A 2wd analog dyno dynamics.

 

And what was a baseline for a stock motor? What percent gain had you registered after turbo and tune?


Different dyno types read differently. Dynapack is bolted on the wheels. It removes inertia from a wheel or roller and eliminates rolling resistance and tire slip. Other dynos will apply resistance differently, using eddy brakes or other schemes.

I dynoed at 402whp on a Dyno Dynamics (the "heart breaker"), supposedly the two Dynojets ("dream makers") in the area would read 10% higher. If I run on a Dynojet, do I magically gain 40hp? Not really, it's just a different tool. Dynapack may read even higher than the Dynojet. In the end each one will be calibrated differently so it's best to compare against another vehicle on the same dyno.

You seem to be after a particular number. Try a different dyno and report back?

I just wish my powerband would climb after 5500 like Sav's. I don't need numbers to appreciate those curves.

 

Based on the numbers, the DW300 should do 400whp easily at 65psi on E85, assuming you don't have something else going on, like voltage drop from small gauge wire or some other flow restriction in the system.

ID says you can get the 1300s to idle nicely on pump gas, but the 1700s are too big to do that.

 

Just saying "all US dynos read high" is far too broad a statement to back up with fact or logic. Go find a Dynojet down there, I bet it reads the same or similar to a Dynojet in the US. If it's a load-cell dyno, the raw numbers matter little.

As far as the 70whp, it's a different dyno and a different turbo. Could also be some other differences in the setup you're overlooking. I have been doing this for a long time, and this was a long, detail-oriented build. Post a different thread about your car and I'll tell you why you are so far off.

 

When are we going to see pics of mounted Mickey Thompsons and time slips?

 

US citizens have more disposable income than Australian citizens.

US households consume more electricity than Australian households.

US dynos read higher than Australian dynos.


You guys are being pendants in order to avoid answering.

Dann

 

...I'm done

 

Behold! Primitive Miata turbo tuner:

 

I think there is a miscommunication here about the tone of Dan's post. Don't know if you guys have spoken to him in person at all, but he talks too fast, and is enthusiastic and excitable about these little cars. It is my perception that some US members feel Dan has called them out over dyno numbers, but if you know Dan, talking about a "huge fuc*ing gap" is not calling out, but simply asking where the motor he is working on is coming up short.

Could the question have been asked better? Of course. Were his responses clipped and spiky? Yep. So Dan has paid the price - fair enough. BUT - was the original question well-answered? Perhaps not. As far as I read it, Andrew's answer was basically that it's the EFR turbo, other "little things", and experience. But for guys like us on the a$$-end of the world trying to build strong cars too, that answer doesn't help much.

While it is technically possible I suppose, I don't find it plausible that the direct-competitor Gen II GTX is THAT much worse than the EFR. So I wonder what else it might be? It could be the case that Andrew has some secret voodoo ceremony that is performed on all his blocks that he doesn't want to divulge - and it would be completely fine if he said "I do something special to the blocks that I'm not gonna tell you". At least that way we would know to stop looking.

Mine is of one of about 3 Australian cars I know of who are currently modelling their builds on Andrew's Acamas, and I'm incredibly grateful for the information. But as these cars complete their builds, we might be looking at a significant gap in power between Acamas and the Oz cars, a gap that we need some advice to solve. If it is actually the case that the competitor GTX is 70hp down on the EFR, then holy cow, wouldn't that be an interesting and useful finding for the community!

It would be good if we could keep this as a "Science" forum, not a forum of emotions, and just directly compare the way 2 almost identical powerplants perform. Mine goes on the dyno in about 3 weeks time, so I hope that if it comes up short of Acamas, someone might be patient enough to look at a detailed spec & settings list, and use their experience to offer a hypothesis to explain the differential. I'm not sure that was done just now

 

I reckon Psyber could have it pegged (post 122 above) - there is a difference between a hub dyno and a roller. So now I'm adding up:
- GTX vs EFR turbo
- hp measured at the wheels vs measured at the hub
- Andrew's considerable experience & attention to detail
- plus a couple of smaller secrets,

Now those things could start adding up to 70 perhaps? Still not clear on their proportionality though...

 

The manifold is different as well... At higher power levels, especially, these things start making a difference. Differences in fuel quality, timing, etc are also amplified. Pretty sure they're not running the same exhaust. Even if they're both straight piped, the way the piping is set up will make a difference at these levels. There's just so much going on.

I just interpreted Dan's tone as incredulous. That's about it.

If you guys wanted a good comparison, just compare 1/4 or 1/2 mile times. The numbers don't mean much in absolutes.

 

A dynapack on the latest software/firmware and your standard Dynojet that everyone likes to use as the golden standard are REALLY close.

I actually dyno'd 5WHP higher on a dynojet roller than I do on a dynapack hub dyno and I only make 133WHP (dynojet). Pulls were done one day apart with pretty much identical weather.

 

I was hoping to be able to provide two data points: one on a Dyno Dynamics and the other on a Dynojet. But my clutch slipped up. After break in, hopefully I'll post an update. From what I gather, Dyno Dynamics generally read lowest of dynos.

Full disclosure, dyno dynamics is an Australian company.

 

Not really. There's no logic behind the statement "all US dynos read higher than all Australian dynos". The location does not change the readings. If there are no Dynojets in AU, then that's one thing, but then we're talking about a difference in dyno brands, not a difference that's inherent to location. Arguing otherwise is stupid. Calling people pedants for disagreeing with you is quite stupid. Calling me a pedant in my thread where we're talking about my dyno results is a good way to get banned.

He could have chosen to post a dyno chart, I could have calculated BMEP based on his torque vs. boost and told him whether the dyno read high, or if there were another issue, but he chose to ******* whinge about it instead. Not our fault.

Let's talking about something else now.

 

there's a dynojet near him (2hrs?) I looked it up years ago when he was posting his 325rwhp 1.6L on a gt2560.

 

Central Colorado does skew the US results a bit.

 

Hey Andrew, where did you get the original quick connect fittings you were going to use on the FPR before you decided to run the AN hose?

Were you going to make new quick connect nylon lines?

 

I got a box of Dorman 800-081.5 90* QD's that I used to for my VVT swap. I only used one. Hit me up if you want one. I'll pop it in the post.

***edit** ok, prolly not what you're asking. Offer stands.

 

As an European, i can relate to Nitro comments. Our dynos definitly don't relate, WHP wise. Our dynos seem to read acordingly with mustang dynos.

 

I was just trying to change the subject, I am wondering about -6AN radius o ring to quick connect fittings.

Besides we all know everything is upside down in Oz, that's why oil flows better to the head through that tiny orifice there. Maybe all that extra windage in the valve cover is slowing you guys down Although Mx5psi doesn't seem to have that problem.