Video: HKS 86 drift car + first 86/FR-S/BRZ dyno = 170 rwhp!!!

[exmayol]

Driving feel > peak HP, torque curve, etc... having said that flat torque curve will not hurt of course

[Spaceywilly]

Originally Posted by aspera

It's hard to read but that drop off might be a good thing. That could be where your extra horses are hiding. A free 10 minute muffler delete might be just the ticket to see if that's true.

That's a pretty good point. Breathing through a tiny straw definitely hurts more on the top end. With direct injection too it should be able to get plenty of gas in there to take advantage of all that extra air, that is if people find a way to tune it.

[Ryephile]

Here's what I got. Very similar to Spacewilly.

Dyno plot starts at 1500 RPM and redlines a whiff less than 7500 RPM. Curiously, peak torque is about 4500 RPM, and peak power is about 6500 RPM. Both are quite different from the advertised figures. Dimman's going to have a tough time sleeping tonight!

[_hollywood]

This car is not about quartermile times and horsepower.....


End of discussion.....

Hks ftw!!!

[Snoopyalien24]

So.. many... new.. people.. hehe

Wow thanks for the vid, me like, me want

[subatoy]

Originally Posted by Syldrin

love it love it love. 170 from the factory in a super light car.

what super light car?! this car will be almost 2,800lbs in the US which is very far from anything light.
170whp is simply underwhelming, the GTI puts 200whp at the wheels stock and like someone else mentioned here, I care more about the torque curve tham HP.

NA boxer engines don't gain any power out of bolt-ons.
you will spend a fortune trying to get to 200whp on this car
and with a wrx getting 30whp cost you like $600.
from the Japanese prices on this car compared to the WRX
this car will cost around the same or EVEN MORE.
as much as I want to buy this car I just don't see ANY good numbers ANYWHERE.

[Longhorn248]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Here's what I got. Very similar to Spacewilly.

Dyno plot starts at 1500 RPM and redlines a whiff less than 7500 RPM. Curiously, peak torque is about 4500 RPM, and peak power is about 6500 RPM. Both are quite different from the advertised figures. Dimman's going to have a tough time sleeping tonight!

Awesome plot!

Originally Posted by _hollywood

This car is not about quartermile times and horsepower.....


End of discussion.....

You're right, lets just toss a 3 cylinder diesel in it and call it a day.

[serialk11r]

Um, Spacewilly thanks for the graphs, but your idea of torque is wrong.
Torque is not a force, torque is a change in rotational inertia. It is a force that acts on a pivot at a distance. Formally, it is the cross product of the radius upon which a force acts and the force itself. The unit Newton*meter is actually equal to 1 Joule. When we talk about rotational stuff we need to make sure there is the distinction that we are "multiplying" by the distance at which the force acts, but this distance has to be dealt with separately.

1 foot pound is the torque created by exerting 1 pound of force on a 1 foot lever. Since rotational stuff has pi's in it when you take derivatives, I won't say how much rotational inertia you can accelerate to whatever rotational speed with 1 pound of force.

Torque does work not over a distance, but over a dimensionless quantity we know as rotations. When you "multiply" torque (say in Newton-meters) by rpm, the "rpm" only makes sense when distributed to the "meters" part, as the meters is secretly talking about meters from the axis of rotation. If we pick a point at an arbitrary radius, the distance covered by that point is the number of revolutions times 2pi * the radius. The reason why torque is not dependent on the radius chosen is conservation of energy. Anyways, this is why we are allowed to say "newton-meters" instead of specifying the force and the distance. If a force acts for a certain distance, it does work. A torque effectively is a force acting over a certain distance in a circular path.

Okay now back to your chart. I don't seem to be seeing the same points as you are...but maybe I'm the blind one.

Using my eyeballometer, and drawing a line from peak power down to an extrapolated 0 hp point (this would be what would happen if torque were constant from 0 to 7000), I see that the torque is lower than it is at peak power all the way up to about 5500. Peak of about 6000 sounds about right, assuming we're not wrong with the scale. This car is short on torque up to about 4000 rpm me thinks.

[Allch Chcar]

Cool, I wasn't expecting a dynograph so early. Before public release even! 15% loss is average for a Manual RWD car. Not good or bad, perfectly average.

More HP trolls? Sports cars are about driving feel, communication, and enjoyment. They are not competing for 1st place because they are street cars.

Not the missing torque again! If Dimman keeps that up he'll have enough material for a book!

[concept_cynic]

Originally Posted by concept_cynic

Yeah, like you say, work = force * distance. work = lb(force) * ft(distance)=tq

OK, I have to call myself out again. TQ is not work and it really isn't a force either lol. I'll just stop posting here and hopefully I won't confuse everyone in the thread.

[DoogenBurns]

Camrys and Golf GTI's huh, I don't know about you guys but I like being able to ACCELERATE out of corners. Besides the 86 has a better power/weight ratio than both of these cars. Never mind the price point.

-Doog

[concept_cynic]

Just so everyone can see how confusing this can be when having similar dimensions for two separate things.

Units

Torque has dimensions of force times distance. Official SI literature suggests using the unit newton metre (N·m) or the unit joule per radian.[7] The unit newton metre is properly denoted N·m or N m.[8] This avoids ambiguity with mN, millinewtons.
The SI unit for energy or work is the joule. It is dimensionally equivalent to a force of one newton acting over a distance of one metre, but it is not used for torque. Energy and torque are entirely different concepts, so the practice of using different unit names (i.e., reserving newton metres for torque and using only joules for energy) helps avoid mistakes and misunderstandings.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque#...gular_momentum

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by concept_cynic

Just so everyone can see how confusing this can be when having similar dimensions for two separate things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque#...gular_momentum

Yea, radians are in some sense dimensionless as I was saying, so when people omit that it can be confusing.

I don't want to keep adding to my giant post since people might TLDR.
Ryephile's graph has some more points than Spacewilly's and it looks a bit closer, although I think at 4500 rpm it's more like 120hp, not 125hp, and it would give the "standard" D4-S + phased cams (funny I say standard, as only one other engine has D4-S :rotf torque curve look. It's very impressive that the torque is so high at 3000-4000, considering that the cam seems to be happiest at 5000-6000. Doing some terrible extrapolating, the 2GR has approximately 250 degree duration intake cam, this one is probably like 260-270. At 3000 rpm, that is either a TON of EGR to be dealing with or a massive, massive thermal efficiency increase over a port injected engine, considering how low volumetric efficiency is. By comparison, a Prius starts to make some good torque with its 270 degree cams at around 4000 rpm, but only manages 110Nm/1.5L=73Nm while the FA20 is making a healthy ~178Nm/2L=89Nm/L! So the FA20 is pulling 20% more power with the "same" cams and same rpm! That's incredible if you ask me. Direct injection is supposedly good for 10-15% efficiency.

[WingsofWar]

I have a problem with the accuracy of the formula for TQ. Especially in certain applications where load efficiency is questioned.

Reason why i want to see the actual live tq curve and not a plugged in formula based on given HP & RPM. is i want to see the actual efficiency work load, as it peaks at 6600. I want to see how DAVCS and D4S activates on the graph.

I believe i see it here. but im just guessing.