2022 Subaru BRZ on the Dyno

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

No offense, but what is with you? The tuning shop is who provided the dyno service. They don't care if you like the host. The dyno doesn't care what you trust. You made a statement with no evidence and then evidence proving your statement incorrect is brought forth. Its OK to be wrong. I didn't think the FA24 was going make near the power it does but in stock form its only 10-15whp off $12K K24A2 FBO swaps. Eh, I was wrong it happens.

No idea what are you talking about the K24 swap. It was too much trouble even as a conception, so I don't follow such kind of threads at all. If people like to make the 2nd gen the next super deal and the forum for one more time vendor driven fine for me too. I don't follow the forum lately much either.

Originally Posted by Varelco

OK so thats one of results, for arguments sake lets exclude that because you don't trust him and he must be skewing his dyno... but what about the rest?

Must have just been really really cold when they all dyno'd their cars.

What about all those Gen 1s that have been on dynos? That must mean they are not SAE of STD corrected too and therefore their results are even lower?

Finally there are results overlayed from the same dyno of Gen 1 cars and Gen 2 and in those instances they is a consistent 40whp difference.

I've seen alot of your posts, you are digging yourself a hole. Nobody is going to take you seriously.

An engine with a bigger displacement breaths ~20% more and performance is much more dependent on air intake temperature variations. I am not saying that the extra hp is not there under special conditions. All I am saying is that it is not what they measured when they came with the official engine catalog numbers.

Do you think I really care if anybody takes me seriously? Things have been wrong in this forum from the beginning and things are going even more wrong now.

[PBR]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

No idea what are you talking about the K24 swap. It was too much trouble even as a conception, so I don't follow such kind of threads at all. If people like to make the 2nd gen the next super deal and the forum for one more time vendor driven fine for me too. I don't follow the forum lately much either.


An engine with a bigger displacement breaths ~20% more and performance is much more dependent on air intake temperature variations. I am not saying that the extra hp is not there under special conditions. All I am saying is that it is not what they measured when they came with the official engine catalog numbers.

Do you think I really care if anybody takes me seriously? Things have been wrong in this forum from the beginning and things are going even more wrong now.

You dont have to worry. No one takes you seriously. ZD8 for an easy win and we'll forgive your envy when you get one. Anything else, sport?

[sds]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

If people like to make the 2nd gen the next super deal and the forum for one more time vendor driven fine for me too.

The fact that you think this is one big conspiracy tells me enough.

[racingfool]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

All I am saying is that it is not what they measured when they came with the official engine catalog numbers.

Not the first time that happened.

https://driving.ca/bmw/m5/auto-news/...eir-true-power

The 426 street Hemi was rated at 425 horsepower from the factory.
This Chrysler dyno sheet from decades ago and this close-to-stock dyno session
of a new 426 Hemi both put the gross horsepower rating at about 470 horsepower

Verdict: Underrated by 45 horsepower

L88 engine was laughably underrated at 430 horsepower at 5,200 rpm but GM wasn’t completely dishonest.
The engine actually did make 430 horsepower at 5,200 rpm, but GM neglected
to mention that its power peak was around 6,500 rpm where it made over 500 horsepower

Verdict: Underrated by 80 horsepower

“Cobra Jet” engine was rated by Ford at 335 horsepower, but the NHRA gave it a 390-horsepower rating.
Most experts including autojournalist Roger Huntington acknowledge that the true output is about 410 horsepower.

Verdict: Underrated by 75 horsepower

Ford rated the 5.4-litre supercharged V8 in the GT at 550 horsepower at the crank.
This dyno test of a stock GT produced 562 horsepower at the wheels .

Verdict: Underrated by 80 horsepower

[Midnightsky]

Underrating cars is as old as the auto industry itself.

[Xed32]

Question. Does the gear being used on the dyno matter much? I'm seeing videos of persons doing the dyno run in 3rd, some in 4th. Should it not be 5th?
First Gear Ratio (:1) 3.63
Second Gear Ratio (:1) 2.19
Third Gear Ratio (:1) 1.54
Fourth Gear Ratio (:1) 1.21
Fifth Gear Ratio (:1) 1.00
Sixth Gear Ratio (:1) 0.77

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by racingfool

Not the first time that happened.

https://driving.ca/bmw/m5/auto-news/...eir-true-power

The funny thing is, despite all the hype about them being "underrated", most of those old muscle cars were quite overrated for horsepower. "Gross horsepower" ratings were basically lies...

1970 Hemi 'Cuda and Hemi Challengers only tested at 102mph and 104mph in the 1/4 mile.
https://www.supercars.net/blog/1970-plymouth-hemi-cuda/
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/art...allenger-r-t-2

That's damn slow for a 3800-lb car with supposedly 425hp... Running the old hp/trap speed equation, I get effectively 351 net horsepower at the crank. In 1971 Chrysler's gross hp rating for the Hemi remained 425hp (ha!) but they also provided an SAE net rating of 350hp, and that's about right. Some info on "gross" vs. net horsepower:
https://www.hagerty.com/media/archived/horsepower/

1969 L88 Corvette tested at 106.8mph in the 1/4-mile (Car and Driver). Figure 3400-lb car and 3600-lb test weight, that's ~342hp, *way* less than the supposedly "underrated" 430hp.
https://www.oldcarsweekly.com/featur...9-corvette-l88

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

An engine with a bigger displacement breaths ~20% more and performance is much more dependent on air intake temperature variations.

??? No, there is no reason the 2.4's performance should be any more dependent on air intake temps than the 2.0 on a percentage gained/lost basis.

I am not saying that the extra hp is not there under special conditions. All I am saying is that it is not what they measured when they came with the official engine catalog numbers.

"Special conditions" won't affect the new engine any differently than the old one. For sure they underrated the new car a little bit relative to old one. 101mph in the 1/4-mile for the new car vs. 95mph for the old one tells the story. New car makes ~20% more power vs. old. Which makes perfect sense as it has 20% more displacement and still makes peak power at the same 7000rpm as before. My stock '17 dynoed 179rwhp. New ones dyno ~210-215? Makes sense.

[alphasaur]

Originally Posted by ZDan

The funny thing is, despite all the hype about them being "underrated", most of those old muscle cars were quite overrated for horsepower. "Gross horsepower" ratings were basically lies...

1970 Hemi 'Cuda and Hemi Challengers only tested at 102mph and 104mph in the 1/4 mile.
https://www.supercars.net/blog/1970-plymouth-hemi-cuda/
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/art...allenger-r-t-2

That's damn slow for a 3800-lb car with supposedly 425hp... Running the old hp/trap speed equation, I get effectively 351 net horsepower at the crank. In 1971 Chrysler's gross hp rating for the Hemi remained 425hp (ha!) but they also provided an SAE net rating of 350hp, and that's about right. Some info on "gross" vs. net horsepower:
https://www.hagerty.com/media/archived/horsepower/

1969 L88 Corvette tested at 106.8mph in the 1/4-mile (Car and Driver). Figure 3400-lb car and 3600-lb test weight, that's ~342hp, *way* less than the supposedly "underrated" 430hp.
https://www.oldcarsweekly.com/featur...9-corvette-l88

Funny comparing those numbers with modern cars (stinger ~108 at 368hp, supra ~117 at 380 )

[sds]

Originally Posted by ZDan

??? No, there is no reason the 2.4's performance should be any more dependent on air intake temps than the 2.0 on a percentage gained/lost basis.


"Special conditions" won't affect the new engine any differently than the old one. For sure they underrated the new car a little bit relative to old one. 101mph in the 1/4-mile for the new car vs. 95mph for the old one tells the story. New car makes ~20% more power vs. old. Which makes perfect sense as it has 20% more displacement and still makes peak power at the same 7000rpm as before. My stock '17 dynoed 179rwhp. New ones dyno ~210-215? Makes sense.

Don't even bother--I'm pretty sure he went quiet after realizing the new car is actually that much quicker.

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by alphasaur

Funny comparing those numbers with modern cars (stinger ~108 at 368hp, supra ~117 at 380 )

As we know, they are both known to be underrated as well.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by alphasaur

Funny comparing those numbers with modern cars (stinger ~108 at 368hp, supra ~117 at 380 )

Growing up in the 70s/80s, I was in awe of those old cars, particularly L88/L89/LS6 Corvettes and Hemi 'cuda. Then in the late-90s/early-00s I built up my 240Z with an NA 3.1 liter and it was pretty much as fast or faster than those cars in the 1/4-mile at 107mph

[MajorGerth]

Originally Posted by ZDan

The funny thing is, despite all the hype about them being "underrated", most of those old muscle cars were quite overrated for horsepower. "Gross horsepower" ratings were basically lies...

How were they overrated? The gross rating was the standard for the day. The only difference between gross and net is just that the accessories were added to the engine during the dyno test. Gross is still a very common way for aftermarket engine builders to advertise their engines. Arguing that gross horsepower is incorrect is the same as saying that net horsepower is incorrect and that wheel horsepower is the only true measure. They weren't overrated, they just used a different system.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by MajorGerth

How were they overrated? The gross rating was the standard for the day.

The "gross" rating was not standardized as far as I can tell. Generally it seems to be about a factor of 1.25x (!) above and beyond net flywheel horsepower.

It was supposedly the engine's performance with no parasitic loads and fully open intake and exhaust, in which case it is for sure at least a bit overrated relative to engine performance *as installed in actual functioning cars*. But IMO the claims went *way* beyond that. I mean, any decent air filter and exhaust even back in the day should not have been costing these cars *that* much power...

The only difference between gross and net is just that the accessories were added to the engine during the dyno test.

And also open exhaust and intake, no air filter or intake restrictions, no mufflage. Again, even ideally that is going to be a bit overrated vs. the engine as installed in the car.

Gross is still a very common way for aftermarket engine builders to advertise their engines.

That's fine, it's not practical for them to test engines in umpteen different intake/exhaust configurations. They have their standard setups for engine type and that's it.

Arguing that gross horsepower is incorrect is the same as saying that net horsepower is incorrect and that wheel horsepower is the only true measure. They weren't overrated, they just used a different system.

They were *definitely* overrated by some amount relative to what those engines made for power as-installed. In some applications by a LOT. For sure the idea (which has been around practically since they were introduced) that engines like the L88 and Hemi were *underrated* is 100% b.s. If you divide those particular "underrated" hp figures by 1.25 (or multiply by 0.8) you will come up with not-unreasonable net-hp numbers for them. The idea that their "gross" hp was underrated is absurd and is a myth that should have died a long long time ago.