4B11 dyno list - Page 2

Kooldino · Jul 20, 2007, 09:15 AM

Never head of that type of Dyno. How does it compare to a DynoJet?

**Blacksheepdj** · Jul 20, 2007, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kooldino

Never head of that type of Dyno. How does it compare to a DynoJet?

Who are you asking? Helps to quote the person you're referring to.

**Blacksheepdj** · Jul 28, 2007, 02:02 PM

And we have our first member to dyno his car!

Sorry for the lack of details, but I want to make sure there's permission first.

SeRious08 · Jul 28, 2007, 02:18 PM

Its me. And it looks as if the Mitsu 153 hp rating is right on the money (given the 15-20% drivetrain lost). I will going to another dyno from a different shop to compare the numbers. All pulls were done in 4th gear. I still think something may have been wrong with the dyno though. The first pull was only 111 hp!!

Then it jumped to 123. Does that sound odd to anyone else????

The important thing to take note is that the tq no longer falls on its face at the 5000 rmp mark. It keeps pulling all the way to redline (6500).

**Blacksheepdj** · Jul 28, 2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeRious08

I still think something may have been wrong with the dyno though. The first pull was only 111 hp!!

Then it jumped to 123. Does that sound odd to anyone else????

Sounds normal to me. Dynoes are not an exact science. They just cause a million arguments over the numbers.

Cheers for being the first to get it done.

I'm still waiting for my friend to hook me up with a cheap run...

SeRious08 · Jul 28, 2007, 02:26 PM

Don't worry, more testing to come.

mezzedupdream · Jul 28, 2007, 02:52 PM

Sorry but im kind of a newb... So what was the increase?

SeRious08 · Jul 28, 2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeRious08

The important thing to take note is that the tq no longer falls on its face at the 5000 rmp mark. It keeps pulling all the way to redline (6500).

^^

LancerGTS · Jul 28, 2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeRious08

The important thing to take note is that the tq no longer falls on its face at the 5000 rmp mark. It keeps pulling all the way to redline (6500).

You are comparing your dyno to this one correct:

First realize something: Your dyno on the y axis covers 40 - 140, while the other covers 0 - 200.

I am not seeing the original one fall on its face at 5000. You have a wider spread on the Y axis which gives it a bit more ground to cover so it only looks like it is taking a huge drop.

Both dynos start to significantly drop at 5500 and once again, yours has a smaller Y axis to cover so it drops at a slower angle, but generally in the same fashion that the original one does.

SeRious08 · Jul 28, 2007, 08:22 PM

Here we go....

This is the main reason why I didn't want to post these numbers until they were verified. If anyone, ANYONE, doubts that this thing pulls harder and runs faster, I challenge you to come to Texas and I will let you drive the car or I will run you in your stock Lancer. Period.

LancerGTS · Jul 28, 2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeRious08

Here we go....

This is the main reason why I didn't want to post these numbers until they were verified. If anyone, ANYONE, doubts that this thing pulls harder and runs faster, I challenge you to come to Texas and I will let you drive the car or I will run you in your stock Lancer. Period.

All I am talking about are the two dyno sheets and what you were comparing about torque. Im trying to find out what you meant by the torque falling on its face. You said something and from what I see I cant agree with you. Can you show me what I may have missed?

SeRious08 · Jul 28, 2007, 09:07 PM

My tq flatlines longer after it peaks. The other falls continuously.

LancerGTS · Jul 28, 2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeRious08

My tq flatlines longer after it peaks. The other falls continuously.

Ok yeah from 4500 to 4900 you are right, it stay flat compared to the other where it stays flat 4300 to 4500.

Also when you mentioned peak, your sheet peaks later than the other dyno.

Jake26 · Jul 28, 2007, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeRious08

Here we go....

This is the main reason why I didn't want to post these numbers until they were verified. If anyone, ANYONE, doubts that this thing pulls harder and runs faster, I challenge you to come to Texas and I will let you drive the car or I will run you in your stock Lancer. Period.

hahahhahahahahha hahahahhahahaha

madfast · Jul 28, 2007, 11:20 PM

is that chart a baseline or after the piggy? one chart without the other is plain useless. we all know cars will get different ratings even on the same dyno.

possibly the lancer lent to evom was a bit more powerful like some press cars are known to be??? even with the new sae hp ratings 140 whp seemed quite high. especially when you consider that every review talks about how weak the engine is and i don't think a 140 whp car would feel that weak, cvt or not. now 123 whp is more inline with the factory hp rating and with what the reviews have been saying.