Tom I'm reposting this to respond to what you stated. I had originally posted this in the Focus-Power forum last night but someone deleted it and I dont know who but I checked with a few mods and they said it wasnt' them so I am now posting it here in hopes that the mods can keep it viewable. Goat I tried to PM you first but your box is full.
I apologize for not posting sooner, I didnt' even see the original thread till now which is why I'm responding so late. Warning this is going to be a long post so I can be thorough so people will understand there is no mis-info on FJ (at least not from me).
Please guys lets not turn this into an FJ vs FF thing. There are definatley people I respect here on FF and I do like the way the mods on this forum are completely non-invasive so you have a good place here and lets leave it at that. I dont want to talk about the politics of Focus-Power vs FJ.
Toms Post which can be found here: http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/s...2&pagenumber=1
More BS from fj (misinformation )
A good customer posted his Dyno on fj (big mistake) one of the "knowitalls" stated and i quote "
(Posted by belacyrf)
"I'm sorry man, there is no way any point on this graph has more than 220 (even if I'm way off in interpreting HP and RPM ranges, I'd say no more than 230 ) ft/lbs of torque.
And again, there is NO WAY, Tom was able to get a HP reading and not a torque reading. They are taken off of the same source and are calculations. Dyno's dont use one frequency for torque and another for HP. Doesn't work that way."
First he states that (Posted by belacyrf) "there is no way any point on this graph has more than 220 " comes back with (Posted by belacyrf) "I'd say no more than 230 ) ft/lbs of torque" MAKE UP YOUR MIND !
This customers dyno made 235.5 TQ he was at the GTG today and all saw his TQ numbers once he got rid of the live wires and coil and went back to stock
My favorite part was (Posted by belacyrf ) "there is NO WAY, Tom was able to get a HP reading and not a torque reading" WHY ? The Dynojet needs NO tach reading to read HP its what makes the Dynojet what it is. The Dynojet needs NOTHING hooked to the Focus or any car to get a proper HP reading
The misinformation is everywhere be carefull ! Most people dont know so they take what is said as fact BE CAREFULL ! ! ! !
Now let me 1st say that Tom is correct about 1 thing. The RPM tach signal. Yes I know a dyno can give you HP without a tack reading, however I was assuming that even though the dyno was in MPH, that he still did have a tach reading. This was my bad. I never put one and one together which I should have. So now I know why Tom doesn't have torque if he was unable to get a tach reading at all. Hopefully some will be able to understand that often when reading posts your understanding is different than the meaning. So I admit I was wrong there.
Now onto the dyno numbers
This is the original dyno graph from the original post in question:
Here is my original question
I'd bet money that the manifold blew when starting the car as opposed to driving it. I would bet his injectors are pretty large.
I blew my intake apart like that (coupled with a 3 inch hole in one of the runners). I have to alter my crank fuel to stop it from happening!
Other than that, great numbers!!! What was the torque and what octane?
Here is svtguy21's guys original response to my question with parts bolded for emphasis:
92 Octane, Intake blew up at start up, and sorry didn't know how to link threads. OH and 50 lbs injectors. Torque isn't availbe because i have live wires, Tom says that they cause to much interference. He guess easy 265
This is my original response (not selectively quoted) to that reply
Tom is estimating torque to be higher than HP after seeing that graph?
No offense but by looking at your graph, I'm going to say that's not the case.
You have about 210 Ft/lbs at 4500 RPM
And somewhere near 200 ft lbs at 4000 RPM
Nearly 220 ft/lbs at 5000 RPM
I'm sorry man, there is no way any point on this graph has more than 220 (even if I'm way off in interpreting HP and RPM ranges, I'd say no more than 230 ) ft/lbs of torque.
And again, there is NO WAY, Tom was able to get a HP reading and not a torque reading. They are taken off of the same source and are calculations. Dyno's dont use one frequency for torque and another for HP. Doesn't work that way.
HP and Torque are directly tied together by a static calculation.
They are nice HP numbers, but your torque isn't over 230, unless 60 MPH on that graph is equal to 4000 RPM (which it's not possible) Sorry
Ok so now that everyone can see EXACTLY what was posted on FJ (not parts cut and pasted to portray a different story). Here's a small explanation.
He posted two graphs one below the other. The top NA graph was in RPM's the bottom was in MPH. Now we all know that Horspower = (Torque * RPM ) / 5250. That's it. No special magic to find the torque. So what I did is I made some visual guesses based on the two graphs to figure out what the horsepower was at a given RPM and back calculated his torque.
I stated there is no way he can have over 220 ft/lbs on that graph, then I added clarification that torque is definately not over 230 assuming my RPM calcs were off which they could have been off a little since I was doing it visually. (I made this clarification in the very next sentence in the same post, however Toms cut and paste tries to portray it as me coming back days later). Now honestly I'm not going to quibble over 10 ft/lbs. The point of my post was that there was no way it was 265 ft/lbs as the guy quoted.
If you look at the original dyno I posted (which is the dyno we had to go off of you will see that the HP is at 250.
Now THIS is the dyno that he posted later in a new thread. (i'm going to link to it because it is kind of large)
The HP on this dyno is 261!!! That's 11 HP different than the dyno's in the original thread. And this 261 HP dyno showed 235 ft/lbs. So it looks like my 220-230 estimate from the previous dyno was probalby spot on.
I wasn't badgering him, nor did I discount Tom and his work. I just corrected the original posters assumptions in a few things.
Yes I originally stated 220, and then (In the very same post as the very next sentence) allowed for my calculations to be off and moved the number up to 230 ft/lbs which turns out that it was pretty darn close.
So my question is this: Was it really mis-information? Or was I trying to help the guy out as best as I could by giving him a realistic expectation of what he has? Was my post so horrific that it necessitated Tom starting a new thread here on FF to bash me and FJ (again) ?
Listen I know here on FF that the perception
is that Tom = God, just like on FJ the perception
is that FocusSport = God. Well I just wanted to post this reply so the users could see not all this FJ bashing from Tom is legit.
Believe it or not, many of us on FJ are just trying to help educate the users so they can know for themselves rather than having to trust someone else. I used to come here often as it was a pretty cool place as well, its just that now that Tom is bashing all the time I've just lost that will to fight every other post. Anyways, hopefully this explanation clears that air.
Sorry for it being so long!