Harrop twin screw sc for s65

[Verify]

Multiplying the variables for margin of error does nothing for us. 2-3% from atmospherics, + 3-6% from different dyno, + 2-3% from variance in transmission type brings us to possible +/-10% differences

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SickeM3

Multiplying the variables for margin of error does nothing for us. 2-3% from atmospherics, + 3-6% from different dyno, + 2-3% from variance in transmission type brings us to possible +/-10% differences

My post was meant to correct the mathematical errors in calculating CHP from Dynapack results posted in STD correction and nothing else. I threw in the STD to SAE calculations as a convenience. I never meant to address any of the new topics you just brought up. And now that I look back on the posts, I don't see anybody discussing those new topics either. I could address them and explain them in another post if you wish. But they aren't related to my calculations and weather doesn't influence them.

But now you made me curious about my own calcluations. So I went to the Dyno Database (www.s65dynos.com) and I looked up the first dozen entries that have both STD and SAE correction to see how accurate my 3% approximation would be against dyno entries with actual weather data. Of the twelve entries, they all were exactly 2.7% or 2.8% ratio from STD to SAE correction. That means my wtq approximations were between 0.68 - 0.94 ft/lb accuracy, and my whp approximations were between 0.91 - 1.26 whp accuracy. Less than 1.5whp error is much better than the 2-4 hp error that I was expecting.

Originally Posted by SickeM3

Without powertrain correction means its CHP not rwhp. Ie they did not correct for losses.

A Dynapack doesn't provide CHP. Those results are WHP.

[Verify]

Originally Posted by regular guy

My post was meant to correct the mathematical errors in calculating CHP from Dynapack results posted in STD correction and nothing else. I threw in the STD to SAE calculations as a convenience. I never meant to address any of the new topics you just brought up. And now that I look back on the posts, I don't see anybody discussing those new topics either. I could address them and explain them in another post if you wish. But they aren't related to my calculations and weather doesn't influence them.

But now you made me curious about my own calcluations. So I went to the Dyno Database (www.s65dynos.com) and I looked up the first dozen entries that have both STD and SAE correction to see how accurate my 3% approximation would be against dyno entries with actual weather data. Of the twelve entries, they all were exactly 2.7% or 2.8% ratio from STD to SAE correction. That means my wtq approximations were between 0.68 - 0.94 ft/lb accuracy, and my whp approximations were between 0.91 - 1.26 whp accuracy. Less than 1.5whp error is much better than the 2-4 hp error that I was expecting.



A Dynapack doesn't provide CHP. Those results are WHP.

You're saying STD-SAE and your only seeing 2.7-2.8% difference? I would broaden the scope of your search. Several dyno's posted have low .9x to high 1.x CF swings depending on conditions.

The other issue is that you converted an approximation from Dynapack-DJ. there is zero information to back that up.

I understand what your saying, but those posted results are still as worthless as the video with no graph. It would be nice if a rep, or somebody just posted what they have and how long until they feel its ready

[e46m3to135i]

Originally Posted by SickeM3

You're saying STD-SAE and your only seeing 2.7-2.8% difference? I would broaden the scope of your search. Several dyno's posted have low .9x to high 1.x CF swings depending on conditions.

The other issue is that you converted an approximation from Dynapack-DJ. there is zero information to back that up.

I understand what your saying, but those posted results are still as worthless as the video with no graph. It would be nice if a rep, or somebody just posted what they have and how long until they feel its ready

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SickeM3

You're saying STD-SAE and your only seeing 2.7-2.8% difference? I would broaden the scope of your search. Several dyno's posted have low .9x to high 1.x CF swings depending on conditions.

I have over 600 S65 M3 dynos to choose from in the Dyno Database. I think that's broad enough for my search. I only chose twelve at random to see a pattern, and the pattern I saw was very clear.

I think I know why we're having a disconnect here. It sounds like you're not familiar with all of the different dyno correction formula's and how they relate to each other. I'll try to sum it up as short as possible. In the 1960's Detroit needed a way to normalize dyno results to make it possible to compare them to each other given different weather conditions. So the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) came up with J607 dyno correction formula. J607 normalized temperature to a reference value, but didn't normalize humidity or barometric pressure to reference values. Without barometric and humidity references, J607 was deemed inadequate. So in 1994 the SAE came up with a new formula, J1394 which normalized barometer, humidity, and temperature. J1394 has been revised three times already. The formula has always stayed the same, but the reference values have changed over time.

"STD correction" is an earlier reference of J1394 dyno correction formula that normalizes results to: 60 degrees F, 1013 mBar pressure, 0% humidity, and 84.75% efficiency.

"SAE correction" is the latest reference of J1394 dyno correction formula that normalizes results to: 77 degrees F, 990 mBar pressure, 0% humidity, and 85.00% efficiency.

So you see, STD and SAE are really the same horsepower correction formula, but they normalize the results to slightly different reference values. That's why it's very easy to approximate the conversion from STD correction to SAE correction without any weather data.

The other issue is that you converted an approximation from Dynapack-DJ. there is zero information to back that up.

I did absolutly no such thing. I have been exclusively discussing the conversion of J1394-STD to J1394-SAE. That conversion has no relationship to any dyno type or manufacturer.

I understand what your saying, but those posted results are still as worthless as the video with no graph. It would be nice if a rep, or somebody just posted what they have and how long until they feel its ready

To me, they're not worthless, and I prefer to let others be the judge by themselves after looking at and understanding the data. Again, using the Dyno Database, I'm able to see how these Harrop results compare to ESS results using the Dynapack. Using that data, I can give you this direct comparison to a Harrop competitor's product.

3000 RPM (Harrop) 329wtq, 188whp || 319wtq, 183whp (ESS)
5000 RPM (Harrop) 398wtq, 379whp || 379wtq, 361whp (ESS)
7000 RPM (Harrop) 375wtq, 500whp || 402wtq, 537whp (ESS)

Anyways I hope this clears this up. If not, I give up.

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SickeM3

You're saying STD-SAE and your only seeing 2.7-2.8% difference?

BTW, you and I are talking apples and oranges here, and that might also be the source of the confusion. I'm not talking about the CF factor, I'm talking about the percentage difference between STD and SAE correction. I estimated that percentage difference at ~3%, but after looking at a dozen sets of correlated results in the Dyno Database, I found it to be 2.7% to 2.8%.

So this time I went back to the DynoDB and took a wider cross section of data to see if the pattern still held. I chose the hottest to coldest dyno sessions on record in 10-degree increments, then I took the four biggest to smallest dyno correction factors on record.

Here's the data to see for yourself. As you can see, the 2.7% - 2.8% delta held up in every case.

REF-TQ-STD	REF-HP-STD	Temp-F	Baro	Humid%	SAE-CF	STD-CF	Ratio	TQ-3%	HP-3%	TQ-SAE	HP-SAE	TQ-DELTA	HP-DELTA
375.000	500.000	108.640	30.030	9.000	1.011	1.039	1.028	364.078	485.437	364.894	486.526	0.816	1.089
375.000	500.000	98.570	30.020	15.000	1.003	1.031	1.028	364.078	485.437	364.816	486.421	0.738	0.984
375.000	500.000	89.900	29.940	20.000	0.997	1.025	1.028	364.078	485.437	364.756	486.341	0.678	0.905
375.000	500.000	78.040	29.070	36.000	1.022	1.050	1.027	364.078	485.437	365.000	486.667	0.922	1.230
375.000	500.000	69.250	28.770	39.000	1.022	1.050	1.027	364.078	485.437	365.000	486.667	0.922	1.230
375.000	500.000	59.500	29.340	31.000	0.983	1.010	1.027	364.078	485.437	364.975	486.634	0.898	1.197
375.000	500.000	50.150	29.280	34.000	0.973	1.000	1.028	364.078	485.437	364.875	486.500	0.797	1.063
375.000	500.000	88.210	28.970	20.000	1.034	1.063	1.028	364.078	485.437	364.770	486.359	0.692	0.922
375.000	500.000	89.460	29.530	41.000	1.025	1.053	1.027	364.078	485.437	365.028	486.705	0.951	1.268
375.000	500.000	71.800	28.860	12.000	1.013	1.041	1.028	364.078	485.437	364.914	486.551	0.836	1.114
375.000	500.000	82.140	29.250	9.000	1.009	1.037	1.028	364.078	485.437	364.875	486.500	0.797	1.063
375.000	500.000	74.580	30.200	27.000	0.969	0.996	1.028	364.078	485.437	364.834	486.446	0.757	1.009

[Verify]

Originally Posted by regular guy

BTW, you and I are talking apples and oranges here, and that might also be the source of the confusion. I'm not talking about the CF factor, I'm talking about the percentage difference between STD and SAE correction. I estimated that percentage difference at ~3%, but after looking at a dozen sets of correlated results in the Dyno Database, I found it to be 2.7% to 2.8%.

So this time I went back to the DynoDB and took a wider cross section of data to see if the pattern still held. I chose the hottest to coldest dyno sessions on record in 10-degree increments, then I took the four biggest to smallest dyno correction factors on record.

Here's the data to see for yourself. As you can see, the 2.7% - 2.8% delta held up in every case.

I think we are talking the same thing- when a dyno shows a CF of .98 for example, what do you do with that number; when a dyno shows a CF factor of 1.04 what do you do for that number?

So if SAE is 1.04, STD is .98 and UNC is of course 1.00 whats the percent variance between output numbers?

[saxonb]

European Car Web have published the magazine's article which was in print a while ago on Matthew's Santorini Blue M3 with preproduction Harrop kit installed:

http://www.europeancarweb.com/featur..._bmw_m3_coupe/

[jayzF30]

Originally Posted by saxonb

European Car Web have published the magazine's article which was in print a while ago on Matthew's Santorini Blue M3 with preproduction Harrop kit installed:

http://www.europeancarweb.com/featur..._bmw_m3_coupe/

This is very interesting. When is this scheduled for release?

[M-powerMode]

Nice ! Always looking for new exciting products

[Lucrecio84]

suscribed!

[regular guy]

Originally Posted by SickeM3

I think we are talking the same thing- when a dyno shows a CF of .98 for example, what do you do with that number; when a dyno shows a CF factor of 1.04 what do you do for that number?

So if SAE is 1.04, STD is .98 and UNC is of course 1.00 whats the percent variance between output numbers?

I don't think this is possible due to the way the correction formulas work. I put together this page to calculate multiple types of dyno correction. Give it a try and see if you can come up with the case like above.
http://www.bigdynodatabase.com/DynoCF.php

Here's a thread I put together with more information about dyno correction.
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=906256

[Verify]

Originally Posted by saxonb

European Car Web have published the magazine's article which was in print a while ago on Matthew's Santorini Blue M3 with preproduction Harrop kit installed:

http://www.europeancarweb.com/featur..._bmw_m3_coupe/

Its a beautiful car for sure, and interesting to see the differences. I wish they would hurry up and complete the project.

I'm following their FB page and all sorts of updates on other platforms, I wonder if this took a back seat

[saxonb]

So I just discovered that Harrop's distrobution partner Aviva Instruments is making a new TVS1900 kit for the Audi RS4.

They also sell the kit without software and support for $9,900.

Maybe Harrop's Stage 2 kit will be with a TVS1900?

http://www.avivainstruments.com/port...tfolio-b7rs4sc

LP [ Low Pressure Configuration ] - Running 5-9 psi at the intake manifold, the [ LP ] configuration provides power and efficiency within the bounds of the original HPFPs, and cooling system. Without compromising on any component, the LP configuration delivers blistering performance for less cost than any other supercharger kit available for the RS4. Since the LP configuration is based off the same core components as the HP configuration, your option to upgrade at any time is always open.

HP [ High Pressure Configuration ] - Running at an elevated 8-13.5 psi at the intake manifold, the HP configuration requires more fuel than the original fuel pumps can deliver. As such, the HP configuration includes two new Aviva Instruments HPFPs, an oversized aluminum heat exchanger and a high-flow electric coolant pump capable of delivering 120+ liter-per-minute . Instant, traction-breaking acceleration through 1st, 2nd , and 3rd gear and power-on throttle-steering is at the exclusive service of your right foot.

HP+ [ High Pressure Configuration + ]
Customer specific boost profiles, for stock to fully built engines. Take the RS4 further than anyone else can.

[Top_Gear]

It's now clear that this kit is NOT going to be out this fall despite Harrop's projections. To their defense they are attempting to do something completely new here and they shouldn't rush it out to the market if it ain't ready yet.

I'd love to see somebody's review by Christmas though.

[L4ces]

This was posted in Sept but I am surprised that it wasn't posted in this thread. It is obviously old news now. I'd be curious to know what the outcome was for the right side cockpit M3 car. It has been said that there is more room to work with on those, so I figure less obstacles.

http://<div class="youtube-playerCon.../iframe></div>

Edit:
Never mind, an earlier post was made with that same car with the engine running. Sorry about my knee jerk "post first, search later" approach!

[///Matthew]

Originally Posted by L4ces

This was posted in Sept but I am surprised that it wasn't posted in this thread. It is obviously old news now. I'd be curious to know what the outcome was for the right side cockpit M3 car. It has been said that there is more room to work with on those, so I figure less obstacles.

http://<div class="youtube-playerCon.../iframe></div>

Edit:
Never mind, an earlier post was made with that same car with the engine running. Sorry about my knee jerk "post first, search later" approach!

I had this system on my car. There are no packaging issues on LHD cars.

[L4ces]

Originally Posted by ///Matthew

I had this system on my car. There are no packaging issues on LHD cars.

Yep I remember reading all about it and I saw the article.

[PandaM3]

Interesting... Looks looks like callaway just fitted a similar tvs kit for the Chevy SS

http://jalopnik.com/callaway-boostin...wer-1466722818

I guess it makes sense since the SS is based on the holden which is australian

[OM VT3]

Originally Posted by PandaM3

Interesting... Looks looks like callaway just fitted a similar tvs kit for the Chevy SS

http://jalopnik.com/callaway-boostin...wer-1466722818

I guess it makes sense since the SS is based on the holden which is australian

Harrop in Australia are doing the development on the m3 kit

[M.Hagen]

APR's TVS1740 kit for the B7 RS4 was tested at the track this last weekend. Impressive times.

According to their Facebook feed, 585 hp / 525 lb-ft (dynapack numbers), on 104 octane. That specific pulley setup is netting 14psi peak, tapering to 12psi at redline.

While not exactly apples to apples, the RS4's 4.2 V8 has similar displacement, similar VE, and similar peak RPM.

[8k3]

^^ and no way will harrop run that much boost on a stock S65...