800HP 2.4L Toyota Engine

actually a dyno jet is not inertia based, so you cannot create any type of load on the fly...

our mustang dyno however is a inertia based, which allows a variation of load.

but by loading a different parasitics file you can simulate higher HP than what it should read in real life.

anyone how ever can generate any type of dyno sheet by just plotting a few points and connect the dots.

I'm not doubting the validation of the dyno graph, but there is always 2 sides to the story...

Regarding the car in question.

http://www.supraforums.com/forum/sh...threadid=233773

Thats from the owner of the car.


http://www.extremeboost.com/Jeffrey...ctSW20/mods.htm

Theres a site showing the mods of the car (appearantly you missed the extremeboost link i supplied earlier). Its a bit outdated but thats OK it should give you a pretty good idea of whats been done to it.

Heres another thread on a MR2 board about it.

http://www.mr2oc.com/showthread.php...6&highlight=800

Is this enough or shall I dig up more?

800HP 2.4L Toyota Engine

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/BLADDER_MASTER/800HP.jpg" border="0" alt="" />

Yeah Right

800+ HP, or just a piece of paper that would lead one to believe it?<br />
You'll have to forgive my reluctance to believe something like this, because it's too easy to fake.<br />
By resetting the dynamic preload on the dyno to near zero, you can make it read almost anything you want.<br />
That's why a dyno has to be accurately calibrated, before it can accurately measure anything.

so... exactly what car is it?

please explain the subtleties of setting the "dynamic preload" that would allow a vehice to create a power curve as such

Daynamic preload

By unloading the roller (s) so that it (they) produce little or no drag, you can get a 50 HP engine to spin the roller up to speed as easily as a 1000HP engine would, if the preload (drag) were set high.
If the dyno was then calibrated to show 800+ HP @ the given roller speed, against a high drag, then the graph will show a false curve.

In other words, if there is little or no resistance in order to spin the rollers, but the dyno is set to calculate the results as though there was a great deal of resistance, then the dyno will produce a graph that would show a high amount of energy was being exerted in order to spin the rollers, when in fact there wasn’t.

english please?

so youre saying that it would show huge horsepower and torque from the get go..... but you dont want to say it outright.....

so youre saying they somehow idled it out in third gear to 8000+rpm? or did they start with a normal known load and then somehow relieved the drums of their load during the pass at a controlled rate?

explain how they got any sort of realistic curve.... please! either that or quickly curb your skepticism

why can't anyone just be happy for people

i think its called jealousy..... but you can just ask him directly if you must know for sure


2.4 LITER TOYOTA 4 CYLINDER PEOPLE!!!!!!! this car went 10s with only mid 400s

No!

The graph can be a gross miscalculation of energy expended if the dyno is programmed to calculate power at a normal drag on the rollers, when in fact there is very little.
And if that drag is mostly eliminated, then only a small amount of energy is all you need to turn the rollers up to speed.

An easy way to understand this is to imagine a dyno that only produces 20% of the drag to spin the rollers that it should be producing will show that about 5 times as much HP is being produced. (That would be a rough rule of thumb.)

This will produce a graph that shows a lot of energy was being transferred into the dyno when in fact only enough (Maybe very little, in this case.) was needed in order to spin it up to speed.

An infinite amount of calculations are possible. given that the calibration could be set way too low, or way too high.

If it was set way too high (the drag on the rollers) then even a 1000HP engine could not spin the rollers up to the speed (rpm) shown on this graph.
It would simply run out of HP before this speed was attained.
In order to get the rollers up to speed you have to overcome their resistance to turn, this is how a dyno calculates how much horse power is being put into it.

It’s really not that difficult to understand.

so by your expert opinion, did they have a bicycle or something on there that somehow spun upwards of 8000rpm? besides the obvious physics of a dyno you have managed to repeat..... explain what would cause a graph as such (second time im asking you this) what manner of vehicle can cheat itself a graph such as this?

What part of this don't you understand?

It has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of vehicle that is on the dyno.

But it does have everything to do with how the dyno is calibrated.

What part of this don’t you understand?

If the dyno is calibrated to show more HP than what is actually going into it, then it will turn out a graph that is in error.

Why do you think it is so necessary to have a dyno calibrated in the first place?

If it wasn't, then no matter what you put on that dyno, (a bicycle, or a AA/F dragster) it's going to show you HP readings that are false.

Look, if you still don't get it, then maybe a short class on how dynos work is in order here.
This site is set up for kart racers, but the basics are the same, regardless.
http://www.autoshoppingcenter.com/dyno/how

After reading up on how a dyno works, then you will understand my skepticism.

Also there is the 2.4 liter size producing 800+hp at about 7000rpms.

Maybe if the 2.4 was spinning at 12,000-15,000 rpm @ 30lbs of boost on pure methanol, then maybe it would be a little more believable.

But it’s not.

A 3.0 liter Toyota V-8 spinning at 10,500rpms on methanol only makes 700HP in an Indy race car, just for comparison.
Do you think that 2.4 is really as sophisticated as an all out racing engine?

I'm sorry if I refuse to be as gullible as some people who would believe anything, as long as it looks good.
And given the fact that there is no explanation on how this person aquired these readings, or what modifications were made, or even if they were using nitro methane
or camel piss for fuel, leads me to think that maybe this was put up here just to get a reaction.

If they did....it worked.

9phil9 your not answering turbos question. You really have no idea what your spouting do you? But just for the hell of it I'll actually post some proof just so you'll bite your lip before you dig yourself in a bigger hole.

http://www.a1jdmengines.com/mr2/PhatDonut.mov

This is the car in question.

Its a stroked 3sgte running a GT4245 turbo. The car was featured in modifed mag last year (can't remember which issue) when it was making 600hp on a GT35r turbo.

puki, my main man..... its been awhile

A very long while. I've been reading for a long time now just never felt the need to post anything. There were a lot of times I wanted to though. I see you've been holding down the fort nicely though.

9phil9=

ugh, trying i guess

man, your stable of cars looks like my wish list.... great choices, sorry if someday i mirror that.... I WANTED THEM FIRST!

Ya its too bad the supra is in hibernation for the winter. The AE86 still isn't up and running (long story and I don't feel like getting into that one). Sold my '01 corolla about 2 months ago and picked up the M3 about a month ago as my new daily driver. Copy away, then there can be two people with good taste.

haha, i plan on it..... along with my turbo tacoma.....

didnt you have the gts torn down at one point, i remember pics

either way..... the mr2 in question is beastly..... the guy i bought my car off of is friends with him so i get a little inside scoop if i dig enough.... he ran 10s on mid 400hp

www.extremeboost.com
Its their project car. Yes the GTS was torn down. Its back together in running condition once again. Unfortunately its the original motor back in the car.

You are just trying to yank my chain

Actually I do know something about what I'm trying to tell you here, but I have come to the conclusion that either you and Forest Gump have a lot in common, or you're just trying to yank my chain.<br />
<br />
If the former is the case, then the best advice I can give you is this: If you flick the switch up, the lights should go on.<br />
If you flick the switch down, then the lights should go off.<br />
If this is still too confusing for you, maybe you should ask your mommy to help you.<br />
If the later is true, sorry chuck, but it's not working.<br />
<br />
The reason it shows a lower HP at the start of the pull, is because the rollers appearantly are resisting the engine, at least somewhat.<br />
Maybe 30% or maybe even 70%. It's impossible to tell because the test was not documented for us.<br />
All we have to work with here is the statement that the engine was a 2.4 Toyota.<br />
<br />
And the way you are confusing and mixing my words, in order to attempt to make some point about not being answered, shows me that you are either high as a kite, stupid as a stick, or you're just trying to pick a fight because your girlfriend has given up on you too. I don't blame her, BTW <br />
<br />
So which is it?<br />
<br />
You think that a dyno works on a fixed set of paramaters?<br />
You would know, if you took the time to find out how a dyno works.<br />
And the fact that I even posted a site that explains this, shows me you don't really give a damn to find out, and that's why you're acting as though someone has insulted your Mother.

classic..... there is name calling, assumptions upon my intelligence, girlfriend remarks, and even a shot or two towards my mom..... PURE CLASS MY MAN, youve got what it takes

you still dont understand whats happening here and i wish you knew how many people are looking at your posts and laughing that you cant answer my simple questions

all i can wish you now is good luck, and i hope you open your eyes a bit as to the capabilities of anything besides your beloved land filled with only 8 cylinders and huge displacement......

You're dense aren't you? The lightswitch analogy was impressive to say the least. I've been trying to figure out how to work those for years, and to think this whole time it was so simple. Your trying way to hard to prove this dyno theory of yours. Hes asking a simple question in which you are incapable of answering. I understand your theory of taking the load off of the rollers in order to obtain a higher reading. But what your failing to take into acount is how you get an accurate looking graph in which only the power producing part is exagerated. This would mean they are altering the load on the rollers during the measurment process. That graph shows almost no off boost power, which is inevitable in a small displacement turbo car running low compression. It shows a sharp rise in power towards the middle/upper part of the graph showing that its running a very large turbo (which is needed on a small displacement motor to make that kind of power). This graph is very normal looking, so why are you trying so hard to disprove it (which your doing a terrible job at BTW).

Please just explain to me how they changed the load on the rollers DURING the measurment process. Thats the only way to exagerate only the second half of the graph. Stop trying to explain the calibration crap, we all understand that part.

dude not just HOW they did it..... why do it?

One step at a time. Too much at one time and he might snap.

I forgot how fun this could be. We raped a couple people back on C3 didn't we turbo.

I answered your questions

I tried to be nice to you, but that wasn't good enough.<br />
I answered your question at least four times before you started to insult me.<br />
(Go back and read who insulted whom first.)<br />
<br />
But it's pretty plain to see that my skepticism was taken as some kind of personal attack on your manhood.<br />
<br />
Are you really that insecure?<br />
<br />
Maybe if you hadn't insulted me with your childish rebuttal about not giving you an answer an eighth grader could understand, then I wouldn't have returned the insults.<br />
<br />
And at no time, did I insult your Mother.<br />
<br />
I actually sympathize, and feel sorry for her.<br />
She has had enough to deal with if she has had to put up with your Why? Why? Why? answers all the time.<br />
<br />
I told you why.<br />
You just refused to listen.<br />
<br />
And I can't help you, if you refuse to read what I wrote.<br />
<br />
And that bit about the V-8 was completely misread by you also.<br />
I used that only as a comparison of a street engine to a full blown race engine by the same manufacturer.<br />
<br />
And as for the remark about me not understanding what's going on here, well....you're wrong an that point too.<br />
<br />
You seem to be equating an extreme high output, small displacement internal combustion engine, with a large penis. Right?<br />
If you got either, then all the girls will be attracted to you.<br />
<br />
And if you don't, then you are envious of those who do. And will do almost anything to get either one. lol<br />
<br />
And just to set the record straight, the car you show that has this alleged 800hp engine, is described as being &quot;stroked&quot;.<br />
So it's not really a 2.4 then is it?<br />
<br />
And to defend this engine that you seem to know very little about is kind of foolish, isn't it?<br />
<br />
I mean, you could claim that your engine is actually the one that produced that dyno sheet, who could dispute that?<br />
The testers signature isn't even on that sheet, so no one can tell if maybe it's even a photoshop, &quot;work of art&quot;.<br />
<br />
Can you?<br />
I can't.<br />
<br />
And FYI, I own and operate a Dynojet full chasis dyno, that cost me $27,000 four years ago.<br />
So yeah, I do know what I'm talking about.<br />
I have to, in order to make a living.