MTM Stg IV dyno plots
06-20-2003, 06:27 PM
#22
Audiworld Sponsor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 19,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HP looks really nice. I would have expected more peak torque...
than that, since my Stg 2+ was pretty close:
<img src="http://ctny.audiworld.com/mark/temp/DAP/hp-tq_big.jpg">
Seems to hold more torque through the mid-range except for that dip around 5k RPMs. Your car definitely seems to be one of the stronger K04'd cars though!
-Dave Pramanik
<img src="http://ctny.audiworld.com/mark/temp/DAP/hp-tq_big.jpg">
Seems to hold more torque through the mid-range except for that dip around 5k RPMs. Your car definitely seems to be one of the stronger K04'd cars though!
-Dave Pramanik
06-20-2003, 06:36 PM
#23
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1400 ft/lb of torque, wtf is up with that?
I dunno, do you think different dynapacks are comparable? Your numbers would have been a big hit at the Speedsport dyno day. Your curves look nice.
06-20-2003, 06:41 PM
#25
Audiworld Sponsor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 19,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that is the total for the four wheels and you need to divide by four...
... which yeilds 350 ft. lbs. Definitely no joke. I would venture to say that SpeedSport's dyno is calibrated differently than APRs is/was and ambient conditions were likely very different. Don't think it would be fair to compare the two charts.
Curious why the two highlited runs are so much better than the others on the plot. Are those the baseline (i.e., pre-K04) runs?
-Dave Pramanik
Curious why the two highlited runs are so much better than the others on the plot. Are those the baseline (i.e., pre-K04) runs?
-Dave Pramanik
06-20-2003, 06:42 PM
#26
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does feel smooth after the 5K hiccups
When I first posted about the kit it was not doing this 4-5k roughness thing, and it did feel like a good clean pull through the whole rev range. I'm not sure why, maybe because it was really cool then - temps in the 40s - when I first ran it.
06-20-2003, 06:44 PM
#27
AudiWorld Super User
Actually divide by the gear ratio. Ambient temps were actually HIGHER than his listed.
I doubt that calibration could be off by THAT much... I dunno, I just think that the numbers for a tuned K04 car should be higher.
06-20-2003, 06:56 PM
#29
Audiworld Sponsor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 19,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see. So divide by final drive of 4.11?
Giving you 341 lb-ft.
Doug's car dynoed right around the same as Vijay's and 20 or so HP above KO4Madness's on the same dyno. I don't think there's anything wrong with the power he's putting down.
I'd put my money on differences in dyno calibration.
-Dave Pramanik
Doug's car dynoed right around the same as Vijay's and 20 or so HP above KO4Madness's on the same dyno. I don't think there's anything wrong with the power he's putting down.
I'd put my money on differences in dyno calibration.
-Dave Pramanik
06-20-2003, 07:03 PM
#30
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple answer for that...
K03s flow a-plenty down low near the torque peak, not to mention MTM is conservatively boosting the K04s to levels not much higher than aggressive K03 programs at that RPM. Heck I'll bet you $ the XR makes more peak torque than the MTM Stage 4 (but in the upper rpms the K04s will have the advantage.) However, if MTM upped the boost to 1.4+ bar I think the story would be different... still this car is making great power for the lower amount of boost it sustains (only about 1.2x bar if I read bioman's previous boost graphs correctly), which is a bit less than other K04 kits out there I believe. bioman if I were you I'd experiment with a MBC and up that boost another 0.1 or 0.2 bar, and I think that car would scream... but that's just me ;-)