AKLGT Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 the low end torque on the 5EAT is impressive. I know from the butt dyno and track times. Wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle yeah!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Is your new revision posted up for D/L? Yeah, it's the most recent post. As you can tell, it may have bugs in it so if you have problems post it in that thread. I don't use that spreadsheet that much anymore so sometimes I gloss over the code. For example, I only fixed the accel and hp calc and forgot about fixing the rpm used in the torque and graph charts. BTW, there's a bug in the atmospheric correction for boost target if you are between 14 and 14.7 psi. I added a parameter based atmospheric correction that should fix it. Airboy should know about the problem so he'll probably fix it in the next revision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonGT Posted June 8, 2008 Author Share Posted June 8, 2008 mickeyd, can there possibly be a glitch in the logging software or maybe the interpolation software with the 5EAT? reason why i ask is because all my stage 2 logs whether it be at 18 psi or 19 psi, they all show less power past around 5500 rpm than i datalog of my vehicle when it was stock. i also found this odd: i have a log of my car last year before i upgraded my TMIC that got a time of 6.5 sec from 60-100. then i pulled up a log of the same map with an upgraded TMIC that was recent and i got a 60-100 time of 7.2. both logs were in about 65 degree weather and on the same road. and the log i took to get the 7.2 certainly didnt feel any slower. i should also that both of these tunes showed dramatic power losses past about 5500 rpm versus my stock datalog. and were talkin 20-30 whp and wtq! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 There's a simpler solution. Just look at how long it takes in ms to go from 50 mph to 80 mph. That's the bottom line. Are you accelerating faster? That's all the spreadsheet is doing. It's just calculating how fast the acceleration is. The only difference is that it is trying to do it over a smaller time interval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 It does seem to be matching your 50-80 mph times. at 18 psi the 50-80 mph is 4.060 seconds and at 19 psi it is 4.233 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonGT Posted June 8, 2008 Author Share Posted June 8, 2008 There's a simpler solution. Just look at how long it takes in ms to go from 50 mph to 80 mph. That's the bottom line. Are you accelerating faster? That's all the spreadsheet is doing. It's just calculating how fast the acceleration is. The only difference is that it is trying to do it over a smaller time interval. is that really accurate? i can get as low as a 2.8 sec 60-80 time and according to autoweek a 335i does it at 3.2 sec. it just doesnt make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 is that really accurate? i can get as low as a 2.8 sec 60-80 time and according to autoweek a 335i does it at 3.2 sec. it just doesnt make sense Why wouldn't it be accurate? It doesn't matter what a dyno or spreadsheet says. Ultimately, we are looking for a faster car. What is the gearing on the 335i? We can't compare 50-80 mph times between the LGT 5MT vs LGT 5EAT so we probably can't compare it to the 335i. We CAN compare it to itself though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonGT Posted June 8, 2008 Author Share Posted June 8, 2008 Why wouldn't it be accurate? It doesn't matter what a dyno or spreadsheet says. Ultimately, we are looking for a faster car. What is the gearing on the 335i? We can't compare 50-80 mph times between the LGT 5MT vs LGT 5EAT so we probably can't compare it to the 335i. We CAN compare it to itself though. yea i guess that makes sense. i just found it i bit odd that my times went way up since adding a perrin intercooler even with the same tune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 yea i guess that makes sense. i just found it i bit odd that my times went way up since adding a perrin intercooler even with the same tune I'm not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewLGT Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 I'm not surprised. why do you say that? does an untuned tmic actually lose power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 I believe that the stock TMIC cools better than the Perrin TMIC. One forum member installed a thermocouple in the TMIC outlet and noted the same. It also seems consistent with the logs that I have seen. The Perrin TMIC does flow better than the stock TMIC but it was only evident when a larger turbo was used (MAF > ~270 g/s). On a stock VF40, there was no detectable improvement. The main advantage of the Perrin over the TMIC is that it has welded on end tanks. The stock TMIC design (IMHO) is flawed because it is rigidly attached to both the turbo and the engine. Any strain will cause stresses in the end tank closest to the turbo. Even the JDM LGT TMIC uses a flexible hose to attach the TMIC to the turbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boostjunkie Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 I believe that the stock TMIC cools better than the Perrin TMIC. One forum member installed a thermocouple in the TMIC outlet and noted the same. It also seems consistent with the logs that I have seen. The Perrin TMIC does flow better than the stock TMIC but it was only evident when a larger turbo was used (MAF > ~270 g/s). On a stock VF40, there was no detectable improvement. The main advantage of the Perrin over the TMIC is that it has welded on end tanks. The stock TMIC design (IMHO) is flawed because it is rigidly attached to both the turbo and the engine. Any strain will cause stresses in the end tank closest to the turbo. Even the JDM LGT TMIC uses a flexible hose to attach the TMIC to the turbo. +1. Those are my exact impressions on upgraded TMIC's for the LGT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harman.khinda Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 I believe that the stock TMIC cools better than the Perrin TMIC. One forum member installed a thermocouple in the TMIC outlet and noted the same. It also seems consistent with the logs that I have seen. The Perrin TMIC does flow better than the stock TMIC but it was only evident when a larger turbo was used (MAF > ~270 g/s). On a stock VF40, there was no detectable improvement. The main advantage of the Perrin over the TMIC is that it has welded on end tanks. The stock TMIC design (IMHO) is flawed because it is rigidly attached to both the turbo and the engine. Any strain will cause stresses in the end tank closest to the turbo. Even the JDM LGT TMIC uses a flexible hose to attach the TMIC to the turbo. I would have never thought that the Perrin would lose power over the stock TMIC. Is this cause even though the Perrin TMIC is bigger and flows better it is subject to more heat soak since the endtanks are metal instead of plastic? Thanks for the info TMIC was next on the list but, now I'm gonna wait 'till I have a bigger turbo in my hands so I don't have to pay for 2 tunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infamous1 Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 I would have never thought that the Perrin would lose power over the stock TMIC. Is this cause even though the Perrin TMIC is bigger and flows better it is subject to more heat soak since the endtanks are metal instead of plastic? That could also contribute to it along with the design, Tube & Fin (oem) vs Bar & plate (Perrin). Generally T & F has better cooling abilities while B & P has better flowing characteristics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewLGT Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 wow this is disappointing to hear. i just bought a perrin top mount to replace my perfectly good stocker.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonGT Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 yea i paid 700$ to lose alot of power? i mean ALOT. although my car in its current state feels pretty strong, i am down a good 20-30 whp compared to the stock TMIC...same tune looks like my perrin intercooler will be on sale soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewLGT Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 yea i paid 700$ to lose alot of power? i mean ALOT. although my car in its current state feels pretty strong, i am down a good 20-30 whp compared to the stock TMIC...same tune looks like my perrin intercooler will be on sale soon where are you getting those numbers? 30whp is a ton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonGT Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 where are you getting those numbers? 30whp is a ton log interpolation software. the road dyno shows power way down- especially past 5500 rpm also my acceleration times got so much slower according to my datalogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewLGT Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 log interpolation software. the road dyno shows power way down- especially past 5500 rpm also my acceleration times got so much slower according to my datalogs how far apart were the logs pulled? there are alot of variables that could come into play... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonGT Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 how far apart were the logs pulled? there are alot of variables that could come into play... log with stock tmic was taken last summer: 6.709 60-100 mph log with perrin intercooler was from this summer: 7.214 60-100 mph both logs had intake air temps of with 3 degrees and on the same road Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonGT Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 ^^^and thats a HUGE difference! that takes my decently quick stage 2 5EAT from 13.5 sec 1/4 mile to a 14.0 sec 1/4 car which is like what stock LGT MT's do. and this ASSUMING the 0-60 hasnt changed Aftermarket TMIC's suck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewLGT Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 wow. when my new intercooler gets here i'm going to pull two logs on the same day and see what kind of results i get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonGT Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 wow. when my new intercooler gets here i'm going to pull two logs on the same day and see what kind of results i get. please share them with me if you dont mind. and will you be running the same tune once you get the intercooler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewLGT Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 please share them with me if you dont mind. and will you be running the same tune once you get the intercooler? yes same tune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.