Focus Fanatics Forum banner

2012 with 175whp

54K views 201 replies 50 participants last post by  FFhb13 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
Its the Moment of Truth. I really look forward to seeing how much power this car makes. [woot]

175whp151tq I will upload pictures and video is already up on youtube. 2012 focus Dyno 175whp

2012 Focus 19" Niches, AEM CAI, F2 Race Header, 2.5" Borla Dual Exit, H&Rs, Eibach Sways 175whp151wtq







 
See less See more
3 1
#140 ·
Any dyno can be manipulated,not just mustangs. Just don't want people to think that mustangs are always going to read low just have to make sure you give the operator the right info in regards to weight of the car and gear ratio and which gear to dyno in.
 
#141 ·
Not always, as you have shown. However, the mustang dyno is continuously applying load to the wheels... where as a dynojet is not once the rolllers have been put in motion. With all other factors the same, the mustang dyno should always read lower... but factors are never the same.
 
#142 ·
Computer settings account for Dyno numbers. You can only select certain settings which can vary the horsepower by 7-10whp from std, sae, uncorrected. Its not like you can just click and make the car Dyno at 200whp.
 
#144 ·
Another reason I like to see 1/4 mile numbers since if you can't get the ponies to the ground then horsepower numbers don't mean much.

Like the old joke: What do 500hp Supras and 900hp Supras have in common? 12 second 1/4 mile times.
 
#145 ·
LOL, back when I had my CRX with its stock D16A6 (108hp) and a SRI+cat-back I used to run mid 15's @ 88mph with 1.9-2 second 60' times. I would run against less skilled GSR and TypeR owners that had trouble keeping up and couldn't BELIEVE that I didn't have a motor swap.

Posted via FF Mobile
 
#146 ·
What tires were you running since anything under 2.0 is pretty good with fwd.
My AWD Eclipse would nail 1.7s fairly consistently but the Type R was not easy to launch and was more in the 2.2 range.
 
#151 ·
Potenza SO3 Pole Position's, fronts @ 15psi, rear @ 60psi. Tokico Illumina 5-way adjustable dampers with the fronts @ 2 or 3 and the rears @ 5. Prototype front crossmember with adjustable preload, 23mm Suspension Techniques RSB + lowering springs.

Posted via FF Mobile
 
#148 ·
I have to share...

Another local car shop with a dyno posted on their facebook wall a dyno graph of a stock 2013 Subaru BRZ....



Our Foci are more powerful (yes we have intake/exhaust or intake/exhaust/headers, but still.) I bet it weighs less but what would be the outcome in a drag race do you think?
 
#149 ·
I have to share...



Our Foci are more powerful (yes we have intake/exhaust or intake/exhaust/headers, but still.) I bet it weighs less but what would be the outcome in a drag race do you think?

Regarding the dyno graph, something is very strange (look at the dip in the torque curve). I would wait to see a few more dyno results before making any conclusions. Also, keep in mind that dyno numbers are not absolute by any means. FWIW, the BRZ likely has more drivetrain loss.

In general, I don't think comparing a modded car to an un-modded car has much meaning.
 
#153 ·
Wow poor BRZ its running so rich. With a tuned BRZ it would be 190+whp car with no mods. The bottom line look how the Afr dips into the 10s...
 
#156 ·
Interesting thread. Makes me wonder what the real power of the 2.0 GDi is?

In North America it is rated as 160hp and here in South Africa it's 125kw yet the Focus is a global car. Only difference I can think of is that we only have 93 octane and 95 octane available.

I would love to get my hands on a 2.0 GDi and do some dyno testing for you guys but here are just no models available and the few owners out here are so scarce and in hiding
 
#157 ·
Technically if your fuel is sold based on the RON number 93 octance RON (research octane number) is about 4-5 points higher than the Antiknock index which is an average between the research octane number and the motor octane number, the two competing test methodologies for comparing the anti knock properties of the fuel. Ergo 93 RON is the same as 87-88 octane fuel sold in the U.S. and the 95 octane is equalivent to 90-91 AKI octane fuel sold in the U.S.

So the fuel is not better or worse, but the headline octane number sounds better there than it really is. Most countries use the RON number as the headline figure on the pump where as the U.S. uses an average of the two methods.

Ergo your base fuel is the same as our regular fuel give or take 1 point on the anti knock index
 
#159 ·
That's pretty good considering FR-S are supposed to be 200hp and 2800 lbs. if I remember correctly. Anyway you guys can get to the drag strip. I was going to go this year and never got around to it. I've had my TC light come on in third gear at times on dry pavement if I grab a gear just right. So we are making decent power still crossing fingers for tune though.
 
#163 ·
bumping a really old thread but had a question for Focusboy. Through this whole thread you have stated you had a 2.5 in exhaust with header and intake and putting down 175whp but your sig says you have a 3in. exhaust and putting down 183whp. So did up upgrade to a 3.0 in exhaust and get more horsepower? have you thought about a tune?
 
#164 · (Edited)
I'm nearly positive that is what happened if I recall correctly. Im sure he'll chime in. I think he has a header as well.
 
#168 ·
Hopefully he does. I know he has the DCT too so it would be cool to know if having a 3in exhaust gave more WHP. I'd like to know if he noticed any lose in low end power too. He does have a header, it says in his sig. so maybe that would be needed to see any extra gains from a 3in exhaust.
 
#165 ·
If tuning can fix the problem of losing low end torque maybe 3" is doable after all
 
#167 ·
3" exhaust on a na car is too big...at least one thats mildy modified....there are gains
But at the expense of low end torque loss....not ideal for a daily driven car in my past experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmericanCaveman
#171 ·
No, it's not. CBE does not affect power in that manner, primaries/secondaries do. All a CBE does is get the exhaust out beyond the body and is a case of diminishing gains, i.e.-it will either cost too much for the materials/vs gain or it won't physically fit. The whole concept that a CBE can be too big to somehow shift the power band is an old-wives tale. You can have too small but the inverse is not true.
 
#169 ·
Here's a good read from Honda-tech regarding back pressure and exhaust velocity.

Backpressure: The myth and why it's wrong.

I. Introduction

One of the most misunderstood concepts in exhaust theory is backpressure. People love to talk about backpressure on message boards with no real understanding of what it is and what it's consequences are. I'm sure many of you have heard or read the phrase "Hondas need backpressure" when discussing exhaust upgrades. That phrase is in fact completely inaccurate and a wholly misguided notion.

II. Some basic exhaust theory

Your exhaust system is designed to evacuate gases from the combustion chamber quickly and efficently. Exhaust gases are not produced in a smooth stream; exhaust gases originate in pulses. A 4 cylinder motor will have 4 distinct pulses per complete engine cycle, a 6 cylinder has 6 pules and so on. The more pulses that are produced, the more continuous the exhaust flow. Backpressure can be loosely defined as the resistance to positive flow - in this case, the resistance to positive flow of the exhaust stream.

III. Backpressure and velocity

Some people operate under the misguided notion that wider pipes are more effective at clearing the combustion chamber than narrower pipes. It's not hard to see how this misconception is appealing - wider pipes have the capability to flow more than narrower pipes. So if they have the ability to flow more, why isn't "wider is better" a good rule of thumb for exhaust upgrading? In a word - VELOCITY. I'm sure that all of you have at one time used a garden hose w/o a spray nozzle on it. If you let the water just run unrestricted out of the house it flows at a rather slow rate. However, if you take your finger and cover part of the opening, the water will flow out at a much much faster rate.

The astute exhaust designer knows that you must balance flow capacity with velocity. You want the exhaust gases to exit the chamber and speed along at the highest velocity possible - you want a FAST exhaust stream. If you have two exhaust pulses of equal volume, one in a 2" pipe and one in a 3" pipe, the pulse in the 2" pipe will be traveling considerably FASTER than the pulse in the 3" pipe. While it is true that the narrower the pipe, the higher the velocity of the exiting gases, you want make sure the pipe is wide enough so that there is as little backpressure as possible while maintaining suitable exhaust gas velocity. Backpressure in it's most extreme form can lead to reversion of the exhaust stream - that is to say the exhaust flows backwards, which is not good. The trick is to have a pipe that that is as narrow as possible while having as close to zero backpressure as possible at the RPM range you want your power band to be located at. Exhaust pipe diameters are best suited to a particular RPM range. A smaller pipe diameter will produce higher exhaust velocities at a lower RPM but create unacceptably high amounts of backpressure at high rpm. Thus if your powerband is located 2-3000 RPM you'd want a narrower pipe than if your powerband is located at 8-9000RPM.

Many engineers try to work around the RPM specific nature of pipe diameters by using setups that are capable of creating a similar effect as a change in pipe diameter on the fly. The most advanced is Ferrari's which consists of two exhaust paths after the header - at low RPM only one path is open to maintain exhaust velocity, but as RPM climbs and exhaust volume increases, the second path is opened to curb backpressure - since there is greater exhaust volume there is no loss in flow velocity. BMW and Nissan use a simpler and less effective method - there is a single exhaust path to the muffler; the muffler has two paths; one path is closed at low RPM but both are open at high RPM.

IV. So how did this myth come to be?

I often wonder how the myth "Hondas need backpressure" came to be. Mostly I believe it is a misunderstanding of what is going on with the exhaust stream as pipe diameters change. For instance, someone with a civic decides he's going to uprade his exhaust with a 3" diameter piping. Once it's installed the owner notices that he seems to have lost a good bit of power throughout the powerband. He makes the connections in the following manner: "My wider exhaust eliminated all backpressure but I lost power, therefore the motor must need some backpressure in order to make power." What he did not realize is that he killed off all his flow velocity by using such a ridiculously wide pipe. It would have been possible for him to achieve close to zero backpressure with a much narrower pipe - in that way he would not have lost all his flow velocity.

V. So why is exhaust velocity so important?

The faster an exhaust pulse moves, the better it can scavenge out all of the spent gasses during valve overlap. The guiding principles of exhaust pulse scavenging are a bit beyond the scope of this doc but the general idea is a fast moving pulse creates a low pressure area behind it. This low pressure area acts as a vacuum and draws along the air behind it. A similar example would be a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed on a dusty road. There is a low pressure area immediately behind the moving vehicle - dust particles get sucked into this low pressure area causing it to collect on the back of the vehicle. This effect is most noticeable on vans and hatchbacks which tend to create large trailing low pressure areas - giving rise to the numerous "wash me please" messages written in the thickly collected dust on the rear door(s).

VI. Conclusion.

SO it turns out that Hondas don't need backpressure, they need as high a flow velocity as possible with as little backpressure as possible.
 
#170 ·
The issue for me is not if there are gains, there will be..but how the powerband is moved,
Ive seen people do a 3" exhaust on even a larger displacement na motor and they lost
A.lot of low.end...very annoying not to have it in stop and go city driving...now this was
without any tuning done.
 
#180 ·
I've had buddies do that with their hondas/acuras and I laughed because they were obnoxiously loud with the massive 5" fart cannon muffler...all that noise and I would smoke them in a stock car easily until they got the revs way up then they would finally start pulling
 
#178 ·
that was my whole point in resurrecting this thread lol. I wanted to know if it was going from 2.5 inch to 3.0 that gave him that extra 8whp. also, would a three exhaust be beneficial without the header. I know Focusboy has the f2 header to go along with the 3in exhaust but by keeping the stock exhaust manifold would a 3in exhaust see the same gains or would a 2.5 be better?
 
#181 ·
Don't keep stock manifold, simple..it's restrictive, anyone that does an exhaust and cares about performance will upgrade the manifold because the system is only as good as the sum of it's parts..an intake and exhaust without a header is still leaving a restriction in, nullifying some of the gains of the intake and exhaust...just like people that upgrade headers and exhaust but leave their stock cat in, at 1.75" or whatever pipe to save money... making it 2.25" all the way makes a big difference
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top