Turbotrix and Dynoflash: The Verdict
Sep 27, 2004, 06:50 AM
#1
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbotrix and Dynoflash: The Verdict
Right up front, I want to make it clear that there will absolutely be no tunerbashing or flaming in this post. I hope anyone who chooses to respond will respect that and keep this thread flame free. What I will do is provide empirica. evidence to support my statements. So without further delay on to the Dynosheets.
*note: this is all on Jersey 93 octane gas and (not intenionally) from the same gas station.
As many of you may already know, I went to Pruven Performance for a custom Dynoflash tune on 9/4/04, the now infamous "Dynoflash Day." My mods at the time were 3" exhaust, MBC at 20PSI, K&N filter and 264/272 Cams. The dynograph of that tune is the red plot on the 1st dynosheet below (the blue was my baseline prior to that). The peak numbers are 304 hp/ 330 trq STD Corrected. The air/fuel can be seen in the 2nd dynosheet below and, as you can all see, runs a mid-11 all the way through.
At the tune, Al told me that my stock airbox was robbing me of some topend power and recommended an HKS RS intake. I acquired said intake and, during that same period, signed up for the free reflash day at Turbotrix. This was in no way a result of my being dissatisfied with my tune from Big Al. I am, as I believe, like most of you: I want the most for my money and here was an opportunity to make free horsepower, so I took it.
At Turbotrix, Mark and Jeff tuned my car with the exact same mods as I had at Pruven PLUS an HKS Racing Suction Intake kit. The Dynoflash Tune (Blue) and TurboTrix Tune (Red) can be seen in the 3rd Dynosheet below. The peak numbers are 309Hp/297Trq with 1.00 correction factor (no correction) for Dynoflash and 321Hp/302Trq with 1.01 correction factor (1% positive correction) for TT. The a/f ratio for the TT tune can be seen in the 4th dynosheet below, but it basically runs high 11.x throughout. As far as validity goes, the numbers, 309 vs. 304 for the dynoflash on the two different dynos, are very similar. That should put any sort of dyno/condition variation into the realm of negligible for the discussion of the results.
Discussion of Results:
A few things can be addressed here. Firstly, there is much debate on this board about intakes on stock turbo evos in general and many people have questioned Al's recommendation of the intake. If you compare how my dynoflashed ECU dyno'd at pruven vs. TT you will see that it gained about 6 hp from the intake (if you figure in correction factor), at least in the controlled environment of the Dyno. It does, however, lose about 30 lb-ft of torque down low at peak boost (330 vs. 297). So, Al's recommendation for the intake does indeed hold true: it gains topend power at some sacrifice of low-end torque.
Now on to a comparison of the two tunes as a whole. Overall, the TT tune gained me about 11.5hp and 5 lb-ft of torque at the peak values. A closer review of the dynosheet reveals that my power peak is also a little higher, almost at redline vs. at about 6.4k rpm for dynoflash and the torque taper in the mid-range to top-end is visibly improved. Air fuel ratios are, on average about .3 points leaner throughout the engines operating range.
Verdict:
As far as efficacy goes I don't think you can really argue that either one of these tunes are not an excellent product. The margin in the top-end was about 11 hp, certainly a drivers race if I had these two cars side by side at a track. It is a great day for us EVO owners when we can get options such as these with people standing behind them with such passion to improve. Competition makes everyone better no matter what they do. Conversely, I can now say comfortably that all the bickering and trash talking by everyone really is destructive and not at all helping.
Final Words:
I have now been tuned by two of the premiere EVO tuners in the Northeast. I have had great experiences with both of them. Al with his own sharper more brash style and Mark/Jeff with their own style. I was treated respectfully and professionally at both locations although I will say that I did have more of an opportunity to learn and to interact in the tuning process at TT. I think in the end whichever of these two tuners you choose, you will not be disappointed.
Peace
*note: this is all on Jersey 93 octane gas and (not intenionally) from the same gas station.
As many of you may already know, I went to Pruven Performance for a custom Dynoflash tune on 9/4/04, the now infamous "Dynoflash Day." My mods at the time were 3" exhaust, MBC at 20PSI, K&N filter and 264/272 Cams. The dynograph of that tune is the red plot on the 1st dynosheet below (the blue was my baseline prior to that). The peak numbers are 304 hp/ 330 trq STD Corrected. The air/fuel can be seen in the 2nd dynosheet below and, as you can all see, runs a mid-11 all the way through.
At the tune, Al told me that my stock airbox was robbing me of some topend power and recommended an HKS RS intake. I acquired said intake and, during that same period, signed up for the free reflash day at Turbotrix. This was in no way a result of my being dissatisfied with my tune from Big Al. I am, as I believe, like most of you: I want the most for my money and here was an opportunity to make free horsepower, so I took it.
At Turbotrix, Mark and Jeff tuned my car with the exact same mods as I had at Pruven PLUS an HKS Racing Suction Intake kit. The Dynoflash Tune (Blue) and TurboTrix Tune (Red) can be seen in the 3rd Dynosheet below. The peak numbers are 309Hp/297Trq with 1.00 correction factor (no correction) for Dynoflash and 321Hp/302Trq with 1.01 correction factor (1% positive correction) for TT. The a/f ratio for the TT tune can be seen in the 4th dynosheet below, but it basically runs high 11.x throughout. As far as validity goes, the numbers, 309 vs. 304 for the dynoflash on the two different dynos, are very similar. That should put any sort of dyno/condition variation into the realm of negligible for the discussion of the results.
Discussion of Results:
A few things can be addressed here. Firstly, there is much debate on this board about intakes on stock turbo evos in general and many people have questioned Al's recommendation of the intake. If you compare how my dynoflashed ECU dyno'd at pruven vs. TT you will see that it gained about 6 hp from the intake (if you figure in correction factor), at least in the controlled environment of the Dyno. It does, however, lose about 30 lb-ft of torque down low at peak boost (330 vs. 297). So, Al's recommendation for the intake does indeed hold true: it gains topend power at some sacrifice of low-end torque.
Now on to a comparison of the two tunes as a whole. Overall, the TT tune gained me about 11.5hp and 5 lb-ft of torque at the peak values. A closer review of the dynosheet reveals that my power peak is also a little higher, almost at redline vs. at about 6.4k rpm for dynoflash and the torque taper in the mid-range to top-end is visibly improved. Air fuel ratios are, on average about .3 points leaner throughout the engines operating range.
Verdict:
As far as efficacy goes I don't think you can really argue that either one of these tunes are not an excellent product. The margin in the top-end was about 11 hp, certainly a drivers race if I had these two cars side by side at a track. It is a great day for us EVO owners when we can get options such as these with people standing behind them with such passion to improve. Competition makes everyone better no matter what they do. Conversely, I can now say comfortably that all the bickering and trash talking by everyone really is destructive and not at all helping.
Final Words:
I have now been tuned by two of the premiere EVO tuners in the Northeast. I have had great experiences with both of them. Al with his own sharper more brash style and Mark/Jeff with their own style. I was treated respectfully and professionally at both locations although I will say that I did have more of an opportunity to learn and to interact in the tuning process at TT. I think in the end whichever of these two tuners you choose, you will not be disappointed.
Peace
Sep 27, 2004, 07:19 AM
#4
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loss of torque due to intake
I would suspect that the loss of torque is due to the larger diameter of the HKS intake vs. stock. I have been told that increasing diameter of intakes in general sacrifices low end torque for more top-end. Maybe one of the tuners or any of the shops around the site can chime in?
Sep 27, 2004, 07:39 AM
#5
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tri-State
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RS intake on the stock turbo does not make more power over the stock box. Bottom line even if it does flow better, but it taking in allot more hot air when the fan for the radiator kicks in or when the car is moving and the air inters the radiator cold and then hot into the open filter element post radiator. The stock box is sealed and sucking air through a snorkel.
Also you are comparing apples to oranges simple because you did not have the exact mods during your dynoflash tuning as with the turbotrix flash. The RS intakes grossly affect the A/Fs witch would require a complete different tune over the stock box.
I would even say if you had the stock box you would pick up about the same power over the dynoflash because of tuning the car a bit less aggressive. Most people assume that when a car is more aggressively tuned it makes more power but that's not the case with the stock ECU in most OBDII turbo charged cars. The knock sensor reacts and is usually very sensitive.
Now the real question is does the car feel more constant over your dynoflash?? Did it feel like it lost its tune??
Thanks
Eric
Also you are comparing apples to oranges simple because you did not have the exact mods during your dynoflash tuning as with the turbotrix flash. The RS intakes grossly affect the A/Fs witch would require a complete different tune over the stock box.
I would even say if you had the stock box you would pick up about the same power over the dynoflash because of tuning the car a bit less aggressive. Most people assume that when a car is more aggressively tuned it makes more power but that's not the case with the stock ECU in most OBDII turbo charged cars. The knock sensor reacts and is usually very sensitive.
Now the real question is does the car feel more constant over your dynoflash?? Did it feel like it lost its tune??
Thanks
Eric
Sep 27, 2004, 07:43 AM
#6
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tri-State
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by makaveli_31
I would suspect that the loss of torque is due to the larger diameter of the HKS intake vs. stock. I have been told that increasing diameter of intakes in general sacrifices low end torque for more top-end. Maybe one of the tuners or any of the shops around the site can chime in?
The loss of TQ is because of less timing or what might have happend is that the A/F was changed (Intakes do that) and a knock event happend and the stock ecu adjusted by pulling timing to control detonation.
Last edited by Eric Lyublinsky; Sep 27, 2004 at 07:45 AM.
Trending Topics
Sep 27, 2004, 07:58 AM
#8
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apples to oranged
Originally Posted by Eric Lyublinsky
The loss of TQ is because of less timing or what might have happend is that the A/F was changed (Intakes do that) and a knock event happend and the stock ecu adjusted by pulling timing to control detonation.
since by your own words, the HKS RS Intake makes no power over the stock box, then comparing my state of tune at Pruven vs. the state of tune at TT is indeed an equal comparison. This is taking into consideration that the ONLY difference between my modifications was the intake.
In any event, the two numbers for the dynoflash are 304 with no RS at the pruven Dyno, and 309 with the RS at the TT Dyno. I don't see how those 5 hp, even taking into consideration any environmental differences, can be seen as anything more than negligible.
Bottom line, I think this is by far the most controlled test of a TT tuned car and a Dynoflash tuned car. I am not an automechanic or mechanical engineer by training, so I don't pretend to be an expert on matters automotive. However, I do have a degree in Electrical engineering and a degree in Biology, I think I have earned the expertise to determine what does and does not constitute valid experimental conditions and proper scientific methods regardless of what the experiment is testing.
Sep 27, 2004, 08:01 AM
#9
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice review. Finally someone has both tunes and is indifferent.
Eric, why do you always argue over the technicalities of each tune when Dynoflash is mentioned? We all know the aftermath.
The title should read, "Turbotrix and Dynoflash: Hung Jury"
I'm interested to hear from all the other participants who got both flashes.
Eric, why do you always argue over the technicalities of each tune when Dynoflash is mentioned? We all know the aftermath.
The title should read, "Turbotrix and Dynoflash: Hung Jury"
I'm interested to hear from all the other participants who got both flashes.
Sep 27, 2004, 08:08 AM
#10
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: summerland
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had both custom tunes. Stock, with a fuel pump. Same mods for each tune. Picked up 12HP and 7TQ peak and more in the midrange.
Other factors, when I was dynoflashed it was a streat tune and the temp was cooler.
TT was a dynotune temp was in the mid 70's.
Other factors, when I was dynoflashed it was a streat tune and the temp was cooler.
TT was a dynotune temp was in the mid 70's.
Sep 27, 2004, 08:09 AM
#11
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tri-State
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EvoJimbo
Nice review. Finally someone has both tunes and is indifferent.
Eric, why do you always argue over the technicalities of each tune when Dynoflash is mentioned? We all know the aftermath.
The title should read, "Turbotrix and Dynoflash: Hung Jury"
I'm interested to hear from all the other participants who got both flashes.
Eric, why do you always argue over the technicalities of each tune when Dynoflash is mentioned? We all know the aftermath.
The title should read, "Turbotrix and Dynoflash: Hung Jury"
I'm interested to hear from all the other participants who got both flashes.
I'm not arguing, But you can't compare the same tune with one large variably altered.
Also Jimbo why do feel like you have to bump heads with me? You offer no insight expect to point out that I'm being bisied. Yes I am bisied because I have seen it time and time again on the dyno and driving the cars. The technicalities make the difference between making power and not making power.
Sep 27, 2004, 08:14 AM
#12
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wherever WOT Takes Me..
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by makaveli_31
Erik,
since by your own words, the HKS RS Intake makes no power over the stock box, then comparing my state of tune at Pruven vs. the state of tune at TT is indeed an equal comparison. This is taking into consideration that the ONLY difference between my modifications was the intake.
since by your own words, the HKS RS Intake makes no power over the stock box, then comparing my state of tune at Pruven vs. the state of tune at TT is indeed an equal comparison. This is taking into consideration that the ONLY difference between my modifications was the intake.
Also, Jim I thought I saw your name on Mark's original post for a retune.
Sep 27, 2004, 08:18 AM
#13
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Penn State University
Posts: 1,143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eric, I think his point was you create the outcome from what's presented. (Sort of like the 2nd Amendment being used by both the NRA and gun control activists) Secondarily, your arguement that the HKS RS kit doesn't increase HP is empirically wrong. If you want to bet $100 dollars + the cost of dyno time I'll take it.
Sep 27, 2004, 08:18 AM
#14
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tri-State
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by makaveli_31
Erik,
since by your own words, the HKS RS Intake makes no power over the stock box, then comparing my state of tune at Pruven vs. the state of tune at TT is indeed an equal comparison. This is taking into consideration that the ONLY difference between my modifications was the intake.
In any event, the two numbers for the dynoflash are 304 with no RS at the pruven Dyno, and 309 with the RS at the TT Dyno. I don't see how those 5 hp, even taking into consideration any environmental differences, can be seen as anything more than negligible.
Bottom line, I think this is by far the most controlled test of a TT tuned car and a Dynoflash tuned car. I am not an automechanic or mechanical engineer by training, so I don't pretend to be an expert on matters automotive. However, I do have a degree in Electrical engineering and a degree in Biology, I think I have earned the expertise to determine what does and does not constitute valid experimental conditions and proper scientific methods regardless of what the experiment is testing.
since by your own words, the HKS RS Intake makes no power over the stock box, then comparing my state of tune at Pruven vs. the state of tune at TT is indeed an equal comparison. This is taking into consideration that the ONLY difference between my modifications was the intake.
In any event, the two numbers for the dynoflash are 304 with no RS at the pruven Dyno, and 309 with the RS at the TT Dyno. I don't see how those 5 hp, even taking into consideration any environmental differences, can be seen as anything more than negligible.
Bottom line, I think this is by far the most controlled test of a TT tuned car and a Dynoflash tuned car. I am not an automechanic or mechanical engineer by training, so I don't pretend to be an expert on matters automotive. However, I do have a degree in Electrical engineering and a degree in Biology, I think I have earned the expertise to determine what does and does not constitute valid experimental conditions and proper scientific methods regardless of what the experiment is testing.
Just MHO
``scientific method'' you did not take the account of consistent or in this matter of not having one.
Sep 27, 2004, 08:21 AM
#15
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tri-State
Posts: 2,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by metaphysical
Eric, I think his point was you create the outcome from what's presented. (Sort of like the 2nd Amendment being used by both the NRA and gun control activists) Secondarily, your arguement that the HKS RS kit doesn't increase HP is empirically wrong. If you want to bet $100 dollars + the cost of dyno time I'll take it.
I'll pay for dyno time even if I'm right but I get to smack up side the head