Aye. Im also interested for obvious reasons.

 

So why the hell are we drooling over Evos?

Thanks for the graphs, have you heard anything from Mitsu yet?

 

don't the porsches he is talking about cost 4 times as much as the Evo

that may be a good reason

 

Ya but they're porsches =P mmm porsche lol =)

 

Yep. I got a call yesterday from Mitsubishi. All parties involved are trying to get to the bottom it it. Mitsubishi US was very receptive.

Cheers,
Shiv

 

So.. I'm quoting from your previous posts..
For WRX taking 160/227 = 29.6% loss....
S4 175/250 = 30% loss...
So... stock EVO at 180 should only have around 257 crank hp with
91 gas... and at 190 with 271 crank hp...

But..wouldn't that make stock 996 911 tt to have 480 crank
hp with 30% loss on the awd drivetrain??... or maybe it's
drivetrain is more efficient...

S2000 at 188rwhp would mean 22% loss for rwds...and
Integra type R at 153fwhp would mean around 22% loss...

Anyways.. just making some observations...

 

Here are my 2c regarding the issue of driveline loss and such. I'm sure I will be flamed

It is my opinion that driveline loss is not a percentage of wheel hp. In other words, if you double the wheel hp of a car, driveline loss does not automatically double. While this is a popular assumption in the world of aftermarket tuning (as it does yield the most impressive crank hp estimations), it does not seem to hold true from what I've seen.

Then again, I don't believe driveline loss to be fixed hp number either, completely unaffected by absolute power output. I'm sure that a car making twice as much power as another will lose more power through the drivetrain as it will generate more heat (namely at the tire/roller interface, differentials, etc,.)

The hard part is accepting that driveline loss lies somewhere in the middle. That is, there are components to driveline loss that are output dependant as well as components that are NOT output dependant. Unless someone of adequate qualifications does a very thorough analysis of every moving part of any given driveline at various output levels, with respect to itsinefficiencies, trying to make any conclusions on flywheel hp is, to say the least, flawed. That is why engine dynos were created.

It is my personal opinion that, in most situations where relatively moderate power gains are made, it's best to view driveline loss as a constant. I believe this will yield the most realistic, if least impressive, results.

Of course, if wheel horsepower is doubled or tripled, I suspect the output-dependant components of driveline loss will become more significant and start to show themselves to a greater degree.

The hard part of believing this is to accept the fact that deriving any sort of hp estimation from a wheel hp results is just that, an ESTIMATION. But I'd suggest, that by using this conservative approach, some OE manufacturer's claims will seem more reasonable. Especially those from higher hp Porsches, BMWs, Mercedes, Dodges, etc,.

Instead of thinking that they under-rate their cars, perhaps we in the aftermarket have been over-rating ours for such a long time. After all, if I had a nickle for every tuner car that made "chassis dyno verified" claims that defied simple injector math and turbo flow ratings, I'd be a rich man. Just looking at the evidence...

This is also the reasons I would rather talk about % gains in wheel hp since it negates bs wheel-to-crank conversions and inherent differences in dynos.

Just my 2c,
Shiv

 

Agree... no one knows the true crank hp unless engine was
pulled from the car...

I really wish that there could be a de facto standard in dynos...
then manufacturers could simply advertise in whps... since crank
hp seems almost meaningless...

 

perfectly said... but that isn't going to happen...
what would be nice if more tuners using the same dyno equipment used the same settings, but this too is unlikely. I guess what really matters (especially on a street car) is that the driver/owner is happy with their car, not that they can brag about xxx dyno pulls.

 

I agree with you.. but if we're all happy with our car.. then tuners
will be out of business very soon..
Obviously... there are always people that are never totally
"happy" with their car...

A standard in dynos would mean that consumers can have a
better idea when they are shopping either new cars or tuner
products... Currently, there's no way to verify if the manufacturer
is giving us accurate hp claims for the new cars...

 

a WHOLE bunch of EVO 8 owners just got thier car's dyno-ed, did they send you thier stuff?

 

Here's a link to the EVOs that were on the dyno this past weekend in MD:

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...threadid=24551

 

If your question is directed to Shiv (Vishnu Tuning), he was at the Dyno Day in Maryland last weekend.

 

Yep. And what I saw was perfectly in-line with our in-house testing that got so many people so bothered a couple of months ago. Quite a bit of car-to-car variance, an often-occuring 5500rpm torque hole and low peak power engine speed. All while running on 93 octane no less-- not the same 91 octane we use in CA.

shiv