Dyno done, time for cams.

[twilightprotege]

damn sorry, yeah forgot to measure

i'll write myself a email home to remind me.

 

[Installshield 2]

OK, color me completely lost, that's the most confusing dyno sheet I've ever laid eyes on.

Yeah I agree...Not all dyno's do that...in fact I have never seen a dyno that attempted to come up with a bhp reading...because its irrelevant...

but no matter what...145bhp and 107whp is not correct...that is way too high of a loss for a FWD car...RSX's are claimed at 200bhp, and put down nearly 180whp...you probably do have 107whp no problem, but not 145bhp...unless you guys are using that DIN hp formula...which further proves how worthless a bhp rating is...(not all countries even use the same formula)

I have brake dyno'd a bone stock MP3 engine, and a standard FS-DE...the FS-DE is rated at 130, and brake dyno'd at 125.6bhp...so its close...but that gives us about a 24hp loss to the wheels...that wasn't important unitl the MP3 engine, which is rated at 140bhp, and put down nearly 136bhp on the brake dyno...so the dyno was consistant...and Mazda either had a different calculation for determining peak hp, or they overrated it (which is not too uncommon for Mazda these days)...but in either case, whatever mazda did to find hp, it is not what any chassis dyno will do...

JustMe, I am not criticising (sp?) you...I am just saying don't be suprised by people getting confused by that dyno...its not what we are used to seeing...and it IS confusing...and I never heard of how a chassis dyno will determine an engines peak output by testing its braking speed...that is how a flywheel brake dyno does it too, but how it would calculate a drivetrain loss from that is beyond me...

 

[Gen1GT]

Wow, I actually had no idea a dyno could calculate drivetrain loss. Can a Dynojet do this?

 

[Installshield 2]

Not that I know of...I have never been asked if I ever wanted the drivetrain loss from any of the operating techs...

I simply don't understand how it would do it though...timing the engine braking and comparing it to the acceleration time period?...without braking the engine on full throttle though I don't see what the dyno could get out of that, other than a timed slow down...

although I am an idiot...maybe its something obvious...

 

[JustMe]

The car is rolling on the rollers and the dyno knows the exact weight of the rollers and for that deacceleration it can calculate the driving loss.
Not 100% sure about it.

Not that I know of...I have never been asked if I ever wanted the drivetrain loss from any of the operating techs...

I simply don't understand how it would do it though...timing the engine braking and comparing it to the acceleration time period?...without braking the engine on full throttle though I don't see what the dyno could get out of that, other than a timed slow down...

although I am an idiot...maybe its something obvious...

 

[Installshield 2]

oh well...its cool I guess if it would work...but point being, only the whp matters...

sorry for jacking the thread a little, back to normal now...

 

[akhilleus]

Are you guys sure that the graph isn't whp=kw and hp=american whp. Because 107kwx1.34 comes awfully close to 145. It would also make more sense considering the modifications. or maybe not and i am crazy, which has been suggested before.

 

[JustMe]

Well im 99% sure since it my dynochart
And 1kw=1.36 hp

And 145 (american? )whp there is no way I have

Are you guys sure that the graph isn't whp=kw and hp=american whp. Because 107kwx1.34 comes awfully close to 145. It would also make more sense considering the modifications. or maybe not and i am crazy, which has been suggested before.

 

[JustMe]

Andrew, have you measured the pin?

 

[Installshield 2]

SAE BHP vs. DIN (PS) BHP is my bet...there is not direct conversion, but the entire formula is different (well not the formula but what each represent in terms of work)...Europe and Asia use DIN bhp, while most of North and South America use SAE...

 

[JustMe]

That difference can't be more than a few hp?

SAE BHP vs. DIN (PS) BHP is my bet...there is not direct conversion, but the entire formula is different (well not the formula but what each represent in terms of work)...Europe and Asia use DIN bhp, while most of North and South America use SAE...

 

[Installshield 2]

well no..but its enough at low power levels to raise question...170DIN bhp is about 161.2 SAE bhp...not even, that equation never ends (its more like 1.61798809007727334223 etc. or something...there is no direct equation)...so we are dealing with over 8 hp of undeclared power...that is why its confusing...we are used to a very aggressive SAE bhp claim of 130, and seeing no more than 102whp on a dyno...I believe Mazda's rating is off, in which the bhp rating is off by about 5bhp...some argue against that though, and claim that the bhp is still in DIN/PS (which is illegal for u.s. cars, at least as of 2003)..I am getting myself lost now...

I only commented because you said "what is confusing"...thats all, I wasn't trying to be a dick...to me it is confusing, because bhp ratings can be very irrelevant...some cars lose a lot more power through a powertrain than others...and also that I had never seen a dyno with a claimed bhp rating...and had never heard of what the procedure you mentioned...thats all...your whp is fine though, and is accurate with the mods you have...whether or not your bhp rating is skewed or not really has nothing to do with the overall point of your thread...so I should never have even brought it up...sorry about that...but you are correct, in the long run we are only talking about a max of 10hp...the conversion is consistant regardless of the magnitude of the power....meaning 1SAE bhp converts into nearly 9 DIN bhp...but that holds...20SAE bhp is nearly 29 DIN bhp, and so on...or at least it used to be...all that changed again when the kilo was re-tested in 2002, so now I have no idea...(your PS ratings are actually closely tied with that of the kilogram...ours is independant, in which it only deals with feet and pounds)

 

[twilightprotege]

i just measured the inside of the cam pin hole - 5mm exactly.

and - why doesnt everyone just use metric?

 

[akhilleus]

So I guess its just coincidence that 107x1.36=145 exactly? i think there is definately something weird going on with the conversions here. There is no way you have 38hp loss, thats more than any protege ever. You should be dyno'ing higher anyways since u are 1. OBD1, 2.Have E-spec pistons and 3. e-spec intake cam. Unless u have a 1.8L instead of a 2.0L. Otehrwise most a-spec protege's with your setup put down anywhere from 115whp+ and they are OBDII. I know Andrew has low numbers as well, but Jamie is right soemthing just isn't right here, you really shoudl be putting down better numbers, I guess if you go to the track this spring and run a low 15 high 14 i think the 145whp estimate is correct, if u run a 16 then its 107.

 

[JustMe]

I know that 38hp loss is too much, but at the moment thats all I know. I will be going on a track at the first chance I get, but there still snow here, so it will be in May probably.

And E-spec and A-spec were said to have the same power, 130hp. Maeby Mazda was just saying so that all countries would be happy, don't know about that. And my car should be OBDII if I'm not mistaken? But as much as I have heard, our dyno here constantly shows lower numbers, but who knows for sure. The reason for dyno was to see the difference when new cams come, and they come on monday so next week we will see. As the saying goes: If you lose less than 10% of your original power, then the tuning was succesful

And PS. Installshield, you haven't been a dick A reasonable converstation is always educational And my dynosheet is confusing, but thats the best dyno we have here ( we also have one dyno more which is from the 80's or something ) and it will do its point to show a difference as long as they don't change any settings in the dyno software.

And PS. Andrew, thanks

So I guess its just coincidence that 107x1.36=145 exactly? i think there is definately something weird going on with the conversions here. There is no way you have 38hp loss, thats more than any protege ever. You should be dyno'ing higher anyways since u are 1. OBD1, 2.Have E-spec pistons and 3. e-spec intake cam. Unless u have a 1.8L instead of a 2.0L. Otehrwise most a-spec protege's with your setup put down anywhere from 115whp+ and they are OBDII. I know Andrew has low numbers as well, but Jamie is right soemthing just isn't right here, you really shoudl be putting down better numbers, I guess if you go to the track this spring and run a low 15 high 14 i think the 145whp estimate is correct, if u run a 16 then its 107.

 

[JustMe]

I received the parts today, will put my car together today evening and hopefully on wednesday will be going on a dyno (yippy)

Keeping the fingers crossed for good power

 

[JustMe]

We'll, got my car back together but now have one problem. Mazda doesn't have the correct size of valve adjusting shims ( mazda maximum thickness shim is 3.5mm, but I need atleast 4mm+ shims ). So now I have to order valve lash caps from cam company.

If I understand correctly, a valve lash cap is putted at the tip of the valve shaft, so I could use original valve adjusting shims?

Can anyone here tell me , what is the diameter of the valve shaft? Is it 5mm for intake and 9.5mm for exhaust? These dimensions have been taken from older 626 FS engine, so I'm not suer about these and thats why I ask here again. Mazda dealer in estonia is also trying to find out this for me.

Any help appreciated , so I could get my car back together and then on a dyno

 

[twilightprotege]

i think they are different now. the company that did the porting on my head bought some 626 FS valve stem seals and they didnt fit (but not sure why)

 

[JustMe]

Came out this size it for valve seals for FS engine from BJ 323, so it should be a correct one but I need some confirmation about this?!

 

[twilightprotege]

well if they say BJ 323 with an FS then go for it. if it doesnt fit atleast you can take them back and get a full refund