engine dyno!

[carbonBLUE]

Not bad....

[Sport-Tech]

WTH - that can't possibly be WHP/WT. Is the graph an estimate of crank readings? Even if it is, the torque value is still way too high. Looking forward to some expert commentary on this.

[czar07]

that torque graph looks terrible

[uspspro]

Originally Posted by czar07

that torque graph looks terrible

Ummm look at the scale.

[AlmostMDD]

Agreed. Doesn't make any sense. Seems like we get 1100 wasted rpms too. Unless scaling is off somehow.

[Dimman]

Is this an actual engine dyno or a normal Dynapack hub dyno converting.
@Scion FR-S: engine dynos measure crank not wheel hp so it would represent the curve associated with the manufacturers numbers.

As for the shape, the scales are just different it's not as wild as it looks.

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Is this an actual engine dyno or a normal Dynapack hub dyno converting.
@Scion FR-S: engine dynos measure crank not wheel hp so it would represent the curve associated with the manufacturers numbers.

As for the shape, the scales are just different it's not as wild as it looks.

dynapack hub dyno converting, i was drunk and uploaded it last night... lol but those peak tq numbers look good, dip looks like it was for fuel economy...

from the tq numbers it looks like it was designed not to be a dog around town at stop lights(been in a brz and it isnt a dog whatsoever) that dip from 3-4k looks like accelerating fuel economy, 4k to redline looks like performance in mind

[Sport-Tech]

So why is peak torque showing at 15 lb-ft over rated? Makes no sense.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

So why is peak torque showing at 15 lb-ft over rated? Makes no sense.

Because it's a conversion it has to estimate the losses from the flywheel to the dyno.

(It's not an actual engine dyno graph.)

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

So why is peak torque showing at 15 lb-ft over rated? Makes no sense.

inside line got 143 tq to the ground, 165-170 crank tq est is expected the hp is spot on though

real specs of the engine are ~200 crank hp and ~169 tq and not the 200hp 151 tq advertised, which is a good thing,

kinda like how fords mustang brochure says 412 hp but they dyno in at 398 whp... there's a lot of cars out there under/overrated on hp and tq

and this...

Originally Posted by Dimman

Because it's a conversion it has to estimate the losses from the flywheel to the dyno.

(It's not an actual engine dyno graph.)

but i think its good enough estimate....

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Scion FR-S

So why is peak torque showing at 15 lb-ft over rated? Makes no sense.

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

inside line got 143 tq to the ground, 165-170 crank tq est is expected the hp is spot on though

real specs of the engine are ~200 crank hp and ~169 tq and not the 200hp 151 tq advertised, which is a good thing,

kinda like how fords mustang brochure says 412 hp but they dyno in at 398 whp... there's a lot of cars out there under/overrated on hp and tq

and this...


but i think its good enough estimate....

What's funny is I've written PAGES of posts in the Engine Tech thread about how I think this engine should have 170+lb-ft of torque based on comparisons to the old 3SGE BEAMS motor and the D4-S gains on the 2GR. Compression ratio, fuel mixture, intake velocity, BMEP were all considered...

Would be nice to be vindicated, but can't take it from a conversion. Soon maybe.

[chulooz]

Proving tq estimates
across engine styles and brands is guesswork or mishandled information. I too would like to see nonconverted figures though.

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by chulooz

Proving tq estimates
across engine styles and brands is guesswork or mishandled information. I too would like to see nonconverted figures though.

yeah Cobb tuning plano should be getting or already has their brz, hopefully they will do some engine dyno testing

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by chulooz

Proving tq estimates
across engine styles and brands is guesswork or mishandled information. I too would like to see nonconverted figures though.

Yeah. The high torque on the chassis dynos could come from efficiency improvements in the drivetrain, which is where a lot of development will be spent since those gains can be applied to fuel efficiency gains in ordinary cars too.

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dimman

What's funny is I've written PAGES of posts in the Engine Tech thread about how I think this engine should have 170+lb-ft of torque based on comparisons to the old 3SGE BEAMS motor and the D4-S gains on the 2GR. Compression ratio, fuel mixture, intake velocity, BMEP were all considered...

Would be nice to be vindicated, but can't take it from a conversion. Soon maybe.

yeah i remember that LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG engine tech thread.... i read it from time to time...

3sge beams was truly a bad ass motor

[Ryephile]

Good ole DynaPack. This plot looks like it was trying to show flywheel numbers instead of axle numbers. As usual, it would've been better to see raw data, but in the forum landscape of info vulturing, we'll take what we can get. Strangely, another example where the engine dies soon after 6k RPM.

-->carbonBLUE: what shop was this done at?

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Good ole DynaPack. This plot looks like it was trying to show flywheel numbers instead of axle numbers. As usual, it would've been better to see raw data, but in the forum landscape of info vulturing, we'll take what we can get. Strangely, another example where the engine dies soon after 6k RPM.

-->carbonBLUE: what shop was this done at?

AVO Turboworld did the test

[AVOturboworld]

It was done in Japan at our shop in Akishima, Tokyo. It will read slightly higher there vs. most of the USA due to gas quality differences - high octane in Japan is considerably better than the piss water available throughout most of California, for instance.

Regards,

Paul Hansen
www.avoturboworld.com
www.facebook.com/BRZSportsCarClub

[coyote]

The way the torque drops by more than 10% in 500rpm looks nothing short of hideous.

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by coyote

The way the torque drops by more than 10% in 500rpm looks nothing short of hideous.

yeah but its been noted that you cant feel it....

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

5. Power - Several shops have already seen the dyno FR-S and all of them saw that dip in TQ. More technical drop of torque between 3,000RPM to 4,500RPM, 20TQ drop in 4,000RPM. A while driving in, I've always check the RPM to check for feeling of torque lost in 3,000RPM~4,500RPM and I seriously couldn't feel the torque losted.

[AVOturboworld]

This isn't what one would call a high torque motor. If you were dropping from 400 ft/lbs to 360 ft/lbs, you'd feel it. On this motor, that's only a very minor blip when you are revving through, which is only going to be really seen by the dyno.

Regards,

Paul Hansen
www.avoturboworld.com
www.facebook.com/BRZSportsCarClub

[coyote]

Originally Posted by carbonBLUE

yeah but its been noted that some people cant feel it....

Fixed

I'm in very little doubt that I'll be able to feel that as plain as day.