2016 Tacoma Dyno Time!!!

ummm. So, we are comparing apples to oranges. Good grief, why can't they have a standard that everyone has to adhere to?

 

LOL, you're right on RL. Pickup trucks.com did a 2012 pick showdown and did dynos on all the trucks. The Tacoma was like 199.5.

 

They do. Can almost guarantee any reported hp/tq numbers you see reported from a manufacturer will be at the crank. But unless you pull your motor you can't measure that yourself.

 

They do have a standard. They all measure their numbers from the crank...

 

An engine dyno is the best way to get accurate data from the engine - this is how all of the manufacturers do the engine R&D before it is ever installed in a vehicle. We use chassis dynos because we don't want to have to pull the engine and all of it's systems out of the vehicle to do a test. (and other reasons too).

 

Ok, so tell it to me in simple terms (for us not-so-motor head folks)...is the dyno good results, or bad. How does it compare to the competition??

 

Someone needs to learn the difference between whp and bhp. Google it

 

engine dyno..

 

The results are just that. Results. The parasitic loss is expected which means the numbers are what they should be. So not really a good or bad thing.

The more interesting information this show is the hp and tq curves themselves which show how much power is being made at a given rpm instead of just peak power.

 

By my calcs this particular truck v6, 6spd manual, (4wd?) on this particular dyno has about 15% loss through the transmission.

However dyno's are notorious for reading differently from each other, particularly if you compare a hub dyno (like a dynopack) vs a wheel dyno (like a dynojet). They're really only good for before/after testing of some modification or tuning an engine map - but all done on the same dyno. You shouldn't put much faith in the actual numbers, but I would believe that the shape of the tq and hp curves are accurate.

This is a problem of people taking the science as hard and fast truth without understanding all of the variables that go into it.

 

The OP dyno test is about as it should be - which is good. How it compares to the competition, requires them all to be tested on the same dyno, preferably on the same day (weather conditions) in order to get good comparable data. Otherwise you get variations in the tests and people start their online dick measuring sessions about who's is bigger. The engine does what it is supposed to do. It's all good.

 

I might have rose-colored glasses on, but I think this is not bad at all.

Of the max-torque measured (234 ft lbs), the engine delivers:
- At least 91.5% of max torque (214 flt lbs) from 2600-3800 RPM
- At least 97.8% of max torque (229 ft lbs) from 4000-5250 RPM

 

You're correct, but the whole 15%, 18%, 20% loss concept is all bullshit anyway. It is a bad internet and magazine legend that just won't go away. Drivetrain losses don't behave that way - they are not fixed percentages. It's a long explanation but I can go through it if you guys want.

 

thanks for the explanation

 

We have a winner! This is exactly the type of thing you should be looking at.

 

Kinda like measuring lift. The only measurements that can really be meaningful are before and after on the same vehicle.

 

ok, that does sound good. Obviously, this is Not my area of expertise, so I need ya'll to help me decipher the data.

 

I found the calculator on my PC. DANGEROUS POWERS!

 

It's only as good as the guy pushing the buttons. Anybody can get data, knowing how to interpret it and explain it as something meaningful in the real world is key.

 

I'd love to see a similar dyno chart for my 3.4L. The 2nd time I tested a 2016 with auto it actually felt like it had sufficient low-end. First test I feathered the throttle expecting it to react like my 02. I thought the 3.5 had a nice growl when revving too.
It may be a minivan motor, but minivans are essentially family work horses designed to haul a round a full family of fat Americans. That is a lot of payload to haul around.