Post all your support and calls of FAKE! here :D

;1097801']Interesting, considering the block is the same (isnt it?) almost worth not doing up a 3.5L bang for buck factor.
It was fun having 140kw+ in a 1300kg car but 180? *african american voice* DAYYUM.
Sorry for the banter. Should probably start a new thread

As Alan J has posted, the 380 heads are particularly good in flow, then there is the 10:1 compression, ex Ralliart cams (with 6 degrees of retard :doh:), and the better injectors designed for torque, coil packs on every plug, a knock sensor to take advantage of higher octane. So much more than just increasing the bore.

Well it's becoming blatently obvious how good the the G75 motor is, we now have two dyno charts both with just intake & exhaust mods supporting 210 - 220 KW at the engine. Mine the auto obviously has the larger drivetrain losses & KJ with the manual, these two outputs support the efficiency of the 3.8 litre donk :D

never mind.

apologies if it's been asked or said before, but does anyone know if the 6G75 might drop in place of a 6G74 in a 3rd gen Magna ??
It might be an interesting upgrade for my TJ II AWD some day in the distant future :)

Yes, from what the more knowledgeable on this forum have told me - you use the 6G75 short motor and heads, and 6G74 sump, extractors, lower intake manifold, ignition, fuel, etc. All bolts straight up.

So if the cams are retarded by 6degrees how much can u advance them? Or would that adversely affect the take off the car? Can seeing a properly sorted manual one of these easily clearing 200kw no probs

Timmy,

Try this thread by Alan J.
I'm sure they are doing precisely what you propose although starting with cams in a 3.5 litre. I think the 3.8 litre they talk of is for an AWD. Alan states that the cams can be advanced in the 380 without contact with the valves but I'm uncertain what other changes (tuning) would be required. It's certainly an interesting proposition and would net even more power and earlier.

http://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70179

You may want to post further queries in there.

apologies if it's been asked or said before, but does anyone know if the 6G75 might drop in place of a 6G74 in a 3rd gen Magna ??
It might be an interesting upgrade for my TJ II AWD some day in the distant future :)

The 6G75 won't drop straight in but its any easy fix. Dave mentioned there were some bosses that had to be cut off the rear of the block. Anyway Graham is going to fit a 380 into his AWD soon so while I was over there we had a close look at the blocks. The AWD 3.5 block has bits ground away to clear the transfer case. The 3.8 block is actually less work than what Mitsubishi had to do on the 3.5 block to get clearance. We prepped a 3.8 block while I was there and took some pics. I'll have a look for them and get them posted up.

Cheers,
Alan

The 6G75 won't drop straight in but its any easy fix. Dave mentioned there were some bosses that had to be cut off the rear of the block.That only applies to the AWD models and not FWD, yes?

So if the cams are retarded by 6degrees how much can u advance them? Or would that adversely affect the take off the car? Can seeing a properly sorted manual one of these easily clearing 200kw no probs

Before stripping his 3.8 Graham measured the stock setup and found the cams 6.4 deg retarded. Apparently factory spec is 6 deg retard so they were pretty close. Most engines work best with cams advanced 2-6 deg, and sometimes more. Relatively low compression, for a race engine, 10:1 V8 Supercars are typically 7-8 deg adv,but with the high compression ratio of the 380 something like 2-3 deg adv may be close(on 95 or 98 octane more adv may be OK), so that means moving the cams forward 8-9 deg from stock position by filing the cam sprocket dowel hole. Remember at the sprocket to halve the angle, so its only 4-4 1/2 deg, about 0.9mm that you elongate the hole.

Advancing the cams helps torque and fuel economy almost right through the rev range. Midway between max torque rpm and max HP rpm the gain degreases and at max rpm there is no gain. Retarding the cams helps idle smoothness and stops popping in the exhaust at idle, but the main reason is to induce EGR and reduce emissions, and less torque means less transmission load so reduced stress there and less active traction control.

Cheers,
Alan

That only applies to the AWD models and not FWD, yes?

I don't think there would be any problem with the FWD. Maybe Dave can comment on this.

Cheers,
Alan

Before stripping his 3.8 Graham measured the stock setup and found the cams 6.4 deg retarded. Apparently factory spec is 6 deg retard so they were pretty close. Most engines work best with cams advanced 2-6 deg, and sometimes more. Relatively low compression, for a race engine, 10:1 V8 Supercars are typically 7-8 deg adv,but with the high compression ratio of the 380 something like 2-3 deg adv may be close(on 95 or 98 octane more adv may be OK), so that means moving the cams forward 8-9 deg from stock position by filing the cam sprocket dowel hole. Remember at the sprocket to halve the angle, so its only 4-4 1/2 deg, about 0.9mm that you elongate the hole.

Advancing the cams helps torque and fuel economy almost right through the rev range. Midway between max torque rpm and max HP rpm the gain degreases and at max rpm there is no gain. Retarding the cams helps idle smoothness and stops popping in the exhaust at idle, but the main reason is to induce EGR and reduce emissions, and less torque means less transmission load so reduced stress there and less active traction control.

Cheers,
Alan

Alan,

Would the cams Graham is working on benefit a 380 engine significantly over using 98 RON fuel and having the ECU automatically advance the timing?

I'm just wondering about the 'bang for your buck' value of these cams in a 380.

Not for max power, but for increased torque and response throughout the rev range and improved fuel economy.

KJ.

Alan,

Would the cams Graham is working on benefit a 380 engine significantly over using 98 RON fuel and having the ECU automatically advance the timing?

I'm just wondering about the 'bang for your buck' value of these cams in a 380.

Not for max power, but for increased torque and response throughout the rev range and improved fuel economy.

KJ.

Whats you fuel economy like now after the mods you have done?

Whats you fuel economy like now after the mods you have done?

Immediately after the extractors and dual exhausts it dropped from 11.8 to 11.2 litres/100km.

But after the high flow cat it has gone up to 11.4.

I suspect mainly because it sounds and goes so damn good now over 3,500 rpm that I can't help giving it a bootfull a little more often!

Also remember mine is a manual with the high gear ratios & high final drive compared to an auto, so I don't get as good fuel economy as an auto when cruising, especially in 5th gear at anything much over 80km/h.

For example at a true 110km/h in fifth gear I'm doing about 2,900 rpm, where I believe an auto is doing little more than 2,000 rpm.

KJ.

apologies if it's been asked or said before, but does anyone know if the 6G75 might drop in place of a 6G74 in a 3rd gen Magna ??
It might be an interesting upgrade for my TJ II AWD some day in the distant future :)

Have found the pics of what bosses have to be hacked off to fit AWD.



Alan,

Would the cams Graham is working on benefit a 380 engine significantly over using 98 RON fuel and having the ECU automatically advance the timing?

I'm just wondering about the 'bang for your buck' value of these cams in a 380.

Not for max power, but for increased torque and response throughout the rev range and improved fuel economy.

KJ.

Not sure but personally think they will be great. His AWD, still with the 3.5, feels like it needs another gear and it will break traction in 3rd on round-abouts in the dry. Stock mapping its returning slightly better than stock fuel economy, about 5% better on highway. He is still testing around town for couple more weeks then he will fit 380 injectors and see if any different.

He is building a 3.8 to go into the AWD. The heads have been done but he hasn't sent me final flow numbers yet. He will use the cams he did for the 3.5 in the 3.8 to begin with but may grind another set with changed lobe separation angles.

Judging bang for the buck is difficult. Guess it depends on your outlook and hobby money, and how trouble-free you want it. Some think $10 grand on a sound system is good value and don't hesitate to pay out $1,000 for a muffler with a 5" hole! Then there's forced induction. Lots of $ and headaches.

Not certain what Graham's cams and valve springs will cost but I don't think there would be much under $1500 for 2 cams and 24 springs. Probably depends on how many springs he can afford to get wound in each batch. His first springs may have cost $50 each, and to get them down to $20 each I guess he may have to order a 1000 or more. That sounds a lot but in World Superbike and NASCAR, probably V8 Supercar too (don't know with new regs), currently Kauffmann springs we specify are over $100 each, more than the titanium valve and titanium retainer.

To my mind combined with head work, that would be good value for 230kw. Also no insurance trouble with cams, heads, and reflash.

Cheers,
Alan

with the high compression ratio of the 380 something like 2-3 deg adv may be close(on 95 or 98 octane more adv may be OK), so that means moving the cams forward 8-9 deg from stock position by filing the cam sprocket dowel hole. Remember at the sprocket to halve the angle, so its only 4-4 1/2 deg, about 0.9mm that you elongate the hole.

Advancing the cams helps torque and fuel economy almost right through the rev range.

Just imagine if the VRX, being the sports model, had been released with 2 degrees advance?

So Alan, is this something we can try (since there are no valve/piston clearance issues) getting done without too much risk of stuffing something?
I'm thinking those with a piggyback might be able to retune fairly easily?

8 degrees sounds like a lot of advance and a lot of extra power.

with the high compression ratio of the 380 something like 2-3 deg adv may be close(on 95 or 98 octane more adv may be OK), so that means moving the cams forward 8-9 deg from stock position by filing the cam sprocket dowel hole.

Another question Alan, would these cams suit a Supercharged setup? Do you think there would be any benifit fiting these over the stock Ralliart cams in the 380?

Not sure if more poke down low by adv the stockers is a good thing. Its hard enough to get of the line in a hurry as it is.Those different cams if they have more mid to upper would be sweet though.Thanks for the info Alan!

Just imagine if the VRX, being the sports model, had been released with 2 degrees advance?

So Alan, is this something we can try (since there are no valve/piston clearance issues) getting done without too much risk of stuffing something?
I'm thinking those with a piggyback might be able to retune fairly easily?

8 degrees sounds like a lot of advance and a lot of extra power.

Yes it is something to try. A very easy mod. Just takes a bit of time and care. Remember you are not actually advancing the cams 8 deg. True adv is only 2 deg. Its just that the stock setup is 6 deg retarded. As the 380 has an air flow meter the ECU will take the change on board very easily.



Another question Alan, would these cams suit a Supercharged setup? Do you think there would be any benifit fiting these over the stock Ralliart cams in the 380?

Grahams cams will work with a blower very well I'd say. Can't see any reason why they wouldn't and depending on blower drive ratio and intercooling efficiency you could be looking at 30-50kw over the stock 380/Ralliart cams. Blowers aren't very fussy when it comes to cams. Main issue for road engines is keeping away from lots of valve overlap as that destroys fuel economy; pistons and ex valves love it though. These are mild road cams so overlap isn't a problem and depending on his testing with them in his 3.8 Graham may change the lobe separation anyway as the 380 has slightly different rocker/valve stem geometry.



Not sure if more poke down low by adv the stockers is a good thing. Its hard enough to get of the line in a hurry as it is.Those different cams if they have more mid to upper would be sweet though.Thanks for the info Alan!

It may seem like that but generally if you have a well trained right foot a more responsive engine is easier off the line. Its a bit like a sharp knife. People blame cuts on sharp knives, but its when you have to press hard on a blunt knife that you lose control, let the knife slip a slice yourself. Same with a frisky throttle/frisky engine. Its never doughy and hesitant. Response is always the same so the foot gets trained to apply just the right amount of modulated pressure to avoid wheelspin.

Plus if you have traction issues look at your tyres; size, brand and pressures, plus tread condition.

Cheers,
Alan

I love the blunt knife analogy Alan! Ya probably got a POINT there(pardon the pun!).Hope to have some new hoops on the girl in a couple of weeks too!:woot:

Grahams cams will work with a blower very well I'd say. Can't see any reason why they wouldn't and depending on blower drive ratio and intercooling efficiency you could be looking at 30-50kw over the stock 380/Ralliart cams. Blowers aren't very fussy when it comes to cams.

Now you have my attention :woot:

Thanks for the reply Alan, looking forward to see the outcome of all Graham's testing.

Have found the pics of what bosses have to be hacked off to fit AWD.

Cheers,
Alan

Graham has just sent pics of the 3.8 block compared to the 3.5 AWD block. It shows what is ground off the 3.5 block to clear the transfer case. Ignore the arrows and notes about the vertical ribs. Thats just to compare with the 3.8 block.

Cheers,
Alan

Again, same same but different here
But this is in relation to 3000GTs going from the 3L >3.5L block and shows you down the bottom of the page what to cut off and where.
http://www.wrenchmonkey.com/Webpages/6G74swap.html

Nice figures there McHenry....203HP, well done!!!!. With no extractors or chip, it certainly confirms the manuals put out a bit more than autos.

Nice figures there McHenry....203HP, well done!!!!. With no extractors or chip, it certainly confirms the manuals put out a bit more than autos.

Cheers mate...also had the 22s on...might have got a bit more with the originals.

never mind.

How many Kw is that?

approx. 151.3 kw

203hp = 149.3kw.

Several conversion web pages, I use this one:

http://calculator-converter.com/converter_metric_horsepower_to_kilowatt_hp_to_kw_c alculator.php

That's still 34kw less than my dyno run a few weeks ago.

Could be down to just my extractors & high flow third cat, but I doubt it.

You still running the pod intake Matt?

If you are I reckon that's robbing you of at least 10kw.

And maybe the 22s lose another 5kw or so over 17s or 18s.

KJ.

My converter tool says 151.3kW:facejump:

203hp = 149.3kw.

Several conversion web pages, I use this one:

http://calculator-converter.com/converter_metric_horsepower_to_kilowatt_hp_to_kw_c alculator.php

That's still 34kw less than my dyno run a few weeks ago.

Could be down to just my extractors & high flow third cat, but I doubt it.

You still running the pod intake Matt?

If you are I reckon that's robbing you of at least 10kw.

And maybe the 22s lose another 5kw or so over 17s or 18s.

KJ.
If that's what your convertor is telling you, get a new convertor.

The conversion for horsepower to killowatts = HP x 0.7456.

203 x 0.7456 = 151.3568

Disciple,

Depends on which flavour of hp we are talking about.

1kw = .73549897 metric hp, or 98.6% of US mechanical hp.

So it seems you are talking US hp, where I was talking metric hp.

You may be right, it depends on which type of hp the dyno is reporting, and I'm guessing that most dynos would use US hp.

PS - only one 'l' in kilowatts.

KJ.

never mind.

how many runs did you do was it 3. ifso i doubt its correct. most cars need to settle down on a dyno before giving true constant readings

Disciple,

Depends on which flavour of hp we are talking about.

1kw = .73549897 metric hp, or 98.6% of US mechanical hp.

So it seems you are talking US hp, where I was talking metric hp.

You may be right, it depends on which type of hp the dyno is reporting, and I'm guessing that most dynos would use US hp.

PS - only one 'l' in kilowatts.

KJ.
Ah, fair enough. I think most places use US horsepower, with the exception being maybe Germany that sometimes quotes things in PS.

Also, I know kilowatts has 1 l, I google'd it, but then couldn't be stuffed editing my post. ;)

203hp = 149.3kw.

That's still 34kw less than my dyno run a few weeks ago.

Could be down to just my extractors & high flow third cat, but I doubt it.

You still running the pod intake Matt?

If you are I reckon that's robbing you of at least 10kw.

And maybe the 22s lose another 5kw or so over 17s or 18s.

KJ.
I actually took the pod off completely. The bonnet was down and no fan was used. All 4 (Jayz, Snowy, QMD///801 & myself) of us weren't very happy on how they carried out the dyno's of us FWD cars (especially the fact they scratched my rims putting our car on the dyno).


how many runs did you do was it 3. if so i doubt its correct. most cars need to settle down on a dyno before giving true constant readings
Yeah they did 3 runs, but with not having the bonnet up and using the fan there was some WILD heat soak.

I actually took the pod off completely. The bonnet was down and no fan was used. All 4 (Jayz, Snowy, QMD///801 & myself) of us weren't very happy on how they carried out the dyno's of us FWD cars (especially the fact they scratched my rims putting our car on the dyno).


Yeah they did 3 runs, but with not having the bonnet up and using the fan there was some WILD heat soak.

Matt,

Bonnet down & no fan? Why would they do that? Guaranteed massive heat soak which is bound to reduce max output. Sounds like they aren't set up properly for FWD. I'd be trying somewhere else, good chance you'll get a much better result, the 30+ kw difference between your car & mine just doesn't seem right.

KJ.

Matt,

Bonnet down & no fan? Why would they do that? Guaranteed massive heat soak which is bound to reduce max output. Sounds like they aren't set up properly for FWD. I'd be trying somewhere else, good chance you'll get a much better result, the 30+ kw difference between your car & mine just doesn't seem right.

KJ.

They could have quite easily been set up for FWD, but it was as if it was all to hard for them! It shit me to tears really, but for a $30 power run we thought "Why not?".

OK, for $30 fair enough.

My runs with SKR cost a lot more than that!

But if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

KJ.

never mind.

So....are we saying that the 150Kw ATW for a NA 380 may be a innacurate?

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

Stock is quoted as 175kw atf.

Subtract 12% drive train losses for a manual should give 154kw atw.

So based on those figures Matt's 380 is putting out less than stock, despite the mods he has done to free up both the intake & exhaust, which as we know are the main things holding back the 6G75.

I haven't done a lot more than Matt and I'm putting out 183kw atw.

So either Matt had a substandard motor to start with, or his dyno runs were a bit dodgy. I know which one I favour.

Of course we can expext some losses due to closed bonnet & no fan & 22s, but 30kw+ seems a bit too much of a difference to me.

KJ.

Disciple,

Depends on which flavour of hp we are talking about.

1kw = .73549897 metric hp, or 98.6% of US mechanical hp.

So it seems you are talking US hp, where I was talking metric hp.

You may be right, it depends on which type of hp the dyno is reporting, and I'm guessing that most dynos would use US hp.

PS - only one 'l' in kilowatts.

KJ.

Metric HP is what PS is....the Japs also quote power in metric HP. So he has 149PS or 151.3HP :D

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

Stock is quoted as 175kw atf.

Subtract 12% drive train losses for a manual should give 154kw atw.

So based on those figures Matt's 380 is putting out less than stock, despite the mods he has done to free up both the intake & exhaust, which as we know are the main things holding back the 6G75.

I haven't done a lot more than Matt and I'm putting out 183kw atw.

So either Matt had a substandard motor to start with, or his dyno runs were a bit dodgy. I know which one I favour.

Of course we can expext some losses due to closed bonnet & no fan & 22s, but 30kw+ seems a bit too much of a difference to me.

KJ.

Mate I think 12% drivetrain loss is not accurate. Think back to the Ralliart Magna, 180kw at the flywheel, and they generally put out 175 - 180hpatw (130 - 134kw).

I think that equals, if working off 134kw, 25% drivetrain loss? Is my maths right?

What I think is that Mitsubishi has grossly under quoted the actual power output of the 6G75 engine. I would put it closer to 190kw, in which case we could take 190kw at the flywheel and the stock figure you mention of 154kwatw which would equal 19% drivetrain loss, which IMO is probably a bit closer to reality.

Mate I think 12% drivetrain loss is not accurate. Think back to the Ralliart Magna, 180kw at the flywheel, and they generally put out 175 - 180hpatw (130 - 134kw).

I think that equals, if working off 134kw, 25% drivetrain loss? Is my maths right?

What I think is that Mitsubishi has grossly under quoted the actual power output of the 6G75 engine. I would put it closer to 190kw, in which case we could take 190kw at the flywheel and the stock figure you mention of 154kwatw which would equal 19% drivetrain loss, which IMO is probably a bit closer to reality.

Steve Knight (SKR) told me that later model 3rd gen manuals lose about 12% and autos about 25%, and it would/should be the same for 380s, seeing as there is little or no difference in the transmissions.

So maybe the figues you are quoting for the Ralliart are for an auto not a manual?

The US Galant Mivec 6G75 is quoted at 193kw atf, and our 'friends' at RPW use that figure as the stock 380 output atf on their web pages. I suspect RPW have it a-up rather than Mitsu has understated the stock output by that much.

Also, with my dyno runs showing 183kw atw, if the drivetrain loss really was 19% that would mean I am putting out 226kw atf. That's more than a first gen LS1, and I haven't cracked the motor at all, all I've done is some basic intake & exhaust improvements. So either the drive train loss is a bit less than 19% or the 6G75 is a very underrated motor!

KJ

Mate I think 12% drivetrain loss is not accurate. Think back to the Ralliart Magna, 180kw at the flywheel, and they generally put out 175 - 180hpatw (130 - 134kw).

I think that equals, if working off 134kw, 25% drivetrain loss? Is my maths right?

What I think is that Mitsubishi has grossly under quoted the actual power output of the 6G75 engine. I would put it closer to 190kw, in which case we could take 190kw at the flywheel and the stock figure you mention of 154kwatw which would equal 19% drivetrain loss, which IMO is probably a bit closer to reality.

Yes you're right about Mitsubishi under quoting the power....The Mitsu. Dev. boys say its around 185 or so kw.

Yes you're right about Mitsubishi under quoting the power....The Mitsu. Dev. boys say its around 185 or so kw.

Why would Mitsu understate the 380 power by that much?

When the 380 came out in 2005 it was competing mainly with the VE Crummydore & the BF Foulcan, which put out 175/190 & 192 kw respectively (if my memory is correct).

Or were Mitsu trying to play the "green" card - "look, our big Aussie six puts out a bit less power than those other dinosaurs, therefore it simply must be more economical and less polluting". Never mind that the 6G75 is tuned to run very rich and the economy is nothing to write home about.

KJ.

Steve Knight (SKR) told me that later model 3rd gen manuals lose about 12% and autos about 25%, and it would/should be the same for 380s, seeing as there is little or no difference in the transmissions.

So maybe the figues you are quoting for the Ralliart are for an auto not a manual?

The US Galant Mivec 6G75 is quoted at 193kw atf, and our 'friends' at RPW use that figure as the stock 380 output atf on their web pages. I suspect RPW have it a-up rather than Mitsu has understated the stock output by that much.

Also, with my dyno runs showing 183kw atw, if the drivetrain loss really was 19% that would mean I am putting out 226kw atf. That's more than a first gen LS1, and I haven't cracked the motor at all, all I've done is some basic intake & exhaust improvements. So either the drive train loss is a bit less than 19% or the 6G75 is a very underrated motor!

KJ

No mate, I'm quoting manual transmission figures. When my Ralliart was stock, it put out 173hpatw (129kwatw) at a QMD dyno day. I then had extractors, exhaust, CAI and a piggyback fitted and put out 195hpatw (145kwatw).

I don't read anything to do with RPW, so forget anything about that.

Let's for a second just assume for arguments sake, that the 380 engine made 190kw. Is it really hard to believe that with your mods you've done that you've gained 36kw at the flywheel? 12% just seems far too efficient to me.

Just the 90mm intake alone is worth 5kw & 4nm acording to Mitsi.test facility data.

Looks like we have five possible explanations for my 183kw atw figure:

1. The SKR dyno overread my output. Either on the day or it always overreads. But I doubt it.

2. The 6G75 really does put out 185 or 190kw atf stock, and the official figure of 175kw is BS.

3. The 380 manual is really efficient and loses a lot less between the flywheel & the front wheels than any 3rd gen Magna, especially the Ralliart. Again, I doubt it.

4. I got lucky with a top notch example of a 6G75.

5. The mods I have done work really well together, and more by luck than good judgment I just happened to hit on the right combination.

I reckon it's most probably a mixture of 2, 4 & 5.

I got back yesterday from a camping trip with at least 200kg of extra weight in the car (three passengers plus boot crammed full of camping gear), and the old bus really flew when I asked it to. And on the return trip that was on 95 RON instead of 98 (try finding 98 out bush!).

KJ.

Yes, you're probably right there!

Im putting my crappy dyno run down to unprofessionalism. I was sorely disappointed by the result. They blamed heat soak issuses to the ECU retarding engine performance due to me thrashing the engine prior to the dyno.


I CALL BS HERE!!

No its not BS, its a pretty common thing for timing to be pulled at higher temps.

People need to remember that a Dyno isnt the be all and end all of everything, they are a tuning tool If you want to compare mods, go to the strip.

Yes I agree with that comment but to have a 'true' dyno power-run figure, constants need to be put into place ie..having a constant supply of 'cool' air to the engine, this was left out by the guys performing the dyno as they said, "because its a N/A car it wont need it", so the bonnet was left down and the fan left outside! All im saying that it was slack on the fella's who controlled the dyno.

don't forget ramp rate and how tight the car is strapped down as well, they all play a part...

Yes I agree with that comment but to have a 'true' dyno power-run figure, constants need to be put into place ie..having a constant supply of 'cool' air to the engine, this was left out by the guys performing the dyno as they said, "because its a N/A car it wont need it", so the bonnet was left down and the fan left outside! All im saying that it was slack on the fella's who controlled the dyno.

You are dead right with this. When Boozers car was on SKR's dyno we saw an increase with just the fan directed at the intake so it got ambient air, not warmer air from the radiator area... Your car would have been pulling the timing back big time!

How much did the charge you? They do sound half assed i think. The bonnet should have been up and the fan on. This is the service you are paying for. Then again i see its Dyson rotary. I know the people who started this business in Geelong and it seems they have moved oop norf... To where the money is!

So....are we saying that the 150Kw ATW for a NA 380 may be a innacurate?

150KW atw for a manual would be about stock power ...... very ordinary ...... 170 ~ 175kw at the flywheel.

Mate I think 12% drivetrain loss is not accurate. Think back to the Ralliart Magna, 180kw at the flywheel, and they generally put out 175 - 180hpatw (130 - 134kw).

I think that equals, if working off 134kw, 25% drivetrain loss? Is my maths right?

What I think is that Mitsubishi has grossly under quoted the actual power output of the 6G75 engine. I would put it closer to 190kw, in which case we could take 190kw at the flywheel and the stock figure you mention of 154kwatw which would equal 19% drivetrain loss, which IMO is probably a bit closer to reality.

That can't be right either 25% on a manual would mean I have a gazzillion horsepower at the flywheel with the auto lol

That can't be right either 25% on a manual would mean I have a gazzillion horsepower at the flywheel with the auto lol

No youve just mastered the ninja art to contain and STUFF Godzilla into your engine bay!!

No youve just mastered the ninja art to contain and STUFF Godzilla into your engine bay!!

Oh :eek2: I thought it looked a bit like a Nissan RB26 motor with twin hairdryers lol


Has anyone got a Dyno run of a Stock Auto/manual 380?

Yep stock auto 380's are about 130KW ATW don't think anyone has done a manual.

That can't be right either 25% on a manual would mean I have a gazzillion horsepower at the flywheel with the auto lol

I know, 25% is not right is it.

I'm just trying to figure it out using my Ralliart Magna as a base, but maybe that's what's confusing me. Maybe I shouldn't bring it into the equation at all. Bear with me here...

The Ralliart had 180kw at the flywheel, which if we go off let's say a nice round figure of 15% drivetrain loss, means it should put out 153kw at the wheels. Now from every Ralliart I saw dyno'd at QMD dyno days, which included mine, Pete's (QMD//801) and Ralliart Ricks (all manuals) pretty well all of them spat out figures, stock, of about 175hp at the wheels, or 130kw at the wheels, which if we take the original flywheel figure of 180kw gives us a real drivetrain loss of 28% on the quoted figures. So something seriously isn't adding up.

Couple explanations for the above:

1. The dyno we were all on read low. (possible)
2. Mitsubishi's claimed KW figure for the Ralliart Magna was lower than their claim. (very unlikely seeing as tho the VRX was already 163kw)

Now if we delve into the 380, and assume a 15% drivetrain loss, 175kw at the flywheel equals 149kw at the wheels. This is pretty consistant we would say with the results seen? So kj's 183kw at the wheels, with a 15% drivetrain loss considered means he's pushing about 210kw at the flywheel.

We could continue this fun with autos now if we want... :woot:.

I know, 25% is not right is it.

I'm just trying to figure it out using my Ralliart Magna as a base, but maybe that's what's confusing me. Maybe I shouldn't bring it into the equation at all. Bear with me here...

The Ralliart had 180kw at the flywheel, which if we go off let's say a nice round figure of 15% drivetrain loss, means it should put out 153kw at the wheels. Now from every Ralliart I saw dyno'd at QMD dyno days, which included mine, Pete's (QMD//801) and Ralliart Ricks (all manuals) pretty well all of them spat out figures, stock, of about 175hp at the wheels, or 130kw at the wheels, which if we take the original flywheel figure of 180kw gives us a real drivetrain loss of 28% on the quoted figures. So something seriously isn't adding up.

Couple explanations for the above:

1. The dyno we were all on read low. (possible)
2. Mitsubishi's claimed KW figure for the Ralliart Magna was lower than their claim. (very unlikely seeing as tho the VRX was already 163kw)

Now if we delve into the 380, and assume a 15% drivetrain loss, 175kw at the flywheel equals 149kw at the wheels. This is pretty consistant we would say with the results seen? So kj's 183kw at the wheels, with a 15% drivetrain loss considered means he's pushing about 210kw at the flywheel.

We could continue this fun with autos now if we want... :woot:.

I know for a fact that the Ralliart produced between 173 and 177 kw. Not the 180 as claimed.

regarding the 175kw engine figure for the 380. its an average. engine figures vary from higher and lower than the 175kw. every engine is different.

I know for a fact that the Ralliart produced between 173 and 177 kw. Not the 180 as claimed.
Good info. But, even if we take the lowest number of 173kw at the flywheel and apply it to the average dyno run of 130kw at the wheels we still get a drivetrain loss of 25%. Furthermore, if we take the lowest figure again of 173kw at the flywheel, and take a figure of 135kw at the wheels for the Ralliart, we still get 22% drivetrain loss. So colour me confused. :nuts:

regarding the 175kw engine figure for the 380. its an average. engine figures vary from higher and lower than the 175kw. every engine is different.

This is true, tho I doubt there would be huge differences. We're probably talking 2 or 3 kilowatts.

Good info. But, even if we take the lowest number of 173kw at the flywheel and apply it to the average dyno run of 130kw at the wheels we still get a drivetrain loss of 25%. Furthermore, if we take the lowest figure again of 173kw at the flywheel, and take a figure of 135kw at the wheels for the Ralliart, we still get 22% drivetrain loss. So colour me confused. :nuts:




When im working out flywheel kws i tend to go the 25% FWD and 33% RWD. Only as a rough guesstimate and as has been mentioned every dyno is different. Some read higher, some lower. I like Steves Mainline dyno to tell you the truth because of the info it requires to punch out its calculations. Gear ratios, final drive, wheel size, tyre size, weather conditions, what you had for breakfast, etc... So if im right with the 152kw im producing on his dyno i should be at roughly 202kw at the fly?

When im working out flywheel kws i tend to go the 25% FWD and 33% RWD. Only as a rough guesstimate and as has been mentioned every dyno is different. Some read higher, some lower. I like Steves Mainline dyno to tell you the truth because of the info it requires to punch out its calculations. Gear ratios, final drive, wheel size, tyre size, weather conditions, what you had for breakfast, etc... So if im right with the 152kw im producing on his dyno i should be at roughly 202kw at the fly?

Those drivetrain losses seem awefully high? kj380 was saying earlier that Steve Knight has advised him that a manual 380 (same manual box as 3rd gen magnas) has a drivetrain loss of 12%, which I didn't think was right anyway...

I've just realised my maths is really bad...

Looks like the moral of the story is that there is only one way to accurately compare ouputs - same dyno same day same conditions.

KJ.

I've just realised my maths is really bad...

lol Remember mine is only a guesstimate! Im only going off what others have told me. Which could be wrong... But i prefer to under estimate than over estimate!

Hopefully someone here is smarter than me...

I've been working out the drivetrain losses like this...

kwatw / kwatfw x 100.

But when you reverse it it doesn't add up. For example...

130 / 180 x 100 = 72.2 (27.8% drivetrain loss)
130 x 27.8% = 166.14 - but this should equal 180?

Where am I going wrong?

Why would a FWD manual have over 50% less drivetrain loss than a RWD manual?I thought the only physical difference was the omission of a tailshaft or is there more missing parts ? Never seen inside a FWD box so i wouldn't have a clue really.

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jenolive/percent1.html

There you go Disciple, that should help you out.

And yes witewalzs, the omission of a tailshaft as well as uni's etc and the fact FWD is everything all in one piece hence the less power loss.

I read that and I'm still confused. Someone explain it to me? Or are you all as confused as I am?

Edit: What i was going to talk about before was Type40's suggestion that a FWD loses 25% through the drivetrain. I was going to say that I thought that was a little high as my car loses around 30% through AWD and manual gearbox.

Working that out as 206kw stock x 30% = 61.8. 206 - 61.8 = 144.2 kilowatts at the wheels stock. This is a little low as there's speculation later model Evos put out more like 210-220kw at the flywheel. Mine now makes 192kwatw x 30% = 57.6. 192 + 57.6 = 249.6kw at the flywheel.

So I think my calculations are correct. Unless someone can prove me wrong.

Simple terms is that you times it by 100 then go lowest figure on top higher figure on the bottom of the fraction


so 100x 51/60 = 83.75%

Yeah so say for our Ralliart Magna example...

100 x 135/180 = 75% so that would mean a 25% drivetrain loss, right?

I read that and I'm still confused. Someone explain it to me? Or are you all as confused as I am?

Disciple,

Try looking at it this way.

If your atf figure is 175kw and your atw figure is 131.5kw, then the calculation of the percentage loss is (175-131.5)/175 = 25%. In other words, what percentage of the starting 175 did you lose.

To go the other way, where you know the atw figure and the % loss and you want to know the atf figure, the calculation is 131.25 x 1/.75 = 131.25 x 1.3333333 (you get the picture with the 3s!) = 175. Where .75 is (1 - .25) and .25 is the % loss expressed as a fraction.

I've bolded the bit where I think you might be going wrong. As Copie sort of says, if you go the other way you have to turn the bit you multiply by upside down.

KJ.

Disciple,

Try looking at it this way.

If your atf figure is 175kw and your atw figure is 131.5kw, then the calculation of the percentage loss is (175-131.5)/175 = 25%. In other words, what percentage of the starting 175 did you lose.

To go the other way, where you know the atw figure and the % loss and you want to know the atf figure, the calculation is 131.25 x .75/1 = 131.25 x 1.3333333 (you get the picture with the 3s!) = 175. Where .75 is (1 - .25) and .25 is the % loss expressed as a fraction.

I've bolded the bit where I think you might be going wrong. As Copie sort of says, if you go the other way you have to turn the bit you multiply by upside down.

KJ.

This is good, but you lost me at .75/1. Anything divided by 1 is itself. So .75 divided by 1 is .75. How did you get 1.333?

This is good, but you lost me at .75/1. Anything divided by 1 is itself. So .75 divided by 1 is .75. how did you get 1.333

Yep, my bad, should have been 1/.75. I got it upside down!

I'll now edit my post and correct the ballsup.

KJ.

Yep, my bad, should have been 1/.75. I got it upside down!

I'll now edit my post and correct the ballsup.

KJ.

Oh, I should have picked up on that... ta.

That new calc makes my numbers look better I think. I'll run my car through...

192kwatw 30% drivetrain loss = 192.30 x 1/0.7 = 192.30 x 1.4285 = 274.7kw atfw. Correct? Please god say yes. lol.

I had my TJ VRX on the dyno at 127kw, same day same dyno another manual TJ VRX spat out 135! And mine had extractors and his didnt, so i think a lot can come down to the induvidual engine. The 135kw reading is only a loss of 18% which is pretty good, i still believe my car was hampered by it being strapped down poorly.

Still would love to see a manual totally stock 380 put on a dyno, then follow it with a stock auto 380, would help out a bit.

Drivetrain loss should be a constant tho shouldn't it?

Oh, I should have picked up on that... ta.

That new calc makes my numbers look better I think. I'll run my car through...

192kwatw 30% drivetrain loss = 192.30 x 1/0.7 = 192.30 x 1.4285 = 274.7kw atfw. Correct? Please god say yes. lol.

Yep, spot on mate.

30% loss due to AWD I guess.

KJ.

Drivetrain loss should be a constant tho shouldn't it?

As with engines tolerances on the parts in a drive line also vary (as with anything mechanical), then theres things like viscosity of all the oils etc...

never mind.

I can see that the drivetrain losses in an auto 380 are 20-21%.... (wrt the engine)

My dyno operator measured the engine kw for me.

Engine......171.7
ATW.........136.7


Mystery solved....:)


That is a stock auto 380 GT with no mods, except snorkel.

Expect prolly 3% better on a manual.



.
I may of never ran an engine on a dyno, but without him actually taking the motor out, how did he dyno the motor in the car..

I had my TJ VRX on the dyno at 127kw, same day same dyno another manual TJ VRX spat out 135! And mine had extractors and his didnt, so i think a lot can come down to the induvidual engine. The 135kw reading is only a loss of 18% which is pretty good, i still believe my car was hampered by it being strapped down poorly.

Still would love to see a manual totally stock 380 put on a dyno, then follow it with a stock auto 380, would help out a bit.

That was like the AMC SA dyno day back in 2006. The stock TJ1 exec engine (from the wreckers and high kms) that i had in my car with just the pacemakers and exhaust made 137kw's@wheels, compared to Dans TJ VRX which made 119kw's@wheels


SA AMC- Dyno Days Results

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are the 2006 Dyno Day Results

3.5L:

Peter
Poita
TH Sports Manual
Stock

1st Run: 113kw
2nd Run: 115kw
3rd Run: 114kw

Darren
Moparcm
TJ Ralliart Auto
Mods: Filter, exhaust

1st Run: 129kw
2nd Run: 130kw
3rd Run: 128kw

Dan
DanKrause
TJ VRX Manual
Mods: Stock

1st Run: 119kw
2nd Run: 119kw
3rd Run: 119kw

Jason
Jason VRX
TH Sports Manual
Mods: Extractors, exhaust

1st Run: 136kw
2nd Run: 137kw
3rd Run: 137kw

Derry
Derry
TW VRX AWD Auto
Mods: Ralliart Motor, Exhaust, Headers, CAI

1st Run: 115kw
2nd Run: 116kw
3rd Run: 117kw

3L:

Karen
UNDER8D
TE Manual
Mods: Extractors, K&N Filter and minus the canon

1st Run: 115kw
2nd Run: 115kw
3rd Run: 115kw

never mind.

Jason yours had a tune from Steve Knight on it as well though yeh?

If i end up getting a 380, will only settle for a manual VRX will dyno it, but yeh still love to know what a stocko one makes

Jason yours had a tune from Steve Knight on it as well though yeh?

If i end up getting a 380, will only settle for a manual VRX will dyno it, but yeh still love to know what a stocko one makes

At the time those dyno runs were done it was running a base "tune" which had stock fueling, but more timing and speedlimiter removed (in a spare ecu) due to it being a "Stop gap" engine until id built a new one.

I can see that the drivetrain losses in an auto 380 are 20-21%.... (wrt the engine)

My dyno operator measured the engine kw for me.

Engine......171.7
ATW.........136.7


Mystery solved....:)


That is a stock auto 380 GT with no mods, except snorkel.

Expect prolly 3% better on a manual.



.

Dunno about the manual being only 3% less loss than an auto.

Steve Knight reckons the manual loses only half as much as the auto, something around 12% v 25%.

And if we take your auto loss as 20% and go with 3% less for a manual, then I'm losing 17%, which means with 183kw atw I'm supposedly putting out 220kw atf. As I've said before, this sounds too high considering the relatively minor mods I have done.

KJ.

never mind.

With all due respect mate,

you are claiming almost the same atw power output NA, as a supercharged 380, (Foozrcool's)

So yes, your figures should be pretty close to 230kw atf if you have 183 atw.

Though something is seriously wrong in that comparison, (someone's numbers aren't quite right?)

Yes this is what I am trying to get my head around still, how does a normal magna motor (3.5L) with an exhaust and filter make say 130kwatw's which is about the norm for a manual, yet .3L more and its making 50kw more? I just think something is fishy there.

As you have said, thats like saying an exhaust and filter on a 380 manual will take the power from 175kw @ fly to 230 @ fly?

Just....something doesnt seem right in that dyno prinout.

Its probably because the results are skewed, i have this weird feeling that the intake probe was in the wrong spot, or the weather variables werent entered correctly.

I know it cant be true. 183kw atw's as said is like having a supercharged 380, you'd spin the wheels through 3rd, I dont see how a standard 380 motor with an exhaust would do the same?

Although kj380 seems to stand by the results (and who wouldnt if you got a readout like that!) but I would love to know what is amiss.

this is like when i was fishy on Zeros AWD gaining 30kw at all 4's from an SKR tune....knew i was right lol dyno turned out to be faulty...

never mind.

Both KJ's and MYTSGT's dyno sheets (done on same dyno)are posted in the other dyno thread, they show the correction (temp,humidity etc)and other info(motive force) but I don't know much about that stuff.Some of you experienced fellas might be able to enlighten us.

Both similar mods,MYTSGt's putting out 150kw at the wheels but KJ's has extractors and the manual box .So the Extractors plus 50% less drivetrain loss,183kw sounds about right yeah?

Both similar mods,MYTSGt's putting out 150kw at the wheels but KJ's has extractors and the manual box .So the Extractors plus 50% less drivetrain loss,183kw sounds about right yeah?

In reality there's probably around, IMO, 7-10% difference in drivetrain loss between the autos and manuals. If I had the time I'd compare all the 3rd gen dyno results between autos and manuals of the same make of car and find the average difference of drivetrain loss.

questioning skr's credibility is opening a can of worms. I, myself and others that have met with, spoken to and spent time with steve will know that he is a genuine no bs person. If it was his faulty equipment eg. Zero's dyno reading. Steve will be the first to say it was his equipment that was inaccurate. He is an easy man to deal with if you respect his knowledge and is honest with him.

never mind.

Or.... KW are being confused with ....HP.


I would expect a 380 with exhaust and intake mods to produce about 135kw atw.


Maybe 145 kw atw if it's a real good and manual one.



If the Dyno operator selects the wrong "profile", (ShootoutXX), that can make strange results, is my latest advice


.

Mine N/A ran ~163KW ATW so I can't see a problem with KJs output considering he has nearly the same mods I had plus it is manual not auto like mine. He would have marginally less power ATF than my N/A but blitzed my output by 20KW ATW due to less drive losses with the manual.

You might say how can this be with simple intake & exhaust mods comparing to the Magna, but the fact is the 380 ran a 4 cylinder intake standard & has additional cats in the engine pipes both which restrict the engine. The change to the proper V6 intake (90mm) & a set of extractors (to ditch the precats) with exhaust mods will obviously produce a much higher increase when compared to intake & exhaust mods on a Magna.

All the dyno outputs for autos have been consistant. Look at Knotched's dyno chart, throw a set of extractors on that & add 20KW & he would have the same output & mods as mine when N/A. I can't see what is so hard to believe here??

Ah may have found it, what was the tyre pressure on the run? if he has some bullshit amount of psi in them (like 50psi+) it inflates the power figure like no end.

Everything else on his graph looks fine, mainline dont do a shootout mode though so its kind of hard to tell what exactly has been done.

Edit: Seems like his correction JAE is alot different compared to others on the same dyno type

Copie,

Other way around I'm afraid.

On the first trial run Steve reckoned the front tyres were slipping a little on the rollers due to being a little too tight (I was running 38PSI at the time) so Steve let them down a little, to I guess around 34PSI.

He then did another trial run and said to me 'come here, have a look at this'. Fearing the worst (i.e. a crappy low figure) I strolled over and Steve asked me to look at the readout. 179kw it said. Steve thought that was a pretty good figure but also said 'there's more to be had yet, I wasn't really trying, that was just a test run'. He then commenced the main runs, with K&N v stock air filter, cut lower resonator intake blocked / unblocked, and those six runs yielded a minimum of 181kw and a max of 183.6kw.

Steve never gave any indication that he thouht these might not have been true figures, or that he had input any incorrect parameters, or that his dyno was at all inaccurate.

He expained that mine was the first manual 380 he had ever dynoed, and that Mitsu manuals lose half as much from drivetrain losess as autos, roughly 12% v 25%.

I trust Steve and I don't doubt the 183kw atw figure.

As I've explained before, if I give it the berries it spins all the way through both first and second gears and lays a chirpy on the 2nd to 3rd gear change. Even then I can't give it anywhere near full throttle in 1st gear, it just spins or axle tramps.

KJ.

never mind.

never mind.

I just find it really hard to believe that a manual 380 with exhaust mods,
can be in the same league as an auto supercharged version, also with exhaust mods....

If you see what I mean...

I see what you are saying. The actual loss between an auto & manual will never be known exactly but working on all the figures floating round, my car with a manual gearbox should do around 225KW ATW on a dyno with the blower. KJ has 183 so there would be a 40KW gain which would be believable.

never mind.

He could have stuffed it on that basis...:)

I doubt it.

Steve is very experienced at dynoing manual Magnas, especially 3rd gens, and the 380 manual gearbox is pretty much identical to the 3rd gen manual. The major differences are in some of the ratios and the final drive ratio.
When Steve was setting up for my runs he asked me for the 3rd gear & final drive ratios, so I gave him the owners manual opened to the gear ratio page. Now he could have stuffed up and keyed in a wrong figure, but again I doubt it.

Also, I haven't just done exhaust mods, I've done a bit on the intake side as well, see my profile. I've pretty much done all the 'cheap and easy' intake mods, but I haven't bothered with a pod as I'm still not convinced it does anything useful other than increase the induction roar.

I suppose the only way to really test my results is for a dyno shootout between mine and another manual with the same mods. Problem is, there aren't a lot of manuals around, no others in this group in SA (I think - I'm happy to be corrected!), and no others anywhere with the exact same mods as mine.

KJ.

I doubt it.

Steve is very experienced at dynoing manual Magnas, especially 3rd gens, and the 380 manual gearbox is pretty much identical to the 3rd gen manual. The major differences are in some of the ratios and the final drive ratio.
When Steve was setting up for my runs he asked me for the 3rd gear & final drive ratios, so I gave him the owners manual opened to the gear ratio page. Now he could have stuffed up and keyed in a wrong figure, but again I doubt it.

Also, I haven't just done exhaust mods, I've done a bit on the intake side as well, see my profile. I've pretty much done all the 'cheap and easy' intake mods, but I haven't bothered with a pod as I'm still not convinced it does anything useful other than increase the induction roar.

I suppose the only way to really test my results is for a dyno shootout between mine and another manual with the same mods. Problem is, there aren't a lot of manuals around, no others in this group in SA (I think - I'm happy to be corrected!), and no others anywhere with the exact same mods as mine.

KJ.

Sidewinder42 has a manual 380 VRX and is in SA

Blue380 (apart from being all the way up here in NSW) also has a manual with most of the same cheap mods as you, except the extractors.

Sidewinder42 has a manual 380 VRX and is in SA

I didn't know that.

His profile still shows him with a 97 TF 3.0 manual. Funny that, I traded a 96 TE 3.0 manual, same colour, for my 380.

Do you know what mods he has done to his 380?

Would be good to organise a 380 dyno day at SKR, so we can sort the sheep from the goats once and for all!

KJ.

I didn't know that.

His profile still shows him with a 97 TF 3.0 manual. Funny that, I traded a 96 TE 3.0 manual, same colour, for my 380.

Do you know what mods he has done to his 380?

Would be good to organise a 380 dyno day at SKR, so we can sort the sheep from the goats once and for all!

KJ.

He only ventures on to the AMC occasionally, hes more online with the MCA (as he was the co-founder of it). If ya go on there you will see his car.

As far as i know he has only fitted the 90mm airbox inlet, otherwise is stock engine wise.

The thing with dyno days is that no 2 cars are the same (look at all the differences the 3rd gen magnas have when comparing stock Vs stock and when 2 cars have the same mods).

:stoopid:

People are getting too hung up about dyno results.

I've got a dyno chart here from Chip Torque for 134KW ATW for a manual 380 with extractors. Yes, really.

God knows what was done to it...

Unless you are way below someone else's output with the same mods at a dyno day, I just wouldn't worry about it.

never mind.

I agree totally.

I say have a 0-100km/h thread, that becomes more meaningful in day to day driving.

0-100km/h is a bit redundant, altho I see where you're going. These times are skewed so much by wheel spin, clutch slip etc, etc. A more relevant time maybe would be 80km/h-110km/h which would be more indicative of every day driving; passing cars, trucks etc.

Ideally, it's best settled at the strip.

Ideally, it's best settled at the strip.

Yeah,if only we had one here:angry:

never mind.

It's cool to have higher output numbers, but given the weight of the 380 is there really any advantage over the magna? My brother managed to keep up with a 380 in his 3L TF, maybe it was down to a dud driver but remember weight kills power.

It's cool to have higher output numbers, but given the weight of the 380 is there really any advantage over the magna? My brother managed to keep up with a 380 in his 3L TF, maybe it was down to a dud driver but remember weight kills power.

Thats a good effort
My 380 keeps up with and spanks red SS's but that is not what this thread is about
Dyno figures are not scientific so it is always going to be hard to judge

I wish I could get a chance to go to adelaide and see SKR and do a run as I feel that is a true test cause he knows the Magnas/380 so well

Thats a good effort
My 380 keeps up with and spanks red SS's but that is not what this thread is about
Dyno figures are not scientific so it is always going to be hard to judge

I wish I could get a chance to go to adelaide and see SKR and do a run as I feel that is a true test cause he knows Magnas/380 so wellImagine what it would do to Blue or black SS then. somehow i doubt it though. the 380 is not a particularly fast car.

I said 0-100km/h ...cause then noone is breaking speed limits or doing anything stupid in any Aussie state....:)

No point anyone saying their car does 300km/h on blah-blah boost with 550kw atw,

cause... who cares how much over 120 your car can do with all the speed cameras in our lives?



For me...when I am in the left lane in pole position, (trying to get ahead of all the morons who don't keep left), then the only thing I want is instant grunt to the speed limit. Above about 120k's I don't care, it's a waste of technology for most people to get any better than that....not to mention a possible 6 demerit points.


So...what would a dyno run look like with those characteristics?

i.e.....Low down grunt/boost/torque/whatever up to 120 then ...???

That sounds like something I would type!! I agree....mostly, there are times that when I am overtaking I like the grunt to get past someone quick. Yes you are doing over the speed limit for a very short period of time, sometimes by more than one would like, but it is better to have more margin than a head on. If in doubt chicken out! There was this guy who had a V8 Holden Ute MRPSI with twin turbos.The turbos were that big that they had to cut the bonnet and have them poking out. Youtube has it on the dyno putting out (from memory) over 1300rwkw!! I guess what I am saying is where do you draw the line at chasing KW on the dyno?

I guess what I am saying is where do you draw the line at chasing KW on the dyno?

That's a good point.

For me, Ive reached satisfaction that the car is now performing to the expectation I would have from a VRX model. It's not going to be quicker than a Ralliart or manual Sports 3rd Gen but it'll keep them honest. It certainly is very competitive with other NA sedan models up to 2007.

If I ever went further I'd have to do the suspension and brakes to get the same overall balance I'm getting now. Is it worth that? I don't think so. Better off moving to a different car that offers more, at a much greater cost of course.

Thats it, were do you draw the line! These cars are just family cars that we have given,with a nice set of wheels,lowering and some basic engine mods etc,a bit of an edge too to make them our own and more pleasant to drive. There never going to be rocketships and throwing alot of money and horsepower at them is a waste in my opinion(just my opinion).I've said this before but if ya want to go fast and spend money(they go hand in hand)buy a weekend joytoy that ,if choosen correctly, might actually increase in value. At the end of the day lets just appreciate the 380 for what it is, a great weekday/family truckster!:thumbsup:

Thats it, were do you draw the line! These cars are just family cars that we have given,with a nice set of wheels,lowering and some basic engine mods etc,a bit of an edge too to make them our own and more pleasant to drive. There never going to be rocketships and throwing alot of money and horsepower at them is a waste in my opinion(just my opinion).I've said this before but if ya want to go fast and spend money(they go hand in hand)buy a weekend joytoy that ,if choosen correctly, might actually increase in value. At the end of the day lets just appreciate the 380 for what it is, a great weekday/family truckster!:thumbsup:

+ 1:ninja:

Thats it, were do you draw the line! These cars are just family cars that we have given,with a nice set of wheels,lowering and some basic engine mods etc,a bit of an edge too to make them our own and more pleasant to drive. There never going to be rocketships and throwing alot of money and horsepower at them is a waste in my opinion(just my opinion).I've said this before but if ya want to go fast and spend money(they go hand in hand)buy a weekend joytoy that ,if choosen correctly, might actually increase in value. At the end of the day lets just appreciate the 380 for what it is, a great weekday/family truckster!:thumbsup:

Agree with most of what you are saying, but I suppose it depends on how fast you mean by fast.

You're not going to better a Falcon Turbo or a WRX STI unless you spend a bucket load, and then you'll need to upgrade brakes, tyres & suspension as well. But those are the sorts of mods that many of us will do anyway, even without big power increases.

But even without going FI or cracking the motor, and without spending a packet, you can enhance the performance quite a bit and make a 380 (especially a manual) 'fast enough' for most, and still have a comfortable, reliable, quiet, good handling 'family truckster'.

Mine now goes quick enough to give most SS Crummydores a run for their money, maybe not from a standing start (FWD traction issues), but definitely in 'roll on' acceleration from anything over 40km/h.

Going from memory, and not counting the earlier and/or too droney exhaust/muffler mods and other failed experiments, this is what I have spent on mine so far. Performance enhancing mods only, all approximate figures, and all including fitting where I paid for it rather than doing it myself:

Extractors $800
Hi flow third cat $200
Dual exhausts $500
90 mm snorkel $100
K&N air filter $100
Cut lower resonator
with tube to front bar $50
Enlarged inlet hole free
Total $1750

Even then you could argue that the K&N and/or the cut lower resonator do little or nothing to increase max power, but I reckon they both improve low & midrange torque, responsiveness and driveability.

I don't consider $1750 much to turn a reasonably well performing family truckster into a very good performing family truckster.

KJ.

Dual exhausts $500


KJ.

Dual exhausts for $500!! Man that is cheap!
I guess what we are really doing here is more refinement rather than serious modification (Foozr and other in the blower brigade excluded of course). We like to measure our improvements on the dyno like anyone else. I believe like KJ that there are significant improvements that can be made at not much cost. I have always had manuals until now (with the exception of an auto XA V8 Foulcoon way back when) and many of my friends rushed to the cardiac ward when they heard I had bought a tippy. I dont know if there is as much loss at the wheels as is made out but I would be interested to see. If anyone in Sydney is contemplating trying to organise a dyno power day let me know. There may be others interested too.

Dual exhausts for $500!! Man that is cheap!


Split from just behind the petrol tank only, not from the extractors back. Including two VE Crummydore SV6 straight through mufflers. And I supplied the tips ($25 each from Ripco, marked down from $60 each), so I suppose I should add another $50 to the cost. As I've said before, the exhaust bloke I now use is a good 'un, does a top job at low prices, and he has done a few things for me at no charge.

KJ.

Yeah KJ thats a reasonable amount ,no issues there mate but i think you have pretty much reached that line we are talking about for engine mods.Why go further?

Split from just behind the petrol tank only, not from the extractors back. Including two VE Crummydore SV6 straight through mufflers. And I supplied the tips ($25 each from Ripco, marked down from $60 each), so I suppose I should add another $50 to the cost. As I've said before, the exhaust bloke I now use is a good 'un, does a top job at low prices, and he has done a few things for me at no charge.

KJ.

Do you reckon there is much benefit in going duals from there as opposed to a decent single muffler, after all it is only as good as the smallest diameter orifice. I have been told that on the factory setup just behind the rear muffler it drops down in diameter and that when fitting a new muffler there you cut off that section and it will improve flow.

never mind.

Do you reckon there is much benefit in going duals from there as opposed to a decent single muffler, after all it is only as good as the smallest diameter orifice. I have been told that on the factory setup just behind the rear muffler it drops down in diameter and that when fitting a new muffler there you cut off that section and it will improve flow.

I doubt if the dual exhausts contribute much if anything to power or torque.

I got them done mainly for appearance & aesthetics, I reckon duals look much more 'balanced' and classier than a single outlet.

And also for the sound, both the burble at idle and the roar at WOT. It sounds really good, I'll get a clip up one day.

KJ.

380 with blower and good shoes can beat a Xr6t mate...

have a good long look at these two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9vtR0VmuGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwlutWC59sQ


I would love to see what yours can do KJ....I reckon it might surprise you.:)

Yeah thats pretty quick Blackstar,but unfortunately the other 2 cars mentioned have a huge scope for big horsepower increases for not alot of money. I hear its not hard to get XR6T's to run 12's.

never mind.

Yeah I agree,you need to find a happy medium,especially for your daily driver.As for AWD,I wonder if anyones tried using the Territory turbo AWD driveline in a Falcon? Imagine that critter!:noway:

Yeah I agree,you need to find a happy medium,especially for your daily driver.As for AWD,I wonder if anyones tried using the Territory turbo AWD driveline in a Falcon? Imagine that critter!:noway:

I dont think the Ford guys have cottoned on to that chestnut yet
Stormie I have to disagree as in manual mode (on a slush box) from 60 to 100 I have hauled butt and surprised said SS's and XR8's

Standing start it gets bogged down a bit

At the end of the day my car is my Shopping cart/Baby/wife transport if I wanted an performance auto I would have brought me one
but the 380 does make a nice sleeper :ninja:

I know for a fact that the Ralliart produced between 173 and 177 kw. Not the 180 as claimed.

Sorry to back track on this. I've been away in Europe for a few weeks. In race engine building we consider the affordable engine dynos to have an accuracy of about 2% if the dyno cell is set up very well. Wheel dynos are far less accurate due mainly to changing friction between tyres and rollers. To combat the wild power fluctuations very heavy filtering, electronic fudging, is employed to smooth the recorded power figures. Add to that things like tyre pressure, tread depth, strap tension, operator weight and seat position in the car, etc there are lots of things that change the numbers. On top of that how much ex gas being sucked in by poor ventilation, oil temp in engine and gearbox. Just different batches of fuel can produce differences of 2%. Graham's analogy is that wheel dynos are like measuring with a length of elastic.

When we were inspecting the 380 engine we reckoned that it should have made about 190kw, or maybe a bit more. That was with Magna ex manifolds and Magna VRX exhaust. With the cams advanced and remapped it would be close to 200kw.

Regarding the Ralliart's claimed 180kw Graham run the numbers past a true insider, not the R & D tea boy. The 180kw could have been believable but after flowing the Ralliart heads and not finding a gain, in fact there was a loss, he figured they were exaggerated by nearly 10kw. There was 5kw in the cam, 2kw in the headers and perhaps 2-3kw in more aggressive mapping over the stock engine.

Anyhow it turns out that the engine made 173kw and it seems that was probably on the pre-production 10:1 comp ratio, so dropping to 9.4:1 would have knocked it 1-2kw. With the longer duration prototype cam fitted they got 182kw.

Cheers,
Alan

Sorry to back track on this. I've been away in Europe for a few weeks. In race engine building we consider the affordable engine dynos to have an accuracy of about 2% if the dyno cell is set up very well. Wheel dynos are far less accurate due mainly to changing friction between tyres and rollers. To combat the wild power fluctuations very heavy filtering, electronic fudging, is employed to smooth the recorded power figures. Add to that things like tyre pressure, tread depth, strap tension, operator weight and seat position in the car, etc there are lots of things that change the numbers. On top of that how much ex gas being sucked in by poor ventilation, oil temp in engine and gearbox. Just different batches of fuel can produce differences of 2%. Graham's analogy is that wheel dynos are like measuring with a length of elastic.

When we were inspecting the 380 engine we reckoned that it should have made about 190kw, or maybe a bit more. That was with Magna ex manifolds and Magna VRX exhaust. With the cams advanced and remapped it would be close to 200kw.

Regarding the Ralliart's claimed 180kw Graham run the numbers past a true insider, not the R & D tea boy. The 180kw could have been believable but after flowing the Ralliart heads and not finding a gain, in fact there was a loss, he figured they were exaggerated by nearly 10kw. There was 5kw in the cam, 2kw in the headers and perhaps 2-3kw in more aggressive mapping over the stock engine.

Anyhow it turns out that the engine made 173kw and it seems that was probably on the pre-production 10:1 comp ratio, so dropping to 9.4:1 would have knocked it 1-2kw. With the longer duration prototype cam fitted they got 182kw.

Cheers,
Alan
Alan Not being technical in any way. Are you saying the standard 380 engine puts out 190kw? and the Ralliart 180kw?
Am I misreading your figures
Cheeers

Alan Not being technical in any way. Are you saying the standard 380 engine puts out 190kw? and the Ralliart 180kw?
Am I misreading your figures
Cheeers

Yes, 190kw is what we reckon using Magna cast iron ex manifolds and Magna VRX exhaust which are both less restrictive than the factory 380.

No, regarding the Ralliart the official insider numbers were 173kw and it seems that may have been on 10:1 comp ratio. If so there would be 1-2kw less on the final 9.4:1 the factory went with.

Cheers,
Alan

There was 5kw in the cam, 2kw in the headers and perhaps 2-3kw in more aggressive mapping over the stock engine.

Cheers,
Alan

It really makes you wonder is it all worth it for those figures. OK if you are in a controlled formula, yes, every little bit helps, but crikey! in a road car you have gotta wonder lol

never mind.

Just been reading on the Ford forums that if the wheels aren't strapped down properly it can add up to 20% more atw Kw on the chart.

That's a serious amount of possible error, and a very easy error to make.

These test engines would have been on a proper engine dyno. Not tested in car with a wheel dyno.

Graham must not be talking to the same people that some of us have spoken to... Though those people were the ones that made the pie, not just have their fingers in it.

Yes, 190kw is what we reckon using Magna cast iron ex manifolds and Magna VRX exhaust which are both less restrictive than the factory 380.


Cheers,
Alan

Alan,

So would the quoted stock figure for a 380 of 175kw be correct?

Due to the fitment of cats in the exhaust manifolds and a restrictive tri-flow muffler, knocking it down from 190kw.

Some here are claiming that the true output of the stock production 380 motor is well over 175kw and more like 185kw or even 190kw.

KJ.

Alan,

So would the quoted stock figure for a 380 of 175kw be correct?

Due to the fitment of cats in the exhaust manifolds and a restrictive tri-flow muffler, knocking it down from 190kw.

Some here are claiming that the true output of the stock production 380 motor is well over 175kw and more like 185kw or even 190kw.

KJ.

Well thats the thing, even if it was close to 200kw at the flywheel that means your only loosing 17kw through the manual GB....not possible....(and yes I still dont think you can make 183kw, sorry if i seem like an ass about it)

I dont really know what all the fuss is actually. You guys are obviously too young to have driven old 1200cc Corollas or Dato's either that or you are too old to remember. They only put out around 30-40kw at the fly! You had to flog the guts out of them just to get them to go at all. Ahh dem were da dayz. "the kingswood!! your not taking the Kingswood!! I just chrome plated the dipstick!!" Seriously though short of pulling a motor out and testing one at the fly you are not going to get an accurate reading, there are just way to many variables with drive on dynos, as has been regaled on numerous occasions here. They are, however a good device to assist in tuning. It is also good fun to have a dyno power day and compare each others cars. At least there you are generally on a level playing field.

;1140549']Well thats the thing, even if it was close to 200kw at the flywheel that means your only loosing 17kw through the manual GB....not possible....(and yes I still dont think you can make 183kw, sorry if i seem like an ass about it)

Mate they are talking stock flywheel figures here, KJ would be around 225KW at the flywheel ~ 183KW ATW.

I dont really know what all the fuss is actually. You guys are obviously too young to have driven old 1200cc Corollas or Dato's either that or you are too old to remember. They only put out around 30-40kw at the fly! You had to flog the guts out of them just to get them to go at all. Ahh dem were da dayz. "the kingswood!! your not taking the Kingswood!! I just chrome plated the dipstick!!" Seriously though short of pulling a motor out and testing one at the fly you are not going to get an accurate reading, there are just way to many variables with drive on dynos, as has been regaled on numerous occasions here. They are, however a good device to assist in tuning. It is also good fun to have a dyno power day and compare each others cars. At least there you are generally on a level playing field.

Mate my first car was a 180B with twin SU's off the SSS lol

Mate they are talking stock flywheel figures here, KJ would be around 225KW at the flywheel ~ 183KW ATW.

hahah....
yes...
*again* how does a 175kw @ fly motor, go to 225kw @ fly? with an exhaust thats SO restrictive its stopping 50kw?
It's simply not possible. and there is something amiss.

As said just above, with a magna exhaust it made 190kw at the fly. (the test 380 motors)

Even though the heads are a much better design, and its bigger then a 3.5L by .3L how does it make 50kw MORE at the WHEELS from just an exhaust, compared to a 3.5L manual which we all know puts out between 125-130kw at the wheels

Am I the only one here calling foul on this dyno figure? or what, cause it seems like im in a world of my own

;1140600']hahah....
yes...
*again* how does a 175kw @ fly motor, go to 225kw @ fly? with an exhaust thats SO restrictive its stopping 50kw?
It's simply not possible. and there is something amiss.

As said just above, with a magna exhaust it made 190kw at the fly. (the test 380 motors)

Even though the heads are a much better design, and its bigger then a 3.5L by .3L how does it make 50kw MORE at the WHEELS from just an exhaust, compared to a 3.5L manual which we all know puts out between 125-130kw at the wheels

Am I the only one here calling foul on this dyno figure? or what, cause it seems like im in a world of my own

Good point :think:

;1140600']hahah....
yes...
*again* how does a 175kw @ fly motor, go to 225kw @ fly? with an exhaust thats SO restrictive its stopping 50kw?
It's simply not possible. and there is something amiss.

As said just above, with a magna exhaust it made 190kw at the fly. (the test 380 motors)

Even though the heads are a much better design, and its bigger then a 3.5L by .3L how does it make 50kw MORE at the WHEELS from just an exhaust, compared to a 3.5L manual which we all know puts out between 125-130kw at the wheels

Am I the only one here calling foul on this dyno figure? or what, cause it seems like im in a world of my own

:doh: Sorry I meant 210KW at the flywheel. This is a 35KW increase which is very achievable, there is about 20KW in the extractors when the precats are removed, open up the restrictive exhaust 10KW & another 5 or so putting the V6 Galant intake on instead of the 4 cylinder one that comes stock.

My car N/A (auto not manual) had 163KW ATW ~ 215 - 220 KW at the flywheel. I also had the bigger throttle body & a piggyback ecu on top of KJ.

:doh: Sorry I meant 210KW at the flywheel. This is a 35KW increase which is very achievable, there is about 20KW in the extractors when the precats are removed open up the restrictive exhaust 10KW & another 5 or so putting the V6 Galant intake on instead of the 4 cylinder one that comes stock.

My car stock had 163KW ATW ~ 215 - 220 KW at the flywheel. I also had the bigger throttle body & a piggyback ecu on top of KJ.

Just a point to make here...

The 2 cats that are bolted to the exhaust manifold are the only functioning cats on the car.

The centre one is a "white" cat that has no precious metals in it. It is there only to act as a muffler of sorts and helps the car meet noise emissions. Not pollution emissions. So if you remove the 2 on the manifolds there is no effective cat.

Just a point to make here...

The 2 cats that are bolted to the exhaust manifold are the only functioning cats on the car.

The centre one is a "white" cat that has no precious metals in it. It is there only to act as a muffler of sorts and helps the car meet noise emissions. Not pollution emissions. So if you remove the 2 on the manifolds there is no effective cat.

Correct & KJ & myself have both had a metalcat installed along with the extractors.

:doh: Sorry I meant 210KW at the flywheel. This is a 35KW increase which is very achievable, there is about 20KW in the extractors when the precats are removed, open up the restrictive exhaust 10KW & another 5 or so putting the V6 Galant intake on instead of the 4 cylinder one that comes stock.

My car stock had 163KW ATW ~ 215 - 220 KW at the flywheel. I also had the bigger throttle body & a piggyback ecu on top of KJ.

163kwatw in a stock auto 380? :wtf: That can't be right...

I gotta go with Tufftr a bit here... My car gained like 40kwatw with exhaust and tune and it's turbo, so the boost was wound up a bit. That sorta power in an atmo car is a bit hard to believe unless it's an LSx engine.

The 20kw in the extractors even seems weird. Alan J even says with standard magna manifolds it made 190kw at the fly. and the standard magna manifolds actually are not too bad of a design. tiny amount of power to gain with extractors. I know you can gain about 20HP on the TT 3000GT's as they also run precats....but on an NA....Until I see more then this one car doing it (on different dynos too...) then my opinion will change.


For all those doubters about my SKR dyno result of 183kw, this is pretty much what I have done to my 380.

Main differences being I haven't installed 380 cams coz I already have 'em (doh!), and I haven't had a reflash coz firstly no-one, not even Steve, can reflash a 380, and secondly coz Steve reckoned the ECU had adapted to my mods anyway and a reflash or piggyback wouldn't do any better. Other difference is that I have opened up the intake side a bit.

Both Type40 and I run manuals, so taking into account the larger capacity (only .3l I admit) and the improvements of the 6G75 over the 6G74 (better heads, coil packs, higher compression ratio etc), if Type40 is getting 150kw+ on the same dyno, then my 183kw figure seems reasonable.

Point is, the same simple, basic & relatively cheap mods that work for a 6G74 also work for a 6G75, if not more so.

KJ.

In response to this;
Thats still 33kw more, without actually being tuned properly for it. I still call foul, but hey, if more start doing this then ill eat my hat. (note, i dont actually wear a hat, too big for my head)

The heads are the only improvement over the 74. The coil packs dont really do much, as long as it gets good spark...it gets good spark.... and the higher compression also accounts for sweet FA.

at the end of the day though, may be 183kw (lets say) but the 380 still weights as much as a small elephant, so power to weight really...

I still wanna see more manual 380's dynoed...

;1140621']The 20kw in the extractors even seems weird. Alan J even says with standard magna manifolds it made 190kw at the fly. and the standard magna manifolds actually are not too bad of a design. tiny amount of power to gain with extractors. I know you can gain about 20HP on the TT 3000GT's as they also run precats....but on an NA....Until I see more then this one car doing it (on different dynos too...) then my opinion will change.



In response to this;
Thats still 33kw more, without actually being tuned properly for it. I still call foul, but hey, if more start doing this then ill eat my hat. (note, i dont actually wear a hat, too big for my head)

The heads are the only improvement over the 74. The coil packs dont really do much, as long as it gets good spark...it gets good spark.... and the higher compression also accounts for sweet FA.

at the end of the day though, may be 183kw (lets say) but the 380 still weights as much as a small elephant, so power to weight really...

I still wanna see more manual 380's dynoed...

I think the 380s only weigh an extra 100kg over a TW Magna. Still pretty light compared to a VE or a Falcon

well my car made 150kw atw with just an cat back exhaust. hopefully getting tuned soon.

163kwatw in a stock auto 380? :wtf: That can't be right...

I gotta go with Tufftr a bit here... My car gained like 40kwatw with exhaust and tune and it's turbo, so the boost was wound up a bit. That sorta power in an atmo car is a bit hard to believe unless it's an LSx engine.

Ok so now all the dynos around oz are telling lies :tired: I spose 193KW ATW supercharged can't be true either???

I'm over it :io:

well my car made 150kw atw with just an cat back exhaust. hopefully getting tuned soon.

well will be very keen to see what getting rid of these precats do, or even better yet extractors. cause if they dont give you at least 15kw then yes something is amiss

foorzacool - well....yes! Your only making 10kw more then him and all hes done is an exhaust? like come on....as if that doesnt sound fishy.

if anything, your dyno seems spot on for what you have going on. Compare it (lets say) to sprintex supercharged magnas making about 170kw atw's manual....193kw seems perfect for the bigger motor you have...

now come to think of it, a manual 380 with an exhaust will technically be more powerful then a supercharged 3.5L magna? weird..

;1140638']well will be very keen to see what getting rid of these precats do, or even better yet extractors. cause if they dont give you at least 15kw then yes something is amiss

foorzacool - well....yes! Your only making 10kw more then him and all hes done is an exhaust? like come on....as if that doesnt sound fishy.

if anything, your dyno seems spot on for what you have going on. Compare it (lets say) to sprintex supercharged magnas making about 170kw atw's manual....193kw seems perfect for the bigger motor you have...

now come to think of it, a manual 380 with an exhaust will technically be more powerful then a supercharged 3.5L magna? weird..

Don't forget mine is auto not manual just to throw more doubt in there for you :ninja:

Ok so now all the dynos around oz are telling lies :tired: I spose 193KW ATW supercharged can't be true either???

I'm over it :io:

You don't think 163kwatw in a stock auto 380 is a rather high number? I mean 3rd gen stock auto Magnas put out around 110-115kwatw, so the 380, with 0.3L more capacity makes another 50-55kwatw? :nuts:

Not having a go at you mate, it just seems really high to me...

Fooz, that 163Kw figure was with a full exhaust system and intake mods wasnt it? Then that sounds about right

;1140600']

hahah....
yes...
*again* how does a 175kw @ fly motor, go to 225kw @ fly? with an exhaust thats SO restrictive its stopping 50kw?
It's simply not possible. and there is something amiss.

As said just above, with a magna exhaust it made 190kw at the fly. (the test 380 motors)

Even though the heads are a much better design, and its bigger then a 3.5L by .3L how does it make 50kw MORE at the WHEELS from just an exhaust, compared to a 3.5L manual which we all know puts out between 125-130kw at the wheels

Am I the only one here calling foul on this dyno figure? or what, cause it seems like im in a world of my own
:stoopid:

I think its all good discussion (for once) but I really cannot take this one dyno sheet for real until I see more.

Also asking here, but didnt the 3.5L 5sp autos put down approx 7kw less?

74 with cams, exhaust, tune, and intake cannot pass its claimed "flywheel" figure, yet a 380 with exhaust and intake (yes already has the cams) and NO tune....passes the factory rating easily.

Anyway I've made my point, now, moar 380 manual dyno sheets gogogogogog

ps i went up half a litre, 2x cams, x 2 valves and tune and didnt even gain 50kw, if that wont i still struggle to see how tis does

;1140638']well will be very keen to see what getting rid of these precats do, or even better yet extractors. cause if they dont give you at least 15kw then yes something is amiss

foorzacool - well....yes! Your only making 10kw more then him and all hes done is an exhaust? like come on....as if that doesnt sound fishy.

if anything, your dyno seems spot on for what you have going on. Compare it (lets say) to sprintex supercharged magnas making about 170kw atw's manual....193kw seems perfect for the bigger motor you have...

now come to think of it, a manual 380 with an exhaust will technically be more powerful then a supercharged 3.5L magna? weird..

This is the bit that some people here seem to get hung up on.

I haven't just 'done an exhaust', I've also opened up the intake side of things a fair bit. Put the two together, understand that the stock 380 exhaust is much more restrictive than the stock 3rd gen exhaust (due to the two pre-cats in the exhaust manifolds), add in that the 380 intake is more 'strangled' than the 3rd gen intake, add in that I run 98 RON all the time and the 380 ECU adapts to this by advancing the timing a bit whereas the 3rd gen ECU doesn't, add in manual v auto,and hey presto 183kw atw is not fishy at all.

KJ.

This is the bit that some people here seem to get hung up on.

I haven't just 'done an exhaust', I've also opened up the intake side of things a fair bit. Put the two together, understand that the stock 380 exhaust is much more restrictive than the stock 3rd gen exhaust (due to the two pre-cats in the exhaust manifolds), add in that the 380 intake is more 'strangled' than the 3rd gen intake, add in that I run 98 RON all the time and the 380 ECU adapts to this by advancing the timing a bit whereas the 3rd gen ECU doesn't, add in manual v auto,and hey presto 183kw atw is not fishy at all.

KJ.


So where did Mitsubishi find this extra grunt? 0.3L, and cams?

So where did Mitsubishi find this extra grunt? 0.3L, and cams?

+ better heads and ECU

I'm willing to believe most of this, but, Mitsubishi must have really under quoted the power figure of this 3.8L engine man...

This is the bit that some people here seem to get hung up on.

I haven't just 'done an exhaust', I've also opened up the intake side of things a fair bit. Put the two together, understand that the stock 380 exhaust is much more restrictive than the stock 3rd gen exhaust (due to the two pre-cats in the exhaust manifolds), add in that the 380 intake is more 'strangled' than the 3rd gen intake, add in that I run 98 RON all the time and the 380 ECU adapts to this by advancing the timing a bit whereas the 3rd gen ECU doesn't, add in manual v auto,and hey presto 183kw atw is not fishy at all.

KJ.

1) your intake would be no different to a CAI or a random pipe on a 3rd gen intake - proven to give sweet FA results
2) doing a full exhaust on an LS1 doesnt even net more then 10kws without a tune, how does this, with half the power, gain twice as much, and as you saw, Alan J tested the motor with magna manifolds and the motor made 190kw.
3) Even so, 3rd gens which have been tuned by SKR are being tuned for 98, so, fair playing ground.

lol @ hey presto, yeah, certainly seems like some magic was weaved thats for sure.

Can you not understand how this seems odd? how youve done an exhaust, put a bigger pipe on the intake and are netting close to 50kw at the fly figures?

If the motor was actually 190kw Paul, and kj is now at say 220 for arguments sake, that's 30kw at the flywheel, which is around 22kwatw. I could almost believe that...

Fooz, that 163Kw figure was with a full exhaust system and intake mods wasnt it? Then that sounds about right

Yeah mate & piggyback ecu.

Yeah mate & piggyback ecu.

Fooz, your original post read...


My car stock (auto not manual) had 163KW ATW ~ 215 - 220 KW at the flywheel

So it wasn't stock, it was modified?

Fooz, your original post read...



So it wasn't stock, it was modified?

Oops typo :doh: I meant N/A (modified)

never mind.

I'm willing to believe most of this, but, Mitsubishi must have really under quoted the power figure of this 3.8L engine man...

Seems as though they may have, just waiting for AlanJ to answer one of my earlier questions.

If we assume that the true atf output of the 6G75 is 185kw and not 175kw, then the comparision between Type40s improved ouputs and mine after our relatively basic mods gets very close.

Stock 6G74 155kw atf, modified 150kw atw
Stock 6G75 185kw atf, modified 183kw atw

So if the stock 6G75 output really is understated by as much as some think it is, those effectively calling BS on me may as well also call BS on Type40.

But even if the stock output of the 6G75 is not that badly understated, my point is that the reason it is 'only' 175kw atf is because all the evidence tells us that it is strangled/restricted/detuned more than a 6G74, so removing those restrictions will result in a greater increase in power (proportionately) than similar mods to a 6G74.

KJ.

Oops typo :doh: I meant N/A (modified)

Phew - makes more sense now. 163kwatw with those mods in an auto sounds feasible to me because of the tune. 30kwatw gain with the blower is a nice gain and easily believeable. You have a nice ride mate.

What dyno did you run your car on kj380? Considered running it on another dyno which has a well known reputation for comparison's sake?

What dyno did you run your car on kj380? Considered running it on another dyno which has a well known reputation for comparison's sake?

I ran it on SKR's dyno.

No better reputation around these parts AFAIK.

KJ.

Stock 6G74 155kw atf, modified 150kw atw
Stock 6G75 185kw atf, modified 183kw atw

So if the stock 6G75 output really is understated by as much as some think it is, those effectively calling BS on me may as well also call BS on Type40.
KJ.
The other thing is the 6G74 didn't have a 4 cylinder intake & precats on the exhaust manifolds to make them comply with the latest ADR stuff. Any intake/exhaust mod to a 380 has to net more gain than a Magna, it's common sense.


Phew - makes more sense now. 163kwatw with those mods in an auto sounds feasible to me because of the tune. 30kwatw gain with the blower is a nice gain and easily believeable. You have a nice ride mate.

Ah a believer ...... thanks mate ;)

Seems as though they may have, just waiting for AlanJ to answer one of my earlier questions.

If we assume that the true atf output of the 6G75 is 185kw and not 175kw, then the comparision between Type40s improved ouputs and mine after our relatively basic mods gets very close.

Stock 6G74 (Sports/VR/VR-X) 163kw atf, modified 152kw atw
Stock 6G75 185kw atf, modified 183kw atw

So if the stock 6G75 output really is understated by as much as some think it is, those effectively calling BS on me may as well also call BS on Type40.

But even if the stock output of the 6G75 is not that badly understated, my point is that the reason it is 'only' 175kw atf is because all the evidence tells us that it is strangled/restricted/detuned more than a 6G74, so removing those restrictions will result in a greater increase in power (proportionately) than similar mods to a 6G74.

KJ.

Fixed for ya... :)

The other thing is the 6G74 didn't have a 4 cylinder intake & precats on the exhaust manifolds to make them comply with the latest ADR stuff. Any intake/exhaust mod to a 380 has to net more gain than a Magna, it's common sense.



Ah a believer ...... thanks mate ;)

Yeah i reckon ive proved time and time again that the stock magna "snorkel" doesnt hold back power as bad as people used to say it did.

The stock 380 "snorkel" is a joke and was fitted to address a ADR noise issue.

Also the adelaide built NAS diamantes especially the "california spec" models had the 3 cats like a 380 and i dont think they were power rated any lower than normal.

What dyno did you run your car on kj380? Considered running it on another dyno which has a well known reputation for comparison's sake?

I believe Dyno Dynamics have the best reputation from an article I read somewhere on here.

An example of accuracy would be between Chip Torque Nerang & CNJ Motorsport Underwood. Both Dyno Dynamics dynos, Knotched had his car tuned at Chiptorque & then did a run at CNJ (my tuners) & the reading was within 1KW which shows they are consistant.

Fixed for ya... :)

Thanks mate, forgot that Type40 has a VR with stock 163kw.

Also forgot to add that both Type40s and my dyno runs were on the SKR dyno.

Different days, slightly different conditions, but same dyno & same operator.

KJ.

Thanks mate, forgot that Type40 has a VR with stock 163kw.

Also forgot to add that both Type40s and my dyno runs were on the SKR dyno.

Different days, slightly different conditions, but same dyno & same operator.

KJ.

as was mine :) and i had similar figures to Type40's (0.6kw difference) with the same tune and literally the same mods (slightly different intake, but very similar exhaust)....

as was mine :) and i had similar figures to Type40's (0.6kw difference) with the same tune and literally the same mods....

If that's not consistent i don't know what is...

Regarding the reasons why manufacturers distort actual power figures is complex but generally gets down to internal politics and marketing.

When Ford Aust spent so much developing the 5.4 V8 they couldn't allow the turbo 6 look better so they had to down rate the BA turbo to 240kw.

Holden did the same thing with the blower 3.8. To keep V8 sales moving they rated the blower at only 171kw from memory.(That gives some idea of how inflated some of these 380 wheel dyno numbers are though doesn't it?)

So did Mitsubishi face similar issues? Was Japan worried that the 3.8 MIVEC rated at 184kw in the Pajero would look silly and move sales to Toyota or Nissan if a non-MIVEC 3.8 from Oz had a similar putput? Or was OZ management not wanting to make Japan's efforts look silly? Remember there was a lot of internal disputes at the time. Aust went with the Bosch ECU rather than a Mitsubishi unit and that caused upsets, Aust was badly in debt and needed cash etc.

Keep in mind that dyno numbers can be legally fudged to give what you want to some extent. There are a multitude of test standards that will allow you to throw up all sorts of numbers. Without getting into the tech just take simple unleaded petrol. By the Research test standard it will rate about 91 octane but by the Motor standard it will be anything from 81 to 84 octane.

From my experience I would say that 380 wheel dyno figures above 160-165 kw would be high. Thats for a modded engine with big intake, headers, high flow CAT, remap and on 95-98 fuel.

Cheers,
Alan

Yeah i reckon ive proved time and time again that the stock magna "snorkel" doesnt hold back power as bad as people used to say it did.

Agreed. I've only ever said that there was a small but noticable difference in improving over the stock snorkel on a Magna.

Interesting thread by the way guys, keep it up. :D

never mind.

Regarding the reasons why manufacturers distort actual power figures is complex but generally gets down to internal politics and marketing.

When Ford Aust spent so much developing the 5.4 V8 they couldn't allow the turbo 6 look better so they had to down rate the BA turbo to 240kw.

Holden did the same thing with the blower 3.8. To keep V8 sales moving they rated the blower at only 171kw from memory.(That gives some idea of how inflated some of these 380 wheel dyno numbers are though doesn't it?)

So did Mitsubishi face similar issues? Was Japan worried that the 3.8 MIVEC rated at 184kw in the Pajero would look silly and move sales to Toyota or Nissan if a non-MIVEC 3.8 from Oz had a similar putput? Or was OZ management not wanting to make Japan's efforts look silly? Remember there was a lot of internal disputes at the time. Aust went with the Bosch ECU rather than a Mitsubishi unit and that caused upsets, Aust was badly in debt and needed cash etc.

Keep in mind that dyno numbers can be legally fudged to give what you want to some extent. There are a multitude of test standards that will allow you to throw up all sorts of numbers. Without getting into the tech just take simple unleaded petrol. By the Research test standard it will rate about 91 octane but by the Motor standard it will be anything from 81 to 84 octane.

From my experience I would say that 380 wheel dyno figures above 160-165 kw would be high. Thats for a modded engine with big intake, headers, high flow CAT, remap and on 95-98 fuel.

Cheers,
Alan


Thanks Alan,

Can you answer two more questions for me/us?

Is the stock quoted 'official' figure for the 380 6G75 of 175kw atf about right, overstated or understated?

What in your opinion is the correct 'average' figure?

Also, where you say '380 wheel dyno figures above 160-165 kw would be high', is that for a manual or an auto?

KJ.

Thanks Alan,

Can you answer two more questions for me/us?

Is the stock quoted 'official' figure for the 380 6G75 of 175kw atf about right, overstated or understated?

What in your opinion is the correct 'average' figure?

Also, where you say '380 wheel dyno figures above 160-165 kw would be high', is that for a manual or an auto?

KJ.

When Graham got the 380 engine to look into we had a close looksee at everything and reckoned that 175kw was conservative to say the least. Maybe changes to exhaust regulations forced the factory into a more restrictive system than the VR/VRX Magna but we reckoned the 380 engine with unrestricted intake, advanced cams, Magna ex manifolds and Magna VR/VRX muffler should make 190kw and perhaps a bit more.

Graham has just got his hands on factory dyno curves and there is a 17-20 odd kw difference at lower rpm between the Oz 380 and the VRX/GT sold in NZ. So he is now wondering why that is. That engine is rated 180kw and that was supposed to be because of a better air intake. But its a different story when you see an extra 17-22 kw between 1500 and 3500 rpm on the NZ tune.

Sorry about the wheel dyno figures. I should have said for a manual.

Autos always give even more wildly inaccurate readings due to converter slip. Manual AWDs without a center diff lock have the same problem too.

Dyno power readings depend on the operator putting in correct tyre diameter and gearing info. If he mucks up the figures the dyno can't convert the data correctly so spits out an inaccurate graph. With an auto locked in gear the torque converter technically should lock up but for a variety of reasons on a wheel dyno they tend to unlock so that throws out the gear ratio calculations. Same with AWDs. The center diff slips so the dyno computer gets lost trying to calculate the torque from each axle.

Cheers,
Alan

:roflwtf:I'm confused.
My head hurts

never mind.

Graham has just got his hands on factory dyno curves and there is a 17-20 odd kw difference at lower rpm between the Oz 380 and the VRX/GT sold in NZ. So he is now wondering why that is. That engine is rated 180kw and that was supposed to be because of a better air intake. But its a different story when you see an extra 17-22 kw between 1500 and 3500 rpm on the NZ tune.
Cheers,
Alan

Alan, are you sure Graham was referring to an NZ 380? I am aware that the NZ Diamante (our 3rd gen magna) got the different shaped intake snorkel that works well on the TL and TW models and was supposed to release 10Kw more power

When I purchased my 380 I emailed mitsubishi NZ and they confirmed the extra 5kw came from the larger intake. Not exhaust or computer tweaking. This is old news now but the Email came from the head technition at Mitsubishi wellington. I contacted him because no one could tell me for certain what mod was done to gain 5kw.

There was some discussion here a year or two back, that 380 VRXs sold in New Zealand came fitted with the US Galant-spec intake (90mm), whereas non-VRX models have the same as ours (60mm). But here, all models have the smaller intake (which was actually designed for a 4 cylinder, someone said).
Aparently NZ was claiming the VRXs with the larger intake was worth 180kW. Everything else (exhaust, etc) was the same though.

Thats spot on

Alan, are you sure Graham was referring to an NZ 380? I am aware that the NZ Diamante (our 3rd gen magna) got the different shaped intake snorkel that works well on the TL and TW models and was supposed to release 10Kw more power

And you'll find most TL/W's that run that intake actually loose power ;)

;1141487']And you'll find most TL/W's that run that intake actually loose power ;)

hmm................................ not exactly correct...

hmm................................ not exactly correct...

Well.....go on....explain yourself..

hmm................................ not exactly correct...

Yep all depends on engine mods.

When my magna had a old highish km near stock engine in it, the NZ snorkel added a few Kw's but with the donkey engine, it lost 7kws with it on when compared to the stock snorkel (its basically just too small in its inlet opening to flow enough air when ya have a engine that needs all it can get)

Alan, are you sure Graham was referring to an NZ 380? I am aware that the NZ Diamante (our 3rd gen magna) got the different shaped intake snorkel that works well on the TL and TW models and was supposed to release 10Kw more power

Yes he was referring to the NZ 380, but only the VRX and GT had the extra grunt. They were rated 180kw, up 5kw on the Oz and base NZ models. But the interesting thing, and much more significant was the extra grunt at lower rpm. He will try to get more details as to why. Could it be NZ emissions laws, NZ fuel octane etc? Did the NZ VRX/GT get a better exhaust? I just had a look at a 380 SX when in town and the ex lookled pretty restrictive at the rear. Muffler seemed to be the worst kind, tri-flow, and the pipe narrowed down half an inch before the muffler.

Cheers,
Alan

I don't think any model 380 had a better muffler fitted, including the NZ models.

RPW have another page up about a recently modded 380 and dyno figures.

This time it's a manual (or 'manuel' as RPW keep saying - all their non-auto 380s must be Spanish!).

They claim 241hp or near as dammit to 180kw atw, after pretty much the identical mods I have done except their test car had a ChipTorque Exede piggy back ECU fitted while I have a stock ECU.

It's at http://www.rpw.com.au/shop/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=287&Itemid=40

Some debate on 'the other Mitsu site' about the accuracy of dyno figures quoted by RPW, seeing as they use a hub dyno and it's a bit confusing how the hub dyno figure translates to the atfw figure, but they seem to be saying that 180kw atw per their dyno translates in a 'manuel' to around 220kw atfw. Still a bit high I reckon.

KJ.

RPW have another page up about a recently modded 380 and dyno figures.

This time it's a manual (or 'manuel' as RPW keep saying - all their non-auto 380s must be Spanish!).

They claim 241hp or near as dammit to 180kw atw, after pretty much the identical mods I have done except their test car had a ChipTorque Exede piggy back ECU fitted while I have a stock ECU.

It's at http://www.rpw.com.au/shop/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=287&Itemid=40

Some debate on 'the other Mitsu site' about the accuracy of dyno figures quoted by RPW, seeing as they use a hub dyno and it's a bit confusing how the hub dyno figure translates to the atfw figure, but they seem to be saying that 180kw atw per their dyno translates in a 'manuel' to around 220kw atfw. Still a bit high I reckon.

KJ.

Hub dynos do in fact read abit higher than a "roller" dyno.
Main reason being, a hub dynod car wont suffer any "tyre slip" (as the wheels arnt running on any rollers) or tie down issues etc like cars on a normal dyno.

RPW have another page up about a recently modded 380 and dyno figures.

This time it's a manual (or 'manuel' as RPW keep saying - all their non-auto 380s must be Spanish!).

They claim 241hp or near as dammit to 180kw atw, after pretty much the identical mods I have done except their test car had a ChipTorque Exede piggy back ECU fitted while I have a stock ECU.

It's at http://www.rpw.com.au/shop/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=287&Itemid=40

Some debate on 'the other Mitsu site' about the accuracy of dyno figures quoted by RPW, seeing as they use a hub dyno and it's a bit confusing how the hub dyno figure translates to the atfw figure, but they seem to be saying that 180kw atw per their dyno translates in a 'manuel' to around 220kw atfw. Still a bit high I reckon.

KJ.

If anything, it seems to muddy the waters even more. Their dyno printout is heiroglyphics.

If anything, it seems to muddy the waters even more. Their dyno printout is heiroglyphics.

thats cos its R P W.......say no more :io:

Here's a classic line from the RPW website...

The Mitsubishi 380 was the new large sized vehicle released by Mitsubishi to replace the Magna. With the larger 3.8 litre engine, peak horsepower was increased to 195kw compared to the previous 3.5 litre 163kw engine.

:roll:

I find it frustrating that they are still quoting HP and Ft pound figures instead of KW and Nm. Better still they use both and really confuse the issue. I find much of what they have to say somewhat inaccurate.

I find it frustrating that they are still quoting HP and Ft pound figures instead of KW and Nm. Better still they use both and really confuse the issue. I find much of what they have to say somewhat inaccurate.

It depends on how the dyno is calibrated, and the mindset of the operator. Worldwide most dynos are calibrated in SAE HP, DIN HP, Net HP, PS, CV. Then the figures are converted back to the "official" standard of the country as required by law. Tuners mostly think and talk HP and ft/lb.

Graham has sent me those comparisons of the Oz 380 and NZ VRX/GT engine dyno numbers. Hope they post properly.


RPM..........Oz 380(kW)......NZ VRX(kW).....Difference.....% difference

1500............48.3...........65.8.........+ 17.5.........+ 36%

2000............65.7...........85.8.........+ 20.1.........+ 31%

2500............84.2..........100.7.........+ 16.5.........+ 20%

3000............96.7..........119.2.........+ 22.5.........+ 23%

3500............117.6.........133.3.........+ 15.7.........+ 13%

4000............146.7.........147.5.........+ 0.8..........+

4500............161.5.........159.2.........- 2.3..........- 1%

4750............171.8.........165.0.........- 6.8..........- 4%

5250............175...........180............+ 5............+ 3%

5750............168.3.........173.6..........+ 5.3..........+ 3%

6250............157.5.........165.3..........+ 7.8..........+ 5%

As you can see the NZ VRX/GT is way ahead of the Oz 380 and base NZ 380 up to 3500rpm. The question is why?

Cheers,
Alan

Sorry they haven't posted properly and I don't know how to get the columns to line up. Why can we no longer add attachments?

Its the 90mm intake. Thats the only difference. Even the ECU's are the same.

Thank Alan J again you are a font of information. Are these figure from the fly or at the wheels? Are there any differences in the gearboxes between the two? I should think not, but worth a thought. Perhaps they are mapped differently, but still that is a big difference.
Edit: are you sure Type 40? Seems one helluva lot for just the intake! Does that mean mine does that too lol

Thank Alan J again you are a font of information. Are these figure from the fly or at the wheels? Are there any differences in the gearboxes between the two? I should think not, but worth a thought. Perhaps they are mapped differently, but still that is a big difference.

The power figures are flywheel.

About the gearboxes, I don't think there would be any differences.

Cheers,
Alan

As you can see the NZ VRX/GT is way ahead of the Oz 380 and base NZ 380 up to 3500rpm. The question is why?



You don't think it might be cam timing?

What if the NZ model has a slightly advanced cam compared to ours?

That would explain the better bottom end.

It depends on how the dyno is calibrated, and the mindset of the operator. Worldwide most dynos are calibrated in SAE HP, DIN HP, Net HP, PS, CV. Then the figures are converted back to the "official" standard of the country as required by law. Tuners mostly think and talk HP and ft/lb.

Graham has sent me those comparisons of the Oz 380 and NZ VRX/GT engine dyno numbers. Hope they post properly.


RPM Oz 380(kW) NZ VRX(kW) Difference % difference

1500 48.3 65.8 + 17.5 + 36%

2000 65.7 85.8 + 20.1 + 31%

2500 84.2 100.7 + 16.5 + 20%

3000 96.7 119.2 + 22.5 + 23%

3500 117.6 133.3 + 15.7 + 13%

4000 146.7 147.5 + 0.8 +

4500 161.5 159.2 - 2.3 - 1%

4750 171.8 165.0 - 6.8 - 4%

5250 175 180 + 5 + 3%
5750 168.3 173.6 + 5.3 + 3%

6250 157.5 165.3 + 7.8 + 5%


As you can see the NZ VRX/GT is way ahead of the Oz 380 and base NZ 380 up to 3500rpm. The question is why?

Cheers,
Alan

Sorry they haven't posted properly and I don't know how to get the columns to line up. Why can we no longer add attachments?

These are obviously the factory at the flywheel figures, the giveaway is the 5250 rpm line (bolded), which exactly matches the 'official' Mitsu figures.

And as far as I know the only difference is the 90mm snorkel, and this is borne out by those who have fitted it - a noticable improvement in low and midrange torque & responsiveness, not so much over 4000 rpm.

KJ

Edit: are you sure Type 40? Seems one helluva lot for just the intake! Does that mean mine does that too lol

Yeah im 99% sure. If someone can find me a VIN off a NZ 380 VRX or GT i will do a part number comparison when im next at Mitsu.

Matey, the intake frees up power everywhere in the rev range. Its the cheapest and best budget upgrade for the 380! As a matter of fact MMAL were going to run the 90mm intake as standard but it was vetoed as it didnt pass drive by noise tests. So the cheap, simple solution was to fit the 4 cyl Galant one. It only just scraped through...

As Ive mentioned in the past I emailed the head technicion at MM wellington and asked him what the diff was between the 2 models. He replied only a larger intake.

You don't think it might be cam timing?

What if the NZ model has a slightly advanced cam compared to ours?

That would explain the better bottom end.

Graham can't explain it. I can't explain it. I've done thousands, probably more like tens of thousands of dyno pulls and I've never seen this sort of power change without considerable physical changes and mapping changes.

Advancing the cams would perhaps add 10% maximum up to the torque peak of around 4000-4500 rpm, and then it would fall off to a 2-3% gain up to the rev cut. However the NZ VRX/GT tune loses power just before and following the torque peak.

Another theory I tossed over with Graham was that they did a map for 95 octane and went aggressive with the spark and fuel at lower rpm but then mapped conservative as they approached torque peak rpm either for engine preservation or emissions requirements. Has anyone seen a NZ owners handbook that advises the 180kw output was attained using 95 octane, or that for peak performance 95 octane is recommended?

Please explain about the 90mm snorkel. Is that the inlet pipe going into the air box? or the air box to throttle body pipe? What dia is the Oz snorkel?

Cheers,
Alan

was attained using 95 octane, or that for peak performance 95 octane is recommended?

Please explain about the 90mm snorkel. Is that the inlet pipe going into the air box? or the air box to throttle body pipe? What dia is the Oz snorkel?

Cheers,
Alan
Yep, inlet pipe going into the front part of the air box. Oz snorkel 60mm..
Has anyone done a dyno run (in Aus) with only the 90mm galant intake as the only modification? I wonder how close that would get to the NZ figures AlanJ kindly provided. (sorry if its already in here somewhere)..

Alan,

See post #46 on this page http://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56400&page=5

It shows the stock snorkel and the 90mm snorkel.

It's not just a bigger (90mm) pipe into the airbox, the front of the snorkel (the air pickup area) is also much larger.

KJ.

Yep, inlet pipe going into the front part of the air box. Oz snorkel 60mm..
Has anyone done a dyno run (in Aus) with only the 90mm galant intake as the only modification? I wonder how close that would get to the NZ figures AlanJ kindly provided. (sorry if its already in here somewhere)..

No I don't know of anyone who's done a dyno run with just the intake. I think we all did ours with intake and muffler (as the primary cheap mods) - unless someone has done one recently.

No I don't know of anyone who's done a dyno run with just the intake. I think we all did ours with intake and muffler (as the primary cheap mods) - unless someone has done one recently.

I would have thought that it would answer a few questions.:think:

I did one, or more likely about 15.

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z179/Krossbolt/Car%20Pics/My%20Car/AllDyno07.jpg

It was done on an unusual dyno which is why the power levels are relatively low. the "Ralliart" means 90mm

Alan,

See post #46 on this page http://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56400&page=5

It shows the stock snorkel and the 90mm snorkel.

It's not just a bigger (90mm) pipe into the airbox, the front of the snorkel (the air pickup area) is also much larger.

KJ.

OK thank you for that info. Yes at only 60mm the 380 air box inlet is very small. Still I don't think going to the larger 90mm one would account for the big increase in low rpm power, or the decrease around max torque revs of the NZ spec VRX/GT engine. There has to be more to it. The extra 5kw from better breathing in the upper range makes sense but 20kw down low is huge.

Cheers,
Alan

Phew man thats some difference.

Those peak power #'s are a worry because they are exact factory #'s which were pretty optermistic, but they had to be. Because so were all the previous engine output #'s.

Never seen anything like that in testing.

The big duct started helping power output after 2500 with the most gain between 4500-5500.

Possibles 1) MMAL tested on 91 and 98 only. 95 may help because the allowable amount of ignition advance from 91 to 98 wasn't enough to make use of the 98 octane at all rpm points.
2) Have seen production engines with the cams at only 3 degrees retard of the normal 6. This would help
bottom end performance.
3) The Bosch mapping wasn't that great for ambient temperature correction so that has an effect on power
output. I remember 29 degrees was the target ambient temp for max output.
4) The factory dyno powercheck requires the engine to be at full operating temp the engine is held at each rpm
point for 90 seconds with a 30 second output average taken from 60 to 90 seconds. A shorter power run
might help figures before heat soak sets into eveything.

In testing for the 380 release every engine in the press car fleet had a standard factory 7hour runnin and power checked before fitting the cars. I remember the numbers being between 164 and 169kws. Not great number but very consistant.

Cheers Dave

Phew man thats some difference.

Those peak power #'s are a worry because they are exact factory #'s which were pretty optermistic, but they had to be. Because so were all the previous engine output #'s.

Never seen anything like that in testing.

The big duct started helping power output after 2500 with the most gain between 4500-5500.

Possibles 1) MMAL tested on 91 and 98 only. 95 may help because the allowable amount of ignition advance from 91 to 98 wasn't enough to make use of the 98 octane at all rpm points.
2) Have seen production engines with the cams at only 3 degrees retard of the normal 6. This would help
bottom end performance.
3) The Bosch mapping wasn't that great for ambient temperature correction so that has an effect on power
output. I remember 29 degrees was the target ambient temp for max output.
4) The factory dyno powercheck requires the engine to be at full operating temp the engine is held at each rpm
point for 90 seconds with a 30 second output average taken from 60 to 90 seconds. A shorter power run
might help figures before heat soak sets into eveything.

In testing for the 380 release every engine in the press car fleet had a standard factory 7hour runnin and power checked before fitting the cars. I remember the numbers being between 164 and 169kws. Not great number but very consistant.

Cheers Dave

Thanks Dave for those insights. Has me stumped. If he hasn't already done so I'll make sure Graham sends the info on to you to have a look at.

Cheers,
Alan

Maybe its bull:hmm: Ive driven both(one after the other) and there wasnt that much dif in power/torque

Maybe its bull:hmm: Ive driven both(one after the other) and there wasnt that much dif in power/torque

What Bullpower as opposed to horse power, interesting theory K lol!

Phew man thats some difference.

Those peak power #'s are a worry because they are exact factory #'s which were pretty optermistic, but they had to be. Because so were all the previous engine output #'s.

Never seen anything like that in testing.

The big duct started helping power output after 2500 with the most gain between 4500-5500.

Possibles 1) MMAL tested on 91 and 98 only. 95 may help because the allowable amount of ignition advance from 91 to 98 wasn't enough to make use of the 98 octane at all rpm points.
2) Have seen production engines with the cams at only 3 degrees retard of the normal 6. This would help
bottom end performance.
3) The Bosch mapping wasn't that great for ambient temperature correction so that has an effect on power
output. I remember 29 degrees was the target ambient temp for max output.
4) The factory dyno powercheck requires the engine to be at full operating temp the engine is held at each rpm
point for 90 seconds with a 30 second output average taken from 60 to 90 seconds. A shorter power run
might help figures before heat soak sets into eveything.

In testing for the 380 release every engine in the press car fleet had a standard factory 7hour runnin and power checked before fitting the cars. I remember the numbers being between 164 and 169kws. Not great number but very consistant.

Cheers Dave

Dave I sent that on to Graham. I'm concerned at Mitusibishi's lack of integrity with published power figures. Way back when consumer protection didn't exist manufacturers basically picked a number, way way back some in Britain didn't even have dynos but were still able to come up with a power number! Even those with dynos typically tested without air filter and no exhaust (just dyno headers), no drive belt on power steer or alternator, no fan and sometimes an electric water pump. That was called "Gross HP", really a gross lie. And to add to that before computers the distributor would be tweaked at each rpm step to ensure the best number.

I understand the Ralliart Magna only ever made 172kw, not 180 as advertised, so inflated about 5%. Seems the 380s were similarly 5% high from your press fleet power numbers. What about the Magna? Was the claimed 163 kw also 5% optomistic?

I thought I heard somewhere that 184kw was seen during development of the 380 engine. Is that correct? Was that with dyno headers or full production exhaust?

The 90 sec step test is the correct way to get an accurate idea of true power, and an accurate fuel and spark map. I hope some others reading this post have a think about how heat soak of the piston crown and combustion chamber seriously affect safe A/F ratios and safe spark adv as compared to a fast acceleration dyno test where the is little time for heat to upset things. Many remapped engines are under-fuelled and over-advanced either because of ignorance or to inflate the dyno numbers. Fortunately most don't ever drive hard enough to junk the pistons and top rings.

A 7 hour run-in for the press test cars is quite long. What load and rpm procedure did Mitsubishi use?

Sorry for all these questions Dave. Hope you can get time to answer them.

Cheers,
Alan

Dave I sent that on to Graham. I'm concerned at Mitusibishi's lack of integrity with published power figures. Way back when consumer protection didn't exist manufacturers basically picked a number, way way back some in Britain didn't even have dynos but were still able to come up with a power number! Even those with dynos typically tested without air filter and no exhaust (just dyno headers), no drive belt on power steer or alternator, no fan and sometimes an electric water pump. That was called "Gross HP", really a gross lie. And to add to that before computers the distributor would be tweaked at each rpm step to ensure the best number.

I understand the Ralliart Magna only ever made 172kw, not 180 as advertised, so inflated about 5%. Seems the 380s were similarly 5% high from your press fleet power numbers. What about the Magna? Was the claimed 163 kw also 5% optomistic?

I thought I heard somewhere that 184kw was seen during development of the 380 engine. Is that correct? Was that with dyno headers or full production exhaust?

The 90 sec step test is the correct way to get an accurate idea of true power, and an accurate fuel and spark map. I hope some others reading this post have a think about how heat soak of the piston crown and combustion chamber seriously affect safe A/F ratios and safe spark adv as compared to a fast acceleration dyno test where the is little time for heat to upset things. Many remapped engines are under-fuelled and over-advanced either because of ignorance or to inflate the dyno numbers. Fortunately most don't ever drive hard enough to junk the pistons and top rings.

A 7 hour run-in for the press test cars is quite long. What load and rpm procedure did Mitsubishi use?

Sorry for all these questions Dave. Hope you can get time to answer them.

Cheers,
Alan

I know one member who did, QMD///801, lol. No offence to him!

This is a good discussion, very interesting reading.

Man this is getting hard.
The 380 engine output did drop of a bit during the development. But japan didn't let us know if there were any running changes between the different build batches, I'm sure the rings were changed several times without us being told. Oil consumption progressively better as time went by even after a thicker bore wall.
The engine output of the Ralliart was already released before they got cold feet on the idle stability so thats why that happened. Although one of the guys hand built a Ralliart engine for a donation to a lucky buggy driver, it waas an ex test engine so the block had been re-honed new pistons, rings and new heads annd it gave 177kkw's so not to far away.
For the 380 we came across better engines than others these were kept for our power output #'s, the engineer running the show told us that the advertised output could be from an engine taken to full power for a flash reading so thats what we did using the best engines from the pool, which produced around the 171-172kw's in steady state. A bit sus I know but the Bosch guys recon thats what Holden were doing with the 180kw 3.6 v6. Thats all hear say so treat it as that. The biggest thing that holds the 3.8ltr engine back is the 2.4 ltr snorkel and the rich mixture required to keep the close coupled cats at the specified temp.
At MMAL every engine is was dynoed with the correct complete exhaust for the model it was intended. no funny business there.
In early 3.8 development we were seeing a genuine 182kw's but that was with the previous 3.5 VRX exhaust system and 3.5 intake and engine management. that was before the newer emissions targets had been set. That was with an early engine which like I said just seammed to be a few kw's better. We did get this engine up to 195kw's with the ecu locked and the entire intake system removed up to the throttle body, just to see what was there and what was hurting it, so there you go.
The 7 hour runnin is the standard runnin for the engine before any endurance test. After which all the pre enndurance test are done to give a reasonable base line. Starts off at low rpm low load and steps up ever 25min with increased load and rpm until the last 25min if max power rpm in the 3.8 it's 5250 with an output of around 340Nm. The max power rpm output dictates the the previous steps.
Yes 7 hour runnin was long for a press fleet but apparently long ago one shat it's self for what ever reason. So we were told about it and we weren't in a position with the 380 to have something like that happen again. I thought it good bussiness seeing we couldn't oversee the engine build like previous model Magnas. Like I said before the engines were very consistent and we never had to push one in the corner for be a complete dud.
Hope I answered them all.

Cheers Dave

Thanks Dave,thats some great inside info.

never mind.

Dave, really appreciate you taking the time to give those details. Interesting that on the 380 you saw 195kw without pre-throttle body inlet system in place. Pretty much what Graham and I reckoned it should produce based on its heads and cams.

Cheers,
Alan

I just want to say, I love this thread...awesome info guys. :D

epic replies in this thread! Makes me want to go get a 380 engine and throw it in the lighter Magna. Good to hear that it was a gem in stress-testing reliability. Good news for those members on here who intend to keep hold the 380 for a long time.

Good to hear that it was a gem in stress-testing reliability. Good news for those members on here who intend to keep hold the 380 for a long time.
....... & for those with a blower :happy:

naturally :D

Dave, just for info really, were any of the engines torn down by MMAL after the stress test to check the components were still 100% or was that done at another point in R&D by Japan?

MMAL did all the post test teardowns, any problems found were reported to MMC japan and they would decide the plan of action. Parts were returned to japan as necessary for them to inspect as well if they required.

Cheers Dave.

interesting to read about these kind of things! Thanks

OK, finally had my ChipTorque Exede fitted & tuned by Steve Knight yesterday.

Before runs (with Exede fitted but with bypass plug inserted) showed between 160 and 163 kw atw. And very rich AFRs, which we expected.

About 21kw less than my earlier runs back in August 2009. All sorts of possible reasons for this difference, including larger wheels & tyres (245/35 19 v 235/45 18), slightly different weather conditions (but not much), incorrect parameters set by Steve last time (I think this is a strong possibility, note the big difference in SAE J607 correction parameters, from around 2.8 last time to 3.95 this time), and this time I noticed/heard a lot more slip on the rollers.

Steve reckoned that Mitsu motors have good days and bad days, and the day back in August 2009 must have been a good day and yesterday was a bad day!

I reckon the slip was a big factor, when I drove it off the rollers the front wheels were spinning on the concrete floor at 1200 rpm!

The after runs, once Steve had tuned the Exede, showed 168 - 170kw atw. So a reasonable increase in top end power.

I was hoping for an increase in torque in the mid-range, but this didn't happen, instead I got a reasonable increase in the top end, from about 4,000 rpm onwards.

The main change was in the AFRs, now tuned so that it runs between 12.5 and 13.4 instead of the horribly rich 9.6 to 11 that it was running.

I've noticed a significant increase in fuel economy already, from around 11.6 l/100k to around 10l/100k. Early days yet, but it's looking good.

It feels punchier in the mid to upper range, and happier to rev out to the rev limiter.

Other main change Steve made was to advance the timing a bit. The map already in the Exede was apparently tuned for 95RON and had 'only' 1.5 degrees advance, so Steve took it out to 4 degrees advance. I didn't check if he meant 4 degrees advance on the stock 6 degrees retard (ending up with 2 degrees retard), or a true 4 degrees advance. I think it was the latter.

Photos of the installed Exede and the dyno print outs below.

KJ.



Just thought you may want to know that the reason the difference in the SAE correction is due to the dynos weather station auto setting correction for the weather conditions (yes mainline dynos have there own weather station)

I just looked at a couple of my magnas dyno runs at SKR and the correction factor on the first dyno runs session was 4.75 SAE (temp was 31.3deg 94.1% air density) but on the dyno runs done a few months later the SAE correction was 3.90 (temp was 25.9deg 95.2 air density).
The last power runs from the first dyno session were within 2 kws of the first dyno run on the lastest session despite there being a couple month between sessions and different correction factors. (hope that makes sense)

I vaguely remember Steve saying something about 'weather station might not be working properly' back then, and he said nothing about it yesterday.

KJ.

never mind.

I've noticed a significant increase in fuel economy already, from around 11.6 l/100k to around 10l/100k. Early days yet, but it's looking good.

It feels punchier in the mid to upper range, and happier to rev out to the rev limiter.

Concurs with my experience for the auto. The other thing you'll notice is when you drive it hard you won't use anything like the consumption you've had before.

Just so you know how important these other factors are for tuning; when mine was fitted they used an incorrect pin for power when it was for barometric pressure. Because the ECU couldn't account for the barometric pressure it gave all sorts of inconsistent performance until eventually going into limp mode.

The mystery solved at last.

Just googled Adelaides temperature statistics and looking at your previous dyno sheets..

There is no way that it was 24.3 degrees on the 7th August....so I would agree there is a weather correction error there.

(26 degrees the highest august day since records began, average august temp is 15 C)



Now the big question...what temp was it the day you had your Dyno done.? :)

Checked the weather records, max temp in Adelaide on Friday 7 August 2009 was 15.4 degrees C.

My runs on that day were between 2.30 & 3.00 pm, which would be around the max temp time.

So let's call it 15 C.

Could very well explain my high dyno figures.

Let's say the true reading was 163kw, with a false reading of 184kw. That's 21kw difference or roughly 13%.

The true temp was 15 C and the recorded temp was 24 C, a difference of 9 C or 60%.

So it's obviously not a linear relationship.

But surely a naturally aspirated engine shouldn't put out an extra 13% power due just to an ambient temperature drop of 9 C?

Anyone here know exactly how a Mainline Dyno adjusts for temperature?

KJ.

The mystery solved at last.

Just googled Adelaides temperature statistics and looking at your previous dyno sheets..

There is no way that it was 24.3 degrees on the 7th August....so I would agree there is a weather correction error there.

(26 degrees the highest august day since records began, average august temp is 15 C)



Now the big question...what temp was it the day you had your Dyno done.? :)

Dont forget the temp the dyno reads is in SKR's workshop (near the dyno) NOT outside like the weather forecast are.

*edit: Just found some runs done to my magna in June last year at 6.58pm. The SAE correction is 2.96 and it has the temp as 16.8 deg and air density of 98.4%. The temp wouldve been right as we had the workshop all shut up and the heaters on at that time.

Also on the dyno runs in June 09 the dyno printout compares it to a run done in February (run 2132) In Feb when it was hotter (31.3deg) it had the power as 184.9 and torque (3rd gear) as 652.6 BUT when it was added to the June printout the same run (run 2132) is recorded as power 183.9 and torque 659.4. I remember Steve saying that the dyno will auto temp/SAE correct previous runs so that they can be compared to the newer runs..... Junes tune session is when my car broke thru the 200kw barrier with the donkey engine.

never mind.

never mind.

Let's say the true reading was 163kw, with a false reading of 184kw. That's 21kw difference or roughly 13%.


Mate this opens up a whole new can of worms on drivetrain loss between the auto & manual. 163KW was my N/A power figure before I put the blower on. With your chip it is only marginally higher than mine was with practically the same mods. :iough:

never mind.

Mate this opens up a whole new can of worms on drivetrain loss between the auto & manual. 163KW was my N/A power figure before I put the blower on. With your chip it is only marginally higher than mine was with practically the same mods. :iough:

Just remember the age old saying that dynos are really only tuning tools and runs cant really be compared to runs done by other cars on other dynos.

Best thing would be looking at what Whites auto vrx put out on SKR's dyno and compare that to KJ380's manual done on SKR's dyno. I think Dans auto made 150@wheels with only mods being 90mm inlet and no mufflers... Im sure Dan can answer tell more.

Does that mean that the dyno will change it's mind on what it calculated months before? :)

I think he said it auto corrects (correction factor) so that 2 power runs for the car can be compared (eg one done on another day to the current one)

He would be the best to ask on that fact though BUT i can bring the printouts to a meet and you can see what im trying to explain :)

Mate this opens up a whole new can of worms on drivetrain loss between the auto & manual. 163KW was my N/A power figure before I put the blower on. With your chip it is only marginally higher than mine was with practically the same mods. :iough:

Yep, I'm thinking that the auto vs manual drivetrain loss difference is not as much as we thought.

At my first run back in August Steve reckoned that a 3rd gen manual lost about 12% and an auto about twice that much, i.e. 24%. He had never dynoed a manual 380 before and he guessed same would hold for a 380.

Maybe for a 380 the figures are closer to 15% loss for a manual and 20% for an auto, difference only 5%?

KJ.

I have always had concerns about the accuracies of dyno's and this just confirms it. If the same car on the same dyno can show a difference of 20kw, how much emphasis should we be placing on the results from different cars on different dyno's?

I have always had concerns about the accuracies of dyno's and this just confirms it. If the same car on the same dyno can show a difference of 20kw, how much emphasis should we be placing on the results from different cars on different dyno's?

As i said earlier, Dynos should only be used as a "tuning" tool and the only way to really compare cars is to run them all on the same dyno on the same day.
Having said that my magna has been run on SKR's dyno and eachtime it has recorded close to the same as the time before, then we do a new tune etc and off i go.... come back a few weeks later and test it (for something to do)and its still close to the same power output as the last "tuned" run done weeks before.

Just remember the age old saying that dynos are really only tuning tools and runs cant really be compared to runs done by other cars on other dynos.

Best thing would be looking at what Whites auto vrx put out on SKR's dyno and compare that to KJ380's manual done on SKR's dyno. I think Dans auto made 150@wheels with only mods being 90mm inlet and no mufflers... Im sure Dan can answer tell more.

yes that was the reading i got but in january i tried to get mine tuned and it only put out 150 on the first run but it was 43degrees. the odd thing is after 2 runs i had lost 20kw. im hoping that its just the ecu retarding the timing due to heat. ive had our scan tool on it on hot days and the ecu retards the timing alot when hot. so shortly ill get it tuned and see what happens.

i suggest when you put up dyno results you also put up a ambient temp.

never mind.

Good figures there. What would you say the muffler mod is worth? Or does this vary too, depending on muffler type.