Saabscene Saab Forum - Saab Technical Information Resource banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Vigge had asked me to make some 4th gear data logs. Tonight it was a chilly 43 degrees Fahrenheit, and the car was feeling quite strong. I had a good feeling about it, and that feeling was confirmed!!

I set up the logger to only record RPM and MAF flow, which sped up the sample rate to about .5 seconds between each MAF reading, and RPM reading.

Here are some peak MAF flows in the 4 data logs I made tonight:

26.89 @ 5,700 RPM in 3rd gear "Coolant Temps 1"

26.42 @ 5,500 RPM in 3rd gear "Coolant Temps 2"

26.83 @ 5,800 RPM in 4th gear "MAF Log 1"

26.69 @ 5,850 RPM in 4th gear "MAF Log 2"

Here are the 4th gear runs (and one 1-3 gears run) with the RPM in a log below each for Vigge ... watch how long the high flow is maintained:













The longest sustained period in excess of 26 lbs/min was 3.656 seconds between 5,550 RPM and 5,950 RPM in the second MAF log.

The longest sustained period in excess of 25 lbs/min was 8.625 seconds between 4,900 RPM and 6,100 RPM in the first MAF log.

For reference 25 lb/min and 26 lbs/min is enough air to generate 273 and 283 hp in ideal conditions respectively. The peak of 26.89 is enough to generate 293 hp in ideal conditions.

230 hp requires about ~21.1 lbs/min of airflow. The car reaches 21 lbs/min at as low as 4,000 RPM.


Adrian W~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
Adrian

I guess it's impressive, and I've always thought the Viggen as being one of the most desirable Saabs, and I am probably in the minority here, but any chance of putting it in simple English.

Total mechanical/techncial illiterate here
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The simplest way to explain it is that it is taking in LOTS of air and usually air means power, however ...

I've been told that there may be things limiting the power despite the massive quantities of air. So I figure there should be an argument both ways:

Cons:

1. All that power could be getting squandered by massive pumping losses from the tight exhaust housing, intake, and intercooler.

2. The ignition timing may not be what it seems, even though it seems fairly good.

3. These values are indeed "normal" for the B235R, so where's all the power going on everyone else's car?

Pros:

1. Pumping losses are usually minimal. It's still hard for me to believe that an engine which is so very fuel efficient, even when driven hard, could be so wasteful. Usually, bad intakes, exhausts, and intercoolers only limit power by reducing the airflow; obviously they aren't doing that in this case. I've never ever heard of a car flowing this much air and not making at least 275 hp ... how could the B235R be so inefficient if indeed it somehow is not making the power it should? By most other engine's standards 275 hp would be a very conservative estimate of power. What's the beef?

2. The ignition timing may not be what it seems, but the car would only drop ignition timing if there were knock. I've run the car on race gas in the past, and found that the values were more or less the same. The igntion timing should be fine.

3. I don't know anyone with recorded MAF flow rates on the dyno. Perhaps other's cars are detonating in the considerably more harsh dyno conditions and thus lowering the flow?

Plain English:

The car goes like gangbusters, and has the airflow to back it up ... but something is still missing. So the tale continues!!


Adrian W~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Nice values in theory. If I were you, I would not draw any further conclusions based on those values measured with poor quality loggers. Error margins are quite big with those devices, and your logging frequency is too low.

And what comes to power...

Please record a video of your 100 km/h - 200 km/h acceleration ( or 0 - 200 km/h if you prefer ), and publish it here. Please publish the net weight of your vehicle as well. This makes it possible to make some educated guesses of the real power of your car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I've already posted a 0-100 mph video at some point. It was about 14 seconds flat, with a poor launch to boot. Perhaps not a perfect run, but it was reasonably quick. I also have a video run from 30-100 mph which is covered in 11 seconds flat. It's a very quick car. I took the car to the scales and with me in it the weight was 3352 lbs, or 1520 kg.

That data-logger is quite accurate, and the logging rate is as quick as any OBD II logger I'm aware of at 500 ms. The accuracy is 1ms or better. Not bad if you ask me.

Also, those values are dead on with the stock Trionic 7's air-mass map. So there's no need to be suspicious. The only thing that could be holding the car back is a rich mixture (which is retained in most aftermarket tuning) and some pumping losses from the small turbine housing.

The first MAF log actually has a 105-194 kph recorded. Based on the time in the log, again with accuracy to 1ms, it's 17.797 seconds. No idea where that stands though, and the latter part of that run was around a slight bend and very slightly uphill. (Where the 10 freeway meets the 30 in Redlands. You can check the topographical maps for yourself if you like.)

The second log goes from 123-193 kph and is on level groud. The time in that interval is 13.860 seconds.

If you were to extend that same accelleration through the entire 100-200 kph it would be roughly 19.8 seconds. Maybe I'll try it again after I wax the car. lol! Air resistances is significant at that speed.

Anyway. I feel that's reasonably good.


Adrian W~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
Adrian, here is something for you


Meybe there are some "mystery" parameters one need to take into account when looking a airmass values...

Remember the time you claimed that your car had 250Whp based on G-tech g-forces?
They where also supposed to be bullet proof at first.

I will do some homework ower this issue, I keep you posted if I get any "reliable" stuff...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Originally posted by Adrian W:
[qb]I've already posted a 0-100 mph video at some point.  It was about 14 seconds flat, with a poor launch to boot.  Perhaps not a perfect run, but it was reasonably quick.  I also have a video run from 30-100 mph which is covered in 11 seconds flat.  It's a very quick car.  I took the car to the scales and with me in it the weight was 3352 lbs, or 1520 kg.      

If you were to extend that same accelleration through the entire 100-200 kph it would be roughly 19.8 seconds.  Maybe I'll try it again after I wax the car.  lol!  Air resistances is significant at that speed.

Anyway.  I feel that's reasonably good.    
   

Adrian W~ [/qb][/b]
Reasonably good ?

9000 CS requires appr. the following power for 100 - 200 km/h accelerations:
- 100-200 in 6,5 sec = appr. 600 hk
- 100-200 in 7 sec = appr. 500-550 hk
- 100-200 in 9-9,5 sec = appr. 400 hk
- 100-200 in 11,5-12 sek = appr. 300-320 hk
The net weight for 9000 CS is quite close to 9-3 viggen, i guess. So, you acceleration was appr. 19,8 sec... One can draw some conclusions here...

Adrian Wareham's 9-3 Viggen ( MY2002, dynoed 213 whp ) had the following records:
1/4 Mile ET: 14.830
1/4 Mile MPH: 101.760
So, I do not see the big difference here... You mentioned low 14:s ( 14,1? 14,4 ? ) for 0 - 100.

So, based on the facts, I assume, your car leaves something like 220whp ( appr. 242 - 247 bhp on the crank ), which is something quite normal for a stock viggen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Originally posted by 95power:
[qb] QUOTE
Originally posted by Adrian W:
[qb] I've already posted a 0-100 mph video at some point.  It was about 14 seconds flat, with a poor launch to boot.  Perhaps not a perfect run, but it was reasonably quick.  I also have a video run from 30-100 mph which is covered in 11 seconds flat.  It's a very quick car.  I took the car to the scales and with me in it the weight was 3352 lbs, or 1520 kg.          

If you were to extend that same accelleration through the entire 100-200 kph it would be roughly 19.8 seconds.  Maybe I'll try it again after I wax the car.  lol!  Air resistances is significant at that speed.

Anyway.  I feel that's reasonably good.      :fawlty:      

Adrian W~ [/qb][/b]
Reasonably good ?

9000 CS requires appr. the following power for 100 - 200 km/h accelerations:
- 100-200 in 6,5 sec = appr. 600 hk
- 100-200 in 7 sec = appr. 500-550 hk
- 100-200 in 9-9,5 sec = appr. 400 hk
- 100-200 in 11,5-12 sek = appr. 300-320 hk
The net weight for 9000 CS is quite close to 9-3 viggen, i guess. So, you acceleration was appr. 19,8 sec... One can draw some conclusions here...

Adrian Wareham's 9-3 Viggen ( MY2002, dynoed 213 whp ) had the following records:
1/4 Mile ET: 14.830
1/4 Mile MPH: 101.760
So, I do not see the big difference here... You mentioned low 14:s ( 14,1? 14,4 ? ) for 0 - 100.

So, based on the facts, I assume, your car leaves something like 220whp ( appr. 242 - 247 bhp on the crank ), which is something quite normal for a stock viggen.
[/qb][/b][/quote]A little correction... That was naturally your own car, so there should be no differencies in this particular case...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Also, I never claimed to have the midrange torque, merely the top end flow. In 4th gear a 100-200 kph run starts at around 3,000 RPM. There's nothing exceptional about the car in this range.

I have also found an old vid of a 100-180 kph run with myself and a passenger on a "bad" day where the car was pulling lots of boost. It still ran 11.44. I'm confident I can improve that a bit.


Adrian~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Originally posted by Adrian W:
[qb]Also, I never claimed to have the midrange torque, merely the top end flow.  In 4th gear a 100-200 kph run starts at around 3,000 RPM.  There's nothing exceptional about the car in this range.      

I have also found an old vid of a 100-180 kph run with myself and a passenger on a "bad" day where the car was pulling lots of boost.  It still ran 11.44.  I'm confident I can improve that a bit.    :fawlty:  

Adrian~ [/qb][/b]
Adrian, what are you trying to tell us ?
To me it seems, that your car performs like std viggen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Originally posted by 95power:
[qb]Adrian, what are you trying to tell us ?
To me it seems, that your car performs like std viggen.         [/qb][/b]
What I'm trying to tell you is that the car is either making lots of horsepower, or missing lots of horsepower. I made no claims anywhere about torque, which is something entirely different.


Do you want to explain to me how another car can make 40-50 extra horsepower over this Viggen without a SINGLE DROP of extra fuel or air with which to make that power? Not even any extra ignition timing, or any significantly reduced pumping losses. Where's the beef?

Adrian~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
Originally posted by Adrian W:
[qb] QUOTE
Originally posted by 95power:
[qb]Adrian, what are you trying to tell us ?
To me it seems, that your car performs like std viggen.          [/qb][/b]
What I'm trying to tell you is that the car is either making lots of horsepower, or missing lots of horsepower. I made no claims anywhere about torque, which is something entirely different.


Do you want to explain to me how another car can make 40-50 extra horsepower over this Viggen without a SINGLE DROP of extra fuel or air with which to make that power? Not even any extra ignition timing, or any significantly reduced pumping losses. Where's the beef?

Adrian~ [/qb][/b][/quote]Adrian, what in earth are you bubbling about?
From where did you get my timing curve from? I think I dont have even my self, well I do but cant open the file like I wrote to you. But if you have my curve, please post it. What comes to A/F, why in earth do you think I would want to run my car with fatter A/F than a stock viggen does? I have 12.17-12.6 a peak hp and you have 11. Maybe the fat mixture in your case will drop output...
Performance, I dont even want to into that, you should know the story by now...

So basically you are saying that my car does not produce any more hp than a stock viggen?
Where did you completely stop believing in dyno results? Here is a plot from the very same dyno I use, a stock 9-3 aero rated to 205bhp. Will you try to argue that this dyno is very very optimistic? I dont take any dyno result for granted, but it surely is some what on scale...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Originally posted by Vigge:
[qb]Adrian, what in earth are you bubbling about?    
From where did you get my timing curve from? I think I dont have even my self, well I do but cant open the file like I wrote to you. But if you have my curve, please post it. What comes to A/F, why in earth do you think I would want to run my car with fatter A/F than a stock viggen does? I have 12.17-12.6 a peak hp and you have 11. Maybe the fat mixture in your case will drop output...
Performance, I dont even want to into that, you should know the story by now...

So basically you are saying that my car does not produce any more hp than a stock viggen?
Where did you completely stop believing in dyno results? Here is a plot from the very same dyno I use, a stock 9-3 aero rated to 205bhp. Will you try to argue that this dyno is very very optimistic? I dont take any dyno result for granted, but it surely is some what on scale...[/qb][/b]
The point I'm making is that the power doesn't seem to be coming from anywhere. A leaner mixture will help some, but 40-50 hp from 1 A/F ratio? The only way we'll know for sure what is going on here is when we can figure out exactly what your ignition timing is.

With enough additional ignition timing, and a much leaner mixture (12.7 would be a bit better in that regard, mine was around 11.2 @ peak power, and much leaner in midrange) with a better intercooler 20 hp seems reasonable. But 40-50? Where's it coming from? If you were using a larger 06 cm housing, and headers I could see considerably reduced pumping losses on the exhaust side. But otherwise, 40-50 hp makes no sense to me what-so-ever without more airflow.

Adrian W~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Originally posted by Adrian W:
[qb]Do you want to explain to me how another car can make 40-50 extra horsepower over this Viggen without a SINGLE DROP of extra fuel or air with which to make that power?         Not even any extra ignition timing, or any significantly reduced pumping losses.  Where's the beef?
[/qb][/b]
Yes I do.

1. We do not have enough explicit, real data here at all. We have single values, which can be whatever. Then we have many assumptions, and poorly calibrated, cheap advices for getting those values. Too many possible error sources here.
2. Fact is, that Vigge's car leaves a lot more power ( 50bhp ) than yours. This can be seen from long interval acceleration results. No arguing here. This is the only reliable, absolute fact here.

Adrian, your Viggen is very, very nice car. You can be happy with it even as stock. You are not as strong as Vigge, but Viggen is very powerful car even with that amount of power!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
There is nothing cheap or poorly calibrated about my scan tool thank you very much.

And last time I checked transmission losses on 9-3's were in the 15-18% range which would put my 213 whp before my thermostat and new plugs @ 250-260 crank horsepower. Unfortunately Vigge did not get a wheel hp reading ... so your "50 hp more" claim is nothing but an assumption based on data you do not even have. Talk about poor reasoning.


"Estimated" crank horsepower will never be fact. Both the MAF sensors are calibrated exactly the same and need to be in order to properly fuel the car. Having worked with an ex-dyno operator for over a year I can tell you that you can MAKE the dyno read ANYTHING you want your customer to think they have.

We do not just have ONE value either. While Viggen may not be posting his ignition timing, I have posted mine repeatedly, along with coolant temp, intake temp, MAP, throttle position, MAF flow, and calculated load. That makes 7 different sensors, not one.

Adrian W~
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top