Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday April 24, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > Proven Power Bragging

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-04-2012, 12:19 PM   #1
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2012 Forester 2.5X
2002 WRX Sedan

Default xluben's Virtual Dyno vs. Dynojet Comparison (and VF52 vs. 20G XTR)

Here are my results using Virtual Dyno vs. the actual Dynojet at MAPerformance. I have two different setups that I've had dyno'd at MAP. The first was with the stock VF52 (on E85) and the second one was the 20G XTR (on E85). Here is more info on the 20G XTR setup if anyone is interested.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2338819

2011 WRX - VF52 - E85:
Dynojet (MAPerformance): 339WHP
Virtual Dyno (Dynojet): 338WHP

2011 WRX - 20GXTR - E85:
Dynojet (MAPerformance): 462WHP
Virtual Dyno (Dynojet): 463WHP





The peak horsepower results are VERY close! The peak torque is different by about 5%, but the overall curves (both power and torque) look very similar. The main issues I see with people posting Virtual Dyno results are the following:
  • Fast Polling turned on when logging
  • Road is not flat
  • Data is not entered correctly (weight, tire size, etc.)
  • Improper smoothing
  • Improper trimming
As long as you give Virtual Dyno good data, it will produce good results. While dyno numbers don't mean much, I've found it to be very useful to track the changes I've made to my car. I find that it's definitely more useful than the old "butt dyno".
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2012, 12:19 PM   #2
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2012 Forester 2.5X
2002 WRX Sedan

Default

The other interesting comparison here (for some people) is the stock turbo vs. a bit larger one, the 20G XTR. This size (very similar to the Dom 1.5XTR) is something that many people probably consider when looking at stock location turbos and I haven't seen too many direct comparisons. I haven't seen too many people push this size turbo to higher boost (many are often run at 20-24psi), so often the results are not that impressive. When TopSpeed did the Dom1.5XTR testing, they pushed the turbo to similar boost and had great results as well.

What I glean from looking at these plots is that you can gain over 100WHP and 100WTQ when going from a stock turbo to this size turbo. You will probably lose up to 500rpm's of spool (ie. RPM @ 20psi) but peak torque will shift by nearly 1k rpm's. Often when you see turbo's this size having peak torque only about 500rpm's later than a stock turbo, it is because they are only pushing it to just over 20psi. When you push the boost higher you will typically see spool up at the same RPM but the peak will be further right.

On the street it feels great, but it does hit later. There is gobs and gobs more power, but you do have to wait for it. Downshifting does wonders. It's much easier to stay out of boost, but when you get on it, it really moves. I love the setup and could never see myself going back, but be warned that it does feel different. No more flooring it at 3k and zipping away. You're better off downshifting, then flooring it, and then zipping away much faster I daily drive this car, and I love it. Plenty of usable power, and it comes on quick enough to be good for daily use.

The stock turbo on E85 is an absolute blast compared to a bone stock car. Spools the same or sooner, and has so much more power and especially torque. The boost still drops off by redline, but you can get a very good midrange torque peak. The car will spool so fast for the power you can make. This is a great setup and tons of fun. It is very cheap to do, and it should be quite reliable as well. If you want more power, I would wholeheartedly suggest going through stages, rather than just jumping to something big and laggy because you want a big dyno number. You'll learn a lot more about what you really want along the way.

Of course I'm sure there will be people who want to nit pick one thing or another in this post. These are just my thoughts on my results. I'm sure some people have spooled earlier or later, and some have made more or less power. This is what I've seen, and it's just one example. The only other word of warning is that with this power, things break. I've cracked a piston and shredded 3rd gear in the last year (but now I have a built motor and built tranny, so hopefully things last!).
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2012, 03:51 PM   #3
GeneralTJI
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 152680
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: s366 Duramax self built/tuned
Vehicle:
I Parted out WRX
for my Pilots License :)

Default

Once I turned off fast polling, I have been very happy with the Virtual Dyno as a whole.

Nice to see these results!
GeneralTJI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2012, 07:04 PM   #4
masayver
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 176021
Join Date: Mar 2008
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Chicago, IL
Vehicle:
2011 Impreza WRX
Lighting Red

Default

Xluben, thanks for sharing. Your documentation on your build is awesome and has helped me with my build. I also found that Virtual Dyno's (I prefer using the Mustang setting) horsepower results are close to a real Mustang dyno I ran my car on, with torque being lower in VD than on the real dyno.
masayver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 12:27 PM   #5
bbarnhill
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 256281
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kansas City, KS
Vehicle:
2007 Shelby GT 500
Grey

Default

Glad you guys are liking VD as some people are skeptical especially since fast polling came out ... I cant get anyone on the RR forums to listen that its junk and inaccurate because the problem "has to be in VD". Its not and we all know it.
bbarnhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 01:19 PM   #6
S.T.A.R - Tuning
Former Vendor
 
Member#: 309758
Join Date: Feb 2012
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Hubertus, WI
Vehicle:
2004 STI
PM me if u need a Tune

Default

Very nice data collection..I always enjoy looking at comparisons between turbos

Great spool up on the 20g btw, E85 makes a such a big difference. Do u have comparisons between 93oct and E85?

Really nice numbers too 460+whp with that quick spool must be a blast to drive on the road
S.T.A.R - Tuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 03:52 PM   #7
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2012 Forester 2.5X
2002 WRX Sedan

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralTJI View Post
Once I turned off fast polling, I have been very happy with the Virtual Dyno as a whole.

Nice to see these results!
Yeah, me too. My results were always good, and then fast polling showed up and the results got way off. Now that I know to disable that option, the results are very good again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by masayver View Post
Xluben, thanks for sharing. Your documentation on your build is awesome and has helped me with my build. I also found that Virtual Dyno's (I prefer using the Mustang setting) horsepower results are close to a real Mustang dyno I ran my car on, with torque being lower in VD than on the real dyno.
Yeah, the Mustang setting should also be pretty close to a real Mustang dyno. It seems like real Mustang's can be manipulated a lot more than Dynojet, so I think it's harder to know what they "normally" read. A good thing you could do is get one run done on a local dyno and then find out what correction factor in VD is needed to match that. Then you can always use VD to compare to your local dyno.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbarnhill View Post
Glad you guys are liking VD as some people are skeptical especially since fast polling came out ... I cant get anyone on the RR forums to listen that its junk and inaccurate because the problem "has to be in VD". Its not and we all know it.
Fast polling outputs inconsistently and VD analysis algorithm cannot account for this. Luckily turning fast polling off gives very good and consistent results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.T.A.R - Tuning View Post
Very nice data collection..I always enjoy looking at comparisons between turbos

Great spool up on the 20g btw, E85 makes a such a big difference. Do u have comparisons between 93oct and E85?

Really nice numbers too 460+whp with that quick spool must be a blast to drive on the road
Yeah, it doesn't seem like there are that many comparisons between turbo's (ie. same car, same dyno). I'm always interested in seeing them as well. I don't have any pump gas numbers. I'm not tuned for it, and I don't plan on it. If E85 ever goes away it will be a very sad day. I don't know if I'd even want my car anymore, lol. The car is a ton of fun on the street!
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 03:44 PM   #8
Celery GT-5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 98210
Join Date: Oct 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:
2015 WRX Premium
WRB

Default

that's amazingly close wow
Celery GT-5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 09:24 AM   #9
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2012 Forester 2.5X
2002 WRX Sedan

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celery GT-5 View Post
that's amazingly close wow
With the correct inputs, and good data (fast polling off, flat, smooth road, etc.) I have Virtual Dyno to be very good. I wouldn't expect it to be within 1HP every time, but within a few % is reasonable. Just do a couple back to back runs to make sure you're getting repeatable results.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 07:13 PM   #10
Slimsti
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 155696
Join Date: Aug 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: New Jersey
Vehicle:
2007 BLK STI Dom3XTR
415/405 Precision Tuning

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xluben
With the correct inputs, and good data (fast polling off, flat, smooth road, etc.) I have Virtual Dyno to be very good. I wouldn't expect it to be within 1HP every time, but within a few % is reasonable. Just do a couple back to back runs to make sure you're getting repeatable results.
Yeah its dead on for me and always has been within 5-10whp of my.actual dynojet numbers.
Slimsti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 01:34 PM   #11
Clark Turner
NASIOC Vendor
 
Member#: 178047
Join Date: Apr 2008
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: AZ/Vegas
Vehicle:
02 WRX STI Spec C
Black

Default

VD is a great tool and cobb owners can load logs directly into the software. Awesome program. Just make sure you got a nice flat road.
Clark Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 03:50 PM   #12
NoGraffix
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 276209
Join Date: Mar 2011
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Windy City
Vehicle:
I am Rub
Function>Form

Default

IDK why but VD sucks for me. I have a log that I took while dynoing my car; the mustang dyno said I made 300/348, but yet VD is telling me something like 248/315. I'm not quite sure exactly why this happens (no fast polling, everything spec wise is correct, ect), but I've accepted it and just stopped caring. The car is fast and fun so screw what numbers I got.
NoGraffix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 04:50 PM   #13
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2012 Forester 2.5X
2002 WRX Sedan

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoGraffix View Post
IDK why but VD sucks for me. I have a log that I took while dynoing my car; the mustang dyno said I made 300/348, but yet VD is telling me something like 248/315. I'm not quite sure exactly why this happens (no fast polling, everything spec wise is correct, ect), but I've accepted it and just stopped caring. The car is fast and fun so screw what numbers I got.
Virtual Dyno works by calculating how long it takes to accelerate a known mass (the car). The Mustang dyno can apply any load the operator wants. This is not the correct way to use VD and I would expect it to be off. All your number tells you is that the dyno was loading the car more than it's actual on road load. Should make spool look better and can help with tuning resolution. Go do a road log in a nice flat road and it should be very close.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 09:47 AM   #14
NoGraffix
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 276209
Join Date: Mar 2011
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Windy City
Vehicle:
I am Rub
Function>Form

Default

I'll go take some logs later this week and if you don't mind could you run a VD on it for me? I've never had any good results with VD. I'm expecting close to 300whp with my setup (vf39 on a 2.5L running e85) but yet my VD ranges from 230-260. I have a nice long flat road near my home, so I'll do a few passes going both directions. VD is fairly precise seeing that the results on the same stretch come in all around the same numbers, I just feel like those numbers are lower then what I'd expect them to be.
NoGraffix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 10:07 AM   #15
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2012 Forester 2.5X
2002 WRX Sedan

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoGraffix View Post
I'll go take some logs later this week and if you don't mind could you run a VD on it for me? I've never had any good results with VD. I'm expecting close to 300whp with my setup (vf39 on a 2.5L running e85) but yet my VD ranges from 230-260. I have a nice long flat road near my home, so I'll do a few passes going both directions. VD is fairly precise seeing that the results on the same stretch come in all around the same numbers, I just feel like those numbers are lower then what I'd expect them to be.
OK, sounds good. I'll PM you my info.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 10:35 AM   #16
Kastley85891
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 127704
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: TX/Austin
Vehicle:
2013 Leggy
Scooby no4 - huntin for 5

Default

VD rocks, find a piece of good quality ,flat road, use a couple of markers and try to do your pulls in the same 'conditions' as possible. Its great for comparative tuning.
Nice to see how close it actually is to a fixed dyno.

OP - sell me your XTR ;-)
Kastley85891 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 12:17 AM   #17
JonzFaSTi
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 85575
Join Date: Apr 2005
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Orange County, CA
Vehicle:
2013 STi
Dark Gray Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoGraffix View Post
I'll go take some logs later this week and if you don't mind could you run a VD on it for me? I've never had any good results with VD. I'm expecting close to 300whp with my setup (vf39 on a 2.5L running e85) but yet my VD ranges from 230-260. I have a nice long flat road near my home, so I'll do a few passes going both directions. VD is fairly precise seeing that the results on the same stretch come in all around the same numbers, I just feel like those numbers are lower then what I'd expect them to be.
I must be doing the same thing.

I have been playing with this now for the last couple days and trying to compare it to my Dyno run done just a few weeks ago and can't get anywhere near close to those numbers.

I was tuned on a mustang at 325/350 but VD is spittin out like 215/240. I went and did another log today and got close to the same figures on the VD again.

Is there something I am missing with the AP?

Sorry to go off topic, I know I should probably post this in the VD thread but this was my exact question.
JonzFaSTi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 12:21 AM   #18
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2012 Forester 2.5X
2002 WRX Sedan

Default

NoGraffix is going to send me some logs to check out. If you want to do the same just send me a PM and I'll send you my contact info.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 11:31 AM   #19
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2012 Forester 2.5X
2002 WRX Sedan

Default

Here's a plot showing stock vs. VF52 on E85 vs. 20G XTR on E85.



You can see that the VF52 on E85 is more power everywhere with zero downsides in transient response. The 20G XTR has tons more power, but you give up some of that nice low end response.

Last edited by xluben; 05-22-2013 at 08:28 AM.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 11:34 AM   #20
Subian
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 202804
Join Date: Feb 2009
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Chitcago, IL
Vehicle:
2002 PSM Sedan
The 2.0L that could

Default

Full boost around 4,200 on the 20g-xtr?
Subian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 12:22 PM   #21
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2012 Forester 2.5X
2002 WRX Sedan

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subian View Post
Full boost around 4,200 on the 20g-xtr?
It will depend on mods and what peak boost you are running. I hit 20psi around 3,700-3,800rpm's. So if your peak boost was 20psi, it would be well under 4k. And if you went to a TMIC you could conceivably drop it even lower.
xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 12:27 PM   #22
reaper702
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 191827
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sin City
Vehicle:
2009 WRX
WRB

Default

Mmmm e85
reaper702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2013, 11:56 PM   #23
JSchell1309
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 321321
Join Date: May 2012
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Kansas City, MO
Vehicle:
'11 STI Hatchback
Dom 1.5XTR, E85

Default

This is getting a healthy bump because it is awesome. How is this the first time I have ever heard of Virtual Dyno? After reading this I fired up virtual box (I'm a mac ***) and loaded Virtual Dyno on Windows 7. Dug through some of my old logs and played around. I got some results that don't look so bad.

I am currently at stage 1 and want to get a good baseline before it's too late. I also have an industrial scale at work for axle weights on utility trucks. I think I am going to sneak my car on there one of these days and get an accurate weight with full fuel and driver. I then want to flash stock and log then flash stage 1 and log. That should provide a good accurate baseline.

I now have something to do between autocross events. Time to drive around and find secluded flat roads for 4th gear pulls. Thanks Ben!
JSchell1309 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 01:03 AM   #24
SenorDucK
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 327511
Join Date: Jul 2012
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Chicagoland
Vehicle:
13' WRX 6 Speed
11sec VF52 EL-EWG-E85

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSchell1309 View Post
This is getting a healthy bump because it is awesome. How is this the first time I have ever heard of Virtual Dyno? After reading this I fired up virtual box (I'm a mac ***) and loaded Virtual Dyno on Windows 7. Dug through some of my old logs and played around. I got some results that don't look so bad.

I am currently at stage 1 and want to get a good baseline before it's too late. I also have an industrial scale at work for axle weights on utility trucks. I think I am going to sneak my car on there one of these days and get an accurate weight with full fuel and driver. I then want to flash stock and log then flash stage 1 and log. That should provide a good accurate baseline.

I now have something to do between autocross events. Time to drive around and find secluded flat roads for 4th gear pulls. Thanks Ben!
VD is definitely cool(lol). I've got plots from my OTS stage 1, torqued performance 1&2, protune pump and now E85. It's cool to see the differences between them all.
SenorDucK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 08:29 AM   #25
xluben
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 261612
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
2012 Forester 2.5X
2002 WRX Sedan

Default

Yeah, I have logs from every stage along the way in my build. I had one above with multiple setups, but here's an updated one with my new setup added in:

xluben is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.