Nothing but Dyno Sheets!!

[cp1]

As the title implies, im trying to start a thread where people can post their dyno sheets for all to see...

Please attach pic and state car info, year make model etc.

Please no posts unless you have actual proof... Pictures or scans are REALLY GOOD!!!

[Chris Ng]

1988 10th Anniversay Mazda Rx-7 Turbo
15psi boost on pump gas
car details can be found here: http://www.teamfc3s.org/forum/members_cars.php?disp=mods&car_id=69




http://members.shaw.ca/sumps/sept2504dyno.jpg

[Zero102]

Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't think RX-7's produced that kind of torque. I thought their HP numbers were just from how high they rev. Nice rex!

[m10-power]

Pretty impressive power for a 2.6L engine.:thumbsup:

[ecstasy_civic]

Originally posted by m10-power
Pretty impressive power for a 2.6L engine.:thumbsup:


:dunno:
dont you mean 1.3L turbo:whipped:

[QuasarCav]

1.3 Rotary= the equivilent of 2.6 cylinder motor

[j_gor78]

This is an overlay of N/A vs. Nitrous runs!!

[JustinL]

http://www.p-caronline.com/directory/images/justinl/justinl_image3.gif

Stock turbo, Stock wategate, stock injectors.

[Chris Ng]

Originally posted by Zero102
Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't think RX-7's produced that kind of torque. I thought their HP numbers were just from how high they rev. Nice rex!

Thanks,
The torque numbers are kind of deceiveing though... while getting 300+ ft/lbs sounds impressive, are you can tell by the graph, I don't get to that point until well into the higher revs.. It isn't exactly what I would call a very flat torque curve..

That being said, I've had a chance to play around with my tuning after that dyno run, and since then beefed up the mid range power/torque a little (no hard numbers, but my butt dyno says it's better :) ) ... If I decide to keep the car next season, I'll put it back on the dyno and confirm it ...

[Go4Long]

those numbers kick ass chris...way to go...glad to see ya got the TD07 tuned properly...look forward to seein it on the track next year

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by QuasarCav
1.3 Rotary= the equivilent of 2.6 cylinder motor

Do the math to show us why.

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


Do the math to show us why.

yeah...1.3L displacement is still 1.3L displacement no matter what school of math you are from. Now saying that a rotary pushes abnormally high levels of air and fuel for a 1.3 liter would be accurate...after all a chevy sprint couldn't exactly spool a TD07...

[three.eighteen.]

in one rotation each rotor completes 2 combustion cycles?

[bart]

if its a dynojet you ran on, dont bother posting, esp. c1 :rofl:

[Chris Ng]

Originally posted by bart
if its a dynojet you ran on, dont bother posting, esp. c1 :rofl:

Would you care to explain your reasoning?

I sure hope you arn't going to be bringing up "accuracy" in numbers, since "accuracy" is relative when talking dyno numbers on either a mustang dyno or a dynojet..

My car has been on both Concept1's dynojet, and on Toma's mustang dyno.. mind you, they were no with the same turbos installed, so I have no sheets to compare the 2 dynos.. However, a friend's 944 turbo has been on both dynos as well.. and amazingly enough, he pulled very similar numbers on the 2 dynos... People talk about dynojet numbers being roughly 13% higher than mustang numbers.. I have always wanted to find out for myself and do back to back runs on both dynos.. however that could get expensive and I'm not quite sure if Toma is still open for buisness...

so rather than just spouting out some babble with nothing to support it, how about filling us in? or is it going to just be reciteing some internet babble you read about on some webpage?

[Go4Long]

lol...maybe he's saying that c1 ups their numbers so guys like him can feel better about their volkswagons...
either way...SCC recently did a test of a half dozen or so dyno facilities in SC and found that even on the same day they were all over the map, mustang and dynojet alike...and they were running it with an old ford ranger pick up to avoid the new computer control issues...
so yeah, unless you have concrete evidence that his car didn't produce 371 whp(and being the size of the turbo and numbers I have seen on comparable set ups I am willing to bet that number is pretty much right on give or take environmental factors). maybe keep your dyno knowledge under your hat...

[rx7_turbo2]

I could come up with pages upon pages of debates over the 1.3l designation. Arguements for both sides of the fence including some displacement numbers other than 1.3 and 2.6 have all been debated to death.

I asked the question not to be an ass, but because most people that spout off about the 2.6l crap have no idea how that number is derived.

All the arguements against the 1.3l designation have one fatal flaw. They all use a formula for piston motors whether it be two or four stroke and apply it to the rotary. The rotary motor is NOT a piston motor. Yes some of the dynamics are the same it is an internal combustion motor, but the actual fundamentals of how it operates are too different.

Now on to the real topic.

I read the article Go4Long is discussing and it was an eye opener. Really as far as I'm concerned dyno numbers are good things to brag with and that's about all. Some dyno's seem to be consistantly generous and others consistantly incostistant. Take all dyno numbers with a grain of salt.

[Aleks]

TECHMOTION
Mustang dyno 7psi. Stock B18B

[Khyron]

C1's dynojet.

http://www.nexus-point.net/chimera/chimera-dyno-03-04-04-samco.jpg

Besides, everyone knows you can't compare sheets if using different machines. All I care is that the numbers go up not down.

Khyron

[SilverBoost]

Here's mine... 02 Turbo SPEC V @ 7lbs.

http://www.importeast.ca/specturbo/dyno1.jpg
http://www.importeast.ca/specturbo/dyno2.jpg

[ACX]

Cool Spec!:thumbsup:


2004 Neon GT TURBO! This is the only graph I've got hosted rigt now.

Dynojet, smoothing on zero typical PCM micromanagement.... Pre is with catback exhaust only. Post is with Stage 1 PCM, drop in filter, new plugs gapped down and new wires.


:whocares:

http://www.mustangmods.com/data/234/stage_1_vs_ex.jpg

[Aleks]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SilverBoost
[B]Here's mine... 02 Turbo SPEC V @ 7lbs.

That's a big motor! Any plans of turning up the boost? Are you gonna come to the meet tomorrow I'd really like to see your setup!

[Go4Long]

spec V's have really tiny ring lands(??) if I remember correctly...to crank the boost much over 7-8 lbs you have to do internals...but still, nice numbers for 7lbs of boost for sure...

[SilverBoost]

Yeah the stock internals can only handle about 7-9 lbs of boost as a reliable daily driver. I'm doing a full rebuild on another engine though over the winter so I hope to have it running close to 400whp next year. All depends on whether I upgrade to a larger Turbo as well.

I'm gonna try to make it to the meet tomorrow evening, so I hope to meet a few of you there! :)

[Go4Long]

yeah...there's a guy in quebec pushin 420 to the wheels on his spec...lotsa money into that motor though...

[fast95pony]

Mustang dyno..
I experienced a problem,possibly valve float at 5300 rpm.
I hope to fix the problem over winter...

[cboyspimp]

i got a sheet around here that reads 628rwhp.. lol.. bring in the comments tell me im lieing.. ill find it soon and post it up

[Dj_FL!PSW!TCH]

Originally posted by Aleks
Mustang dyno 7psi. Stock B18B


Damn, I bet there is alot more potential in that setup. :bigpimp:

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by SilverBoost
I'm gonna try to make it to the meet tomorrow evening, so I hope to meet a few of you there! :)

saw you in the parking lot over by sears as I was walkin into the mall...pretty decent. No offence though, but I don't remember my spec v sounding that much like ass...

[Idratherbsidewayz]

1990 Nissan 240sx
10 psi on 91 octane

[GT-FOUR]

1988 Toyota Celica 4WD Turbo
12psi, 91 octane fuel

236 aw hp
252 aw ft-lbs

Mustang 4WD dyno, Seattle WA USA

http://www.gtfour.ca/dynoslipcroppedbig.jpg

Full printout: http://www.gtfour.ca/dynoslipsmall.jpg

[bart]

Originally posted by Chris Ng


Would you care to explain your reasoning?

I sure hope you arn't going to be bringing up "accuracy" in numbers, since "accuracy" is relative when talking dyno numbers on either a mustang dyno or a dynojet..

My car has been on both Concept1's dynojet, and on Toma's mustang dyno.. mind you, they were no with the same turbos installed, so I have no sheets to compare the 2 dynos.. However, a friend's 944 turbo has been on both dynos as well.. and amazingly enough, he pulled very similar numbers on the 2 dynos... People talk about dynojet numbers being roughly 13% higher than mustang numbers.. I have always wanted to find out for myself and do back to back runs on both dynos.. however that could get expensive and I'm not quite sure if Toma is still open for buisness...

so rather than just spouting out some babble with nothing to support it, how about filling us in? or is it going to just be reciteing some internet babble you read about on some webpage?



Originally posted by Go4Long
lol...maybe he's saying that c1 ups their numbers so guys like him can feel better about their volkswagons...
either way...SCC recently did a test of a half dozen or so dyno facilities in SC and found that even on the same day they were all over the map, mustang and dynojet alike...and they were running it with an old ford ranger pick up to avoid the new computer control issues...
so yeah, unless you have concrete evidence that his car didn't produce 371 whp(and being the size of the turbo and numbers I have seen on comparable set ups I am willing to bet that number is pretty much right on give or take environmental factors). maybe keep your dyno knowledge under your hat...


first, mustang dyno i think is more accurate, so i will stick to those, i dont care for over-inflated numbers...

second, my c1 comment was based on 2 dyno days i attended there, (neither of which i ran my car, because they cant get a torque reading from a tdi on their dynojet :rolleyes: ), and me along with others noticed something like up to a 20hp difference on cars who attended both events, and have not done any mods!

i'm not bashing dynojet, just saying i rather use a mustang dyno, and have someone operate it who has had training of some sort... last time i checked, c1 techs aren't trained to dyno yet...

another problem with dynojets is they cant do automatics, or c1 wasn't able to anyway... i guess not enough load.

anyway stay tuned for my dyno! no hard feelings, ahah. :guns:

[bart]

here we go, the numbers...

hp: 120@3700rpm, torque: 251@1900rpm. :)

pics:

http://www.servfiles.com/1586/

http://www.servfiles.com/1587/

http://www.servfiles.com/1588/

http://www.servfiles.com/1589/

graphs:

http://www.servfiles.com/1590/

http://www.servfiles.com/1591/

and for fun, a crank graph.... buahahah

http://www.servfiles.com/1592/

video: (ok quality) ~3.8MB, right click, save target as...

http://www.servfiles.com/1593/



-bart

[Go4Long]

your dub makes some nice torque there bart...shame about the hp...but at least ya get a good launch(and wicked good fuel economy)

[bart]

i dont need any more horsepower, lol, more torque would be nice though! i'm too used to it, ahah.

[Go4Long]

lol...you probably won't remember this...but last summer I was driving my yellow spec V...my buddy and I chased you across town to get a pic of your wheels...hehehe...love the superleggras

*edit* - on another note...I heard a story that you once got out of a speeding ticket by telling the crown that it's a diesel and it couldn't go that fast, that true?

[bart]

oh ya i remember that, lol. they are just italian rims, nothing special, lol :zzz:

[Go4Long]

wouldn't really suit my rx7...but I always wanted a set for my spec V

[cp1]

Just thought i would restart this thread after 2 years of rest... since i originally started it anyway... ( I hate to see one of my babies die on me!)

So go ahead scan and post your dyno sheets but remember a dyno graph is mainly used to get an idea of tuning results so dont compare too heavily!!!

[Ekliptix]

1993 Mustang.
~7psi boost
stock heads and cam (about 60whp sitting there)
12.62 at Race City
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/Ekliptix/Mustang/Dyno4.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/Ekliptix/Mustang/Dyno5.jpg

[cp1]

Ekliptix - nice job! what all have you done to it?


***NOTE***

Just thought i would restart this thread after 2 years of rest... since i originally started it anyway... ( I hate to see one of my babies die on me!)

So go ahead scan and post your dyno sheets but remember a dyno graph is mainly used to get an idea of tuning results so dont compare too heavily!!!

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

I'll try to post mine up, but I don't think my car was dynoed properly... it was a b16 w/ I/E and only put down 114hp @ 7100rpm? But it was only pushed to 7100rpm and I think that was due to the stock Si gauge being in there... I'm sure I could of pushed much better numbers if I ran to redline @ 8200... I also ran a 15.99 and think I can even top that. Nonetheless I'll post the numbers up when I get home from work.

[B20EF]

Stock JDM GSR tuned by Rage2, minor upgrades have been done since

http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/thumbs/small/973737_nux2m/dyno%20sheet.JPG (http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/view/full/973737_nux2m)

[QuasarCav]

Originally posted by LilDrunkenSmurf
I'll try to post mine up, but I don't think my car was dynoed properly... it was a b16 w/ I/E and only put down 114hp @ 7100rpm? But it was only pushed to 7100rpm and I think that was due to the stock Si gauge being in there... I'm sure I could of pushed much better numbers if I ran to redline @ 8200... I also ran a 15.99 and think I can even top that. Nonetheless I'll post the numbers up when I get home from work.


Sounds about right, your engine makes it's peak power very close to redline. My B18a dynoed @ 117hp on a mustang dyno.

Here it is: http://forums.beyond.ca/attachment.php?s=&postid=1702958

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

Ya, but it was still over 1000rpm away from redline.

[QuasarCav]

Originally posted by LilDrunkenSmurf
Ya, but it was still over 1000rpm away from redline.


That is what I meant, your engine still has 1000rpm left to make it's full potential.

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

Alright thanks... I know tecmotion tunes engines... so does Speedtech, and I know Rage2 does, when he's not busy... does anyone know anyone else who does tuning? That's not going to cost like... 300-400? It's already chipped OBD1... but ya... haha didn't want to start a new thread, and anyone who has dyno sheets probably has been tuned... Does Toma tune honda's?

[gpomp]

dynojet 320/257
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9822/dsc00231mediumlh5.jpg
md 308/255
http://www.pomped.ca/photos/beyond/308whp.jpg

[Ekliptix]

gpomp, that explains your mph. :burnout:
B18 or B20, I'm not sure. I'm thinking B18.


Originally posted by cp1
Ekliptix - nice job! what all have you done to it?


Powerdyne supercharger (non intercooled)
Edelbrock intake manifold + 75mm TB ($400 used)
70mm MAF
30lb fuel injectors
shorty headers
quiet 3 chamber flowmaster mufflers with 2.5" piping

3.55 gears (2400rpm at 100km/h)
Cobra HD clutch
Alum driveshaft

Video: http://www.photosbygraham.com/vids/Mustang%202006.wmv

There's another 50whp in it with a set of $1500 Edelbrock aluminum heads and a mild street cam. I think I could get into the 11's with that, but I'd probably need a higher capacity fuel system to support it.

[Maxt]

1987 mazda rx-7 fc3s 13 b Naturally aspirated, non turbo.

[gpomp]

Originally posted by Ekliptix
gpomp, that explains your mph. :burnout:
B18 or B20, I'm not sure. I'm thinking B18.

now if i can get some traction...

[Ekliptix]

I can tell you that sub 1.80 60's feel very nice. Especially when launching at 3500rpm :bigpimp:
Z_Fan seems to have the tricks.