Dyno and LOTS of Data Analysis!

[Strat_FRS]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

I don't buy that this dyno reads 14% lower than a Dynojet either. Mustang dynos read whatever the operator wants..That tuned Gen1 would be making over 200whp on pump gas if that was the case and the Gen2 245whp which doesn't happen on Dynojets... It reads like a Mustang dyno calibrated to deliver result similar to a Dynojet with SAE correction factor.

The dyno does not read what the operator wants. There is no way to skew the result or scale it using the holeshot software we use. The only thing you can do is skew the load loss calibration by running it in gear for adding to the drivetrain drag. However this was not the case. Both cars were run on the same day using the same prep process without any scaling.



Yes the turbo FRS was done in the summer with warmer temperature and yes it wasn't the strongest performer especially given our fuel quality. IF SAE correction was applied you would see a bigger gap but I left the numbers uncorrected on all vehicles. What you are seeing there is how knock resistance can really come into play when you have a high compression motor and add boost to it without having enough octane. Higher octane would have made a significant difference in that case.

[Sport-Tech]

@Strat_FRS, would you have a baseline run from a non-tuned 1st gen on the same dyno you could post for comparison? Or post a link to a before/after on the FRS mods/tune?

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by alphasaur

While the turbo does look weak, a reasonably tuned SC/Turbo gen 1 is ~260-280whp. If the gen2 can hit 230-240whp with minor mods for me it makes a FI gen 1 a hard argument to make when you also look at the worse reliability profile.

Ok, I understand you were speaking for your particular scenario now. For myself, a owning a SC'd paid off Gen1, hoping back into dept for the same car with less power that has to be modded again would be a poor choice. BUT of course our situations are different! If I had a nearly stock Gen1 and only a could years into payments I could easily see making the leap. Well I'd move up class to Zupra or M2 but you see what I mean.lol

[Sport-Tech]

Found a Mustang dyno graph for a stock 2013 BRZ on Perrin's site that gives 164 whp and 142 torques. http://https://www.perrin.com/blog/p...z-dyno-testing
So compared to the 214/175 found for the gen 2, the latter shows a 30% gain in peak wheel hp and a 23% gain in max torque. Not on the same dyno of course, and the refreshed twins did get 5 more hp.

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Found a Mustang dyno graph for a stock 2013 BRZ on Perrin's site that gives 164 whp and 142 torques. http://https://www.perrin.com/blog/p...z-dyno-testing
So compared to the 214/175 found for the gen 2, the latter shows a 30% gain in peak wheel hp and a 23% gain in max torque. Not on the same dyno of course, and the refreshed twins did get 5 more hp.

What was the correction factor? None, STD, SAE? They aren't comparable at all..

[Sport-Tech]

Use of a correction factor won't make a huge percentage difference here with such a large gen 1 to gen 2 gap, but I fully agree stock gen 1 data from the same dyno run in the same conditions, uncorrected, would be the best comparison by far, which is why I asked the OP to post that if available.

[nikitopo]

Don't want to comment about the dyno numbers, but air-fuel ratio in new engine looks to be optimal and exactly the same with what some 1st gen tuned cars are running. Not the rich air-fuel ratio they had with the factory tune. Of course, engine temperatures will be another story. Sometimes I have a feeling that the 2.0lt engine was held a bit back and had a conservative tune, because of reliability concerns raised by Toyota. This time looks to be more confident or it will be easier to stick the finger to Subaru in case of future issues (<- your engine! ).

[Strat_FRS]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Use of a correction factor won't make a huge percentage difference here with such a large gen 1 to gen 2 gap, but I fully agree stock gen 1 data from the same dyno run in the same conditions, uncorrected, would be the best comparison by far, which is why I asked the OP to post that if available.

We are doing some more testing here and will showcase more gen1/gen2 parts and differences. This will shed more light on the situation.


The only correction you can do using the Holeshot software is SAE. STD is a often used on the dynojet as it reads 3-4% higher than SAE.

[Jianlun]

I would have thought the catless Borla would be worth something at the top end vs the stock catted dp, even though the runners are a tiny bit smaller. Maybe the AFRs are super out of whack at the top end?

Keep em coming Strat_FRS!!!!

[alex87f]

I'd be very interested to see whether using FA24 headers nets any interesting gains on an FA20.

In places like here where aftermarket parts can cause issues with your insurance, having a completely stock looking header would definitely help.

[Pete]

Without a tune, just the headers alone pretty much got rid of the torque dip completely. I can't wait to see what some 2022 model optimized headers with a tune will do. Come on ecutek! Those are the exact same Borla headers I had on my 2013, and they were great at the time but within a few years after that there were much better performing headers out there.

It didn't sound too loud either, @Strat_FRS is it possible for you to get some sound clips with headers and stock exhaust? Thanks for the work you've already done. I subbed to your channel, and I'm dropping likes on your vids.

That's the setup I will probably have (headers+stock headerback) because I don't want it to be crazy loud this time, but do want the mid range gains from a good set of headers.

[Strat_FRS]

Originally Posted by alex87f

I'd be very interested to see whether using FA24 headers nets any interesting gains on an FA20.

In places like here where aftermarket parts can cause issues with your insurance, having a completely stock looking header would definitely help.

You read my mind. This is next on the list so stay tuned. We will optimize the gen2 stock and gen1 stock headers via tuning on the gen1 car and since we've already done this for the Borlas you will see exactly how they stack up.

Originally Posted by Pete

Without a tune, just the headers alone pretty much got rid of the torque dip completely. I can't wait to see what some 2022 model optimized headers with a tune will do. Come on ecutek! Those are the exact same Borla headers I had on my 2013, and they were great at the time but within a few years after that there were much better performing headers out there.

It didn't sound too loud either, @Strat_FRS is it possible for you to get some sound clips with headers and stock exhaust? Thanks for the work you've already done. I subbed to your channel, and I'm dropping likes on your vids.

That's the setup I will probably have (headers+stock headerback) because I don't want it to be crazy loud this time, but do want the mid range gains from a good set of headers.

Thanks for the sub. You get a bit more growl with the headers but cold start sounds tinny due to cat warmup procedure. The sound is not too great - I think something like a Perrin catback and turning off the sound enhancer will be the sweet spot here.

[Jucostud]

Awesome info again Alex! Thank you, and keep it coming!

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by Strat_FRS

We are doing some more testing here and will showcase more gen1/gen2 parts and differences. This will shed more light on the situation.


The only correction you can do using the Holeshot software is SAE. STD is a often used on the dynojet as it reads 3-4% higher than SAE.

Thank you for doing all this.