How do you know that the drivetrain is only 75% efficient? Maybe it's closer to 80-85% efficient.

All I'm saying is that you are too quick to dismiss the whp from this dyno run based on assumptions that are probably incorrect - such as flywheel hp and drivetrain efficiency.

 

UN-bloody-believable! These cars just amaze me more and more! That's why I'm in the market for a IX

Sorry, I assumed 75% efficient because on a AWD Dyno Dynamics dyno down here, we are only seeing 212HP at the wheels/roller in stock form. Based on a 286 claimed HP from the manufacturer, that equates to ~25% drivetrain loss.

 

Those WHP #s are pretty accurate.. I dynod at about 230ish (They said i had a really strong evo from the factory ), then added exhaust, tune, and removed the pill restrictor and now iam at 312hp/312tq. (At wheels for any confusion.) The dyno i was on is roughly 25% loss

 

That sounds more like it. Awesome numbers! Congrats

It just blows me away at how easily one can extract respectable HP from these cars.

What tune/flash did you use cloudy? You're at around ~415HP at the engine with those simple mods

What boost are you running and is that on pump grade 93/94 Octane fuel?

 

Youngm, I understand your new to this website, so please before you start saying stuff you really don't understand I suggest you take the time and search. His 230 was on low reading Mustang dyno, and that is very strong for that dyno. As far as Dynojets, IXs have been making these numbers for awhile, it's nothing new, except to a newbie who says "What, that is impossible."
I just think, gosh , here we go again, dude, not trying to sound mean, search, this is nothing new. IXs make 260WHP+ it's a fact that we have all gotten use to. Infact I've been so impressed with the IX, that I went from wanting to buy a used 2003/2004 EVO VIII, to getting a second job to get a 2006 EVO IX.

 

I strongly believe that the IXs make around 310-320 crank hp from the factory ...

agree/disagree?

 

Yeah, that torque is terribly low, so something is probably wrong. It should be as high if not higher than the WHP.

Whoever said he'd gain 100whp with intake/tbe/mbc/tune was off a bit. He can expect maybe 60-70whp gains, and that can be done without an intake, which is not necessary.

 

Yeah that shocked me too, but it could easily be explained by starting the run at too high an RPM since torque peak is around 3500 RPMs on our cars. Could also be that the car has experienced some bad gas (91 craptane there?) and is reacting to that?

The graph looks great after 4200 RPMs though


I've noticed on the IXs that whp is generally a bit higher than wtq in stock form. I attribute this to a higher flowing turbo that can really pump the cfms at higher RPMs versus the VIII.

The overly simplified rule of thumb that I've developed is that when wtq is higher than whp in a turbocharged application, you have a turbo that is too small for the motor (does fine in the midrange but can't flow enough air at high RPM to make the hp). When the whp > wtq, then you have a bigger turbo that can flow more air in the high RPM range (eg the IX!). The only downside of that usually is turbo lag but then we have MIVEC

 

I disagree a bit with both notions.

1) The first run was started at 2600rpm, and it still didn't hit peak torque until 4200rpm, which is very bad. With MIVEC, this IX should fully spool up around 3500rpm, if not sooner. The boost ramps up very slowly and never gets very high. My guess would be this IX is only seeing 1.1-1.2 bar (low peak tq), but then it's holding it up top (nice peak hp).

IXs may follow your rule of thumb, but they should never be 40wtq short of WHP in stock form (and not in any form). When I said "as high if not higher," that means the WTQ should be in the same vicinity even if it's slightly lower.

 

Here's mine :Ecutek,Greddy catback,K&N drop-in.

 

and here's mine......



Peak torque is hitting at about 3400-3500 rpm and the HP stays on through to redline now. This is with just a drop in filter, UR hi flow cat and a RMR catback.

Tony

 

Could be another case of a WGA that comes a bit loose from the factory? Or more likely some bad gas I suppose ... I still plan on tightening mine a hair to see if that changes things. However, 2600 still might be a bit late to start the run?

Here's my bone stock baseline ... looks like they started around 1800?



I totally agree with that ... it certainly caught my eye as well and I was groping for an explanation (late start or bad gas).

However, you said equal to or slightly higher wtq than whp which is not what I've observed with the IXs so far ... more like equal to or slightly lower ...

 

joshd: was that pull done in 3rd or 4th gear? Just curious.

 

4th, which is a very good point and a disclaimer that I should start adding to all my posts that include that graph.

obviously the load is higher in 4th which spools the turbo faster ...

When I return to the dyno to check the results of my flash, I'll do 3rd and 4th to quantify the difference.

 

2600 is plenty early. I've had many pulls start later than that. Spool shpuld be rapid and instantaneous even if you start late at 3k or higher. This tq curve ramps up very slowly and not very high. We get our tq from boost, so I think its a boost issue. It may be a leak, but more likely, it's the ECU lomiting boost. There was a stock 9 at our dyno day who put down 244/244, and his boost never went above 1.2 bar on his stock gauge. The other stock 9s all made more power, and we even did a pressure test on his car - it was super tight like yours.