Phantom TQ250 Dyno FBO (Dual Battery Pack)

[Shiv@Openflash]

Hi guys,
Here are the results from last week's TQ250 testing. This is with the dual pack battery set-up and the auxiliary charger. For those who know, I was also testing the TQ300 a while ago but now back to the TQ250 since it's a lot less current hungry and also seems to be noticeable more responsive and torquey

2013 FRS 6MT
Mods:
OpenFlash Tablet
OpenFlash Header
Single tip cat-back
Modified air duct
93oct (although the it's mapped conservatively enough to make the same power on 91oct)
[Stock run shown for reference]



Testing conditions were quite a bit warmer than the least dyno results I posted (75F vs 50F) so that is probably costing us a few hp compared to before. So it's hard to quantify just how much the dual battery packs are helping. If I had to guess, I'd say the extra current is probably worth 7-10hp all other things equal. But where the extra juice really helps is on the road. Spool up seems to be quicker and I can run the car HARD without seeing voltage go below 21.5v during WOT. In my backroad testing location, I could routinely get the single battery back setup to go below 19v. Keep in mind that these testing conditions are unlikely to be seen by anyone running on normal roads. I just happen to live near some pretty spectacular farm roads that are largely uninhabited (and in Mexico of course!).

Also worth mentioning is the auxiliary charger which works rather brilliantly. Even with I'm able to get voltage to drop to 22v, it only takes several seconds of off-boost conditions for it to climb back up to 28v again.

Engine Bay:


4 Batteries (relocated the factory batter to the trunk):


Aux Charger:


Tomorrow, I'll be posting up new TQ250 tune files that will work with both 2 battery and 4 battery setups. My apologies to those who emailed me asking for maps in the last few days and have not gotten a response. I've been out of the office wrapping up the final calibration

Cheers,
shiv

[Sojhinn]

LOL. I literally just posted about this in the crawford posting. Thanks for the heads up on this. Will the new maps include e85? (Answered in other thread. Work to be done on the power blocks first then esc) Those numbers look about the same as my setup on e85. Its amazing what the dual battery setup was able to push. Nice job shiv.

[Shiv@Openflash]

Also, we had the opportunity to test the Crawford Billet Power Blocks on the dyno as well. Both with and without the Phantom ESC.

Here are the results with and without the BPB. Running the same map.
Run 243 is without the BPB. Run 246 is with the BPB.



While the BPB work very well with an NA set-up, they don't seem to have the same positive effect when boost is added to the equation. That's not too surprising but it's interesting nonetheless. With the BPB, you can see a small gain in the 6000-6500rpm range but a loss everywhere else. I suspect we could have custom tuned 6500-7500rpm range to pick up the lost power but that remains to be proven. Still, I'm looking forward to more testing/tuning. Anything is possible

Cheers,
Shiv

[Sojhinn]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Also, we had the opportunity to test the Crawford Billet Power Blocks on the dyno as well. Both with and without the Phantom ESC.

Here are the results with and without the BPB. Running the same map.
Run 243 is without the BPB. Run 246 is with the BPB.



While the BPB work very well with an NA set-up, they don't seem to have the same positive effect when boost is added to the equation. That's not too surprising but it's interesting nonetheless. With the BPB, you can see a small gain in the 6000-6500rpm range but a loss everywhere else. I suspect we could have custom tuned 6500-7500rpm range to pick up the lost power but that remains to be proven. Still, I'm looking forward to more testing/tuning. Anything is possible

Cheers,
Shiv

Looks like the dip is also completely erased instead of shifted.

[s2d4]

Originally Posted by Sojhinn

Looks like the dip is also completely erased instead of shifted.

But it lost power everywhere?
Every time someone brings up torque dip,it pays to see the power around the dip, not much point artificially removing the dip by dropping power elsewhere.

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by s2d4

But it lost power everywhere?
Every time someone brings up torque dip,it pays to see the power around the dip, not much point artificially removing the dip by dropping power elsewhere.

+1

[Jac]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Would be interested in seeing this with E85

[Sojhinn]

Edited due to me being an ass.

[fenton]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Hi guys,
Here are the results from last week's TQ250 testing. This is with the dual pack battery set-up and the auxiliary charger. For those who know, I was also testing the TQ300 a while ago but now back to the TQ250 since it's a lot less current hungry and also seems to be noticeable more responsive and torquey

2013 FRS 6MT
Mods:
OpenFlash Tablet
OpenFlash Header
Single tip cat-back
Modified air duct
93oct (although the it's mapped conservatively enough to make the same power on 91oct)
[Stock run shown for reference]



Cheers,
shiv

Wow awesome results shiv. This is just awesome for 91-93 octane. Area under the curve is massive and the top end doesn't fall off as much. We all in the community here are very lucky to have you on our side!

Thanks again.

[R2]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Cheers,
shiv

Shiv, something I've been wondering about is how can we artificially induce some form of "boost control" with something like the on/off ESC. What are your thoughts on implementing the following? Is this doable?

[fenton]

Originally Posted by R2

Shiv, something I've been wondering about is how can we artificially induce some form of "boost control" with something like the on/off ESC. What are your thoughts on implementing the following? Is this doable?

Im not following you on this. You want a turbo lag intoduced into the equation when going WOT?

Are you talking about controlling the ESC with this or just close the throttle so you make less power?

Seems like it is complicating something that is otherwise very simple. My guess is that it will lead to driveability issues.

Do you have a ESC installed on your car currently?

[s2d4]

Originally Posted by Sojhinn

The point wasn't to say ooh look the dip is gone here's my money. The point was that the dip was removed which is interesting. Even shiv has said he's not 100% done tuning for this setup since he wants to see if there are any gains to be had. I also stated that he produced similar power to when I was running e85 with my esc.

It's kinda like seeing an elephant and someone points out the squirrel in the bushes thats running behind the elephant. We care about the elephant more, but damn if that squirrel isn't interesting.

Ummm OK, you jumped the gun on this one but anyways, apologies if you were offended.

[Sojhinn]

Originally Posted by s2d4

Ummm OK, you jumped the gun on this one but anyways, apologies if you were offended.

You know what I'm sorry too. I had a bad morning and I took it out on you. Sorry bro.

[R2]

Originally Posted by fenton

Im not following you on this. You want a turbo lag intoduced into the equation when going WOT?

Are you talking about controlling the ESC with this or just close the throttle so you make less power?

Seems like it is complicating something that is otherwise very simple. My guess is that it will lead to driveability issues.

Do you have a ESC installed on your car currently?

I don't have an ESC, but I have been considering it. One of the holdups for me is the lack of proportional control which would become an issue during autox, I'm quite certain of it. This post elaborates a bit on my concern: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...postcount=4142


What this idea is trying to accomplish is to provide some modulation of engine torque after the ESC is engaged so you can balance the car with the throttle. This is shown via the manifold pressure line on the plots I posted. I completely realize that there would be more to this than just a modification of the drive by wire tables. I also expect the hysteresis of the pedal switch to be a bit of an issue. That being said, it's just an idea of mine that I've been kicking around for awhile.


The ultimate solution is proportional boost control via ESC speed control. ESC engagement could still happen at 50 or 75% throttle position, but the boost, thereafter, be proportional with throttle position.