Comparing MX+ to dyno

HP from MX+.png



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
After a night's sleep, I realized that the large variations are due to me combining samples from about 7 accel runs. Different road grades, and wind would have made the car accelerate slightly differently. Each run was short (from 0-50ish for most) which didn't help.

Just an FYI for those considering an MX+, and might be mislead by the above graph. I'm amazed by the similarity of T and HP compared to the dyno graphs...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MX+ samples are erratic, probably due to RPM PID polled at slightly different time than calculated HP.


Dyno was from web for 2016ish CX-5.
HP from dyno.png
 
Last edited:
MX+ T vs MPH.png


dyno T vs MPH.png


I'm not sure why the magnitude for torque differs, here. The lower graph was calculated from dyno torque * final drive ratio * gear ratio. MX+ calculates wheel torque. The curve shapes and spacing correlate well. Note that I didn't have many samples for MX+, due to short accel phases. I only graphed data points where throttle was maxed out.
 
Last edited:
Wow! The gaps between gears is far too wide. I've been thinking my CX ought to have an 8-speed and here I see why I think that.
 
I never thought so. Probably the closest I ever had was a first year VF500F.

OTOH, the drop in acceleration in my CX-5 from 1st to 2nd and even 2nd to 3rd, is very noticeable and disappointing.

For my uses, I'd like a shorter 1st to crawl into a rough place in the woods I have and I want it to go gear to gear with a smooth steady rush.
 
I pull a boat out of steep ramps, and am extremely happy with how low 1st gear is. I have a 2016. I would not want a lower gear, even for near-rock-crawling speeds...?
 
Back