2007 VQ HR Dyno Results
02-01-2007, 02:48 PM
#81
The graph comparing the Rev-up vs. the HR:
Correct me if I'm wrong, so the HR gained about 6lbs/ft of tq and 15hp over the Revup right? But then with some of the dynos I've seen from the Rev-ups + Mrev2 + Spacer it shows significantly more gains than the HR has shown...Tony could you explain? Thanks.
-Bugs (dyno graph noob)
Edit: Maybe because there's more power under the curve? Not sure what's up...
Correct me if I'm wrong, so the HR gained about 6lbs/ft of tq and 15hp over the Revup right? But then with some of the dynos I've seen from the Rev-ups + Mrev2 + Spacer it shows significantly more gains than the HR has shown...Tony could you explain? Thanks.
-Bugs (dyno graph noob)
Edit: Maybe because there's more power under the curve? Not sure what's up...
02-01-2007, 03:41 PM
#83
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to se the VQ35HR + direct injection just like Toyota did with their 3.5L 2GR-FSE Nissan has the technology and uses it effectively on the VQ25 and makes some amazing numbers in the neighborhood of 250hp. I think there is plenty more to squeeze out of the engine as it is with most engines, but you always have to worry about emissions, reliability and longevity.
02-01-2007, 05:33 PM
#84
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scottsdale Az
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vasqo
I would like to se the VQ35HR + direct injection just like Toyota did with their 3.5L 2GR-FSE Nissan has the technology and uses it effectively on the VQ25 and makes some amazing numbers in the neighborhood of 250hp. I think there is plenty more to squeeze out of the engine as it is with most engines, but you always have to worry about emissions, reliability and longevity.
Direct injection is good, but I hear it is not very good for high-rpm applications....
02-06-2007, 02:31 PM
#85
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: So Cal
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Tony,
Thanks sharing the HR dyno plot. I've been eager to see one (that I can trust) for a while now.
Looks impressive indeed ... for a Nissan. 
As much as I hate Toyota, their's still the benchmark for a na 3.5L V6. I would love to see you dyno one of those and plot it against the HR.
And now to clear up some misinformation I read earlier ...
The "Flywheel" designation for power and torque by the Dynapack software is technically correct. For that matter, the numbers you get from DynoJet, Dynodynamics, or whichever dyno are also technically "Flywheel" figures minus the drivetrain loss (aka transmission loss).
Do you really think 250 ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheel is able to sufficiently propel a 3300+ lbs. car from 0-60 in under 6 seconds?
Try 60+ seconds. The actual torque measured at the rear hub or wheel is many times greater. It has been converted back to the "flywheel" figure via the gear ratio, so the rest of the average Joe can understand it. If anyone's interested in the actual torque measured at the wheel (hub), I'm sure Tony wouldn't mind shedding some light as the Dynapack software does report those too.
The Dynapack software also goes a step further by allowing transmission correction factor (tcf) for actual "flywheel" numbers. However determining transmission loss is tricky at best, so most operators leave it at the default correction factor of 1.0 (no correction).
Hope that helps.
Thanks sharing the HR dyno plot. I've been eager to see one (that I can trust) for a while now.
Looks impressive indeed ... for a Nissan. As much as I hate Toyota, their's still the benchmark for a na 3.5L V6. I would love to see you dyno one of those and plot it against the HR.
And now to clear up some misinformation I read earlier ...
The "Flywheel" designation for power and torque by the Dynapack software is technically correct. For that matter, the numbers you get from DynoJet, Dynodynamics, or whichever dyno are also technically "Flywheel" figures minus the drivetrain loss (aka transmission loss).
Do you really think 250 ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheel is able to sufficiently propel a 3300+ lbs. car from 0-60 in under 6 seconds?
Try 60+ seconds. The actual torque measured at the rear hub or wheel is many times greater. It has been converted back to the "flywheel" figure via the gear ratio, so the rest of the average Joe can understand it. If anyone's interested in the actual torque measured at the wheel (hub), I'm sure Tony wouldn't mind shedding some light as the Dynapack software does report those too.The Dynapack software also goes a step further by allowing transmission correction factor (tcf) for actual "flywheel" numbers. However determining transmission loss is tricky at best, so most operators leave it at the default correction factor of 1.0 (no correction).
Hope that helps.
Last edited by THX723; 02-07-2007 at 12:27 PM.
02-19-2007, 10:54 AM
#90
New Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: torrance ca
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by THX723
Hey Tony,
Thanks sharing the HR dyno plot. I've been eager to see one (that I can trust) for a while now. Looks impressive indeed ... for a Nissan.
As much as I hate Toyota, their's still the benchmark for a na 3.5L V6. I would love to see you dyno one of those and plot it against the HR.
And now to clear up some misinformation I read earlier ...
The "Flywheel" designation for power and torque by the Dynapack software is technically correct. For that matter, the numbers you get from DynoJet, Dynodynamics, or whichever dyno are also technically "Flywheel" figures minus the drivetrain loss (aka transmission loss).
Do you really think 250 ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheel is able to sufficiently propel a 3300+ lbs. car from 0-60 in under 6 seconds? Try 60+ seconds. The actual torque measured at the rear hub or wheel is many times greater. It has been converted back to the "flywheel" figure via the gear ratio, so the rest of the average Joe can understand it. If anyone's interested in the actual torque measured at the wheel (hub), I'm sure Tony wouldn't mind shedding some light as the Dynapack software does report those too.
The Dynapack software also goes a step further by allowing transmission correction factor (tcf) for actual "flywheel" numbers. However determining transmission loss is tricky at best, so most operators leave it at the default correction factor of 1.0 (no correction).
Hope that helps.
Thanks sharing the HR dyno plot. I've been eager to see one (that I can trust) for a while now.
Looks impressive indeed ... for a Nissan. As much as I hate Toyota, their's still the benchmark for a na 3.5L V6. I would love to see you dyno one of those and plot it against the HR.
And now to clear up some misinformation I read earlier ...
The "Flywheel" designation for power and torque by the Dynapack software is technically correct. For that matter, the numbers you get from DynoJet, Dynodynamics, or whichever dyno are also technically "Flywheel" figures minus the drivetrain loss (aka transmission loss).
Do you really think 250 ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheel is able to sufficiently propel a 3300+ lbs. car from 0-60 in under 6 seconds?
Try 60+ seconds. The actual torque measured at the rear hub or wheel is many times greater. It has been converted back to the "flywheel" figure via the gear ratio, so the rest of the average Joe can understand it. If anyone's interested in the actual torque measured at the wheel (hub), I'm sure Tony wouldn't mind shedding some light as the Dynapack software does report those too.The Dynapack software also goes a step further by allowing transmission correction factor (tcf) for actual "flywheel" numbers. However determining transmission loss is tricky at best, so most operators leave it at the default correction factor of 1.0 (no correction).
Hope that helps.
Hammad
02-19-2007, 11:27 AM
#91
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: So Cal
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sakred
dynapack is an Australian dyno. in Australia they call the wheel hubs the flywheel. which is where the dynapack gets the reading from. there is no real way of calculating flywheel hp in our terms unless you pull the motor and put it on a brake dyno.
Hammad
Hammad
02-19-2007, 12:09 PM
#93
The comparative dyno plot against the REVUP is all you need to know how much better it is.
And its substantially better.
I didn't see the REVUP as being all that much better than the 287 engine but this new engine clearly is. Area under the curve (near the peak) is thick and broad.
It should do quite well on the track.
And its substantially better.
I didn't see the REVUP as being all that much better than the 287 engine but this new engine clearly is. Area under the curve (near the peak) is thick and broad.
It should do quite well on the track.
02-21-2007, 01:02 PM
#94
Registered User
iTrader: (28)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: atlanta
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok this is the question that i have..
If the 07 come with dual intakes, tubular headers, and true dual exhaust...how much power could the aftermarket parts possibly add?
If the 07 come with dual intakes, tubular headers, and true dual exhaust...how much power could the aftermarket parts possibly add?
02-22-2007, 12:19 AM
#97
New Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Get out my way pimpin, VA
Posts: 22,909
Received 2,446 Likes
on
1,768 Posts
Nice numbers. The area under the curve is very nice.
02-22-2007, 07:39 AM
#98
New Member
Originally Posted by hiz-n-herz
I'd still like to see the plot of the rev-up w/ MREV2 and 5/16ths spacer against the HR. Add 13-18 lb-ft of torque from 3k RPM to 6k RPMs to the revup dyno plot and compare that to the HR
I drove an 07 HR coupe (6MT) over the weekend and I agree with another poster that the low-end 2k-3k had a lot more oomph, but the midrange and felt much the same.
True, the engine was not fully broken in but I took it up to 6k RPMs once. DId not seem a great deal faster. I'll have to wait for some actual acceleration times from a fully-broken-in engine.
Just not enough of a difference by seat-of-the-pants feel to trade in my 06 GT 6-MT. Dealer offered $25k for my 06 with 5k miles. Felt like giving them the bird! I put $5k down on my car so basically, if I trade mine in, I am losing $15k in 6 months. Ahhh... the downside of buying new and Nissan. Welcome to the land of depreciation!
Granted they are offering a wholesale price.
I'll have to wait for a 3.7 or 3.8l engine before I'll trade up.
I have MREV2 and 5/16ths spacer on my 06. What can I do to get 15 HP at the top end? May as well pump money into my 06
I drove an 07 HR coupe (6MT) over the weekend and I agree with another poster that the low-end 2k-3k had a lot more oomph, but the midrange and felt much the same.
True, the engine was not fully broken in but I took it up to 6k RPMs once. DId not seem a great deal faster. I'll have to wait for some actual acceleration times from a fully-broken-in engine.
Just not enough of a difference by seat-of-the-pants feel to trade in my 06 GT 6-MT. Dealer offered $25k for my 06 with 5k miles. Felt like giving them the bird! I put $5k down on my car so basically, if I trade mine in, I am losing $15k in 6 months. Ahhh... the downside of buying new and Nissan. Welcome to the land of depreciation!
Granted they are offering a wholesale price.I'll have to wait for a 3.7 or 3.8l engine before I'll trade up.
I have MREV2 and 5/16ths spacer on my 06. What can I do to get 15 HP at the top end? May as well pump money into my 06
02-22-2007, 09:27 AM
#100
New Member
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 3,775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for posting the graphs. Very useful info to be had by looking at the overall trends, not necessarily the specific numbers.
The HR looks solid but I don't see enough to make me want to trade up and incur the additional expense. 03 ftl.
The HR looks solid but I don't see enough to make me want to trade up and incur the additional expense. 03 ftl.