my new setup decission 20g...
Originally Posted by Gruppe-S
. . . I personally take all dynojet numbers with a grain of salt. I guess that's just me though. 

Originally Posted by Gruppe-S
As for the 500 crank HP number I think a ~25% drivetrain loss for the EVO and Subaru is fairly inline.
Factory rating for an EVO 8 is 271bhp.
A Dynojet shows ~235 whp = 13.3% loss
A Dyno Dynamics shows ~210 whp = 22.5% loss
- I believe the actual figure to be somwhere between these, but these percentage loss figures are for a stock EVO, and will diminish as power increases.
For my EVO in TME trim, the most statistically accurate average hp calculation method for my specific power range (determined by trap speed + mass) appears to be the Hale method, found here:
http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm
The calculated bhp figure of 419bhp for my TME equipped EVO on 93 octane + methanol at that time seems reasonable, and is within 5% of a typical DJ figure (400+whp). That leaves a drivetrain loss of ~17% for the very low reading Dyno Dynamics , and a few percent less (i.e. 12-14%) for a typical Mustang at that power level. As for which dyno reports whp closest to the actual figures, my money is on a typical Mustang, which tends to be a bit higher than a DD, but significantly less than a DJ.
When I go back to the track and apply the same methodology, the percentage of drivetrain losses will be less still.
Originally Posted by Ted B
I disagree. I can't vouch for the consistency/accuracy of one lone Dodge, but I can for many, many EVOs:
Factory rating for an EVO 8 is 271bhp.
A Dynojet shows ~235 whp = 13.3% loss
A Dyno Dynamics shows ~210 whp = 22.5% loss
- I believe the actual figure to be somwhere between these, but these percentage loss figures are for a stock EVO, and will diminish as power increases.
For my EVO in TME trim, the most statistically accurate average hp calculation method for my specific power range (determined by trap speed + mass) appears to be the Hale method, found here:
http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm
The calculated bhp figure of 419bhp for my TME equipped EVO on 93 octane + methanol at that time seems reasonable, and is within 5% of a typical DJ figure (400+whp). That leaves a drivetrain loss of ~17% for the very low reading Dyno Dynamics , and a few percent less (i.e. 12-14%) for a typical Mustang at that power level. As for which dyno reports whp closest to the actual figures, my money is on a typical Mustang, which tends to be a bit higher than a DD, but significantly less than a DJ.
When I go back to the track and apply the same methodology, the percentage of drivetrain losses will be less still.
Factory rating for an EVO 8 is 271bhp.
A Dynojet shows ~235 whp = 13.3% loss
A Dyno Dynamics shows ~210 whp = 22.5% loss
- I believe the actual figure to be somwhere between these, but these percentage loss figures are for a stock EVO, and will diminish as power increases.
For my EVO in TME trim, the most statistically accurate average hp calculation method for my specific power range (determined by trap speed + mass) appears to be the Hale method, found here:
http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm
The calculated bhp figure of 419bhp for my TME equipped EVO on 93 octane + methanol at that time seems reasonable, and is within 5% of a typical DJ figure (400+whp). That leaves a drivetrain loss of ~17% for the very low reading Dyno Dynamics , and a few percent less (i.e. 12-14%) for a typical Mustang at that power level. As for which dyno reports whp closest to the actual figures, my money is on a typical Mustang, which tends to be a bit higher than a DD, but significantly less than a DJ.
When I go back to the track and apply the same methodology, the percentage of drivetrain losses will be less still.
But nevertheless you are correct, the trap speed of a similar weight vehicle is a better determination of horsepower than just dyno numbers.

Gary
Gruppe-S
Oh I also wanted to add, some shops with the Mustangdyne AWD are running temperature corrections (weather station). Given say 20 degrees temperature difference you can see horsepower ratings differ by over 10% in certain instances. We leave the temperature correction off - it doesn't even come close to being able to simulate temperature differences and its effect on horsepower in the modern ECU car. I'm not sure what difference this makes at altitude, but we're pretty close to sea level. 
Gary
Gruppe-S

Gary
Gruppe-S
Originally Posted by Gruppe-S
That said, even at 271HP you must remember that at higher horsepower the drivetrain loss is not linear,
Originally Posted by Gruppe-S
. . . and I still think in the 400-600HP for an AWD car, a 25% drivetrain loss is fairly normal. I in fact feel that a 25% calculation for those power levels to be a bit on the conservative side.
If it were, then the EVO that I saw delivering 440whp on a Dyno Dynamics with an ATP GT35R kit at 27 psi and 680cc/min injectors on race gas would never have been able to do it without running out of injector (and it didn't). By your estimation of drivetrain losses, that works out to 600bhp, but a 680cc/min injector running at a BSFC of a lean (for a turbo car) 0.50lb/hp/hr will reach their limit ~520bhp. Do you really believe this car was somehow making 600bhp?
My rough calculations using my own data as a statistical basis show actual bhp to be closer to 515bhp, which of course is far more believable given the flow rate of his injectors and the expectations of this turbo kit at 27 psi.
Originally Posted by Gruppe-S
But nevertheless you are correct, the trap speed of a similar weight vehicle is a better determination of horsepower than just dyno numbers. 

Originally Posted by Ted B
Running the drivetrain faster through the gears in free space (plus tire friction) takes far lesser increase in power than pushing the vehicle to a 5-10mph faster trap speed. Due to this obvious fact, drivetrain loss is not a linear, fixed percentage of power, and constitutes a lesser percentage of power to turn that same drivetrain as engine power increases.
Originally Posted by Ted B
That implies it would require 800bhp to get 600whp worth of performance, and all it takes is a look at a compressor map and fuel injector capacity to see why this cannot be the case.
If it were, then the EVO that I saw delivering 440whp on a Dyno Dynamics with an ATP GT35R kit at 27 psi and 680cc/min injectors on race gas would never have been able to do it without running out of injector (and it didn't). By your estimation of drivetrain losses, that works out to 600bhp, but a 680cc/min injector running at a BSFC of a lean (for a turbo car) 0.50lb/hp/hr will reach their limit ~520bhp. Do you really believe this car was somehow making 600bhp?
My rough calculations using my own data as a statistical basis show actual bhp to be closer to 515bhp, which of course is far more believable given the flow rate of his injectors and the expectations of this turbo kit at 27 psi.
If it were, then the EVO that I saw delivering 440whp on a Dyno Dynamics with an ATP GT35R kit at 27 psi and 680cc/min injectors on race gas would never have been able to do it without running out of injector (and it didn't). By your estimation of drivetrain losses, that works out to 600bhp, but a 680cc/min injector running at a BSFC of a lean (for a turbo car) 0.50lb/hp/hr will reach their limit ~520bhp. Do you really believe this car was somehow making 600bhp?
My rough calculations using my own data as a statistical basis show actual bhp to be closer to 515bhp, which of course is far more believable given the flow rate of his injectors and the expectations of this turbo kit at 27 psi.
Cheers,
Gary
Gruppe-S
i believe i have the exact setup you are looking for.
2.3 stroker
20g-9-5
revolver cams
alky
and all te bells and whistles.
on buschur's mustang dyno i put down 359whp and 408tor on 93 w/alky, at 26.5 psi. i originally was going to get the ex. manifold ported, but there was a mix up and it wasn't done. i put down around 400tor at approx. 3500rpms.
there is also still room in my tune to play around with.
check out the link for the dyno sheet.
http://buschurforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16606
2.3 stroker
20g-9-5
revolver cams
alky
and all te bells and whistles.
on buschur's mustang dyno i put down 359whp and 408tor on 93 w/alky, at 26.5 psi. i originally was going to get the ex. manifold ported, but there was a mix up and it wasn't done. i put down around 400tor at approx. 3500rpms.
there is also still room in my tune to play around with.
check out the link for the dyno sheet.
http://buschurforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16606
Here's the video of the STI:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ru+impreza+sti
Please forgive the "advertisement" feel of the video. The dyno pull is legitimate, the last pull before going to the track, the graph is legitimate, and obviously the run speaks for itself. This is a full weight STI, minus the passenger and rear seats. No additional weight reduction was performed, assuming a 200lbs driver, I would say the car weighs no less than 3400lbs.
Cheers,
Gary
Gruppe-S
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ru+impreza+sti
Please forgive the "advertisement" feel of the video. The dyno pull is legitimate, the last pull before going to the track, the graph is legitimate, and obviously the run speaks for itself. This is a full weight STI, minus the passenger and rear seats. No additional weight reduction was performed, assuming a 200lbs driver, I would say the car weighs no less than 3400lbs.
Cheers,
Gary
Gruppe-S
Originally Posted by dustin03
so you are say you will never be able to make 440 whp on 680 injectors?
Cheers,
Gary
Gruppe-S
Originally Posted by cpdevo31
i believe i have the exact setup you are looking for.
2.3 stroker
20g-9-5
revolver cams
alky
and all te bells and whistles.
on buschur's mustang dyno i put down 359whp and 408tor on 93 w/alky, at 26.5 psi. i originally was going to get the ex. manifold ported, but there was a mix up and it wasn't done. i put down around 400tor at approx. 3500rpms.
there is also still room in my tune to play around with.
check out the link for the dyno sheet.
http://buschurforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16606
2.3 stroker
20g-9-5
revolver cams
alky
and all te bells and whistles.
on buschur's mustang dyno i put down 359whp and 408tor on 93 w/alky, at 26.5 psi. i originally was going to get the ex. manifold ported, but there was a mix up and it wasn't done. i put down around 400tor at approx. 3500rpms.
there is also still room in my tune to play around with.
check out the link for the dyno sheet.
http://buschurforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16606

Gary
Gruppe-S
Fletcher Jones Motor Cars.....used to here thier adds on the radio when I lived in Cali.....
here's what I'd do with an alky kit and tune:
https://secure.buschurracing.com/cat...82bc9623f419ce
here's what I'd do with an alky kit and tune:
https://secure.buschurracing.com/cat...82bc9623f419ce
Originally Posted by dustin03
ok not to jack this. I would like to know I have 680 injectors should l go bigger with my 20g 9 5?
Gary
Gruppe-S
Originally Posted by Gruppe-S
Agreed there's no way any 4G63 will be able to do 440whp on 680cc injectors on our dyno regardless of fuel pressure. This would lead me to believe improper dyno calibration.
Originally Posted by Gruppe-S
To make 440whp on our dyno with C16 race gas on anywhere near normal fuel pressure levels you're looking at 880cc injectors.
Originally Posted by Gruppe-S
Full weight STI's which make 460whp on our dyno trap 128mph. According to the calculator you linked me (assuming driver weight), the HP is in excess of 630HP, which is right on the money for greater than 25% drivetrain loss.
Originally Posted by dustin03
ok not to jack this. I would like to know I have 680 injectors should l go bigger with my 20g 9 5?
Which engine management?






