|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,394
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,394 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,516
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,516 |
Originally posted by Qbert:
Hmmm, 20% drivetrain loss...doesn't sound too good to me. It just looks like the thing is having trouble breathing on the top end. The torque just falls off really fast.
Your right, you might wanna look and see if your VVT is working proporly. I see a good power band across untill the torque and HP cross, but then at 6500 RPM it drops to what is was at 1500 RPM. The torque I thought was suppose to be alomst 200ft/lbs, and with only 5% loss to the wheels for torque (I remember someone saying that) I'm not sure if it's proporly broken in.
I'm probably totally wrong, please someone flame me, but anyways that's some pretty good numbers on a stock 3.0 Mazda engine.
Be proud, with a little modding, you can pump that puppy up 
176.3 HP ~ 215 HP 18% loss
172 TQ ~ 181.1 TQ 5% loss
Mazda 6S, V6, Speed Yellow
5 Speed, Sport package
Bose audio
Painted 'stash and HIDs!
w/Injen 1/4 14.750 @ 94.94
Former car:
99 Contour SE Sport Black MTX V6
SVT plastic...
1/4 - 15.012 @ 90.58 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 873
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 873 |
Originally posted by mmarfan:
Your right, you might wanna look and see if your VVT is working proporly. I see a good power band across untill the torque and HP cross, but then at 6500 RPM it drops to what is was at 1500 RPM. The torque I thought was suppose to be alomst 200ft/lbs, and with only 5% loss to the wheels for torque (I remember someone saying that) I'm not sure if it's proporly broken in.
I'm probably totally wrong, please someone flame me, but anyways that's some pretty good numbers on a stock 3.0 Mazda engine.
Be proud, with a little modding, you can pump that puppy up
176.3 HP ~ 215 HP 18% loss
172 TQ ~ 181.1 TQ 5% loss
This is the second V6 MTX dyno I have seen that is this way. I think Mazda either has a restrictive intake or exhaust, maybe both. Change those and I'm sure you'll be looking at 190+ to the wheels.
2004 Focus PZEV 2.3L - KW sport suspension, SP camber plates, Eibach front swaybar, FS intake, FS Stealth exhaust, 3.82 Final, Torsen ATB, Prothane MM insert, E1 CSVT wheels
1/4 mile - 15.201@89.4mph
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023 |
Nice car! Get some new wheels!
-Giovanni
One turbocharger. Two intercoolers. All love.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,039
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,039 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19 |
well it's 20% even for the drivetrain loss..to me that's not too..too bad. as for the others. the car was purchased a day or two before thanksgiving. when i dyno'd it had 3950 miles. so it was pretty well broken in. i'm at 5500 miles right now, they're just racking up. as for part of the reason why power delivery is not too strong past 4900-5000 rpm here's an tidbit from a post in general forum also another graph with air/fuel ratio added: with an apex safc or fuel controller and 93 octane. to keep it at 12:5:1 or alil higher (i like to run my n/a cars alil lean) prolly can expect a nicer curve from 5000 rpm or so and up just by fuel tuning. here's my dyno graphs: http://www.massimoperformance.com/images/ed/withairbox.JPG
--ed
03 mazda 6s 5 speed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 726
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 726 |
Originally posted by Pascal:
Originally posted by baco99:
wait a minute... is that the V6?
Nope, it's the 3.0 liter 4-banger.
  LOL..
Porsche had a 3.0 I4 in the old 944 i beleive
P.S. look at the dyno sheet, WHAT A GREAT POWER BAND!!!!
-Tim
Tim
Ex - ContourPower
2001 Saab 9-3 Viggen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by JVT:
Yeah, lets compare PEAK hp at any given RPM. Come on, you know better than that, or, well, maybe you don't.
Okay if you insist... 
My HP curve is nearly indentical to 5500rpm. Then I keep going and the "posted" Mazda 6 dies off quickly.
RPM / Me / Mazda
4000 - 120 / 124
4500 - 135 / 134
5000 - 155 / 160
5500 - 170 / 169
6000 - 180 / 175
6500 - 185 / 170
7000 - 185 / N/A
Now He does have me beat on torque. However only by around 5-10TQ. (I should hope so being 20% larger ) If you take out that TQ spike he has at 4900rpm our peaks are roughly the same. Also after peak I make more!!! 
RPM / Me / Mazda
4000 - 155 / 162
4500 - 157 / 162
5000 - 161 / 170
5500 - 162 / 162
6000 - 158 / 151
6500 - 150 / 133
7000 - 140 / N/A
Also remember those are old dyno runs for me. I'm doing much better now... 
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19 |
demonsvt,
also remember i'm 100% bone stock. i don't know your mods but give me a few months when i got nikolas (duratecperforamnace) intake/headers and an exhaust. also planning to force feed this car. most likely a supercharger. i'm also assuming that yours is not stock. note it's also tuned to run 87 octane. and runs really rich after 5000 rpm.
after intake/headers and an exhaust and fuel tuning i'm hoping i'm at about 205-210 whp maybe even more. comparing bone stock to modded is apples to oranges. what are your mods?
--ed
edit:
impressive mods list. ur motor is fully built. if i were to mod similar to your wiht a full n/a buid i'd prolly top off close to 250 whp.
Last edited by White6s; 02/04/03 12:55 PM.
--ed
03 mazda 6s 5 speed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
Originally posted by White6s:
2003 mazda 6s 5 speed
Forgive me for being anal, but doesn't the 6s have sideskirts and the sporty body kit? The regular 6 doesnt have that, which is what you're car looks like.
|
|
|
|
|
