I dyno'd my stock SI today (baseline results with Dynapack)
 

Since my snowboarding trip has been cancelled, I've decided to run some errands on my day off. I also got a chance to dyno my stock SI today. Here are the results. I'm a little disappointed by the whp that it made, despite the fact that I've lost about 31 hp from the drivetrain. https://honda-tech.com/forums/images/smilies/emsad.gif http://images.honda-tech.com/set1//smile/emcrook.gif The shop (BlackTrax) that dyno'd my car used a Dynapack. They removed the front wheels from the hubs and attached the hub adaptor to my front axles. It is very different from the traditional roller dynos (Dynojet) that I'm use to seeing, which straps the car onto the roller. I don't know which dyno is more superior (I just know each type of dyno has its good/bad), all I know is that I have to be consistent with the dyno that I'm using. So a few months from now, I will post up my dyno results again after I get my i/h/e and reflash done. FYI my car has about 1,225 miles on it and it is completely stock when I dyno'd it this morning.

https://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c...0z3_tq_whp.jpg
Out of the three pulls, the best one was the last pull after letting the car cool off for about 5-10 mins. (165.7 whp and 125.7 lbs of tq)

https://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c..._k20z3_afr.jpg
Air Fuel Ratio on the right side. The guy said that my car (in stock trim) is running rich. Hopefully with i/h/e, it will help make it run with a better air to fuel ratio. He said the optimal for this car is around 13.

https://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c...e_k20z3_tq.jpg
On the far right of the graph: temperature, air density, etc...

put on a turbo O:

Re: (inspireAZN)
 

dam thats bad numbers https://honda-tech.com/forums/images/smilies/emsad.gif

i guess a good tranny and lsd helps. doesnt the RSX-S put down better numbers?

the newer rsx-s will put down bigger numbers because they cAme with 13 more hp. so pretty much they were charging an extra 3-4g's for 13 hp (not to the wheels either). https://honda-tech.com/forums/images...s/emthdown.gif no thanks. numbers do seem a little low, but there are alot of variables that could effect that

Re: (95turbodteg)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 95turbodteg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> so pretty much they were charging an extra 3-4g's for 13 hp (not to the wheels either). https://honda-tech.com/forums/images...s/emthdown.gif no thanks.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Plus the name, plus the nice interior, plus the longer warranty.

Re: (Demonis)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 95turbodteg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the newer rsx-s will put down bigger numbers because they cAme with 13 more hp. so pretty much they were charging an extra 3-4g's for 13 hp (not to the wheels either). no thanks. numbers do seem a little low, but there are alot of variables that could effect that</TD></TR></TABLE>

Only the 2005 RSX type S came with 210 hp cause they bumped up the compression and improved the exhaust a bit. The 2006 RSX type S is corrected back to 201 hp.

Re: (RICO_)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RICO_ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Only the 2005 RSX type S came with 210 hp cause they bumped up the compression and improved the exhaust a bit. The 2006 RSX type S is corrected back to 201 hp.</TD></TR></TABLE>

compression? I could of sworn the 05 had better cams...

Re: (BlackSage)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BlackSage &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

compression? I could of sworn the 05 had better cams...</TD></TR></TABLE>

My mistake.....it has revised camshafts and better exhaust flow which is what bumped up the power. New SAE rating standards put the 2006 back down to 201 HP.

Re: (RICO_)
 

From what I remember dynopack dynos usually read a bit low compared to other wheel-on dynos.

Re: (Djaric)
 

Dynapacks actually will read higher alot of the time, simply because you are taking weight off of the front--the tires and wheels. Dynapack is a much better dyno to tune on than a Dynojet, although a dynojet is nice and easy to set the car up. Every dyno will read a little different, its best not to get caught up in the numbers--I mean everyone wants to put down a good number, but use it as a tool--now when you get some mods on your car and a tune, you can go back to the same dyno to see if they are helping or hurting you.

Also, if you look at the AFRs in the upper Rpm range--they look like 12-12.3 that is quite rich, Honda probably sets it up like that to be "extra" safe--in case you get bad gas or something like that. If you were able to lean it out a bit, it would most likely pick up power--just from the tune.

Re: (d16dcoe45)
 

i know it is a tool. there is no load on this dyno so are the afr and egt gonna be the same on the street as on the dyno?

Re: I dyno'd my stock SI today (abs0lutexer0)
 

I see your in San Jose. If you want another read on a Dyno, try Dynospot Racing in San Jose. They do all the work on my car. They use a DynoJet and are awesome tuners.

They dynoed my Stock 2006 SI at 185 whp. I would not worry too much about the numbers at this point. Once you get a few more miles on the car, your number might come up a bit.

Re: I dyno'd my stock SI today (Hellzcivic)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RICO_ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Only the 2005 RSX type S came with 210 hp cause they bumped up the compression and improved the exhaust a bit. The 2006 RSX type S is corrected back to 201 hp.</TD></TR></TABLE>

WRONG! the 2005 and 2006 are identical cars. the 05-06 came with ITR cams. and now have hte k20Z1 in them. THe only reason the 2005 has more hp is because the way ACura rated their hp. they are the same car. 210 hp.

Re: I dyno'd my stock SI today (swollen_cu)
 

thats what i was thinking. 05-06 have all the same components. as for nicer interior... thats a matter of opinion. i prefer the seats in the si compared to the rsx-s. again, thats my opinion. i also give the speedometer set up of the si. plus.... LSD FTMFW!

OP, mod it and see what numbers it adds

Re: I dyno'd my stock SI today (swollen_cu)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by swollen_cu &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

WRONG! the 2005 and 2006 are identical cars. the 05-06 came with ITR cams. and now have hte k20Z1 in them. THe only reason the 2005 has more hp is because the way ACura rated their hp. they are the same car. 210 hp. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I believe that is what he said, he just said it a little funny. Probably meant "corrected" as in different HP ratings...

what gear were they in

Re: (06sik20z3)
 

4th.... updated!


Modified by abs0lutexer0 at 7:07 PM 3/8/2007

Re: (abs0lutexer0)
 

Wouldn't 5th be the best on the si because its the gear with a ratio closest to 1:1? I did my first dyno in 4th and got 178whp/135wtq on a dynojet.

Re: I dyno'd my stock SI today (swollen_cu)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by swollen_cu &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

WRONG! the 2005 and 2006 are identical cars. the 05-06 came with ITR cams. and now have hte k20Z1 in them. THe only reason the 2005 has more hp is because the way ACura rated their hp. they are the same car. 210 hp. </TD></TR></TABLE>

So why are their 0-60 and 1/4 mile times virtually identical. The RSX is lighter than the Si and is still only capable of 15 flat or 14.9 stock with a 6.7 0-60 time which is only .1 sec. faster than the Si.

Re: I dyno'd my stock SI today (RICO_)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RICO_ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So why are their 0-60 and 1/4 mile times virtually identical. The RSX is lighter than the Si and is still only capable of 15 flat or 14.9 stock with a 6.7 0-60 time which is only .1 sec. faster than the Si.</TD></TR></TABLE>

RICO_ he was stating the 05-06 RSX-s's are the same car. I dont think he was mentioning anything about the civic.

05 didnt use the NEW sae corrected HP ratings, while 06 started using it, therfore putting the HP at 201hp.

Re: I dyno'd my stock SI today (cnyej1)
 

Yeah but if the '06 RSX-S car makes 13 more HP than the Si i would figure that the numbers would be better as well.....especially since the Acura is lighter to. Instead they are identical to the Si. That's what I meant. I don't know maybe it's just me though. Don't wanna make a big deal outta this though cause it's kinda off topic. https://honda-tech.com/forums/images...es/emdgust.gif

Re: I dyno'd my stock SI today (RICO_)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RICO_ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yeah but if the '06 RSX-S car makes 13 more HP than the Si i would figure that the numbers would be better as well.....especially since the Acura is lighter to. Instead they are identical to the Si. That's what I meant. I don't know maybe it's just me though. Don't wanna make a big deal outta this though cause it's kinda off topic. https://honda-tech.com/forums/images...es/emdgust.gif </TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah it made 13 more hp compared to our Si because that was before the sae hp rating. Now after the rating its 201 compared to our 197 which is only 4 hp. So basically our rating before the sae would have been around 206hp......do you understand how it? Im trying my best to explain it. https://honda-tech.com/forums/images/smilies/emthup.gif

Re: I dyno'd my stock SI today (cnyej1)
 

Oh i see. Thanx!! https://honda-tech.com/forums/images/smilies/emthup.gif https://honda-tech.com/forums/images/smilies/emthup.gif

Re: (fijiblue06si)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by fijiblue06si &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Wouldn't 5th be the best on the si because its the gear with a ratio closest to 1:1? I did my first dyno in 4th and got 178whp/135wtq on a dynojet.</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by abs0lutexer0 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">3rd</TD></TR></TABLE>

4TH gear is the closest to 1:1 ratio... you want to dyno in 4th. if you are going to use as a comparison go back & dyno

church on the west coast & evans tuning in PA (dynapacks) read high. church actually reads 10-12% higher.

its not the fact that #'s are from hub, that some people say, make it read high but the correction factors (that are controlled by the user/owner) entered.
I have all my work & tuning done @ synapse using a dynapack. the owner has a 2006 si & dyno'd 165/125ish so the OP's #'s are right on

here is my latest dyno - hytech cams & adj cam gear going in next (this is a k20a type R with lotsa bolt-ons)
https://www.synapsemotorsport.com/pu...ges/gregob.JPG

Re: (3spd_C-ROLLA)
 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 3spd_C-ROLLA &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">evans tuning in PA (dynapacks) read high. church actually reads 10-12% higher.</TD></TR></TABLE>

No, our dyno does not read high. An example, we have customers making low 400whp trapping 128-132mph in the 1/4 mile in 2400lb cars. In fact, we have several customers' k20 motors with bolt-ons, RBC intake manifold, and tuning that make 225-230whp range...about exactly what you are making.