Quote:
Originally Posted by Malt
If you are referring to that post by delicious tuning that steve linked, I see a dyno chart of a 86 making 174 whp and then they apply pseudomath to arrive at that "200" number by attempting to relate mustange dyno numbers to dynojet numbers.
Not knocking Delicious Tuning as I think they do amazing stuff but the important thing to remember here is that dyno numbers can vary wildly from car to car and dyno to dyno depending on many variables such as weather conditions and how the dyno was setup.
Furthermore, I don't understand the fascination with peak HP numbers. As an example take a mythical car that makes 200HP at 7000rpm as its peak number but makes like 100hp almost everywhere else in the rpm range. Now compare that to a car that makes 190hp over the entire rpm range. Which would you like to drive?
People need to stop and really look at dyno charts and see whats going on instead of blindly focusing on a single data point or you run the risk of missing out on extremely interesting possibilities like the ESC setup.
|
Well said. I often think that how we measure a car's power is flawed.. Area under the curve, as you eloquently put it, is MUCH more important than peak.
How can we quantify this area under the curve on a Cartesian plane? Using integration/calculating the integral would be one easy approach. Would love to see this kind of perspective prevail over the currently "peak hp/tq" metrics