Post your dyno curve here
Discussion
It does seem that Eann Whalleys turbo kits have this sort of torque curve as a common trait (from the ones I've seen anyway), Whilst I appreciate all avenues people take with modifications I do prefer the delivery that mine gives over what these particular turbo installations would indicate. As you say Peter, torque coming in with a bang and breaking traction perhaps, all IMHO of course 
Exactly my thoughts.
Mind you, that is a trait with many production turboed cars, not all but certainly quite a few.
My NA setup gives very smooth torque that doesn't surprise you even though it has about 380 torques at 2K rpm. It is very linear from there on.
Top graph is my 5.5, lower my old 4.6. It says 5.0 because Charlie didn't change it from several years ago.
Mind you, that is a trait with many production turboed cars, not all but certainly quite a few.
My NA setup gives very smooth torque that doesn't surprise you even though it has about 380 torques at 2K rpm. It is very linear from there on.
Top graph is my 5.5, lower my old 4.6. It says 5.0 because Charlie didn't change it from several years ago.
phazed said:
There's no getting away from it, that is a huge improvement over a standard 4.0.
The torque looks like it comes in with a bang, I should imagine you could break traction quite easily with that set up.
It caught me out when I first got it installed, roads were a bit damp as well. As London as I'm aware and treat it with a bit of respect the rewards are well worth itThe torque looks like it comes in with a bang, I should imagine you could break traction quite easily with that set up.
QBee said:
22mm plenum? I know his equipment is on the small size........but?
If it's at the fly, then that's low for a 4.6 IMHO.
If it's at the wheels, then his BHP and torque is the same as mine with a 5 litre engine.
Here's mine AT THE WHEELS
This produced the graph showing 316 bhp at my flies
Both graphs were produced by the same power run
That looks like your rolling road operator added an assumed 25% to the true wheel horsepower figure, giving you your 316.1hp at the crank figure.If it's at the fly, then that's low for a 4.6 IMHO.
If it's at the wheels, then his BHP and torque is the same as mine with a 5 litre engine.
Here's mine AT THE WHEELS
This produced the graph showing 316 bhp at my flies
Both graphs were produced by the same power run
Am I reading it correctly mate?
If it's making 254hp at the wheels and you applied an 18% drive train loss figure, you would be bang on 300hp.
What do other people use as a drive train loss percentage, I always thought it was 18%?
Dave, I checked my graphs from Surrey Rolling Road two years ago, and they were 240 bhp wheels, 300 bhp fly - so the same percentage uplift. Same engine, no changes to anything.
The graphs above are at Joolz, Kits and Classics, 252 bhp wheels, 316 bhp fly.
He said that in general his RR comes in a tad lower than Surrey Rolling Road, so what i was looking at is the effect of the engine being new two years ago, then having relaxed and been fully run in since then.
I couldn't care less about the bhp numbers, it is the way it drives on a race track that wows me, and that is mainly down to the huge torque range.
It's the real-life difference between the 4 litre engine I started with and the 5 litre engine I now have.
Two years ago, with the 5 litre lump newly fitted, I did an airfield track day with an LS1 6 litre Monaro, 376 bhp and masses of torque. He left me for dead with no trouble.
This summer I met up with him again and he couldn't believe that I was right up his chuff, lap after lap, on what was basically a power circuit.
Not only does he have more power than me (and weight, admittedly), he's a Jaguar test driver during the week so isn't short of driving ability.
So I do believe that my engine now has more power and torque than it did two years ago.
The graphs above are at Joolz, Kits and Classics, 252 bhp wheels, 316 bhp fly.
He said that in general his RR comes in a tad lower than Surrey Rolling Road, so what i was looking at is the effect of the engine being new two years ago, then having relaxed and been fully run in since then.
I couldn't care less about the bhp numbers, it is the way it drives on a race track that wows me, and that is mainly down to the huge torque range.
It's the real-life difference between the 4 litre engine I started with and the 5 litre engine I now have.
Two years ago, with the 5 litre lump newly fitted, I did an airfield track day with an LS1 6 litre Monaro, 376 bhp and masses of torque. He left me for dead with no trouble.
This summer I met up with him again and he couldn't believe that I was right up his chuff, lap after lap, on what was basically a power circuit.
Not only does he have more power than me (and weight, admittedly), he's a Jaguar test driver during the week so isn't short of driving ability.
So I do believe that my engine now has more power and torque than it did two years ago.
Sorry chaps busy!
Using the 18% rule mines producing
300bhp. AT THE FLYWHEEL
342 ft lbs torque (on Doms road)
That's very much in line with Anthony's 5.0 as peak figures go but all the way up I'm never in the game with torque until 4000 revs,,
It does seem like a healthy figure for a 4.6 with standard induction,,
Anthony's car does seem strangled by the heads ?
We need new heads mate,,
Matts car delivers similar performance Anthony,,, as with many others I'd say?
Still way higher than standard, its just the bench Mark by a few people goes on up, Daz engine is something that's obviously working and balanced really well for instance,, that's big power he's got there
Could some Difs sort of run tighter than others, loosing you power?
Using the 18% rule mines producing
300bhp. AT THE FLYWHEEL
342 ft lbs torque (on Doms road)
That's very much in line with Anthony's 5.0 as peak figures go but all the way up I'm never in the game with torque until 4000 revs,,
It does seem like a healthy figure for a 4.6 with standard induction,,
Anthony's car does seem strangled by the heads ?
We need new heads mate,,
Matts car delivers similar performance Anthony,,, as with many others I'd say?
Still way higher than standard, its just the bench Mark by a few people goes on up, Daz engine is something that's obviously working and balanced really well for instance,, that's big power he's got there
Could some Difs sort of run tighter than others, loosing you power?
Edited by ClassiChimi on Sunday 6th December 20:26
QBee said:
I couldn't care less about the bhp numbers, it is the way it drives on a race track that wows me, and that is mainly down to the huge torque range. It's the real-life difference between the 4 litre engine I started with and the 5 litre engine I now have.
I think that says it all, and I'm sure you're spot on, well said that man 
Phazed was very complementary about your driving when we spoke on the phone the other day, he also said the differences between 300 & 360hp being not as great as you'd expect.
I couldn't possibly speak with any authority myself as I've never done a track day, but I am tempted
QBee said:
Dave, I checked my graphs from Surrey Rolling Road two years ago, and they were 240 bhp wheels, 300 bhp fly - so the same percentage uplift. Same engine, no changes to anything.
The graphs above are at Joolz, Kits and Classics, 252 bhp wheels, 316 bhp fly.
He said that in general his RR comes in a tad lower than Surrey Rolling Road, so what i was looking at is the effect of the engine being new two years ago, then having relaxed and been fully run in since then.
I couldn't care less about the bhp numbers, it is the way it drives on a race track that wows me, and that is mainly down to the huge torque range.
It's the real-life difference between the 4 litre engine I started with and the 5 litre engine I now have.
Two years ago, with the 5 litre lump newly fitted, I did an airfield track day with an LS1 6 litre Monaro, 376 bhp and masses of torque. He left me for dead with no trouble.
This summer I met up with him again and he couldn't believe that I was right up his chuff, lap after lap, on what was basically a power circuit.
Not only does he have more power than me (and weight, admittedly), he's a Jaguar test driver during the week so isn't short of driving ability.
So I do believe that my engine now has more power and torque than it did two years ago.
Anthony, there is one very important factor that modesty has probably prevented you from mentioning, particularly in the second part of your statement above. That is the fact that you are a very good driver as well and very likely to be at least a match for your mate in the Monaro. The graphs above are at Joolz, Kits and Classics, 252 bhp wheels, 316 bhp fly.
He said that in general his RR comes in a tad lower than Surrey Rolling Road, so what i was looking at is the effect of the engine being new two years ago, then having relaxed and been fully run in since then.
I couldn't care less about the bhp numbers, it is the way it drives on a race track that wows me, and that is mainly down to the huge torque range.
It's the real-life difference between the 4 litre engine I started with and the 5 litre engine I now have.
Two years ago, with the 5 litre lump newly fitted, I did an airfield track day with an LS1 6 litre Monaro, 376 bhp and masses of torque. He left me for dead with no trouble.
This summer I met up with him again and he couldn't believe that I was right up his chuff, lap after lap, on what was basically a power circuit.
Not only does he have more power than me (and weight, admittedly), he's a Jaguar test driver during the week so isn't short of driving ability.
So I do believe that my engine now has more power and torque than it did two years ago.
ChimpOnGas said:
QBee said:
I couldn't care less about the bhp numbers, it is the way it drives on a race track that wows me, and that is mainly down to the huge torque range. It's the real-life difference between the 4 litre engine I started with and the 5 litre engine I now have.
I think that says it all, and I'm sure you're spot on, well said that man Phazed was very complementary about your driving when we spoke on the phone the other day, he also said the differences between 300 & 360hp being not as great as you'd expect.
I couldn't possibly speak with any authority myself as I've never done a track day, but I am tempted
Then you can see what your 250 bhp can really do alongside loads of different cars. You will enjoy it.
We tend to go mob handed, which is a lot lore fun, and give each other a helping hand and passenger rides.
I have at least 60 bhp less than Phazed, but with fast corner exits am rarely much slower than him, and on the twisty circuits we run in tandem.
Last year Grahamn, Mat Smith and I did Cadwell Park together, and all stayed together trying as hard as we could, lap after lap.
ok, so what?
So Graham in his Cerb 4.5 had 420 bhp, I had 300 bhp and Mat Smith had 210 bhp.
All TVRs are really torquey critters and it is really about cornering fast, at which Mat is exceedingly good.
sapper said:
The difference I think is that torque starts higher (260 vs 200 @ 2000 rpm) - but a smoother transition and very similar shape to a N/A engine. Definitely do not get as much BHP/£££ but I do still hold that delivery is nicer + on the track easier to deliver out of the corners.
Now I'm totally confused 
Without phoning up Dom, does anyone know for sure if the graph he does for his rolling road, shows the BHP and Torque at the wheels or at the flywheel?
All these different rolling roads and 18% drivetrain losses with some graphs at the fly, and some at the wheels, doing me head in
Without phoning up Dom, does anyone know for sure if the graph he does for his rolling road, shows the BHP and Torque at the wheels or at the flywheel?
All these different rolling roads and 18% drivetrain losses with some graphs at the fly, and some at the wheels, doing me head in
N7GTX said:
Now I'm totally confused
Without phoning up Dom, does anyone know for sure if the graph he does for his rolling road, shows the BHP and Torque at the wheels or at the flywheel?
All these different rolling roads and 18% drivetrain losses with some graphs at the fly, and some at the wheels, doing me head in
Have you yours to post up?Without phoning up Dom, does anyone know for sure if the graph he does for his rolling road, shows the BHP and Torque at the wheels or at the flywheel?
All these different rolling roads and 18% drivetrain losses with some graphs at the fly, and some at the wheels, doing me head in
We'll give you a definite maybe
Okay, thanks.
So it goes to show how different ECUs and tuners get their results. Take Sapper's figures for a 4.0 litre like mine with a turbo. His was done by Eann Whalley with a Megasquirt ecu.
Mine at Powers with an MBE ecu.
Sapper: 362 bhp and 422 torques.
Mine: 355 bhp and 481 torques.
And the graphs are completely different too. Any thoughts?
So it goes to show how different ECUs and tuners get their results. Take Sapper's figures for a 4.0 litre like mine with a turbo. His was done by Eann Whalley with a Megasquirt ecu.
Mine at Powers with an MBE ecu.
Sapper: 362 bhp and 422 torques.
Mine: 355 bhp and 481 torques.
And the graphs are completely different too. Any thoughts?
Gassing Station | Chimaera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff