Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Dyno and Drag Raw Data for SVT HP/TQ...

I'm looking to compare stock and modified numbers from an SVT to a stock and modified WRX. There is some debate as to why one car would perform better than the other, and I think some dyno comparisons would do the trick. I saw the old excel spreadsheets on the main page, but I know that there have been some developments with the Diablo chip, the APEX'i S-AFC, headers, 3.0L conversions, etc since that spreadsheet was formulated.


Does anyone have the raw data numbers at 100rpm increments from "good" dyno pulls? If so, please post them here, or email me at:

archer.ed@ensco.com

Thanks,

Ed

Why do you want such a detailed comparison?
Do you have a contour and a wrx?
Which one is winning the races, the SVT or the WRX?

I know questions don't answer questions, but I'm curious also and I will be dynoing my car in a couple of weeks.

warmonger

I do not think the dyno data will do anything but confuse you. The WRX uses an AWD dyno not a typical Dynojet 248C that FWD & RWD use. I have seen several stock and modded WRX dynos in the mags and I can tell you that stock power & tourque is not impressive - about 150-165 HP and about 150 T. In one write up, the car was actually converted to FWD and checked on a Dynojet and made within 5 HP of the AWD dyno - though this is a bit artificial. Furthermore WRX power drops off BAD at 5000-5500 RPM and has alot of lag apparent - very peaky. Side by side dynos, look like SVT could kick the crap out of WRX, though this is not apparently the case.

I think the AWD launch helps ALOT at good standing start times, I think perhaps the dyno type differences are real and probably underrate the WRX to some degree relative to the SVT. Then again, the published rolling start WRX runs are actually fairly similar to SVT so perhaps from a roll SVT is a match...

Dan:

Depends on what setup you use for your AWD dyno. Some of the older units scrub off lots of power, some of the newer units don't have use the car's wheels at all, but rely on a calcualtion from the actual hub assembly mounted to measuring devices. Similar to how you get BHP on a motor from a bench.

The numbers I have reflect a 22.1% driveline loss at peak HP for the WRX through a typical AWD dyno. This looks to be close to accurate.

I believe in the article you're referring to, they did not mechanically convert the car to 2wd. The reasons why the AWD WRX dynoed so closely to the 2wd WRX is most likely because they invoked the "limp home" mode via the ECU, which disables one set of drive wheels, but ALSO retards the flow of fuel and decreases the spark advance. They may or may not have known this...

Further, all driveline/dyno losses have to be ignored to some degree as we really don't have another means of baseline comparison. The bottom line would be if they are close at baseline A and x mods are done to each, the same dynos should give you a new baseline.

SVT baseline at ~165hp/~155TQ -- then add headers, chip, exhaust, intake, TB, MAF, etc to get to ~184hp/~157TQ.

WRX baseline at ~176hp/~184TQ -- add chip, intake, exhaust, boost control, water spray to get to ~222hp/~220TQ.

If they were close at stock, the overwhelming % of increase in the basic mods makes the difference larger. No longer a driver's duel.

My only hope is to see a breakdown of HP/TQ for each and compare why they may be close in one arena and not close in another.

My guess is this:

WRX has more hp/tq available over a larger usable portion of the powerband.
WRX has a higher redline enabling the bosst to be effective for longer period of time.
WRX is not as gutless below 3150rpm as one would think.
WRX gearing is designed to keeps revs up despite lowering top speed.
AWD gives a crucial advantage on the launch.

Reasons why the SVT may have an advantage on a roll:

N/A engines have a better throttle response b/c of no turbo lag.
Initial benefit of AWD launch negated by the roll (correllary the moment of inertia to motivate more "hub" weight of AWD is already overcome)
Final drive ratio may have an edge when rolling from 5mph.

These are the things I'm hoping to find out in a non-confrontational manner.

Besides all this info I'm going to be meeting up with some of the guys from the Capitol CEG to see what kind of advantages each car has from what speeds, what gears, etc.

Thanks for any help you can give.

Ed

By the way...

power at ~5000 to ~6250 is never below 165hp.

Peak comes at 5700 @ 176.4

TQ from 3100 to 5900 never drops below 155lbs/ft...so the curve is fairly flat.

I typically launch at about 2100 - 2500 rpm anyway, because engine runs rich in stock form, the car kinda bogs otherwise. So every time I leave a light, racing or not -- I'm only 500 - 1000rpm out of the "sweet" spot.

Ed

Ed, looks like by the dyno #s we would be pretty close from a roll...

179.2 HP at 6900 RPM
154.3 T peak with 150-154 lb/ft on call from 2500 - 6000 RPM except for the typical "dip" at 3300-3600 RPM or so.

But no doubt when you up the boost, I'm toast.
You would also kill me off the line with AWD (and because I really do not race from stop as I want my clutch/dif to last..)

There are a few N/A 2.5 SVTs at 185HP/170TQ - Hopefully soon to be some well past that.

If you are modifying it... Why skip the big boys

3L - 220-240HP/220TQ
S/C 2.5L - 275-300+ HP/ 210TQ
S/C 3L - ???

And the SVT is lighter. Do some easy changes (change stock exhaust!, etc) and it's considerably lighter!

I too am not impressed with the WRX's power band. They really picked a poor turbo &/or setup for it!!! If I owned one I'd be looking into that first...

You dont race dynos....you race race cars...besides it all depends on the driver

Modded to modded comparisons aren't really accurate in my opinion on a N/A to turbo engines. We all know that the majority of factory S/C, and turbo engine are very detuned from the factory for "safety reasons". Take the Ford Lightning for example, add a chip and you can get upwards of 50hp, and quite a few tenths. Also being that our cars are so highly tuned 80hp/liter, also makes them slightly more difficult to pull power out of. I will add that my last trip to the strip there were 2 WRX's running 14.7s, with one running a best of 14.5-once. The time in my sig(2.30 60 ft.) is from that night, so I can tell you that if I would've gotten a piece "rolling" on the way home they probably would've been a little upset(some cocky people down here in S.Fl.)

Demon:

Didn't leave out the big boys. I'm just as interested in compiling one large spreadsheet of known dynos for whoever has them. I am asking for any raw data charts, not the graphs. I only had info for a WRX stock baseline and a "stage 1" upgrade which, BTW, does not include the upgraded turbo. I just got info for what the "stage 2" kit does on the dyno, it puts you at boost about 800 rpm sooner with a much flatter curve from about 2500 to 6000. The peaks go up to 256HP/235.7TQ. BTW, regardless off HP/TQ what is the fastest 1/4 done by any of the big boys that you know of? The above mentioned "stage 2" pulls 12.82 @ 109mph.

As far as weight goes I'm at a curb weight of 3085 (listed weight) aren't the CSVT's at 3050 or there about? Sounds about even, except that a lot of my weight is wrapped up in parts that are rotational in nature. Which as we all know, compounds some of the effect.

Wavrdr: A 14.5 - 14.7 is stock. From what I can tell, not a very good driver -- stock.

Thanks for the input, but I'd really love to see some data.

Ed