A great tune with EcuFlash (by EIP Racing)
Aug 10, 2006, 03:11 PM
#46
Evolving Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by razorlab
Good, now I can buy you a beer. Tell me when. 
Or just let me know the next track event your at...and don't hit my non-crash beam bumpers!
btw> Apex ..thanks for the post counts!
Last edited by ST; Aug 10, 2006 at 03:15 PM.
Aug 10, 2006, 03:37 PM
#47
Evolved Member
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SJ, CA
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wzcx
Okey dokey kids, quit it.
My other plot says, for averages, 58hp, 119tq. Quite a bit below razorlabs, but then he's making more than 20 hp more peak as well. I certainly think there's room for improvement on my tune- but it's quite a good start... Maybe when you all see my graphs you'll start laughing about it being a dyno queen. I would like to see the tq hold on a little longer up top.
My other plot says, for averages, 58hp, 119tq. Quite a bit below razorlabs, but then he's making more than 20 hp more peak as well. I certainly think there's room for improvement on my tune- but it's quite a good start... Maybe when you all see my graphs you'll start laughing about it being a dyno queen. I would like to see the tq hold on a little longer up top.
Yeah, id really like to see your graphs as well. With a full TBE most tuners can shift max torque to the left, yours shifted right. I imagine your plot looks more like a tuned VIII than a IX with bolt ons
Aug 11, 2006, 05:38 AM
#49
I can see it taking awhile to get a good tune when you are trying to get great drivability and some part throttle and lower load/boost tuning going on..
Typically when I tune, I start with low boost, then step it up a few until I get to my target, this way I get a map tuned for nearly any boost condition I'd run into, then I tune part throttle for those different boost levels so I can revise the lower load lower RPM areas.. You can't completely eliminate knock simply because throttle inputs and fuel/timing shifts when it jumps load sites drastically, or lift/rattle, etc.. but It can take awhile.
I do agree with the "Area under the curve" Every 16g based plot I see that makes outstanding torque numbers generally has a giant spike for 500rpm and then drops off.. I'd rather not see that giant spike but a smooth and stable torque curve that doesn't fall off, makes for a more drivable, predictable, and fun car to race and drive every day.
That huge spike does nothing but make for a great peak number you can brag about.
In reality, you CAN produce these numbers on a completely stock car with only a boost controller, but it does depend heavily on fuel quality.
Typically when I tune, I start with low boost, then step it up a few until I get to my target, this way I get a map tuned for nearly any boost condition I'd run into, then I tune part throttle for those different boost levels so I can revise the lower load lower RPM areas.. You can't completely eliminate knock simply because throttle inputs and fuel/timing shifts when it jumps load sites drastically, or lift/rattle, etc.. but It can take awhile.
I do agree with the "Area under the curve" Every 16g based plot I see that makes outstanding torque numbers generally has a giant spike for 500rpm and then drops off.. I'd rather not see that giant spike but a smooth and stable torque curve that doesn't fall off, makes for a more drivable, predictable, and fun car to race and drive every day.
That huge spike does nothing but make for a great peak number you can brag about.
In reality, you CAN produce these numbers on a completely stock car with only a boost controller, but it does depend heavily on fuel quality.
Aug 11, 2006, 08:59 AM
#53
Originally Posted by MalibuJack
The higher the number the leaner, if your 11:1 to make it richer you'd go to 10.5:1
Just lowering boost should get things a bit richer if you don't shift your load cells.
Just lowering boost should get things a bit richer if you don't shift your load cells.
How much hp will it lose if the boost was dropped from 23.5 to 22 psi?
Aug 11, 2006, 09:04 AM
#54
Ahh, sorry I misread it.. the AFR change should only hurt a few WHP.. lowering the boost a bit will hurt your torque, your WHP probably won't change much though, 5-10whp since the car rarely holds 23psi through redline, it tends to fall off after 5000rpm anyway..
At most I'd say 15-20whp, kinda sucks eh?
At most I'd say 15-20whp, kinda sucks eh?
Aug 11, 2006, 09:29 AM
#55
Originally Posted by MalibuJack
Just lowering boost should get things a bit richer if you don't shift your load cells.
Aug 12, 2006, 07:09 PM
#56
That's a high reading mustang dyno almost the same as dynojet (on whp). As far as the gains, I'd say it's ok but not that good, On that high reading dyno you should be atleast at 300 whp.
In case you guys don't know the newer IXs are weaker (stock) than the IXs released in 05.
Evo ix stock on awd dynojet (released - June 06):
237.4 whp 234.7 wtq
248.0 whp 238.7 wtq
My IX dynoed 310.3 whp and 316.9 wtq tuned with just a catback (no MBC).
In case you guys don't know the newer IXs are weaker (stock) than the IXs released in 05.
Evo ix stock on awd dynojet (released - June 06):
237.4 whp 234.7 wtq
248.0 whp 238.7 wtq
My IX dynoed 310.3 whp and 316.9 wtq tuned with just a catback (no MBC).
Last edited by Jhero23; Aug 12, 2006 at 07:22 PM.
Aug 12, 2006, 07:30 PM
#57
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Work - New York, Alaska, Mexico or the Caribbean. -Home - Tx Hill Country
Posts: 1,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jhero23
That's a high reading mustang dyno almost the same as dynojet (on whp). As far as the gains, I'd say it's ok but not that good, On that high reading dyno you should be atleast at 300 whp.
In case you guys don't know the newer IXs are weaker (stock) than the IXs released in 05.
Evo ix stock on awd dynojet (released - June 06):
237.4 whp 234.7 wtq
248.0 whp 238.7 wtq
My IX dynoed 310.3 whp and 316.9 wtq tuned with just a catback (no MBC).
In case you guys don't know the newer IXs are weaker (stock) than the IXs released in 05.
Evo ix stock on awd dynojet (released - June 06):
237.4 whp 234.7 wtq
248.0 whp 238.7 wtq
My IX dynoed 310.3 whp and 316.9 wtq tuned with just a catback (no MBC).
Aug 12, 2006, 07:42 PM
#58
Originally Posted by robertrinaustin
What are you smoking? Those gains are "not that good" with just a MBC and tune? What would you expect to gain with just a MBC and tune if over 70 whp and almost 45 lb ft of trq are "not that good"? Please share your tuning experience with us and give us an idea of what you could achieve.
?
Aug 12, 2006, 07:51 PM
#59
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Work - New York, Alaska, Mexico or the Caribbean. -Home - Tx Hill Country
Posts: 1,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jhero23
You have an 03 evo?
?
BTW, sorry to the OP for going OT, but some people post such utter crap.
