Dyno Tune: 09' WRX STOCK, makes 240whp. (reasonable?)

[Breezio]

Event: dyno pull / baseline
Location: Cobb Tuning/Surgeline
Ambient Temp: ~50
Elevation: ~50
Weather: mostly cloudy
Tires: Michelin Pilot Sport A/S Plus, 225/45ZR17
Car: 2009 WRX Sedan
Tuner: None
Dyno Info: Mustang
Peak HP at RPM: 241whp @ ~5800rpm
Peak Torque at RPM: 239wtq @ ~4400rpm
Target Boost: stock
Target AFR: stock
Fuel: pump unleaded 92
[color=black]Power Modifications: None, all stock. baseline run with 8500miles on the motor.

This may still not be spot on. But it should be significantly more accurate then my last run. And yes, the A/F is still 'scary'....



Got to love the horribly dangerous factory subaru tune... :/

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[wrxtremeWGN]

seems more realistic than your last numbers, even though you dont want to hear that...

[Breezio]

Originally Posted by wrxtremeWGN

seems more realistic than your last numbers, even though you dont want to hear that...

I'd much rather have accurate low numbers then incorrect high numbers.

The whole point of this run (and the previous) was just to get a good baseline on their dyno so that I can see the starting point before I start doing things to it.

Got it down the strip a few times over the weekend also. I was satisfied with the trap speed (100-101), however I wasn't getting the car off the line fast so my time was only 13.95

[wrxtremeWGN]

what were your 60fts?

[Breezio]

Originally Posted by wrxtremeWGN

what were your 60fts?

2.24

lol.

I was going to make a thread for the run, but I think I'd get a ton of crap for my lousy launches.

However, I don't drive the car very often, so driving it is not 'instinctual' yet.

Just for a bit of redemption. I used to have a 00' Ford Escort ZX2, and nearly stock I could get a 2.3 60/ft with that, and on my 83' Honda V65 Magna, I get ruffly a 1.9 60/ft with that.

[Paul]

with you trapping only 101 id say these numbers are more reasonable.

[brownhelmet1]

those numbers are not that bad for completely stock with minor bolt-on's my friend is running 315whp / 354ftlb with that VF52

[Nimbus09]

mine put down 291/335 on that dyno at stage 2. you should strongly consider getting a downpipe and tune.

anyway, check here to compare your numbers to others: http://accessecu.com/dyno/

[Breezio]

Whoa, brought my thread back up from the dead.

I won't be able to really do anything to the car until sometime well after the motor goes kaput.

Mine is within the 'bad' range and she's still going strong... just waiting for those bearings to go out :/

[2011boostdwrx]

Well i think everyones numbers are over exagerrated, I was at 237whp full stage2+ with the AVO TMIC, now 315 WHP with HTA68 on an very low reading mustang dyno.

[Lrn2Corner]

If anyone had any sort of basic math skills here you would realize a 265 crank horsepower AWD car would never put those numbers to the wheels. Your average drivetrain loss in an AWD car ranges from 20-25%. you would be putting anywhere between 198 and 212 to the wheels.

[Nimbus09]

Originally Posted by Lrn2Corner

If anyone had any sort of basic math skills here you would realize a 265 crank horsepower AWD car would never put those numbers to the wheels. Your average drivetrain loss in an AWD car ranges from 20-25%. you would be putting anywhere between 198 and 212 to the wheels.

subaru was probably conservative quoting 265hp. many car manufacturers did/do this (e.g.- 335i)

[Breezio]

Originally Posted by Lrn2Corner

If anyone had any sort of basic math skills here you would realize a 265 crank horsepower AWD car would never put those numbers to the wheels. Your average drivetrain loss in an AWD car ranges from 20-25%. you would be putting anywhere between 198 and 212 to the wheels.

As the above person stated, the 09+ wrx's are very underratted. Most put almost the same numbers to the wheels as the 08+ STi's.

They don't have 265bhp, it's more like 295-300bhp.

Surgeline's dyno is not one of the low reading Mustangs. However, to make the comparison a little more accurate, the stock 08+Sti's also put about 240awhp on their dyno.

Edit: fixed the first post to bring back the graph..

[DansSpace]

Originally Posted by Lrn2Corner

If anyone had any sort of basic math skills here you would realize a 265 crank horsepower AWD car would never put those numbers to the wheels. Your average drivetrain loss in an AWD car ranges from 20-25%. you would be putting anywhere between 198 and 212 to the wheels.

If you had any sort of common sense, you'd realize that a manufacturer's crank horsepower numbers are not always 100% correct, and cars can definitely be "underrated" from the factory. And if you took a look at what stock 09+ WRXs are running and trapping in the quarter, it's very easy to see that Subaru's rating of 265 HP for this car is pretty conservative. IIRC, there was a guy at that ran a 12.9x in a bone stock 09+. You really think a 205 whp car that weighs what a WRX weighs is going to do that?
If you take 100% of AWD cars with 265 horsepower, the chances of them all being between 198-212 whp are very slim. There's a lot more to it than "oh derp 20-25% drivetrain loss".

[synolimit]

Originally Posted by Breezio

As the above person stated, the 09+ wrx's are very underratted. Most put almost the same numbers to the wheels as the 08+ STi's.

They don't have 265bhp, it's more like 295-300bhp.

Surgeline's dyno is not one of the low reading Mustangs. However, to make the comparison a little more accurate, the stock 08+Sti's also put about 240awhp on their dyno.

Edit: fixed the first post to bring back the graph..

i still dont know what the real number is but if you look at the numbers you get this.

the wrx has 8.2:1 compression vs. the STI's only 8.0:1. both have the same flow turbo and the wrx flows 14.3 psi vs. the STI at only 14.7psi. the STI has dual AVCS while the wrx only has single but the wrx has a lot less rotational mass in the tranny, diff's, wheels etc (why it weighs more). knowing the timing would make it perfect.

based on that i dont see how bph can be -40 to the wrx! and once in the car that margin is a hell of a lot lower. subi's to scared to say it for real because people wont by the STI.

what i dont get is you could stage 1 the STI at 18psi tapering to 14psi and get 350bph all day long!

[xluben]

Originally Posted by Lrn2Corner

If anyone had any sort of basic math skills here you would realize a 265 crank horsepower AWD car would never put those numbers to the wheels. Your average drivetrain loss in an AWD car ranges from 20-25%. you would be putting anywhere between 198 and 212 to the wheels.

Originally Posted by Nimbus09

subaru was probably conservative quoting 265hp. many car manufacturers did/do this (e.g.- 335i)

Originally Posted by Breezio

As the above person stated, the 09+ wrx's are very underratted. Most put almost the same numbers to the wheels as the 08+ STi's.

They don't have 265bhp, it's more like 295-300bhp.

Surgeline's dyno is not one of the low reading Mustangs. However, to make the comparison a little more accurate, the stock 08+Sti's also put about 240awhp on their dyno.

Edit: fixed the first post to bring back the graph..

Originally Posted by DansSpace

If you had any sort of common sense, you'd realize that a manufacturer's crank horsepower numbers are not always 100% correct, and cars can definitely be "underrated" from the factory. And if you took a look at what stock 09+ WRXs are running and trapping in the quarter, it's very easy to see that Subaru's rating of 265 HP for this car is pretty conservative. IIRC, there was a guy at that ran a 12.9x in a bone stock 09+. You really think a 205 whp car that weighs what a WRX weighs is going to do that?
If you take 100% of AWD cars with 265 horsepower, the chances of them all being between 198-212 whp are very slim. There's a lot more to it than "oh derp 20-25% drivetrain loss".

I don't know how many times I've posted this now. 09+ WRX's are underrated. They make the same power as STI's.

Originally Posted by xluben

Here are the results from COBB's baseline dyno runs (as posted on their site):

STI, 2008, 233/253, Barnes, Andrew
STI, 2008, 239/258, COBB Tuning
STI, 2008, 247/245, Hoffman, Aran
STI, 2008, 245/242, Motorsports, Performance
STI, 2008, 236/238, Pickett, Rob
STI, 2009, 243/245, Diens, Tim
STI, 2010, 228/239, COBB Tuning
STI, 2010, 226/240, Pentimonti, Tony
STI, 2011, 236/227, Mitchell, Mario
STI, 2011, 250/254, Pease, Dave
STI, 2011, 251/255, COBB Tuning
STI, 2008+, 239/245, AVERAGE

WRX, 2009, 231/239, Brackenbrough, Mike
WRX, 2009, 241/239, Braun, Jeremy
WRX, 2009, 233/248, Keenan, MJ
WRX, 2010, 244/258, COBB Tuning
WRX, 2010, 244/258, Branen, Charles
WRX, 2010, 246/259, Gill, Evan
WRX, 2011, 223/255, COBB Tuning
WRX, 2011, 251/255, Miller, Josh
WRX, 2011, 218/251, Vonali, Ritter
WRX, 2009+, 237/251, AVERAGE

[Lrn2Corner]

Really? So in other words when you spend that additional $8,500 on an STI; you are spending it on the drivetrain, suspension and brakes. No real difference in power.

Good to know. Glad I didnt waste that money on a DD that is no quicker on the street than my current car.

[DansSpace]

Originally Posted by xluben

I don't know how many times I've posted this now. 09+ WRX's are underrated. They make the same power as STI's.

But basic math says those dyno numbers are false! Let's ignore real world results and go with math saying they are supposed to have under 210whp!

[Nimbus09]

Originally Posted by Lrn2Corner

Really? So in other words when you spend that additional $8,500 on an STI; you are spending it on the drivetrain, suspension and brakes. No real difference in power.

Good to know. Glad I didnt waste that money on a DD that is no quicker on the street than my current car.

there have been a bunch of threads comparing the wrx vs. sti

where have you been? living in alaska or something?

[Lrn2Corner]

Originally Posted by DansSpace

But basic math says those dyno numbers are false! Let's ignore real world results and go with math saying they are supposed to have under 210whp!

As it shows the real world results very to a degree. The fact that they prove that the car is under rated is unquestionable now that the evidence shows it. Now take in the fact that the math is still correct if you apply it to the amount of power the car actually has to the wheels and crank.

If the car is indeed putting down and average of 237 to the wheels and the actual horsepower is closer to 300 to the crank then the car loses 20-21% of its power though the drivetrain.

Snarky retard.

[Breezio]

awww... my suddenly bumped 2 year old thread is suddenly going down hill...

The whole reason I made this thread way back when was because I had previously posted a different dyno result (the dyno wasn't functioning properly) and the result was way off, and I got alot of crap for it. So I had it ran again and this is what it ended up with, which for their dyno, seems about right.

[DansSpace]

Originally Posted by Nimbus09

there have been a bunch of threads comparing the wrx vs. sti

where have you been? living in alaska or something?

Alaska only knows chp numbers.

[DansSpace]

Originally Posted by Lrn2Corner

As it shows the real world results very to a degree. The fact that they prove that the car is under rated is unquestionable now that the evidence shows it. Now take in the fact that the math is still correct if you apply it to the amount of power the car actually has to the wheels and crank.

If the car is indeed putting down and average of 237 to the wheels and the actual horsepower is closer to 300 to the crank then the car loses 20-21% of its power though the drivetrain.

Snarky retard.

Whoa with the insults. Don't take the internet so seriously buddy. Sorry I hurt your feelings.
So because you used math to come up with 300hp, an arbitrary number by the way, since subaru says the car has 265, all of a sudden I'm retarded? Ok. Sounds correct.

[Airboy]

This will probably muddy things up more
3 x 2009 STI and 3 x 09+WRX. Weather correction applied and Dyno is located 3500' ASL

[xluben]

Same peak torque, STI has 10HP more on the top end. I guess I'd believe that. Need a bigger sample size to know for sure though.