put us all to sleep why don't you? and have you heard, my 06 Civc Si is putting down ~209. hahahahahaha... the dyno, the dyno... snore. the delta is all that really matters. again, whatever...

i just hope we get to see something cool in a few hours. my next ride will most likely be the sports4 so again, whatever. well, at least after Shawn puts it on the dyno, hehehe....


Peace y'all.

 

Yes, that's what I was expecting as the example. I was expecting you to provide it, as well.

Different dynanometers yield different numbers. Church's Dynapack reads high*, and this has been discussed before. It reads high on baseline; it reads high during tuning. It reads high regardless of what car is being dynoed.

The problem is when people don't read the accompanying writeup and jump to conclusions, just like what happened with the AP2 S2000 as well as the Civic Si. I can't tell you how many times I heard people say the Si was making between 209 and 218 wheel horsepower, which is not the case. TOV also repeatedly said the Civic Si in their possession was a preproduction car with a very smooth power and torque curve, inferring that the ECU had received special attention.

That's not a good example if you're arguing that TOV is dealing in delusions. That's a good example of readers getting carried away and the truth becoming deluded as the story gets passed on across the internet.


edit: *compared to the more common DynoJet chassis dyno.

 

Then why did their AP1 dyno within the normal ranges for other dynos. Why was their such a delta between the two?

No, not at all. In fact for quite some time Church made laughable attempts to back up that article. Throwing the I own a website that reviews cars bit so I must know more than you around.

The thing is no one was EVER able to repeat those numbers under more scientific settings, i.e. multiple cars on the same dyno on the same day.

That article was a great example of poor journalism. Anyone can start a website and review cars -- but you have to remember that doing so by no means makes them a journalist, scientist, expert or accurate source for data.

I like to read everything and form my own opinion -- but in my view TOV is closer to the enquirer than the New York Times. Which is not a bad thing, I like the tabloids too.

 

^ I need to go back and visit that article on the AP2 S2000. As for what Church said, I never read it, so I can't comment. I'll read that sometime.. did he get into an argument with people on TOV about it? Or did he post here?

Since I've been checking out TOV since 1997, maybe before, I know the site's beginnings as an enthusiast site started by enthusiasts. I think Jeff, Shawn and the others try to be - and are - professional, but I don't look at them as journalists. To an extent they are, but I never expect Pulitzer worthy writing.

 

I hear you. I always take their crap with some salt
It was wishful thinking on my part, so I'm not really disappointed