Making 380WHP with $635
May 15, 2008, 02:38 PM
#166
Account Disabled
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dulles, VA 20166
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their load bearing ability has no relevance to producing a "true" wheel horsepower figure. Do you really know about Mustang Dynos or are you just talking? A Mustang still spins a drum just like DynoJet, it still spits out a number based on a mathamatical calculation that is an arbitrary metric representative of vehicle performance. I dont see how producing a lower number makes it "true". I see what your trying to indicate, but the power output is being measured at the wheels on both Dyno's..
Would you prefer that they spin with imaginary rollers? The difference is the fact that they calculate the amount of twisting force the vehicle applies to the rollers and the Eddy Current required to maintain the load.
The "calculation" you speak of is not based off of a set weight off the roller(s), it is calculated using inertia and relative roll resistance. Not some hocus pocus trick, that some consider to be the industry standard.
A lower number does not quantify results nor does it make it "true". MD's give you a real world understanding of what the car is doing pull to pull. Regardless of the numerical value it spits out.
May 15, 2008, 03:59 PM
#168
Evolving Member
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to also say thanks to all the guys that support me, I will continue doing my best to support you and your Evo's!!!
May 15, 2008, 04:11 PM
#169
, that would be really unsafe. I was just pointing out that just because it spits out lower numbers, doesnt make them accurate.
As far as evilbada's post and car, he came in here needlessly attacking the OP's car, and his tuner, and left himself open for a taste of his own
medicine. I apologize if I offended you or your shop.
May 15, 2008, 04:41 PM
#171
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Robbinsville, NC
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On that note, also keep in mind that even a 100hp gain can mean different things depending on the dyno setup. As an extreme example, imagine a dyno setup to show a stock Evo making 100hp. Now, a 100hp increase would be double the power! But that same Evo on a dyno that has been setup to show 1000hp stock would show a 1000hp increase! So on this possibly higher reading dyno you were tuning on, the 100hp increase is probably closer to a 70-80hp increase on other more conservative dynos. That's important information to know for the guy who just did the same mods but only shows a 70hp increase at some other shop.
Good luck with your future endeavors either way, no hard feelings. And I'm sure the OP is loving his improved performance.
May 15, 2008, 04:53 PM
#172
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MIA
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is absolutely ridiculous. The acronym "WHP" has absolutely no meaning anymore. If you understand the losses that will exist because of the drivetrain and through friction at the wheels, a stock Evo will make like 200-220 atw.
So this guy has made 160 hp atw from an exhaust, air filter and tune?
Also, if the car is 220 atw stock, that means to get to 280 hp at the flywheel, you have to use about 24% losses. So the 380 hp atw would then be 500 hp at the flywheel.
You really think Evos make 500 engine hp with a tune and exhaust?
THIS IS RIDICULOUS
So this guy has made 160 hp atw from an exhaust, air filter and tune?
Also, if the car is 220 atw stock, that means to get to 280 hp at the flywheel, you have to use about 24% losses. So the 380 hp atw would then be 500 hp at the flywheel.
You really think Evos make 500 engine hp with a tune and exhaust?
THIS IS RIDICULOUS
Last edited by nitz; May 15, 2008 at 05:15 PM.
May 15, 2008, 04:58 PM
#173
It's nice to see that things are calming down. I don't doubt that you are a good tuner, like I said before, but I shouldn't have called you deceitful when I realize now you probably just didn't understand the significance of the scaling on the dyno you were tuning on. We've all learned something here I hope.
On that note, also keep in mind that even a 100hp gain can mean different things depending on the dyno setup. As an extreme example, imagine a dyno setup to show a stock Evo making 100hp. Now, a 100hp increase would be double the power! But that same Evo on a dyno that has been setup to show 1000hp stock would show a 1000hp increase! So on this possibly higher reading dyno you were tuning on, the 100hp increase is probably closer to a 70-80hp increase on other more conservative dynos. That's important information to know for the guy who just did the same mods but only shows a 70hp increase at some other shop.
Good luck with your future endeavors either way, no hard feelings. And I'm sure the OP is loving his improved performance.
On that note, also keep in mind that even a 100hp gain can mean different things depending on the dyno setup. As an extreme example, imagine a dyno setup to show a stock Evo making 100hp. Now, a 100hp increase would be double the power! But that same Evo on a dyno that has been setup to show 1000hp stock would show a 1000hp increase! So on this possibly higher reading dyno you were tuning on, the 100hp increase is probably closer to a 70-80hp increase on other more conservative dynos. That's important information to know for the guy who just did the same mods but only shows a 70hp increase at some other shop.
Good luck with your future endeavors either way, no hard feelings. And I'm sure the OP is loving his improved performance.
May 15, 2008, 05:42 PM
#175
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...6&postcount=65
I've congratulated for what we can guesstimate is +100whp for $635 from the moment I knew what was going on. Others have done the same since, but that was not in question.
May 15, 2008, 06:24 PM
#176
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: michigan
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am finding it amusing that people are saying " ive got $$$ worth of mods and i cant put those numbers down" all that says in a) you cant tune for **** and b) you wasted your money. I am all for calling somone out on BS, but all you can do is take him at his word. I am sure he didnt start this thread out trying to get this kind of attention.
May 15, 2008, 08:15 PM
#177
I am finding it amusing that people are saying " ive got $$$ worth of mods and i cant put those numbers down" all that says in a) you cant tune for **** and b) you wasted your money. I am all for calling somone out on BS, but all you can do is take him at his word. I am sure he didnt start this thread out trying to get this kind of attention.
However, If the 380whp is to be defended then the car will need to perform at the 380whp level in order to be validated. Otherwise there is a pretty strong argument that it's actually a 330whp whp car if measured on a low reading Mustang (still good numbers). This car has an out of the ordinary mod strategy with the wg being an integral component. I think it's interesting even if the results are skewed and I'd like to find out how the car really performs.
Is nobody even interested in the fact that changing the WG likely netted these out of the ordinary gains. Or is everyone just caught up in numbers, and trying to discredit the tuner, or the dyno.
Really?
Would you prefer that they spin with imaginary rollers? The difference is the fact that they calculate the amount of twisting force the vehicle applies to the rollers and the Eddy Current required to maintain the load.
The "calculation" you speak of is not based off of a set weight off the roller(s), it is calculated using inertia and relative roll resistance. Not some hocus pocus trick, that some consider to be the industry standard.
A lower number does not quantify results nor does it make it "true". MD's give you a real world understanding of what the car is doing pull to pull. Regardless of the numerical value it spits out.
Would you prefer that they spin with imaginary rollers? The difference is the fact that they calculate the amount of twisting force the vehicle applies to the rollers and the Eddy Current required to maintain the load.
The "calculation" you speak of is not based off of a set weight off the roller(s), it is calculated using inertia and relative roll resistance. Not some hocus pocus trick, that some consider to be the industry standard.
A lower number does not quantify results nor does it make it "true". MD's give you a real world understanding of what the car is doing pull to pull. Regardless of the numerical value it spits out.
Why would you believe its more accurate to base the whp calculation off of the amount of variable electrical current applied to a magnet that produces a brake effect on the roller compared to measuring whp by computing the accelleration of a fixed rotational mass.
Last edited by Mr. Evo IX; May 15, 2008 at 10:37 PM.
May 15, 2008, 08:17 PM
#178
Dave, big gains can be made without big mods or $$$$ and I'll defend that with my own car's performance that has real numbers.
However, If the 380whp is to be defended then the car will need to perform at the 380whp level in order to be validated. Otherwise there is a pretty strong argument that it's actually a 330whp whp car if measured on a low reading Mustang (still good numbers). This car has an out of the ordinary mod strategy with the wg being an integral component. I think it's interesting even if the results are skewed and I'd like to find out how the car really performs.
Is nobody even interested in the fact that changing the WG likely netted these out of the ordinary gains. Or is everyone just caught up in numbers, and trying to discredit the tuner, or the dyno.
Engine tuning aside, since were discussing determining the most accurate whp.
Why would you believe its more accurate to base the whp calculation off of the amount of variable electrical current applied to a magnet that produces a brale effect on the roller compared to measuring whp by computing the accelleration of a fixed rotational mass.
However, If the 380whp is to be defended then the car will need to perform at the 380whp level in order to be validated. Otherwise there is a pretty strong argument that it's actually a 330whp whp car if measured on a low reading Mustang (still good numbers). This car has an out of the ordinary mod strategy with the wg being an integral component. I think it's interesting even if the results are skewed and I'd like to find out how the car really performs.
Is nobody even interested in the fact that changing the WG likely netted these out of the ordinary gains. Or is everyone just caught up in numbers, and trying to discredit the tuner, or the dyno.
Engine tuning aside, since were discussing determining the most accurate whp.
Why would you believe its more accurate to base the whp calculation off of the amount of variable electrical current applied to a magnet that produces a brale effect on the roller compared to measuring whp by computing the accelleration of a fixed rotational mass.
May 15, 2008, 08:29 PM
#180
Are you talking about an actual wastegate, or a wastegate actuator with preload?
Last edited by Mr. Evo IX; May 15, 2008 at 10:40 PM.