My AX22 tests
08-24-2007, 03:52 AM
#3
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the road..
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-24-2007, 06:24 AM
#6
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the road..
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jean@something.something: user is over quota
Yes, I will check also those 60-130 in continuous mode but not in few days.. I am busy now about week
08-24-2007, 06:32 AM
#7
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Amazing 60-130 
Firstly, you need to do the runs in "continous" mode as Jean says. This is because the "between speeds" mode has produced some dodgy results over the years, I'm not saying yours above are wrong, just to be 100% safe
Your engine is pretty fascinating for me as up until now on the 993tt just winding up the boost (you run 1.3 bar ?) with an external controller has led to heat induced power reductions on the 60-130mph run, it seems that this hurdle has been overcome....
Can your software log your intake temperatures during the 60-130mph, will you post them ?
It would be great (educational) if you could do a 100-250?kph (higher even
) run with AX22 in "continous" and logging AIT during the run so we can see at what point your 1.3bar starts to produce too much heat and just how high it goes ?
The usual problems with fixed (high) boost 993tt motors is that in countries with a big variation in climate, the ECU will read too much air mass when the temperatures drop and a limiter will come into play (usually when peak torque is hit).
Firstly, you need to do the runs in "continous" mode as Jean says. This is because the "between speeds" mode has produced some dodgy results over the years, I'm not saying yours above are wrong, just to be 100% safe
Your engine is pretty fascinating for me as up until now on the 993tt just winding up the boost (you run 1.3 bar ?) with an external controller has led to heat induced power reductions on the 60-130mph run, it seems that this hurdle has been overcome....
Can your software log your intake temperatures during the 60-130mph, will you post them ?
It would be great (educational) if you could do a 100-250?kph (higher even
) run with AX22 in "continous" and logging AIT during the run so we can see at what point your 1.3bar starts to produce too much heat and just how high it goes ?The usual problems with fixed (high) boost 993tt motors is that in countries with a big variation in climate, the ECU will read too much air mass when the temperatures drop and a limiter will come into play (usually when peak torque is hit).
Trending Topics
08-24-2007, 07:03 AM
#8
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the road..
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing 60-130
Firstly, you need to do the runs in "continous" mode as Jean says. This is because the "between speeds" mode has produced some dodgy results over the years, I'm not saying yours above are wrong, just to be 100% safe
Your engine is pretty fascinating for me as up until now on the 993tt just winding up the boost (you run 1.3 bar ?) with an external controller has led to heat induced power reductions on the 60-130mph run, it seems that this hurdle has been overcome....
Can your software log your intake temperatures during the 60-130mph, will you post them ?
It would be great (educational) if you could do a 100-250?kph (higher even) run with AX22 in "continous" and logging AIT during the run so we can see at what point your 1.3bar starts to produce too much heat and just how high it goes ?
The usual problems with fixed (high) boost 993tt motors is that in countries with a big variation in climate, the ECU will read too much air mass when the temperatures drop and a limiter will come into play (usually when peak torque is hit).
Firstly, you need to do the runs in "continous" mode as Jean says. This is because the "between speeds" mode has produced some dodgy results over the years, I'm not saying yours above are wrong, just to be 100% safe
Your engine is pretty fascinating for me as up until now on the 993tt just winding up the boost (you run 1.3 bar ?) with an external controller has led to heat induced power reductions on the 60-130mph run, it seems that this hurdle has been overcome....
Can your software log your intake temperatures during the 60-130mph, will you post them ?
It would be great (educational) if you could do a 100-250?kph (higher even
) run with AX22 in "continous" and logging AIT during the run so we can see at what point your 1.3bar starts to produce too much heat and just how high it goes ?The usual problems with fixed (high) boost 993tt motors is that in countries with a big variation in climate, the ECU will read too much air mass when the temperatures drop and a limiter will come into play (usually when peak torque is hit).
I'll do other test later and let you know. I have also reserved my local town airport for private test usage ( My friend is working there) but I haven't got answer yet, what day/evening will be free for me. Then I can do 0-330 test
with our own sofware compared to AX-22. yes, I can log IAT, exhaust temps, boost pressures, mixtures, etc with our software. We will also use AX's external RS output to import that data to our program that we get them all together with same time stamp..
Edited : I have some earlier test in my computer when outside temp was about 20 degree. When acceleration and speed was 100km/h, IAT was 27 and when speed was 240, temp was only 45 degree and that over 200km/h time was about 40 seconds.
So I really thing that stock IC is very good !
Last edited by Jussi; 08-24-2007 at 07:30 AM.
08-24-2007, 01:54 PM
#9
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Jussi
I have been revisiting the data, 100-200kph in 5s is very unlikely - the Gemballa GT750 996tt took 5.3s !!!
5.0s is MUCH quicker than Jean's 700hp (engine dyno) pressure sensing light weight monster - doesn't stack up IMHO
You need to do some "continuous" mode data and get Jean to disect it, he can glean all sorts of stuff out of the AX22 -he can even tell if you sneeze during a run
I have been revisiting the data, 100-200kph in 5s is very unlikely - the Gemballa GT750 996tt took 5.3s !!!
5.0s is MUCH quicker than Jean's 700hp (engine dyno) pressure sensing light weight monster - doesn't stack up IMHO
You need to do some "continuous" mode data and get Jean to disect it, he can glean all sorts of stuff out of the AX22 -he can even tell if you sneeze during a run
08-25-2007, 07:23 AM
#10
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the road..
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jussi
I have been revisiting the data, 100-200kph in 5s is very unlikely - the Gemballa GT750 996tt took 5.3s !!!
5.0s is MUCH quicker than Jean's 700hp (engine dyno) pressure sensing light weight monster - doesn't stack up IMHO
You need to do some "continuous" mode data and get Jean to disect it, he can glean all sorts of stuff out of the AX22 -he can even tell if you sneeze during a run
I have been revisiting the data, 100-200kph in 5s is very unlikely - the Gemballa GT750 996tt took 5.3s !!!
5.0s is MUCH quicker than Jean's 700hp (engine dyno) pressure sensing light weight monster - doesn't stack up IMHO
You need to do some "continuous" mode data and get Jean to disect it, he can glean all sorts of stuff out of the AX22 -he can even tell if you sneeze during a run
actually I don't believe that AX22 result either. I'm a bit disappointed to AX22's quality and reliability. I would say that our own software's result 5.24 might be close to truth..
How much that GT750 weight? And are those 750 hps measured anyway?
08-25-2007, 02:23 PM
#11
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I must say that the shape of the curve on this run, namely between 0.5s and 1.5s. made me think something was amiss, but I also considered extremely high boost being used, which might have caused this huge fat acceleration. At first glance the run as posted here is very clean.
The run is not good though, I will give explanations to Jussy and post here some details if he likes to. I estimate this run to be close to 7 seconds, but have no way to guarantee that.
I must also say that I never experienced an issue with the logger in either mode, however have seen only here (and 6spd) reports of certain inaccuracies when using the "shootout 100-200kph" mode. Sorry to hear that the quality of the AX22 was disappointing to you Jussy, I find the unit fantastic and extremely solid and reliable after 2 years of use and abuse. Like any other, it needs to be used the right way.
Let's wait for the 60-130mph.
The run is not good though, I will give explanations to Jussy and post here some details if he likes to. I estimate this run to be close to 7 seconds, but have no way to guarantee that.
I must also say that I never experienced an issue with the logger in either mode, however have seen only here (and 6spd) reports of certain inaccuracies when using the "shootout 100-200kph" mode. Sorry to hear that the quality of the AX22 was disappointing to you Jussy, I find the unit fantastic and extremely solid and reliable after 2 years of use and abuse. Like any other, it needs to be used the right way.
Let's wait for the 60-130mph.
08-25-2007, 04:54 PM
#12
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the road..
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to say that but your estimate is not in right area..
As I wrote earlier, I also did that first test with OBD and got 5.24s and that gives quite accurate value..
I made today second test with both softwares in continouos mode at same place but little hotter IC(after many trafficlight stops) and got results:
OBD : 5.31s
AX : 5.45s
So, right "estimate" for that first AX 100-200 test would be about 5.39s
Edited:
I haven't got value for 60-130 test but in these 100-200 test,
reading from 96,54 km/h(60mph) to 206km/h (128mph),
(hit revlimiter at 7400rpm with 295/30R18 tyres and standard gears),
was 5.96 sec.
So if I will rise that revlimiter from 7400 to 7530 I might get about 6.3x sec readings for 60-130 test..
Last edited by Jussi; 08-25-2007 at 05:14 PM.
08-26-2007, 01:16 AM
#13
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Jussi, The only thing I am certain of is that the run is invalid, the rest is just that, an estimate, based on your long Gs, it also puts your car at 520-540BHP.
Great, shoot out those files whenever you get a chance.
7500 RPMS?
You will sure get better times by saving a shift and running higher RPMs but that does not make your engine have 700BHP. 
Remember this is not about who has the fastest car out there, it is about what engine mods give what sort of performance numbers and what are the limits of MAF etc..
Jean
Great, shoot out those files whenever you get a chance.
7500 RPMS?
You will sure get better times by saving a shift and running higher RPMs but that does not make your engine have 700BHP. Remember this is not about who has the fastest car out there, it is about what engine mods give what sort of performance numbers and what are the limits of MAF etc..
Jean
Last edited by Jean; 08-26-2007 at 03:04 AM.
08-26-2007, 03:22 AM
#14
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the road..
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about TB's same weight car which did 100-200 in 6.74 sec after he reinstalled 4WD.. and I have calculated that in that car has at least 620hp..
How about your "700hp (engine dyno) pressure sensing light weight monster" which did 60-120 in about 5.25 sec. (found from that 60-130 topic) and mine "not so light weight and tuned by unknown car" does that same 60-120 in about 5.1x seconds ???
So, don't misinform other people here with your estimates..
08-26-2007, 03:54 AM
#15
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Jussi,
I don't see the point of being aggressive here, it is not my fault if you did not use the tool properly, you fooled the runs, or if the tool is crap
. If you like to debate your numbers or any other fine, if you insist in maintaining this tone in your posts, don't waste my time. Just do your run, send it for verification if you want, or don't, who cares.
I don't see the point of being aggressive here, it is not my fault if you did not use the tool properly, you fooled the runs, or if the tool is crap
. If you like to debate your numbers or any other fine, if you insist in maintaining this tone in your posts, don't waste my time. Just do your run, send it for verification if you want, or don't, who cares.