GReddy Evo 2 Dyno
03-30-2004, 04:01 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GReddy Evo 2 Dyno
I posted pictures of the Greddy Evo2 install on the Engine/Drivetrain/Forced Induction forum, but I thought I would take out the Dyno part of it, and post it here.
Only difference between the 2 runs was the GReddy Exhaust (both have the test pipes w/ res)
If you can make it out, this makes loads more HP and Torque at lower end much faster!
(not concerned with the top end lost, we can fix that, and smooth it out all the way up.)
At 3560 RPM's the
Torque was 30 More!
213
vs
243
HP was 40 More!
300
vs
340
Only difference between the 2 runs was the GReddy Exhaust (both have the test pipes w/ res)
If you can make it out, this makes loads more HP and Torque at lower end much faster!
(not concerned with the top end lost, we can fix that, and smooth it out all the way up.)
At 3560 RPM's the
Torque was 30 More!
213
vs
243
HP was 40 More!
300
vs
340
03-30-2004, 04:06 AM
#2
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guess it is also important to meantion the boost didn't go up as high with the GReddy Exhaust on.
Went to I belive 6.2, other run with stock exhaust went to 6.6
Due to the higher flow exhaust, less pressure, I guess they will do that.
Went to I belive 6.2, other run with stock exhaust went to 6.6
Due to the higher flow exhaust, less pressure, I guess they will do that.
03-30-2004, 11:15 AM
#4
Originally posted by ACP
Guess it is also important to meantion the boost didn't go up as high with the GReddy Exhaust on.
Went to I belive 6.2, other run with stock exhaust went to 6.6
Due to the higher flow exhaust, less pressure, I guess they will do that.
Guess it is also important to meantion the boost didn't go up as high with the GReddy Exhaust on.
Went to I belive 6.2, other run with stock exhaust went to 6.6
Due to the higher flow exhaust, less pressure, I guess they will do that.
03-30-2004, 12:46 PM
#6
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gq_model_626
are you running 6-6.6psi with a boost controller? Or was that just with the standard wastegate?
are you running 6-6.6psi with a boost controller? Or was that just with the standard wastegate?
I have not touched boost yet.
Last edited by ACP; 03-30-2004 at 12:52 PM.
03-30-2004, 12:49 PM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by fluidz
Am I missing something??????
At 3,560RPM i am at 267RWTRQ with 2.3lbs of boost
I know i am missing something.
Am I missing something??????
At 3,560RPM i am at 267RWTRQ with 2.3lbs of boost
I know i am missing something.
Last edited by ACP; 03-30-2004 at 12:56 PM.
Trending Topics
03-30-2004, 12:56 PM
#8
SFZCC
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Lake Worth, FL
Posts: 7,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by fluidz
Am I missing something??????
At 3,560RPM i am at 267RWTRQ with 2.3lbs of boost
I know i am missing something.
Am I missing something??????
At 3,560RPM i am at 267RWTRQ with 2.3lbs of boost
I know i am missing something.
After seeing the two curves I am definetly saving my extra pennies to get the TT instead of the SC.
04-09-2004, 01:32 PM
#10
It's sounds great on my car with RT cats. This exhuast is designed to meet 95db sound requirements, so it's only a tad louder than stock, but it's a much deeper, yet smoother sound...hard to explain. If you want a loud exhuast, look elsewhere. But honestly, the performance gains are probably comparable to most exhuasts out there.
04-10-2004, 02:05 AM
#13
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by slay2k
Uhm, westpak & ACP... I hope you know that fluidz said he makes MORE torque at that same RPM (267 > 243) than ACP did... not less.
Uhm, westpak & ACP... I hope you know that fluidz said he makes MORE torque at that same RPM (267 > 243) than ACP did... not less.
he was missing horsepower down low (light hearted comment)
At same RPM 3600 HP comparison
340 > 183
04-10-2004, 04:22 AM
#14
SFZCC
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Lake Worth, FL
Posts: 7,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by slay2k
Uhm, westpak & ACP... I hope you know that fluidz said he makes MORE torque at that same RPM (267 > 243) than ACP did... not less.
Uhm, westpak & ACP... I hope you know that fluidz said he makes MORE torque at that same RPM (267 > 243) than ACP did... not less.
I printed both charts for my own education and as I see it it looks like this
@ 3800 rpm
SC=274 tq & 200 HP
TT=340 tq & 245 HP
@ 4500 rpm
SC=295 tq & 242 HP
TT=335 tq & 285 hp
@ 5000 rpm
SC=287 tq & 280 HP
TT=335 tq & 320 HP
@ 5500 rpm
SC=273 tq & 297 HP
TT=320 tq & 335 HP
@ 6000 rpm
SC=266 tq & 310 HP
TT=300 tq & 340 HP
Now before anyone critiques the numbers they are estimates looking at the charts.
Also by the curves the TT reaches peak tq sooner than the SC. If I am wrong let me know, I am not saying I am perfect and I might be making a mistake reading the charts. My assumption was that the torque curves are the ones that are almost straight across trailing off towards the top of the rpm range and the HP curve the one that rises constantly peaking close to max rpm.
Last edited by westpak; 04-10-2004 at 04:29 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
