New engine we made... (56k death)
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (39)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,453
From: San Jose
Car Info: Evo X, 04 STI, 335i, Fit
Those numbers (AFR) look ok with regards to safety for 93 Octane to me especially on a built 2.xL motor.
Good point on the torque/HP numbers though! Mike/Ron any ideas on that?
Mike
Good point on the torque/HP numbers though! Mike/Ron any ideas on that?
Mike
Admin v2.0
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,965
From: Alameda, CA, USA
Car Info: 02 Black Legacy GT
Torque curve "supposed" to intersect hp curve at 5252, not 5250.
In this case, 4500PRM is the correct point for the curves to intersect. If someone proves me wrong, I will paint my car pinkish orangish polka dotted maroon.
It is trivial...
In this case, 4500PRM is the correct point for the curves to intersect. If someone proves me wrong, I will paint my car pinkish orangish polka dotted maroon.
It is trivial...
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 172
From: Saint Louis, MO
Car Info: 06 Armada, 03 WRX, 05 STi(sold), 05 Vette (sold)
Originally posted by skywalker
1) Why do the torque and horsepower numbers cross at 4500? I thought they were suppose to cross at 5250, maybe I am missing something? An incorrect calibration on the dyno or maybe the computer overlayed the torque and horsepower incorrectly.
2) Do you think those A/F ratios are a little lean, especially on winter gas? I know a lot of poeple tell me they run 10.5:1 till about 6000 RPM's and then drop to 10:1. Just wondering if you think these are safe numbers?
1) Why do the torque and horsepower numbers cross at 4500? I thought they were suppose to cross at 5250, maybe I am missing something? An incorrect calibration on the dyno or maybe the computer overlayed the torque and horsepower incorrectly.
2) Do you think those A/F ratios are a little lean, especially on winter gas? I know a lot of poeple tell me they run 10.5:1 till about 6000 RPM's and then drop to 10:1. Just wondering if you think these are safe numbers?
and to answer question # 2. NO i dont think they are a little lean. Maybe the people who are running 10.5:1 and 10:1 are the reason for the 'low numbers'
I consider 10.6:1 almost pig rich, esp when you have a fully built motor and no hint of detonation.-Mike
PS: keep the questions coming!
Ron will log on and give his input tomorrow, this is just me talking.EDIT: Its simple... The HP and Torque are scaled differently DURR
its late
Last edited by MJU1983; Jan 11, 2004 at 01:22 AM.
Admin v2.0
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,965
From: Alameda, CA, USA
Car Info: 02 Black Legacy GT
I ran my motor at 25psi for a bit. No detonation. That what will set one "stroked" EJ apart from another one. Some will explode at first signs of boost-related troubles, others will be happy at 25psi on 91 octane. 25psi on a t67, let me add.
My numbers were a bit low, but thats due to AVCS-issue. That has been solved and the car will go back to the dyno shortly.
My numbers were a bit low, but thats due to AVCS-issue. That has been solved and the car will go back to the dyno shortly.
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 439
From: Blackhawk, CA
Car Info: 996 Turbo,Gallardo,BMW 335,125cc shifter kart,etc
Originally posted by skywalker
I think the point some people are trying to make here are to allow the customer to be aware that data is to be questioned. If we don't question it, then what is the point of it? I have personally known quite a few people that have been cheated because of information they have seen. I am not saying Axis or I-Speed USA are incorrect but sometimes there are mistakes. So I have some questions I am not clear about.
1) Why do the torque and horsepower numbers cross at 4500? I thought they were suppose to cross at 5250, maybe I am missing something? An incorrect calibration on the dyno or maybe the computer overlayed the torque and horsepower incorrectly.
2) Do you think those A/F ratios are a little lean, especially on winter gas? I know a lot of poeple tell me they run 10.5:1 till about 6000 RPM's and then drop to 10:1. Just wondering if you think these are safe numbers?
Thanks for the information.
Bill Knose
I-Speed USA
I think the point some people are trying to make here are to allow the customer to be aware that data is to be questioned. If we don't question it, then what is the point of it? I have personally known quite a few people that have been cheated because of information they have seen. I am not saying Axis or I-Speed USA are incorrect but sometimes there are mistakes. So I have some questions I am not clear about.
1) Why do the torque and horsepower numbers cross at 4500? I thought they were suppose to cross at 5250, maybe I am missing something? An incorrect calibration on the dyno or maybe the computer overlayed the torque and horsepower incorrectly.
2) Do you think those A/F ratios are a little lean, especially on winter gas? I know a lot of poeple tell me they run 10.5:1 till about 6000 RPM's and then drop to 10:1. Just wondering if you think these are safe numbers?
Thanks for the information.
Bill Knose
I-Speed USA
I don't post much in this forum so forgive me if I'm coming in late. What Bill from I-speed is not realizing before crying foul is that the torque and hp axises are scaled differently for the purpose for screen fitment. If they were to share the same scale, the hp and torque curves would cross at 5250, as they rightfully should. Look at the respective hp and torque numbers at 5250 and, yes, they will be the same.
As for his comment regarding the results being lean, I am confused given the AFR graphs of all the I-Speed tuned cars we've tested/retuned.
As for hp, I think Ron's numbers are perfectly reasonable and downright impressive. The last EVO that dyno'd at 360whp on our Dyno Dynamics dyno put down 400whp at ATP a couple months back. And before that, the last 2.0 WRX we dyno'd at 290whp on our DD dyno put down 320whp at ATP during the ECU shootout dyno day we all participated in. Overlaying a DD graph over a Dynojet graph is like overlaying the picture of Pamela Anderson over Rin Tin Tin
My 2c,
Shiv
________
HONDA CL77
Last edited by Vishnu; Mar 7, 2011 at 04:12 AM.
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (39)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,453
From: San Jose
Car Info: Evo X, 04 STI, 335i, Fit
Originally posted by Vishnu
Overlaying a DD graph over a Dynojet graph is like overlaying the picture of Pamela Anderson over Rin Tin Tin
My 2c,
Shiv
Overlaying a DD graph over a Dynojet graph is like overlaying the picture of Pamela Anderson over Rin Tin Tin
My 2c,
Shiv
Please omit Rin Tin Tin though
Mike
Last edited by Speed Element; Jan 11, 2004 at 01:39 AM.
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 439
From: Blackhawk, CA
Car Info: 996 Turbo,Gallardo,BMW 335,125cc shifter kart,etc
Originally posted by Imprezer
...now overlaying Shiv's dyno graphs to Axis's will be like stacking Pam on Britney... Haha! I WANT TO SEE IT!
...now overlaying Shiv's dyno graphs to Axis's will be like stacking Pam on Britney... Haha! I WANT TO SEE IT!
________
Bmw M60
Last edited by Vishnu; Mar 7, 2011 at 04:13 AM.
Admin v2.0
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,965
From: Alameda, CA, USA
Car Info: 02 Black Legacy GT
Originally posted by dr3d1zzl3
...so what are the differences between a closed deck 2.0l motor and a closed deck 2.2 (98 jdm model specficly)
...so what are the differences between a closed deck 2.0l motor and a closed deck 2.2 (98 jdm model specficly)
US EJ22T is Phase I as well.
The only diff is the bore.
---
Pre-99, Subaru's WRC car was a Group N car. Hense, the need to have the same exact motor as a production car. For the type of abuse WRC cars see, closed deck is the only option.
In 99, Subaru went Open Class, and there was no need to have same exact motors in the production cars as in the WRC Open Class Impreza. So, we lost the fully closed deck blocks.
Sure, Phase II blocks have "other" advantages over Phase I. Like the crank bearing setup and few other ones. But, FULL CLOSED DECK will always be better than OPEN or SEMI-CLOSED.
*bows to the mighty subaru motor block masta*
Danka just wanted to make sure. *skips off into the distance with thoughts of his new phase one block being sleeved and bored*
Danka just wanted to make sure. *skips off into the distance with thoughts of his new phase one block being sleeved and bored*
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Imprezer
Torque curve "supposed" to intersect hp curve at 5252, not 5250.
In this case, 4500PRM is the correct point for the curves to intersect. If someone proves me wrong, I will paint my car pinkish orangish polka dotted maroon. It is trivial...
Torque curve "supposed" to intersect hp curve at 5252, not 5250.
In this case, 4500PRM is the correct point for the curves to intersect. If someone proves me wrong, I will paint my car pinkish orangish polka dotted maroon.
It is trivial...
Why bdid you say that torque is suppose to intersect at 5252 and then go onto say that in this special case that is suppose to cross at 4500? I like Mikes answer much more.
Originally posted by MJU1983
I am looking at the graphs and comparing them to others we have. Yes I see that most graphs do cross ~5200 RPMs. HOWEVER, if you check out the HP curve, it just made too much power too fast. Is that a bad thing? If they met at ~5200 that would require ~380 ft lbs of torque. This set up had another 30-40 HP in it easily... I wanted to see 400whp on pump gas. There was a fuel issue as Ron stated, and indicated by the AFR sheet.
and to answer question # 2. NO i dont think they are a little lean. Maybe the people who are running 10.5:1 and 10:1 are the reason for the 'low numbers' I consider 10.6:1 almost pig rich, esp when you have a fully built motor and no hint of detonation.
-Mike
PS: keep the questions coming! Ron will log on and give his input tomorrow, this is just me talking.
I am looking at the graphs and comparing them to others we have. Yes I see that most graphs do cross ~5200 RPMs. HOWEVER, if you check out the HP curve, it just made too much power too fast. Is that a bad thing? If they met at ~5200 that would require ~380 ft lbs of torque. This set up had another 30-40 HP in it easily... I wanted to see 400whp on pump gas. There was a fuel issue as Ron stated, and indicated by the AFR sheet.
and to answer question # 2. NO i dont think they are a little lean. Maybe the people who are running 10.5:1 and 10:1 are the reason for the 'low numbers'
I consider 10.6:1 almost pig rich, esp when you have a fully built motor and no hint of detonation.-Mike
PS: keep the questions coming!
Ron will log on and give his input tomorrow, this is just me talking.
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (39)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,453
From: San Jose
Car Info: Evo X, 04 STI, 335i, Fit
Actually if you scale the HP and TQ graphs as Shiv stated then the paths cross as expected. Makes sense if you look at the HP scale on the left and Torque on the right and then match them the levels level off so to speak. I missed that on my first pass at the graphs!
Mike
Mike