nmyeti

iTrader: (1)

Gary,
I didn't say it liked detonation! Hell who in their right mind would say that? I simply stated that it could live with minor detonation a whole lot longer than a some what fragile EJ. A knock count of 1 makes me nervous in a WRX, and yet you guys would totally blow that off.

But what the hell do I know?

And you know as well as I do that quench area is NOT BS. The main reason the 4g63 can make so much power is wrapped up in its combustion chamber design. Makes me jealous.


-Nathan

zyounker

iTrader: (1)

Actually you did say it right..


the 13B is probably the most det. resistant of all 3.. But it also happens to be very bad for it.

The 4G63 is probably second. and ej20s, from what the above say seems to have the worse.. I have not done any of my own testing on the ej20 really though..


-Zach

nicktckhoo

oh I get it now. I interchanged the 2 phrases detonation resistance and withstanding detonation.

Nick

Jonasan50

iTrader: (1)

Oh.. My head hurts!!

GaryChios

I could not agree more

nicktckhoo

Tell me about it. I don't even have an evo

Alfriedesq

iTrader: (6)

Nathan - - will you guys be making any TurboXs stage kits for the EVO? If so mark me down for a stage 4 - thanks

BobbyD

wow.. such dedication.. hah
--bobby

rollo

Sorry to break away from the quench areas for a moment, but:

a: As Shiv mentioned, at 600 miles the car isn't fully broken in, that's just Mitsu's recommendation to keep you from hammering the crap out of it when it's absolutely brand new. It'll still be breaking in for at least another 400, and I wouldn't be surprised if an Evo with a couple oil changes on the books produces better numbers. How much better? Who knows.

b: At this point, if you have the car, who cares what numbers it produces. When you drive it, is it fast? I mean, very fast? Does it feel like a car with 180 horse to the wheels? I mean, really if you feel like you've been ripped off, just cut your losses and sell the thing on eBay before the prices come down.

Just my 0.0002.

ScoobyBoost

iTrader: (1)

Maybe this doesn't apply here, but speaking from my experience tuning the mkIII Supra, 8-9 whp sounds conservative. I know that the Supra ecu will pull the timing if you run lower octane fuel. However, I have to admit I don't know how serious the effect is with 91 vs. 93 even on my car.

Have you verified whether the ecu is pulling the timing back at all? I would guess it is. Especially at WOT, given that your peak hp comes on sooner than advertised. That says to me the ecu is pulling back at upper rpm's.

gtr

iTrader: (6)

Apparently people claim the evo running mid 13's. The fact of the matter is that their evo is probably at around 700mi. My question is how does the area under the curve look Would that explain the high performance low hp?

rdrkt

gtr: Have you seen what your average DSM does on a 16g and pump gas?. There is no reason whatsoever that an Evo8 wont make around 300 wheel hp with a boost controller and a SAFC on 94 octane.

shiv@vishnu

iTrader: (20)

The cars we've tested actually put ~180 hp to the wheels. The very same way air-cooled 911 Turbos put 300-310hp to the wheels. Horsepower is a quantifiable unit of measurment- just like an inch, meter or pound. Our dyno measures it properly. This is not hard to do with the necessary components and design. It measures by its 4 load cells mounted tangent to four arm of known length. The retarding on the rollers is provided by eddy currents brakes. From some simple calculations, this derives torque. From torque, hp is calculated by RPM which is determined by either inductive ignition pick-up or even a simple gearing calculations (which can yield slight error due to a tire's sidewall deflection). The fact that torque is actually measured, real-time, makes it possible for the Dyno Dynamics dyno to graph realtime during the run and not afterwards as one expects with Dynojets, Dynapacks, Mustangs, etc,.)

A Dynojet, on the other hand, measures hp by measuring the time it takes to spin a big roller of known mass up to speed. It then compares the results to a big "look-up table" and derives an estimated wheel hp output. It does not actually measure hp as would an engine dyno or a proper load-bearing dyno. It is also interesting to note that Dynojet Research used to publish, in their tech papers, the method in which it used to derive estimated hp. In it, it described an extra ~15% positive correction factor to account for "unnatural load characteristics." I'm not sure what is unnatural about load but it does explain why the Dynojet reads higher than any other dyno in any other part of the world. The problem is that, due to its low cost and affiliation with NASCAR, (which resulted in its ubiquity in the US market-- but unpopularity everywhere else in the world), the Dynojet has become the standard in US. And in doing so, US enthusiasts have become accustomed to high wheel hp numbers and low driveline loss figures. It's a hard habit to break.

Just my 2c,
shiv
www.vishnutuning.com

PS. For those customers who only can relate to Dynojet hp, it's easy to add in a little "Dynojet correctoin" which bumps up the entire curve by ~15%. It's nonsense and I make that perfectly clear. But some people want a bigger number to show their friends instead of having to explain the above dyno tech.

rdrkt

Shiv: I have no idea why you are using that dyno. They do make AWD dynojets. If I was someone that sold tuning services and turbo packages I would want my numbers to be comparable to everyone else’s. This 17% difference seems bad for business to me.

KK

iTrader: (4)

The Dynojet AWD dyno is really more like two 2WD units put together... they roll independantly of each other and thus can put excess stress on the center differential. If you do a search there should be tons of info on this. I wish someone around here had a Dyno Dynamics unit to use

Mark