The largest Civic Type R club forum

Established in 2002 it brings together people from all over the world to discuss their one love of Type R's.

Post your power charts here.
User avatar
By N.Styles
#3190186
Finally had all the bits fitted after waiting way too long.
Performance mods are

kpro
fujitsubo legalis r
rbc inlet manifold
toda exhaust manifold
Itg maxogen

Car is definately quite a bit faster but the noise from the rbc is well loud!
Didn't like the look of the dips in the dyno chart so please comment on what you think.
Was told this is caused by the rbc?
cheers

Image
Last edited by N.Styles on Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By gearinator
#3190211
N.Styles wrote:Finally had all the bits fitted after waiting way too long.
Performance mods are

kpro
fujitsubo legalis r
rbc inlet manifold
toda exhaust manifold
Itg maxogen

Car is definately quite a bit faster but the noise from the rbc is well loud!
Didn't like the look of the dips in the dyno chart so please comment on what you think.
Was told this is caused by the rbc?
cheers

Image
Image
Something ain't right here. Did they map it aswell mate is was this just a dyno day??
User avatar
By steve83
#3190215
Seems to be alot of money spent there, for very little gain. :scratch:
User avatar
By gearinator
#3190217
steve83 wrote:Seems to be alot of money spent there, for very little gain. :scratch:
My thoughts exactly. Any dynos done pre mod?
User avatar
By RM CYA
#3190218
its 214 at the hubs guys. so its made spot on power for the mods.

bit disappointed with the dip at crossover though. who mapped it? sam or dennis (i think thats his name)

heres my old CTR graph from tdi south for comparisson

Image
User avatar
By gearinator
#3190221
RM CYA wrote:its 214 at the hubs guys. so its made spot on power for the mods.

bit disappointed with the dip at crossover though. who mapped it? sam or dennis (i think thats his name)
Ah from hubs. Right my bad dint realise. So how much at a guess would it be at the fly??? Around the 235 ish mark would be my guess. Not bad gains but I'd be concerned with the dips in the graph. Looks like a bad map
User avatar
By N.Styles
#3190231
Not had any previous dyno's done unfortunatly so have nothing to compare against.

I could find out who mapped it easily enough but have no idea at present.

Mark mentioned the 12% losses so in pub language it's bang on 240bhp which isn't sad but as mentioned above these arn't exactly cheap mods I've had fitted.
Just seemed a bit low on torque & the dip at crossover really caught my eye.
User avatar
By gearinator
#3190233
N.Styles wrote:Not had any previous dyno's done unfortunatly so have nothing to compare against.

I could find out who mapped it easily enough but have no idea at present.

Mark mentioned the 12% losses so in pub language it's bang on 240bhp which isn't sad but as mentioned above these arn't exactly cheap mods I've had fitted.
Just seemed a bit low on torque & the dip at crossover really caught my eye.
I would put it down to a bad map mate. Find out who did it and either get a refund or ask for it to be done again . It certainly ain't right at crossover and there is a major lack in torque as u said
User avatar
By RM CYA
#3190236
all cars are different, so one might make 170ftlb, another 150ftlb.

im surprised they let it go like that? the whole point of a map is to smooth out the curve, get rid of the dip and match the mods to your engine (air,fuel etc).

pm them, tell them youre concerned about the dip, and go from there tbh.
User avatar
By gearinator
#3190240
RM CYA wrote:all cars are different, so one might make 170ftlb, another 150ftlb.

im surprised they let it go like that? the whole point of a map is to smooth out the curve, get rid of the dip and match the mods to your engine (air,fuel etc).

pm them, tell them youre concerned about the dip, and go from there tbh.
This Tbh
User avatar
By N.Styles
#3191444
Well I emailed tdi & got an answer back quickly from Sam who mapped the car.

In plain english the combination of mods I've chosen produce this small dip in performance at that particular rev range.
Sam noticed it but there's not much you can do about it.
Maybe a different cold air intake would help?

Anyway he says the car is perfectly mapped & after a little play about today I have to agree.
It really does fly of the mark & it's a massive diffence from what it was.

I've just got 3 niggles really

The bonet doesn't shut flush because of the rbc & you can't fit the plastic cover
The rbc make a hell of a noise at speed, I mean hurt ears loud...
Vtec crossover is extremely low so I'm wondering about mpg

Anyway here is Sams reply for all those tecnically minded.
I hope he doesn't mind me posting this :oops:


The first thing I’d like to absolutely assure you of is that despite what has been suggested on the forum your fuel delivery tables, ignition advance tables and intake cam angle tables have in fact all been set perfectly optimally. This is to say that fuel mixture is on target at all points, the ignition advance is on target at all points and moving the intake cam advance targets fore or aft at any point would result in a loss of output, the mapping work is not “bad”.

There is however a noticeable dip in your engines volumetric efficiency through the range of engine speeds where this “dip” can be seen in the graphed results, we noticed that during the course of a constant acceleration test when on the dyno we could hear a distinct change in the intake and exhaust notes precisely accompanying the dip in the engines output. At this point I really don’t want to bore you by slipping into a science lecture about the mathematics of acoustics in pipes, but suffice to say that intake and exhaust system harmonics together both play a very important role in the ability of our engine to generate the high levels of volumetric efficiency necessary for really good torque production, the fact is that it is possible for harmonic resonances to very much help airflow through an engine at one point in the rev counter but to then hurt airflow at another point.

It became obvious very early on in the tuning process of your car that with your specific hardware combination the engine was able to tolerate the VTEC cam profile at a very early point indeed, choosing to be a little conservative we eventually picked 3200rpm to engage VTEC which is still very much earlier than the far more typical 4500-5000rpm found on with an N/A setup. It’s a good bet that this exceptionally good “low end” performance owes itself to a strong “positive” harmonic being generated at these lower engine speeds, this is further born out when you look at the graph of another of our customers who has posted in your thread as when you study it you’ll see that from 3000-4000rpm your engine is able to generate significantly more torque than his. Unfortunately this gift of an early positive harmonic appears to come with some unwanted baggage in the form of this negative harmonic resonance which would seem to be present at engine speeds around 4500rpm, fortunately by 4750rpm the harmonic effect has dissipated and the engine returns to its very strong operation from that point right the way through to the 8400rpm rev limiter.

Intake and exhaust acoustic tuning on high output N/A engines is a weighty subject even amongst professional engineers and reading this email back I can imagine that this might be a tricky subject to get your head around at first encounter, so if you have more questions about it or you would prefer me to run through the subject with you in person I’m more than happy to do that.

I wouldn’t agree that we can lay the credit/blame for either positive or the negative harmonic effect on the RBC component alone, as in order to generate harmonic effects of this magnitude multiple components will all need to resonate together.
User avatar
By big.h
#3191460
V-tec comes in at 3200rpm? Hell thats low for an N/A setup.

Id be getting down to cpl or europec to have it checked over to be honest the email looks complete giberish to me.

Ive never seen an n/a setup engaging crossover at 3200 rev's.

But am here to be proven wrong.
User avatar
By gearinator
#3191477
big.h wrote:V-tec comes in at 3200rpm? Hell thats low for an N/A setup.

Id be getting down to cpl or europec to have it checked over to be honest the email looks complete giberish to me.

Ive never seen an n/a setup engaging crossover at 3200 rev's.

But am here to be proven wrong.
No I agree 3200 rpm is low but to be honest I'd love a go in a Ctr with vtec set that low
User avatar
By Dixy1987
#3191487
I don't think the graph looks that unusual to be honest.

I have pretty much the same mods as you, apart from induction kit and the dyno chart for mine is comparable. (Although mine is showing flywheel figures rather than hub)

However the main thing is how is feels on the road rather than what a piece of paper says. :bigthumb:

Image

Edit: Was comparing my graph to that of RM CYA - idiot! :oops:

Still how it goes on the road that matters though.
User avatar
By steve83
#3191488
Yours doesnt lose power like his graph though.
User avatar
By Dixy1987
#3191494
steve83 wrote:Yours doesnt lose power like his graph though.
Me being an idiot, I was comparing it to RM CYA's graph.

The graph of the OP looks quite similar to some standard CTR printouts I've seen. Apart from the figures.
User avatar
By RM CYA
#3191495
The crossover doesn't look right. Look again mate. Edit - just saw your reply.

3.2k?? Looks about 4-4.5k rpm to me.

TDi souths mapping is good, I'm not doubting that, but I've never seen a graph like that after mapping with a dodgy dip. Regardless of mods, surely it's still possible to smooth out the dip, fcuk about with the timing tables, fueling etc.
User avatar
By jreedy
#3191501
that really is alow vtec cross over point??

never have i seen one that low.......... my old jrsc'd civic had a vtec cross over point at 4k,

lowest crossover point ive seen n/a is 4.5 :salut:
User avatar
By decoep3
#3191541
I had my car at a dyno day before xmass and the graff(dip) looks very similar. Mine wasnt mapped but!
Il try find it

Long time ago I had and Ep3 for 220k kilometers in[…]