Airaid question
10-08-2009, 10:48 AM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-02-2005
Location: VA
Posts: 1,245
Referring to this:
I've said it before and I'll say it again....
Knowing the the OEM intake is NOT restrictive, any other choice had better be a matter of desired appearance or sound. Do not expect any gains in either HP or MPG.
.
10-08-2009, 11:47 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-02-2005
Location: VA
Posts: 1,245
Nope!! A "good one" may, but normally about 145 WHP, but....
Keep in mind, we are talking about crankshaft HP and TQ, vs. "to the wheels (dyno)" numbers....
For some reason, GM rates the 2.4 at 165 TQ (engine dyno), yet this "fake chart" shows 167 to the wheels. Given the drivetrain losses, that number is physically impossible!!, unless someone has a "miracle" engine. With a FWD car, expect about a 10 - 15% loss to the wheels.
Horsepower is nothing more than a calculation of torque vs. RPM, even on a dyno. Here is the SAE formula:
HP = TQ * RPM / 5252
Play with this fake chart and the SAE calculation formula and see what ya'll come up with!!
I've done the "math" on this (hey, I'm a SAE engineer!) and know, without a doubt, that that chart is FAKE or, at least, based upon inaccurate data. 
Keep in mind, we are talking about crankshaft HP and TQ, vs. "to the wheels (dyno)" numbers....
For some reason, GM rates the 2.4 at 165 TQ (engine dyno), yet this "fake chart" shows 167 to the wheels. Given the drivetrain losses, that number is physically impossible!!, unless someone has a "miracle" engine. With a FWD car, expect about a 10 - 15% loss to the wheels.
Horsepower is nothing more than a calculation of torque vs. RPM, even on a dyno. Here is the SAE formula:
HP = TQ * RPM / 5252
Play with this fake chart and the SAE calculation formula and see what ya'll come up with!!
I've done the "math" on this (hey, I'm a SAE engineer!) and know, without a doubt, that that chart is FAKE or, at least, based upon inaccurate data.
10-08-2009, 12:19 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-17-2006
Location: Dallas, GA
Posts: 6,050
Nope!! A "good one" may, but normally about 145 WHP, but....
Keep in mind, we are talking about crankshaft HP and TQ, vs. "to the wheels (dyno)" numbers....
For some reason, GM rates the 2.4 at 165 TQ (engine dyno), yet this "fake chart" shows 167 to the wheels. Given the drivetrain losses, that number is physically impossible!!, unless someone has a "miracle" engine. With a FWD car, expect about a 10 - 15% loss to the wheels.
Horsepower is nothing more than a calculation of torque vs. RPM, even on a dyno. Here is the SAE formula:
HP = TQ * RPM / 5252
Play with this fake chart and the SAE calculation formula and see what ya'll come up with!!
I've done the "math" on this (hey, I'm a SAE engineer!) and know, without a doubt, that that chart is FAKE or, at least, based upon inaccurate data.
Keep in mind, we are talking about crankshaft HP and TQ, vs. "to the wheels (dyno)" numbers....
For some reason, GM rates the 2.4 at 165 TQ (engine dyno), yet this "fake chart" shows 167 to the wheels. Given the drivetrain losses, that number is physically impossible!!, unless someone has a "miracle" engine. With a FWD car, expect about a 10 - 15% loss to the wheels.
Horsepower is nothing more than a calculation of torque vs. RPM, even on a dyno. Here is the SAE formula:
HP = TQ * RPM / 5252
Play with this fake chart and the SAE calculation formula and see what ya'll come up with!!
I've done the "math" on this (hey, I'm a SAE engineer!) and know, without a doubt, that that chart is FAKE or, at least, based upon inaccurate data.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post