My RL dyno'ed! Numbers, pix, movies
03-23-2007, 10:55 AM
#1
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
My RL dyno'ed! Numbers, pix, movies
I just got back from Buschur Racing in Wakeman, OH. That's in Huron County, for those from NE Ohio. Buschur specializes in modding and racing Evos ( 
) and so have lots of experience with AWD cars.
I had some baseline dyno runs on my RL. They use a Mustang MD-AWD-500 SE dynamometer at their facility. They mention that a stock Evo, which is rated at 286 HP at the flywheel, dynos at around 215 HP on their machine. They do their dynos in 3rd gear, and so they used the RL's sportshifter. This led to some interesting artifacts in the initial dyno curve as they accelerated to 3rd gear because we all know how slow the shifts are with the sportshifter. I'll scan the test report and add it to this thread, but it won't be that helpful.
My car's results were pretty consistent for the three runs.
Run 1: Max WHP 187/Tq 223
Run 2: Max WHP 191/Tq 228
Run 3: Max WHP 187/tq 223
I didn't know what to expect, but those numbers seem less than a stock TL to me, which dynos at 200-220 depending on sample. My guesses are that with a bit less than 7000 miles, the engine is not fully "broken in", and that the SH-AWD mechanism and automatic transmission suck up a lot of that HP.
Part 2 comes one week from today. I am having Buschur's team install my intake and exhaust, and they will immediately re-dyno the car after the install.
Pix:
Movies are worse than I recorded them due to YouTube's compression
.
Clip 1
Clip 2
Hopefully those more adept at tuning will comment here.
) and so have lots of experience with AWD cars. I had some baseline dyno runs on my RL. They use a Mustang MD-AWD-500 SE dynamometer at their facility. They mention that a stock Evo, which is rated at 286 HP at the flywheel, dynos at around 215 HP on their machine. They do their dynos in 3rd gear, and so they used the RL's sportshifter. This led to some interesting artifacts in the initial dyno curve as they accelerated to 3rd gear because we all know how slow the shifts are with the sportshifter. I'll scan the test report and add it to this thread, but it won't be that helpful.
My car's results were pretty consistent for the three runs.
Run 1: Max WHP 187/Tq 223
Run 2: Max WHP 191/Tq 228
Run 3: Max WHP 187/tq 223
I didn't know what to expect, but those numbers seem less than a stock TL to me, which dynos at 200-220 depending on sample. My guesses are that with a bit less than 7000 miles, the engine is not fully "broken in", and that the SH-AWD mechanism and automatic transmission suck up a lot of that HP.
Part 2 comes one week from today. I am having Buschur's team install my intake and exhaust, and they will immediately re-dyno the car after the install.
Pix:
Movies are worse than I recorded them due to YouTube's compression
.Clip 1
Clip 2
Hopefully those more adept at tuning will comment here.
03-23-2007, 11:55 AM
#4
Safety Car
thanks for doing this. I have never done a dyno run or seen one done except for the VA state emissions testing. What do they do about things like cooling air through the radiator, or are the runs so short it does not matter?
In the first picture, are those gray plastic items centrifugal flow fans for cooling??
In the first picture, are those gray plastic items centrifugal flow fans for cooling??
03-23-2007, 12:03 PM
#5
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I've never done a dyno before today, either. No, the numbers are definitely not reversed, as you'll see when I scan the test report tonight. Remember, they are but one data point. I encourage others to do the same if they've got AWD dynos in their neighborhoods. I'm not disappointed, but am a bit surprised. I don't think anything's wrong. I suspect the tranny is really that ineffecient, it's after all putting down power to all four wheels in my car with full acceleration (or that's what I see on my SH-AWD display...)
Remember the bigger picture: I'm just looking to see an absolute gain after my mods, and the only way to do that is by recording baseline numbers.
The gray tubing in front is the BIG fan they used for cooling. That puppy is loud until the test is started....then things get REALLY loud. And the smell of rubber.....
(Hoping YouTube has configured the videos by now....)
Remember the bigger picture: I'm just looking to see an absolute gain after my mods, and the only way to do that is by recording baseline numbers.
The gray tubing in front is the BIG fan they used for cooling. That puppy is loud until the test is started....then things get REALLY loud. And the smell of rubber.....
(Hoping YouTube has configured the videos by now....)
03-23-2007, 12:27 PM
#6
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I'm also interested in hearing from Touge regarding the "technical" issues the person who did his dyno had. If the numbers were like mine, I wonder whether this is a characteristic of SH-AWD?
03-23-2007, 02:38 PM
#7
5Zigen Acura RL
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 54
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is great that you've done it, but I must say I'm "shocked" by the Dyno results. For a 290hp engine to only produce 190hp at the wheel is pretty bad. However, at least we can get a good measure of the gains with the upgrades.
As already mentioned, isn't Torque usually lower than hp at the wheels? I'm certainly no expert, but would love to hear from anyone who is!
As already mentioned, isn't Torque usually lower than hp at the wheels? I'm certainly no expert, but would love to hear from anyone who is!
Trending Topics
03-23-2007, 02:53 PM
#8
AcurAdmirer
Lemme ask this: Is the RL dyno-ing lower because of the "torque-shifting" aspects of SH-AWD?
That is, won't it dyno differently from a full-time AWD vehicle like the Evo? If the dyno actually measures whp and tq only at the rear wheels or only at the front wheels, SH-AWD may be skewing the results, because it's varying the torque front to rear.
Face it - there's no way 290hp is getting watered down to only 190hp at the wheels. Inefficient as the drivetrain may be, it's not losing a whole 100hp. No way. If that was the case, this 4000 lb. car would be needing about 8.5 seconds to do 0-60.
.
.
That is, won't it dyno differently from a full-time AWD vehicle like the Evo? If the dyno actually measures whp and tq only at the rear wheels or only at the front wheels, SH-AWD may be skewing the results, because it's varying the torque front to rear.
Face it - there's no way 290hp is getting watered down to only 190hp at the wheels. Inefficient as the drivetrain may be, it's not losing a whole 100hp. No way. If that was the case, this 4000 lb. car would be needing about 8.5 seconds to do 0-60.
.
.
03-23-2007, 02:56 PM
#9
My only car is a Bus
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,254
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
This is interesting stuff. Looking on Comptech's website for the 3.2 CL Type-S we find a stock car (http://www.comptechusa.com/store/med...spd_icebox.pdf) does 221 hp @ 6,100 RPM and a stock 2004 TL (http://www.comptechusa.com/store/med...atbackDyno.pdf) does 230.4 hp @ 6,600 RPM. I know the AWD causes some hp loss but this does seem high. Was their machine calibrated correctly?
03-23-2007, 03:20 PM
#10
5Zigen Acura RL
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 54
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something is amiss here. Maybe Touge can provide some insight based on his experiences. However, 228 Torque makes no sense producing 191hp at the wheels. With that torque I'd expect 250 or more....
03-23-2007, 03:34 PM
#11
Community Architect
robb m.
robb m.
you guys can't go comaparing dyno numbers between different models, or even different cars, unless they were done on the same dyno, under the same atmospheric conditions.
Don't get hung up on the numbers, just be thankful a guy like Bob is taking the time, and spending the money to at least document the process/results!!
Don't get hung up on the numbers, just be thankful a guy like Bob is taking the time, and spending the money to at least document the process/results!!
03-23-2007, 04:05 PM
#12
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Thanks for the points raised, guys! You all rock.
I asked why the torque number was higher than the HP number, and was told that some cars simply put up more torque than HP. With a torque-shifting system like SH-AWD, that's almost believable. We need Shiyouji Tokushima (SH-AWD chief engineer) to comment on that. (Uh, dude? Do you speak English and look on Acurazine occasionally?
)
I think it is a bit strange, as well, that there is a significant loss like that at the wheels. I've been told by others that Mustangs read lower HP than other dyno brands (DynoJet is most quoted....and I'm told DynoJets over-read the HP). I was told this morning that the machine had been recently calibrated, so while miscalibration may be a possibility, if the testers are taken at face value, this may not be as much a factor.
I'm hoping my experience gets a few others onto dyno tables. In medicine, just because one study proves the good (or ill) of a treatment doesn't mean that's the final word. We usually require repeat studies in similar conditions. Get out there and dyno! There may simply be somthing unusual about SH-AWD that causes these results.
I asked why the torque number was higher than the HP number, and was told that some cars simply put up more torque than HP. With a torque-shifting system like SH-AWD, that's almost believable. We need Shiyouji Tokushima (SH-AWD chief engineer) to comment on that. (Uh, dude? Do you speak English and look on Acurazine occasionally?
)I think it is a bit strange, as well, that there is a significant loss like that at the wheels. I've been told by others that Mustangs read lower HP than other dyno brands (DynoJet is most quoted....and I'm told DynoJets over-read the HP). I was told this morning that the machine had been recently calibrated, so while miscalibration may be a possibility, if the testers are taken at face value, this may not be as much a factor.
I'm hoping my experience gets a few others onto dyno tables. In medicine, just because one study proves the good (or ill) of a treatment doesn't mean that's the final word. We usually require repeat studies in similar conditions. Get out there and dyno! There may simply be somthing unusual about SH-AWD that causes these results.
03-23-2007, 04:09 PM
#13
Cruisin'
Join Date: Oct 2006
Age: 41
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
honestly the numbers look weird, does anyone know the estimated drivetrain loss on the RL? I am not sure if the AWD is similar to the CRV system where its more of a 80% FWD and 20% RWD in most conditions.
And I don't think the numbers are reversed because you would image that the 3.5L motor would pump out more than 185wtrq........but then I am not sure because I dont have too much experience with the AWD system on the RLs....
Do you have a graph, we can clear up a lot of things if we can take a look.
And I don't think the numbers are reversed because you would image that the 3.5L motor would pump out more than 185wtrq........but then I am not sure because I dont have too much experience with the AWD system on the RLs....
Do you have a graph, we can clear up a lot of things if we can take a look.
03-23-2007, 04:15 PM
#14
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by MikeG(whiteRL)
Do you have a graph, we can clear up a lot of things if we can take a look.
Coming tonight when I have time to scan it in. And I still don't think it'll be very helpful.
Edit: Even LS1 owners have the same issue with Mustangs. I don't feel badly at all about the results. I'll only feel badly about the results if I don't see gains from the mods, in which case I'll go back to stock. Some interesting technical info about the difference between DynoJets and Mustangs. The testers actually told me about this difference in numbers between DynoJets and Mustangs as well, as I note in the first post.
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showth...1&page=1&pp=20
03-23-2007, 05:01 PM
#15
Intermediate
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Memphis, TN
Age: 40
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since these dyno runs are being set up to mainly give us an idea of the HP increase from the mods, it seems fairly inconsequential to debate the baseline numbers.
However, I will throw my limited and possibly inaccurate information into the equation. If we use the formula %/100 = is/of which in our case looks like:
x/100 = 191/290
290x = 19100
x = 65.86...
Which means the dyno run is showing an approximate drivetrain loss of 35%.
From what I've always understood, FWD drivetrain loss is approximately 12%, RWD is approximately 18% and AWD is appximately 25%.
Again, there are so many different factors to include, so this is in no way an exact science as we all know. That being said, 35% drivetrain loss is a helluva lot!!! Can anyone with more knowledge of dyno's or SH-AWD shed some light on this?
However, I will throw my limited and possibly inaccurate information into the equation. If we use the formula %/100 = is/of which in our case looks like:
x/100 = 191/290
290x = 19100
x = 65.86...
Which means the dyno run is showing an approximate drivetrain loss of 35%.
From what I've always understood, FWD drivetrain loss is approximately 12%, RWD is approximately 18% and AWD is appximately 25%.
Again, there are so many different factors to include, so this is in no way an exact science as we all know. That being said, 35% drivetrain loss is a helluva lot!!! Can anyone with more knowledge of dyno's or SH-AWD shed some light on this?
03-23-2007, 05:57 PM
#16
Burning Brakes
Very interesting results. I'd first like to thank Bob for providing us with this valuable data. Up till now we didn't have any idea what a stock might put down, so this is great to see
The numbers though are a bit low for a 290hp rated car. For example the Impreza STi is rated at 290hp also, but puts down 230-245whp depending on the dyno used (different brand of dyno's do ready different, eg dyno dynamics read low, while dynojet's read higher).
My guess is the sh-awd system is causing the lower than expected results. Remember on other AWD cars like the Evo or WRX the front to rear distribution of power is locked. For example my old WRX did 50/50 front to rear. Also Temple of v-tec when they tested the rdx tested it in 2wd mode ( via disconnecting the driveshaft). My guess again due to the sh-awd.
However using some real world testing tells us the RL is definitely making more power than reported imho. If you think about it, a stock WRX traps at 94 mph in the 1/4 mile (with a 5-spd manual). The car from the factory puts down about 168-178whp. The RL weigh's 900 lb more, has a auto and yet still can trap at 94mph. So this means for the RL to trap at the same speed as a WRX it has to be making more than 10whp over a WRX.
The numbers though are a bit low for a 290hp rated car. For example the Impreza STi is rated at 290hp also, but puts down 230-245whp depending on the dyno used (different brand of dyno's do ready different, eg dyno dynamics read low, while dynojet's read higher).
My guess is the sh-awd system is causing the lower than expected results. Remember on other AWD cars like the Evo or WRX the front to rear distribution of power is locked. For example my old WRX did 50/50 front to rear. Also Temple of v-tec when they tested the rdx tested it in 2wd mode ( via disconnecting the driveshaft). My guess again due to the sh-awd.
However using some real world testing tells us the RL is definitely making more power than reported imho. If you think about it, a stock WRX traps at 94 mph in the 1/4 mile (with a 5-spd manual). The car from the factory puts down about 168-178whp. The RL weigh's 900 lb more, has a auto and yet still can trap at 94mph. So this means for the RL to trap at the same speed as a WRX it has to be making more than 10whp over a WRX.
03-23-2007, 06:17 PM
#17
Burning Brakes
Oh a few other things I forgot to add -
1. Since Bob has the a-spec rims this can cause a small difference in measured output. This is due to rotational weight. Assuming the a-spec wheels are the same weight as stock it can still cause a difference because that weight is spread further out from the wheel hub. Usually this difference if perhaps 1-2whp. However if the wheel is heavier than stock the power loss difference can be more.... but this stuff still doesn't explain the #'s, it's just food for thought.
2. If you look at the RL brochure Acura shows a dyno curve of the power and it clearly shows HP is more than TQ. Again this confuses me because the above results show more TQ than HP. Usually on a NA motor w/ vtec, torque is always lower than HP. My explanation for the high TQ, leads me to point #3 -
3. A TL Type-S (same engine as ours), puts down 261whp and 241wtq with the similar mods as my RL. So based on the 223WTQ above it does sound very accurate for a stock RL.
1. Since Bob has the a-spec rims this can cause a small difference in measured output. This is due to rotational weight. Assuming the a-spec wheels are the same weight as stock it can still cause a difference because that weight is spread further out from the wheel hub. Usually this difference if perhaps 1-2whp. However if the wheel is heavier than stock the power loss difference can be more.... but this stuff still doesn't explain the #'s, it's just food for thought.
2. If you look at the RL brochure Acura shows a dyno curve of the power and it clearly shows HP is more than TQ. Again this confuses me because the above results show more TQ than HP. Usually on a NA motor w/ vtec, torque is always lower than HP. My explanation for the high TQ, leads me to point #3 -
3. A TL Type-S (same engine as ours), puts down 261whp and 241wtq with the similar mods as my RL. So based on the 223WTQ above it does sound very accurate for a stock RL.
03-23-2007, 06:21 PM
#18
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Ah, the ex-Subie owner finally speaks. I agree that the RL puts down more power to the wheels than it appears from this dyno. I still think the SH-AWD is affecting the results somehow.
And RL05's simple proportion puts it in perspective.
OK guys, any tips for next week?
And yes, I'm finally going home to scan the dyno sheet, for what good it will do. It should be up in the next 2-3 hours, depending on how much time I spend with my offline family after a long day of work.
I agree that the RL puts down more power to the wheels than it appears from this dyno. I still think the SH-AWD is affecting the results somehow.And RL05's simple proportion puts it in perspective.
OK guys, any tips for next week?
And yes, I'm finally going home to scan the dyno sheet, for what good it will do. It should be up in the next 2-3 hours, depending on how much time I spend with my offline family after a long day of work.
03-23-2007, 08:49 PM
#19
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
The dyno sheet. It appears, on closer inspection, that the 3rd dyno run has the same time and data as the first. However, they did do three runs. I'm going to ask whether the HP and torque numbers were switched around when I go back in a week. I saw the program they were entered in and they appeared correct.
Here's a couple of clear pictures from the original video I shot. This is the raw data for the first run.
Here's a couple of clear pictures from the original video I shot. This is the raw data for the first run.
03-23-2007, 11:41 PM
#21
5Zigen Acura RL
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 54
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Touge
Very interesting results. I'd first like to thank Bob for providing us with this valuable data. Up till now we didn't have any idea what a stock might put down, so this is great to see
The numbers though are a bit low for a 290hp rated car. For example the Impreza STi is rated at 290hp also, but puts down 230-245whp depending on the dyno used (different brand of dyno's do ready different, eg dyno dynamics read low, while dynojet's read higher).
My guess is the sh-awd system is causing the lower than expected results. Remember on other AWD cars like the Evo or WRX the front to rear distribution of power is locked. For example my old WRX did 50/50 front to rear. Also Temple of v-tec when they tested the rdx tested it in 2wd mode ( via disconnecting the driveshaft). My guess again due to the sh-awd.
However using some real world testing tells us the RL is definitely making more power than reported imho. If you think about it, a stock WRX traps at 94 mph in the 1/4 mile (with a 5-spd manual). The car from the factory puts down about 168-178whp. The RL weigh's 900 lb more, has a auto and yet still can trap at 94mph. So this means for the RL to trap at the same speed as a WRX it has to be making more than 10whp over a WRX.
The numbers though are a bit low for a 290hp rated car. For example the Impreza STi is rated at 290hp also, but puts down 230-245whp depending on the dyno used (different brand of dyno's do ready different, eg dyno dynamics read low, while dynojet's read higher).
My guess is the sh-awd system is causing the lower than expected results. Remember on other AWD cars like the Evo or WRX the front to rear distribution of power is locked. For example my old WRX did 50/50 front to rear. Also Temple of v-tec when they tested the rdx tested it in 2wd mode ( via disconnecting the driveshaft). My guess again due to the sh-awd.
However using some real world testing tells us the RL is definitely making more power than reported imho. If you think about it, a stock WRX traps at 94 mph in the 1/4 mile (with a 5-spd manual). The car from the factory puts down about 168-178whp. The RL weigh's 900 lb more, has a auto and yet still can trap at 94mph. So this means for the RL to trap at the same speed as a WRX it has to be making more than 10whp over a WRX.
03-24-2007, 12:38 AM
#22
Burning Brakes
That's a good question and the short answer is yes. If the actual power scaling is off by a certain amount, then the gain recorded in power will also be off by a similar factor. The important thing to realize is the dyno is a tool that helps us see improvements. The precise amount of improvement would be nice, but on a advanced awd system like the RL's it's appears difficult to determine. Fwiw, my own educated 'guess' is a stock RL is putting down about 230whp.
03-24-2007, 06:15 AM
#23
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I think I figured it out.
Did a little more research.
a) This car is too smart for our own good.
I've linked to an excellent article from Car and Driver that reminds us of the variables in dynoing a modern, complex car. It's so easy to modify the testing situation to get numbers that are palatable to us non-dyno engineers. A representative from Mustang is quoted in the article as saying that he's seen drivetrain loss as high as 35%. With the RL's system, that seems possible.
b) Add to that the known quantity of Mustang machines' known "low" readings (and Dynojet's "high" readings). Examples here:
2006 Eclipse
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4512/dynopic1fu4.jpg
LS1s
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showt...51&page=1&pp=20
This simply indicates different approaches to dynoing between the two competitors. There are multiple threads commenting on the difference as in the samples noted above; that difference is exacerbated with Mustang's AWD dyno. I'm sure I'd get more palatable numbers by dynoing with a Dynojet AWD dyno. If one of you guys would help the team here out and do that, that'd help. That would make an awesome comparison and we'd all learn more.
I'm not going to worry about the numbers as what counts is the change from stock to modified, and that's the reason I dynoed. Can't wait for next Friday! And believe me, the Buschur guys know what they are doing. Their Evo track reults speak for themselves.
I'm very glad I started this thread because we are all learning as we go here.
a) This car is too smart for our own good.
I've linked to an excellent article from Car and Driver that reminds us of the variables in dynoing a modern, complex car. It's so easy to modify the testing situation to get numbers that are palatable to us non-dyno engineers. A representative from Mustang is quoted in the article as saying that he's seen drivetrain loss as high as 35%. With the RL's system, that seems possible.
b) Add to that the known quantity of Mustang machines' known "low" readings (and Dynojet's "high" readings). Examples here:
2006 Eclipse
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4512/dynopic1fu4.jpg
LS1s
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showt...51&page=1&pp=20
This simply indicates different approaches to dynoing between the two competitors. There are multiple threads commenting on the difference as in the samples noted above; that difference is exacerbated with Mustang's AWD dyno. I'm sure I'd get more palatable numbers by dynoing with a Dynojet AWD dyno. If one of you guys would help the team here out and do that, that'd help.
That would make an awesome comparison and we'd all learn more.I'm not going to worry about the numbers as what counts is the change from stock to modified, and that's the reason I dynoed. Can't wait for next Friday! And believe me, the Buschur guys know what they are doing. Their Evo track reults speak for themselves.
I'm very glad I started this thread because we are all learning as we go here.
03-24-2007, 09:44 AM
#25
AcurAdmirer
I think what's going through some of our minds, Bob, is that if you got a 'distorted' number the first time, the second run (with mods) is going to be meaningful ONLY if you get the same degree of distortion as the first time.
That is, if the distortion is the result of their having screwn up, will they screw up to the exact same degree the second time, so the results will be consistent?
And (dare I say this) as a performance shop, is it to their advantage to produce a low number prior to doing performance mods?
.
.
That is, if the distortion is the result of their having screwn up, will they screw up to the exact same degree the second time, so the results will be consistent?
And (dare I say this) as a performance shop, is it to their advantage to produce a low number prior to doing performance mods?
.
.
03-24-2007, 11:05 AM
#26
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by Astroboy
you guys can't go comaparing dyno numbers between different models, or even different cars, unless they were done on the same dyno, under the same atmospheric conditions.
Don't get hung up on the numbers, just be thankful a guy like Bob is taking the time, and spending the money to at least document the process/results!!
Don't get hung up on the numbers, just be thankful a guy like Bob is taking the time, and spending the money to at least document the process/results!!
nice work, Bob.
03-24-2007, 11:09 AM
#27
Burning Brakes
This is by no means absolute, but here is a excel file that lets you compare dyno #'s from different dyno. It'll give you a rough idea what the RL would have put down on a dynojet. It's made by Shiv @ Vishnu Performance a very highly respected tuner in the industry.
www.visionaryracing.com/horsepower.xls
www.visionaryracing.com/horsepower.xls
03-24-2007, 11:17 AM
#28
Burning Brakes
Oh found a old thread here - https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=808 , appears to have the confusion about the #'s as we do.
03-24-2007, 12:06 PM
#29
What about the VSA?
Okay, not to muddy the water any more, but what effect would the VSA (if engaged) have on the base readings?
Since VSA modifies the torque (from Acura's website) and applies brakes, etc., could it be skewing the results to reduce horsepower at the wheels while showing a "confused"
torque reading?
If this has been discussed, please forgive me, but I didn't see anything in the postings.
Since VSA modifies the torque (from Acura's website) and applies brakes, etc., could it be skewing the results to reduce horsepower at the wheels while showing a "confused"
torque reading?If this has been discussed, please forgive me, but I didn't see anything in the postings.
03-24-2007, 01:25 PM
#30
5Zigen Acura RL
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 54
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Touge
That's a good question and the short answer is yes. If the actual power scaling is off by a certain amount, then the gain recorded in power will also be off by a similar factor. The important thing to realize is the dyno is a tool that helps us see improvements. The precise amount of improvement would be nice, but on a advanced awd system like the RL's it's appears difficult to determine. Fwiw, my own educated 'guess' is a stock RL is putting down about 230whp.
03-24-2007, 02:16 PM
#31
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Thanks for finding the old thread, Touge. I didn't follow rule #1 in posting a new thread: search for a similar one first. Bad mod, bad mod!
It turns out that my results match that dyno. That poster never stated which type of dyno he was running, though.
I appreciate the conversion table, I'll play with it later. Too busy with the baby this afternoon.
The VSA idea is an intriguing one, but does it activate in straight line acceleration, which a dyno "simulates"? If I get a chance on Friday, I'll see if I can get one more "pre" run, with VSA off. I doubt it will make any difference, though.
Thanks for all the comments!
Bad mod, bad mod!It turns out that my results match that dyno. That poster never stated which type of dyno he was running, though.
I appreciate the conversion table, I'll play with it later. Too busy with the baby this afternoon.
The VSA idea is an intriguing one, but does it activate in straight line acceleration, which a dyno "simulates"? If I get a chance on Friday, I'll see if I can get one more "pre" run, with VSA off. I doubt it will make any difference, though.
Thanks for all the comments!
03-24-2007, 02:39 PM
#32
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by neuronbob
Thanks for finding the old thread, Touge. I didn't follow rule #1 in posting a new thread: search for a similar one first. Bad mod, bad mod!
It turns out that my results match that dyno. That poster never stated which type of dyno he was running, though.
I appreciate the conversion table, I'll play with it later. Too busy with the baby this afternoon.
The VSA idea is an intriguing one, but does it activate in straight line acceleration, which a dyno "simulates"? If I get a chance on Friday, I'll see if I can get one more "pre" run, with VSA off. I doubt it will make any difference, though.
Thanks for all the comments!
Bad mod, bad mod!It turns out that my results match that dyno. That poster never stated which type of dyno he was running, though.
I appreciate the conversion table, I'll play with it later. Too busy with the baby this afternoon.
The VSA idea is an intriguing one, but does it activate in straight line acceleration, which a dyno "simulates"? If I get a chance on Friday, I'll see if I can get one more "pre" run, with VSA off. I doubt it will make any difference, though.
Thanks for all the comments!
03-24-2007, 02:57 PM
#33
Intermediate
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Memphis, TN
Age: 40
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just e-mailed Jeff over at Temple of VTEC with a link to this thread. Maybe he can find the time to help us out. 
Thank you Bob for all the time and energy you have put into this! I'm looking forward to the after-mod numbers next Friday!
Thank you Bob for all the time and energy you have put into this! I'm looking forward to the after-mod numbers next Friday!
03-24-2007, 04:41 PM
#34
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by dwboston
It might be interesting to see a video recording of the torque distribution display in the MID while the dyno was happening. That might give an idea of how the SH-AWD algorithms work during a dyno test. Who is sitting in the driver's seat while the dyno test is done? Maybe they could do it with a decent camera phone.
Good question! The tester sits in the driver's seat and runs the test with a wireless mouse. It will be difficult to get a clear video of the MID for that reason, but that doesn't mean I can't try.
Excellent idea, sending an email to Jeff. He is pretty knowledgable about SH-AWD and might be able to shed some light. As I recall, they had to disconnect SH-AWD to dyno the RDX. I'm not doing that to my car, but if someone else wants to do it.....
Originally Posted by RL05
Thank you Bob for all the time and energy and money you have put into this! I'm looking forward to the after-mod numbers next Friday!
OK, I'm kidding, I'm only out $50 so far. They did the runs so quickly that they offered to let me pay for 1/2 the time. Kudos to Buschur!I have a strange feeling that the post-dyno numbers are going to turn out exactly the same, which will indicate that the car is actively doing something during the test. Hmmm....
03-24-2007, 06:09 PM
#36
Intermediate
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Memphis, TN
Age: 40
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Copied from TOV Thread
This was copied from a thread on TOV. It is in regard to the dyno run on the RDX in which they disconnected the driveshaft.
Plumaccordcoupe:
“No offence Jeff, but this RDX dyno test is rather pointless. You completely factor out the AWD drivetrian lose by forcing the car into a FWD mode for this FWD dyno. Yes, it is interesting to see how the K23A1 performs if it was inside of a FWD vehicle, but no one is going to be doing this with there RDX. So until you can find a credible AWD dyno, these test results are pretty much meaningless to RDX owners.”
Jeff:
“The point of a dyno test is to gauge (as closely as possible) the engine performance. It's not much of a predictor of street performance except in relative terms. The losses from the AWD system, particularly one like the SH-AWD system are going to vary constantly, as the torque is shifted in and out of the rear differential. So having the data from a full throttle, straight ahead run on a dynojet isn't going to really tell you anything about how the AWD system adds or detracts from the performance, because spinning a pair of 4000lb drums doesn't really replicate road conditions. On top of that, even if we had an AWD dynojet to test it on, the numbers we'd get would likely be nonrepresentative of street numbers unless we had access to the latest AWD dynojet. Most AWD dynos (including the dynapack) have the front and rear axles decoupled, so the RDX would see something like an "infinite slip" situation. On the street in normal (non slip) conditions, the rear wheels will always turn the same speed as the front wheels because they're coupled together by terra firma. But when you put them on two sets of independent rollers (or hub adapters, as on the dynapack) the front wheels will hardly ever be rotating at the same rate as the rear wheels unless the electromagnetic clutches are fully locked. On the road, even at full throttle the f/r bias in a straight line is only around 90/10% on the RDX - this provides a nice balance between max grip and minimized losses through the AWD. On a typical AWD dyno the brains of the AWD system will see that the front wheels are always "slipping" relative to the rear wheels, and the SH-AWD could potentially bias as much as 70% of the torque rearward, which would result in additional (and unrealistic) losses. I'd say that's even more pointless.
So through this test we were able to gather data on the engine's output characteristics, mostly uncorrupted by variable and uncontrollable losses of an AWD system that's behaving like a fish out of water. So from our dyno tests you know how much power this motor makes (relative to other FWD hondas), and from our acceleration test data (to be released later), you will know "real world" on-the-street performance.”
So, maybe the RL and SH-AWD are smart enough to know something is up when on the dyno rollers. What do you guys think?
Plumaccordcoupe:
“No offence Jeff, but this RDX dyno test is rather pointless. You completely factor out the AWD drivetrian lose by forcing the car into a FWD mode for this FWD dyno. Yes, it is interesting to see how the K23A1 performs if it was inside of a FWD vehicle, but no one is going to be doing this with there RDX. So until you can find a credible AWD dyno, these test results are pretty much meaningless to RDX owners.”
Jeff:
“The point of a dyno test is to gauge (as closely as possible) the engine performance. It's not much of a predictor of street performance except in relative terms. The losses from the AWD system, particularly one like the SH-AWD system are going to vary constantly, as the torque is shifted in and out of the rear differential. So having the data from a full throttle, straight ahead run on a dynojet isn't going to really tell you anything about how the AWD system adds or detracts from the performance, because spinning a pair of 4000lb drums doesn't really replicate road conditions. On top of that, even if we had an AWD dynojet to test it on, the numbers we'd get would likely be nonrepresentative of street numbers unless we had access to the latest AWD dynojet. Most AWD dynos (including the dynapack) have the front and rear axles decoupled, so the RDX would see something like an "infinite slip" situation. On the street in normal (non slip) conditions, the rear wheels will always turn the same speed as the front wheels because they're coupled together by terra firma. But when you put them on two sets of independent rollers (or hub adapters, as on the dynapack) the front wheels will hardly ever be rotating at the same rate as the rear wheels unless the electromagnetic clutches are fully locked. On the road, even at full throttle the f/r bias in a straight line is only around 90/10% on the RDX - this provides a nice balance between max grip and minimized losses through the AWD. On a typical AWD dyno the brains of the AWD system will see that the front wheels are always "slipping" relative to the rear wheels, and the SH-AWD could potentially bias as much as 70% of the torque rearward, which would result in additional (and unrealistic) losses. I'd say that's even more pointless.
So through this test we were able to gather data on the engine's output characteristics, mostly uncorrupted by variable and uncontrollable losses of an AWD system that's behaving like a fish out of water. So from our dyno tests you know how much power this motor makes (relative to other FWD hondas), and from our acceleration test data (to be released later), you will know "real world" on-the-street performance.”
So, maybe the RL and SH-AWD are smart enough to know something is up when on the dyno rollers.
What do you guys think?
03-24-2007, 06:20 PM
#37
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by RL05
This was copied from a thread on TOV. It is in regard to the dyno run on the RDX in which they disconnected the driveshaft.
Plumaccordcoupe:
“No offence Jeff, but this RDX dyno test is rather pointless. You completely factor out the AWD drivetrian lose by forcing the car into a FWD mode for this FWD dyno. Yes, it is interesting to see how the K23A1 performs if it was inside of a FWD vehicle, but no one is going to be doing this with there RDX. So until you can find a credible AWD dyno, these test results are pretty much meaningless to RDX owners.”
Jeff:
“The point of a dyno test is to gauge (as closely as possible) the engine performance. It's not much of a predictor of street performance except in relative terms. The losses from the AWD system, particularly one like the SH-AWD system are going to vary constantly, as the torque is shifted in and out of the rear differential. So having the data from a full throttle, straight ahead run on a dynojet isn't going to really tell you anything about how the AWD system adds or detracts from the performance, because spinning a pair of 4000lb drums doesn't really replicate road conditions. On top of that, even if we had an AWD dynojet to test it on, the numbers we'd get would likely be nonrepresentative of street numbers unless we had access to the latest AWD dynojet. Most AWD dynos (including the dynapack) have the front and rear axles decoupled, so the RDX would see something like an "infinite slip" situation. On the street in normal (non slip) conditions, the rear wheels will always turn the same speed as the front wheels because they're coupled together by terra firma. But when you put them on two sets of independent rollers (or hub adapters, as on the dynapack) the front wheels will hardly ever be rotating at the same rate as the rear wheels unless the electromagnetic clutches are fully locked. On the road, even at full throttle the f/r bias in a straight line is only around 90/10% on the RDX - this provides a nice balance between max grip and minimized losses through the AWD. On a typical AWD dyno the brains of the AWD system will see that the front wheels are always "slipping" relative to the rear wheels, and the SH-AWD could potentially bias as much as 70% of the torque rearward, which would result in additional (and unrealistic) losses. I'd say that's even more pointless.
So through this test we were able to gather data on the engine's output characteristics, mostly uncorrupted by variable and uncontrollable losses of an AWD system that's behaving like a fish out of water. So from our dyno tests you know how much power this motor makes (relative to other FWD hondas), and from our acceleration test data (to be released later), you will know "real world" on-the-street performance.”
So, maybe the RL and SH-AWD are smart enough to know something is up when on the dyno rollers. What do you guys think?
Plumaccordcoupe:
“No offence Jeff, but this RDX dyno test is rather pointless. You completely factor out the AWD drivetrian lose by forcing the car into a FWD mode for this FWD dyno. Yes, it is interesting to see how the K23A1 performs if it was inside of a FWD vehicle, but no one is going to be doing this with there RDX. So until you can find a credible AWD dyno, these test results are pretty much meaningless to RDX owners.”
Jeff:
“The point of a dyno test is to gauge (as closely as possible) the engine performance. It's not much of a predictor of street performance except in relative terms. The losses from the AWD system, particularly one like the SH-AWD system are going to vary constantly, as the torque is shifted in and out of the rear differential. So having the data from a full throttle, straight ahead run on a dynojet isn't going to really tell you anything about how the AWD system adds or detracts from the performance, because spinning a pair of 4000lb drums doesn't really replicate road conditions. On top of that, even if we had an AWD dynojet to test it on, the numbers we'd get would likely be nonrepresentative of street numbers unless we had access to the latest AWD dynojet. Most AWD dynos (including the dynapack) have the front and rear axles decoupled, so the RDX would see something like an "infinite slip" situation. On the street in normal (non slip) conditions, the rear wheels will always turn the same speed as the front wheels because they're coupled together by terra firma. But when you put them on two sets of independent rollers (or hub adapters, as on the dynapack) the front wheels will hardly ever be rotating at the same rate as the rear wheels unless the electromagnetic clutches are fully locked. On the road, even at full throttle the f/r bias in a straight line is only around 90/10% on the RDX - this provides a nice balance between max grip and minimized losses through the AWD. On a typical AWD dyno the brains of the AWD system will see that the front wheels are always "slipping" relative to the rear wheels, and the SH-AWD could potentially bias as much as 70% of the torque rearward, which would result in additional (and unrealistic) losses. I'd say that's even more pointless.
So through this test we were able to gather data on the engine's output characteristics, mostly uncorrupted by variable and uncontrollable losses of an AWD system that's behaving like a fish out of water. So from our dyno tests you know how much power this motor makes (relative to other FWD hondas), and from our acceleration test data (to be released later), you will know "real world" on-the-street performance.”
So, maybe the RL and SH-AWD are smart enough to know something is up when on the dyno rollers.
What do you guys think?Does anyone know of dyno test results for a car like an Audi A6 Quattro? Granted the Audi doesn't have a torque vectoring system like the RL but it should be in the realm of comparability.
03-24-2007, 06:22 PM
#38
5Zigen Acura RL
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 54
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RL05
This was copied from a thread on TOV. It is in regard to the dyno run on the RDX in which they disconnected the driveshaft.
Plumaccordcoupe:
“No offence Jeff, but this RDX dyno test is rather pointless. You completely factor out the AWD drivetrian lose by forcing the car into a FWD mode for this FWD dyno. Yes, it is interesting to see how the K23A1 performs if it was inside of a FWD vehicle, but no one is going to be doing this with there RDX. So until you can find a credible AWD dyno, these test results are pretty much meaningless to RDX owners.”
Jeff:
“The point of a dyno test is to gauge (as closely as possible) the engine performance. It's not much of a predictor of street performance except in relative terms. The losses from the AWD system, particularly one like the SH-AWD system are going to vary constantly, as the torque is shifted in and out of the rear differential. So having the data from a full throttle, straight ahead run on a dynojet isn't going to really tell you anything about how the AWD system adds or detracts from the performance, because spinning a pair of 4000lb drums doesn't really replicate road conditions. On top of that, even if we had an AWD dynojet to test it on, the numbers we'd get would likely be nonrepresentative of street numbers unless we had access to the latest AWD dynojet. Most AWD dynos (including the dynapack) have the front and rear axles decoupled, so the RDX would see something like an "infinite slip" situation. On the street in normal (non slip) conditions, the rear wheels will always turn the same speed as the front wheels because they're coupled together by terra firma. But when you put them on two sets of independent rollers (or hub adapters, as on the dynapack) the front wheels will hardly ever be rotating at the same rate as the rear wheels unless the electromagnetic clutches are fully locked. On the road, even at full throttle the f/r bias in a straight line is only around 90/10% on the RDX - this provides a nice balance between max grip and minimized losses through the AWD. On a typical AWD dyno the brains of the AWD system will see that the front wheels are always "slipping" relative to the rear wheels, and the SH-AWD could potentially bias as much as 70% of the torque rearward, which would result in additional (and unrealistic) losses. I'd say that's even more pointless.
So through this test we were able to gather data on the engine's output characteristics, mostly uncorrupted by variable and uncontrollable losses of an AWD system that's behaving like a fish out of water. So from our dyno tests you know how much power this motor makes (relative to other FWD hondas), and from our acceleration test data (to be released later), you will know "real world" on-the-street performance.”
So, maybe the RL and SH-AWD are smart enough to know something is up when on the dyno rollers. What do you guys think?
Plumaccordcoupe:
“No offence Jeff, but this RDX dyno test is rather pointless. You completely factor out the AWD drivetrian lose by forcing the car into a FWD mode for this FWD dyno. Yes, it is interesting to see how the K23A1 performs if it was inside of a FWD vehicle, but no one is going to be doing this with there RDX. So until you can find a credible AWD dyno, these test results are pretty much meaningless to RDX owners.”
Jeff:
“The point of a dyno test is to gauge (as closely as possible) the engine performance. It's not much of a predictor of street performance except in relative terms. The losses from the AWD system, particularly one like the SH-AWD system are going to vary constantly, as the torque is shifted in and out of the rear differential. So having the data from a full throttle, straight ahead run on a dynojet isn't going to really tell you anything about how the AWD system adds or detracts from the performance, because spinning a pair of 4000lb drums doesn't really replicate road conditions. On top of that, even if we had an AWD dynojet to test it on, the numbers we'd get would likely be nonrepresentative of street numbers unless we had access to the latest AWD dynojet. Most AWD dynos (including the dynapack) have the front and rear axles decoupled, so the RDX would see something like an "infinite slip" situation. On the street in normal (non slip) conditions, the rear wheels will always turn the same speed as the front wheels because they're coupled together by terra firma. But when you put them on two sets of independent rollers (or hub adapters, as on the dynapack) the front wheels will hardly ever be rotating at the same rate as the rear wheels unless the electromagnetic clutches are fully locked. On the road, even at full throttle the f/r bias in a straight line is only around 90/10% on the RDX - this provides a nice balance between max grip and minimized losses through the AWD. On a typical AWD dyno the brains of the AWD system will see that the front wheels are always "slipping" relative to the rear wheels, and the SH-AWD could potentially bias as much as 70% of the torque rearward, which would result in additional (and unrealistic) losses. I'd say that's even more pointless.
So through this test we were able to gather data on the engine's output characteristics, mostly uncorrupted by variable and uncontrollable losses of an AWD system that's behaving like a fish out of water. So from our dyno tests you know how much power this motor makes (relative to other FWD hondas), and from our acceleration test data (to be released later), you will know "real world" on-the-street performance.”
So, maybe the RL and SH-AWD are smart enough to know something is up when on the dyno rollers.
What do you guys think?
03-24-2007, 07:36 PM
#39
Burning Brakes
This thread rules . Finally we have a real technical discussion and the not the usual why is the RL a slow seller or how to get a deal, etc...
I think in that quote Jeff brings up a good point in that the dyno rollers are not really connected so yes the sh-awd could very well get confused and start distributing power in a unusual manner causing the unrealistic power losses.
Now some dyno's like a dyno dynamics (the bentley of dyno's, costs $120k btw) which are load basing would in theory overcome the short comings on a dynojet because you can set the load per roller and then in theory the sh-awd system should give us a even 50/50 split of the power.
. Finally we have a real technical discussion and the not the usual why is the RL a slow seller or how to get a deal, etc... I think in that quote Jeff brings up a good point in that the dyno rollers are not really connected so yes the sh-awd could very well get confused and start distributing power in a unusual manner causing the unrealistic power losses.
Now some dyno's like a dyno dynamics (the bentley of dyno's, costs $120k btw) which are load basing would in theory overcome the short comings on a dynojet because you can set the load per roller and then in theory the sh-awd system should give us a even 50/50 split of the power.
03-24-2007, 09:58 PM
#40
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
So, basically, Jeff, in his post about the RDX, is agreeing with me that the SH-AWD is spoiling the test results and tha the car is too bloody smart for its own good. Which is what I've been saying all along here. I'm not giving up my day job, however. 
When I get a chance, I'd like to pen a letter to the good engineers at Mustang to ask them how to adjust their AWD dyno appropriately for SH-AWD. They will probably look at me with slack jaws.
Another option I have is to use an industrial dyno. About an hour east of me, there's a dyno facility used by the automotive industry for chassis and engine dynos. I'm thinking about a trip there. It will clearly be after my mods are on, but now I'm really interested in this technical challenge.
With all that said, having seen my numbers, my SWAG on the RL's true WHP output is 230 WHP.
I'm not giving up my day job, however. When I get a chance, I'd like to pen a letter to the good engineers at Mustang to ask them how to adjust their AWD dyno appropriately for SH-AWD. They will probably look at me with slack jaws.
Another option I have is to use an industrial dyno. About an hour east of me, there's a dyno facility used by the automotive industry for chassis and engine dynos. I'm thinking about a trip there. It will clearly be after my mods are on, but now I'm really interested in this technical challenge.
With all that said, having seen my numbers, my SWAG on the RL's true WHP output is 230 WHP.