Quote:
Originally Posted by nikitopo
@ Joesurf79 I never try to explain a dyno on the very low RPMs. For the blue curve I can assume that the operator shifted differently from 2nd to 3rd gear and the dyno measured a range of RPMs without full throttle acceleration. What matters for me is above the 3.5k RPM area and the dyno is not fake: http://www.toda-racing.co.jp/en/prod...lley-fa20.html |
If youget to assume that the dyno operator wasn't full throttle on the stock plot down low in the revs, I get to assume the were sandbagging and not going WOT from 3K to 7.3K either lol! Where is the arbitrary point in your mind where you assume the dyno op went WOT for the factory pulley set up? Okay - Lets play devils advocate, then.
You posted the plot to bolster your claim (which honestly has no bearing as it's for a set of under-driven pulleys and the discussion here is about lightened pulleys), and now we only get to scrutinize the portion that fit's your narrative?
Cool - Lets say they were WOT from 5K to 7K we can agree on that then, right? The delta looks like roughly 5% more torque 5K-7K rpm. Are you telling me you believe their motor picked up 7 ft/lbs from 5K to 7K rpm? Sorry man, the math doesn't bear it out.
In fact here is a counter article on those types of power generation numbers with an engineering flavored layman terms explanation, vibration analysis (multiple orders), and dyno plot for each crank pulley tested. Factory, light weight, and a viscous type.
https://www.enginelabs.com/news/guest-column-fluidamprs-brian-lebarron-on-fr-sbrzwrx-dampers/
When you present a bunch of engineers, physicists, and other generally sharp, Alpha male technical types with a bs argument on a slow Friday at work, well...what more do you expect from the internet? Nothing more or less than what you got, as this isn't the first time we've kicked this car-forum hornet's nest, is it?