2k2 Dyno Finally Up!
11-13-2001 | 03:52 PM
#1
2k2 Dyno Finally Up!
Okay, as promised here it is guys.
As everyone calculated it seems the Auto 2k2 only peaks at 188.9 FWHP. Torque on the other hand was impressive at 204.8 lb/ft. After a bit of calculation, given the standard 25% loss - this comes out to approximately (roughly!) 240hp and 265 lb.ft of torque - similar to what the pathfinder has.
Another thing i noticed was the rpm gauge. I saw the needle hit 7,000 rpm during the 3rd run and i was going "Wow!". However the dyno showed that it actually peaks at 6500rpm.
Run 1 was stopped at 6400 rpm as i requested, so with run 2. With the third run i let them go as far as possible before the needle jumped back. (Limiter)
All this was on 1/8th tank of gas. 78 degree temperature outside. During the first two runs the fan only had around 3 minutes to cool the engine down after travelling for 7 miles on the freeway.
During the third run there was approximately a 10 minute cooling down session. The hood was open all that time.
Amazingly the torque starts out at peak even below 2,500 rpm (not shown on the dyno print-out).
For comparison they showed me the CL-S (modded according to a couple of guys there) dyno graph and it produced over 225 hp to the wheels at around 7,000 rpm! The graph on that modded CL-S just kept climbing after 5500 rpm (as compared to the max which levels out after 5500 rpm)
All this was run in 2nd gear by the way. Unfortunately i wasn't able to read the last post about having them run in 3rd and 4th too. I don't know if that would have made any difference though.
Click here for the chart
Hope this helps everyone
As everyone calculated it seems the Auto 2k2 only peaks at 188.9 FWHP. Torque on the other hand was impressive at 204.8 lb/ft. After a bit of calculation, given the standard 25% loss - this comes out to approximately (roughly!) 240hp and 265 lb.ft of torque - similar to what the pathfinder has.
Another thing i noticed was the rpm gauge. I saw the needle hit 7,000 rpm during the 3rd run and i was going "Wow!". However the dyno showed that it actually peaks at 6500rpm.
Run 1 was stopped at 6400 rpm as i requested, so with run 2. With the third run i let them go as far as possible before the needle jumped back. (Limiter)
All this was on 1/8th tank of gas. 78 degree temperature outside. During the first two runs the fan only had around 3 minutes to cool the engine down after travelling for 7 miles on the freeway.
During the third run there was approximately a 10 minute cooling down session. The hood was open all that time.
Amazingly the torque starts out at peak even below 2,500 rpm (not shown on the dyno print-out).
For comparison they showed me the CL-S (modded according to a couple of guys there) dyno graph and it produced over 225 hp to the wheels at around 7,000 rpm! The graph on that modded CL-S just kept climbing after 5500 rpm (as compared to the max which levels out after 5500 rpm)
All this was run in 2nd gear by the way. Unfortunately i wasn't able to read the last post about having them run in 3rd and 4th too. I don't know if that would have made any difference though.
Click here for the chart
Hope this helps everyone
11-13-2001 | 03:57 PM
#3
Umm.. coz this is my first time running a dyno and i have no idea what had to be done. I left everything up to them.
Would the results be different if i had them do it in 3rd? If so, in which direction?
Would the results be different if i had them do it in 3rd? If so, in which direction?
Originally posted by medicsonic
Dynos are supposed to be in the gear closest to 1:1, which would be third. Why second?
Dynos are supposed to be in the gear closest to 1:1, which would be third. Why second?
11-13-2001 | 04:03 PM
#5
Originally posted by soundmike
Umm.. coz this is my first time running a dyno and i have no idea what had to be done. I left everything up to them.
Would the results be different if i had them do it in 3rd? If so, in which direction?
Umm.. coz this is my first time running a dyno and i have no idea what had to be done. I left everything up to them.
Would the results be different if i had them do it in 3rd? If so, in which direction?
200fwhp!
11-13-2001 | 04:07 PM
#7
dop! 
that cost quite a pretty penny doing that the first time around.
i could do another run but that's gonna take a few more weeks as i have things planned already.
oh well, at least it'll give some people an idea what the 2k2 is capable of.
that cost quite a pretty penny doing that the first time around. i could do another run but that's gonna take a few more weeks as i have things planned already.
oh well, at least it'll give some people an idea what the 2k2 is capable of.
Originally posted by s1rch
yes ! the results would be different.
you should get a better yet more important, a more accurate number.
yes ! the results would be different.
you should get a better yet more important, a more accurate number.
11-13-2001 | 04:21 PM
#8
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,628
Originally posted by soundmike
dop! that cost quite a pretty penny doing that the first time around.
i could do another run but that's gonna take a few more weeks as i have things planned already.
oh well, at least it'll give some people an idea what the 2k2 is capable of.
dop!
that cost quite a pretty penny doing that the first time around. i could do another run but that's gonna take a few more weeks as i have things planned already.
oh well, at least it'll give some people an idea what the 2k2 is capable of.
11-13-2001 | 05:24 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2k2 Dyno Finally Up!
Yep, all runs are supose to be done in the gear closest to 1:1 and 95% of the time its 3rd gear on a auto with OD off. 4th gear on a 5spd.
Originally posted by soundmike
Okay, as promised here it is guys.
As everyone calculated it seems the Auto 2k2 only peaks at 188.9 FWHP. Torque on the other hand was impressive at 204.8 lb/ft. After a bit of calculation, given the standard 25% loss - this comes out to approximately (roughly!) 240hp and 265 lb.ft of torque - similar to what the pathfinder has.
Another thing i noticed was the rpm gauge. I saw the needle hit 7,000 rpm during the 3rd run and i was going "Wow!". However the dyno showed that it actually peaks at 6500rpm.
Run 1 was stopped at 6400 rpm as i requested, so with run 2. With the third run i let them go as far as possible before the needle jumped back. (Limiter)
All this was on 1/8th tank of gas. 78 degree temperature outside. During the first two runs the fan only had around 3 minutes to cool the engine down after travelling for 7 miles on the freeway.
During the third run there was approximately a 10 minute cooling down session. The hood was open all that time.
Amazingly the torque starts out at peak even below 2,500 rpm (not shown on the dyno print-out).
For comparison they showed me the CL-S (modded according to a couple of guys there) dyno graph and it produced over 225 hp to the wheels at around 7,000 rpm! The graph on that modded CL-S just kept climbing after 5500 rpm (as compared to the max which levels out after 5500 rpm)
All this was run in 2nd gear by the way. Unfortunately i wasn't able to read the last post about having them run in 3rd and 4th too. I don't know if that would have made any difference though.
Click here for the chart
Hope this helps everyone
Okay, as promised here it is guys.
As everyone calculated it seems the Auto 2k2 only peaks at 188.9 FWHP. Torque on the other hand was impressive at 204.8 lb/ft. After a bit of calculation, given the standard 25% loss - this comes out to approximately (roughly!) 240hp and 265 lb.ft of torque - similar to what the pathfinder has.
Another thing i noticed was the rpm gauge. I saw the needle hit 7,000 rpm during the 3rd run and i was going "Wow!". However the dyno showed that it actually peaks at 6500rpm.
Run 1 was stopped at 6400 rpm as i requested, so with run 2. With the third run i let them go as far as possible before the needle jumped back. (Limiter)
All this was on 1/8th tank of gas. 78 degree temperature outside. During the first two runs the fan only had around 3 minutes to cool the engine down after travelling for 7 miles on the freeway.
During the third run there was approximately a 10 minute cooling down session. The hood was open all that time.
Amazingly the torque starts out at peak even below 2,500 rpm (not shown on the dyno print-out).
For comparison they showed me the CL-S (modded according to a couple of guys there) dyno graph and it produced over 225 hp to the wheels at around 7,000 rpm! The graph on that modded CL-S just kept climbing after 5500 rpm (as compared to the max which levels out after 5500 rpm)
All this was run in 2nd gear by the way. Unfortunately i wasn't able to read the last post about having them run in 3rd and 4th too. I don't know if that would have made any difference though.
Click here for the chart
Hope this helps everyone
11-13-2001 | 05:34 PM
#11
Re: 2k2 Dyno Finally Up!
Originally posted by soundmike
Okay, as promised here it is guys.
As everyone calculated it seems the Auto 2k2 only peaks at 188.9 FWHP. Torque on the other hand was impressive at 204.8 lb/ft. After a bit of calculation, given the standard 25% loss - this comes out to approximately (roughly!) 240hp and 265 lb.ft of torque - similar to what the pathfinder has.
Another thing i noticed was the rpm gauge. I saw the needle hit 7,000 rpm during the 3rd run and i was going "Wow!". However the dyno showed that it actually peaks at 6500rpm.
Run 1 was stopped at 6400 rpm as i requested, so with run 2. With the third run i let them go as far as possible before the needle jumped back. (Limiter)
All this was on 1/8th tank of gas. 78 degree temperature outside. During the first two runs the fan only had around 3 minutes to cool the engine down after travelling for 7 miles on the freeway.
During the third run there was approximately a 10 minute cooling down session. The hood was open all that time.
Amazingly the torque starts out at peak even below 2,500 rpm (not shown on the dyno print-out).
For comparison they showed me the CL-S (modded according to a couple of guys there) dyno graph and it produced over 225 hp to the wheels at around 7,000 rpm! The graph on that modded CL-S just kept climbing after 5500 rpm (as compared to the max which levels out after 5500 rpm)
All this was run in 2nd gear by the way. Unfortunately i wasn't able to read the last post about having them run in 3rd and 4th too. I don't know if that would have made any difference though.
Click here for the chart
Hope this helps everyone
Okay, as promised here it is guys.
As everyone calculated it seems the Auto 2k2 only peaks at 188.9 FWHP. Torque on the other hand was impressive at 204.8 lb/ft. After a bit of calculation, given the standard 25% loss - this comes out to approximately (roughly!) 240hp and 265 lb.ft of torque - similar to what the pathfinder has.
Another thing i noticed was the rpm gauge. I saw the needle hit 7,000 rpm during the 3rd run and i was going "Wow!". However the dyno showed that it actually peaks at 6500rpm.
Run 1 was stopped at 6400 rpm as i requested, so with run 2. With the third run i let them go as far as possible before the needle jumped back. (Limiter)
All this was on 1/8th tank of gas. 78 degree temperature outside. During the first two runs the fan only had around 3 minutes to cool the engine down after travelling for 7 miles on the freeway.
During the third run there was approximately a 10 minute cooling down session. The hood was open all that time.
Amazingly the torque starts out at peak even below 2,500 rpm (not shown on the dyno print-out).
For comparison they showed me the CL-S (modded according to a couple of guys there) dyno graph and it produced over 225 hp to the wheels at around 7,000 rpm! The graph on that modded CL-S just kept climbing after 5500 rpm (as compared to the max which levels out after 5500 rpm)
All this was run in 2nd gear by the way. Unfortunately i wasn't able to read the last post about having them run in 3rd and 4th too. I don't know if that would have made any difference though.
Click here for the chart
Hope this helps everyone
FYI a second gear run will give you about 3-5 more FWHP when compared to a 3rd gear run, atleast thats the difference on a 5spd. BTW those #'s are OK, I would have expected to see about 5-10 more FWHP. After you brake the car in you will get another 5HP or so. Ohh yeah, that is a lot of TQ!
11-13-2001 | 05:34 PM
#12
yes please go back and have them redyno in 3rd
i am at 171 hp in my 97 auto.
so your 189 was a little low to me. i PERSONALLY think you should be at 200hp and 210 TQ
and 3rd is the gear as everyone else said
so your 189 was a little low to me. i PERSONALLY think you should be at 200hp and 210 TQ
and 3rd is the gear as everyone else said
11-13-2001 | 05:49 PM
#13
Re: yes please go back and have them redyno in 3rd
Originally posted by bags533
i am at 171 hp in my 97 auto.
so your 189 was a little low to me. i PERSONALLY think you should be at 200hp and 210 TQ
and 3rd is the gear as everyone else said
i am at 171 hp in my 97 auto.
so your 189 was a little low to me. i PERSONALLY think you should be at 200hp and 210 TQ
and 3rd is the gear as everyone else said
11-13-2001 | 05:50 PM
#14
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,765
From: Westchester County, NY
Re: yes please go back and have them redyno in 3rd
Originally posted by bags533
i am at 171 hp in my 97 auto.
so your 189 was a little low to me. i PERSONALLY think you should be at 200hp and 210 TQ
and 3rd is the gear as everyone else said
i am at 171 hp in my 97 auto.
so your 189 was a little low to me. i PERSONALLY think you should be at 200hp and 210 TQ
and 3rd is the gear as everyone else said
11-13-2001 | 05:55 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: yes please go back and have them redyno in 3rd
Originally posted by bags533
i am at 171 hp in my 97 auto.
so your 189 was a little low to me. i PERSONALLY think you should be at 200hp and 210 TQ
and 3rd is the gear as everyone else said
i am at 171 hp in my 97 auto.
so your 189 was a little low to me. i PERSONALLY think you should be at 200hp and 210 TQ
and 3rd is the gear as everyone else said
5th gen 222 autos run 165-172hp to the wheels stock.
11-13-2001 | 05:55 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guess what? My 97 5-speed makes about the same power (200ftlbs/191HP). Not too bad considering it's 0.5L smaller, has no variable intake nor variable cam timing.
Seriously, though, if those are final numbers for a 2002 auto (ie the numbers don't increase for a broken-in motor), that's pretty sad. What, don't 2000/2001 autos make ~180 HP? Seems pretty fishy to me...that'd put the 2002's right around 240 HP at the crank, not 255 as advertised...the same figures as the Pathfinder and I'm guessing the Altima, too.
Bummer.
Not too bad considering it's 0.5L smaller, has no variable intake nor variable cam timing.Seriously, though, if those are final numbers for a 2002 auto (ie the numbers don't increase for a broken-in motor), that's pretty sad. What, don't 2000/2001 autos make ~180 HP? Seems pretty fishy to me...that'd put the 2002's right around 240 HP at the crank, not 255 as advertised...the same figures as the Pathfinder and I'm guessing the Altima, too.
Bummer.
11-13-2001 | 06:23 PM
#17
Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 52
Only 189 hp at the wheels? I'm sorry, but the 2002 Maxima IS NOT PUTTING 255 hp at the crank. A stock TL-S/CL-S dynos for approximately 205 hp at the wheels and it's said to only produce 5 more horsepower than the new max at the crank!
11-13-2001 | 06:24 PM
#18
As i've been telling Kevin, i'll try to get them to give me a discount or a free dyno run for doing it in the wrong gear. They're pretty much a Honda shop so that may have had something to do with using 2nd instead of 3rd... whatever. I'm not sure what i'm talking about LOL! Anyway, i'll call them up tomorrow.
HP did seem kinda low but based on the 25%-loss rule i'd say it's about 240 to the crank if anything. What really surprised me was the torque... that really does put it at around 265 lb/ft instead of 246 lb/ft.
Which makes me think that perhaps Nissan made a boo-boo and put the Pathfinder-tuned engine on the Max? I mean, the numbers really speak for themselves inspite running the dyno in the wrong gear.
Even the gas mileage, after 3400 miles of (now) mixed city-highway, averages 17-18mpg. Similar to the EPA rating of the Pathfinder.
If that's the case then i really don't mind given i'd love torque more than HP (esp since the HP is already in a good number). But dang!
As for running in 3rd with OD off. I don't really know how to accomplish that with the 2k2. Should i just keep the shifter at 3rd?
HP did seem kinda low but based on the 25%-loss rule i'd say it's about 240 to the crank if anything. What really surprised me was the torque... that really does put it at around 265 lb/ft instead of 246 lb/ft.
Which makes me think that perhaps Nissan made a boo-boo and put the Pathfinder-tuned engine on the Max? I mean, the numbers really speak for themselves inspite running the dyno in the wrong gear.
Even the gas mileage, after 3400 miles of (now) mixed city-highway, averages 17-18mpg. Similar to the EPA rating of the Pathfinder.
If that's the case then i really don't mind given i'd love torque more than HP (esp since the HP is already in a good number). But dang!
As for running in 3rd with OD off. I don't really know how to accomplish that with the 2k2. Should i just keep the shifter at 3rd?
11-13-2001 | 06:55 PM
#19
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,373
Those numbers do seem a little weird. You shoudl try running it again.
As for putting in 3rd, honestly I don't know how you can get a "full" reading for every RPM. If you put it in D and floor it, it will downshift to second (I think), but you don't want it to be in second. And when it shifts into 3rd, the RPMs will be too high anyways. Does anyone know how to actually run throughout the RPMs in 3rd??
As for putting in 3rd, honestly I don't know how you can get a "full" reading for every RPM. If you put it in D and floor it, it will downshift to second (I think), but you don't want it to be in second. And when it shifts into 3rd, the RPMs will be too high anyways. Does anyone know how to actually run throughout the RPMs in 3rd??
11-13-2001 | 06:57 PM
#20
Re: Re: yes please go back and have them redyno in 3rd
Originally posted by medicsonic
That sounds WAY too high for an almost stock Maxima. The numbers should be 155 HP and 170 TQ for a stock 4th gen VQ.
That sounds WAY too high for an almost stock Maxima. The numbers should be 155 HP and 170 TQ for a stock 4th gen VQ.
what do you consider almost stock? ( not trying to sound like a butt head there )
i have a cai , y-pipe , hi flow cat ( if there is such a thing ) , cat back exhaust and i am at 171 hp and 181 lbs TQ
i am not modded out the butt , however that seems like 2 more mods than slightly stock
EMAX yes they do cost $75 bucks
RUSS a 2002 IMHO should be about 10 more hp / 10 lbs TQ than a 2001. HOWEVER i am basing this just off of my small brain and no facts
11-13-2001 | 07:03 PM
#21
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Warning: There are a Few Problems with this Dyno Run
Problem #1: Results are in STD and not SAE Corrected Form
These results aren't valid in current form really, since they haven't been adjusted with the SAE correction factor. If it was 78F out and there was any sort of humidity then your results are going to be a bit low because I'm 99% sure that the SAE correction will adjust results for a lower standard temperature (60F ??) and humidity. So this is problem #1.
Problem #2: Dyno done in 2nd Gear, not 3rd.
Like the other guys already said... The reason you want to do dyno runs in the gear closest to 1:1 is because the further you are from your 1:1 gear, the lower your results will be. Direct drive 1:1 is always the most efficient since there's no reduction or overdriving. The bigger the gear (in either direction), the less efficient the drivetrain becomes at transmitting power to the wheels.
Here's what happened when Edmunds.com dynoed a GMC Sierra in 2nd gear instead of 3rd because of a very low speed limiter. LINK That sucker lost massive power. Something similar might have happened on your 2k2 Max dyno.
Conclusion
189 fwhp is a bit low. But if you head back to the shop they should be able to replot your results with the SAE correction and that will most likely boost up your results a bit and make them more valid. As for dynoing in the wrong gear, well, the shop should have known better. You'll probably get higher results with a 3rd gear run, but you'll have to wrangle with the shop to see if you can get a freebie.
After all is said and done, I'd be willing to bet a couple of beers that you'll end up higher and more like in the 200 fwhp range and not 189 fwhp.
These results aren't valid in current form really, since they haven't been adjusted with the SAE correction factor. If it was 78F out and there was any sort of humidity then your results are going to be a bit low because I'm 99% sure that the SAE correction will adjust results for a lower standard temperature (60F ??) and humidity. So this is problem #1.
Problem #2: Dyno done in 2nd Gear, not 3rd.
Like the other guys already said... The reason you want to do dyno runs in the gear closest to 1:1 is because the further you are from your 1:1 gear, the lower your results will be. Direct drive 1:1 is always the most efficient since there's no reduction or overdriving. The bigger the gear (in either direction), the less efficient the drivetrain becomes at transmitting power to the wheels.
Here's what happened when Edmunds.com dynoed a GMC Sierra in 2nd gear instead of 3rd because of a very low speed limiter. LINK That sucker lost massive power. Something similar might have happened on your 2k2 Max dyno.
Conclusion
189 fwhp is a bit low. But if you head back to the shop they should be able to replot your results with the SAE correction and that will most likely boost up your results a bit and make them more valid. As for dynoing in the wrong gear, well, the shop should have known better. You'll probably get higher results with a 3rd gear run, but you'll have to wrangle with the shop to see if you can get a freebie.
After all is said and done, I'd be willing to bet a couple of beers that you'll end up higher and more like in the 200 fwhp range and not 189 fwhp.
11-13-2001 | 07:11 PM
#22
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,765
From: Westchester County, NY
Re: Re: Re: yes please go back and have them redyno in 3rd
Originally posted by bags533
what do you consider almost stock? ( not trying to sound like a butt head there )
i have a cai , y-pipe , hi flow cat ( if there is such a thing ) , cat back exhaust and i am at 171 hp and 181 lbs TQ
i am not modded out the butt , however that seems like 2 more mods than slightly stock
EMAX yes they do cost $75 bucks
RUSS a 2002 IMHO should be about 10 more hp / 10 lbs TQ than a 2001. HOWEVER i am basing this just off of my small brain and no facts
what do you consider almost stock? ( not trying to sound like a butt head there )
i have a cai , y-pipe , hi flow cat ( if there is such a thing ) , cat back exhaust and i am at 171 hp and 181 lbs TQ
i am not modded out the butt , however that seems like 2 more mods than slightly stock
EMAX yes they do cost $75 bucks
RUSS a 2002 IMHO should be about 10 more hp / 10 lbs TQ than a 2001. HOWEVER i am basing this just off of my small brain and no facts
11-13-2001 | 07:14 PM
#23
Re: Re: Re: Re: yes please go back and have them redyno in 3rd
Originally posted by medicsonic
It is important to state that you have mods that have upped your numbers.
It is important to state that you have mods that have upped your numbers.
yeah forgot about that... the sig part would have told everyone that... guess i need to get used to not having it.
sorry for the confusion
11-13-2001 | 07:24 PM
#24
Donating Maxima.org Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 734
Hmm, sounds like the dyno place is definitly Honda biased! first they didnt dyno in 3rd gear, didnt do the SAE correction(according to steVTEC), and then after they get the dyno results they show you the dyno results of a MODDED not stock CL-S as a comparison!? more likey to show you how much more fwhp the acura was producing, which was probably dynoed correctly, unlike the max!!! O well, Ill be looking forward to the new CORRECT dyno results
11-13-2001 | 07:27 PM
#25
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,575
ooh ooh, my turn
soundmike--
i plan on having my 2k2 done in the next couple of weeks--could you tell me where you got it done and perhaps a ph. # --did it run about $75-80
maybe if i go there they'll give you some type of a rebate or free dyno for reffering someone
i plan on having my 2k2 done in the next couple of weeks--could you tell me where you got it done and perhaps a ph. # --did it run about $75-80
maybe if i go there they'll give you some type of a rebate or free dyno for reffering someone
11-13-2001 | 07:28 PM
#26
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,985
nissan hi loss tranny
Originally posted by ColgateU
Only 189 hp at the wheels? I'm sorry, but the 2002 Maxima IS NOT PUTTING 255 hp at the crank. A stock TL-S/CL-S dynos for approximately 205 hp at the wheels and it's said to only produce 5 more horsepower than the new max at the crank!
Only 189 hp at the wheels? I'm sorry, but the 2002 Maxima IS NOT PUTTING 255 hp at the crank. A stock TL-S/CL-S dynos for approximately 205 hp at the wheels and it's said to only produce 5 more horsepower than the new max at the crank!
so with nissan adding 33hp to the crank, I guessed the 2k2 auto would be about the same as the 2k1 5speed!
11-13-2001 | 07:34 PM
#27
Re: ooh ooh, my turn
Matt we should meet up and do it together. Maybe we can get a small discount
Did it at Carboy along Bissonnet (Between the beltway and 59), coming from 59 it's going to be on your right.
Check out carboyracing.com, cost me $65 (+ tax) for 2 runs (but i got a third run for free)
SteVTEC, thanks for the heads up (as with everyone else!) I'll see what i can do about it tomorrow.
Okay, so do it in 3rd, get it SAE corrected. Is that it?
Did it at Carboy along Bissonnet (Between the beltway and 59), coming from 59 it's going to be on your right.
Check out carboyracing.com, cost me $65 (+ tax) for 2 runs (but i got a third run for free)
SteVTEC, thanks for the heads up (as with everyone else!) I'll see what i can do about it tomorrow.
Okay, so do it in 3rd, get it SAE corrected. Is that it?
Originally posted by mattattax
soundmike--
i plan on having my 2k2 done in the next couple of weeks--could you tell me where you got it done and perhaps a ph. # --did it run about $75-80
maybe if i go there they'll give you some type of a rebate or free dyno for reffering someone
soundmike--
i plan on having my 2k2 done in the next couple of weeks--could you tell me where you got it done and perhaps a ph. # --did it run about $75-80
maybe if i go there they'll give you some type of a rebate or free dyno for reffering someone
11-13-2001 | 07:36 PM
#28
Well they did show me the stock Accord V6 graph's but that was a really bad comparison.
So they tried to make it better by showing me a modded CL-S.
So they tried to make it better by showing me a modded CL-S.
Originally posted by ChillWill2000
Hmm, sounds like the dyno place is definitly Honda biased! first they didnt dyno in 3rd gear, didnt do the SAE correction(according to steVTEC), and then after they get the dyno results they show you the dyno results of a MODDED not stock CL-S as a comparison!? more likey to show you how much more fwhp the acura was producing, which was probably dynoed correctly, unlike the max!!! O well, Ill be looking forward to the new CORRECT dyno results
Hmm, sounds like the dyno place is definitly Honda biased! first they didnt dyno in 3rd gear, didnt do the SAE correction(according to steVTEC), and then after they get the dyno results they show you the dyno results of a MODDED not stock CL-S as a comparison!? more likey to show you how much more fwhp the acura was producing, which was probably dynoed correctly, unlike the max!!! O well, Ill be looking forward to the new CORRECT dyno results
11-13-2001 | 07:41 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
11-13-2001 | 07:41 PM
#31
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally posted by soundmike
Well they did show me the stock Accord V6 graph's but that was a really bad comparison.
So they tried to make it better by showing me a modded CL-S
Well they did show me the stock Accord V6 graph's but that was a really bad comparison.
So they tried to make it better by showing me a modded CL-S
11-13-2001 | 07:44 PM
#32
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,575
Re: Re: ooh ooh, my turn
Originally posted by soundmike
Matt we should meet up and do it together. Maybe we can get a small discount
Did it at Carboy along Bissonnet (Between the beltway and 59), coming from 59 it's going to be on your right.
Check out carboyracing.com, cost me $65 (+ tax) for 2 runs (but i got a third run for free)
SteVTEC, thanks for the heads up (as with everyone else!) I'll see what i can do about it tomorrow.
Okay, so do it in 3rd, get it SAE corrected. Is that it?
Matt we should meet up and do it together. Maybe we can get a small discount
Did it at Carboy along Bissonnet (Between the beltway and 59), coming from 59 it's going to be on your right.
Check out carboyracing.com, cost me $65 (+ tax) for 2 runs (but i got a third run for free)
SteVTEC, thanks for the heads up (as with everyone else!) I'll see what i can do about it tomorrow.
Okay, so do it in 3rd, get it SAE corrected. Is that it?
11-13-2001 | 08:44 PM
#33
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 117
Re: 2k2 Dyno Finally Up!
How do you get 240hp given a 25% drivetrain loss?
(1-0.25)*240=180
Assuming the 25% loss, you have 188.9/0.75=251.87, which is not that far off from Nissan's claimed 255. Since parasitic losses on some automatic maximas have been higher, 188.9 seems very reasonable to me.
(1-0.25)*240=180
Assuming the 25% loss, you have 188.9/0.75=251.87, which is not that far off from Nissan's claimed 255. Since parasitic losses on some automatic maximas have been higher, 188.9 seems very reasonable to me.
Originally posted by soundmike
Okay, as promised here it is guys.
As everyone calculated it seems the Auto 2k2 only peaks at 188.9 FWHP. Torque on the other hand was impressive at 204.8 lb/ft. After a bit of calculation, given the standard 25% loss - this comes out to approximately (roughly!) 240hp and 265 lb.ft of torque - similar to what the pathfinder has.
Okay, as promised here it is guys.
As everyone calculated it seems the Auto 2k2 only peaks at 188.9 FWHP. Torque on the other hand was impressive at 204.8 lb/ft. After a bit of calculation, given the standard 25% loss - this comes out to approximately (roughly!) 240hp and 265 lb.ft of torque - similar to what the pathfinder has.
11-13-2001 | 10:06 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Re: 2k2 Dyno Finally Up!
Originally posted by beaglemax
How do you get 240hp given a 25% drivetrain loss?
(1-0.25)*240=180
Assuming the 25% loss, you have 188.9/0.75=251.87, which is not that far off from Nissan's claimed 255. Since parasitic losses on some automatic maximas have been higher, 188.9 seems very reasonable to me.
How do you get 240hp given a 25% drivetrain loss?
(1-0.25)*240=180
Assuming the 25% loss, you have 188.9/0.75=251.87, which is not that far off from Nissan's claimed 255. Since parasitic losses on some automatic maximas have been higher, 188.9 seems very reasonable to me.
11-13-2001 | 10:49 PM
#36
Originally posted by dmbmaxima88
dynoing is second will give you less hp and more tq thus the skewed results.
dynoing is second will give you less hp and more tq thus the skewed results.
11-14-2001 | 04:56 AM
#37
Originally posted by emax95
I got 6 more HP in 3rd gear then I got in 4th gear. Maybe this principle only holds true for manual trannys? BTW Steve, when are you going to dyno your baby?! My max is supposaed to be in next Wednesday, I can't wait!!
I got 6 more HP in 3rd gear then I got in 4th gear. Maybe this principle only holds true for manual trannys? BTW Steve, when are you going to dyno your baby?! My max is supposaed to be in next Wednesday, I can't wait!!
11-14-2001 | 05:12 AM
#38
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,038
Thanks for doing the dyno.
There are some very good things about that dyno plot, though.
The best is the long flat hp peak you've got. It runs for what 2000-2500 rpms (from memory)? That's fantastic. That means once you get to your peak, that thing ought to in the sweet spot hp-wise ALL THE TIME!!
Compare it to a 2k/2k1 dyno where it is a short peak and only at redline.
That'll mean that you'd shift/race a 2k2 auto different than a 2k/2k1. IIRC, the 2k owners have been manually shifting at redline to take advantage of the peak. That won't do you any good. In fact, you would want to shift at/just before your peak from the looks of it.
Even if your dyno doesn't go up, you should be right at/slightly faster than 2k/2k1 stock 5spds.
There are some very good things about that dyno plot, though.
The best is the long flat hp peak you've got. It runs for what 2000-2500 rpms (from memory)? That's fantastic. That means once you get to your peak, that thing ought to in the sweet spot hp-wise ALL THE TIME!!
Compare it to a 2k/2k1 dyno where it is a short peak and only at redline.
That'll mean that you'd shift/race a 2k2 auto different than a 2k/2k1. IIRC, the 2k owners have been manually shifting at redline to take advantage of the peak. That won't do you any good. In fact, you would want to shift at/just before your peak from the looks of it.
Even if your dyno doesn't go up, you should be right at/slightly faster than 2k/2k1 stock 5spds.
11-14-2001 | 06:07 AM
#39
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 144
I'm no expert on Maxs, but I think the difference in 2nd and 3rd in Auto on a dyno will amount to more than some of you may think. I know C5 Corvettes typically show dyno differences of around 20-25hp when they are mistakenly dynoed in 2nd instead of 3rd. I wouldn't put much stock in these numbers untill its done in the correct gear.
11-14-2001 | 08:10 AM
#40
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Another possible reason for low results
(if you call them low)
Damn, it's confusing having more than one Steve here
This reminds me of the automagic's best friend, the torque converter. I'm not sure how exactly they're setup on the Maxima, but at least on the Accord V6 the torque converter will only lock (partially or fully) in 3rd and 4th gears, and not in 2nd gear. If it's setup similarly on a Maxima then that could be another reason for low results.
A manual always has direct coupling and no slushy torque converter to go through so the results might be different for a manual in a lower gear.
Originally posted by emax95
I got 6 more HP in 3rd gear then I got in 4th gear. Maybe this principle only holds true for manual trannys?
I got 6 more HP in 3rd gear then I got in 4th gear. Maybe this principle only holds true for manual trannys?
This reminds me of the automagic's best friend, the torque converter. I'm not sure how exactly they're setup on the Maxima, but at least on the Accord V6 the torque converter will only lock (partially or fully) in 3rd and 4th gears, and not in 2nd gear. If it's setup similarly on a Maxima then that could be another reason for low results.
A manual always has direct coupling and no slushy torque converter to go through so the results might be different for a manual in a lower gear.