What "extensive R&D" was done? Can you elaborate? If not, should I continue to assume that you have absolutely zero clue about the details of what you are putting out in the Evo marketplace?

 

if it is a "good" one... and an axle or catback exhaust if you got stuck with a dog... or have to run **** water because of your location.

 

Shiv, your making it sound like more people than not, got the **** end of the stick. Do you know something to the effect that most production Evo's in the states are "underpowered", that the rest of us don't?

 

I have 3"turbo back, SAFC, and Electronic Boost controller. I put down 295 to the wheels.

 

"Real HP" according to who? To most people and myself, dyno jet numbers are real. Looking at a dyno-jet plot and knowing the cars weight and gearing, most can with reasonable accuracy predict how the car will accelerate and what sort of 1/4 times and trap speeds it is capable of, to me that's real.

For example you claim based on your dyno testing that the EVO is possibly making less power than what Mitsu claims and that the STI is probably making more. Yet almost all real world acceleration testing (mags & private owners) indicate that the STI is only slightly faster, (and in some cases it's actually slower). IMO gearing differences are not enough to explain this discrepancy. Every other dyno plot I have seen shows the STI making 15-25 more HP compared to the EVO, this is in line with the manufacturer’s spec's and real world testing.
Also based on the larger displacement and smaller turbo (with lower boost) used in the STI it stands to reason that it would make considerably more low-end torque (below 3500 RPM). Real world testing and every other dyno plot that I have seen shows that the STI does make more torque especially below 3500 RPM. Looking at your posted dyno plots of the EVO and STI, it appears that you actually get on the gas a little quicker with the STI but the EVO (up to it's peak) is making similar if not more torque than the STI. Perhaps I am missing something here but based on real world results and common sense, I do not see how your dyno numbers can be accurate.

 

Dyno racing discussions go around and around and around. It is just silly. When you think that the recipe for calculating HP from torque has a constant based upon James Watt's estimate of how much work an average horse could do in one 8 hour shift! Ha! go ..... figure.

From an engineering standpoint, accuracy is generally determined by comparison to an accepted standard. I know of no such standard relative to chassis dyno's in the US. So, accuracy is irrelevant and consistency becomes the predominant attribute of the tool. (dyno). In other words, the only meaningful comparison is cars on the same dyno. Any other discussion of low numbers or accuracy is not meaningful. It has always been the case that if you want big numbers, go pick a dyno that reads high. If you attempt to draw a conclusion concerning which car is faster based upon peak HP number from different dyno's you are a dork!!

Shiv's conclusion concerning low HP numbers for some EVO's was based upon comparison with other 4 bangers on his dyno.

Speedlimit....

 

What exactly is "real HP" versus the HP measured on a DYNO? If I test the car on a dyno and get 250HP then add parts and retest on that same dyno and get 350HP, that's not a"real HP" gain of 100 HP??? Please help me to understand this, I think I am missing something.

Thanks!

Chris

 

If you go back through all of the BS, Shiv's statments eluded the theory that the majority of Evos were "underpowered"(it seems). I tend to agree with Speedlimit in that to each dyno its own... and to all none. Anybody making ultimate whp statements makes an *** of themselves when they try to use such things for arguments sake... I would go no futher than to compare different dynos repeated-results-differences in percentages at the most... Works says 35-40hp from a reflash, Shiv says 20-25 at most... percent improvement between the two are about the same on different dynos if you see what I mean...(numbers were pulled out of my *** remembering my wife does the books for a reason)

 

I think it's safe to say that the majority of the dyno's in this country are Dyno Jets, and/or systems that read similar to what they do. In some cases (like Microsoft for example) market share gives you the ability to set the standard. This is why Shiv's constantly having to compare his numbers with system's like the Dyno Jet, what is it? take his numbers and add 20%, unless it's Tuesday then add 22%, and if he get's a 10HP increase from some mod on his dyno, that would translate to some other value if it were done on another dyno, but I am not sure what the formula was for that. It's like the tail trying to wag the dog, were all supposed to adjust are perception of dyno numbers to what his dyno reads? There's like two in the country and last I looked even they weren't agreeing with each other (something about settings?).
No one advertises or posts HP/TQ figures that are far from what a Dyno-Jet would read, without putting out a qualifying statement as to why they are unusually high or low, that tells you the standard for dyno's in this country.
Saying that comparing numbers from one dyno to the next is irrelevant is simply not true, (it is done constantly) while there is a definite margin of error, if and when some one let's say from the East coast posts a Dyno-Jet plot showing 500HP on an EVO, every one including the boys in CA, Europe, etc, will have a fairly good idea what that implies regarding the car's ability to accelerate.

I agree, the torque curve is far more accurate in that regard. Hey I just disagreed with Shiv's Dyno testing results and what they/he implied by them, that's no reason to start calling him names though. I know you put your little smile in there and all but really .

I mean really if Dyno numbers are irrelevant from one dyno to another why does every one keep comparing them? The fact is while there is a margin of error Dyno numbers and 1/4 mile et's/trap speeds are all there is, and they do matter, whether we like it or not.

It sounded to me like he was trying to say that other dynos are not accurate (accept his of course) and that there statements of HP gains were meaningless (or at least needed to be adjusted to match his lone dyno). As far as comparing various car's on the same dyno, believe it or not that's actually been done on other dyno's as well. His comparisons did not seem to agree with the manufacturer's spec's, or with real world acceleration performance, and this is the measuring standard were all supposed to aspire to?

I am pretty sure when the person who started this thread asked about getting another 30HP, he wasn't talking about from Shiv's dyno, were you?

 

Hi,

My dork comment was meant as a generic "dorK" to all those who blindly compare dyno's. Not you specifically - sorry.

Did you see the report by a car magazine concerning dyno testing results? They took a car to several dyno shops in SOCAL and then compared the results. The difference between the same dyno design and manufacturer where all over the map for the same car. I'm sticking with my opinion that you can't compare the results. You can compare percent changes from different dyno's but that is it.



Speedlimit...

 

He posted a few months ago that after dynoing quite a few Evo's on his dyno that the Evo's hp was coming out low. He said he reported this to Mitsu and that he wouldn't say any more until Mitsu had had a chance to fix things.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have heard nothing from Mitsu about this, and if Mitsu were doing a softly softly recall on weak Evo's there would have to be one or two Evolutionm members who would be contacted by Mitsu, and I would believe they would post the results here.
Like I said I've herad didly squat, but if you're the type who tends to believe in conspiracy theories, you can't fail to smile when you think about who benefits when Evo owners start thinking their Evo is under powered and so they feel the need to get it "modded" to make it right

 

So... Shiv... Have you heard anything back from Mitsu? I've been curious about this subject ever since you first reported it.

 

Yes it was actually Turbo Magazine, here is the actual article http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0306tur_dynodash/
Interestingly enough the Dyno Jets had some of the lowest number's. Like I said, no matter what you do, people always have, and always will compare dyno numbers. It is very clear to most people that Dyno Jet is the standard by which all other dyno's are compared. IMO less than 5% variation between a new and old Dyno Jet in different sites is not bad.
I am not saying that Dyno Jet is the best or even most accurate dyno out there, but it is quite simply the standard. When you see dyno numbers from other dyno's (assuming you believe there were no shenanigans by the operator) the only question that comes to your mind is how does this dyno typically read compared to a Dyno Jet, and there is your point of reference.

As long as you have a standard, the margin of error can be within acceptable levels maybe >5%. Every one compares dyno results from different dynos, whether you realize it or not.
Every time you read HP claims from a tuner, manufacturer, or individual, you are immediately comparing that number to other HP/TQ numbers that you picked up from (say it with me now) some other dyno. If it's Shiv's or some other random dyno your probably wondering what correction factor to use, even if it's just in your head.
Oh there's an idea, some one can make a dyno correction factor chart.
I have two all-wheel dyno's close by, I have so far been testing on the Mustang, which I was told typically reads 5-10% lower than a Dyno-Jet. This may be true for the 2 wheel drive dyno jets, but I suspect the four wheel Dyno Jet and the Mustang read more or less the same, because HP and TQ from stock EVO's has been very close (230-242HP) on both dynos. I will try to get on the Dyno Jet soon for comparison, yes it won't be 100% accurate (different day, gas,...) but it will be close enough for what I want to know.

 

This is actually true. We have done it with 2 Evos !

 

any sort of fuel management will do... lean it out just enough and you easily make 300 at the fly..but wat u really need is at LEAST 300 awhp =)