I totally agree, we have a very precise dyno at work (it's a Maha 4x4) and we often have people coming in with tuned cars. The charts the tuner gives to them is most of the time manipulated or plain wrong.
The most evident case was a C 63 AMG where the tuner just modified the speed limiter and claimed the car had 50 more hp.
Reality was the map was bog standard and the 50 hp more of crank power came from a different loss of power (in one test there was 70 hp of power loss, in the next one 120, the whp was the same but as the cranks is the sum of the two obviously it was showing 50 hp of crank power more).
This is one of our dyno charts (it's my car actually).
100 nm are 73.7 lbft
We do 3-4 runs in second from the last gear (this for example was in 4th).
Quote:
Imagine if the C&D number of ~170 (I'm going to pick 168) lb-ft @ 4000 rpm is correct. Now imagine that the brochure number of 151 lb-ft (which would be 90% of the peak using 168 lb-ft) @ 6600 rpm is also correct. And the peak power of 197 bhp @ 7000 rpm and the 7400 rpm redline are correct, too.
That would be an outstanding 197 bhp NA performance motor. It would pull from everywhere.
|
For comparison, this has 140 lbft at 4000 rpm, peak is 152 at 5465, and at 7k is down to 125.
170 lbft (equal to 230 nm) at 4000 is A LOT of torque from a 2l NA engine.
Good NA engine struggles to get over 100 nm/liter.
