Originally posted by Officer Cartman:
Damn, my SVT dynoed at 177hp, with just a KKM. More torque, but more weight to carry too.. Just goes to further prove my initial thoughts on it's power.



Christ.... Yeah, lets compare PEAK hp at any given RPM. Come on, you know better than that, or, well, maybe you don't.

I bet you didn't make that 177hp at 5700rpm like the Mazda did....

Just for comparison... I dynoed at 174fwhp, so I'm fairly close in peak number to the Mazda, but....

ME 3.0 6
2500rpm 60fwhp 75fwhp
3000rpm 87 92
3500rpm 95 110
4000rpm 116 125
4500rpm 133 139
5000rpm 147 162

Then the power on the Mazda starts leveling off. SO, from 2500rpm (my graph unfortunately doesn't go below 2500) up to 5000rpm, the Mazda, on average, has about 11 more fwhp than my SVT, and give or take 11-15 more ft lb of torque at the wheels...

While I agree that the Mazda SHOULD be making more power since it is advertising a supposed 220, but what I'm trying to say is that peak numbers don't mean jack doodly squat.

Sorry, but I'm helluva lot more interested at what I'm making at 1500-6k than I am at 6700, where I will rarely go, and if I do, I'll stay there for a brief second.

That's why I think it's somewhat useless quoting your peak dyno numbers without providing a graph.

I, for example, make 174fwhp, but make more power AND torque throughout the band than people making 175-179fwhp.

One my favorites is people quoting peak torque, but that peak torque is achieved with that big spike as soon as you start the dyno. So I see quotes like "154ft lb of tq", then they post the graph, and it's the 'spike' that's hitting the top number, but falls off immediately, and they don't get above 150 from then on....

People, learn to read your dyno graphs! I'm not saying I'm an expert, but it's fairly common sense...

-John





'98 4Runner