26 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHX-51 dyno graph...for no particular reason.
Leading reported evidence
Replace engine suffered catastrophic failure in april
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed · Original poster
The engine suffered catastrophic failure in April and was replaced with a fresh crate engine.
Leading evidence: 'Replace engine suffered catastrophic failure in april' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace engine suffered catastrophic failure in april' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I replaced my original 996 engine with the x-51 and I am hard pressed to notice any difference what's so ever.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Also for comparison's sake I changed the smoothing to 3 and correction factor to SAE like the original post (eek I lost 10 hp!)
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
As a developer my biggest challenge is killing variables that impact results, thats why the majority of my internal engine development is measured in one of our engine test cells, to remove the variables associated with the vehicle...
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
As a developer my biggest challenge is killing variables that impact results, thats why the majority of my internal engine development is measured in one of our engine test cells, to remove the variables associated with the vehicle...
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
26 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T072535Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Well I finally got some time to post an introductory pic. I seem to be photo-challenged and don't have any really good pictures so I thought you might like the dyno graph instead. The dyno was done in December of 2008.
Car is a stock 2004 40th Anniversary edition. The engine suffered catastrophic failure in April and was replaced with a fresh crate engine. I might put the car back on the dyno once the new engine has some miles on it as a comparison.
Also, A big thank you to electriclizard for listening to my whine and advising me during the engine replacement.
Obligatory pic..
Love the new engine, still breaking it in. It was a bit of a nail biter with my warranty company but they covered most of the cost.
My engine suffered IMS failure at 44k. Failure occurred at startup, I never even put it under load. The dealership tow truck driver put it out of its misery by trying to drive it onto the flatbed. He only succeded in depositing 10qts of oil on the street in front of the house. The crate engine is an X-51.
Here is a picture of the revised "updated" factory IMS bearing. The larger nut is the tip off.
These are rear wheel power evaluations.. That means a 15-20% loss of power through the drive train is normal.
Jack, glad to see you got this taken care of...
Actually, I was quite pleased with the 302hp number. Most stock 3.6l M96 engines dyno around 280hp. So the 302 number for a 3.6l X-51 should be fairly accurate.
As Jake stated the numbers shown are rear wheel horspower. Manufacturers numbers are measured at the crank. The 15-20% loss is through the transmission and driveline.
Every dyno is a tad different, but variables like tire pressures, strap tension, the last time the rollers were greased and rear camber and toe will also impact the results.
The Dyno jet is the most repeatable dyno by far.. They have the least variance between units of all makes and thats why I bought one... The way the dyno jet samples is simply speed Vs time, so it really can't be wrong..
These variables in the two X51s here are very close.. The temperature of the gear oil could make that difference in the two evaluations... As a developer my biggest challenge is killing variables that impact results, thats why the majority of my internal engine development is measured in one of our engine test cells, to remove the variables associated with the vehicle... even worn CV joints, brake drag and differential selections can impact the numbers at the wheels..
Im with Darren here. My GTB car's last motor dynoed at 308,309 and 307HP on a Dyno Jet dyno and its NOT an X51 either. I'll be dynoing the new motor in the next couple of weeks.
So - are we coming to some agreement that 3.6s are generally putting out closer to 340-350 hp at the crank, maybe even more?
I have a replacement 3.6L in my 2002 with about 10k miles since replacement - it pulls noticeably better than the former engine. I generally can hold my own with any 3.8L C2S on the track in the straights.
These cars are awesome....
I doubt that, but who really cares what it is at the crank? People always say silly things like "add 20% drivetrain loss" I have no idea where they get those stats from. Unless you pull the motor out of the car and run it on a motor dyno, it's irrelevant.
Yep, agreed. But I do like to think that compared to front-engine cars (man, that's just wrong), our cars lose a lot less power to the drivetrain... I was coming up with a relative figure of about 15% difference.... but then again you're right, who really cares that much?
Thanks for the thoughts.
I have had many engines on either of my engine dynos in the lab then applied them directly into a vehicle and tested them on my dynojet. The consistent number is 17-22% based on brakes, tires and camber/toe variations...
I test engines both at the flywheel and at the rear wheels when possible, but lots of what we do is shipped far, far away... One is coming in from Russia right now!
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
