Virtual Dyno issues

[RJTSi]

So, is anyone else having some strange issues with VDyno the past week or 2? My logs are all of a sudden reading up to 100 hp/tq lower than they theoretically should be based on maf g/s and load values. The last log I have on the k04 before the swap to the CS 18g was on 5/21 and its reading normal. All new logs done in the past week are showing extremely low values (curves are normal, just shifted waaaay down). For instance, I picked up over 50 g/s up top, and about .05 peak load so far with the CS, however VDyno is trying to tell me I've lost 50 hp/85 tq. This is on the exact same intake as before. It's also doing the same thing on another guys car I'm tuning. He's down about 50ish hp as well. Some other local guys have confirmed that they are having the same issue. So it's not just my AP, computer, or version of VD. I tried uninstalling it and reinstalling it to no avail.

[acousticdefbot]

i loaded a couple less than a week ago and they were par for the course. what settings are you using, and most importantly which dyno?

[RJTSi]

Originally Posted by acousticdefbot i loaded a couple less than a week ago and they were par for the course. what settings are you using, and most importantly which dyno?

cF 1.01. Smoothing on 3 like normal. I've been using virtual dyno for over a year now and this is the first time I've ever ran into this. I can't pinpoint exactly when this started, but is very recent. Can you try doing a log, bringing it into VD and see if everything still looks normal. It's really strange that my logs 5/21 and prior are perfect

[Mike@Stratified]

He doesn't have dates on his release notes, but I don't think there has been a new version in quite a while therefore I'd say any differences you are seeing are due to warmer temps or other conditions and not the application.

[RJTSi]

Originally Posted by Mike@Stratified He doesn't have dates on his release notes, but I don't think there has been a new version in quite a while therefore I'd say any differences you are seeing are due to warmer temps or other conditions and not the application.

It's def not the temps. I wouldn't be seeing 50 less hp on an identical intake setup, timing map, making 50 g/s more. Something in the software is different. I know he just released a phone app, so I'm not sure if anything changes there. A strange thing I noticed is if I put the final drive for 5th/6th gear (3.35) in instead of the 3rd/4th (3.941) it actually brings the curve up about axactly where it should be. (On a speed6 3rd pull.) I'll post the 2 logs here soon so you can clearly see that more power is being made but, showing almost 100hp down.

[Mike@Stratified]

So your k04 log gives you the expected numbers in your copy of VD, but your CS log does not and this is an application issue how?

Sent while Stratified.

[RJTSi]

Originally Posted by Mike@Stratified So your k04 log gives you the expected numbers in your copy of VD, but your CS log does not and this is an application issue how? Sent while Stratified.

Wut? Um because it clearly is. Others have chimed in, both on here and locally, that are having the exact same issue. I didn't lose 50 hp and 85 lbs of torque going from a tired ass 127k mile motor with a blown up k04 to a built motor with perfectly clean valves and a brand new larger turbo. All while making 50 g/s more than the k04 setup.

[Mike@Stratified]

It clearly is not. If your k04 log was also showing low numbers your claim might have some credence, but it is showing the numbers you expect. Or if your k04 log was showing 300hp in an old version of VD and the same log is down 50 hp in your current VD version you'd have an argument, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Sent while Stratified.

[fivefingerdeathpunch]

If this is a 4th gear log on a speed6, calculate your 60-100 times for each and compare...

FYI it's completely possible to have a higher load and flow more but be making less horsepower... just because the air is going into the motor, doesn't mean it's actually being utilized to it's fullest extent. You probably were making all you could with the air the k04 was flowing, but now you have more air and aren't using all of it to its fullest yet.

I am not having any VD issues like you, but I am flowing approx the same on my new turbo setup as I was before, with equal or higher load values and have a lot less VD power. I'm not surprised though since my 60-100 times according to my logs are MUCH slower

[RJTSi]

Originally Posted by Mike@Stratified It clearly is not. If your k04 log was also showing low numbers your claim might have some credence, but it is showing the numbers you expect. Or if your k04 log was showing 300hp in an old version of VD and the same log is down 50 hp in your current VD version you'd have an argument, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Sent while Stratified.

Than how do you explain having the exact same issue on 4 other cars my buddy and I are tuning right now. Which also only started in the past week or so. 2 different laptops. 2 different tuners. 5 different cars and APs including mine. And all having 50-100 hp less than they should (in VD). They all feel strong

Originally Posted by fivefingerdeathpunch If this is a 4th gear log on a speed6, calculate your 60-100 times for each and compare... FYI it's completely possible to have a higher load and flow more but be making less horsepower... just because the air is going into the motor, doesn't mean it's actually being utilized to it's fullest extent. You probably were making all you could with the air the k04 was flowing, but now you have more air and aren't using all of it to its fullest yet. I am not having any VD issues like you, but I am flowing approx the same on my new turbo setup as I was before, with equal or higher load values and have a lot less VD power. I'm not surprised though since my 60-100 times according to my logs are MUCH slower

Load values are about the same in the logs, which I expect them to be because the CS isn't going to make much more, if any, peak load values over the K04, but there is more area under the curve. However, flowing 50 g/s more will net more power running similar timing maps and identical intakes

[Mike@Stratified]

I'm not trying to explain why you are seeing what you are seeing, I'm simply pointing out that it is not a VD issue. If you have a log that showed Xhp previously, and it still shows Xhp then VD hasn't changed. You should look elsewhere for an explanation to your issue because it is 100% NOT a Virtual Dyno issue.

Sent while Stratified.

[RJTSi]

Originally Posted by Mike@Stratified I'm not trying to explain why you are seeing what you are seeing, I'm simply pointing out that it is not a VD issue. If you have a log that showed Xhp previously, and it still shows Xhp then VD hasn't changed. You should look elsewhere for an explanation to your issue because it is 100% NOT a Virtual Dyno issue. Sent while Stratified.

I see what you're saying

[acousticdefbot]

if we don't get flooded down here again tonight, i will take another log and test this theory out. from what i can gather, older logs are loading correctly, but only ones recorded recently are giving you issues. unless there was some ghost update within the virtual dyno software, this leads me to believe that it's not the software, but the data being submitted. is he crazy? is there a ghost in the machine? we'll find out.

would you mind throwing up the datalogs that you're comparing? i'm sure someone would be happy to take a look. perhaps there is a real world reason you're not seeing the numbers you expect.

[sheston]

I agree with @fivefingerdeathpunch; Look at your logged 60 - 100 mph times. They don't lie.

Vdyno and load are more complicated calculations that may have interactions with other things.

[NCspecV81]

@RJTSi; You really need to have logs and vdynos to back up what your original post is postulating.

[RJTSi]

Originally Posted by NCspecV81 @RJTSi; You really need to have logs and vdynos to back up what your original post is postulating.

I've been insanley busy at the shop the past few days. Fixing my exhaust cam that snapped in half. When I'm not working on mine I'm helping with other customers' cars. We dont have wifi out there. I literally have just not had the time to mess with posting them. I will as soon as i can. I don't have any 60-100 data because I've been doing 3rd gear logs now that traction isn't an issue (awd).
Here's a quick 2 logs from a car i started tuning on Saturday. Its a 2011 with i believe every bolt on minus a DP. Datalog 6 is his base log where he was running a Cobb Stage 1+ SF 93 Map. Datalog 14 is after my first revision. These are about the same base numbers my other buddy was getting on 2 gen 2s he is tuning right now. Even these seem abnormally low. I'd expect around the minimum of 240 whp with those mods, even on a base tune. I also attached a log (datalog 13) from back at the end of April when i first got my speed 6. At this point, It was 100% bone stock except for a Cobb SRI, turbo inlet, and FP internals. The 6 numbers seem much more on par, and this was done on a stage 1+ SF 93 map, no revisions.

[Vansquish]

Originally Posted by RJTSi I've been insanley busy at the shop the past few days. Fixing my exhaust cam that snapped in half. When I'm not working on mine I'm helping with other customers' cars. We dont have wifi out there. I literally have just not had the time to mess with posting them. I will as soon as i can. I don't have any 60-100 data because I've been doing 3rd gear logs now that traction isn't an issue (awd). Here's a quick 2 logs from a car i started tuning on Saturday. Its a 2011 with i believe every bolt on minus a DP. Datalog 6 is his base log where he was running a Cobb Stage 1+ SF 93 Map. Datalog 14 is after my first revision. These are about the same base numbers my other buddy was getting on 2 gen 2s he is tuning right now. Even these seem abnormally low. I'd expect around the minimum of 240 whp with those mods, even on a base tune. I also attached a log (datalog 13) from back at the end of April when i first got my speed 6. At this point, It was 100% bone stock except for a Cobb SRI, turbo inlet, and FP internals. The 6 numbers seem much more on par, and this was done on a stage 1+ SF 93 map, no revisions.

For a "head-to-head" comparison, the Cobb OTS numbers make sense, especially if there was around a 20-30ºF shift in ambient temperatures. If you look at the BATs on datalog6 and datalog13, during a pull you'll see a minimum of around a 27º BAT difference and a maximum of 52º. This is too much of a differential and too much variance to discount it as a LARGE factor in power production.

On an annual basis, I see 10-30awhp/awtq less in summer weather than I do in the spring/fall, when temperatures are significantly cooler.

Originally Posted by NCspecV81 @RJTSi; You really need to have logs and vdynos to back up what your original post is postulating.

Not only that, but logs under similar atmospheric conditions are what's really needed. That is, a log with a 138ºF starting BAT that dips to 118º is not the same as a log with an 86ºF starting BAT that dips to 76º.

[WetzMS3]

I typically save a .jpg of the VDyno graph of multiple logs from each revision, the same night they are taken, mostly for quick future reference. I'd suggest you begin to do the same. Then you could simply reload the same logs into the version of VDyno you think is flawed, and compare.

For what it's worth, I just reloaded logs from a month ago into VDyno, and they match the .jpg I have saved from that night.

[NCspecV81]

Originally Posted by RJTSi I've been insanley busy at the shop the past few days. Fixing my exhaust cam that snapped in half. When I'm not working on mine I'm helping with other customers' cars. We dont have wifi out there. I literally have just not had the time to mess with posting them. I will as soon as i can. I don't have any 60-100 data because I've been doing 3rd gear logs now that traction isn't an issue (awd). Here's a quick 2 logs from a car i started tuning on Saturday. Its a 2011 with i believe every bolt on minus a DP. Datalog 6 is his base log where he was running a Cobb Stage 1+ SF 93 Map. Datalog 14 is after my first revision. These are about the same base numbers my other buddy was getting on 2 gen 2s he is tuning right now. Even these seem abnormally low. I'd expect around the minimum of 240 whp with those mods, even on a base tune. I also attached a log (datalog 13) from back at the end of April when i first got my speed 6. At this point, It was 100% bone stock except for a Cobb SRI, turbo inlet, and FP internals. The 6 numbers seem much more on par, and this was done on a stage 1+ SF 93 map, no revisions.

Are you on the same wheels and tires? Your highest power vdyno says you're running an almost 26" inch tire.

So what wheels and tires do you have?

[WetzMS3]

Originally Posted by NCspecV81 Are you on the same wheels and tires? Your highest power vdyno says you're running an almost 26" inch tire. So what wheels and tires do you have?

Good catch.

The higher number may not be off by too much, but it is an odd number. My setup, 245/40-18 is 25.7" tall.

Looks like a 245/35-18 drops to 24.8", so I'm not sure where or how you'd get that odd higher number. Let alone why it'd change mid tune.

Bottom line, too many variables here from OP to pin point the differences on any one thing, let alone VDyno.

[NCspecV81]

Originally Posted by WetzMS3 Good catch. The higher number may not be off by too much, but it is an odd number. My setup, 245/40-18 is 25.7" tall. Looks like a 245/35-18 drops to 24.8", so I'm not sure where or how you'd get that odd higher number. Let alone why it'd change mid tune. Bottom line, too many variables here from OP to pin point the differences on any one thing, let alone VDyno.

Not to mention total weight seems "off" too.

[WetzMS3]

347lbs passenger?

[mize13]

Originally Posted by Vansquish On an annual basis, I see 10-30awhp/awtq less in summer weather than I do in the spring/fall, when temperatures are significantly cooler.

^ This

Not only is the warmer air less dense, but warmer air can hold a lot more water vapor, which robs power. Logs with similar temps would be good.

[SofaKingAwesome]

OP might be Corky

[neganox]

Originally Posted by SofaKingAwesome OP might be Corky

I thought that was Rocky.

[WetzMS3]

Originally Posted by neganox I thought that was Rocky.

No cats?

So disappointed in you man.

[Enki]

Just took a look at the logs, and I'd expect a tune hitting 8.5 peak timing to be making less hp/tq overall than one hitting 15.

/thread?

[NCspecV81]

so lets recap:

1. Tire size is drastically different
2. Seems you've either lost the weight equal to an NFL offensive tackle or found a way to drive the car by remote
3. You're running nearly half the timing.

Sounds like pebkac and not a Vdyno problem.

[Vansquish]

Originally Posted by Enki Just took a look at the logs, and I'd expect a tune hitting 8.5 peak timing to be making less hp/tq overall than one hitting 15. /thread?

I'm starting to wonder if it's wise for the OP to be messing with anyone's car but his own...

Originally Posted by NCspecV81 so lets recap: 1. Tire size is drastically different 2. Seems you've either lost the weight equal to an NFL offensive tackle or found a way to drive the car by remote 3. You're running nearly half the timing. Sounds like pebkac and not a Vdyno problem.

Let's not forget the massive BAT differential.

[WetzMS3]

Originally Posted by Vansquish I'm starting to wonder if it's wise for the OP to be messing with anyone's car but his own...

Just now? That was my first thought when he mentioned the number of cars he's sen VDyno "screw up" with.

[NCspecV81]

watch this not even be logs from the same car.

[RJTSi]

Did you guys fail to see that these are logs from 2 different cars??? Did you read my post? Or are you just have a hard on to jump my shit telling me I'm wrong, retarded, etc? 2 logs are from a 2011 speed3. One is from and 06 speed6. Hence the weight and tire difference. You can actually disregard the speed6 log. I was just trying to post a log from a little while ago that puts down "normal numbers" for the mileage, condition, and mods. I've been tuning since Atr was first released. Bought my gen 1 speed brand new. I'm not new to this platform, VD, or tuning in general. Just forget this post, cause obviously none of you are interested in helping. I'll find it elsewhere. Peace

To reiterate what I've already said but none of you apparently can read. I am not the only one having this exact issue. Other local guys in the Ohio Mazdaspeeds group, at least one dude on here in the "Corksport turbo" thread, and a few others are having power down anywhere from 50-100 hp. Someone go ahead and lock this thing up.

[Vansquish]

Originally Posted by RJTSi Did you guys fail to see that these are logs from 2 different cars??? Did you read my post? Or are you just have a hard on to jump my shit telling me I'm wrong, retarded, etc? 2 logs are from a 2011 speed3. One is from and 06 speed6. Hence the weight and tire difference. You can actually disregard the speed6 log. I was just trying to post a log from a little while ago that puts down "normal numbers" for the mileage, condition, and mods. I've been tuning since Atr was first released. Bought my gen 1 speed brand new. I'm not new to this platform, VD, or tuning in general. Just forget this post, cause obviously none of you are interested in helping. I'll find it elsewhere. Peace

I've been paying attention to the differences. This is why I never commented upon the weight differential.

That still doesn't explain away the timing/BAT/wheel size differences you've got in your graphs.

It seems to me that these variances are enough, on their own, to account for the difference in outputs you're seeing.

[acousticdefbot]

Originally Posted by RJTSi Did you guys fail to see that these are logs from 2 different cars??? Did you read my post? Or are you just have a hard on to jump my shit telling me I'm wrong, retarded, etc? 2 logs are from a 2011 speed3. One is from and 06 speed6. Hence the weight and tire difference. You can actually disregard the speed6 log. I was just trying to post a log from a little while ago that puts down "normal numbers" for the mileage, condition, and mods. I've been tuning since Atr was first released. Bought my gen 1 speed brand new. I'm not new to this platform, VD, or tuning in general. Just forget this post, cause obviously none of you are interested in helping. I'll find it elsewhere. Peace

there, there. keep a level head. they're a rough crowd but they mean well. even when they don't. i wanted to go grab a couple logs (giggity) last night but unfortunately rain has been fucking my couch.

[neganox]

Originally Posted by RJTSi Did you guys fail to see that these are logs from 2 different cars??? Did you read my post? Or are you just have a hard on to jump my shit telling me I'm wrong, retarded, etc? 2 logs are from a 2011 speed3. One is from and 06 speed6. Hence the weight and tire difference. You can actually disregard the speed6 log. I was just trying to post a log from a little while ago that puts down "normal numbers" for the mileage, condition, and mods. I've been tuning since Atr was first released. Bought my gen 1 speed brand new. I'm not new to this platform, VD, or tuning in general. Just forget this post, cause obviously none of you are interested in helping. I'll find it elsewhere. Peace To reiterate what I've already said but none of you apparently can read. I am not the only one having this exact issue. Other local guys in the Ohio Mazdaspeeds group, at least one dude on here in the "Corksport turbo" thread, and a few others are having power down anywhere from 50-100 hp. Someone go ahead and lock this thing up.

Now. Now is the time for cats.

[RJTSi]

Originally Posted by Vansquish I've been paying attention to the differences. This is why I never commented upon the weight differential. That still doesn't explain away the timing/BAT/wheel size differences you've got in your graphs. It seems to me that these variances are enough, on their own, to account for the difference in outputs you're seeing.

I'm not trying to compare the two cars power outputs to each other at all really. I'm just showing that this older log from a speed6 is on point for its mods etc. this new speed3 and a bunch of others are not making what they should in VD. The graphs are shifted down by some weird factor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these cars should make over 180 whp with bolt-ons and an aftermarket OTS tune. If not, than that's one hell of a drivetrain loss. Ruff Crowds are fine, but don't sit here and call me a retard without going out, doing a log, putting it in VD and posting your results

[fivefingerdeathpunch]

I'm just going to throw this out there...

You know the logs need to be done on a flat road right? Uphill will cause the numbers to read too low and downhill will cause them to be too high.

[WetzMS3]

Originally Posted by RJTSi I'm not trying to compare the two cars power outputs to each other at all really. I'm just showing that this older log from a speed6 is on point for its mods etc. this new speed3 and a bunch of others are not making what they should in VD. The graphs are shifted down by some weird factor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these cars should make over 180 whp with bolt-ons and an aftermarket OTS tune. If not, than that's one hell of a drivetrain loss. Ruff Crowds are fine, but don't sit here and call me a retard without going out, doing a log, putting it in VD and posting your results

As I mentioned earlier, I did exactly this comparison, and saw no difference.

This evening when I get home to my laptop, I will do it again, with even older logs and post up the results, as well as the .jpg file from the day the old logs were taken.

I did not save the comparison this morning, because it did not differ.

[Enki]

Side note: If the entire engine has changed, it's no longer a valid comparison. Differences in compression ratio, and even crank angle sensor position can account for at least some changes in power level.

[SofaKingAwesome]

I'm getting the same numbers on an older version of vdyno, it's your car being slow, not some glitch in vdyno.