How do you account for a pretty wide difference in HP and Torque between
one car and another. Not auto vs. manual, but manual to manual for instance. Can there be that much difference due
to manufacturing variables...seems
unbelieveable to me. <img src=/images/forums/snitz/uhh.gif width=15 height=15 border=0> Different Dynos?
You also have to factor in altitude above sea level, barometric pressure, temperature, etc unless the numbers are SAE (which measures all of the above and then does a calculation to give you the net hp that you would produce at sea level and ideal temp, pressure, and humidity, etc).
I didn't consider all those factors,
pretty interesting. Still, why is it that two cars, tested under the same conditions (location, equipment etc.) can show a noticeable difference in HP or Torque when they are otherwise indentical? It must be due to differences that are specific to the individual cars...
at least that SEEMS logical.<img src=/images/forums/snitz/uhh.gif width=15 height=15 border=0>
When considering Dyno numbers, in additon to what Reid stated you have to consider...
Manufacturing variables in the engine and tranny
Maintenance variables in the car done by the owner
Wheel/tire choice (weight)
Current state of tune (sort of a maintenance issue).
When I did my dyno, my car was spitting black carbon out the tailpiple like there was no tommrow, yet others who dyno'ed that day did not have that problem. Per the OBD-ii software, everything on the car was operating normally, and within spec, so we never did figure out why my car was spewing carbon. It was not running rich or lean, just sooty! (lol). I pulled a 110 that day bone stock.
Also. Type of Dyno, and the dyno's calibration matter. Dynojet claims that if you do a run anywhere in the USA on one of their Dynojets, you should get repeatable numbers within 1% after correcting for SAE. However, since some shops DO correct for SAE and some dont, and some dyno's have been caibrated recently, and some havent...etc...etc..etc... it just adds in more variables into the mix. In reality, I feel that a 10% correction factor across dyno's is more realistic. Unless you know the same cars were dyno'd the same day, on the same dyno, under the same conditions...go with 10%. If they were all done at one place, at one time, on one dyno...then go with the 1% reccomened by Dynojet.
From my observations, In general...Gen2's seem to dyno higher than Gen1's. Don't ask me why. Could be lower mileage on the newer gen2's vs the older gen1's????
One quick example of all of the above. At our recent so cal dyno day with the Nissan SE-R club of Los Angeles...the dyno we were using, the software on the dyno had not been updated, so we were informed that all runs under 200 Hp would be reported as 5 HP low. So my recorded 169/168 is actually a 174/173.
The First gen we had there with a MHP CAI, pulled a 120/118. That was actually a 125/123.
However, since they did NOT adjust the dyno sheets to reflect the 5 HP/Torque difference...I'm sticking with the 169/168. I can PROVE that. I can't prove the dyno shop told me to add 5!<img src=/images/forums/snitz/tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0>
<hr width=60% noshade size=5 align=left>Leave it to Random to Needlessly complicate things.
A single dyno session that just tells you how much HP you have usually costs between $50 and $100. That is one strap down (on the dyno) and usually 2 or 3 runs to determine HP.
A dyno "tuning" session is between $80 and $200 per hour, depending on what you are having tuned.
<hr width=60% noshade size=1 align=left>quote from 4DoorGL: <b><i>"Told you. Random is cool as hell in person, even if he is a dick on the net <img src=/images/forums/snitz/wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0> (j/k)" </b></i>
Leave it to Random to Needlessly complicate things.
Random: Is there anything to simulate airflow on the dyno?
I have a 99 and a 2000 tibby. The 99 has the air intake inside the hood without a clear path to the outside (cool) air. The 2000 has part of the radiator intake deflected (before the radiator) to the air intake. Seems this could account for a few hp difference if one is sucking in cooler air and the other is sucking in hot engine compartment air.
I guess even if there's nothing blowing air into the front of the car, the air in front of the car will still be cooler than the one drawing air from the engine compartment.
Also, I would theorize that a CAI on my 99 would have more impact than on my 2000 <img src=/images/forums/snitz/cool.gif width=15 height=15 border=0>
<hr width=60% noshade size=1 align=left>2000 Red Tiburon
1999 Blue Tiburon w/Shark Wing
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>vtc_civic:"The K20C is laying down about 165whp in stock trim, well over 180 on bolt-ons alone"<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
I found this on hondatuningmagazine.com
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The resulting averages for peak horsepower and torque were 165.8 hp at 8000 rpm and 124.9 hp at 6000 rpm<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
and that's coming from the RSX-S, 200HP fly. So it's losing 19%, and that WHP is not exactly very usable...sitting at 8000 freaking RPM.
A forum community dedicated to all Hyundai models owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, reviews, and more for your favorite models!