# Dyno'd my car today...



## jettafan[atic] (Dec 2, 2008)

Alright, I dyno'd my car at school today and I'm _very_ pleased with the results. Let's start off with the current mods on the car
Carbonio intake, BSH engine mount and BFI trans mount are all I have for performance mods.
On the first run I got 184 HP and 186 torque, on the second pull I got 189 [email protected] and 194 [email protected]! Both were in 3rd gear with the Dyno running from 2500 to 6300 and this was at the wheels, not the crank.
I also did a 1/4 mile run on it and the tree we had set up wasn't timed right, it was a second late but I got a 14.8 at 94.75mph so if I don't count the second that the tree was off it was 13.8.
Also I should note that the dyno is a mustang in floor dyno and is well maintained and tested/certified regularly.
Good good numbers!


----------



## HIBB 304 (Nov 8, 2008)

*Re: Dyno'd my car today... (jettafan[atic])*

So your car runs faster 1/4 time than most TURBO 2.5i,with just a intake







. I'm sorry but them numbers are very generous. Sounds like crank numbers to me.
Look at these 1/4 times.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4596788
Not trying to bash,but NO WAY!


_Modified by HIBB 304 at 4:25 PM 11-3-2009_


----------



## HIBB 304 (Nov 8, 2008)

*Re: Dyno'd my car today... (HIBB 304)*

Or maybe you got a special 1 off motor.


----------



## Cabrio60 (Oct 14, 2006)

Very high wheel horsepower numbers for just an intake, my car with BSH intake plus AWE exhaust and a torque arm insert only made about 163 whp or so. Maybe the 2.5 is underrated from the factory.








What kind of dyno, I might have to visit Appleton more often.


----------



## jettafan[atic] (Dec 2, 2008)

*Re: Dyno'd my car today... (HIBB 304)*


_Quote, originally posted by *HIBB 304* »_So your car runs faster 1/4 time than most TURBO 2.5i,with just a intake







. I'm sorry but them numbers are very generous. Sounds like crank numbers to me.
Look at these 1/4 times.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4596788
Not trying to bash,but NO WAY!

_Modified by HIBB 304 at 4:25 PM 11-3-2009_

Yep, I'll scan the dyno sheets when I get the chance and put them up. And I've seen those times before. I know it's unlikely but not impossible, we ran each test 3 times to make sure the readings weren't faulty, we doublechecked all the connections and made sure all the data was right.
And I want to go to a different dyno to verify the numbers. Also take a look at those 1/4 times, according to that list a stage 2 rabbit ran what .1 seconds faster than a n/a rabbit? Either those turbo kits are a really expensive way to gain a fraction of a second or some of the motors are built better than others.


_Modified by jettafan[atic] at 2:06 PM 11-3-2009_


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

umm sorry bro. i have to ruin the party.
lets start on numbers.
i have SEVERAL more mods than you and i am putting 170.91 whp. 209 jetta 2.5.
in order for a JETTA to do 1/4 in 13 secs, it would have to have about 220 hp (do the math.)
intake and a couple engine mounts WOULD not give you so much hp.
your numbers HAVE to be crank. 
my mods: intake, pulley, headers, high flow cat, cat-back. and again, i am doing 170.91 to the wheels. running 1/4 in 16.036 secs.
sorry.


----------



## jettafan[atic] (Dec 2, 2008)

*Re: (thygreyt)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thygreyt* »_umm sorry bro. i have to ruin the party.
lets start on numbers.
i have SEVERAL more mods than you and i am putting 170.91 whp. 209 jetta 2.5.
in order for a JETTA to do 1/4 in 13 secs, it would have to have about 220 hp (do the math.)
intake and a couple engine mounts WOULD not give you so much hp.
your numbers HAVE to be crank. 
my mods: intake, pulley, headers, high flow cat, cat-back. and again, i am doing 170.91 to the wheels. running 1/4 in 16.036 secs.
sorry.

Nah man you're right I'm sure, those numbers just aren't possible. Except one bit of logic bugs me... maybe you could clear it up for me?
How does a roller, chassis dyno measure crank horsepower? I mean I would have sworn that for that you would have to hook up a crank dyno to the engine but opbviously you know more than me, or the master tech instructors at my school.








For everyone who doesn't believe these numbers I wil post up the dyno sheets when I get the chance and I already said that I do want to have my car dyno'd somewhere else to verify the numbers.


----------



## Cabrio60 (Oct 14, 2006)

*Re: (jettafan[atic])*


_Quote, originally posted by *jettafan[atic* »_]
Nah man you're right I'm sure, those numbers just aren't possible. Except one bit of logic bugs me... maybe you could clear it up for me?
How does a roller, chassis dyno measure crank horsepower? I mean I would have sworn that for that you would have to hook up a crank dyno to the engine but opbviously you know more than me, or the master tech instructors at my school.








For everyone who doesn't believe these numbers I wil post up the dyno sheets when I get the chance and I already said that I do want to have my car dyno'd somewhere else to verify the numbers.

Does Appleton have a dyno shop at all? I've been living in Green Bay for years and only know of one place, and they have an all-wheel Dynojet.


----------



## jettafan[atic] (Dec 2, 2008)

*Re: (Cabrio60)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cabrio60* »_
Does Appleton have a dyno shop at all? I've been living in Green Bay for years and only know of one place, and they have an all-wheel Dynojet.

According to a friend of mine there was one in greenville and it may still be there otherwise they moved to neenah. I'll check it out and see if I can find anywhere else. The only one in the area I knew of until today was the dyno we have at school.


----------



## zucchini (Aug 30, 2009)

Cabrio60,
What do you mean by "torque arm insert"?
I am afraid I haven´t heard about.
Thanks


----------



## david8814 (Aug 14, 2007)

*Re: (jettafan[atic])*


_Quote, originally posted by *jettafan[atic* »_]For everyone who doesn't believe these numbers I wil post up the dyno sheets when I get the chance and I already said that I do want to have my car dyno'd somewhere else to verify the numbers.

Its not that we don't believe *you*, its that we don't believe the dyno. You're putting out about 30hp more then expected.


----------



## 07Jetta (Dec 24, 2007)

*Re: (david8814)*

I hate to jump on the bandwagon here, but I do not see your car running anywhere near a 13.8............. I have a Mustang that puts out roughly 271rwhp and on a good day, it will get into the 13.6's, and if I were racing you, I assure you that you would be in my rear view mirror.. not my side mirror... Sorry to be saying all that, but I believe that shop told you a fib. Your weight to hp ratio is nowhere in the ballpark of running an 13.8. As someone mentioned before, your faster than a turbo'd car and all you have is an intake?


----------



## blackhawk 76 (Jan 19, 2007)

*FV-QR*

Mis-calibrated dyno/software or something else is going on.
Sorry but there's no way in hell that your putting out 184 hp and 186 torque with just an intake. I know chips don't add much, but you dont even have a chip


----------



## jettafan[atic] (Dec 2, 2008)

*Re: (07Jetta)*

And I agree with you all, the dyno definitely could be miscalibrated, I'll post my dyno sheets once I get the chance to scan them and I'll raise this thread from the dead once I find another dyno to run it on. I completely understand that the numbers are higher than what can be expected and I want to find out what my car is really putting down.


----------



## Jon1983 (Feb 21, 2009)

I don't mean to add fuel to the fire, but those numbers are almost off the chart for at-the-crank values with just an intake.


----------



## jettafan[atic] (Dec 2, 2008)

*Re: (Jon1983)*

Thats what I thought when we did the first pull too, all the more reason to find another dyno and see whats up.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

dude, i mean, dont get pissed off.
but in all honesty, you are mistaken.
use your calculator and solve the equation:
http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=1672
the speed is the trap speed in a 1/4 mile.
so, to do 13 secs in a car that weights around 3300 lbs (3285 +you) you need to put +220 whp.
and thats basic MATH.
so, that dyno of yours is definitely wrong.
so, again.. sorry bro. but i was right.


----------



## jettafan[atic] (Dec 2, 2008)

*Re: (thygreyt)*

I understand the equation and as I stated before I understand the dyno could be off, that's why I'm trying to find another one in the area. The insulting part of your post was saying that I had somehow gotten crank numbers from a chassis dyno.


----------



## TeamZleep (Aug 28, 2007)

*FV-QR*

First of all I have to ask you is if you have any friends with a 13sec. car. If so, go for a ride with them, and then go drive your car. I promise you it isn't the same. Not trying to bust your bubble, but even with that calculator, my turbo Datsun should be running 12.5's... and well, it doesn't. At least on street tires. 
Crank numbers are believable, but that's about it. I'd say go to a test and tune night, get your actual numbers, and then do the math. It's cheaper than a dyno. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

sorry.. didnt want to be insulting.
all i was trying to say is that the numbers are OFF by a lot... and the calc trick i found in a book of automotive engineer, and it states (but not on the site) that end numbers could be as much as +or - 10%
but, that is WAAAY cheaper than a dyno and it will give you close numbers.


----------



## kungfoojesus (Jan 10, 2005)

Not to be a downer but every school dyno I've seen was high. Did any other cars run? What were they putting down? See where I'm going with this?


----------



## blackhawk 76 (Jan 19, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *kungfoojesus* »_Not to be a downer but every school dyno I've seen was high. Did any other cars run? What were they putting down? See where I'm going with this?


Not only is it high, but the "usual/normal" proprtion of hp/trq for this motor is a little lower than 1:1 and he's about at that, if that makes sense.


----------



## vw93to85 (May 10, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (blackhawk 76)*

The Dyno pull should've been done in 4th gear where the trans and engine are running 1:1. In 3rd gear it's still at a reduction and giving you false numbers.


----------



## blackhawk 76 (Jan 19, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *vw93to85* »_The Dyno pull should've been done in 4th gear where the trans and engine are running 1:1. In 3rd gear it's still at a reduction and giving you false numbers.


Wouldn't the torque still be skewed high like hp is?


----------



## 2ohgti (Nov 8, 2004)

*Re: (Cabrio60)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cabrio60* »_Very high wheel horsepower numbers for just an intake, my car with BSH intake plus AWE exhaust and a torque arm insert only made about 163 whp or so. Maybe the 2.5 is underrated from the factory.








What kind of dyno, I might have to visit Appleton more often.









I think the 2.5 is under rated too or at least the 07' and up. I only have an intake and I have no problems keeping up with a friend's 08 4 door civic si. He should be pulling away from me when accelerating, but he can't. 
Good #s for the OP http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## jettafan[atic] (Dec 2, 2008)

*Re: (2ohgti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *2ohgti* »_
I think the 2.5 is under rated too or at least the 07' and up. I only have an intake and I have no problems keeping up with a friend's 08 4 door civic si. He should be pulling away from me when accelerating, but he can't. 
Good #s for the OP http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

I'm gonna believe that the numbers were high, I've raced comparable cars and I've never been slower but the cars weren't really impressive. A friend had a mazda 3 and his car couldn't keep up for example.
I'm thinking the numbers were high for a couple reasons: the dyno could be tuned high, and the software only went up to 07 so that was what I used, the dyno probably placed less load on the rollers because the 07's were rated with less hp.
Also I'd be tempted to put more stock in these numbers if there hadn't been numerous other people with the 2.5 and more mods than I do putting down lower numbers on the dyno. Theres one thing I'm not too sure about though, how would the 1/4 time be off? The dyno doesn't have any load on the rollers trhat I'm aware of and it just times you how long it takes you to go 1/4 mile and gives the speeds. The dyno would have to be pretty messed up to not even read distance accurately.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

why dont you take it to a 1/4 strip?
and you test your time yourself.
because, in my experience, i have seen dynos with looow numbers and some with HIGH numbers.. and some are kind of in between...!
so.. test it and tell us.
best of luck!


----------



## IJSTROK (Oct 2, 2007)

*Re: (thygreyt)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thygreyt* »_why dont you take it to a 1/4 strip?
and you test your time yourself.
because, in my experience, i have seen dynos with looow numbers and some with HIGH numbers.. and some are kind of in between...!
so.. test it and tell us.
best of luck! 

This would be a much better judgment. Or find someone with dynolicious on their iphone. Those are pretty accurate 1/4 mile times if calibrated correctly.


----------



## MattWayMK5 (Dec 17, 2006)

*Re: (IJSTROK)*

The dyno is definitely not calibrated correctly and there is no way on the track your car will run faster than a 15.0, sorry to be a debbie downer but both your dyno numbers and track numbers are impossible


----------



## DUSlider (Nov 15, 2007)

15% drivetrain loss on those numbers you posted is where I would expect a 2.5 w/intake to be. You sure the dyno wasn't set to calculate crank #'s?


----------



## jettafan[atic] (Dec 2, 2008)

*Re: (DUSlider)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DUSlider* »_15% drivetrain loss on those numbers you posted is where I would expect a 2.5 w/intake to be. You sure the dyno wasn't set to calculate crank #'s?

I'm sure. Now, we all agree that the dyno #'s are high and that the dyno is almost definitely mis-calibrated, I'm not gonna fool myself into thinking I have the holy grail of the 2.5 motors. However this made me think, how much could our power ratings vary from engine to engine? Take for example the GT-R, I remember reading a review on it when it first came out talking about how you never knew exactly how much power you had until you dyno'd it, and when a lot of them were dyno'd it turned out that they varied as much as 65 hp from one engine to another. (if I remember the numbers in the article right) Now the GT-R's motor is hand built in a controlled environment by professionals and somehow it varies widely from engine to engine. How much do you think ours could differ?
I guess the only way to find out would be if every one of us had our cars dyno'd and we put together a list including year, model and mods on the car. I know it's a big task and there are a lot of places that don't have a dyno nearby but I guess I'm encouraging all of you to go out and do it, it's a hell of a good time.


----------



## FlyingIan (Sep 4, 2007)

*Re: (jettafan[atic])*

That can be easily extrapolated by any engineer without any sort of simultaneous testing.
Being VW's base engine, I would say they are lowering cost by increasing tolerances on power output. Probably something like ±10hp (so that's 165-175hp). BTW, all mass-produced engine are tested in controlled conditions (for power output, leaks, etc) before going in the car. 
Find the lower level of torque allowed by Volkswagen, let's say it's 165hp, that's give us a 5hp difference. You then know that statistically it's almost impossible an engine will produce anything more than 175hp.


----------



## MattWayMK5 (Dec 17, 2006)

*Re: (jettafan[atic])*


_Quote, originally posted by *jettafan[atic* »_]
I'm sure. Now, we all agree that the dyno #'s are high and that the dyno is almost definitely mis-calibrated, I'm not gonna fool myself into thinking I have the holy grail of the 2.5 motors. However this made me think, how much could our power ratings vary from engine to engine? Take for example the GT-R, I remember reading a review on it when it first came out talking about how you never knew exactly how much power you had until you dyno'd it, and when a lot of them were dyno'd it turned out that they varied as much as 65 hp from one engine to another. (if I remember the numbers in the article right) Now the GT-R's motor is hand built in a controlled environment by professionals and somehow it varies widely from engine to engine. How much do you think ours could differ?
I guess the only way to find out would be if every one of us had our cars dyno'd and we put together a list including year, model and mods on the car. I know it's a big task and there are a lot of places that don't have a dyno nearby but I guess I'm encouraging all of you to go out and do it, it's a hell of a good time.

The GT-R is also a turbo car, different environmental conditions will have a big impact on a turbo car compaired to one that is N/A


----------



## BluMagic (Apr 9, 2008)

*Re: (jettafan[atic])*


_Quote, originally posted by *jettafan[atic* »_]
I'm sure. Now, we all agree that the dyno #'s are high and that the dyno is almost definitely mis-calibrated, I'm not gonna fool myself into thinking I have the holy grail of the 2.5 motors. However this made me think, how much could our power ratings vary from engine to engine? Take for example the GT-R, I remember reading a review on it when it first came out talking about how you never knew exactly how much power you had until you dyno'd it, and when a lot of them were dyno'd it turned out that they varied as much as 65 hp from one engine to another. (if I remember the numbers in the article right) Now the GT-R's motor is hand built in a controlled environment by professionals and somehow it varies widely from engine to engine. How much do you think ours could differ?
I guess the only way to find out would be if every one of us had our cars dyno'd and we put together a list including year, model and mods on the car. I know it's a big task and there are a lot of places that don't have a dyno nearby but I guess I'm encouraging all of you to go out and do it, it's a hell of a good time.

Each GTR Motor is hand built. and all are underrated horsepower numbers.... this has been tradition in many japanese performance cars for a long time. 
Nissan says 480 crank hp.... most GTRs are 520+ crank HP. 
I doubt VW shares this vision in the Mexico plant making bland plastic engine covers


----------



## MattWayMK5 (Dec 17, 2006)

*Re: (BluMagic)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BluMagic* »_
Each GTR Motor is hand built. and all are underrated horsepower numbers.... this has been tradition in many japanese performance cars for a long time. 
Nissan says 480 crank hp.... most GTRs are 520+ crank HP. 
I doubt VW shares this vision in the Mexico plant making bland plastic engine covers










haha x2


----------



## jettafan[atic] (Dec 2, 2008)

*Re: (BluMagic)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BluMagic* »_
Each GTR Motor is hand built. and all are underrated horsepower numbers.... this has been tradition in many japanese performance cars for a long time. 
Nissan says 480 crank hp.... most GTRs are 520+ crank HP. 
I doubt VW shares this vision in the Mexico plant making bland plastic engine covers









haha Well put. I was just kinda thinking out loud but that idea seems to have been pretty well smashed. I was also pretty drunk when I typed it


----------



## DOQ fastlane (Feb 25, 2009)

*Re: (MattWayMK5)*

Lol @ these claims.
This was NOT whp. I don't know who has more NA mods then me and Greyt on the 2.5L(not counting NLS) 
I topped off at 164whp 182wTrq. 
I know Greyt finally broke the 170whp mark (headers being the only difference between us)...congrats!


----------



## vw93to85 (May 10, 2007)

*Re: (doqFastlane)*


_Quote, originally posted by *doqFastlane* »_Lol @ these claims.
This was NOT whp. I don't know who has more NA mods then me and Greyt on the 2.5L


*Clears throat*
I gotta be in the ballpark somewhere.


----------



## DOQ fastlane (Feb 25, 2009)

*Re: (vw93to85)*

Lol I forgot about your 2.5 beast. 
You too.


----------



## vw93to85 (May 10, 2007)

*Re: (doqFastlane)*

Now if only BSH would come out with those mounts already.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

mounts are only a couple ponies at best..!


----------



## 2ohgti (Nov 8, 2004)

*Re: (jettafan[atic])*


_Quote, originally posted by *jettafan[atic* »_]
I'm gonna believe that the numbers were high, I've raced comparable cars and I've never been slower but the cars weren't really impressive. A friend had a mazda 3 and his car couldn't keep up for example.
I'm thinking the numbers were high for a couple reasons: the dyno could be tuned high, and the software only went up to 07 so that was what I used, the dyno probably placed less load on the rollers because the 07's were rated with less hp.
Also I'd be tempted to put more stock in these numbers if there hadn't been numerous other people with the 2.5 and more mods than I do putting down lower numbers on the dyno. Theres one thing I'm not too sure about though, how would the 1/4 time be off? The dyno doesn't have any load on the rollers trhat I'm aware of and it just times you how long it takes you to go 1/4 mile and gives the speeds. The dyno would have to be pretty messed up to not even read distance accurately.

I think the 1/4 is off. A GTI has about 187 whp and runs in the mid 14 sec range, so I don't see how a 2.5 w/ a few mods is going to beat that. I'm think more high 14-15 sec range for the 1/4. 
Some 2.5s are definitely putting down more then others though.


----------



## vw93to85 (May 10, 2007)

*Re: (thygreyt)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thygreyt* »_mounts are only a couple ponies at best..!


Not lookin for ponies, Lookin for firmer shifts


----------



## MattWayMK5 (Dec 17, 2006)

*Re: (vw93to85)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vw93to85* »_
Not lookin for ponies, Lookin for firmer shifts

Less wheel hop is the biggest gain you will get from them


----------



## 07bunny (Nov 21, 2007)

*Re: (MattWayMK5)*

those times are way off, especially since there is no friction on the back 2 tires, plus the engine doesnt have to drag the weight of the car,( since you said that the load was turned off?) the pulls should have been done in fourth, with no load on them since your not turboed, my car puts out 184hp and 189tq from what i got off my dyno sheets, and i cant break into the 15's even though i have raced a 15.4 car and beat it, and i have more stuff done to mine then yours.
i have: revo software that has been adjusted, tt single borla cat-back, and neuspeed p-flo, ecs dog bone insert (not that makes a difference) and lowering springs.
just saying. i will try to get my dyno sheets up so you guys can see, just need to find a scanner.
and to the guy that said he has raced a civic si, i have raced a four-door with just intake and he pulled two car lengths on me and im also a four-door which should be lighter then the two doors.


----------



## Brabbit32 (Apr 13, 2009)

*Re: (07bunny)*

find out what they were using for a correction factor. SAE or standard. Makes a big difference in the drivetrain power loss


----------



## Brabbit32 (Apr 13, 2009)

*Re: (Brabbit32)*

Oh yeah and my car, Rabbit, Which is lighter than a jetta and the best time ive run at the track is like a 15.3. but ive only made 3 passes on the car and it was below 40deg outside. next year i should see high 14's. and i have cat delete, cat back, intake etc.


----------



## Brabbit32 (Apr 13, 2009)

*Re: (Brabbit32)*

i just did the math online with this calculator http://www.carforums.net/hpcalc.php ET was 15.390 and i put it 3300lbs. says 179rwhp and 211hp at the flywheel.


----------



## Brabbit32 (Apr 13, 2009)

*Re: (Brabbit32)*

and i just did it again with my bike. I own a bike shop and own a Land and Sea motorcycle dyno. I know for a fact that my bike with no nitrous makes anywhere between 155 and 160rwhp depending on the weather. When drag racing fully suited and 2 gals of fuel in the tank i scale in around 650lbs. My 1/4 mile time on the bike is [email protected] 146.56MPH. Do the math yourself, the calculator works!


----------

