Originally Posted by MrLith
(Post 10647776)
Did he? Has that actually been tested, or a theoretical limit? Because if so, the specs BW have given on the EFR9180 are a bit misleading - the airflow numbers thrown around equate to >800whp on high octane..... and a Subaru has already put down >800whp on ~33psi with one.
|
|
What does a stock evo dyno on this dyno?
Kinda curious how multiple shops with mustang dynos are busting out 900+ with these turbos and others with dynojets aren't even breaking the 900 mark, not trying to argue just pointing it out. Pixel dust power maybe? :lol: |
Originally Posted by MrLith
(Post 10647776)
Did he? Has that actually been tested, or a theoretical limit? Because if so, the specs BW have given on the EFR9180 are a bit misleading - the airflow numbers thrown around equate to >800whp on high octane..... and a Subaru has already put down >800whp on ~33psi with one.
|
Originally Posted by project_skyline
(Post 10650082)
Actually it was only 711whp uncorrected. The fully corrected numbers from high altitude are very misleading.
-Jamie |
Originally Posted by Dynotech Tuning
(Post 10650105)
SAE corrections should NEVER be used if they exceed +/-10%.
-Jamie They would rather belt out ridiculous numbers so people think they are some god shop. |
Originally Posted by Dynotech Tuning
(Post 10650105)
SAE corrections should NEVER be used if they exceed +/-10%.
-Jamie |
Originally Posted by crx-si
(Post 10631636)
I'm not trying to compare to anything. I was trying to answer one guy's question about 2.4 with 6766. I'm sure the OP's mustang reads really low. Then again around Houston area, I've seen some mustang reads about the same as my dynojet, so it's not always true about the mustang reads lower than the dj. It's all about how the dyno operators set their mustang up. To Op, i apologize for whoring up your thread, won't happen again.
|
Originally Posted by way2qik
(Post 10652662)
And I'm saying that you can take about 100wtq off that dyno graph (probably even more since the bigger the power numbers the larger the discrepancy) since it was done on a Dynojet. So, realistically, that car make about 600ftlbs. That's the reality, not the magic pixsy-dust Dynojet numbers. That's more of a fair comparison.
1. I stated that I'm not trying to compare to anything, it was simply answer another board member's question. 2. While others might use your method of hp conversion from mustang to dynojet (or there is even such thing/formula), I don't bench dyno. 3. I've dynoed said car on a mustang locally here in Houston, and the numbers was about 2% different. So again, 10% is not always the difference between the mustang and dynojet. |
Originally Posted by crx-si
(Post 10652733)
1. I stated that I'm not trying to compare to anything, it was simply answer another board member's question.
2. While others might use your method of hp conversion from mustang to dynojet (or there is even such thing/formula), I don't bench dyno. 3. I've dynoed said car on a mustang locally here in Houston, and the numbers was about 2% different. So again, 10% is not always the difference between the mustang and dynojet. So, I realize you answered the man's question, but clarification is needed. Take that same car and put it on Buschur's dyno and watch the owners heart break. He'll be asking you to give him his money back. |
Originally Posted by way2qik
(Post 10652662)
And I'm saying that you can take about 100wtq off that dyno graph (probably even more since the bigger the power numbers the larger the discrepancy) since it was done on a Dynojet. So, realistically, that car make about 600ftlbs. That's the reality, not the magic pixsy-dust Dynojet numbers. That's more of a fair comparison.
|
Originally Posted by project_skyline
(Post 10652942)
628ft-lbs mustang isn't really that unworldly. Very possible.
On a 2.3 or 2.4L, that's incredibly feasible. Especially since a 2.4L @44psi flows a great deal more LB/MIN than a 2.0L @ 44psi. -Jamie |
Originally Posted by project_skyline
(Post 10652942)
628ft-lbs mustang isn't really that unworldly. Very possible.
|
But wasn't your claim of the impossibility of 700wtq based on the dynojet results? Pick a dyno for your argument. I'm telling you right now, 700wtq on a dynojet in a 6766 is TOTALLY attainable on a 2.4L. Like, very attainable. Our 2.0L at 44psi woild do 650wtq on a dynojet at sea level already. if the peak torque was at 6k instead of 7k, it easily could do 50wtq, especially in a more efficient engine design. you do realize that a 2.4L at 44psi probably flows as much as a 2.0L with nearly 50psi right? What do I know though, you know so much that we can't compete.
-Jamie |
Originally Posted by Dynotech Tuning
(Post 10653093)
But wasn't your claim of the impossibility of 700wtq based on the dynojet results? Pick a dyno for your argument. I'm telling you right now, 700wtq on a dynojet in a 6766 is TOTALLY attainable on a 2.4L. Like, very attainable. Our 2.0L at 44psi woild do 650wtq on a dynojet at sea level already. if the peak torque was at 6k instead of 7k, it easily could do 50wtq, especially in a more efficient engine design. you do realize that a 2.4L at 44psi probably flows as much as a 2.0L with nearly 50psi right? What do I know though, you know so much that we can't compete.
-Jamie So, basically you're arguing against something I never said. Good job. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:32 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands