Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 85

    Thread: Stock R32 Dyno - All-wheel Dyno Dynamics Dynamometer

    1. Member Prefekt's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 1st, 2002
      Location
      Gilbert, AZ
      Posts
      5,408
      Vehicles
      1964 VW Notchback
      02-13-2004 03:30 PM #1
      Courtesy of GHL, my stock R32 was dyno'd today at Dynocomp in Scottsdale, AZ. Dynocomp uses an all-wheel Dyno Dynamics dynamometer to produce a true load based dyno plot, unlike a Dynojet.
      Stock numbers are:
      174 awhp @ ~6250RPM
      180 awtq @ ~3150RPM
      I'll have the sheet scanned in tonight and I'll edit this post with it. Tuesday GHL will be fitting their first R32 full exhaust to my car and a post dyno at Dynocomp will follow. Stay tuned for the results!

      And for comparison sake, my buddies EVO8, which GHL is also working with, put down 212 awhp stock and 226 awhp with just straight exhaust at Dynocomp. [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]

      EDIT: Here are the graphs -

      Horsepower and Torque

      Horsepower and Air/Fuel


      Modified by Perfekt at 4:26 PM 2-13-2004

    2. Member Prefekt's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 1st, 2002
      Location
      Gilbert, AZ
      Posts
      5,408
      Vehicles
      1964 VW Notchback
      02-13-2004 03:36 PM #2
      Oh, and for those that are curious about how the new Haldex system works on the R32, my car spun all 4 rollers equally during the dyno. It responded just like a full time all-wheel drive car would which I thought was interesting since the previous Haldex systems act like FWD until there is slip then transfer power to the rear. My car twisted all four wheels 100% of the time. [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]

    3. Member Thinman61's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 8th, 2003
      Location
      Stamford, CT USA
      Posts
      377
      Vehicles
      2004 R32, 2009 135i
      02-13-2004 03:44 PM #3
      Hmm.
      27% loss HP
      That seems high no?

    4. Member j-dub's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 22nd, 2000
      Location
      Phoenix, AZ
      Posts
      3,406
      Vehicles
      04 R32, 57 Type 1
      02-13-2004 03:44 PM #4
      Did you try to test it in FWD mode by setting the hand brake as Daemon42 has sugested is possiable? I guess the TT is also capable of this. Just curious.
      Would the person who took the step ladder yesterday please bring it back or further steps will be taken

    5. Member carma's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 30th, 1999
      Location
      Hawaii
      Posts
      3,452
      Vehicles
      04' R32 HPA EFR Turbo
      02-13-2004 03:47 PM #5
      Quote, originally posted by Perfekt »
      Stock numbers are:
      174 awhp @ ~6250RPM
      180 awtq @ ~3150RPM

      That's weird, because those numbers are the exact same as a stock MKIV 12v VR6.

    6. Member Prefekt's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 1st, 2002
      Location
      Gilbert, AZ
      Posts
      5,408
      Vehicles
      1964 VW Notchback
      02-13-2004 03:47 PM #6
      Quote, originally posted by Thinman61 »
      Hmm.
      27% loss HP
      That seems high no?

      Seems about right to me. STi's and EVO's are in the low to mid 30's on drivetrain loss. [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]
      Quote, originally posted by j-dub »
      Did you try to test it in FWD mode by setting the hand brake as Daemon42 has sugested is possiable? I guess the TT is also capable of this. Just curious.

      No thanks. I drive it without the e-brake on, I want it dyno'd the same. But seriously, I would rather know the real world all-wheel numbers than the 'bench' FWD numbers. [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]
      Quote, originally posted by carma »
      That's weird, because those numbers are the exact same as a stock MKIV 12v VR6.

      But stock 12v are FWD on a Dynojet most likely, and I've yet to see a non-feel good dyno give a stock 12v 174whp. If you mean that's the same as the stock 12v's crank numbers, then yes! [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]


      Modified by Perfekt at 1:49 PM 2-13-2004

    7. 02-13-2004 03:49 PM #7
      Quote, originally posted by JustinTheGIMP »
      those are good numbers...now I really want one

      you really think those numbers are good? Or are you being facetious?
      I don't believe you should see anything below 200whp on the dyno. The numbers that Perfekt posted look like 2.8l VR6 numbers.

    8. Member Thinman61's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 8th, 2003
      Location
      Stamford, CT USA
      Posts
      377
      Vehicles
      2004 R32, 2009 135i
      02-13-2004 03:51 PM #8
      Well the Evo in the first post was showing a 23% loss no?
      I'm confused.

    9. Member Prefekt's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 1st, 2002
      Location
      Gilbert, AZ
      Posts
      5,408
      Vehicles
      1964 VW Notchback
      02-13-2004 03:51 PM #9
      Quote, originally posted by euro sport »
      you really think those numbers are good? Or are you being facetious?
      I don't believe you should see anything below 200whp on the dyno. The numbers that Perfekt posted look like 2.8l VR6 numbers.

      He's being serious. I think the numbers are right on target. Comparing it to Neuspeed's dyno is no good. HKS's dyno is a 'feel good' dyno and an inertia dyno at that. [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthdown.gif[/IMG]

    10. Member Prefekt's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 1st, 2002
      Location
      Gilbert, AZ
      Posts
      5,408
      Vehicles
      1964 VW Notchback
      02-13-2004 03:53 PM #10
      Quote, originally posted by Thinman61 »
      Well the Evo in the first post was showing a 23% loss no?
      I'm confused.

      The stock number I posted was by word of mouth as I wasn't there to see it. The 'with exhaust' number I saw first hand today. I cannot vouch for the validity of the stock EVO8 number.

    11. 02-13-2004 03:55 PM #11
      Quote, originally posted by Perfekt »
      He's being serious. I think the numbers are right on target. Comparing it to Neuspeed's dyno is no good. HKS's dyno is a 'feel good' dyno and an inertia dyno at that. [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthdown.gif[/IMG]

      Okay... it's obvious that most dynos will produce differing numbers. Those just seemed extraordinarily low.
      Do you, by chance, have any dyno numbers from a 12v VR6 that was ran on that same dyno (preferably stock)? I'm just curious what they would produce.

    12. Member Blitz16v's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 14th, 2000
      Location
      Houston, Texas
      Posts
      7,323
      Vehicles
      2014 Acura TLX 2.4L // 2003 Honda Accord EX 4CYL
      02-13-2004 03:55 PM #12
      How much crank is that?
      The things that complete your life doesn't necessarily complete others.

    13. 02-13-2004 04:01 PM #13
      Making 175+ at all four wheels is excellent. WRXs make like 150. AWD cars lose vast amounts of power through the driveline, many times close to 30%. The R32s are very fast in real life and will beat anything in the same power range in general because the huge, flat torque curve.

    14. Member Prefekt's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 1st, 2002
      Location
      Gilbert, AZ
      Posts
      5,408
      Vehicles
      1964 VW Notchback
      02-13-2004 04:04 PM #14
      Quote, originally posted by Blitz16v »
      How much crank is that?

      VW rates the R32 as 240hp and 236ftlbs at the crank.
      Quote, originally posted by euro sport »
      Do you, by chance, have any dyno numbers from a 12v VR6 that was ran on that same dyno (preferably stock)? I'm just curious what they would produce.

      I do not know of a stock 12v run at this dyno. But if I find one I will definately post it up.
      Quote, originally posted by GSB Enterprises.com »
      Making 175+ at all four wheels is excellent. WRXs make like 150. AWD cars lose vast amounts of power through the driveline, many times close to 30%. The R32s are very fast in real life and will beat anything in the same power range in general because the huge, flat torque curve.

      Exactly my sentiments! Once I post the graph you'll really see what he's talking about with the torque curve. Its like a damn plateau starting at almost idle!!

    15. Member Daemon42's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 9th, 2001
      Location
      colorado
      Posts
      18,469
      Vehicles
      04 R32T, 95/98 4runner
      02-13-2004 04:06 PM #15
      Quote, originally posted by Thinman61 »
      Hmm.
      27% loss HP
      That seems high no?

      Not really. It's one of the reasons I was very suspicious of Neuspeed's dyno as it shows
      much lower drivetrain loss and higher whp than I'd expect for an AWD dyno.
      Perfekt: A better comparison than the Evo would be to know what a stock WRX puts down
      on that same dyno. Do they know? If so, I want to know. There's hundreds of WRX dynos out there
      to compare to so they make a good baseline. A typical stock WRX puts down 165-169whp
      which is a similar 27% drivetrain loss. My *guess* is that a WRX on that particular dyno
      probably is a bit lower than that, as a WRX has center diff and the R32 does not
      so its AWD drivetrain loss should be somewhat less. But maybe they're closer
      than I think in AWD mode.
      As for it spinning the rollers at the same speed, once it's moving that should be normal.
      If you hammered it in first gear from a stop though, the front wheels should turn
      about 15 degrees before the rears start to move, and by 45 degrees (angle of this V)
      at full power the rears should be turning the same speed as the fronts. An AWD system
      with a center diff will also turn them at the same speed (ala WRX/S4). An AWD system with
      only a center viscous coupling and no diff (of which are are a number of cheap mini-SUV
      examples and more exotics like Porsche 911TT and Diablo)
      will always turn one axle a bit slower than the other as the viscous fluid
      never provides a full lock.
      I have a strong suspicion that the Haldex system only needs a rotational difference
      to apply the initial force on the clutch, but from then on, the torque
      imbalance at the input shaft keeps it clamped. Think of it like your brakes.
      You push the pedal down to engage the brakes, but then the pedal stops
      and it holds the same force. No additional "pumping" is necessary to maintain
      that force, thus no additional wheelspin will be detected. Haldex also
      has an electric pump to prime the slave resevoir so it should be able to
      initiate engagement even before wheelspin is detected, such as during launch
      although I sure that it still needs that torque imbalance to provide full lock.
      As for the numbers themselves..
      Folks have to keep in mind that as soon as the R32 is out of first gear the Haldex
      clutch will be disengaged most of the time and total drivetrain loss will decrease
      significantly. The above numbers represent the worst case scenario.
      Perfekt, did you get a chance to try the pulling the handbrake trick to disengage Haldex
      just to see if it works?
      ian


      Modified by Daemon42 at 2:10 PM 2-13-2004

    16. Member Daemon42's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 9th, 2001
      Location
      colorado
      Posts
      18,469
      Vehicles
      04 R32T, 95/98 4runner
      02-13-2004 04:09 PM #16
      Quote, originally posted by Perfekt »
      No thanks. I drive it without the e-brake on, I want it dyno'd the same. But seriously, I would rather know the real world all-wheel numbers than the 'bench' FWD numbers. [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]

      That logic if flawed. The R32 spends most of it's time in FWD mode, not AWD.
      So in the "real world" the FWD numbers are probably a lot closer to what you're really putting to
      the ground. Only sees AWD drivetrain loss during hard launches and hard cornering.
      ian

    17. Member Thinman61's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 8th, 2003
      Location
      Stamford, CT USA
      Posts
      377
      Vehicles
      2004 R32, 2009 135i
      02-13-2004 04:10 PM #17
      Yeah your all are right.
      Hey, do you happen to know if the dyno averages front and rear? I'd be curious to know what the power distribution was front/back.

    18. Member Prefekt's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 1st, 2002
      Location
      Gilbert, AZ
      Posts
      5,408
      Vehicles
      1964 VW Notchback
      02-13-2004 04:15 PM #18
      Quote, originally posted by Daemon42 »
      That logic if flawed. The R32 spends most of it's time in FWD mode, not AWD.
      So in the "real world" the FWD numbers are probably a lot closer to what you're really putting to
      the ground. Only sees AWD drivetrain loss during hard launches and hard cornering.
      ian

      There was no 'hard launch' on the dyno in the 4th gear pull and all four wheels spun the same, so I would think your logic is flawed. I agree that previous Haldex systems drove that way and I had assumed the new system in the R would as well. But actual execution proved otherwise. For comparison with that, Dynocomp dyno'd an '01 Audi TT and had to pull the 3 fuses to disable the Haldex system on it as the car was not transferring power to the rear during a smooth acceleration. My R had no issues what so ever.
      I did not try the e-brake trick.

    19. Member Daemon42's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 9th, 2001
      Location
      colorado
      Posts
      18,469
      Vehicles
      04 R32T, 95/98 4runner
      02-13-2004 04:21 PM #19
      Quote, originally posted by Thinman61 »
      Yeah your all are right.
      Hey, do you happen to know if the dyno averages front and rear? I'd be curious to know what the power distribution was front/back.

      Depends on the dyno. This one is load based, so if it applied the same load to
      each roller, then the torque split was 50/50. Haldex can send nearly 100% of the
      torque to the rear axle if that's where 100% of the load is, up to a couple thousand
      Nm before the clutch starts slipping (it's rated at 1000Nm, but I've heard folks
      say it's been tested up to 2000Nm). If you had an inertial dyno (like the dynojet)
      then the torque split would be 50/50 if both rollers were the same sized, which is
      not always a given. I've heard of AWD dynos with different sized rollers
      so an AWD car with an open center diff would try to split the torque 50/50
      and end up spinning the smaller roller faster. Anything with a viscous coupling
      in addition to the center diff (like the WRX) would try spin them at close
      to the same speed and more torque would go to the side with the larger roller.
      A Torsen diff (ala A4, S4) might try to do the same. Same speed, but more torque to
      the larger roller.
      BTW, load based dynos (like the Mustang) in general show lower whp numbers than inertial dynos (like Dynojet).
      Inertial dynos can be fooled by things like light or heavy wheels.
      The advantage Dynojets have is that they require minimal if any calibration, so you can compare
      the numbers from two different dynojet dynos and have reasonable confidence in their
      consistency, if not complete trust in their accuracy.
      ian

    20. Member Daemon42's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 9th, 2001
      Location
      colorado
      Posts
      18,469
      Vehicles
      04 R32T, 95/98 4runner
      02-13-2004 04:28 PM #20
      Quote, originally posted by Perfekt »
      There was no 'hard launch' on the dyno in the 4th gear pull and all four wheels spun the same,

      I already explained why they turn the same once the car is rolling, and yes obviously there is
      no hard launch in 4th gear, which is why you wouldn't see any wheelspin necessary to
      activate the system. It was activated a moment after the front tires started turning
      and stayed active the entire time there was a torque imbalance between front and
      rear.
      Quote »
      so I would think your logic is flawed. I agree that previous Haldex systems drove that way and I had assumed the new system in the R would as well. But actual execution proved otherwise. For comparison with that, Dynocomp dyno'd an '01 Audi TT and had to pull the 3 fuses to disable the Haldex system on it as the car was not transferring power to the rear during a smooth acceleration. My R had no issues what so ever.

      I know for a fact though that once the torque imbalance goes away (out on
      the highway) the clutch will disengage nearly 100%. That's the whole *point* of
      Haldex. To give you AWD only when it's needed, and FWD most of the time
      for fuel economy purposes. There have been piggyback boxes
      made for the Haldex ECU which will keep it engaged all the time (Forge made one) , and just like
      a 4WD truck with a locked center diff, it binds up during cornering, and mileage
      is very very bad. Nothing about your dyno experience disproves what I'm saying.
      There may well have been some tweaking between the older TT's Haldex system and
      the new one, but there is no way that it remains in AWD mode on the highway.
      Ask Haldex if you don't believe me.
      ian

    21. Member Prefekt's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 1st, 2002
      Location
      Gilbert, AZ
      Posts
      5,408
      Vehicles
      1964 VW Notchback
      02-13-2004 04:31 PM #21
      I see what you are saying now. Makes sense that the rear is disengaged during straight line driving. [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]

    22. Member Thinman61's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 8th, 2003
      Location
      Stamford, CT USA
      Posts
      377
      Vehicles
      2004 R32, 2009 135i
      02-13-2004 04:46 PM #22
      Nice. Thanks for the explanation (again ).
      Kinda off topic. The shop around me uses Dynapack 5000's.
      I read up on the system on their website
      http://www.dynapackusa.com/tech.htm
      seems like a good system. Anyone have experience with these?

    23. 02-13-2004 05:50 PM #23
      daemon42 ... will you father my children. I don't think I have ever run into a person on any forum who knows as much as you do. Thank you very much for the thurough and consice explanations.

    24. Member Prefekt's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 1st, 2002
      Location
      Gilbert, AZ
      Posts
      5,408
      Vehicles
      1964 VW Notchback
      02-13-2004 06:26 PM #24
      Bump for graphs [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]

    25. Member vr6gtispeed's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 3rd, 2003
      Location
      Richmond, Va
      Posts
      2,728
      Vehicles
      2004 VW R32, 1984 GTI Cup
      02-13-2004 06:33 PM #25
      I had a 96 GTI VR6 12V an I ran it on a dyno around christmas. The car was stock but with an AMS K&N cone filter. THe number were
      160.7 whp
      156.6 ft/lbs
      Here is a video and the dyno sheet.
      http://mywebpages.comcast.net/vr6gti/dynorun.jpg
      http://mywebpages.comcast.net/vr6gti/dynorun3.wmv
      I have an R32 and it's night and day with the power from the 96 GTI.

    Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •