s3s are gonna make it shiiiine up top

 

IMO with stock block having a few "topend" mods like s3's or a magnus intake is a good thing for overall power band and engine safety. His car hit 25psi @ 3550rpm BTW! Its a fast spooler for sure.

 

i looked at the log from the night we tuned it. the actual log from the graph posted. i found a couple of things that were quite interesting.

in Virtual Dyno 1.2.1 it shows the Evo 9 RS weight as 3219lbs. on Evoscan it showed the weight as 3020. Occ weight was 400 and that was entered in both programs.

VD had the log showing 460hp/375tq at smoothing 1
smoothing 2 was 448/372

smoothing 3 actually resembled the graph from evoscan


smoothing 4 was obviously smoother


smoothing 6


at this point i decided to enter the specs of evoscan into VD, so weight and tire height which was .07 higher was changed to mimic Evoscan

smoothing 1 showed 438/357
smoothing 2 showed 427/354
smoothing 3 which resembles evoscans graph


smoothing 4


smoothing 5 showed 420/349

and smoothing 6


i had a couple of people asking about running the log into VD after entering the same specs from evoscan, VD and Evoscan were really close. i was told that evoscan is using a smoothing of 3 so if thats the case than VD in smoothing 3 was 1hp and 1tq lower than evoscan. thats pretty close!

i plan on putting the car on a dynojet to cure my curiosity but i think i will be fairly close to what the programs are showing.

 

Wow.....i think you should post a thread with this given information. So you can stop some of the ridiculous argument about evoscan reading higher than a dynojet lol or old virtual dyno. I think most of these arguments are pretty silly anyway as noone can give a true whp number that is 100% accurate.

 

Evoscan log show different numbers on my computer, my eyes are not playing tricks on me

The argument is not ridiculous so no need in you whining about it since you yourself have no experience with it.

 

the new evoscan uses the same code virtual dyno uses, so they will read the same when using the same smoothing almost identical.

If you look at the about page with evoscan, it mentions Brads name in there since hes using the same code.

If you want to know whether or not your graph is inflated put it into virtual dyno with a smoothing of 0. if you have any high spikes its inflated. That graph looks fine to me.

If you don't have stock size tires don't post the graphs. use the proper tire size and leave it at that. 25.33 is stock tire height. 25.4 is 235/40/18 which will raise the dyno number vs stock tire height.

 

you need to get your actual car weighed and enter your actual tire height to get accurate results from either program. Everyones car weighs differently. even an exhaust is going to change it by 20-30 lbs. Also. post a log with 0 smoothing and lets see how smooth the road actually is.

 

that is true. getting it weigh'ed is very important. only cost about $10 at a Cat Scale

I dont feel he needs to share smoothing 0. his graph looks fine to me.

 

On another note, here is the proof to backup what i said in regards to both VD and evoscan. they pretty much read very similar, but they are off alittle. it depends on how smooth the run is in general. If its really smooth, then there wont be to much difference from vd and evoscan. if you need to smooth it a lot, then there will be.

This example is of a bbk full i did a long time ago on 93oct on stock block. i figured if im going to show a comparison, do it with a car thats relevant to the thread. this car had way more mods, but you get the idea of the comparison between the evoscan and vd from another person.



car was a stock block evo 9 /w 8 trans, rev3 mani, s1 cams, jmf tubular, cbrd fmic, 93oct etc.

now i dont recommend running this much tq on a stock block, but the owner at the time wanted all or nothing.

 

Thanks for the example Tom.

A couple of years ago I weighed my car an it was 3080 with the spare and jack removed if I remember correctly. But I haven't weighed it recently. Obviously weight of the car will change the power output on the programs. Hopefully I'll be putting the car on the dyno soon.

 

no problem at all.

I did a comparison with a customers car on a BBK full also vd vs dyno on ams dyno in the summer here and it was almost dead on. i think you'll have no surprises and you will be right in the ball park as it did in evoscan/vd.

3020lb is so light for stock! you are lucky to own an RS. mine is a pig even after removing half the interior its still 3040lb

 

Ive seen that thread before i like how close his numbers were.

If i were to guess My cars weight bi would put it at around 3100lbs. But i'll have to find a weigh station here to get an accurate number

 

glad that's cleared up. Thanks Tom for the additional info.

 

ya you're probably almost dead on.

no problem at all.

 

I am not using the absolute latest up to date version because it is buggy for me (cuts out during mid log, deselects items, re-arranges the order of items being logged, and shows different numbers in VD). I'm not making this stuff up.

A note on smoothness of the graphs from my experience is that logging too many items or using a slow computer will help hide rough roads. I'm sure another one of you is going to argue against me on that as well right?

I don't rely on evoscan and virtual dyno to make money, so I have no reason to support the programs and convince everyone that most of these graphs are legit. I'm not taking shots at any tuners but you can't tell me that you don't want everyone to believe the program is dead on.

Everyone needs to stop posting up a *single graph* and claiming they make that power. It is getting old seeing results without multiple runs and then not stating they are using virtual dyno in their signature as the numbers. There are so many fake results out there because of this program it is getting difficult to weed through it all. The graph originally posted looks pretty damn wavy to me.

NOTE: I am not discounting the tune on any of the cars.