damir130

Euro cars had the same issues hitting the advertised numbers as the US cars did. Pretty much every large dyno comparison done on the continent showed that the VVT cars were about 5-10hp down compared to 98-2000s (large club of cars all being strapped to the same dyno).

I think he's pretty close to the rental formula if you read between the lines, only missing the intake... not sure how much that is worth.

yossi126

iTrader: (6)

MAF delete, stock piping after cat. As for stock power, my car is 146 bhp at the crank. Only 155 cars are JDM/AUS.

As for the dyno, its reading compared to X dyno is irrelevant. There is a 40 hp gain as we used the same dyno.

emilio700

iTrader: (3)

Intake is significant as is the stock exhaust. On a Dynojet, that car would make about 135whp.

yossi126

iTrader: (6)

So you are saying a stock nb2 puts out 95 whp on a dynojet?

emilio700

iTrader: (3)

If that question is directed towards me, no. ~118whp is what we have seen on a 100% unmodified NB2 with a fresh engine on a Dynojet. USDM NB2 with I/H/E +ECU and pump gas, 135whp. About 144whp with a square top. Stock exhaust and stock airbox knock that down to about 135whp. So the OP's single result of 155whp is a long way from the results we have collected from the 40 or so NB2 engines we have dynoed. It may be accurate, it just doesn't align with our results.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

I keep trying to tell them that, but they're too stubborn to listen. Looks like they won't listen to Emilio either.
You're not picking up 40whp from a header and tune on a BP. There are bad results, there are good results, and then there are results that are clearly unrealistic. But I guess ignorance is bliss. Enjoy

yossi126

iTrader: (6)

Ok, so dyno is lying. I gave up.

elior77

It is a 110 to 149hp gain as the dyno operator point out.

I can ask him about the gear pull but I think it was done on the same gear...

Efini~FC3S

iTrader: (4)

And this is exactly why there were 200 views and no comments...

elior77

Look guys, I'm no kid and I'm taking this tuning buisiness seriously.

If something here is not right I would like to know about it and not just wave numbers pointlessly.

So please, I would like some valuable input, I can give any detail you can ask for.

The base is we did the pulls on the same dyno with the same car.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

-Was the baseline done on the same day?
-Were the dyno settings the same? correction factors, etc. ( I don't know how a dynapack gets set up, I only have dynojet and mustang dyno exp).

The bottom line is that the numbers just don't add up. 40whp is a lot of power, and an n/a miata isn't picking that up from just a header and tune. Modern OEM Turbo cars barely pick up that much power with a tune, let alone some dinky n/a bp.

elior77

I talked to the dyno operator, as you know the power reading is not 100% wheel, and at the bottom line we are talking about 10hp difference from what you expect.

The tune is right, the dyno is right and this are the numbers.

149.5hp @ 6850rpm @ the hubs,
137lb/ft @ 3750rpm

about 28lb/ft gain from stock.

Dynapack.

BTW
http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=548760

Efini~FC3S

iTrader: (4)

Ok, Church dyno referenced...

Now I know we're being trolled.

elior77

Instead of having a real discussion that all can benefit from we're having a **** fight like every time.

Maybe it is not the right place to post.

I just don't get it - or these are all kids ...

emilio700

iTrader: (3)

Take it easy there dude. Your data simply doesn't add up. I don't think anyone here thinks you are intentionally falsifying it. You simply didn't know the numbers were off. Now you know. That neither you nor any of us know why just creates confusion. Misplaced indignation on your part. We all have egos.

Likely culprit for the bad data is as Andrew inferred, dyno calibration. Before you get defensive, accept that the data you posted is corrupted by an error somewhere. Take your ego out of it and just look at the facts, like any good engineer will do. "Did I make a mistake?".

Besides all this banter about the final values, in the end who cares? Car runs great, it's healthy, life is good. Does it make Dynojet equivalent SAE 155whp with a header and tune, of course not. So put and exhaust and CAI on it, double check dyno calibration and do it again

18psi

iTrader: (76)

They post numbers that don't add up.
We call em like we see em, and take guesses as to why.
They call us names, and keep trash talking this place, the whole time pretending to want to have a civil discussion.
.....I mean

yossi126

iTrader: (6)

Emilio, you said on that Ebruner thread on m.net that his setup is" 146whp corrected. Add rb header to 4-6whp."
That's exactly what I got.
Did you ever had a randall intake on your dyno? How is it worse than the k&n typhoon you are selling? I am constantly seeing 20c degrees lower than a fellow friend with a k&n.
I had a racing beat exhaust, didn't count for anything apart from obnoxious sound

emilio700

iTrader: (3)

I think you missed a few details I mentioned earlier in this thread. The dyno in the OP still has the factory airbox and MAF. The Randall doesn't increase airflow, it just lowers the temp of the air reaching the airbox. Problem is the plastic crossover tube heats it back up. The 90° turn from the airbox to MAF is the point of the highest pressure drop in the OEM system. This is not a guess but something we have observed in our testing. Net gain from the Randall is minimal if any, because the rest of the OEM stuff remains. Deleting the airbox and MAF are key ingredients to making N/A power. The exhaust and cat delete are needed to reach 150whp on a stock long block. Again, not conjecture but literally hundreds of dyno runs over the last 10 years.

So it's clear, I don't intend to argue with you over the gains of each specific mod. You're missing the point entirely. Your data contains errors. So 10 more posts arguing that it's valid will fall on deaf ears, and on this forum, maybe get you penalized for being so hard headed.

Data contains errors. Work on that assumption and you will find grace.

hector

I know this thread is kinda dead but check out the following images. I'm not saying this is what's going on with you but maybe.





So the blue line dyno was done on a nice day no doubt. The red line dyno was your typical South Florida day. Either way one thing is for sure: the hygrometer is not reading correctly as there is no way in hell that we had 6% humidity or even 40% humidity on the hot day. Not gonna happen.

Then the fact that SAE correction went less than 100%. How can an engine make less than what it made on an ideal day?

So as much as I would love to use the STD correction factor I just can't see it being 4% more. Again, I'm in South Florida at sea level; look at the barometer readings which actually seem to be reliable. A 4% correction factor for 93* air temp and 40% humidity is not something I'm willing to believe in.

So I go by uncorrected as much as a heartbreaker as it might be. This may not be your situation and you are forced to use correction factors to gauge your numbers to other people's. I know altitude plays a major factor with N/A engines. But for a true comparison try and use uncorrected and see if anything changes in your dyno plot.

On my example it goes from a 7hp peak gain and basically a 5tq loss almost everywhere below 6k in uncorrected to a 15hp peak gain and no loss of torque anywhere with correction.

elior77

All in all if both dyno run were done with the same setup the delta is what it is - right ?