...link to said Subaru?

What does a stock evo dyno on this dyno?

Kinda curious how multiple shops with mustang dynos are busting out 900+ with these turbos and others with dynojets aren't even breaking the 900 mark, not trying to argue just pointing it out. Pixel dust power maybe?

Actually it was only 711whp uncorrected. The fully corrected numbers from high altitude are very misleading.

SAE corrections should NEVER be used if they exceed +/-10%.

-Jamie

Ya most dyno shops don't care about that around these parts lol.

They would rather belt out ridiculous numbers so people think they are some god shop.

The SAE white paper actually says to disregard any variations above 3% and that it is NOT designed to compensate for altitude only for weather variation.

And I'm saying that you can take about 100wtq off that dyno graph (probably even more since the bigger the power numbers the larger the discrepancy) since it was done on a Dynojet. So, realistically, that car make about 600ftlbs. That's the reality, not the magic pixsy-dust Dynojet numbers. That's more of a fair comparison.

1. I stated that I'm not trying to compare to anything, it was simply answer another board member's question.
2. While others might use your method of hp conversion from mustang to dynojet (or there is even such thing/formula), I don't bench dyno.
3. I've dynoed said car on a mustang locally here in Houston, and the numbers was about 2% different. So again, 10% is not always the difference between the mustang and dynojet.

That 2% number is a joke. All I'm saying is that you are giving people the wrong impression. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, is going to take a 6766, attach it to a 2.4 4G63, put 44lbs of boost to it and make a REAL 700ft.lbs of torque. It just isn't going to happen. In fact, you would be doing AWESOME to come within 75ftlbs of that number IN REALITY.

So, I realize you answered the man's question, but clarification is needed. Take that same car and put it on Buschur's dyno and watch the owners heart break. He'll be asking you to give him his money back.

628ft-lbs mustang isn't really that unworldly. Very possible.

We did 575wtq on a 6766 on an unported evo head on a 2.0L @ 44psi on our Mustang Dyno which has proven to consistently have the dynojet 1/2 mile down the street read exactly 13% higher than our factory spec calibrated Mustang Dyno.

On a 2.3 or 2.4L, that's incredibly feasible. Especially since a 2.4L @44psi flows a great deal more LB/MIN than a 2.0L @ 44psi.

-Jamie

I completely agree. But 700ftlbs out of a 6766 is unworldly, especially on a Mustang dyno at 44lbs of boost.

But wasn't your claim of the impossibility of 700wtq based on the dynojet results? Pick a dyno for your argument. I'm telling you right now, 700wtq on a dynojet in a 6766 is TOTALLY attainable on a 2.4L. Like, very attainable. Our 2.0L at 44psi woild do 650wtq on a dynojet at sea level already. if the peak torque was at 6k instead of 7k, it easily could do 50wtq, especially in a more efficient engine design. you do realize that a 2.4L at 44psi probably flows as much as a 2.0L with nearly 50psi right? What do I know though, you know so much that we can't compete.

-Jamie

No, go back and read what I wrote before you get your panties all bunched up. And I never claimed to know anything other than this fact - a 6766 turbo will NOT make 700ftlbs of torque on a Mustang dyno at only 44lbs of boost. I don't care if it hooked up to a 2.0, 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4. That turbo just doesn't move enough air to make that kind of torque on a MUSTANG DYNO. The original test of these two turbos was performed on a Mustang dyno. Then a guy posts up a dynograph of a car making 700wtq at 44psi. I simply pointed out that that number (700ftlb @ 44psi w/6766) needs to be considered in light of the fact it was done on a DYNOJET, which reads significantly higher than a MUSTANG dyno.

So, basically you're arguing against something I never said. Good job.