madmax2k

Well, I was curious as to the effects of synthetic transmission fluid and synthetic engine oil on the power output of the Max. So, about 2 months ago, I changed from conventional 5-W30 engine oil to Mobil 1 5-W30, as well as replacing the factory transmission fluid with Redline MT75 synthetic.

Without further delay, here is the dynoplot of the runs before and after the fluid changes. This data is all corrected to SAE standard conditions.

http://homestead.juno.com/madmax2k/f...omarch2001.jpg

Also, just out of curiosity, I on another set of plots, I plotted the UNCORRECTED values (meaning no temperature correction to the data) and yesterday at 72F dyno room temperature, Mad Max put down 211 hp and 199 ft lb of torque. A previous run accomplished before the fluid change in 86F conditions yielded 205 hp and 194 ft lb. Again, all these were UNCORRECTED. The barometric pressures on both runs were almost identical and the tests were on the same dyno. It just goes to show the effects of temperature on engine output.

Dave B

Damn that car is powerful. Do you don't think the increase was related to more engien break-in? What was the baro pressure? My friend ran his Celica GT-S on the dyno in the northeast under a baro pressure of 32.1. Needless to say his uncorrected number were HUGE. He made 187 fwhp with a 1.8. Corrected he made 165 fwhp. Baro pressure plays a huge roll in the performance, wouldn't you say. Also what gear?

I can see why people say the 4th gen VQ feels more frisky below 4000 rpms. My car is making a little more torque than you from 2000-3500 and then it even out . The only difference is your torque holds on for another 500 rpms before falling below 175 fwtq. Since the 4th gen weighs 100+lbs less, it may have the advantage in a 0-60 sprint. However, you car pulls to 6500 rpms where as my power falls off at 5800 rpms. That fact that you've got 700 rpms more to work with is pretty significant even with your car hauling a little more weight.


Dave

madmax2k

Well, Ive dynoed it at 300 miles, 10,000 miles and now at 18,000 miles. It been fairly consistent.

Quote:

What was the baro pressure? My friend ran his Celica GT-S on the dyno in the northeast under a baro pressure of 32.1. Needless to say his uncorrected number were HUGE. He made 187 fwhp with a 1.8. Corrected he made 165 fwhp. Baro pressure plays a huge roll in the performance, wouldn't you say. Also what gear?

The baro pressure was almost dead on standard (were very close to sea level here, obviously), and was 30.0x, I cant remember the last digit. (Standard is 29.92 IIRC) Baro pressure makes a huge difference in power figures. Your buddy who dynoed at 32.1 in Hg was running like he had a low pressure turbo! 2.03 in Hg=1 psi, so he had an effective 1.1 psi "boost". Pretty sweet!

I tested, as always, in 3rd gear. I know some people dont like it, but its too late to change now. All my previous runs were made in that gear, so Ive continued to use it. Im mostly concerned with the differences in runs anyway, so the absolute values are secondary.

Quote:

I can see why people say the 4th gen VQ feels more frisky below 4000 rpms. My car is making a little more torque than you from 2000-3500 and then it even out . The only difference is your torque holds on for another 500 rpms before falling below 175 fwtq. Since the 4th gen weighs 100+lbs less, it may have the advantage in a 0-60 sprint. However, you car pulls to 6500 rpms where as my power falls off at 5800 rpms. That fact that you've got 700 rpms more to work with is pretty significant even with your car hauling a little more weight.


Dave

Yep...I agree. Its seems the 5th gens are a tad weaker at very low rpms, and the extra weight doesnt help matters. I just wish the rev limit was at 7000 instead of 6500. The car would run alot faster with just a bit more play in the upper rpm range.

As an interesting aside, I let the dyno owner (who is a friend of mine) drive Mad Max on an errand before we dynoed. (Keep in mind this shop is a HONDA shop though and through.....they do all kinds of turbo, S/C, and N/A build ups.....they also dont sell clear tail lights ) Well, it just so happens that on the way back, ole Mad Max and an S2000 tangled. It was from a 2nd gear roll on and ole Maximus walked that 2 liter demon like a lame mule. hehehehehehe. That makes Max 2 for 2 against the S2000.

The even funnier thing is that the first S2000 stomping was on the dyno shop owners own S2000 a few months prior! hehehhehehehe.

But, at the track, its a different story as I cant match their ET best, which has been a 13.8 @99 mph.

Dave B

Mad MAx-

What's funny is that he ran a 14.2@98.5mph in GT-S with just a intake and a unbolted muffler. The conditions were 35 degrees and a 32.2 baropressure. His prior best was a 14.8@95mph. He swore up and down that the reason his car was faster was because of better driving. I laughed and told him it was because of the huge pressure. It's almost like having forced induction. Well, he and the Celica.org didn't like that and flamed the holy crap out of me. To this day, they honestly believe mostly stock GT-S can hit low 14s. It's funny that the ONLY GT-Ss that ever have run lower than 14.8s have been done so at the same track (northeast coast) and under the same conditions. Nearly every other GT-S in the country is lucky to break a 14.9.

BTW, there was a ITR that ran that low 14 second GT-S. The ITR was stock and pulled a 2.6 60 foot and still ran a 14.6@95mph. Hmmmm...how often does that happen at the track you go to An ITR hitting a 2.6 60 foot at my track would be lucky to run a higher 15.


Dave

madmax2k

That hilarious. Having a 32.2 baro reading is identical to having 1.07 psi of "positive" pressure in the intake manifold at all times. Of course hes going to run faster. GTS around here seem to also be in the low 15's/high 14's stock, or mostly stock. I raced one in Orlando, when I was stock, and it was a damn good race. I won by something like 0.03 seconds (we were both at 15.0), and we had the identical mph, 94.56. Those cars are quick on the second 1/8th though! I was ahead by more than 2 cars and he caught me at the top. If the race was 1 foot longer, Mad Max would have been licked.

Never!

Very lucky! Most likely he'd be in the low 16's with a 2.6 short time. The lower torque cars rely on the launch. Without it, its over with. Heck, some stock Types R's here cant get into the low 15's no matter what they do.