Engine dyno info

[regis101]

Here are some dyno charts. Some are at the crank and some are at the wheel. Study them. It seems that most of the inline 4's come on at 4k. Otherwise from idle to 4k all looks the same as stock. The flat four and six have higher inherent torque down low. The inline 4's have vibration except those with balance shaft(s). Inline 4's with long stroke have good torque but vibration. TDI's are great but the trans needs reworked.

If I had to make a choice, it'd be something small (2.0) with a turbo or the flat six. I spend most of the time in the 3-4k range. 5k for freeway ramps. I don't need 200 hp at 6k. I need 150 ft/lbs 2k - 4k. I have no driving experience with an engine transplant. In fact, I have an air cooled. I've been planning to add a Vanagon to the stable, though. Hence the research.

Thanks for this one. It's the only real time wasser dyno I know of.
http://www.shoptalkforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=122471&highlight=brick+hits+dyno

This seems to generic.
http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/EngineShowcase/d...engCat=rpo

More Ecotec dyno info. Presumably at the crank.
http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/gm-parts-direct-654...lsize.html

Ecotec at the wheels. Look at the 2-4k numbers.
http://www.ecotecforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4223

These Nissan listings are posted for the amount. From 1.6's to 3.3's. Any manufacturer will have similar numbers. I like the VG 30E. Flat torque peaking around 3.7k.
http://www.datsuns.com/Tech/datsundyno.htm#-%20-%2...0-%20-%20-

Can't forget about this dedicated air cooled fanatic. Look at the torque from a 2.0. It may be a little lower than the water cooled but it's right where it needs to be. And to boot, his engines only get better.
http://forums.aircooledtechnology.com/showthread.php?t=1282

Here is some info about swapping a 4 cyl for a 4 cyl. It is a little dated and the list doesn't cover all engines. Just the popular for the time. Pay attention to the work output for the various Subies. They're not all the same. In the end, newer is better.
http://members.shaw.ca/albell/engine-rpm-swap.html

Here's a Zetec with some mods.
http://jeremywiltshire.tripod.com/ford_zetec_engine_dyno_test.htm

Stock 2.0(?) Zetec seems about the same as the 2.0 Tiico
http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1974065

Just found this one with sound bites.
http://www.tianguisdelauto.com/Carros-usados/Subar...ngine.html

This is at vwvortex.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3065964

Found this Subaru info. Still looking for charts. Thanks Chester for making me seek.
J18: Found in Imprezas from 1993-1997. Rated at 110hp and 120 ft-lbs
EJ22 Phase I: Found in Legacies from 1990-1998 and Imprezas from 1995-1998. Comes rated at 130hp and 137 ft-lbs, 135hp and 140 ft-lbs, or 137hp and 145 ft-lbs.
EJ22 Phase II: Found in Legacies in 1999 and Imprezas from 1999-2001. Rated at 142hp and 149 ft-lbs.
EJ22-T Phase I: Found in Sport Sedan and Touring Wagons (Legacies) from 1990-1994. Turbocharged and non-intercooled. Rated at 160hp and 181 ft-lbs. Closed deck, cast pistons, forged rods, oil squirters: turbo motor. Poor flowing heads.
EJ25 DOHC Phase I: Found in Legacies from 1996-1999, Imprezas in 1998, and Foresters in 1998. Rated at either 155hp and 140 ft-lbs in 1996 or 165hp and 162 ft-lbs in 1997-1999.
EJ25 SOHC Phase II: Found in Legacies from 2000+, Imprezas from 1999+, and Foresters from 1999+. Rated at 165hp and 166 ft-lbs. There was a slight compression ratio change from 1999-2000 where it went from 9.7:1 to 10.0:1.
USDM EJ20: US Domestic Market WRX. Found in 2002+ WRXs. Rated at 227hp and 217 ft-lbs. Turbocharged, intercooled, open deck, and decent heads.
EJ25T DOHC: Available in 2004 in the Forester XT. Rated at 210hp and 235 ft-lbs. Turbocharged, intercooled, VVTi (Variable Valve Timing), and drive by wire.
EJ25T-STi DOHC: Available in 2004 in the WRX STi. Rated at 300hp and 300 ft-lbs. Turbocharged, intercooled, AVCS (Active Valve Control System), drive by wire, intercooler sprayer, and semi-closed design.
EG33 and EZ30- The six cylinder boxers... it may be possible to fit them in, but the radiator will most likely end up in the front trunk.
*EG33 weighs about 400 pounds fully dressed (alternator, AC comp, etc). I know since I recently had one shipped.

vwvortex dyno runs for the VR6. I lean toward the stock numbers. The torque is down low.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3060850

Some copied V6 info with some wordage. Post #15 has a chart
www.v6performance.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5418

Sign in here for some tasty info.
http://www.vwfixx.com/forums/index.php?showforum=203

Found this subie info. wrx
http://www.cobbtuning.com/images_products/2656.jpg
_________________
Peace, ~R

[ChesterKV]

Well, that's a bit obsessively thorough

You're in California. Either the Subaru EJ22 or the VW 1.8t are your answers. The other states get to play with most of the other options without hassles from THE MAN.

Sigh.......


- Chester
_________________
1984 Wolfsburg 7-passenger stock sunroof
1992 Subaru Legacy EJ22 boxer motor installed.... van is now sold.... currently playing with a 1987 Toyota MR2 with 1.6 liter twin-cam motor. Better than the Subaru boxers....... I'm impressed. Well, okay, in an "apples and oranges" kind of way.

[regis101]

El Cerrito? Hey neighbor. My mechanic seems to have the handle on the smog game, legally. Even said he could get my 78 to pass with a watercooled. He's been Trying to talk me into the VW ABA 2.0. Good for the lighter Bus, I suppose. But I'm American. I need cubic inches. Coupla hundred will do

The engine list is endless. What pains me is that some peoples will swap a 4 cyl wasser for another 4 cyl inline. No big but it gots to have a turbo.

What about the VR6? The Nissan VG30E is what Maxi-Westy uses. Dunno if he's still in business. That engine needs an extended engine cover.
I researched the Boxster flat 6 but they seem to have some problems. Plus it's Por$che.

I was impressed with Nissan's KA24E. It'd be a shaker , but man
http://www.datsuns.com/Tech/engines/ka24e.htm
Peak torque at 4100. perfect.
http://www.datsuns.com/Tech/stock98-240sxdyno.jpg
_________________
Peace, ~R

[ChesterKV]

[regis101]

Any four cylinder compared to a six is no contest.

As for the ABA, you have to understand the German mentality. ( As if )
They ask alot from so little. The smallest Am engine is like 170 cu in in the old falcons and whatnot. Besides, everyone wet their pants when the first ones were installed in the Vanagons. It was like the parting of the Red Sea.
It would be a doable engine for the lighter bus. But not for me

This guy likes the Audi 5 cylinders in the Vannies. ( <--, legal terminology? ) Took me for a drive. Had it in third doing 80mph spinning 4k or so. See, he says, it'll stay here all day. Great, But can you get me down to 2.5k and still go uphill effortlessly. I need cubic inches.
_________________
Peace, ~R

[ChesterKV]

[tencentlife]

[Witless Joe]

Bostig has posted a dyno graph showing both the Zetec vs. the Wasserboxer, as installed in a Vanagon:

The trouble with dyno graphs is that every dyno reads differently, and even the same dyno will read differently on different days (differences in humidity, temp., brand of the dyno, etc.) Altitude above sea level plays a huge role, too.

So the Bostig graph is especially nice, since we know both engines were run on the same dyno (although I assume on different days).

I think tencentlife was running on a dyno that was a bit, um, optimistic, by comparison with the Bostig graph. Not to say he doesn't have a nice engine (and especially exhaust).

I'd like to dyno my modded-AAZ-powered Westy on the same day, same dyno, with at least one other Vanagon. Stock engine or otherwise. Anyone in Vancouver, BC, who wants to drop about $100 in the interests of science, hit me up. There's a bajillion Vanagons around here, must be someone who is game.

[regis101]

The saying goes, No replacement for displacement. But with that comes costs. Fuel mostly. Takes more gas to run an 8 cylinder heap vs a 4.

I am of the opinion that 150-170 ft/lbs of torque is needed for a loaded Westy. With it's gearing. More would be nice but that's just me. Not to drift off topic, the gearing has a lot to do with it. My bus with 100 ft/lbs at 3k pushes it along just fine on the flats all day long. If it had 130, I should be able to go up hill at the same cruise speed with the same gearing. 55, uphill, in third is a drag.

I had to get used to driving in the higher rpm range(s) with the Bus engine as compared to the V8 world.
_________________
Peace, ~R

[regis101]

The AAZ is a diesel. Different animal but very doable. Cruise rpm is ~2k. need a trans rebuild. Fast Forward is/was doing them. Moved over from the gas conversions.

The Bostig engine has 113 tq at 4.5k. That's with engine mods. I hardly ever see that rpm. And not for sustained times. Look at the graph from 3-4k. It has less torque that my archaic 2.0 air cooled.

Brings me to a point. The boxer style engine has more inherent torque down low. Subie saw this and went with it.

Two valves per cylinder for torque. Four for upper end.
_________________
Peace, ~R

[bostig]

First off, hats off for bringing dyno discussion to the table. In no other auto aftermarket segment would anyone drop dime(or rather upwards of $10k in some cases) on engine conversions or rebuilds without seeing dyno proof first... which I always thought was odd until I realized that vanagon guys ARE NOT primarily car guys... they're eclectics, academics, adventurers, carpenters, creative types, techies, etc etc... actually this is one of the best things about this niche aftermarket.

One aside about the generalization about vibration, while it's true that I4s without balance shafts will tend to have more vibration than those with, they are not all the same... ride before you buy, and ask someone that has one or actually driven one. I believe and others will tell you it's not right to let the zetec be lumped in with the VW I4s as the same anything other than cylinder layout, espcially in the vibration category. Props to regis for stating right up front he hasn't driven one, and again props for educating people.

In any case, it's very important to note that you go through several stages of understanding when looking at numbers when it comes to powerplants. The first is typically looking at and getting a feel for 0-60 times, and peak HP and torque numbers. The second is the realization that it is vitally important where in the rpms those numbers are and what the whole curve looks like, usually in this next stage folks tend to get a better understanding of what 1/4 mile times mean relative to performance as well and abandon 0-60. Third perhaps is realizing that once again you can't actually just compare all the numbers across the board because of the wild variety of dynos which are not typically accurate in absolute terms(variance of 20% is not unusual from one to the next since there are a myriad of varieties, makers, and idiots that don't know how to run one also). Now the debate rages on in boards all over the aftermarket which is most accurate. That's fine, and there is seldom more than massive flame wars and pissed posters that result. But what is universally accepted as true is that if you want the most accurate comparative numbers, the dyno used MUST be the same dyno as used for all the runs, and preferably with the same ambient conditions. Luckily the second condition about ambient condition is also typically very well handled by SAE standardization and compensation for temp, humidity, vapor pressure and absolute pressure.. but again if you want really high relative accuracy it has to be the same machine making all those measurements against which to run the (luckily) standardized compensation calculations.

So after all this reading, it boils down to:

1) Dynos numbers are usually better than no dyno numbers
2) Read ALL dyno numbers with a grain of salt, as they are often not truly comparable, unless you have a genuine exact baseline to compare them against.
3) The most accurate relative/comparative numbers will ALWAYS come from back to back runs on the exact same machine.

And with this verbose introduction(sorry), I give you some comparative dyno runs, all from the same dyno, tested IN VANAGONS. Not in original vehicles... not crank numbers off and engine dyno... at the wheels on the same dyno. And with the conversions from 3 vendors along with a very healthy stock 2.1 WBX.

The darker set of colors is the torque curve, the lighter colors are the HP, they are marked in the legend.

In the second pic I threw in the dyno of the stage II turbo kit on our setup to showcase why a properly tuned turbo DOES NOT mean you're a drag racer, and that the whole point and beauty of turbos is by carefully selecting your combo you can make torque wherever you want it(and tons of it). In the case of a light truck like a vanagon, we want it LOW... and if anyone can tell me that 100 ft/lbs at 1400 rpm at the wheels isn't enough or low enough.. you'll have to hope and pray for an 4wd electric wheel motor hybrid conversion to happen.

From the dynos, it's easy to see that there is very slight difference between the ej22 and the zetec, a little drop off with the tiico HO and a bit of a trough for it power making, but it's clear to also see when the wbx falls on it's face in comparison.

Jim Akiba

You can also right-click to "view image" since the board scales the images down a little.

[/img]

[tencentlife]

[regis101]

Thanks for the detailed info. Always ready for more knowledge. Me likes the turbo plot. I want the power where I'm driving. 2-5K more specific, 3-4K

My info about the inline 4's is that up to 2.0 is doable. Less vibration. The early VW conversion people complained the most about vibration in the 3-4k range. Great. There was extensive work done to use SAAB hydraulic engine mounts. The engines about 2.0 tend to vibrate more due to long strokes. Ford 2.3's are notorious for shaking things up. Nissans 2.4's are truck engines for much of this reason. If I was to go the inline 4. it'd be one of the newer ones with balance shafts,

Heck, even some of the V6's have balance shafts. The flat six and 4 is inherently smooth.

100 ft/lbs at 1400 rpm in first would move mountains. My Bus climbs hills like a raped goat in first.

Get that turbo Zetec legal in Cali :)
_________________
Peace, ~R

[bostig]

[regis101]

Come on, now. You know power adders add a different dimension.

Having the power and not needing it is way different than not having it and wanting it. ( Whatd he say? )
_________________
Peace, ~R

[bostig]

Yeah but one we should all have been exploring further decades ago... it's inexcusable if you ask me.

[regis101]

Well said.

I hope others will chime in with their favorite engine(s) and maybe some charts to read. This shouldn't be a contest. Purely for knowledge.

Would like to see a GoWesty 2.5 wheel dyno
_________________
Peace, ~R

[bostig]

Totally agree... and as I've been extending for 4 years now.. if you have a conversion/powerplant that we don't have data for, and can make it to boston, we'll pay for your pulls.

We still haven't had any takers with 2.5's or 3.3's either.. and I really want to see GW numbers since I backcalculated the difference from their published hub dyno numbers so they'd be comparable to our dyno numbers and want to see how close I am...

Jim Akiba

[tencentlife]

[bostig]