CX-9 Skyactiv 2.5L turbo engine

[Tbot101]

http://www.badasscars.com/index.cfm...duct_id=64/category_id=13/mode=prod/prd64.htm

Did you even READ this article? because it only proves what I have said from the beginning. Dynos are accurate unless someone purposely alters the computation factors. Yet here you are going around claiming Dynos are as accurate as a Crystal ball.

"While we're at it, let me explain something about engine dynos. People say dynos don't lie. Well, they don't... but the people entering the aquisition data DO, and if they fudge the numbers here or there (barametric pressure, relative humidity, air density, air temperature, the amount of water being fed to the water brake, etc.) then the dyno can only compute what it is told to compute. So in reality, no... the dyno won't lie, but it will give bogus readings if the data isn't accurately fed into the machine."

Were you even aware most dynos have sensors in place to read that information automatically so it doesn't get "fudged" ? Like Baro / Humidity / Temp, etc.

 

[CC58]

Pretty sure I already showed a 3rd party mazda 6 cutting over half a second of his 1/4 mile run.

Over a half a second would be 50-60hp increase, so obviously a poor example. That just not possible with a tune on stock 2.5L.

True and False. Yes parts are lightened and optimized. That doesn't make them weaker, that actually makes them stronger. Consider the average old dish piston vs the newly optimized D.I. pistons. Or consider the Skyactiv Connecting rod, Material was moved from areas where stress is low and moved to areas where stress is higher. The shape and the design of the connecting rod changed to handle this, and it ultimately made a much stronger connecting rod.

For example. the 1.6L ecoboost. It comes in stock at about 200BHP. Yet it has been shown to handle 500WHP on stock engine. So??

Removing material doesn't make it stronger. Computer design narrowed the gap between optimal design and over design that in the past was common. A good example are bridges, old ones are massive, while new ones are light and airy.

Today's computer optimized drive train designs close the gap between what optimum and overkill. Its inevitable if one raises horsepower, things will fail sooner. Its truer today than 25 years ago. The old 5.0 Mustangs entire drive train was over designed and could take a huge amount of modification and be still be durable. They even had forged pistons while the base design had no need for it. Nitrous users loved forged pistons.

 

[Tbot101]

Removing material doesn't make it stronger. Computer design narrowed the gap between optimal design and over design that in the past was common. A good example are bridges, old ones are massive, while new ones are light and airy.

Today's computer optimized drive train designs close the gap between what optimum and overkill. Its inevitable if one raises horsepower, things will fail sooner. Its truer today than 25 years ago. The old 5.0 Mustangs entire drive train was over designed and could take a huge amount of modification and be still be durable. They even had forged pistons while the base design had no need for it. Nitrous users loved forged pistons.

Removing material and altering the design can and does make it stronger. Removing material ALONE does not, but you can get away with weight savings, and less material with a better design. If that is not the case please don't overlook my example, please explain how a 1.6L ecoboost can put 500WHP to the ground on stock engine?

Or how about the honda K20? with boost it has shown over 600WHP on stock pistons and rods. Another great example.

You have to understand that even with the most optimal, non overkill part, the fatigue limit is almost always much more than what the stock power is.

 

[MikeM.]

Did you even READ this article? because it only proves what I have said from the beginning. Dynos are accurate unless someone purposely alters the computation factors.

Uh, no... what you said was if the dyno chart had been tampered with it would be obvious. My claim is the chart could be a lie and, unless the dyno operator was foolish, you couldn't tell it had been fudged.

Please explain how we know just from looking at it that a dyno chart hasn't been fudged.

 

[CC58]

please explain how a 1.6L ecoboost can put 500WHP to the ground on stock engine?

You have to understand that even with the most optimal, non overkill part, the fatigue limit is almost always much more than what the stock power is.

Reliably, it can't. That ecoboost will break, and pretty soon. The limit is designed to last the lifespan of the car. The further you push against it, the sooner it will fail, if not immediately.

 

[Tbot101]

Uh, no... what you said was if the dyno chart had been tampered with it would be obvious. My claim is the chart could be a lie and, unless the dyno operator was foolish, you couldn't tell it had been fudged.

Please explain how we know just from looking at it that a dyno chart hasn't been fudged.

Why should I bother to explain anything to you when you pick and choose what to reply to when you are obviously incorrect?

You still haven't answered the question "what is the first thing you do after you get the car strapped down on the dyno?. Lets say it is a Dyna Pack for example".

Considering you know SO MUCH about dynos, lets hear it.

 

[MikeM.]

You have to understand that even with the most optimal, non overkill part, the fatigue limit is almost always much more than what the stock power is.

Then why did your engine blow up? (uhm)

 

[Tbot101]

Reliably, it can't. That ecoboost will break, and pretty soon. The limit is designed to last the lifespan of the car. The further you push against it, the sooner it will fail, if not immediately.

unfortunately that statement has been proven time and time again to be wrong.

You don't understand fatigue limits do you?

 

[Tbot101]

Then why did your engine blow up? (uhm)

What engine? if you are referring to that garbage ms3 thread, my engine never blew up .

I can't believe I am on a forum arguing with people who no real world experience about any of this, yet claiming to be experts.

Would you trust someone who googled open heart surgery to perform one on you? (that question is to the forum in general).

 

[vroom]

The limit is designed to last the lifespan of the car. The further you push against it, the sooner it will fail, if not immediately.

This just sounds reasonable to me, and is what I have been saying to myself ever since I started to read this thread. Otherwise would someone explain to me why any manufacturer would invest in material and additional weight to make something 2x stronger than it needs to be when they could build it to do what it was designed to do, all the while saving money and increasing the ever popular MPG numbers?

 

[MikeM.]

You still haven't answered the question "what is the first thing you do after you get the car strapped down on the dyno?. Lets say it is a Dyna Pack for example".

Considering you know SO MUCH about dynos, lets hear it.

Once it's strapped down, I smoke a bowl with my customer! I've found this is the best way to "wow" him with my handiwork... (naughty)

 

[Tbot101]

Once it's strapped down, I smoke a bowl with my customer! I've found this is the best way to "wow" him with my handiwork... (naughty)

These "witty" comeback comments only further prove the true lack of understanding and experience.

 

[NelsonLewis]

Reliably, it can't. That ecoboost will break, and pretty soon. The limit is designed to last the lifespan of the car. The further you push against it, the sooner it will fail, if not immediately.

Not true at all. I know several boosted stock internal cars that produce upwards of 500whp that have been daily driven and had the s*** dogged out of them for over 3 years with no failures at all internally. A crappy tune and improper routine maintenance is way more detrimental to an engine than hp and torque...

 

[NelsonLewis]

This just sounds reasonable to me, and is what I have been saying to myself ever since I started to read this thread. Otherwise would someone explain to me why any manufacturer would invest in material and additional weight to make something 2x stronger than it needs to be when they could build it to do what it was designed to do, all the while saving money and increasing the ever popular MPG numbers?

It doesn't have to weigh more to be stronger.

 

[vroom]

It doesn't have to weigh more to be stronger.

Which is exactly the same as saying it can weigh less and be just strong enough. So that doesn't answer my question at all...

 

[NelsonLewis]

Which is exactly the same as saying it can weigh less and be just strong enough. So that doesn't answer my question at all...

I just answered your misinformation of "adding in material and additional weight to make something 2x stronger". Nothing more, nothing less...

 

[MikeM.]

What engine? if you are referring to that garbage ms3 thread, my engine never blew up .

I guess it comes down to whether I believe the Speed3 crowd more or you. I don't have enough information either way so I guess I'll just have accept that I just don't know. I'm not sure who would make up such a thing out of thin air. Do you know what they're referring to? Because I think you do.

 

[Tbot101]

I guess it comes down to whether I believe the Speed3 crowd more or you. I don't have enough information either way so I guess I'll just have accept that I just don't know. I'm not sure who would make up such a thing out of thin air. Do you know what they're referring to? Because I think you do.

Yes I know what they are referring to. I built my engine to handle more power, but it never "blew up" it did get torn down and rebuilt though (that is not the same). That engine is still running to this day.

If you don't think they won't make stuff up out of thin air, I highly recommend join MSF and see for yourself. Do this, just this:
Join MSF, make a thread saying " I'm going to turbo my CX5".

and just wait. they will swarm your ass like bees.

 

[vroom]

I just answered your misinformation of "adding in material and additional weight to make something 2x stronger". Nothing more, nothing less...

Hey, just relax. I'm just here to learn something. My question is completely legitimate and you only gave me an aggressive non-answer.

If you can strip away half the material as was used, say, in the 80s and still keep it stronger than it needs to be in order to accommodate a tune (what you are saying unless I am not understanding something), you can strip even more to make it just strong enough for normal use and make it even lighter. Simple math. No misinformation here. If you are not interested in giving me a straight, rational answer, just let someone else do it.

 

[CC58]

unfortunately that statement has been proven time and time again to be wrong.

You don't understand fatigue limits do you?

Yes, I'm a retired Software Engineer. I've worked with many electrical, software, and mechanical engineers. Seems many of the mechanical engineers (ME) started out as gear heads. You should consider harnessing your passion for cars and going back to school to get an ME. If you like basic Physics 101,102,statics, and dynamics, you will probably want to go the distance. They require simple algebra. If you make it past Trigonometric Calculus, you can probably go the distance.