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/member...mods&car_id=69

[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.

[ecstasy_civic]

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

dont you mean 1.3L turbo

[QuasarCav]

1.3 Rotary= the equivilent of 2.6 cylinder motor

[j_gor78]

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

[JustinL]

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

[Chris Ng]

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

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.



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.