Glad to hear the magical spinning dorito is working good now under boost.
As far as the title goes, I've got a firm grasp on my title! ..............for the lowest..........
UPDATE!
-
Huzer21
The numbers I got 255hp and 307tq were CORRECTED numbers that RP explained for us how to calculate on the Dyno Thread. I calculated the numbers using the correct math, my bad if they were incorrect. Just giving Ghost shit about the so called "Title". Those of us that were actually there at Dyno Day were having fun about the whole thing. It was a mission to break even the 200 mark. Believe me I know there are PLENTY of other quick Mazdas out there. Ghost might pull bigger HP numbers than me in the end but I'll still rape him on the highway from a roll... Torque FTW! 
2007 Mazdaspeed3 Sport</span>
-Mazdaspeed Short Ram Intake
-HKS SSQV Bov
-Tein S-Tech Springs
-225/40/18 Nitto Neo Gen Tires on RX-8 Wheels
<span style="color:#FF0000">http://www.JTuned.com
-Mazdaspeed Short Ram Intake
-HKS SSQV Bov
-Tein S-Tech Springs
-225/40/18 Nitto Neo Gen Tires on RX-8 Wheels
<span style="color:#FF0000">http://www.JTuned.com
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MS3_Mafia @ Mar 11 2008, 10:13 AM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=31567]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>
That is what I figured. I wasn't giving you shit just wondering because I'd be scared if that wasn't corrected
And you never give a rotary a roll. People always make that mistake
The numbers I got 255hp and 307tq were CORRECTED numbers that RP explained for us how to calculate on the Dyno Thread. I calculated the numbers using the correct math, my bad if they were incorrect. Just giving Ghost shit about the so called "Title". Lol He might pull bigger HP numbers than me but I'll still rape him on the highway from a roll... Torque FTW!
That is what I figured. I wasn't giving you shit just wondering because I'd be scared if that wasn't corrected
And you never give a rotary a roll. People always make that mistake [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Mods:
Veilside D1-GT Body kit, Axailflow Short Shifter, Innovate LC-1 Wideband, Proshift Gauges, Greddy Turbo Kit w/ Cobb AccessPORT, TurboXS exhaust w/ race pipe, CarPC, Synapse BOV, AEM Intake
Mods:
Veilside D1-GT Body kit, Axailflow Short Shifter, Innovate LC-1 Wideband, Proshift Gauges, Greddy Turbo Kit w/ Cobb AccessPORT, TurboXS exhaust w/ race pipe, CarPC, Synapse BOV, AEM Intake
-
RX-7 Chris
- Posts: 7800
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:14
- Location: Colorado Springs
- Contact:
How much does an 8 weigh?
1984 RX-7 GSL-SE [size=84]My restomod project[/SIZE]
1964 Ford Galaxie 500XL flat black w/ white interior, 2 dr fastback, 390 thunderbird, C6 auto, 2500 rpm high stall converter, shift kit, AC, Holley 750 cfm
[size=100]RIP 1983 RX-7[/SIZE]
My Car Blog
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RX-7 Chris @ Mar 11 2008, 10:18 AM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=31569]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>
Curb weight is 3053lbs. Gross weight is 3810lbs. Why do you ask?
How much does an 8 weigh?[/b]
Curb weight is 3053lbs. Gross weight is 3810lbs. Why do you ask?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Mods:
Veilside D1-GT Body kit, Axailflow Short Shifter, Innovate LC-1 Wideband, Proshift Gauges, Greddy Turbo Kit w/ Cobb AccessPORT, TurboXS exhaust w/ race pipe, CarPC, Synapse BOV, AEM Intake
Mods:
Veilside D1-GT Body kit, Axailflow Short Shifter, Innovate LC-1 Wideband, Proshift Gauges, Greddy Turbo Kit w/ Cobb AccessPORT, TurboXS exhaust w/ race pipe, CarPC, Synapse BOV, AEM Intake
-
RX-7 Chris
- Posts: 7800
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:14
- Location: Colorado Springs
- Contact:
I was just trying to compare it to my car.
1984 RX-7 GSL-SE [size=84]My restomod project[/SIZE]
1964 Ford Galaxie 500XL flat black w/ white interior, 2 dr fastback, 390 thunderbird, C6 auto, 2500 rpm high stall converter, shift kit, AC, Holley 750 cfm
[size=100]RIP 1983 RX-7[/SIZE]
My Car Blog
-
RX-7 Chris
- Posts: 7800
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:14
- Location: Colorado Springs
- Contact:
The stock Curb Weight: 2,345 lbs (thanks to http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedwa.../firstgen.html)
but I think I have lost at least 100 lbs.
Do you know anyone around here who can weigh a car for cheap? In GJ we used to do to the gravel yard to weigh our cars for $2.
but I think I have lost at least 100 lbs.
Do you know anyone around here who can weigh a car for cheap? In GJ we used to do to the gravel yard to weigh our cars for $2.
1984 RX-7 GSL-SE [size=84]My restomod project[/SIZE]
1964 Ford Galaxie 500XL flat black w/ white interior, 2 dr fastback, 390 thunderbird, C6 auto, 2500 rpm high stall converter, shift kit, AC, Holley 750 cfm
[size=100]RIP 1983 RX-7[/SIZE]
My Car Blog
-
ZoomPrincess
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2782
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:14
- Location: Aurora, CO
- Contact:
-
arctic_blue83
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MS3_Mafia @ Mar 11 2008, 09:13 AM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=31567]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>
You misunderstood what RP was trying to say. 207whp was CORRECTED for a TURBO car on their Dyno Dynamics.
He gave you a formula to calculated what your dyno numbers would be on a DYNOJET, with a FULL correction factor that would only be remotely accurate for a naturally aspirated on a Dynojet, i.e. MAC's highly overinflated dyno. At MAC, they don't use 2 different correction factors, like just about every other shop in Colorado does, they only use a standard correction factor that would apply to naturally aspirated cars.... in other words, using their (MAC's) correction factor might display fairly accurate numbers for what a Naturally Aspirated car would see at sea level, but using their CF for turbo cars at this altitude produces HIGHLY inflated numbers. 255-258whp for a near stock Speed3 (CAI & BOV)... lol... at sea level, with no correction factor, even on a high reading Dynojet, you wouldn't see those numbers.
So, basically, 255whp isn't a "corrected" number, to calculate for altitude loss, it's OVER-CORRECTED because your car is turbocharged. Take a look at the NHRA's correction factor table for 1/4 mile ET's and trap speeds:
http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
Notice where it says the following:
"NOTE: Supercharged and/or turbocharged cars (i.e.: AA/A, AA/AT, BB/A, BB/AT, A/PM and AA/PM) use half factor;"
Let's do the math here.... there are various arguments as to drivetrain loss, but for manual equipped vehicles, there are claims of various drivetrain configurations soaking up variable percentages of power from the engine to the wheels. This is widely debated, but for most 2WD vehicles, it's accepted that the drivetrain will take up anywhere from 14-18% power on a manual transmission equipped vehicle. That's approximate, as it's hard to give an exact number, due to the various amount of components, sizes, weights ect of things like gears, differentials, half shalfts, driveshafts, hubs, wheels ect. This is why some claim Dyno Dynamics read a little low... or some claim drivetrain losses are higher, and that dyno's like DD's are accurate if you calculate larger drivetrain losses, but on a Dynojet, typically for a 2WD car, 14-18% is pretty accepted.
Since those are pretty accepted numbers on a Dynojet, we'll examine what your car should in theory be making at the crank based on calculated Dynojet numbers. I calculated, on a Dynojet, at sea level, with no correction factors, your car should be making about 234hp at the wheels. If you correct, with 14-18% to find what you should be making at the crank, we'll use simple 1.14-1.18 multiplying factors to try to find what you should be making at the crank... that would mean, at the crank, at sea level, you should be making anywhere from 266-276 horsepower at the crank prior to drivetrain loss. Judging by the fact that your car seems to be a tad bit stronger than your "average" Speed3, that power claim seems just about right.
Now, using the 255whp claim, with the same simple formula, it would put your car at making between 290-300 horsepower at the crank prior to drivetrain loss.... 27-37 horsepower gain (based on Mazda's 263bhp claim) with just an intake and BOV? Hahahahaha, snow balls chance in hell.
Things get a bit trickier when dealing with AWD/4WD vehicles. Power is not only soaked up by gears, but is also soaked up by a Transfer Case, 2 differentials (as opposed to one in a FWD/RWD car), 4 half shafts (opposed to 2), a driveshaft (FWD cars don't have "driveshafts" per se), 4 wheels/tires/hubs (opposed to 2) ect. This makes it a little tough to calculate drivetrain losses, but most people say on a Dynojet, an AWD car should lose from 18-25% power through drivetrain loss. Using the exact same formula I used in the post above, if your average 04-06 STI puts down 215-225whp on RP's dyno, we'll go with 220whp, which when multiplied by .885 (on average, temp, humidity, baro ect always come into play, so it's hard to be exact) to find the uncorrected wheel horsepower, you end up with 194whp.
Now, if you want to use the over-inflated full correction for a turbo car on a Dynojet, the 1.41 CF would put that same STI at making around 273whp on MAC's dyno (which is typical for an STI on their dyno)... now, factor in drivetrain loss of 18-25% for an AWD car, that would mean a stock STI *should* be making about 322-341 horsepower at the crank... you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that's bullshit. Yet, if you use the method I used earlier, to find corrected numbers for a TURBO car at this altitude, taking away the extra .13 from the 1.41, essentially, making it a half/turbo CF to convert uncorrected Dyno Dynamics numbers to half/turbo corrected (read: accurate) Dynojet numbers, you would take 194whp and multiply it by 1.28 CF, which would give you 248whp.
Take that 248whp, and calculate for drivetrain loss, so the same 1.18-1.25 CF for an AWD car, and you'll come up with 292-310 horsepower at the crank. Which is right about in line with Subaru's claimed 300bhp.
Cliff notes: 1.41 CF would work just fine to convert uncorrected Dyno Dynamics numbers to fully corrected Dynojet numbers on Naturally Aspirated cars at this high altitude. For turbo cars, it's a joke, and in no way accurate of what your car should really be making at the wheels at sea level, even on a Dynojet. As altitude increases, turbochargers help to make up for the loss in air pressure, as they compress air, hense why they don't need the same correction factors due to altitude. It's a "gray" area, filled with lots of "fuzzy logic", but suffice to say, as altitude increases, turbo cars only lose approximately half the power NA cars lose.
The numbers I got 255hp and 307tq were CORRECTED numbers that RP explained for us how to calculate on the Dyno Thread. I calculated the numbers using the correct math, my bad if they were incorrect. Just giving Ghost shit about the so called "Title". Those of us that were actually there at Dyno Day were having fun about the whole thing. It was a mission to break even the 200 mark. Believe me I know there are PLENTY of other quick Mazdas out there. Ghost might pull bigger HP numbers than me in the end but I'll still rape him on the highway from a roll... Torque FTW!
You misunderstood what RP was trying to say. 207whp was CORRECTED for a TURBO car on their Dyno Dynamics.
He gave you a formula to calculated what your dyno numbers would be on a DYNOJET, with a FULL correction factor that would only be remotely accurate for a naturally aspirated on a Dynojet, i.e. MAC's highly overinflated dyno. At MAC, they don't use 2 different correction factors, like just about every other shop in Colorado does, they only use a standard correction factor that would apply to naturally aspirated cars.... in other words, using their (MAC's) correction factor might display fairly accurate numbers for what a Naturally Aspirated car would see at sea level, but using their CF for turbo cars at this altitude produces HIGHLY inflated numbers. 255-258whp for a near stock Speed3 (CAI & BOV)... lol... at sea level, with no correction factor, even on a high reading Dynojet, you wouldn't see those numbers.
So, basically, 255whp isn't a "corrected" number, to calculate for altitude loss, it's OVER-CORRECTED because your car is turbocharged. Take a look at the NHRA's correction factor table for 1/4 mile ET's and trap speeds:
http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/altitude.html
Notice where it says the following:
"NOTE: Supercharged and/or turbocharged cars (i.e.: AA/A, AA/AT, BB/A, BB/AT, A/PM and AA/PM) use half factor;"
Let's do the math here.... there are various arguments as to drivetrain loss, but for manual equipped vehicles, there are claims of various drivetrain configurations soaking up variable percentages of power from the engine to the wheels. This is widely debated, but for most 2WD vehicles, it's accepted that the drivetrain will take up anywhere from 14-18% power on a manual transmission equipped vehicle. That's approximate, as it's hard to give an exact number, due to the various amount of components, sizes, weights ect of things like gears, differentials, half shalfts, driveshafts, hubs, wheels ect. This is why some claim Dyno Dynamics read a little low... or some claim drivetrain losses are higher, and that dyno's like DD's are accurate if you calculate larger drivetrain losses, but on a Dynojet, typically for a 2WD car, 14-18% is pretty accepted.
Since those are pretty accepted numbers on a Dynojet, we'll examine what your car should in theory be making at the crank based on calculated Dynojet numbers. I calculated, on a Dynojet, at sea level, with no correction factors, your car should be making about 234hp at the wheels. If you correct, with 14-18% to find what you should be making at the crank, we'll use simple 1.14-1.18 multiplying factors to try to find what you should be making at the crank... that would mean, at the crank, at sea level, you should be making anywhere from 266-276 horsepower at the crank prior to drivetrain loss. Judging by the fact that your car seems to be a tad bit stronger than your "average" Speed3, that power claim seems just about right.
Now, using the 255whp claim, with the same simple formula, it would put your car at making between 290-300 horsepower at the crank prior to drivetrain loss.... 27-37 horsepower gain (based on Mazda's 263bhp claim) with just an intake and BOV? Hahahahaha, snow balls chance in hell.
Things get a bit trickier when dealing with AWD/4WD vehicles. Power is not only soaked up by gears, but is also soaked up by a Transfer Case, 2 differentials (as opposed to one in a FWD/RWD car), 4 half shafts (opposed to 2), a driveshaft (FWD cars don't have "driveshafts" per se), 4 wheels/tires/hubs (opposed to 2) ect. This makes it a little tough to calculate drivetrain losses, but most people say on a Dynojet, an AWD car should lose from 18-25% power through drivetrain loss. Using the exact same formula I used in the post above, if your average 04-06 STI puts down 215-225whp on RP's dyno, we'll go with 220whp, which when multiplied by .885 (on average, temp, humidity, baro ect always come into play, so it's hard to be exact) to find the uncorrected wheel horsepower, you end up with 194whp.
Now, if you want to use the over-inflated full correction for a turbo car on a Dynojet, the 1.41 CF would put that same STI at making around 273whp on MAC's dyno (which is typical for an STI on their dyno)... now, factor in drivetrain loss of 18-25% for an AWD car, that would mean a stock STI *should* be making about 322-341 horsepower at the crank... you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that's bullshit. Yet, if you use the method I used earlier, to find corrected numbers for a TURBO car at this altitude, taking away the extra .13 from the 1.41, essentially, making it a half/turbo CF to convert uncorrected Dyno Dynamics numbers to half/turbo corrected (read: accurate) Dynojet numbers, you would take 194whp and multiply it by 1.28 CF, which would give you 248whp.
Take that 248whp, and calculate for drivetrain loss, so the same 1.18-1.25 CF for an AWD car, and you'll come up with 292-310 horsepower at the crank. Which is right about in line with Subaru's claimed 300bhp.
Cliff notes: 1.41 CF would work just fine to convert uncorrected Dyno Dynamics numbers to fully corrected Dynojet numbers on Naturally Aspirated cars at this high altitude. For turbo cars, it's a joke, and in no way accurate of what your car should really be making at the wheels at sea level, even on a Dynojet. As altitude increases, turbochargers help to make up for the loss in air pressure, as they compress air, hense why they don't need the same correction factors due to altitude. It's a "gray" area, filled with lots of "fuzzy logic", but suffice to say, as altitude increases, turbo cars only lose approximately half the power NA cars lose.
-
LM
...I'm just glad I didn't dyno...I would have won the title for lowest powered Speed6...damn reflash...
EM FTW...Like I said, my bad for miscalculating the numbers. Guess Bertha, Andrew and myself misunderstood... Good info as always Brandon!
2007 Mazdaspeed3 Sport</span>
-Mazdaspeed Short Ram Intake
-HKS SSQV Bov
-Tein S-Tech Springs
-225/40/18 Nitto Neo Gen Tires on RX-8 Wheels
<span style="color:#FF0000">http://www.JTuned.com
-Mazdaspeed Short Ram Intake
-HKS SSQV Bov
-Tein S-Tech Springs
-225/40/18 Nitto Neo Gen Tires on RX-8 Wheels
<span style="color:#FF0000">http://www.JTuned.com
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RX 8 Ghost @ Mar 11 2008, 10:27 AM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=31575]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>
Where do you get this 3810lbs. form?
Last time I wheighed in it was at nearly curb weight without me in it. Wasn't the curb weight when they first came out lower? Like 2900?
Curb weight is 3053lbs. Gross weight is 3810lbs. Why do you ask?[/b]
Where do you get this 3810lbs. form?
Last time I wheighed in it was at nearly curb weight without me in it. Wasn't the curb weight when they first came out lower? Like 2900?
-
RX-7 Chris
- Posts: 7800
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:14
- Location: Colorado Springs
- Contact:
Gross weight is with the car full of people and crap.
1984 RX-7 GSL-SE [size=84]My restomod project[/SIZE]
1964 Ford Galaxie 500XL flat black w/ white interior, 2 dr fastback, 390 thunderbird, C6 auto, 2500 rpm high stall converter, shift kit, AC, Holley 750 cfm
[size=100]RIP 1983 RX-7[/SIZE]
My Car Blog
Return to “Engine and Drivetrain”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests