HKS Dynochart of USDM Evo 8
Feb 18, 2003, 08:27 PM
#31
Let me be the first to thank you 
I dont' see a reason to get in trouble unless hks already done a jdm ecu match mod and those are the numbers? If it's stock the car shown here is much faster than 13.8 and maybe increase in hp from the one road and track tested 
I dont' see a reason to get in trouble unless hks already done a jdm ecu match mod and those are the numbers? If it's stock the car shown here is much faster than 13.8 and maybe increase in hp from the one road and track tested
Feb 18, 2003, 08:44 PM
#35
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by norcallancer
Actually, if the EVO dyno'd at 240 hp, which I am assuming is at the wheels, then the 271 BHP or at the flywheel is pretty damn accurate. When you figure you lose 10-15% of your BHP on the dyno, you would come up with about 230-240 hp at the wheels. Just like the USDM Lancer has 120 bhp but only dyno's at 103 to the wheels. Approx. 10-15% less. So if it has 240 to the wheels, then 271 BHP they advertise is correct. They "Aren't" lying.
Actually, if the EVO dyno'd at 240 hp, which I am assuming is at the wheels, then the 271 BHP or at the flywheel is pretty damn accurate. When you figure you lose 10-15% of your BHP on the dyno, you would come up with about 230-240 hp at the wheels. Just like the USDM Lancer has 120 bhp but only dyno's at 103 to the wheels. Approx. 10-15% less. So if it has 240 to the wheels, then 271 BHP they advertise is correct. They "Aren't" lying.
Feb 18, 2003, 08:47 PM
#36
Evolved Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gtr
If it's hks dyno they use a dynojet. The highest numbers in town. If that is the case 271 sounds right on the spot. Sorry guys.
If it's hks dyno they use a dynojet. The highest numbers in town. If that is the case 271 sounds right on the spot. Sorry guys.
Feb 18, 2003, 08:50 PM
#37
rt turbo. Under your signature on the bottom you put A61 which should be A00 if you do not have a roof.
AWD do have more friction loss but even a wrx will probably have 190+hp on a dynojet vs 160+hp on a dynapack.
AWD do have more friction loss but even a wrx will probably have 190+hp on a dynojet vs 160+hp on a dynapack.
Feb 18, 2003, 08:51 PM
#38
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by s4awd
Here it is. It is for a stock USDM Evo 8.
Here it is. It is for a stock USDM Evo 8.
Last edited by limey; Feb 18, 2003 at 08:53 PM.
Feb 18, 2003, 08:57 PM
#39
Admin Emeritus
The curve certainly shows the effect of a decreasing boost with increasing RPM! Imagine the curve with a MBC or modified ECU and a constant boost. Yum! 
Feb 18, 2003, 09:16 PM
#40
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gtr
rt turbo. Under your signature on the bottom you put A61 which should be A00 if you do not have a roof.
AWD do have more friction loss but even a wrx will probably have 190+hp on a dynojet vs 160+hp on a dynapack.
rt turbo. Under your signature on the bottom you put A61 which should be A00 if you do not have a roof.
AWD do have more friction loss but even a wrx will probably have 190+hp on a dynojet vs 160+hp on a dynapack.
Feb 18, 2003, 09:18 PM
#41
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all you non-technical people out there and those who have never actually dyno'd oyour car, the Horsepower and Torque graphs are supposed to intersect at 5252 RPM. That is why the formula for deriving HP from TQ is HP = torque x RPM / 5252. This is not a real dyno graph, merely a translation of the actual graph. Would be nice to see the real one... Plus different dynos give different numbers, a roller type dyno like the 4 wheel dynojet shows more losses then the dynapack, but they measure different things.
Feb 18, 2003, 09:22 PM
#42
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Busted
and it isn't even april 1st....now whoever posted that .....it is your responsibility to prove the info is kosher I'm sorry s4 didn't know you posted it.....I was just kiddin around anyway..
and it isn't even april 1st....now whoever posted that .....it is your responsibility to prove the info is kosher I'm sorry s4 didn't know you posted it.....I was just kiddin around anyway..
Last edited by limey; Feb 18, 2003 at 09:38 PM.
Feb 18, 2003, 09:34 PM
#43
Originally posted by SoFlaClipse
For all you non-technical people out there and those who have never actually dyno'd oyour car, the Horsepower and Torque graphs are supposed to intersect at 5252 RPM. That is why the formula for deriving HP from TQ is HP = torque x RPM / 5252. This is not a real dyno graph, merely a translation of the actual graph. Would be nice to see the real one...
For all you non-technical people out there and those who have never actually dyno'd oyour car, the Horsepower and Torque graphs are supposed to intersect at 5252 RPM. That is why the formula for deriving HP from TQ is HP = torque x RPM / 5252. This is not a real dyno graph, merely a translation of the actual graph. Would be nice to see the real one...
Originally posted by limey
Busted and it isn't even april 1st....now whoever posted that .....it is your responsibility to prove the info is kosher
Busted
and it isn't even april 1st....now whoever posted that .....it is your responsibility to prove the info is kosher
They both roughly have the same value at 5252 RPM.
Feb 18, 2003, 09:56 PM
#44
EvoM Staff Alumni
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 2,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone actually thought about the fact that maybe Mitsubishi found a way to get the power to the wheels without a huge loss in power for an AWD car? If so, I'd take that over 300hp at the crank, because guess what would happen when you really DO put 300hp to the crank? 
Feb 18, 2003, 09:57 PM
#45
Originally posted by AutoXer
They won't "intersect" if their scaled differently... which they are.
They both roughly have the same value at 5252 RPM.
They won't "intersect" if their scaled differently... which they are.
They both roughly have the same value at 5252 RPM.
he is correct at 5252 if they were scaled the same they would cross there