![]() |
Originally Posted by aidandj
(Post 1342128)
Interesting. Do you have any run files?
|
Originally Posted by Pretending2koolz
(Post 1342132)
This is from a few weeks ago
|
I thought you were shooting for the 275whp range. Why am I looking at curves that aren't much better than my n/a motor's?
|
Originally Posted by Shortpersonbk
(Post 1341864)
10-20whp is literally nothing.....
2.5" to 3" was worth 300 rpm of spool and 20 hp on my old motor. --Ian |
Originally Posted by dasting
(Post 1342138)
I thought you were shooting for the 275whp range. Why am I looking at curves that aren't much better than my n/a motor's?
|
Your capriciousness is astounding!
Now that you've "proven" that a 3" exhaust makes no more power than a 2.5" exhaust, would you please debunk the thinking that a 1.8 is better than a 1.6? Do it for science. And for all the noobs that feel the urge to make the same claim. |
Originally Posted by codrus
(Post 1342144)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
2.5" to 3" was worth 300 rpm of spool and 20 hp on my old motor. --Ian Shit two dynos wont even read that close between each other. While the power is power..im just saying I highly doubt anyone would notice such a little amount thats like 1psi if that on a good happy turbo |
You are comparing a Mustang plot to a Dynojet plot. If you think we're going to take that comparison as proof of anything, you are going to have a bad day here.
|
Originally Posted by Pretending2koolz
(Post 1342147)
The thread was originally for a future build but it be came a 2.5" vs 3" thread
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 1342240)
You are comparing a Mustang plot to a Dynojet plot. If you think we're going to take that comparison as proof of anything, you are going to have a bad day here.
I know it sucks being wrong. I have been wrong before. But I'm willing to face the facts. I originally put 2.5" because of 3 reasons Bernoulli's principle. Coanda effect. Hot air is less dense. It's Physics bruh! |
Originally Posted by aidandj
(Post 1341489)
Alright. Here is a 2.5" vs 3" exhaust.
Only difference between these 2 runs was a 3" exhaust, 60psi base pressure (instead of 43.5), and about 10 track days and 10k street miles. Same dyno. I'm still missing some spool from EBC tuning. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1466989565 Give us real data. With boost levels, AFR and a plot that doesn't look like it was made with a potato. Until then you are still just blabbering. And yeah, it does suck to be wrong. As you are right now. |
I'm still trying to actually figure out what I'm looking at. It's not even potato photo quality, it's more like mashed potato.
Originally Posted by Shortpersonbk
(Post 1342194)
and in a real world application the DA outside will have more of an effect then 10-20 whp
Shit two dynos wont even read that close between each other. While the power is power..im just saying I highly doubt anyone would notice such a little amount thats like 1psi if that on a good happy turbo While I agree with the statement that dyno run variance can be as much as 5hp sometimes, if you were to apply that thinking to all Miata's, including n/a Miata's, then there's no point in modding at all. they don't pick up 50hp gobs of power like the other 2 engines mentioned. it's just counter productive and pointless. |
Believe what you want :)
|
I'm still waiting for 2 actual plots
|
Originally Posted by 18psi
(Post 1342268)
I'm still waiting for 2 actual plots
|
I mean from OP. I saw yours, and they are exactly what all of us already know/expect.
He posted potato diarrhea and somehow makes claims now. Why is the 2nd one cut off btw? Better not be trolling |
Originally Posted by 18psi
(Post 1342277)
I mean from OP. I saw yours, and they are exactly what all of us already know/expect.
He posted potato diarrhea and somehow makes claims now. Why is the 2nd one cut off btw? Better not be trolling I just screen shot the important stuff and posted it |
we can't even read the 1st one.
and the 2nd one is cut off. I mean, it's not like we're dying to see the info because we already know what reality is like (regardless of what it is for you/your car), but still.
Originally Posted by Pretending2koolz
(Post 1342257)
I certainly wish that were the case. Its a mustang dyno both times. Unless they are some kind of magicians. A huge blue above ground dyno that says "Mustang dyno" is kind of hard to confuse with anything else.
I know it sucks being wrong. I have been wrong before. But I'm willing to face the facts. I originally put 2.5" because of 3 reasons Bernoulli's principle. Coanda effect. Hot air is less dense. It's Physics bruh! |
So we can all agree facts are fact.
Fact is, people that want to agree with me, have what they need to agree with me. Fact is, people that won't agree with me, will never have what they need to agree with me. I could have the car dyno'd at 10:00 am Monday morning with my 2.5" log every bit of binary data that car puts out, pull it off install the 3" dyno it again at Noon logging all the same stats, and there will still be that guy that says,"Well it was warmer at noon than at 10:00 am so your test is invalid." |
Originally Posted by 18psi
(Post 1342277)
I mean from OP. I saw yours, and they are exactly what all of us already know/expect.
He posted potato diarrhea and somehow makes claims now. Why is the 2nd one cut off btw? Better not be trolling |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 AM. |
© 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands