Notices
Lancer Engine Tech Discuss specs/changes to the engine from cams to fully balanced and blueprinted engines!

4B11 dyno list

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 20, 2007 | 08:15 AM
  #16  
Kooldino's Avatar
Evolving Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
From: Jersey
Never head of that type of Dyno. How does it compare to a DynoJet?
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2007 | 08:17 AM
  #17  
Blacksheepdj's Avatar
Thread Starter
EvoM Staff Alumni
iTrader: (88)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,733
Likes: 3
From: Concord Township, Ohio
Originally Posted by Kooldino
Never head of that type of Dyno. How does it compare to a DynoJet?
Who are you asking? Helps to quote the person you're referring to.
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 01:02 PM
  #18  
Blacksheepdj's Avatar
Thread Starter
EvoM Staff Alumni
iTrader: (88)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,733
Likes: 3
From: Concord Township, Ohio
And we have our first member to dyno his car!

Sorry for the lack of details, but I want to make sure there's permission first.
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 01:18 PM
  #19  
SeRious08's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: Ft Worth
Its me. And it looks as if the Mitsu 153 hp rating is right on the money (given the 15-20% drivetrain lost). I will going to another dyno from a different shop to compare the numbers. All pulls were done in 4th gear. I still think something may have been wrong with the dyno though. The first pull was only 111 hp!! Then it jumped to 123. Does that sound odd to anyone else????

The important thing to take note is that the tq no longer falls on its face at the 5000 rmp mark. It keeps pulling all the way to redline (6500).

Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 01:24 PM
  #20  
Blacksheepdj's Avatar
Thread Starter
EvoM Staff Alumni
iTrader: (88)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,733
Likes: 3
From: Concord Township, Ohio
Originally Posted by SeRious08
I still think something may have been wrong with the dyno though. The first pull was only 111 hp!! Then it jumped to 123. Does that sound odd to anyone else????
Sounds normal to me. Dynoes are not an exact science. They just cause a million arguments over the numbers.

Cheers for being the first to get it done. I'm still waiting for my friend to hook me up with a cheap run...
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 01:26 PM
  #21  
SeRious08's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: Ft Worth
Don't worry, more testing to come.
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 01:52 PM
  #22  
mezzedupdream's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
From: Downey, Ca
Sorry but im kind of a newb... So what was the increase?
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 02:31 PM
  #23  
SeRious08's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: Ft Worth
Originally Posted by SeRious08
The important thing to take note is that the tq no longer falls on its face at the 5000 rmp mark. It keeps pulling all the way to redline (6500).

^^
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 07:02 PM
  #24  
LancerGTS's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
From: Long Beach, CA
Originally Posted by SeRious08

The important thing to take note is that the tq no longer falls on its face at the 5000 rmp mark. It keeps pulling all the way to redline (6500).

You are comparing your dyno to this one correct:



First realize something: Your dyno on the y axis covers 40 - 140, while the other covers 0 - 200.

I am not seeing the original one fall on its face at 5000. You have a wider spread on the Y axis which gives it a bit more ground to cover so it only looks like it is taking a huge drop.

Both dynos start to significantly drop at 5500 and once again, yours has a smaller Y axis to cover so it drops at a slower angle, but generally in the same fashion that the original one does.
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 07:22 PM
  #25  
SeRious08's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: Ft Worth
Here we go....

This is the main reason why I didn't want to post these numbers until they were verified. If anyone, ANYONE, doubts that this thing pulls harder and runs faster, I challenge you to come to Texas and I will let you drive the car or I will run you in your stock Lancer. Period.
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 07:58 PM
  #26  
LancerGTS's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
From: Long Beach, CA
Originally Posted by SeRious08
Here we go....

This is the main reason why I didn't want to post these numbers until they were verified. If anyone, ANYONE, doubts that this thing pulls harder and runs faster, I challenge you to come to Texas and I will let you drive the car or I will run you in your stock Lancer. Period.
All I am talking about are the two dyno sheets and what you were comparing about torque. Im trying to find out what you meant by the torque falling on its face. You said something and from what I see I cant agree with you. Can you show me what I may have missed?
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 08:07 PM
  #27  
SeRious08's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: Ft Worth
My tq flatlines longer after it peaks. The other falls continuously.
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 08:13 PM
  #28  
LancerGTS's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
From: Long Beach, CA
Originally Posted by SeRious08
My tq flatlines longer after it peaks. The other falls continuously.
Ok yeah from 4500 to 4900 you are right, it stay flat compared to the other where it stays flat 4300 to 4500.

Also when you mentioned peak, your sheet peaks later than the other dyno.
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 10:08 PM
  #29  
Jake26's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 681
Likes: 1
From: Myrtle Beach, SC ; Statesville, NC
Originally Posted by SeRious08
Here we go....

This is the main reason why I didn't want to post these numbers until they were verified. If anyone, ANYONE, doubts that this thing pulls harder and runs faster, I challenge you to come to Texas and I will let you drive the car or I will run you in your stock Lancer. Period.
hahahhahahahahha hahahahhahahaha
Reply
Old Jul 28, 2007 | 10:20 PM
  #30  
madfast's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
From: tsukuba turn 4
is that chart a baseline or after the piggy? one chart without the other is plain useless. we all know cars will get different ratings even on the same dyno.

possibly the lancer lent to evom was a bit more powerful like some press cars are known to be??? even with the new sae hp ratings 140 whp seemed quite high. especially when you consider that every review talks about how weak the engine is and i don't think a 140 whp car would feel that weak, cvt or not. now 123 whp is more inline with the factory hp rating and with what the reviews have been saying.
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:56 AM.