What Kind of Numbers should I expect?

Rac3rX

Member
What Kind of Numbers should I expect when I get on a Dyno if I have thhe following parts installed?

2002 Protege LX 2.0 5speed (NO Air Conditioning)

1. Injen CAI
2. Tsudo 4-1 Headers
3. Nology Hotwires
4. Denso Iridium Plugs
5. AXL Back Exhast (2.5 from before the axl right out of the car to a 3.5" tip.)

I also Run 94 Octain (We got it as Pump gas arround here)

What Kind of Hp should I expect at the Wheel and @ The Crank?

& What percentage of HP loss do we have on this ride?
 
Rac3rX said:
& What percentage of HP loss do we have on this ride?

drivetrain loss in a FWD is about 25 hp.

why does everyone think of drivetrain loss as a percentage? isn't it really just a straight number? there is a certain amount of power needed to turn the mecahnical bits of the drivetrain; that's drivetrain loss. does that increase with engine output; i.e., does an intake mkae the mechanical bits tougher to turn? does the drivetrain of a 200 hp RSX use more horsepower than a 130 hp protege?

anecdotally, an RSX typically dynos at about 170-175 whp; a protege typically dynos at about 100-105 whp.
 
dmitrik4 said:
drivetrain loss in a FWD is about 25 hp.

why does everyone think of drivetrain loss as a percentage? isn't it really just a straight number? there is a certain amount of power needed to turn the mecahnical bits of the drivetrain; that's drivetrain loss. does that increase with engine output; i.e., does an intake mkae the mechanical bits tougher to turn? does the drivetrain of a 200 hp RSX use more horsepower than a 130 hp protege?

anecdotally, an RSX typically dynos at about 170-175 whp; a protege typically dynos at about 100-105 whp.

Good question, but I'm too tired to think of the physics of it. Maybe I'll check back in the morning when my brain feels more awake (RTM)
 
KanseiZM said:
Good question, but I'm too tired to think of the physics of it. Maybe I'll check back in the morning when my brain feels more awake (RTM)

i've been trying to think of a reason it would be a % of output rather than a constant loss, and can't. maybe there's something i'm not considering.
 
dmitrik4 said:
i've been trying to think of a reason it would be a % of output rather than a constant loss, and can't. maybe there's something i'm not considering.

no...you are right...and it is refreshing to see other people realize exactly what you pointed out...(not saying others don't, it just seems they aren't around at the right time to point it out...)

there were a couple of threads about this once in the NA forum...but basically, if it was a percentage...your gearbox becomes less efficient with relatively small increases in power...that isn't true...actually its only torque that is sapped (that is all an engine makes in the first place), but torque is also multiplied by the gearbox...so it is not equal in each gear......700bhp compared to 100bhp sure would...but 150 and 220bhp or something do not result in a drastically less efficient drive train...
this also would mean that you could strangle an engine down to 5 hp or something, and still have 75% of that at the wheels...not true...

In reality it is kind of a mix of both...more power and torque means more stress and heat on the drivetrain...which can sap more power...but with the amount that cars like ours gain, it is more of a fixed amount lost to the wheels than a %...
 
JOMO said:
No need to run 94. Just using more money for nothing.

very true...the stock ECU has no clue that you are even doing that...it is incapable, for other reasons, of advancing ignition timing and leaning the mixture to take advantage of a more stable gasoline...

No offense, but you would have the exact same affect by throwing money out of the window while you are driving down the road...

this would be an entirely different story if you invested in a user programmable ECU...
 
Back