Dyno results, stock CRD

CATCRD · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:15 pm

AZScout wrote:

Ok...this is good news. I had a Dyno run here in AZ earlier this year and got similar numbers. I didn't believe them because they were so much higher than stock. After the first run however, the performance really dropped off due to the heat. That first run came up with the exact same #'s as yours though and it too turned heads. We could just never recreate it, and at $100/hr, with the heat...

I'll trade you something for the pre-f37 TCM :wink:

Do you have any numbers or charts you can post?

Sorry, the TCM is staying put

Kellog13 · **Joined:** Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:21 pm **Posts:** 74

Something seems out of place with these numbers. BD in Surrey, in a major mag posted 129 hp and torque substantially less than the advertised rating. This falls in line with the F37 and detuned performance map designed to save the torque converter. I own a 05 TDI passat which is heavier but eats my CRD in all aspects, off the line, rolling accel and just pure performance. It reminds me of the old diesel rabbit vs the fuel injected type, an absolute no comparison. I thought at the beginning it was just mine, but the dealer arranged for me to test drive another 06 and it was exactly the same as mine, gutless. My TDI will light the tires in first and chirp any time in second, pure fun. If you in fact did pull these numbers its because it's pre F37 and ORM enhanced but its the way it should perform with this BIG 4 cyl, your's should really haul and I expect it would be fun to drive also. Whatever you do, stay away from the dealer cause they'll casterate it if given the chance.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:47 pm

CATCRD wrote:

Sir Sam wrote:

IMO all of the runs should have been maded with the blower, doing so on the first run would have greatly reduced the heat soak from the first into the later runs.

how much did the shop charge for the 3 runs? was it an organized dyno day or just some people coming by?

Yea, no kidding, but I was standing kind of to the side of the Jeep and didn't notice if they had the blower there until after the first run. I had to ask them to put it up. Seriously though, a few ft-lbs loss between runs isn't even worth talking about.

The shop charged $60 for three good pulls, which is pretty steep. The organized dyno day I went to there last year, with a different car, was $35, so I won't be doing any more "what-if" runs unless people want to send me money. I just called these guys up about a week in advance and set up an appointment

$60 for three runs, that aint too bad, most of the time the dyno shops I have been to charge $50 for 2 runs.

Maybe ill change some oil and track down some small boost leaks and take my Z out to the dyno and see what its putting down.....i have been wanting to in a bad way.....

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:52 pm

Diesel World Sept 2006...Mustang 1100 chassis dyno

Stock CRD w/ dynomax cat back...159 rwh and 268 ft#s

Diesel Power CR-S Module.............183.3 rwh and 306.6 ft#s

Dr Performance Module..................183.9 rwh and 310.1 ft#s

spencevans · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:08 am

DarbyWalters wrote:

Diesel World Sept 2006...Mustang 1100 chassis dyno

Stock CRD w/ dynomax cat back...159 rwh and 268 ft#s

Diesel Power CR-S Module.............183.3 rwh and 306.6 ft#s

Dr Performance Module..................183.9 rwh and 310.1 ft#s

With no ORM

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:38 am

DarbyWalters wrote:

Diesel World Sept 2006...Mustang 1100 chassis dyno

Stock CRD w/ dynomax cat back...159 rwh and 268 ft#s

Diesel Power CR-S Module.............183.3 rwh and 306.6 ft#s

Dr Performance Module..................183.9 rwh and 310.1 ft#s

mustang dyno

Bill.Barg · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:10 am

I figure you have all seen this from VM;

http://www.vmmotori.it/uploads/doc/1162.pdf

400 Nm = 295 ft/lb
120 KWatt = 160 hp

Bill

edon · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:52 am

I was curious if any other of you InMotion tuned guys have/will dyno your vehicles. It would be interesting to know if the InMotion tune eliminates the F37 programming or if the end result is still "detuned". Since InMotion saves a copy of each file they modify, might it be possible for them to copy the programming from the "best" one to other engine computers?

Reguarding the different dyno results posted, as previously stated, aren't we only really interested in the change in pre/post mod numbers? In my limited experience with dyno testing vehicles, a dyno operator who knows what they are doing can manipulate the numbers to read pretty much anything you want it to, let alone the differences in all the types of dynos out there.

Kellog13 · **Joined:** Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:21 pm **Posts:** 74

Bill.Barg wrote:

I figure you have all seen this from VM;

http://www.vmmotori.it/uploads/doc/1162.pdf

400 Nm = 295 ft/lb
120 KWatt = 160 hp

Bill

The Engine can produce this, but on the 06 model with "current configuration for emissions and longevity" it produces 129 RWH which calculates correct for the prehistoric 545 tranny= 20 hp loss through drive train, building tolerances are so sloppy and degraded performance map. These numbers are hard to take as the figures posted are greater than the raw engine output? 129 rwh is correct and makes sense, please explain how it can be higher.

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:14 pm

InMotion can not defeat the F37...they tried to but could not decode the chrylser transmission TCM.

InMotion can get the EGR to operate at about 40% of stock but any lower and they hit snags.

The ORM almost negates the EGr but still lets a bit of EGR operation...

The ORM Board is supposed to completely disable the EGR and keep the MIL turned off

Dyno numbers are going to vary from one to another...thought about getting an in car mounted performance unit (accelerometer) to get numbers cheap and at any time...we could ship it around the country... :idea:

Beltronics and G-Tech make good ones (but they don't caluculate torque numbers...just horsepower)

The ORM mod and better exhaust would explain some higher numbers

Timmaah! · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:02 pm

I own a 05 TDI passat which is heavier but eats my CRD in all aspects

Kellog13 did you mean to say that the Passat is heavier than the Liberty CRD?

The CRD is quite a bit heavier than the Passat. In pounds per horsepower and pounds per pound-foot the Passat has the CRD beat. Also the Passat is much more streamlined than the CRD. If you cannot light up the rear tires on your CRD there is something wrong with it. Every time I rotate tires I have to measure the tread depth on all tires and put the tire with the most rubber on the right rear because it gets accidentally spun the most.

flash7210 · **Posted:** Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:18 pm

Kellog13 wrote:

Bill.Barg wrote:

I figure you have all seen this from VM;

http://www.vmmotori.it/uploads/doc/1162.pdf

400 Nm = 295 ft/lb
120 KWatt = 160 hp

Bill

The Engine can produce this, but on the 06 model with "current configuration for emissions and longevity" it produces 129 RWH which calculates correct for the prehistoric 545 tranny= 20 hp loss through drive train, building tolerances are so sloppy and degraded performance map. These numbers are hard to take as the figures posted are greater than the raw engine output? 129 rwh is correct and makes sense, please explain how it can be higher.

Occasionally it does happen where real world HP and Tq rating are in fact
higher than what the factory stated. You have to consider break-in time
for the engine too. An engine that is driven hard from day one will
perform better and pull harder than one that has been granny-ed.
Ford 5.0 Mustangs produced from '86-'91 were rated at 225 hp. However,
many owners who had their cars on the dyno found that after several
thousand miles of use their engines were putting out as much as 250hp
and still bone stock.
(I think thae 5.0 Cobra model was factory rated at 240hp)

RTStabler51 · **Posted:** Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:40 am

Kellog13 wrote:

Something seems out of place with these numbers. BD in Surrey, in a major mag posted 129 hp and torque substantially less than the advertised rating. This falls in line with the F37 and detuned performance map designed to save the torque converter. I own a 05 TDI passat which is heavier but eats my CRD in all aspects, off the line, rolling accel and just pure performance. It reminds me of the old diesel rabbit vs the fuel injected type, an absolute no comparison. I thought at the beginning it was just mine, but the dealer arranged for me to test drive another 06 and it was exactly the same as mine, gutless. My TDI will light the tires in first and chirp any time in second, pure fun. If you in fact did pull these numbers its because it's pre F37 and ORM enhanced but its the way it should perform with this BIG 4 cyl, your's should really haul and I expect it would be fun to drive also. Whatever you do, stay away from the dealer cause they'll casterate it if given the chance.

Dynos vary widely, and depending on the make of the dyno that can throw the numbers off. Mustang dynos typically dyno lower than a Dynojet, and now they have mobile dynos, dynos that bolt directly to the axle studs etc.

Timmaah! · **Posted:** Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:32 pm

I took my CRD out and timed it 0 to 60 three times (no ORM). Outside temperature 91 F. Wind speed and direction SSW 11 MPH gusting to 18 MPH. Vehicle traveling east to west very slightly up hill on asphalt. Humidity 58 percent. Elevation 1,100 feet. Air conditioning off and windows up maybe 18 gallons of fuel. I have never run my CRD wide open 0 to 60 before so I got a bit of a surprise. :shock:

On the first run I put my left foot on the brake to preload the turbo a little and the right rear tire spun so bad when I punched it that I was barely moving and I had to let up to get traction and step down again. That run was 11.8 seconds. On the second run I just floored it and the tire still spun but not as bad. Time was 10.8 seconds. On the third run I gave it a little pedal to get it moving then floored it and the time was 10.6 seconds with no wheel spin.

Before you all jump all over me, I have done this before with a number of vehicles and got pretty close to what the magazines tested on same vehicles. My speedometer is off 1 MPH - when it reads 65 my GPS reads slightly over 66. One of the problems with this method is that the speedometer lags reality slightly so I am fairly sure that, since I hit the stop watch at 60, this CRD goes 0 to 60 pretty close to what it is supposed to do under ideal conditions including a better driver. My first focus was on accurate times.

Pablo · **Joined:** Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:06 pm **Posts:** 1201

Timmaah! wrote:

I took my CRD out and timed it 0 to 60 three times (no ORM). Outside temperature 91 F. Wind speed and direction SSW 11 MPH gusting to 18 MPH. Vehicle traveling east to west very slightly up hill on asphalt. Humidity 58 percent. Elevation 1,100 feet. Air conditioning off and windows up maybe 18 gallons of fuel. I have never run my CRD wide open 0 to 60 before so I got a bit of a surprise. :shock:

On the first run I put my left foot on the brake to preload the turbo a little and the right rear tire spun so bad when I punched it that I was barely moving and I had to let up to get traction and step down again. That run was 11.8 seconds. On the second run I just floored it and the tire still spun but not as bad. Time was 10.8 seconds. On the third run I gave it a little pedal to get it moving then floored it and the time was 10.6 seconds with no wheel spin.

Before you all jump all over me, I have done this before with a number of vehicles and got pretty close to what the magazines tested on same vehicles. My speedometer is off 1 MPH - when it reads 65 my GPS reads slightly over 66. One of the problems with this method is that the speedometer lags reality slightly so I am fairly sure that, since I hit the stop watch at 60, this CRD goes 0 to 60 pretty close to what it is supposed to do under ideal conditions including a better driver. My first focus was on accurate times.

4-full time will keep the rear from kicking out so bad. You should get a better time that way.

Timmaah! · **Posted:** Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:03 pm

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:18 pm

Your speedo should be reading FASTER than you are actually going...

_UnLiMiTeD_ · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:32 am

is full time 4wd ok to having your gun it? Also you would have to move 4 wheels instead of 2 so that would slow it down

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:10 am

_UnLiMiTeD_ wrote:

is full time 4wd ok to having your gun it? Also you would have to move 4 wheels instead of 2 so that would slow it down

Its a toss up, having the 4wd on will mean that there is additional drag to the system, meaning less power reaches the wheels because of parasitic loss, BUT it means that less power is delivered to each wheel, meaning you are less likely to break the tires loose.

So if in 2wd and you floor it you loose traction then 4wd would help, if you dont loose traction then 4wd will not help.

Generally I dont loose traction on dry pavement, wet ya.

Now my Z on the other hand, 300rwhp will break tires loose, so AWD would improve my traction alot of the time.....

Like most things in life its all about compromise.

AZScout · **Posted:** Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:38 am

I was doing launches in full-time 4wd to test out the different TCM's that I had. I heard a loud bang in the front diff area. Everything was fine and there were no leaks but I'm not doing it again. Just my .02

Dave

Dyno results, stock CRD

Who is online