"KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time" (kngt)
05/21/2019 at 15:54 • Filed to: 2020 supra, supra, z4upra, toyota supra, a90 supra, Car And Driver, Car & Driver
0
29|
"KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time" (kngt)
05/21/2019 at 15:54 • Filed to: 2020 supra, supra, z4upra, toyota supra, a90 supra, Car And Driver, Car & Driver | 0
| 29 |
Big if true. I’ll take the torque figure with a grain of salt and wait for other dyno tests to verify, and compare with Z4 dyno results.
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
vondon302
> KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
05/21/2019 at 16:00 |
|
427 torque!
way2blu does a rev update
> KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
05/21/2019 at 16:00 |
|
A 427 Supra??
Seems to have been photoshopped into existence on the internet already. 8/8 cylinders, would daily & do maintenance for cheaper than stock.
WilliamsSW
> KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
05/21/2019 at 16:06 |
|
The torque number seems strange, and even they admit that it’s likely overstated. 339 HP at the wheels is impressive though.
AestheticsInMotion
> way2blu does a rev update
05/21/2019 at 16:07 |
|
Oh man. I want that bad. With a glass panel just like the above cutout to show off the goods
|
KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
> WilliamsSW
05/21/2019 at 16:07 |
|
Yup. I totally bu y the HP number.
DipodomysDeserti
> KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
05/21/2019 at 16:13 |
|
I wouldn’t say they underrated it when the claimed value was 335hp and this dyno clocked it at 339hp. You can’t compare dyno values recorded on different days by different machines. They’re all calibrated differently. These articles are always written by people who don’t know how dynos work.
|
WilliamsSW
> KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
05/21/2019 at 16:17 |
|
Agree. And I’m sure it makes plenty of torques, just not 427 lbft.
Demon-Xanth knows how to operate a street.
> way2blu does a rev update
05/21/2019 at 16:17 |
|
Another 427 option....
|
way2blu does a rev update
> Demon-Xanth knows how to operate a street.
05/21/2019 at 16:20 |
|
Nope:
Close, but nope.
Still would daily, call it the Hellica Supra
|
way2blu does a rev update
> AestheticsInMotion
05/21/2019 at 16:22 |
|
The LS7 also sits further back than the B58 and might be shorter in height (for lower CG) if dry-sumped. Might weigh less in certain configurations too.
Big want.
BeaterGT
> DipodomysDeserti
05/21/2019 at 16:41 |
|
How dare you bring logic into a pissing contest
PS9
> KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
05/21/2019 at 16:53 |
|
That’s not just a BMW tradition. For the longest time in th e 90s-2000s, Japanese performace cars made “276 ” HP.
CobraJoe
> DipodomysDeserti
05/21/2019 at 16:56 |
|
I wouldn’t say they underrated it when the claimed value was 335hp and this dyno clocked it at 339hp. You can’t compare dyno values recorded on different days by different machines. They’re all calibrated differently. These articles are always written by people who don’t know how dynos work.
335hp advertized at the crank, 339hp measured at the wheels.
If the drivetrain losses are 15%, it’s nearly a 390hp engine. That’s what I’d call underrated.
|
KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
> PS9
05/21/2019 at 16:58 |
|
Of course. I said that because Z4upra
|
DipodomysDeserti
> CobraJoe
05/21/2019 at 17:35 |
|
You hardly ever see “at the crank” written in any literature. They just say “335 hp”.
WiscoProud
> KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
05/21/2019 at 17:39 |
|
This uses an existing BMW engine and transmission doesn’t it? What does it dyno at in similar applications?
TheTurbochargedSquirrel
> KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
05/21/2019 at 19:25 |
|
BMW claims 382HP for the Z4 so these dyno numbers line up with that. Either they are being scummy and gave the review cars the Z4 tune or there isn't actually a difference between the two and Toyota has just underrated the Supra for some unknown reason.
Arrivederci
> KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time
05/21/2019 at 19:45 |
|
Take with a massive grain of salt. Performance figures alone illustrate that it’s underrated, but a chassis dyno isn’t a good measuring stick for telling you where you actually are. They’re great for telling you how much power you’ve gained (ie - getting a baseline and then tuning it).
|
CobraJoe
> DipodomysDeserti
05/21/2019 at 23:11 |
|
No manufacturing numbers specify “at the crank” because that’s how manufacturers have always displayed horsepower figures. Engine dynos take out the variability of the drivetrain ( and make for better marketing numbers) .
But chassis dynos are popular for testing and tuning because they don’t require the engine to be removed first. I t is rare to see numbers from a chassis dyno that aren’t specified as “at the wheels” simply because the results rarely approach the advertised HP figures.
|
DipodomysDeserti
> CobraJoe
05/21/2019 at 23:49 |
|
“ No manufacturing numbers specify “at the crank” because that’s how manufacturers have always displayed horsepower figures.”
Manufacturers have displayed horsepower figures in all sorts of ways over the years. Google “gross vs net horsepower” if you need a primer on this .
There’s no standard as to whether crank or whp is displayed. And unless they write “crank horsepower”, you have no idea what reading they’re using.
Those of us that have experience tuning BMWs other vehicles laugh at you novices claiming BMW “underrates” engines, as it’s pretty clear they’ve listed whp figures for a decade or so now.
You think it’s a coincidence their crank figured were almost exactly what others were getting for whp numbers? Riiiiiggghhhht...
All of that ignores the fact that no one who knows anything about dynos would compare two reading from two different machines being taken in completely different environmental conditions.
|
CobraJoe
> DipodomysDeserti
05/22/2019 at 09:55 |
|
Manufacturers have displayed horsepower figures in all sorts of ways over the years. Google “gross vs net horsepower” if you need a primer on this.
1972. That’s when the change from gross hp ratings to net hp ratings happened. Before then, all HP figues were listed as gross, after then, all hp figures were listed as net. Both figures were “at the crank”.
The testing method is specified by the SAE, so it cannot be “all sorts of ways over the years”. The switch from gross to net was to better show the real power that the engine was producing, not to confuse the buying public.
There’s no standard as to whether crank or whp is displayed. And unless they write “crank horsepower”, you have no idea what reading they’re using.
There is a standard. Some quick googling, and I believe the current standard is SAE J 1349. In their own words, it is “ A fair, impartial and accurate way for the mobility industry to accurately measure and report engine horsepower and torque. “
Note that they’re saying “Engine horsepower and torque”. That means at the crank, not at the wheels. It makes sense that a manufacturer would test the engines, because they offer the same engines across different platforms, different transmissions, different drivetrains, and different tire sizes. Certifying the power figures for every drivetrain variation of the F150 would be a humongous task.
All of that ignores the fact that no one who knows anything about dynos would compare two reading from two different machines being taken in completely different environmental conditions.
Fair point, but I believe that all chassis dyno numbers should be taken as a basis of comparison, not as a gold standard. Heck, you could put a engine on a stand in a controlled atmosphere and end up with different numbers on repeated runs. That being said, achieving whp numbers that match advertised engine hp numbers is still noteworthy. For comparison, a FR-S is advertised at 200hp, but dynos closer to 175whp.
Those of us that have experience tuning BMWs other vehicles laugh at you novices claiming BMW “underrates” engines, as it’s pretty clear they’ve listed whp figures for a decade or so now.
You think it’s a coincidence their crank figured were almost exactly what others were getting for whp numbers? Riiiiiggghhhht...
If BMW is truly listing whp numbers as the advertised engine hp, then they really are underrating their engines. Strap that BMW/Supra engine to the dyno, and it’ll make significantly more than the advertised amount. Kudos to them if that’s what’s happening.
|
DipodomysDeserti
> CobraJoe
05/22/2019 at 10:02 |
|
I like how you just typed up a bunch of stuff I told you to look up.
In case you missed it, I know how dynos work, which is why I think articles like this are BS. I’ve tuned by own vehicles (both carbureted and fuel injected), and some of them have been BMWs.
|
CobraJoe
> DipodomysDeserti
05/22/2019 at 10:33 |
|
I like how you just typed up a bunch of stuff I told you to look up.
In case you missed it, I know how dynos work, which is why I think articles like this are BS. I’ve tuned by own vehicles (both carbureted and fuel injected), and some of them have been BMWs.
I did look it up, to reinforce my existing knowledge. Do you think I pulled the SAE specification number out of the air?
If you know how dynos work, then why are you bitching about manufacturers not claiming “At the crank” or basically claiming that it’s pointless to compare chassis dyno numbers to anything?
I’d argue that this article is not BS. The recorded max hp and torque numbers may not be accurate down to the tenths , but they do show that the engine makes far more power than advertised (well beyo nd the margin of error between dynos or environmental factors), and more importantly, they give you a graph of the power and torque vs RPM.
It’s rare to see a dyno graph from a manufacturer, but that graph shows far more of what the engine would be like to drive than an advertised max hp number. Big plateau of torque and hp at opposite ends of the rev range ? I just might like how it drives. (I love big torque down low).
|
DipodomysDeserti
> CobraJoe
05/22/2019 at 10:43 |
|
Blah, blah, blah, blah...
In case you haven’t noticed, Joe, this isn’t the FP.
|
CobraJoe
> DipodomysDeserti
05/22/2019 at 11:02 |
|
Blah, blah, blah, blah...
In case you haven’t noticed, Joe, this isn’t the FP.
What, we can’t talk about cars here? I thought we were talking about cars.
|
DipodomysDeserti
> CobraJoe
05/22/2019 at 11:12 |
|
You were talking about bloggers talking about cars, I was talking about cars.
But please, post up some more dyno charts and explain torque to me. It’s not like I haven’t actually tuned my own vehicles before.
|
CobraJoe
> DipodomysDeserti
05/22/2019 at 12:41 |
|
You were talking about blogge rs talking about cars, I was talking about cars.
But please, post up some more dyno charts and explain torque to me. It’s not like I haven’t actually tuned my own vehicles before.
Ya know, you could just say you didn’t want to have a discussion about dyno tests of new cars vs their advertised power ratings. I thought maybe you would want to discuss it, considering your first post on a public forum was about exactly that.
D on’t assume I’m intending to offend you by over- explaining . I’m never sure the level of knowledge of the person I’m responding to, and I’m never sure the level of knowledge of the people who might read this thread later. (Besides, I like to write things out to get my own thoughts straight).
But hey, if you really want to talk about dyno charts and learn about torque, let me know, I can find some time.
|
DipodomysDeserti
> CobraJoe
05/22/2019 at 13:53 |
|
Don’t worry, you haven’t offended me. Suffice it to say I know there’s nothing you can teach me about dynos. And no one is going to read this.
|
CobraJoe
> DipodomysDeserti
05/22/2019 at 14:31 |
|
And no one is going to read this.
Ya never know. I just had a reply to comment I posted 7 years ago.