonight I'm going to try to get a 100-200 kph video starting in 3rd gear. I might only go to 190 kph because I don't want more than one shift to be counted in the timing. I think this would be a much better way to compare power than if it is all done in 4th gear. When in 4th only the run would start at roughly 3,000 rpm. There's nothing special about my airflow below about 4,500.

I'm just curious how much top end you're making on nearly the same amount of air. (Above 4,500 Vigge averages around 26 lbs/min, whereas I average around 25 lbs/min with a peak at 26 lbs/min.)

Hopefully I'll get a chance tonight. I have to do it before Sunday night when the camera leaves the country ... literally. :lol:

Adrian~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
SaabTuner said:
No offense, Vigge, but it doesn't look any more "modern" than the DynoJet dyno's. It's just a different kind of dyno; double roller instead of single, probably a water-resistance instead of inertia.

Some people prefer one over the other, but there's no way to know of putative accuracy in either.

Vigge, sometime tonight I'm going to try to get a 100-200 kph video starting in 3rd gear. I might only go to 190 kph because I don't want more than one shift to be counted in the timing. I think this would be a much better way to compare power than if it is all done in 4th gear. When in 4th only the run would start at roughly 3,000 rpm. There's nothing special about my airflow below about 4,500.

I'm just curious how much top end you're making on nearly the same amount of air. (Above 4,500 Vigge averages around 26 lbs/min, whereas I average around 25 lbs/min with a peak at 26 lbs/min.)

Hopefully I'll get a chance tonight. I have to do it before Sunday night when the camera leaves the country ... literally. :lol:

Adrian~
I tried to log few values to day, but road was little slippery, winter time for us you know. 204g/s was a peak value, so close to 27lbs/min. I will also clean my airfilter and change plugs, so we can reduce possible error margins. Plugs are about 30tkm drive, airfilter 15tkm. This was not a explanation, I would have done these changes anyways.

About the dyno, maybe you should contact the guy who owns the shop, or ask me I can forward for you if you like. Its a inertia dyno, no water crap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The debate between dynos is fervent. The folks at Hirsch do not generally like the inertia ones; there are other options between those two. Most dynos are either inertia or water based though.

It's been quite wet here too. During the day a 100-200 kph test would be irresponsible, if not impossible, due to traffic. But tonight it is supposed to rain again. (It's been raining for nearly 2 weeks straight here. Perhaps not as bad as snow, but it makes high speed especially risky.)

Adrian~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Thank for the dyno sheet Vigge.


Overall I think the data Adrian is providing is interesting and somewhat useful, however to get a true picture of what is really going on this data really needs to be collected while on a dyno.....then eveything can be mapped together as the 'complete picture'. Until then this is all just theory with partial data behind it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Vigge said:
One can draw their own conclusions from acceleration. Here is 80-190kmh in fourth gear.
To clalify the picture, time starts running at 80kmh and duration is marked in every 10kmh interval.
Adrian can tell what the stock viggen can about do. .
I'm quite suspicious of that graph Vigge. Your video "veto" indicates a time from 100-190 starting in 3rd of 12.7 seconds. How could you do better starting in 4th?

Also, since I shifted into 5th just before 190 kph, a comparison of our 100-180 kph times might be useful. Yours was 10.5 mine was 11.3. Since my car clearly has less airflow below 5,700 RPM, and thus less horsepower below that RPM (no argument there), this will not be a perfect measurement of peak power.

But average power between 100-180 kph would make it comparable. While I'm aware these are peak and not average values, if Vigge had an average value of 290 hp, that would put my car at 268 hp. :wink:

If my car is within 10% on average values where part of the value is in midrange where I have a bit less flow, then it may be entirely possible for my car to have a similar peak, even if it's 7.6% slower from 100-180 kph. :)

You wanted "real world values" there they are. :) PM the FTP location and I'll send you the vid. You can debate the time each crosses each mph location until you're green in the face, but it's very very clear that the cars are much closer than you would expect for a 50-60 hp difference.

Adrian~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Also, here a MapTun 9-3 with "323 hk" does 100-150 kph in 4.99 seconds. My car takes only 5.3; only 6% slower than a 323 hp 9-3. Hmmmm. Even if you take a VERY conservative rating for the time in my car of saaaay ... 5.6 seconds I'm still only 12.2% slower, which would mean roughly 283 hp.

http://www.maptun.com/cars.php?car=Saab 9-3&page=&id=26

Do I think I have 283 hp? Pfft ... probably not. But I'm thinking 260-265 range ... and most of that only due to pumping losses. That would mean if I free up the exhaust a bit, and perhaps the intake, it should be running 10-20 additional horsepower without any additional air. (That's what Hirsch told me was holding the stock T7 back anyway. I just don't believe it makes as much a difference as they claim.)

Adrian~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,976 Posts
So Adrian what you are saying then is that your stock equipped car with a T7 is running at about 18-20% more power than the stock figures published by SAAB? This would seem to prove that the T7 is capable of running with a +/- 20% HP numbers in a stock setup. And if Hirsch is saying you can free up 10-20HP from bolt on mods then the the T7 must be completley adaptable in that 20% range with no issues or concerns. So the reasonable conclusion would be that intake,exhaust and downpipe boltons do make a big difference to the T7 cars and are worth while to do.

Thanks for the Data there Adrian. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
SaabTuner said:
Also, here a MapTun 9-3 with "323 hk" does 100-150 kph in 4.99 seconds. My car takes only 5.3; only 6% slower than a 323 hp 9-3. Hmmmm. Even if you take a VERY conservative rating for the time in my car of saaaay ... 5.6 seconds I'm still only 12.2% slower, which would mean roughly 283 hp.

http://www.maptun.com/cars.php?car=Saab 9-3&page=&id=26

Do I think I have 283 hp? Pfft ... probably not. But I'm thinking 260-265 range ... and most of that only due to pumping losses. That would mean if I free up the exhaust a bit, and perhaps the intake, it should be running 10-20 additional horsepower without any additional air. (That's what Hirsch told me was holding the stock T7 back anyway. I just don't believe it makes as much a difference as they claim.)

Adrian~
Adrian, your hp:s are growing all the time, even without any modifications... But the question is, where can you find next, long enough and more steeper downhill for your acceleration measurements ?

No perkele! Just kidding man! Nice results indeed with stock B235R! :twisted:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
SaabTuner said:
Also, here a MapTun 9-3 with "323 hk" does 100-150 kph in 4.99 seconds. My car takes only 5.3; only 6% slower than a 323 hp 9-3. Hmmmm. Even if you take a VERY conservative rating for the time in my car of saaaay ... 5.6 seconds I'm still only 12.2% slower, which would mean roughly 283 hp.

http://www.maptun.com/cars.php?car=Saab 9-3&page=&id=26

Do I think I have 283 hp? Pfft ... probably not. But I'm thinking 260-265 range ... and most of that only due to pumping losses. That would mean if I free up the exhaust a bit, and perhaps the intake, it should be running 10-20 additional horsepower without any additional air. (That's what Hirsch told me was holding the stock T7 back anyway. I just don't believe it makes as much a difference as they claim.)

Adrian~
Adrian about your cars possible bhp please dont think, since your though have lately lead to not so realistic figures about your cars output. I will refres your memory, with g-tech g-forces you got 250whp for your car some time ago. Few days ago you claimed about the same figure based on plain airmass figures and you claimed your self wrong. To me this look like an another dead end... Why?
Your car is still about 0.7-1s slower than my viggen in the same interval with the dyno measured 287hp.

As a side note,
To me you wrote "The problem I'm having is that with the 05 cm housing the exhaust won't help flow any at all. It's at choke flow, which totally changes the rules on pressure ratio. It's governed by absolute pressure, and not the post-turbo pressure.."
and now you say
"That would mean if I free up the exhaust a bit, and perhaps the intake, it should be running 10-20 additional horsepower without any additional air. "

I can see some interference here, do you?

And also, you have tried to argue with all the possilbe angles that my car has not the claimed output, more likely not much more than a stock viggen. You fail to see that the dyno I use produced fairly accurate numbers for a stock 9-3 SE. This meant nothing to you. You also quoted that the airmass does not cut it, but now you write "But I'm thinking 260-265 range" and "it should be running 10-20 additional horsepower without any additional air."

What is the sum of that equation? = min 270 max 285? Could you explain to me, why you think this way now?

I dont want a pain in the butt, but this writing style of your iritates me sometimes. First nothing is possible based on calculations filled with assumptions bla bla bla and all sudden erything is possilbe based on bla bla bla...
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top