Dyno Numbers

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by slimfit

I’m confused, they didn’t rev it all the way out? Also, if that 212PS is correct, that’s the exact same number Savagegeese got with the GR86.

That's some weird stuff.

Did they not want to rev it all the way because of break in? I'm so confused. Its an absolute crime that this forum doesn't have more regular Japanese speaking people who can help us sorry sobs.

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by Blighty

That's some weird stuff.

Did they not want to rev it all the way because of break in? I'm so confused. Its an absolute crime that this forum doesn't have more regular Japanese speaking people who can help us sorry sobs.

Yeah that one is awful. Not really sure what is going on there at all.

[Grif]

Front pipe and cat-back dyno by AVO.
Not huge gains (as expected), however reasonable nonetheless.

[alphasaur]

Originally Posted by Grif

Front pipe and cat-back dyno by AVO.
Not huge gains (as expected), however reasonable nonetheless.

229hp on a dynapack is pretty respectable.

[Jianlun]

Can't help but notice that the AVO results are uncannily siniliar to the phoenix power results. With the 1st peak at 3300rpm and the 2nd at 4600rpm. And the hole at 4300rpm. Both are dynapacks.

And till date NO ONE got peak torque at 3700rpm. All in fact got it at between 3200 and 3400rpm. I love the consistency.

[Baldeagle]

Still shocked at the 13% decrease in torque from ≈3,400 rpm to ≈ 4,300 rpm.

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by alphasaur

229hp on a dynapack is pretty respectable.

I can't tell if that is with or without correction factor for drive-train loss.. Either way I'm sure this engine will benefit from a 3" exhaust once the aftermarket headers hit the market.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

Still shocked at the 13% decrease in torque from ≈3,400 rpm to ≈ 4,300 rpm.

It is what it is. There isn't some "magic" to solve the torque dip and pass the regulations. If there was such a thing, then they would have done it in 1st gen too.

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

It is what it is. There isn't some "magic" to solve the torque dip and pass the regulations. If there was such a thing, then they would have done it in 1st gen too.

Its less relevant now that the engine delivers some better torque.

And I think that comes through in every single review/first drives.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by Blighty

Its less relevant now that the engine delivers some better torque.

And I think that comes through in every single review/first drives.

Yes of course.

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

It is what it is. There isn't some "magic" to solve the torque dip and pass the regulations. If there was such a thing, then they would have done it in 1st gen too.

Yeah, I may recant part of my previous post. Below is a dyno of a 2017+ Toyota Camry 2.5 engine. The red line shows the stock output. It achieved peak torque of 236 Nm (174 lbs-ft) of torque at 4,255 rpm. Knowing we can’t compare two different dyno charts directly, we can still make some conclusions. Here are my takeaways:

1. It seems to me the stock 2.5 also has a torque dip at 3,000 rpm.
2. At the Twin’s lowest point in its torque dip (4,300 rpm), it makes about 160-165 lbs-ft of torque. The Camry’s peak torque occurs at about the same rpm, where it makes 236 Nm or 174 lbs-ft of torque. Not that much more torque than the Twin’s at it lowest point.
3. The fact that the Twin’s 2.4 makes about 190 lbs-ft of torque at 3,300 rpm is very impressive given it’s 2.4 liters of displacement AND the fact it can still rev to over 7,000 rpm with vigor.
4. The torque dip would not be so apparent if not for the fact that the engine produced so much torque at lower rpm.
5. At 2,500 rpm, the twin produces about 180 lbs-ft versus only 147 lbs-ft (200 Nm) for the Camry's 2.5.

[PhatFreshPrince]

Originally Posted by slimfit

I’m confused, they didn’t rev it all the way out? Also, if that 212PS is correct, that’s the exact same number Savagegeese got with the GR86.

Why does the music make me feel like I am playing a Super Mario game?

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by slimfit

I’m confused, they didn’t rev it all the way out? Also, if that 212PS is correct, that’s the exact same number Savagegeese got with the GR86.

I think their RPM pickup wasn’t working properly. The revcounter went to redline multiple times.

[wheelspeed]

To someone ignorant on boxer engines (me), this is interesting. It seems that a dip may be inherent to boxers that isn't there in inline 4s. You don't see this on the Miata engine and I don't think there was one on my old Mazda 3 2.3L (though I didn't scrutinize any dyno charts in 2009). Anyway, I'm thinking maybe trade-off to the boxer layout to have a torque dip somewhere, but you get the lower CoG of the boxer layout?

Anyway, I'm trying to save judgement until I drive one. I was perfectly happy with my Mazda 3's 150hp/150tq engine because, despite low numbers, it felt "willing and happy" and was fun to row through the gears. I was just sick of it being FWD. As long as the new 2.4 boxer engine feels willing and happy, I'll be happy with it.