DYNO SHOOTOUT - VQ30DE USIM vs MEVI w/CarTest Data!!
11-25-2002, 07:03 PM
#1
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
DYNO SHOOTOUT - VQ30DE USIM vs MEVI w/CarTest Data!!
So Ari (Nismo87SE) and I were chatting tonight on AIM about the 4th Gen VQ with the USIM (US Intake Manifold) vs the MEVI (yeah, we're complete geeks! LOL), and I figured out a way to extrapolate an MEVI dyno back to stock for comparison with a USIM VQ30DE.
I already have a bunch of stock VQ30DE dyno's, and then I have Dave B's dyno where the only thing he changed was just the intake manifold which I have mirrored here...
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...DaveB_MEVI.jpg
From that dyno, you could conclude that Dave B was making...
USIM: 180-182 fwhp @ 5200rpm
MEVI: 187 fwhp @ 6000rpm
So in terms of PEAK horsepower, the MEVI netted 187/180 = 3.9%, and this is erring on the optimistic side for the MEVI.
We know that a stock VQ30DE will dyno at around 160-161 fwhp @ 5200rpm. Assuming the gains from the MEVI will translate linearly (which they should), you would most likely get the same 3.9% gain on an otherwise stock Maxima. Dave B is obviously VERY modded.
So that comes out to....
est Stock VQ30DE w/MEVI only: 160 x 3.9% = 166.2 fwhp @ 6000rpm.
Since the only thing that changes a power curve significantly are cams or manifold work, we can assume that Dave B's power curve with the MEVI would scale back linearly also to stock power levels with a correction factor. I've done this before on another car and it was pretty darn accurate so I feel it's an accurate enough estimation.
So the correction factor is 166.2 / 187 fwhp = 0.89.
Now you can just multiply Dave's MEVI power curve by the 0.89 correction factor at each RPM interval and come back to pretty much stock power levels, and the charts below are pretty much what a VQ30DE would look like with *just* the MEVI and no other mod. And I have it compared with an existing baseline VQ30DE USIM dyno.
Horsepower
Torque
USIM Average Power 2000rpm - Redline: 121.9 fwhp
MEVI Average Power 2000rpm - Redline: 122.6 fwhp
Overall you do not gain ANY power overall under the entire RPM curve. The MEVI merely takes away power from the low/mid-range and adds it all back to the top-end, because the total power under the curve is nearly indentical between the two manifolds. This could explain why some are having trouble getting better 1/4 mile times with the MEVI.
USIM Average Power 4500rpm - Redline: 148.2 fwhp
MEVI Average Power 4500rpm - Redline: 156.2 fwhp
In the peak power band is where the MEVI really shines, and it adds an average of 8 fwhp overall vs the USIM. So if highway power is what you want, the MEVI gives you much better high speed pulling power than the USIM does. But around town, a USIM VQ would most likely pull on an MEVI VQ.
Nismo87SE is gonna follow up with some CarTest2000 data for y'all. He's working off of the same dyno curves as I am, because we shared methodology for extrapolating the MEVI back to stock power levels.
It's all about teamwork baby!
PS: Credit to Ari for prodding me. All it takes is a "hey whassup" on AIM to peak my interest on some of this stuff. I had this one on the back burner, but I just happened to be free tonight so....hehe
Also, Dave B's dyno was really tough to read. I tried to err optimistically on the MEVI dyno, but of all the dyno comparo's I've done, I would say this one is the least accurate. But again, the point is just to illustrate what's happening overall and to give you the "big picture" rather than be 100% accurate at each and every RPM interval ;-)
I already have a bunch of stock VQ30DE dyno's, and then I have Dave B's dyno where the only thing he changed was just the intake manifold which I have mirrored here...
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...DaveB_MEVI.jpg
From that dyno, you could conclude that Dave B was making...
USIM: 180-182 fwhp @ 5200rpm
MEVI: 187 fwhp @ 6000rpm
So in terms of PEAK horsepower, the MEVI netted 187/180 = 3.9%, and this is erring on the optimistic side for the MEVI.
We know that a stock VQ30DE will dyno at around 160-161 fwhp @ 5200rpm. Assuming the gains from the MEVI will translate linearly (which they should), you would most likely get the same 3.9% gain on an otherwise stock Maxima. Dave B is obviously VERY modded.
So that comes out to....
est Stock VQ30DE w/MEVI only: 160 x 3.9% = 166.2 fwhp @ 6000rpm.
Since the only thing that changes a power curve significantly are cams or manifold work, we can assume that Dave B's power curve with the MEVI would scale back linearly also to stock power levels with a correction factor. I've done this before on another car and it was pretty darn accurate so I feel it's an accurate enough estimation.
So the correction factor is 166.2 / 187 fwhp = 0.89.
Now you can just multiply Dave's MEVI power curve by the 0.89 correction factor at each RPM interval and come back to pretty much stock power levels, and the charts below are pretty much what a VQ30DE would look like with *just* the MEVI and no other mod. And I have it compared with an existing baseline VQ30DE USIM dyno.
Horsepower
Torque
USIM Average Power 2000rpm - Redline: 121.9 fwhp
MEVI Average Power 2000rpm - Redline: 122.6 fwhp
Overall you do not gain ANY power overall under the entire RPM curve. The MEVI merely takes away power from the low/mid-range and adds it all back to the top-end, because the total power under the curve is nearly indentical between the two manifolds. This could explain why some are having trouble getting better 1/4 mile times with the MEVI.
USIM Average Power 4500rpm - Redline: 148.2 fwhp
MEVI Average Power 4500rpm - Redline: 156.2 fwhp
In the peak power band is where the MEVI really shines, and it adds an average of 8 fwhp overall vs the USIM. So if highway power is what you want, the MEVI gives you much better high speed pulling power than the USIM does. But around town, a USIM VQ would most likely pull on an MEVI VQ.
Nismo87SE is gonna follow up with some CarTest2000 data for y'all. He's working off of the same dyno curves as I am, because we shared methodology for extrapolating the MEVI back to stock power levels.
It's all about teamwork baby!
PS: Credit to Ari for prodding me. All it takes is a "hey whassup" on AIM to peak my interest on some of this stuff. I had this one on the back burner, but I just happened to be free tonight so....hehe
Also, Dave B's dyno was really tough to read. I tried to err optimistically on the MEVI dyno, but of all the dyno comparo's I've done, I would say this one is the least accurate. But again, the point is just to illustrate what's happening overall and to give you the "big picture" rather than be 100% accurate at each and every RPM interval ;-)
11-25-2002, 07:22 PM
#2
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,085
Once again, very informative post. For awhile I have been quite curious to see what the MEVI does in terms of power compared to the US manifold throughout the entire rpm range. I knew that it took power away in the lower rpm's, but I didn't know it was as dramatic as your graphs show. Interesting.....
11-25-2002, 07:28 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,807
Good work Steve
Now here are my results. Even though Steve used a different method than I did we got nearly the same numbers. What I did was I took the % of delta (difference) between the USIM and MEVI at certain rpm intervals. After I found the difference I then added or subtracted it back to a stock USIM VQ dyno. Then once I had the VQ MEVI curve I plotted it against the VQ USIM. For kicks I threw in a VE30DE curve too. Here is the chart http://www.geocities.com/nismo87se/V...MvsVQ-MEVI.JPG (you might have to cut/paste or right click and save as). Using this method I came up with 170whp @ 6000rpm and 161wtq @ 4700rpm, this isn't much different than Steve's results.
Each power curve is labeled at the top, as you can see the mevi makes pretty good bottom end torque and toppend power. However in the midrange it is severly lacking compared to the VE/VQ. After viewing these power curves I then ran a simulated 0-1.5 mile standing start run.
I gave all the cars the same 60' so that only the acceleration would be based on the engine's power band and not launch. The results were pretty much as I expected. The VQ-USIM had the same ET as the VQ MEVI did. For a stock VQ I get 15.27 @ 92.4, 6.68 0-60. The MEVI gets 15.25 @ 93.3mph, 6.71 0-60. For the VE I get 15.33 @ 92.5, 6.80 0-60. Here is where it gets interesting if the VE was to drop 100lbs off its curb weight its new 1/4 would be 15.22 @ 93.3, 6.67 0-60. From there its 0-1.5 mile (thats 7920ft folks) has the same ET! However given it's stock weight the VE is 1 tenth behind the VQ-USIM from 0-1.5 miles.
So in conclusion stock for stock the MEVI would only improve the car's acceleration after the 1/4 greatly. At the 1 mile mark the MEVI is putting about 3-4 cars on the USIM VQ. Furthermore if the VE was the same weight as the VQ it would run the same as the MEVI.
Each power curve is labeled at the top, as you can see the mevi makes pretty good bottom end torque and toppend power. However in the midrange it is severly lacking compared to the VE/VQ. After viewing these power curves I then ran a simulated 0-1.5 mile standing start run.
I gave all the cars the same 60' so that only the acceleration would be based on the engine's power band and not launch. The results were pretty much as I expected. The VQ-USIM had the same ET as the VQ MEVI did. For a stock VQ I get 15.27 @ 92.4, 6.68 0-60. The MEVI gets 15.25 @ 93.3mph, 6.71 0-60. For the VE I get 15.33 @ 92.5, 6.80 0-60. Here is where it gets interesting if the VE was to drop 100lbs off its curb weight its new 1/4 would be 15.22 @ 93.3, 6.67 0-60. From there its 0-1.5 mile (thats 7920ft folks) has the same ET! However given it's stock weight the VE is 1 tenth behind the VQ-USIM from 0-1.5 miles.
So in conclusion stock for stock the MEVI would only improve the car's acceleration after the 1/4 greatly. At the 1 mile mark the MEVI is putting about 3-4 cars on the USIM VQ. Furthermore if the VE was the same weight as the VQ it would run the same as the MEVI.
11-25-2002, 07:39 PM
#5
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
As a footnote, Ari pointed out to me that Dave B's MEVI vs USIM dyno chart showed the MEVI making a tad bit more power between 2600-3200rpm. My plots show the opposite.
My bad
But like I said, the plots were really tough to read so it wouldn't be 100% accurate. I'm going for "big picture" over absolute 100% accuracy. But I'll fiddle with the plots some more later (out of time tonight) and try to get them to come out a little more accurately if I can
My bad
But like I said, the plots were really tough to read so it wouldn't be 100% accurate. I'm going for "big picture" over absolute 100% accuracy. But I'll fiddle with the plots some more later (out of time tonight) and try to get them to come out a little more accurately if I can
11-25-2002, 08:02 PM
#7
Actually I have been thinking about this weight thing. And if the you take out your front pass. seat it weighs around 50-60lbs also the spare tire, trunk pad weighs about 30-50lbs (or something like that, **** is heavy) back seats are about 10-20lbs. So at the track a you could shave off an easy 100+lbs in about 10 minutes. There are also some other "ninja" secrets that I wont give out, cause then they wouldnt be "ninja" but like they say, search and you will find out, you can shave another 100lbs, without loosing anything physical, just sacrificing safety. If you wanted too, you could get a 3rd gen under 3000lbs race weight, FOR FREE!
11-25-2002, 09:41 PM
#8
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Wow, you spent a lot of time on this 
If you had a hard time reading the numbers and want more accuracy, I can provide 100rpm incremental numbers to 6500rpms for both my dynos.
The lower amount of torque from 3200-4500rpms with VIM definately can be felt. Don't get me wrong, it's not a huge loss, but you can feel it. The biggest torque loss occurs at 4400rpms (~11fwtq and ~9fwhp lost).
I find it VERY strange that the VIM completely smoothes out the "bumpiness" of USIM even though VIM appears to have worse design for low rpm airflow (clearly I'm mistaken). The VIM completely smooths out the torque humps of the USIM. Gone is the USIM's feel of potent acceleration from a roll on punch from 4000-6000rpms in 2nd. With the VIM, the power just feels linear straight to redline.
To truely take advantage of the VIM, the JWT ECU is mandatory. An extra 500rpms of rev in each gear plus the added midrange torque should dramatically improve acceleration in the 1/4 mile and beyond. Being able to delay each shift will put you farther ahead in each successive gear's powerband where the meat of the power is with the VIM. I've done the shift point calculations with the VIM. The VIM powerband is all wrong for the stock 6500rpm fuel cut. Honestly, a 7300rpm redline would be ideal.
I'm glad you guys performed these dyno comparos. It helps many of us better understand why we're not improving in the 1/4 mile with the VIMs.
Dave
If you had a hard time reading the numbers and want more accuracy, I can provide 100rpm incremental numbers to 6500rpms for both my dynos. The lower amount of torque from 3200-4500rpms with VIM definately can be felt. Don't get me wrong, it's not a huge loss, but you can feel it. The biggest torque loss occurs at 4400rpms (~11fwtq and ~9fwhp lost).
I find it VERY strange that the VIM completely smoothes out the "bumpiness" of USIM even though VIM appears to have worse design for low rpm airflow (clearly I'm mistaken). The VIM completely smooths out the torque humps of the USIM. Gone is the USIM's feel of potent acceleration from a roll on punch from 4000-6000rpms in 2nd. With the VIM, the power just feels linear straight to redline.
To truely take advantage of the VIM, the JWT ECU is mandatory. An extra 500rpms of rev in each gear plus the added midrange torque should dramatically improve acceleration in the 1/4 mile and beyond. Being able to delay each shift will put you farther ahead in each successive gear's powerband where the meat of the power is with the VIM. I've done the shift point calculations with the VIM. The VIM powerband is all wrong for the stock 6500rpm fuel cut. Honestly, a 7300rpm redline would be ideal.
I'm glad you guys performed these dyno comparos. It helps many of us better understand why we're not improving in the 1/4 mile with the VIMs.
Dave
11-25-2002, 09:54 PM
#11
i knew it i knew it i knew it...
the vi useless for 1/4 miling w/o the aid of an ecu upgrade(didnt know that part) but still the vi is good for rpms above 4.5 5grand.
i dont want to lose that midrange tq for upper rpm gain
you dont make hp with vi you just take power from one part of the power band and insert it into another.
thats why i think nitrous and turbos can really take advantage of the vi. they are already give you tq and hp in an area in which the vi is making you lose it.
the vi useless for 1/4 miling w/o the aid of an ecu upgrade(didnt know that part) but still the vi is good for rpms above 4.5 5grand.
i dont want to lose that midrange tq for upper rpm gain
you dont make hp with vi you just take power from one part of the power band and insert it into another.
thats why i think nitrous and turbos can really take advantage of the vi. they are already give you tq and hp in an area in which the vi is making you lose it.
11-25-2002, 10:02 PM
#12
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally posted by Dave B
Wow, you spent a lot of time on this :spin : If you had a hard time reading the numbers and want more accuracy, I can provide 100rpm incremental numbers to 6500rpms for both my dynos.
Wow, you spent a lot of time on this :spin : If you had a hard time reading the numbers and want more accuracy, I can provide 100rpm incremental numbers to 6500rpms for both my dynos.
I thought you only had a picture of the dyno screen from the dyno shop and not any raw data
If you could forward the data along to SteVTEC@maxima.org or just post it up here I'd appreciate it
11-25-2002, 10:46 PM
#13
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by SteVTEC
I thought you only had a picture of the dyno screen from the dyno shop and not any raw data
If you could forward the data along to SteVTEC@maxima.org or just post it up here I'd appreciate it
I thought you only had a picture of the dyno screen from the dyno shop and not any raw data
If you could forward the data along to SteVTEC@maxima.org or just post it up here I'd appreciate it
RPM HP TQ HP TQ
2600 83.5 168.8 84.9 171.5
2700 85.8 166.9 87.8 170.7
2800 88.6 166.1 91.4 171.5
2900 92.1 166.8 95.4 172.7
3000 96.9 169.6 100.3 175.7
3100 103.2 174.9 105.5 178.8
3200 112.6 184.8 109.9 180.5
3300 119.6 190.4 114.3 181.9
3400 123.6 190.9 117.9 182.1
3500 125.8 188.7 119.6 179.4
3600 124.8 182 120.8 176.2
3700 125.7 178.4 123.5 175.2
3800 126.8 175.2 125.1 172.9
3900 133.3 179.5 131.6 177.2
4000 138.1 181.3 135.6 178
4100 145.1 185.9 140.6 180.1
4200 148.5 185.7 144.8 181.1
4300 155.5 189.9 149.9 183
4400 160.7 191.9 151.5 180.8
4500 164.7 192.2 154.8 180.7
4600 167 190.7 157.5 179.8
4700 167.7 187.4 163.9 183.2
4800 169.4 185.4 166.4 182.1
4900 170.6 182.9 169.1 181.2
5000 173.6 182.3 172.9 181.6
5100 177 182.3 172.7 177.8
5200 181.7 183.5 176 177.7
5300 182.2 180.5 178.8 177.2
5400 182.6 177.6 180 175
5500 180.7 172.5 180.9 172.8
5600 177.3 166.3 180.3 169.1
5700 175.1 161.4 181.9 167.6
5800 173.1 156.8 184.1 166.7
5900 167.8 149.3 186.8 166.3
6000 163.7 144 188.9 164.5
6100 158.5 136.4 186.6 160.6
6200 152 131 187.5 158.9
6300 144 125 186.2 155.2
6400 138 119 186.4 152.9
6500 132 111 183.1 147.9
As you can see, there is a drop in power at 5000rpms with the VIM opens. Not until 5500rpms does the VIM start flowing like the USIM. After that, it takes over. I've adjusted my switchover to ~5400rpms. I'm pretty certain that the VIM would post the same numbers as the USIM from 4900-5500rpms if I hadn't set the swithover until 5400-5500 just as Mardigras suggested 6 months ago.
Dave
11-25-2002, 10:47 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,807
If anyone cares I added a stock VG dyno too, suffice to say they are pretty much very torquey 
http://www.geocities.com/nismo87se/V...vsVQ-MEVI.JPG.
EDIT:Here are the same dynos but with a stock VG30DE added in too. I can safely say the VG ownz all after 4400rpm. http://www.geocities.com/nismo87se/V...Q-MEVIvsVG.JPG (cut/paste or right click/save as).
http://www.geocities.com/nismo87se/V...vsVQ-MEVI.JPG.EDIT:Here are the same dynos but with a stock VG30DE added in too. I can safely say the VG ownz all after 4400rpm
. http://www.geocities.com/nismo87se/V...Q-MEVIvsVG.JPG (cut/paste or right click/save as).
11-25-2002, 10:53 PM
#15
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by nismo2020
i dont want to lose that midrange tq for upper rpm gain
you dont make hp with vi you just take power from one part of the power band and insert it into another.
i dont want to lose that midrange tq for upper rpm gain
you dont make hp with vi you just take power from one part of the power band and insert it into another.
Dave
11-25-2002, 11:06 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,807
That is the weird part, I've used your before and after dyno. cartest is showing that you should be running 14.7-14.9s @ 94mph with USIM. And 14.5-14.6s @ 96-97mph with the VI, something is up 
. I have one question does your dyno list the rpm/mph ratio for 4th gear? If it is 50-51rpm/mph then I need to adjust my tire circumfrence to comply. Otherwise cartest is saying you should hit 97mph @ 6500rpm in 3rd gear. However if holding 3rd gear gets you less than 95mph trap, an adjustment is needed.
. I have one question does your dyno list the rpm/mph ratio for 4th gear? If it is 50-51rpm/mph then I need to adjust my tire circumfrence to comply. Otherwise cartest is saying you should hit 97mph @ 6500rpm in 3rd gear. However if holding 3rd gear gets you less than 95mph trap, an adjustment is needed.
Originally posted by Dave B
Wow, you spent a lot of time on this If you had a hard time reading the numbers and want more accuracy, I can provide 100rpm incremental numbers to 6500rpms for both my dynos.
The lower amount of torque from 3200-4500rpms with VIM definately can be felt. Don't get me wrong, it's not a huge loss, but you can feel it. The biggest torque loss occurs at 4400rpms (~11fwtq and ~9fwhp lost).
I'm glad you guys performed these dyno comparos. It helps many of us better understand why we're not improving in the 1/4 mile with the VIMs.
Dave
Wow, you spent a lot of time on this
If you had a hard time reading the numbers and want more accuracy, I can provide 100rpm incremental numbers to 6500rpms for both my dynos. The lower amount of torque from 3200-4500rpms with VIM definately can be felt. Don't get me wrong, it's not a huge loss, but you can feel it. The biggest torque loss occurs at 4400rpms (~11fwtq and ~9fwhp lost).
I'm glad you guys performed these dyno comparos. It helps many of us better understand why we're not improving in the 1/4 mile with the VIMs.
Dave
11-25-2002, 11:18 PM
#17
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by Nismo87SE
That is the weird part, I've used your before and after dyno. cartest is showing that you should be running 14.7-14.9s @ 94mph with USIM. And 14.5-14.6s @ 96-97mph with the VI, something is up. I have one question does your dyno list the rpm/mph ratio for 4th gear? If it is 50-51rpm/mph then I need to adjust my tire circumfrence to comply. Otherwise cartest is saying you should hit 97mph @ 6500rpm in 3rd gear. However if holding 3rd gear gets you less than 95mph trap, an adjustment is needed.
That is the weird part, I've used your before and after dyno. cartest is showing that you should be running 14.7-14.9s @ 94mph with USIM. And 14.5-14.6s @ 96-97mph with the VI, something is up
. I have one question does your dyno list the rpm/mph ratio for 4th gear? If it is 50-51rpm/mph then I need to adjust my tire circumfrence to comply. Otherwise cartest is saying you should hit 97mph @ 6500rpm in 3rd gear. However if holding 3rd gear gets you less than 95mph trap, an adjustment is needed. With the USIM, only after I started shifting the 3 to 4 at 6000rpms did my car start running 95mph+ trap speeds. By shifting to 4th at 6000rpms, car dropped over .1 seconds and gained nearly 2mph in trap on average. If I were to hold 3rd, I'd get high 14.8s and 14.9s at 93-94mph. I run at a track which is ~1200' above sea level so you can add another 1mph and drop ~.15 in ET from all my numbers.
Dave
11-25-2002, 11:25 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,807
Not really the VI needs 2 things rpm or gear. Clearly running bigger diameter tires would help an NA car by not letting shift into 4th. However cartest says YMMV (Your Results May Vary) though. ECU + MEVI = faster though in a nutshell.
Originally posted by nismo2020
i knew it i knew it i knew it...
the vi useless for 1/4 miling w/o the aid of an ecu upgrade(didnt know that part) but still the vi is good for rpms above 4.5 5grand.
i dont want to lose that midrange tq for upper rpm gain
you dont make hp with vi you just take power from one part of the power band and insert it into another.
thats why i think nitrous and turbos can really take advantage of the vi. they are already give you tq and hp in an area in which the vi is making you lose it.
i knew it i knew it i knew it...
the vi useless for 1/4 miling w/o the aid of an ecu upgrade(didnt know that part) but still the vi is good for rpms above 4.5 5grand.
i dont want to lose that midrange tq for upper rpm gain
you dont make hp with vi you just take power from one part of the power band and insert it into another.
thats why i think nitrous and turbos can really take advantage of the vi. they are already give you tq and hp in an area in which the vi is making you lose it.
11-25-2002, 11:40 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,807
Hmm that means that 3rd gear should be 68-69 rpm/mph. So I'll make the adjustment in cartest. Hmmm I seem to have found the difference, with the VI I have the shift time 0.25 sec quicker than without it. Given both the same shift time now I get 14.6 @ 95.6mph for your car with USIM and 2.27 60'. That should be pretty much inline with what you ran before. So cartest is saying that with the VI you should be 0.1 sec and 1-1.5mph faster in the 1/4.
Originally posted by Dave B
My dyno running show 51.2-51.4 rpm/mph.
With the USIM, only after I started shifting the 3 to 4 at 6000rpms did my car start running 95mph+ trap speeds. By shifting to 4th at 6000rpms, car dropped over .1 seconds and gained nearly 2mph in trap on average. If I were to hold 3rd, I'd get high 14.8s and 14.9s at 93-94mph. I run at a track which is ~1200' above sea level so you can add another 1mph and drop ~.15 in ET from all my numbers.
Dave
My dyno running show 51.2-51.4 rpm/mph.
With the USIM, only after I started shifting the 3 to 4 at 6000rpms did my car start running 95mph+ trap speeds. By shifting to 4th at 6000rpms, car dropped over .1 seconds and gained nearly 2mph in trap on average. If I were to hold 3rd, I'd get high 14.8s and 14.9s at 93-94mph. I run at a track which is ~1200' above sea level so you can add another 1mph and drop ~.15 in ET from all my numbers.
Dave
11-26-2002, 07:33 AM
#23
Nice! And damned informative, as usual.
You ever notice how the MEVI dyno compared to USIM looks alot like a CL-S VTEC comparo to a Max?? Does this mean we really love VTEC but just can't admit it?
DW
You ever notice how the MEVI dyno compared to USIM looks alot like a CL-S VTEC comparo to a Max?? Does this mean we really love VTEC but just can't admit it?
DW
11-26-2002, 08:27 AM
#24
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by Nismo87SE
Hmmm I seem to have found the difference, with the VI I have the shift time 0.25 sec quicker than without it. Given both the same shift time now I get 14.6 @ 95.6mph for your car with USIM and 2.27 60'. That should be pretty much inline with what you ran before. So cartest is saying that with the VI you should be 0.1 sec and 1-1.5mph faster in the 1/4.
Hmmm I seem to have found the difference, with the VI I have the shift time 0.25 sec quicker than without it. Given both the same shift time now I get 14.6 @ 95.6mph for your car with USIM and 2.27 60'. That should be pretty much inline with what you ran before. So cartest is saying that with the VI you should be 0.1 sec and 1-1.5mph faster in the 1/4.
Dave
11-26-2002, 08:29 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,807
Yes it is VTEC envy 
. When I get my VTEC upgrade I want version 2.31 LOL software.
. When I get my VTEC upgrade I want version 2.31 LOL software.
Originally posted by dwapenyi
Nice! And damned informative, as usual.
You ever notice how the MEVI dyno compared to USIM looks alot like a CL-S VTEC comparo to a Max?? Does this mean we really love VTEC but just can't admit it?
DW
Nice! And damned informative, as usual.
You ever notice how the MEVI dyno compared to USIM looks alot like a CL-S VTEC comparo to a Max?? Does this mean we really love VTEC but just can't admit it?
DW
11-26-2002, 09:14 AM
#26
Good graphs, but since mods compound (the more you have the more you stand to gain) isn't this "stock" comparison rather indecisive. I made graphs a long time ago which compared a few before/after dynoes.
http://www.vanillaice.com/webmasters/hype/mrc/mevi.htm
In general many of us have our cars setup to make more power in the top end (popchargers, exhaust, etc.), so it seems that the VI may just magnify this top end gain more than midrange. Based on the design of the VI it does seem that something had to give to optimize the resonance.
-hype
http://www.vanillaice.com/webmasters/hype/mrc/mevi.htm
In general many of us have our cars setup to make more power in the top end (popchargers, exhaust, etc.), so it seems that the VI may just magnify this top end gain more than midrange. Based on the design of the VI it does seem that something had to give to optimize the resonance.
-hype
11-26-2002, 09:49 AM
#27
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally posted by xHypex
Good graphs, but since mods compound (the more you have the more you stand to gain) isn't this "stock" comparison rather indecisive. I made graphs a long time ago which compared a few before/after dynoes.
http://www.vanillaice.com/webmasters/hype/mrc/mevi.htm
Good graphs, but since mods compound (the more you have the more you stand to gain) isn't this "stock" comparison rather indecisive. I made graphs a long time ago which compared a few before/after dynoes.
http://www.vanillaice.com/webmasters/hype/mrc/mevi.htm
But what about just an MEVI?
So what you see here is nothing new. It's existing data provided by other members extrapolated back to stock just to see how it might look if somebody modded their car in that configuration, since nobody has done it yet. This also levels the playing field and gives me an additional baseline for future comparisons as well
11-26-2002, 09:51 AM
#28
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally posted by Y2KevSE
Steve, you could've just compared Jane's dyno with my dyno.
Steve, you could've just compared Jane's dyno with my dyno.
j0o fear the MEVI
11-26-2002, 11:38 AM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,807
Why wait get a greddy emanage system. That will allow you to set the rev limiter as high as you want as well as tune the timing/fuel curves.
Originally posted by SuDZ
Man I really wish JWT would get the ECU out for 98's so that I can bump up my redline and take full advantage of the MEVI even more so.
SuDZ
Man I really wish JWT would get the ECU out for 98's so that I can bump up my redline and take full advantage of the MEVI even more so.
SuDZ
11-26-2002, 12:16 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,807
http://www.greddy.com/products/electronics_frame.htm
Originally posted by Bluebird
Elaborate please.
Elaborate please.
11-26-2002, 12:50 PM
#38
Anybody sucessfully used one on a Max?
11-26-2002, 01:17 PM
#39
The e-manage looks interesting, but so far no one has used it right?
Here's a few things I found
E-manage discussion
http://www.fc3s.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=17
Supported Engines
http://www.mkiv.com/tmp/emanage/e-manage_engines.JPG
E-manage Manual
http://www.mkiv.com/tmp/emanage/eman...esm/index.html
-hype
Here's a few things I found
E-manage discussion
http://www.fc3s.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=17
Supported Engines
http://www.mkiv.com/tmp/emanage/e-manage_engines.JPG
E-manage Manual
http://www.mkiv.com/tmp/emanage/eman...esm/index.html
-hype
