[lil'devil]

Just interested to know what rear wheel HP a 6 mge has?

Mine dynoed at 165rwhp. I have yet to crack the engine open to tweak it up a bit. I have, however, purchased a turbo for it. Hoping 4 at least another 80 rwhp?!.

Later

 

[lil'devil]

so i'm guessing no one has any idea of the hp#s 4 the 6m.

I was hoping to have some kind of comparison.

 

[Tommy]

It seems to me Vern put up some pretty impressive torque #s awhile back. He did have some airflow probs from tuning the injectors by tightening the AFM spring, that created a huge difference between his HP and TQ figures.
Iirc the torque number was 225 ft/lbs and something like 156hp,...
@ the RW of course.
Jamie

 

[SilverMk2]

171.3 rwhp with a weak 162 lb-ft for me with the Gude cams installed. Car is much more powerful with the stock cams now, but I've never redynoed yet. 165rwhp on a 6M is really strong if you've done no mods to the motor. However, its pretty common # for one with the basic stuff done (air filter, exhaust, etc.)

 

[Supra Bob]

Hey Jamie!! Welcome! Glad to see ya join us


lil devil... when Vern Dynoed a few weeks ago..he was having a hard time getting the Dyno to read his Tach signal... so the HP number is WAY off as HP is just a function of torque and RPM...

Vern is about the strongest running N/A 6M that I have heard of.

I've spoken to a couple of Turboed 6M people and 80 to 120 hp is about the average increase...depending on boost and supporting mods.

 

[quick]

I saw a guy with a ported 6M-GE dyno here about two weeks ago. 162rwhp.

I was suprised since the 6M-GE is supposed to be good for 200 bhp.

 

[Supra Bob]

Well... 200 bhp... 20% drivetrain loss... 162 rwhp is about right...

 

[quick]

Well... 200 bhp... 20% drivetrain loss... 162 rwhp is about right...

Consider 5M-GEs have dynoed at 145 rwhp.
Drivetrain losses should only be 15% for a manual tranny AFAIK.

 

[Supra Bob]

I've heard anywhere from 12 to 20%... I tend to use the 20% number... it may end up being high, but when using that number to figure for fuel needs and the like, it makes the error towards the safer side...

 

[Junkie]

I saw a guy with a ported 6M-GE dyno here about two weeks ago. 162rwhp.

I was suprised since the 6M-GE is supposed to be good for 200 bhp.

That would be Bill Phillips.on my way over to his place shortly,to discuss his 7mgte swap

 

[helmsman]

It was actually 164.5 rw/hp & 168 rw/tq. Better than last years but not as much as hoped for.The #s came on sooner and lasted much longer before dropping off. Runs great.

 

[cheappower82]

158hp / 169ftlb torque (somewhat disappointed)

 

[mk2rock]

Not to throw a monkey wrench in this whole 6M thing but a few years back, I was looking at a local 6M in a car,,,, The whole issue came up on the newsgroup. Tom D replied that the 6M has the same HP as the 5M just the rpm range for the torque is different. He swore up and down that their was no significant difference between the two engines, and I give Tom D the benefit of the doubt,,, he is seldom wrong,,, if ever.

He actually sent me a scan of a chart showing the torque on one scale and the RPM on the other for the two engines. Any one have that chart by chance ???? this is going back about 3-4 years,,,,,

Everyone I met that has transpalnted the 6M swears their is a big difference in throttle response and HP.

that's why I'm looking at buying Marc's 6m.

Can anyone shed some light on this???

Rock/

 

[SilverMk2]

6Ms definetly make more power and torque than a 5M does. However, I do feel that they absolutely do not make 190 crank hp when installed in a US spec car, like everyone makes an assumption of. Making 18% more power (190 vs 161) with only ~7% (2.8 vs 3.0) more displacement doesn't seem right, especially on so similar of a motor. Given that in Japan a 5M in Japan is 175 hp a 6M would make 8% more power than a JDM 5M. I would say a 6M completely stock would be a 175 hp, 180 tops. These #s would agree with the low 150 rwhp #s on relatively stock 6Ms with a few miles on them.

Don't get me wrong though a 6M is still a nice upgrade especially if you want to stay NA and/or don't won't any installation difficulties. Just don't repeat my mistake and think a NA 6M is going to make the car any more than a resonably quick car.

Aaron <------Future turbo convert

 

[quick]

Great points, Aaron - as usual.

 

[cheappower82]

I only had pics; maybe I'll scan the sheets one day.
http://www.imagestation.com/mypictu...bf11ebc1740a4a6/fc3540da.jpg&caption=dsc00690

http://www.imagestation.com/mypictu...0f57fa686866224/fc3540d5.jpg&caption=dsc00688

The obvious mods: Pacesetter header, Denso Iridium plugs, NGK wires, 3" exhaust (intended for turbo)
http://www.imagestation.com/mypictu...837a9a377030322/fc353d55.jpg&caption=dsc00693

(Numbers posted earlier)

 

[Supra Bob]

6Ms definetly make more power and torque than a 5M does. However, I do feel that they absolutely do not make 190 crank hp when installed in a US spec car, like everyone makes an assumption of. Making 18% more power (190 vs 161) with only ~7% (2.8 vs 3.0) more displacement doesn't seem right, especially on so similar of a motor. Given that in Japan a 5M in Japan is 175 hp a 6M would make 8% more power than a JDM 5M. I would say a 6M completely stock would be a 175 hp, 180 tops. These #s would agree with the low 150 rwhp #s on relatively stock 6Ms with a few miles on them.

You do have a good point, but there is one thing your missing. The 6M ECU is optimized for the added displacement AND has much more aggressive timing and fuel maps. I think the lack of those two things contribute to the lesser amount of horsepower that is seen when ya drop a 6M into a 5M.

 

[cheappower82]

I agree. My dyno sheets shows a need for a richer fuel mixture (which would be corrected by the 6M-ge ECU). I can also tell a significant torque increase over my original 5M-GE.

 

[Dean]

5M vs 6M

I think Aaron (SilverMk2) and SupraBob have the right idea on the 6M...

See http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/9975/dataBySubject/GasolineEngines.html
and
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/9975/enginepix/powercurves/6M-GEU.gif
for a very nice comparison of the two motors.

The 6M was rated at 190 HP, 192 lb ft of torque, in the Japan domestic market. No cat, no emissions equipment.
The 5M (83-86) was rated at 175 HP, 177 lb ft of torque in Japan domestic
market. No cat, no emissions equipment.
So, the 6M only had a gain of 15 HP and 15 lb ft of torque vs the 5M.
I believe that the Japan spec ECU's had more aggressive timing and fuel maps as Bob says. I've been told it is due to the fact that they had higher octane gas in Japan, and their owners manuals specified running hi-octane only.
Locally, Rob's German spec (same ECU and tuning as Jap spec) Mk2 ran a 15.9 all stock. Stock intake, puny stock exhaust, etc, even 3.73 rear gears!! I've never seen any other totally stock Mk2 run less than 16 sec in the quarter.
Mark's 6M 82 runs 0.8 sec faster in the quarter than my 83 with 5M. Our cars have similar mods, cool air intake, 2.25 exhaust, advanced timing. He has a header, I don't. According to a HP vs time vs speed spreadsheet that I have, that means he has 25 HP more than me.... 15 HP from the 6M, and 10 HP from the header. It seems to make sense to me.

 

[SupraFiend]

aren't the german spec cars a little lighter too?