kleetuz

iTrader: (2)

I don't have a scanner, but I have a crappy digital camera to get images and they were worthless... Any way, max Max power was 177.0 at 5900rpm and max torque was 170.0 at 5250rpms, torque was above150 from 3700 to 6200rpm and above 125 from 2500 to 6800. Elevation is 5300ft and corrected was 215hp.

Mods are Autozone Intake filter, racing beat full exhaust. There is a pretty bad exhaust leak right now, and boost creeps to about 8 psi. oh yeah and of course fcd. About 252fwhp These numbers seem to be what is expected.

Wankel7

Hum, I dunno man. You got 177 at drive wheels and est. 252 at flywheel. That is a 75hp loss through the drivetrain. That maybe a little much. What is the standard conversion?

Is it 30% loss?

James

No7Yet

I agree - your numbers are pretty low. I made 175rwhp stock in my 89 TII, and my buddy made 168rwhp stock in his 87 TII.

I'd start looking for problems.

Brandon

Ashitaka

that's pretty low numbers too, did you tune your car with and s-afc?
also, with turboback and cone, you should be higher than 8psi. expect 10psi with your mods.

Funklord

did you guys read the whole post
"Elevation is 5300ft and corrected was 215hp"

elevation and temperature make a big difference to HP numbers.

BlackFC

Yes, correction can make a large diff in the numbers, and even still was it SAE correction or STD for everyones numbers.


Daniel

Wankel7

Doh, I missed that part.

Intresting though, how much would you lose with a turbo car. Can not be nearly as much with a na car.

James

kleetuz

iTrader: (2)

RWHP was 215 corrected. And I assumed about 15% loss from the engine to the wheels to get the 252fwhp which would also be corrected.

Blowtus

my stock 88 t2 had peak torque much lower in the range... but then max power didn't get so high either.

madaz07

are they all your mods i had my car dyno tuned and i only got 210 rwhp but i think there is something wrong its running really rich and still has bad fuel ecconomy thinking it could be my tps but im open to suggestions??

LI FC Greg

You actually lose more HP with a non turbo car at higher elevations. The air is thin, and the NA car only take in air at atmospheric pressure so its screwed. The turbo, on the other hand, is pumping air into the engine which compensates to some degree for the thinner air. So, a turbo at high elevation is closer to a turbo at sea level than an NA at high elevation is to an NA at sea level.

Jerk_Racer

Calculating flywheel power with dynamic numbers that are assumed to be static is foolish. The only power number that matters is the one the makes it to the ground. Re-calculating to get a higher number just makes you feel better about yourself.

kleetuz

iTrader: (2)

My car was running a little rich too. After 2700 rpm it never went up above 11.9:1 A/F except a jump at 3800 when the secondaries came on and from there it just kept getting richer and richer until it fell off the chart at 6500rpm. What did you tune your fuel with? I am planning on just using an s-afc.

Also, calculating the flywheel power from dynamic numbers does help me feel better. It helps me to know that my car doesn't have some serious problems since the power estimates are close to what they should be. 182 hp + 59 hp (RB claim) + 10 hp (or so with a open intake).