Clio 172 mk2
Not too bothered about Peak but how does the delivery look?
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Dyno Graph - Problem with torque?
- Thread starter Deano_Tech
- Start date
Not too bothered about Peak but how does the delivery look?
Golf GT & A4 Avant
when I had my 182 RR'd torque started at approx 115, rose to 145ft/lbs at 5300rpm and dropped back down to 120 by 7000. was alot more level than that
Clio 172 mk2
Was that standard? not sure what to do to even it out, any ideas?
lift number 1 @ btm
I was just about to say something similar...
Lol! 350lbft of torque!
Torques definately wrong, should be nearer 150-160 lbft. Power delivery looks alright and power itself looks about right for a 172.
Torques definately wrong, should be nearer 150-160 lbft. Power delivery looks alright and power itself looks about right for a 172.
RSTuning
ClioSport Club Member
R35 GTR
Evo 5 RS
blimey bet that jumped right off the rollers with all that torque. What is it a diesel conversion? lol
Clearly nobody is actually opening their eyes and reading the graph.
It says "Wheel torque ft lb", NOT flywheel. Now considering the gearbox is a torque multiplier and it doesnt mention Engine torque, why is it so silly?
Im guessing its just some funky old RR that calculates the power slightly differently that modern day stuff. You clearly arent going to peak at 160 odd bhp with a Fly torque of 350 ft lb. (duhhh)
Divide the 350ft lb's through the ratio of the gear it ran in, then by the final drive, and maybe a few other numbers and its pretty obvious you will engine up with the torque figure everyone is expecting.
It says "Wheel torque ft lb", NOT flywheel. Now considering the gearbox is a torque multiplier and it doesnt mention Engine torque, why is it so silly?
Im guessing its just some funky old RR that calculates the power slightly differently that modern day stuff. You clearly arent going to peak at 160 odd bhp with a Fly torque of 350 ft lb. (duhhh)
Divide the 350ft lb's through the ratio of the gear it ran in, then by the final drive, and maybe a few other numbers and its pretty obvious you will engine up with the torque figure everyone is expecting.
Last edited:
Clio 182
It's probably really something like that. We had simmilar problem once (with my ex car), dyno operator did one mistake and we had numbers something like 110 hp instead of 110 kW. And then he asked me if car feels OK. 
But I guess he'd like to know if the torque delivery (line) is OK or it should be more flat, if it dropps to quick etc..
But I guess he'd like to know if the torque delivery (line) is OK or it should be more flat, if it dropps to quick etc..
Evo 5 RS
lol isn't that a total mission, i.e having to calculate rolling resistance etc. You could be here all day
Clio 172 mk2
Cheers Laine16v, atleast someone pays attention! But yes SymonSi84, as I stated I wasn't worried about peak figures just the way the powers being delivered, seems abit all over the place! Guy doing it said it needed a map for more fuel in the air/fuel ratio, but he is a superchips supplier so I took that with a pinch of salt!
