Okay, well .2 ponies shy of 200 . .but who's counting.Thought I'd post my recent dyno complimetns of CHURCH AUTOMOTIVE TESTING.
This was with mild tuning (ran out of time) and I need to go back to clean up that nasty dip with the cam timing between 4.5k and 5.5k. But for the most part, i'm content. This was on a Dynapack by the way . . . .Anyway I know all of you want to know my setup so here it is:
199.8 hp/140.7 tq
JDM GSR
Stock Block
Portflow valve job
Portflow valve train
BC III plus cams
Skunk2 Manifold
ITR TB
AEM CAI
Crane cam gears
RC 310 Injectors
ITR 4-1 Headers
test pipe
2.5 piping w/dynomax muffler
Hondata s200

Church Automotive does wonders with HONDATA!!




** Just so you guys knowm the baseline run was done with the same setup MINUS the BC cams (used gsr cams), had WorldSports Apexi exhaust, stock injectors, DIY intake. So this is a good comparison of stock cams vs BC cams.
Hope this was useful
PEACE!

 

it's nice to know there's hope for us guys without time/money to rebuild our bottom ends...........

 

Good numbers. I think you need more dyno time to clean up those spikes throughout the powerband, tq especially. So imo there is much room for improvement

 

very nice

 

NICE#S THATS APPROX 169.15 ON A CHASSIS DYNO (TO THE WHEELS)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HOOKUPS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">NICE#S THATS APPROX 169.15 ON A CHASSIS DYNO (TO THE WHEELS) </TD></TR></TABLE>

i think that his dyno was to the wheels. it was done on a dynapack, nice #'s though, ever though of switching to some ITR pistons and the BC4's?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HOOKUPS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">NICE#S THATS APPROX 169.15 ON A CHASSIS DYNO (TO THE WHEELS) </TD></TR></TABLE>

werd!

 

I am pretty sure the statement about churches dyno is somewhat
erroneous. When we dynoed the Omni B16 it made 195.6 at
Trackmasters (dynojet) and 206.5 at Churches Auto hours later.
Dynos are up on m24x.com. So according to this model, he "looses"
about 8-10 whp on a dynojet depending on conditions from my
estimation, all things considered based on my limited understanding.
good numbers
**edit: Church's Auto is a Dynapack... in fact... same dyno as the
poster.


Modified by MikeSarr_GSR at 2:35 AM 12/9/2004

 

those are good numbers for what you have props

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HOOKUPS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">NICE#S THATS APPROX 169.15 ON A CHASSIS DYNO (TO THE WHEELS) </TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MikeSarr_GSR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I am pretty sure the statement about churches dyno is somewhat
erroneous. When we dynoed the Omni B16 it made 195.6 at
Trackmasters (dynojet) and 206.5 at Churches Auto hours later.
Dynos are up on m24x.com. So according to this model, he "looses"
about 8-10 whp on a dynojet depending on conditions from my
estimation, all things considered based on my limited understanding.
good numbers </TD></TR></TABLE>

I did mention that it was on a Dynopack. I'm guess-"tamating" that on a Dynojet I would have put down 180whp . ..more than your 8-10 "loss", maybe a 15-20 whp "loss" between the two dyno's, but hopefully more than HOOKUPS calculated 169.15whp . . .

Anyone else have any input?

 

awesome numbers

 

is your compression ratio stock

 

yes. oem head gasket. gsr pistons. head was not milled.

 

nice numbers!

 

Why does everyone also convert the damn numbers from different types of dynos. It just seems very stupid to do, if you made 200whp, then that is the amount of power you made. Who gives a crap if you made 160 or 170 on a dynojet. Everyone just always does it, and its really not needed. You made decent power, just go and enjoy it.

 

exactly... make some timeslips!

 

I agree tuning capabilities of a dyna pak are way better regardless if it reads lower than a dynojet plus the diff is not that much anyway so who cares.

Get it back to church to better the power band nice numbers!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SioneSi &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I agree tuning capabilities of a dyna pak are way better regardless if it reads lower than a dynojet plus the diff is not that much anyway so who cares. </TD></TR></TABLE>

dyna pak is the one that reads higher dynojet

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by goforbroke &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Why does everyone also convert the damn numbers from different types of dynos. It just seems very stupid to do, if you made 200whp, then that is the amount of power you made. Who gives a crap if you made 160 or 170 on a dynojet. Everyone just always does it, and its really not needed. You made decent power, just go and enjoy it. </TD></TR></TABLE>

dynojet reads the most accurate of all the dynos.

 

Umm.... No they don't.

 

arguing which dynometer is better is really pointless, everyone has their preference.

 

Nice peak power... now just tune out those canyon dips and post up again !

What kinda tuning was done so far ? Just a/f or where the cams dialed in and all ?

 

Thats true and I don't feel like starting some stupid arguement.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by X2BOARD &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Nice peak power... now just tune out those canyon dips and post up again !

What kinda tuning was done so far ? Just a/f or where the cams dialed in and all ?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Only after playing with the cam gears for 5 mins . . . another appt. had to be started. ( spent half my tuning session fixing a jumping timing belt!)

I'll definately post the new dyno's when i get a chance.

 

Hey.... maybe you can up the peak power some more after tuning... great. Can't wait to see what you get out of her !


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by goforbroke &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Thats true and I don't feel like starting some stupid arguement.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Hey... isn't starting stupid arguements kinda like an HT tradition ?

 

- guys no argument here but a suggestion. ifyou take the loss to the wheels and
decrease it, i.e. dynapack tuning it will reveal more of the burbles and the like in the powerband because it is more directly connected to the drivetrain. it will yeild a higher number, however the tuning can be more accurate due to revealing more of the engine's behavior due to the loss of weight/momentum of the wheels. just a thought. if the idea is to tune the car for smoothness, it can certainly be achieved well with a chassis dyno, however the dynapack is pretty trick. I must admit when I was a churches and saw how easy it was to hook up and get er done as it were, I was impressed