[aklucsarits]

Well, kinda...

These are the uncorrected dyno numbers - the actual data collected by the dyno...

This is the SAE corrected plot... Corrected for elevation, temperature, humidity, and whatever else they correct for...

I did my baseline dyno runs this morning. My car is a 2000 Prelude 5spd. It has almost exactly 15,000 miles on it. I broke it in very carefully.... 8-500mi: under 4000rpm, 500-1000mi: under 5000rpm, 1000-1200: Started dipping into VTEC occaisionally, 1200mi+ - VTEC and trips to redline... I'm running bone-stock except for my new 17" wheels with 215/40/17 tires.

Runs were done on a Dynojet 248c. Temp was 50F, Barometer was 30.17-0.43in.Hg, Elevation 0ft., and CF=0.95 (What is "CF"? "Correction Factor"?...Would that make my CF=-5%?) I don't know why, but these stats appear scrambled on the Plots that they gave me on diskette...

OK. First off, I learned today that I was very incorrect in several recent posts where I indicated that 3rd gear dyno runs should yield higher numbers than 4th gear... In fact, just the opposite is true (by a slim margin). On the 5spd, 4th gear is the closest gear to 1:1 (or specifically - 1.034:1). As I said before, 4th gear would yield the most realistic numbers since it is so nearly 1:1. But contrary to what I previously thought, 3rd gear does not give exaggerated numbers. 3rd gear actually gives slightly *lower* numbers. The dyno tech described it to me as the lower gear "reducing" torque to the wheels. This is somewhat evidenced in my 2 runs. Run 1 (GREEN/BLACK) was in 3rd gear, while run 2 (BLUE/BLUE) was done in 4th gear. Run 2 in 4th gear netted me 162.8HP and 137.5lb/ft. Run 1 in 3rd yielded slightly lower numbers, although the difference was so small that it was essentially irrelevant what gear I ran it... (I'm still curious why this is, and I've been looking all day at work for the formulas to calculate what the power reduction/multiplication would be in each of the various gears... If anyone has any idea what I'm talking about, pls email me...

)

Secondly, I learned how easy it would be to misinterpret or even manipulate dyno numbers... Just look at the difference between my SAE corrected and uncorrected plot... It's +5%!!

So anytime you see a dyno plot that says "Actual Horsepower" and "Actual Torque" instead of "SAE Horsepower" and "SAE Torque", take that with a grain of salt if you plan on using it for comparsions sake... I believe that most SAE corrected plots are corrected UP, but mine happened to be corrected DOWN because of the ideal conditions today...

But 162.8HP and 137.5lb/ft. is still pretty high for a bone-stock 5th gen... So all in all, I was pleasently surprised with the numbers, even with SAE correction.

...But the best part was that I got a tour of DuPont Motorsport's SpeedVision Touring Car prep facility!! Check out some pics...

http://honda-acura.net/forum/Forum20/HTML/009264.html

Andrew

 

[Joon525]

Interesting.....vwong might be pissed now though(?)

------------------
AOL IM: Joon525

[email protected]

 

[schwett]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by aklucsarits:
But 162.8HP and 137.5lb/ft. is still pretty high for a bone-stock 5th gen... So all in all, I was pleasently surprised with the numbers, even with SAE correction</font>

good numbers for sure, especially if some people post the uncorrected version. however, i stand by my belief that a 99+ 5th gen, base or sh (but not ss) should dyno at 160-165 bone stock. you're right in the middle of that range.

have you done any 1/4 runs?

 

[Joon525]

I re-read that.....if a lower gear has less torque why is it that we start driving in 1st and not 5th?

------------------
AOL IM: Joon525

[email protected]

 

[aklucsarits]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Joon525:
Interesting.....vwong might be pissed now though(?)

</font>

For what it's worth, I think that even with the SAE correction, it's still too difficult to make dyno plot comparisons unless the runs were done at the same location on the same DynoJet under similar atmospheric conditions...

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the numbers... I really just wanted to get a baseline for future mods... Well, that and rile the board up with a shocking post title...

Andrew

 

[jmcn]

Yah! My stock '97 SH dynoed @ 159.6 hp and 133.3 ft/lbs in 3rd gear. I feel good.

------------------
Prelude forum moderator
Prelude FAQ
AIM: jmcn97
'97 Prelude Type-SH

'96 Integra GS-R (R.I.P.)
jmcn.com

 

[atlxchink]

Joon, your new sig is BADASS!!!

SAM

 

[vabeach_lude]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by atlxchink:
Joon, your new sig is BADASS!!!

</font>

agreed

 

[rf7475]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by atlxchink:
Joon, your new sig is BADASS!!!

</font>

I totally agree.

And those are some nice numbers for a stock prelude.

 

[93si4ws]

dayam...now i wish i had gone with you. i would've liked to see the speedvision shop. when i went to penske's cart shop that ish't was hot! 1000 dollar carbon fiber rotors sittin there for me to swipe! numerous 500G v8 turbo honda motors. they even had a warehouse filled with bbs and oz wheels.

well the good news is that the $75 i saved from not going will go towards a p13 i'll be grippin pretty soon. just hope the deal goes through smoothly.

right now im not getting any codes, its just the a/f guage stays full lean and that scares me, so i just put back the p14. im running the 2.3 injectors, you think that would have something to do with it? i just sent my jdm h22 injectors to rc today.

------------------
don't touch me . . .
aim:jR93si4ws

93vtec4ws

 

[vwong]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Joon525:
Interesting.....vwong might be pissed now though(?)

</font>

hmm...next time I dyno my car, I'll ask them to dyno it with one 3rd gear and one 4th gear.

BTW aklucsarits, how much did you pay for your dyno? I paid $40 only for the 3 runs.


------------------
Vincent
98 TypeSH
99 GSR Sedan
CSCC SoloII #107 STS
Team Vision
AIM: vwong107

 

[Jacques]

Andrew, for a moment I thought you had one of those rumored "strong engines" coming out of the Honda factory

. Good runs...I'd like to dyno mine one of these days...

------------------
AIM screename: jsarino
'99 Ficus Green Pearl Type SH:
AEM cai, DC Sports SS header, Mugen exhaust, RH Evo CP-035s, GC/Konis, Spoon bars, and more!

 

[aklucsarits]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by vwong:


BTW aklucsarits, how much did you pay for your dyno? I paid $40 only for the 3 runs.

</font>

It was $75 for a half-hour, but they only did those 2 runs you see in the plots. I guess I should have asked them to do some more runs so I could take an average....

Andrew

 

[aklucsarits]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by schwett:

have you done any 1/4 runs?</font>

I've never done any quarter mile runs in this car. In my old 1993 VTEC, I did lots of 1/4 mile runs with a friend's G-Tech Pro device. I could get 14.7-14.8 sec on the G-Tech pretty consistantly on my 4th gen with just a chipped ECU. My current car *feels* considerably slower than my 4th ge did though... I'll have to borrow th G-Tech again sometime to do runs with this car...

Andrew

 

[Joon525]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Joon525:
I re-read that.....if a lower gear has less torque why is it that we start driving in 1st and not 5th?</font>

Had to bring this up again......I can't figure out why they told you that you have more torque at a higher gear.

(Thanks for the compliments on the sig...I have to redo it though....still not good enough.)

 

[Pete]

Great numbers, dude. and to think after reading the title I was ready to flame your a$$!

Glad you didn't get a "Friday" motor!

------------------
<A HREF="http://gotigersgo.fansonly.com/sports/m-baskbl/mem-m-baskbl-body.html" TARGET=_blank>

</A>
Record: 21-15 after starting 2-6
N.I.T. 3rd place

 

[aklucsarits]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Joon525:
Had to bring this up again......I can't figure out why they told you that you have more torque at a higher gear.

(Thanks for the compliments on the sig...I have to redo it though....still not good enough.)</font>

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either... Intuitively, you'd probably think that a lower gear would yield higher numbers... At least, that's what I was thinking up until yesterday... But that's obviously not true according to my plots.

There is a mathematical explaination for it. I vaguely remember reading about it on www.VTEC.net several years ago... Shawn, one of the most knowledgable people there was describing the gearing on his supercharged CRX... He had a bunch of formulas he was throwing around talking about power delivery in each gear. I don't remember anymore than that, and I can't find that post anymore....

Andrew