I tried to search for fq 360 info on this site, and got x box stuff, because the search tool omits the fq from the search. Any way I am wondering exactly what the title says. Does anyone have dyno results for an evo ix fq 360 stock, or any other Fq for that matter?

Slightly

I am also wondering what the drive loss on the evo ix is, because I have seen many stock evo dyno sheets in Magazines, and on this forum that are around 260 WHP. This would be just under 10% loss. Generally people say that you should expect 15% to 20%. Does this mean that the US ix probably really makes around 300 HP at the crank?

 

i think the US 9 is 281. the 360 is 360hp lol

I dont think the AWD system makes a difference on a dyno seeing as most dynos are designed for some AWD applications..

Dont quote me on that... but people am i right?

 

on a mustang dyno a bone stock IX made 230 AWHP....

when i threw mine bone stock on a DD dyno she made 220 AWHP

 

Fail.

The US 9's 281 is more like 220, the 360's 360 is more like 300.

So you are correct, you should not be quoted, and you are wrong, engines are rated at power at the crank, not at the wheels, AWD makes a big difference in drivetrain losses as your spinning twice as much weight at least as a two wheel drive car.

Scorke

 

An AWD car would actually have additional rotational mass requiring power to move in comparison to a RWD or FWD car. Meaning that it would have even more loss from the motor to the wheels... WHP seems to be very very dependent on the dyno being used, which is unfortunate for comparison purposes or those who use different dynos. Thats all the info I can pass on though unfortunately, I am not sure about the WHP figures of the FQ360 though I would suspect it would be somewhere just around 300WHP

 

^Beat me to it...

 

I know the ix is rated at 286 hp, 289 ft lbs at the crank, and that the fq 360 makes 366 hp at the crank. I also know that mustang and DD dynos read a lot lower than dynojets, although I don't know why. As a mechanical engineer I cannot think of a reason why there should be variation. Only one of them is right, unless the amount of power the engine makes is effected by load (ex. different rolling inertia).

SO which dyno is right?

 

If you had a dyno that used a break to maintain a constant speed and measured the breaking force you could get very repeatable torque readings that would not be effected by the mass of the drive system. You would still have friction losses in the drive train, but you would not see the variation in results. The problem is that dyno results would be in incremental steps, and the engine would have to run hard for a longer time.

 

No dyno is right, they are all right and they are all wrong, they are all attempting to mimic the amount of load and resistance a car would face whilst accellerating on a flat road, with no wind, on a perfectly smooth surface, basically they are creating a scenario and or environment in which the car will never ever see.

The reason dynos read differently is how they load the car, the weight/load of spinning the differentrollers, the rate at which they allow the car to accelerate the rollers, lots of different things

Dynos are a tool used to gauge performance, no more no less.

Scorke

 

DynoDynamics give you the ability to hold the load at whatever you want, you can move through the load and rpm cells block by block to tune the car for literally every single load and RPM point it could possibly see in its use.

They are the best for tuning a car thoroughly and accurately, nothing compares really in terms of being able to make sure you have a car properly tuned short of street/rad tuning,but that has the whole legality/concentration/multitasking thing going against it

Scorke

 

That is cool. The DD probably gives the most accurate readings too.

 

Power is defined as the ability to do work. I forget the definition of HP, but 1 kilowatt is enough power to exert the force of one kiloNewton one meter in one second. 1 kilowatt = 1 kNm/s. This is a fixed standard. There may be some variation in the engines power based on weather, but given the same car in the same temperature results should be repeatable. I am pretty sure the SEA crank HP rating are consistent and accurate. If a dynojet reads 260s for stock ix's, and DD reads 220s one of them is not the actual power. 230 - 245 WHP would be 15%-20% drive loss assuming the 286 crank rating is correct.

 

In the English system, one horsepower equals 33,000 foot-pounds of work per minute, that is, the power necessary to lift a total of 33,000 lbs a distance of one foot in one minute. This value was adopted by Dr. Watt in the late 18th century after experiments with horses and is actually about 50% more than the rate an average horse can sustain for a working day.



To calculate the horsepower of a motor when the speed and torque are known, apply this formula:
HP = rpm x T(torque)
5252(constant)

this is why any dyno sheet that has the torque horsepower crossover point at anything other than 5252 should be considered suspect.

Back to the original topic, the mechanical loss through the drivetrain of any AWD vehicle is going to be further complicated by the extra weight of that vehicle in real world driving situation. To truly compare apples to apples you would need a front or rear wheel drive version of the same vehicle.

Josh