so let me get this straight..........HKS dyno, AMS dyno, Buschur racing dyno all got high numbers (above estimated 271 hp), but mister Shiv got shivvy numbers? I dont buy that, sorry. Maybe he needs to get his dyno inspected a little better. Or maybe California cars are detuned further for emmission purposes ANyhow, I agree totally with Broeli. The reason for a dyno is to figure out what hp is being produced at the crank, no matter how you test it.

 

Okay, I'm going to start commenting seriously for a change.

What excites me from all the dyno results I've seen so far, regardless of the hp readings in relation to Mitsu's claimed crank hp, is how well and easy the Evo is responding to some very simple mods. This car is seriously detuned and held back for reasons of emissions. In this sense the car is under rated just like my Colt turbo was. Mitsubishi already knows this and has indicated this will be addressed through the Ralliart accessories line up, plus we already have tuners carefully taking apart and looking into this car to see what makes it tick. I really see no reason for any concern, except for the possibility ringer cars going out to the press.

 

I have to say that's a very skewed view of how dynos work and what use they provide to tuners.

• You cannot compare the results of companies like HKS, AMS, and Buchur with the results of Vishnu Performance because they all use DynoJet dynos which are known to read higher than Dyno Dynamics.
• 2/3 of those tuners you listed have FWD dynos, not AWD adding to the higher numbers seen.
• You should never compare any other company's dyno results against anothers because there are too many potential variables and you have no basis to be able to compare their results. All you can do is compare results on the same dyno at the same place and that's about it.

Also, if the reason a dyno was used was to figure out crank hp why in the world would so many tuners purchase a chassis dyno That's what an engine dyno is for. The reason is, and I'm sure they'll tell you themselves, chassis dynos provide a cost effective method of testing for improvements on a vehicle. That's all tuners really care about. If car A dynos 100hp, but after ECU tuning dynos 125hp with 10-15hp gains across the board, the tuner will be happy and so will the customer. You will never truely know the crank output unless you dyno on an engine dyno, you can only guess.

Mark

 

Yes. Tell me why it won't.

 

I need a computer.... Then I can start the other mods...

 

why does every evo HP thread turn into a dyno argument?

 

Honestly, an engine computer or fuel changes would be the last place I would look for extra power. Not that you might not get good power out of it. But getting the engine flowing well first means that you can get more out of it (and more safely) with a piggyback or standalone system later.

 

A chassis dyno is used to estimate crank hp....estimate.
The reason an engine dyno isn't used is because it isn't cost effective or even realistic that people are going to pull the motor out of their brand new car just to get a little more accurate hp #.
Engine dynos are primarily used to test an engine after it is built and before it's installed in the car...usually only done on race motors.
So, Yes, a chassis dyno is a good way to get an estimate. If it wasn't do you really think Ford would have released the fix for the '99 Cobra which came as a direct result from owners chassis dyno results? No one is trying to figure out precise crank hp for the Evo...really everyone is just trying to get an estimate to see if it is over or under-rated.

 

People on this board are REALLY starting to annoy me.. This is just plain stupid.

Dyno #s have always been a joke. Always will. They are NEVER really comparable and a bunch of idiots arguing on the internet is not gonna change it.


PLEASE STOP ARGUING OVER THIS!

 

Not that buschur's numbers are 100% accurate to AWD WHP but, I'd believe them 10 fold over any of these other tuners in here posting numbers, but thats not to say the their numbers are not valid. But, they are 4g63 minded at the buschur camp...I have been apart of the DSM community for quite awhile and knowing the cars he has built and the time he has invested in this engine, he is the first one I'd believe.

 

[list=1][*]Because it adds another variable to the dyno run.[*]One car modded (welded diff) on different dyno does not add much.[*]DynoJets read higher that has been established.[*]I respect Mr Buschur, but car one dynoed and a "yes it feels about right is not a proof".[*]Would you then believe that the US Evo is just as powerful as the JDM VII?[*]As for the AMS/HKS results different dynos, different cars, different test conditions. In the end does not prove much. Would you disagree?[/list=1]

You total slagging of Shiv's results even though consistent, repeatable and with a much larger sample. Yet one run on a modded car and you are ready to believe. Now I am puzzled.

Plus direct from Dave

“The car cannot be dyno'd with the rear wheels in the air or with the driveshaft taken out, as some other shops would lead you to believe. If you try it the power is inconsistent just like on a DSM.”

Unless you know the conditions of the testing be wary. So we should really look at the DynoJet work to verify the conditions of the test. I am very happy that Buschur Racing is at work on this.

Erik

 

DynoJets read higher simple. I have no reason to believe that one of the cars that shiv tested would not test higher on a dynojet. But that is not the point. It is not about the absolute #.

Erik

 

He said "let me get this straight.. you guys actually believe an awd car converted to fwd and then dynoed on a 2wd dyno is going to give an accurate representation of how much power the car puts out?"

I still believe that an AWD car converted to FWD and dynoed WILL give an accurate representation of the horsepower it puts out. People have been doing this for YEARS with AWD DSMs. Until a couple years ago, you couldn't find more than 2 AWD dynos in the United States. Sure you will get less power at the wheels when the rest of the drivetrain is hooked up.

I did not say that Buschur's numbers are correct, or that Shiv's numbers are incorrect. They are just a representation of the power the car puts out to the wheels. It isn't an absolute number.

 

I don't understand why you folks believe in the % loss factor. Let's try a little thought experiment.

Suppose some FWD car with an engine crank-rated at 250 lb-ft of torque at 3600 rpm is measured to produce 225 lb-ft of torque at 3600 rpm on a chassis dyno. That's a loss of 25 lb-ft or 10%, attributable to the drivetrain. Now pull that engine out and swap in its place one which produces 750 lb-ft of torque at the crank at 3600 rpm. Do you now expect the drivtrain to somehow absorb 75 lb-ft of torque (10% of of 750)? Why would it suddenly absorb tripple the amount of torque as before when nothing about the drivetrain has changed?

 

Here is some good reading for those that need to understand why % is the most accurate way. Yes, more hp is lost in the drivetrain when hp is increased.
http://www.superstang.com/horsepower.htm