KWSC - was it worth it?
#41
I don't have many upgrades and any problems I have had so far I cannot directly attribute to the kit. The MAP sensor problem I was having was most likely due to constant vacuum problems I've had for a while - I was only asking people regarding what effect an incorrectly working MAP can have when going into boost with the KWSC kit.
#42
Texas Coyote touched on this, but I think it's important to look at HP gains in % terms of stock HP. I don't remember the specs for the GD... but it's something like 108HP stock, right? If the KW kit is producing an additional 27HP, that's a 25% gain, quite substantial.
#43
to be technical about it, acceleration is due to power. acceleration is the sensation you're perceiving. torque is an important part, but only a part, of power. we'll save that for another thread.
the whole thing about getting 30% more power, while it sounds impressive, kinda isn't. i've been thinking about it - making a 30% gain in the stock market sounds great, but the percentage is relevant only for bragging to your friends. the actual increase in cash is what changes your position in life.
invest one dollar and turn it into 1.30 and that's 30%. 30 cents - not exactly a meaningful amount of money.
on another note, it's interesting that no one has had a negative response yet. keep em coming!
the whole thing about getting 30% more power, while it sounds impressive, kinda isn't. i've been thinking about it - making a 30% gain in the stock market sounds great, but the percentage is relevant only for bragging to your friends. the actual increase in cash is what changes your position in life.
invest one dollar and turn it into 1.30 and that's 30%. 30 cents - not exactly a meaningful amount of money.
on another note, it's interesting that no one has had a negative response yet. keep em coming!
#44
Texas Coyote touched on this, but I think it's important to look at HP gains in % terms of stock HP. I don't remember the specs for the GD... but it's something like 108HP stock, right? If the KW kit is producing an additional 27HP, that's a 25% gain, quite substantial.
Last edited by MNfit; 02-26-2010 at 10:29 AM.
#46
My Fit was dyno'd at KW when I stopped by after installing the kit - the dyno looked almost identical to what they put on their website for the AT kit
Kraftwerks USA Dyno Results
Kraftwerks USA Dyno Results
#48
to be technical about it, acceleration is due to power. acceleration is the sensation you're perceiving. torque is an important part, but only a part, of power. we'll save that for another thread.
the whole thing about getting 30% more power, while it sounds impressive, kinda isn't. i've been thinking about it - making a 30% gain in the stock market sounds great, but the percentage is relevant only for bragging to your friends. the actual increase in cash is what changes your position in life.
invest one dollar and turn it into 1.30 and that's 30%. 30 cents - not exactly a meaningful amount of money.
on another note, it's interesting that no one has had a negative response yet. keep em coming!
the whole thing about getting 30% more power, while it sounds impressive, kinda isn't. i've been thinking about it - making a 30% gain in the stock market sounds great, but the percentage is relevant only for bragging to your friends. the actual increase in cash is what changes your position in life.
invest one dollar and turn it into 1.30 and that's 30%. 30 cents - not exactly a meaningful amount of money.
on another note, it's interesting that no one has had a negative response yet. keep em coming!
#49
Compare the power band to that you would have with a turbo or other modifications that lags then peaks and drops or only makes power at the top of the rev range....Even when you have revved past the peak your acceleration is considerably stronger than a stock engine and shifting right at the limiter puts you far enough into the upper part of the power band to still accelerate at a much higher rate and feels like you have installed a close ratio gear set or larger engine.... I can easily hit 90MPH in the same distance that I could only get up to 70 in before..... A dyno's results are useless if all you are looking at is the maximum power.
Last edited by Texas Coyote; 02-26-2010 at 11:49 AM.
#50
e.g. If you've got a car that makes 100 lb/ft. of torque @ both 2k and 7k rpms, that means it's making 38hp @ 2k, and 133hp @ 7k. But is the car going to accelerate 250% faster at the high rpm than the low one? Nope. It's going to accelerate exactly the same at both, because the torque is the same.
So when we're looking at our dyno plots trying to ascertain value to the modifications we're making, people really need to start ignoring hp completely, and only look at the torque curves (and the area underneath them).
#51
Torque is the only real measurement of the force that accelerates an engine. Power is just a number calculated from that using engine speed (i.e. an abstract rpm point of 5,252). Peak HP is only useful when it's the only number we look at, and when certain assumptions about gearing are made.
e.g. If you've got a car that makes 100 lb/ft. of torque @ both 2k and 7k rpms, that means it's making 38hp @ 2k, and 133hp @ 7k. But is the car going to accelerate 250% faster at the high rpm than the low one? Nope. It's going to accelerate exactly the same at both, because the torque is the same.
So when we're looking at our dyno plots trying to ascertain value to the modifications we're making, people really need to start ignoring hp completely, and only look at the torque curves (and the area underneath them).
e.g. If you've got a car that makes 100 lb/ft. of torque @ both 2k and 7k rpms, that means it's making 38hp @ 2k, and 133hp @ 7k. But is the car going to accelerate 250% faster at the high rpm than the low one? Nope. It's going to accelerate exactly the same at both, because the torque is the same.
So when we're looking at our dyno plots trying to ascertain value to the modifications we're making, people really need to start ignoring hp completely, and only look at the torque curves (and the area underneath them).
what's more useful: 1,000 ft*lbs of Q @ 0 rpm or 1 ft*lb of Q @ 1rpm?
#55
Which point are you disagreeing with?
Obviously, rpm's are useful in a car, and the reason for that is gearing. More rpms means more aggressive gearing can be used, and that means more torque to the wheels.
But when we're determining the value of engine modifications, gearing doesn't change. So numbers calculated by weighting torque at varying rpms (i.e. horsepower) are useless to us.
what's more useful: 1,000 ft*lbs of Q @ 0 rpm or 1 ft*lb of Q @ 1rpm?
But when we're determining the value of engine modifications, gearing doesn't change. So numbers calculated by weighting torque at varying rpms (i.e. horsepower) are useless to us.
#56
i'm no exception. on another car, i spent a lot of money on chassis setup. i have since sold that car, only to get the same car again (not the one i sold, unfortunately) and it now has maybe 15% of the money involved in suspension. i'm probably having more fun now than i did with the original car because i can more easily slide the car around, it doesn't ride as harshly, etc.
but my review of the first car with proper setup was absolutely glowing. i was enamored with the hardware, the money spent, etc. now that i have another perspective on that process, i know that the act of paying for something, and looking for ways to justify it once the deed is done, played heavily into how i thought about it.
#58
Which point are you disagreeing with?
Obviously, rpm's are useful in a car, and the reason for that is gearing. More rpms means more aggressive gearing can be used, and that means more torque to the wheels.
But when we're determining the value of engine modifications, gearing doesn't change. So numbers calculated by weighting torque at varying rpms (i.e. horsepower) are useless to us.
Obviously, rpm's are useful in a car, and the reason for that is gearing. More rpms means more aggressive gearing can be used, and that means more torque to the wheels.
But when we're determining the value of engine modifications, gearing doesn't change. So numbers calculated by weighting torque at varying rpms (i.e. horsepower) are useless to us.
to simplify things to torque alone discounts the fact that what we really care about is changing the vehicle's speed, over some distance, over some period of time. producing an infinite amount of torque but not actually moving (such as 1000 ft*lbs @ 0 rpm) means nothing because no work has been done. producing 1000ft*lbs @ 1000rpm vs 1000ft*lbs at 10,000 rpm are functionally very different things. again, to argue that torque is the only important factor discounts the fact that the car is in motion, accelerating, over a period of time.
#59
I drive my KWSC A/T Fit ALOT, to the tune of 126 miles round trip every time I go to work and back home, 102212 miles on the odometer so far.
The kit has been an absolute joy to own, I'd never go back to non forced induction. I only wish there was some way to put High Boost in the AT Fit's only because I'd like "just a little bit more"...yeah I'm hooked.
The kit has been an absolute joy to own, I'd never go back to non forced induction. I only wish there was some way to put High Boost in the AT Fit's only because I'd like "just a little bit more"...yeah I'm hooked.
#60
right. rpm matters. because we're talking about a car in motion. torque is an integral part of measuring the work and power that an engine can produce. and so is rpm.
to simplify things to torque alone discounts the fact that what we really care about is changing the vehicle's speed, over some distance, over some period of time. producing an infinite amount of torque but not actually moving (such as 1000 ft*lbs @ 0 rpm) means nothing because no work has been done. producing 1000ft*lbs @ 1000rpm vs 1000ft*lbs at 10,000 rpm are functionally very different things. again, to argue that torque is the only important factor discounts the fact that the car is in motion, accelerating, over a period of time.
to simplify things to torque alone discounts the fact that what we really care about is changing the vehicle's speed, over some distance, over some period of time. producing an infinite amount of torque but not actually moving (such as 1000 ft*lbs @ 0 rpm) means nothing because no work has been done. producing 1000ft*lbs @ 1000rpm vs 1000ft*lbs at 10,000 rpm are functionally very different things. again, to argue that torque is the only important factor discounts the fact that the car is in motion, accelerating, over a period of time.
X amount of torque @ 10k rpms can, indeed, do more work than the same amount @ 1k rpms. But that advantage in work can only be realized through gearing. And once again, our gearing isn't changing.
For an example that pertains to this thread, take a look at the recent revision to the kit that Kraftwerks made. Despite actually lowering the amount of peak hp available, the new revision is faster.
For a hands-on test you can do yourself, go time your car as it accelerates from 3000 to 4000 rpms, then again from 4-5000 rpms (in the same gear, obviously). The torque curve along those two spreads are close enough to be usable as a comparison - and I guarantee the car won't be faster at the higher rpm. If anything, it will be slightly slower due to more wind resistance.