How about Brad Barber's dyno sheet? Brooks' engine was ported, which may account for the lack of low end torque.



Calculate average torque or horsepower over the usable rpm range. You do know what average power signifies, right?

 

Of course I do. But I don't even have to calculate the math to see that the seq is going to have at least the same, if not more area under the curve. The seq has significantly more torque from 2800-3500 rpm, less from 3800-4500 rpm, and the same from 4500+. I'm guessing they will be fairly close, maybe someone with more love of math will actually perform the calcs (after adjusting the horsepower/torque curves to match peaks of course).

 

Jim, Jim, Jim...

Do we need to use OLD data like Brook's. PFC wasn't available then, actually his car was quite old school.

Give me good data or throw it out.

 

Same mods, same time frame, same boost. Seq wins powerband.

Jim, you already worry me since it is clear you don't understand there is NO way the non-seq will have any bottom end compared to seq.

See the 1st turbo is small, to get it to spool you don't need as much exhaust energy. When you pump a little boost into the engine you get even MORE exhaust energy, which gives more boost.

Some some graphs that were made in the past 2-3 yrs with "modern" mods. Not some old PFS PMS or M2 chipped ECU.

Another thing these graphs don't show is boost response, they just show power at WOT.

The only people that are happy with non-seq are those that are tracking their car, can't fix seq system or are just plain clueless. There are plenty of the clueless, they are the people you flame for other "mods".

 

Oh and I do know how to calculate area under the curve.

It looks to me that Brads car is seq AND has more peak HP along with more power down low than Brain's. Don't forget the fact that the starting rpm is quite different.

Bust out the Excel sheet....

 

Then it was a goddamn miracle he made 36x RWHP with all that old school technology, wasn't it.

Keep in mind that Brian's engine wasn't ported and he had a high-flow cat on the car.

 

I'll dyno mine soon.

 

Beat this with non-seq Jim...

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...hreadid=328246

I drove this car last week, it is pretty quick.

On Brook's car, I think a thing or two has been learned about tuning since Brooks was around. I'm not saying peak HP would change significant, but low end power has. Again, follow the above link.

 

From the other thread:

You call that a dyno graph, Jeff?

 

Not only that, but someone has some bad math...

As posted:
3500 rpm - 195 hp / 290 lb-ft.
4000 rpm - 210 hp / 290 lb-ft.
4500 rpm - 235 hp / 285 lb-ft.
5000 rpm - 310 hp / 317 lb-ft.
5500 rpm - 320 hp / 315 lb-ft.
6000 rpm - 350 hp / 305 lb-ft.
6500 rpm - 363 hp / 300 lb-ft.

Let's calculate horsepower from the torque values above (hp = torque * rpm / 5252)...
3500 rpm - 290 lb-ft. = 193.3 hp (-1.7)
4000 rpm - 290 lb-ft. = 220.9 hp (+10.9)
4500 rpm - 285 lb-ft. = 244.2 hp (+9.2)
5000 rpm - 317 lb-ft. = 301.8 hp (-8.2)
5500 rpm - 315 lb-ft. = 329.9 hp (+9.9)
6000 rpm - 305 lb-ft. = 348.4 hp (-1.6)
6500 rpm - 300 lb-ft. = 371.3 hp (+8.3)

Now let's try calculating torque from the horsepower values above (torque = hp * 5252 / rpm)...
3500 rpm - 195 hp = 292.6 lb-ft. (+2.6)
4000 rpm - 210 hp = 275.7 lb-ft. (-14.3)
4500 rpm - 235 hp = 274.3 lb-ft. (-10.7)
5000 rpm - 310 hp = 325.6 lb-ft. (+8.6)
5500 rpm - 320 hp = 305.6 lb-ft. (-9.4)
6000 rpm - 350 hp = 306.4 lb-ft. (+1.4)
6500 rpm - 363 hp = 293.3 lb-ft. (-6.7)

Boy, those are some bad rounding errors...

 

Since you like to screw around, try calculating the error as a percentage of the total and throw a brotha a bone.

14 lb ft of torque off at 275, ~5% error, not too bad IMHO if your pulling numbers off a graph by eye.

 

Yeah, whatever.

 

wow, this is possibly the most hijacked thread i've seen yet

Incidentally, I'm doing the full NS conversion at the moment, and can't wait for the peace of mind it will give me..