We ended up pulling 7 hp worth of timing out of the final map for a margin of safety, so I'm putting down an uncorrected 240 RWHP (RHHP?) to the ground.
a short vid of one of the ramp runs:
and an oil leak I finally pinpointed, which Ben was kind enough to help fix when I stopped by Mazmart on the drive home:
Matt and Jerry at DIY are fantastic to do business with also, I must add. Matt did a couple mods to my PNP while Jerry and I got the car settled onto the dyno, and he was done in like 10 minutes! Fantastic.
The vBgarage gives a pretty good rundown of specs, but the gist is Greddy kit, turbo clocked, 22x9x3 FMIC (from Nester), MSPNP w/ 460cc injectors, diy dual feed rail, Begi DP, Enthuza 3" and custom Enthuza test pipe 2.5" - 3". Oh and the WGA is a Garrett unit from an FM1 kit.
I can post my .msq but I take zero responsibility if it's wrong for your engine! This tune was with 93 octane and my biggish intercooler. [EDIT - and I'm on HiRes 10G code..] I'll post it when I get home from work
CJ - I stopped by Mazmart and Ben let me find a bolt that would work, and the drive home was much less smelly than the drive there... I think the oil was leaking out, then burning off of the DP/exhaust going down the road.
I stopped by Mazmart and Ben let me find a bolt that would work, and the drive home was much less smelly than the drive there... I think the oil was leaking out, then burning off of the DP/exhaust going down the road.
So the oil leak went away? Well then I'm glad it was just that bolt and not the front crank seal. But that's damn scary how many people just remove that bolt and toss it when they pull A/C.
And for the record, since MazdaEPC doesn't show, if you take the A/C comp bracket off, you must replace this bolt with a shorter bolt to secure the oil pump.
FYI-- these numbers are 'SAE Corrected' just not 'Fudge Factor' corrected to boost anyone's ego.
So you guys know, on a DynaPack it's really easy to tell if there's a fudge factor being used (technical term in the DP software is a TC Factor for Torque Correction). To tell this look at your dyno plot, on the right side at the numbers. The Power and PowFly should equal one another. If PowFly is higher than Power then a TC Factor correction is being added. The only real legitimate use of this is to try and estimate what 'crank horsepower' a car would make, but you'd need to know the exact drivetrain losses as a percentage, and you're assuming that percentage is static under all loads, which likely isn't the case. I choose to leave it at 1.00 which is straight up, no correction.
If anyone is wondering, the reason the Torq reading is 4.10 times high than the TorqFly reading? You guessed it, that's the axle ratio on this car. TorqFly is the actual torque the dyno is measuring at the hubs, it then divides that by the axle's ratio to give you the number you're used to looking at. So yes, with the axle multiplying the torque, you're realistically putting 373.9 ft/lbs of tq down to the pavement at 1503 rpms....
Congrats Matt, I think that qualifies you for badass status.
btw- I bet half the miatas out there with a/c pulled are missing that bolt.
haha, maybe.. there are a lot of faster ones though for sure. which after driving this around a bit, seems kind of strange that someone would want more. I suppose I'll get there eventually but in the meanwhile this is brilliant!
I bet most are too, and are wondering where their oil leak is coming from..