Alfa Romeo Stelvio Forum banner
81 - 100 of 123 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
I wouldn't worry about launch. Launch impacts 0-60 and et but we know not to use either to asssess power output.

You use 40-100mph, 60-130mph and trap speeds as well as improvement in back half times and speed improvement (time it took to get from the1/8 mile to the quarter) to assess power. None of them rely on launch technique.

You can look at how many mph a car picked up from the 1/8 mile mark to the quarter mile mark and thats power output. Same with 40-100 and 60-130.


Your dataset is pretty consistent with anyone else wo has posted.

I actually hold the trap speed record for all tuned stelvios when mine was stock lol.

Keep up the good work. Your data is great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #82 ·
Thanks!

Update: I finally got the correct part form AFE. Therefore, the pipe section of the AFE setup goes in today. After today so far the upgrades will be:

Eurocompulsion tune
AFE cold air Intake
Plump Kompact diverter value
4 new tires
slotted rotors
carbon ceramic pads

I will likely go with lighter rims next, followed by downpipe. The rims I have now are 40lbs currently each. Even just going with quad rims, as an example, which are ~25lbs each, that would be a 60lbs drop in rotational mass, which is pretty cool.

Remus is on the way. I will update with a photo tonight once I retrieve the car!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,971 Posts
Remus will make you smile without being nasty
 
  • Like
Reactions: rewmeo

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #84 ·
Updates. AFE has been successfully installed. Photo attached. In addition, mechanic wants to experiment with different coolant to see if we can hold the temps a few degrees cooler to help out the intercooler, and see if running things cooler as a result helps. Photo also attached of coolant. Used about 4.75 of those after flush today. Front tires installed today also (so all 4 tires are now new), balancing completed, and oil changed. I take careful care of this car. Dragys soon! This will be a nice dragy checkpoint, because for the next measurement, we can isolate the additional effect of Remus, synergizing with the intake and tune.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
Nice. You can log pre and post ic iats with mes if you want. Good thing is even in south florida on 0-150mph runs iats are as good as you could ever ask. They actually start going down with speed indicating the a2w system handles our boost kevels extremely well
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #86 · (Edited)
Dragy's complete. I will add supporting data (i.e., Dragy outputs) over next few days. That takes me a sec, as I like to label them properly with all the mods, for organization. For now, just wanted to share results. Good news, is that we are seeing improvements! The Dragy's are valid, and density altitude is not significantly different across all testing runs (I will post that exact data soon). I did out and back runs, on the same stretch of road across all these comparisons, and used the means of the out and back for comparisons. Here is the preview:

1/4 mile trap
Stock 1/4 mile trap = 95.99mph
EC P2 with no physical modifications 1/4 mile trap = 96.89mph
EC P2 with physical mods (AFE cold air, new tires, modified coolant, diverter valve upgrade) 1/4 mile trap = 97.53 mph
This yields a 1/4 mile trap net gain over stock so far of 1.55mph (it is not 1.54mph due to rounding)

40-100mph
Stock 40-100 = 12.31s
EC P2 with no physical modifications 40-100 = 12.05s
EC P2 with physical mods (AFE cold air, new tires, modified coolant, diverter valve upgrade) 40-100 = 11.86s
This yields a 40-100mph net gain over stock so far (i.e., a decrease in acceleration time) of 0.46 seconds.

Progress! As exciting news so far, we are seeing a trend (i.e., 3 data points all in the hypothesized direction and rank). This is promising, and motivating to me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #88 ·
I have you as already having run an 11.98 before this? Looking forward to your data.
Indeed! 11.98 was the 40-100 "out" run (as oppose to "back", in my out and back runs) for EC Phase 2, with no physical mods. That is summarized in post #36 tables. For ease of reference, I have made updated tables which I am going to post here, so we don't have to keep referring back to the earlier post. Stay tuned, I will add those tables now, with additional comments on the methodology. First I will add a post with the tables. Then I will add the post with the methodology comments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #90 · (Edited)
Methodology comments:

Wanted to respond @bhvrdr to your great observation about the previous 11.98s for the 40-100mph, as this will provide a helpful segue to discussing methodology.

For testing, I always do runs on the same stretch of road, using 2 runs of course (i.e., "out" and "back"). The "out" run will tend to have a slope that is slightly lower than the "back" run. In addition, the "out" run is always done first of course. This is likely why the "out" runs are slightly faster than the back runs (an observation you can see in the tables).

Referring to the tables, the 11.98s is the 40-100mph time, for the "out" run, for EC Phase 2, without additional physical modifications. Using the data tables, we could therefore compare just the "out" runs, as the 11.98 is an "out" run. If we wanted to look at the 11.98s specifically, we would need to do this comparison, given that the slope for "out" runs is slightly lower, and it is always the first run, which means the engine is more fresh relative to the "back" run. Comparing that isolated run (i.e., the 11.98s), we observe the following:

40-100mph ("out" runs only)
Stock 40-100 = 12.24s
EC P2 with no physical modifications 40-100 = 11.98s
EC P2 with physical mods (AFE cold air, new tires, modified coolant, diverter valve upgrade) 40-100 = 11.79s
This yields a 40-100mph net gain over stock so far (i.e., a decrease in acceleration time) of 0.45 seconds.
Comment: interestingly, this is almost identical - 1 hundredth of a second difference - relative to comparing the means. The metric I am using for the comparisons are the means of out and back, as this allows us a tool to control for both slope, and the order of the run.

As an additional methodology comment, note that there will be some variability in the stretch of road, because depending on what is going on, I start a little further down. For example, if I have to wait a bit for a car to get far enough away for me to do a proper 100mph run, I will taxi down the road at slow speed to let a lot of space build, for safety. I mention that, incase people wonder why there is variability in the slope reported in the tables, if that makes sense.

Also, importantly, when I do testing, I always do one out run, and one back run, and never any more. That is, I am being strict in how I test, by eliminating any bias that could result from trying to get the best "out" run, or " back" run, when compiling data. This adds additional rigor to the data, in that the there will always only be only two runs the engine goes through for each testing point, and no more than that. Whatever the Dragy for that run is, is that Dragy I use for the data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #91 · (Edited)
Here are the Dragys corresponding to the recent testing runs, listed in the data tables (i.e., EC Phase 2, with AFE intake, Plum Kompact valve, and performance coolant). The dragys corresponding to the remaining data in the tables can be found in earlier posts in this thread.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
Gotcha. yes .2 sec difference in 40-100mph can literally be from the wind blowing, a slight change in anything. If you run the car slightly longer at cruise speed before you start a run you can start out with slightly lower iats on that run confounding it slightly as an example.

I do dozens of headwind vs tailwind runs while datalogging to control for things like starting iat. Id highly recommend datalogging your runs as well.

This is fantastic data you're getting though. One of the difficulties is that these cars just don't make much more power on the stock turbo.

Your data, as an example, shows youve gained at best 15-20hp adding ecp2 software and an intake. A 1mph increase in trap speed is around 10-12hp.

I suspect the reason you're seeing slight additional gains adding hardware is your software isnt maxing out the turbo yet. You should try stacking a piggy on your software or asking them for a hotter file.

You can actually go almost a full second better 40-100mph on software alone given roughly the same DA. Log your boost and you can see where the power is missing.

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #93 ·
Love it thanks for the aweosme info. I appreciate the comments on the data rigor also! I am putting effort into that for sure. Once Remus goes in, I will do another test and see where I am, for some potential tune tweaks as you say. Sunday drive today. Stelvio is thirsty for more mods :) Photo of car today for Sunday cruise!
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #94 ·
Gotcha. yes .2 sec difference in 40-100mph can literally be from the wind blowing, a slight change in anything. If you run the car slightly longer at cruise speed before you start a run you can start out with slightly lower iats on that run confounding it slightly as an example.

I do dozens of headwind vs tailwind runs while datalogging to control for things like starting iat. Id highly recommend datalogging your runs as well.

This is fantastic data you're getting though. One of the difficulties is that these cars just don't make much more power on the stock turbo.

Your data, as an example, shows youve gained at best 15-20hp adding ecp2 software and an intake. A 1mph increase in trap speed is around 10-12hp.

I suspect the reason you're seeing slight additional gains adding hardware is your software isnt maxing out the turbo yet. You should try stacking a piggy on your software or asking them for a hotter file.

You can actually go almost a full second better 40-100mph on software alone given roughly the same DA. Log your boost and you can see where the power is missing.

Mike
I am new to data logging. Data logging is just the kind of thing I would like to explore, and share here with the community. What is the best way to go about data logging? Is there additional hardware I need to purchase?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
I am new to data logging. Data logging is just the kind of thing I would like to explore, and share here with the community. What is the best way to go about data logging? Is there additional hardware I need to purchase?
Best logger right now is MES. You just buy these cables...


Then you download the mes program on a windows device for 50 bucks or thereabouts.

You can log impartant variables such as boost, timing, knk retard, pre and post ic intake temps, turbocharger coolant loop water temps, etc,etc.

The other way is jb4. Jb4 has high speed datalogging and gauges directly from can bus.

Forget the bluetooth logger apps. Theyre useless.


22246


22247


22248
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #97 ·
Really appreciate that helpful info. I will start data logging with MES. Excited to post that data in this thread!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter · #98 ·
While waiting for a hybrid turbo to show up on the market, if it ever does (wanting to wait a while before trying that alfa/focus hybrid turbo combo), I am wondering whether there are additional mods to make to the engine, with hardware that is commercially available now (perhaps even in anticipation of increasing efficiency of an eventual turbo upgrade). Any thoughts? I may go downpipe, in hope that the benefit from that could come into effect down the line once a new turbo gets installed. For now though, antsy to keep the project going. I will do rims for sure, eventually also.
 
81 - 100 of 123 Posts
Top