Evo IX STOCK dyno'd at Topspeed with VID

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Dec 6, 2005 | 01:30 PM

#31

Rnm

Evolved Member

iTrader: (4)

Joined: Oct 2004

Posts: 1,283

Likes: 0

From: Florida

Holy ****, I didn't know they were THAT underrated! Glad I waited for the 06.

Dec 6, 2005 | 01:36 PM

#32

Warrtalon

Evolved Member

iTrader: (6)

Joined: Jun 2004

Posts: 20,790

Likes: 2

From: Long Island, NY

Quote:

Originally Posted by FluxedSpeed

There has to be some sort of measurement, that means they could post the numbers at 350 hp, or anything above or below 286. They have to have some sort of baseline measurement, not just pull some number out of their ***.

There was no measurement for the above examples. In the case of the SRT-4, the published numbers were the exact WHP numbers, but the other examples were off significantly from any measurement. The LS1 WHP numbers were too close to the published crank HP, but they weren't exact like the SRT-4, so I do think they pulled those out of their *** for marketing purposes just like the Cobra and RX-8, but in the opposite direction.

Dec 6, 2005 | 01:54 PM

#33

06MR895

Newbie

Joined: Nov 2005

Posts: 51

Likes: 0

If the drivetrain loss factor on two wheel drive cars is 15%, what is it on all wheel drive cars?

Dec 6, 2005 | 01:56 PM

#34

FluxedSpeed

Evolving Member

Joined: Sep 2004

Posts: 363

Likes: 0

From: FoCo, Colorado

93%

Dec 6, 2005 | 01:56 PM

#35

Warrtalon

Evolved Member

iTrader: (6)

Joined: Jun 2004

Posts: 20,790

Likes: 2

From: Long Island, NY

Quote:

Originally Posted by 06MR895

If the drivetrain loss factor on two wheel drive cars is 15%, what is it on all wheel drive cars?

20-25%, but it's not a linear equation as you increase HP, so that is really an arbitrary number.

Dec 6, 2005 | 02:44 PM

#36

Litfuse

Newbie

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 27

Likes: 0

From: St. Louis, MO

Good lord thats good numbers. Makes me and my sti a little jealous.

Dec 6, 2005 | 02:48 PM

#37

ct9a gsr

Evolved Member

iTrader: (7)

Joined: Feb 2005

Posts: 593

Likes: 0

From: Atlanta, Ga

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrtalon

- SRT-4s - When these came out, they were listed at 230hp or so? Well, when people started dyno'ing them, they were showing that much power AT THE WHEELS. Why did Dodge advertise the wheel HP instead of an estimated crank HP? I have no idea, and I don't know if it is public knowledge, but I know they responded to the questions by "raising" the published HP the next year even though power output wasn't changed.

SRT-4's are discontinued along with the Neon platform. =]

Dec 6, 2005 | 02:49 PM

#38

meanmud

Evolved Member

iTrader: (74)

Joined: Sep 2003

Posts: 2,758

Likes: 1

From: The 1st State

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrtalon

20-25%, but it's not a linear equation as you increase HP, so that is really an arbitrary number.

That's why you could bump your upper limit to about a 30 to 33% loss at THE very most

Dec 6, 2005 | 03:00 PM

#39

Warrtalon

Evolved Member

iTrader: (6)

Joined: Jun 2004

Posts: 20,790

Likes: 2

From: Long Island, NY

Quote:

Originally Posted by ct9a gsr

SRT-4's are discontinued along with the Neon platform. =]

And? I said they responded by raising the published numbers the year following its initial release. They were sold for more than one year.

Dec 6, 2005 | 03:03 PM

#40

poormansracecar

Evolving Member

Joined: Sep 2005

Posts: 106

Likes: 0

From: Florida

As for The Evo having more actual power than advertized (if I remember correctly) , is because of penalties or regulations for cars exceding a certain HP rating. You will see a bunch of Jap cars with about the same HP 286 or something. Evo's, Skyline's, Supra's and NSX's. I'm sure there are a few more around this magical number. The reason most street bikes have a top speed restricter is because the manufacturers dont want to start getting there HP regulated, so they put the top speed limiters in to keep regulations off them. Most cars on the other hand have top speed restrictors set according to the "Factory" tire ratings.

Dec 6, 2005 | 03:05 PM

#41

turbotiger

Newbie

Joined: Jan 2005

Posts: 62

Likes: 0

Aren't they now using the new SAE method of calculating horsepower? Which result in less horsepower under the new method.

Dec 6, 2005 | 03:08 PM

#42

evo robert

Evolving Member

iTrader: (2)

Joined: Aug 2005

Posts: 268

Likes: 0

From: Montebello, CA

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbotiger

Aren't they now using the new SAE method of calculating horsepower? Which result in less horsepower under the new method.

some got higher #'s too according to an article i read

Last edited by evo robert; Dec 6, 2005 at 03:32 PM.

Dec 6, 2005 | 03:15 PM

#43

LuxuryBroker

Evolving Member

iTrader: (22)

Joined: Dec 2003

Posts: 338

Likes: 0

From: Sunny Southern Cali !!!

congrats on your numbers and the car itself

Dec 6, 2005 | 03:27 PM

#44

FluxedSpeed

Evolving Member

Joined: Sep 2004

Posts: 363

Likes: 0

From: FoCo, Colorado

So with this dyno, we are looking at close to possibly 340 crank HP?

Dec 6, 2005 | 03:44 PM

#45

Lgkaos

Evolving Member

iTrader: (2)

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 202

Likes: 0

From: Las Vegas, NV

I'm gonna guess that it was done on a DynoJet?
My IX was also hella properly broken-in...never above 3500RPM,etc. Bone stock from the factory, it dynoed in at 244 HP,235 lbs TQ.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=166501

This weekend at Vivid Racing, Al from Dynoflash tuned a IX, the baseline runs netted a best of 250HP. Both our cars were dynoed on Mustang dynos.

Nice numbers though!

Last edited by Lgkaos; Dec 6, 2005 at 05:31 PM.

Reply Share

First
Prev
3 / 5
Next
Last