Can I get the last 20 minutes of my life back? I am so pissed I just read that and got more confused. WTF cares what causes what and which is better?

JUST SHOW THE DYNO SHEET!

 

One thing I noticed from the dyno plots posted by GTPPrix is the valve timing doesn't have the same type of "bump" that you see with VTEC or other variable valve timing systems I've heard or driven such as Nissan's VVL which makes a mean POP when it comes on. Is this a linear engagement since it doesn't seem to show on the dyno plots? Can anyone with an intake or header exhaust hear an actual engagement point?

 

there is no engagment point, its always working

 

20% drivetrain loss? when the hell did 2.4s became AWD

It kills me when threads like this are DYING for a response but it never seems to happen. If you're out there, just give us an update!

 

If this is true, a 2.2 with cai, header, and cat back, has more power than a 2.4 "ss". Makes me happy!!!!!

 

travis thats on a mustang dyno, not a dynojet so the readings are lower.

GTP this still has the bump for engagment (stock) if you look at the HP curve you can see it, we are able to tune that out if you look at the after HP curve

 

I ran a 2.2 with cai, header, and cat back with no tuning just in off the street on a mustang and ran a 150.4. So if I did some tuning and ran on a dyno jet what do you think I would get? An estimate of course...... https://www.cobaltss.net/gallery/sho...&searchid=1537

 

Probably 160-165ish

 

WHERE is that DYNO SHIIIIIIT !!


And all those torque doesnt Exists, its just an illusion made by men... PLEASE stop hijacking this thread... and open a Fisics 2 book.. and you'll know torque isn't a magical nomber or spell that produces HP...

 

earmuffs

 

Nice to see the 2.4 making some power =) and ppl are saying the 2.4 has no support =P

 

lock this thread

 

ok guys i feel like a retard i cant figure out how to post it. but let me tell you the numbers. these are my numbers to the wheels. 162.42 and 160.76 he told me that there was a thirty percent power loss. thats how he came up with these umbers.

 

I think that should have been 13%, not 30%. 30 is more than an AWD's loss.

 

.... thats the numbers i would expect to hear, not bad got a nice increase.

 

im not sure how what it is that was my first time. thats what he said though

 

so what is the percentage

 

So is everyone feeling better these numbers seem to be correct, But as everyone has been saying need to see the numbers on a sheet well anyway the numbers to me are still a good increase. I'll be checking on getting mine done just need to get busy

 

somebody tell me cause at thirteen its 192 horse so if its higher it only goes up

 

I heard that for the mx it's approx 13% loss and a ax is approx 25% loss to the wheels

 

whats ax and mx so is it 25

 

some bizare abreviation for manual transmision (mt) and automatic transmission (at)

manual are 13-15% and autos are about 20%. The exact percentage is not the same on every car.

You can e-mail me your dyno sheet and I'll post it

arrow206@shaw.ca

 

ax and mx was my mistake at /mt I was doing two things at once I'm allowed at least one mistake

 

well okay----but just one!! Thats cool.

I have seen ATX, MTX as well.

 

so if we pretend that its 15 percent then im looking at about 195. thats not bad. i tried posting it to someones email and could not do it. i wish you guys can see it. my car ran really rich at about 4500 rpm i have an aftermarket cat and bigger piping from the header to my reson. he said my cat had really low readings. i hit my highest number at about 6500 rpm. i think if i had my stock cat on i would of got a higher number.