I think ive got the bug

[Demolition49]

After remapping with MREV2, plenum spacer and HKS air filter, plus some iridium spark plugs at abbey i am more than happy with the end result but cant help feeling even after the gains i got the car is still underpowered, although the remap did make it feel like a different car with a breath of fresh air and in terms of the job Abbey done i couldn't recommend them enough...

 

im running 257 at the hubs which + 35 at the fly is about 292 after mods and remap which makes me sort of annoyed that even after all that im still running less than the car is "supposed to run" (296)

 

what i wanted to run was something more like 320 at the flywheel. Can this be done without going FI?

 

I really feel like ive got the bug for more horses which isnt good for my wallet

 

And is it me or do you find you adapt to the new power gains quite quickly?

[ZMANALEX]

These would help.

 

viewtopic.php?f=157&t=48369

[Mark@Abbey m/s]

Turbo,s mmmm ye sthe way to go but big bucks as Alex will tell you......but awesome power/torque gains.

 

Josh.

 

maybe remove the cats , nice exhaust system including Y pipe and a little tune with the Uprev system on the stock ECU on the dyno and we will see a few more BHP/TORQUE.

 

320bhp flywheel isnt easy thou. we will need to get inside the motor to get a few more BHP/Torque.

 

Next week I will sort out the dyno plots from Mr Lizards Rev Up motor that we have tuned agaisnt your dyno plots.

 

Re BHP remember the dyno is a tool dont worry about the final number just the gains before and after the tune thats what matters.

 

any questions ask away.

[Wasso]

FI is the only way to increase to that level. The MREV2 is a great boost, alongside the plenum spacer, but to be fair, you're not going to pull 30 bhp from adding a Y pipe, decats and exhaust.

 

Hence I chose NOS....

 

I'm not fully aware of the true flywheel calculation you have there, but my understanding is you add the powertrain loss of 17%. So in effect your 257 is 300.69bhp at the fly. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Despite spending thousands on NA mods I've only achieved 263 at the hubs. In hindsight with all the NA mods and the NOS I could have gone for a wicked SC setup.

 

Maybe that's a project for next year after selling all the mods and NOS with some extra cash in the pot?

 

Oh and to add... the 296bhp which Nissan quote is inflated....!

[James B]

FI is the only way to increase to that level. The MREV2 is a great boost, alongside the plenum spacer, but to be fair, you're not going to pull 30 bhp from adding a Y pipe, decats and exhaust.

 

Hence I chose NOS....

 

I'm not fully aware of the true flywheel calculation you have there, but my understanding is you add the powertrain loss of 17%. So in effect your 257 is 300.69bhp at the fly. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Despite spending thousands on NA mods I've only achieved 263 at the hubs. In hindsight with all the NA mods and the NOS I could have gone for a wicked SC setup.

 

Maybe that's a project for next year after selling all the mods and NOS with some extra cash in the pot?

 

Oh and to add... the 296bhp which Nissan quote is inflated....!

 

Great addon post Wasso!

[Mark@Abbey m/s]

I'm not fully aware of the true flywheel calculation you have there, but my understanding is you add the powertrain loss of 17%. So in effect your 257 is 300.69bhp at the fly. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Personally % add on doesnt work , as would the car only have 17bhp loss if it had 100 bhp at the hubs and 117bhp loss if it had 1000 bhp at the hubs?

 

I feel the car will lose a certain amount + a very small % as the bhp rise due to friction losses , this has been discussed time and time again on a lot of forums.

 

Treat the dyno as a tool before and after bhp all that counts. Abbey quote 35BHP loss from the hubs to the engine which we feel is conservative but gives a resonable guess at flywheel bhp.

 

Wasso,s car has gained 16 hub bhp from a totally stock car but the biggest gain is the torque it has gained a huge 25lb/ft max from a totally stock car but it has gain 15lb/ft at 3000rpm and the same at 6000rpm.

 

So we could say Wasso car, if we take a stock car which gave 247 bhp at the hubs so this car could have a loss of 49bhp if we take the flywheel bhp as 296bhp, Wasso car had 263 hub bhp + 49bhp loss equals 312bhp flywheel bhp.

 

A tottly stock car gives 247bh hub , Wass's tuned car gives 263bhp it has a gain of 16bhp which isnt bad on a N/A still with a cat fitted. Maybe worth trying the car without a cat fitted we may end up with a 20+bhp gain so nearly 320 flywheel bhp.

 

If people are willing to wait I will lay a totally stock Rev Up 350Z dyno plot over Josh and Wasso finished dyno plots next week when I am back from this weekend Santa Pod drag meeting. We can then see the gains from a totally stock car of Wasso's and Josh's car.

 

hope this all helps.

 

 

Mark

[rabbitstew]

Another thing I would add is that each car is different. I found that out with my Yamaha R1. I spent quite a lot tuning it up and on the rolling road it was still only producing the same sort of power a stock one. In the end I blew the engine up and replaced it with another second hand one. The replacement engine, with all my other bits on was miles more powerful. Even though it was supposed to be identical.

 

In all honestly you have bought the wrong car for cheap mods. Most of my mates have subaru wrx`s, and they have all tuned them up easily and cheaply to get silly power - one of the benefits of a turbo car. One of my mates friends has one kicking out 727bhp and im sure its cost him less then my stock 350z did. But, for me the zed isnt about mega performance mods unless you have serious cash to throw at it. For me its more about the experience of enjoying what is a great car.

[Wasso]

Interesting.... so the actual reduction of powerloss is not massively increased when flywheel BHP is increased.

 

Back you to your numbers - if like you say the car was 100bhp flywheel, and lost 35bhp via the powertain, car would be 65bhp. So are you saying the same would apply for a 1000bhp resulting in 965bhp (although allowing as you say a further percentage of loss due to friction) - so maybe 930bhp (as an example)?

 

That's means I need to re-do my sig - as that was calculated at 17% rather than a fairly fixed reduction.

 

So would I be right in surmising the following:

 

(Sorry Josh - hijacking your thread here)

 

As we had a two separate runs with the MREV2 and NOS. Lets look at the NOS. It finished at 309.7hhp, if we add the benefit of the now mapped MREV2 which delivered a peak 263hhp instead of 258 (if I'm looking at the correct charts) so if I add 5hhp to the 309.7hhp we have a rounded number of 315hhp. Are you therefore suggesting we now add the 35 loss to read a rough ballpark flywheel bhp of 350bhp?

 

I give up

 

End result is it goes better than it used to

[Mark@Abbey m/s]

Ian,

 

It doesnt work backwards like you have work it out.

 

Back you to your numbers - if like you say the car was 100bhp flywheel, and lost 35bhp via the powertain, car would be 65bhp. So are you saying the same would apply for a 1000bhp resulting in 965bhp (although allowing as you say a further percentage of loss due to friction) - so maybe 930bhp (as an example)?

 

The cars have a fixed loss + a small % due to bhp increase.

 

I am saying the stock car we run had 247bhp at the hubs - this from Nissan figure of 296bhp= 49 bhp loss.

 

Your car had 263bhp at the hubs + 49 bhp lose = 312bhp. so a gain of of 16bhp.

 

we are taking no infulence from a possible small % increase due to BHP increase thou. But your get the idea I am sure.

[docwra]

Power is just a number produced by a calculation though, the way the car drives should be what you are measuring improvements by.

 

If it bothers you then ask the operator to put the ambient temperature up a few degrees before your next run