JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

Nice that it made 100whp over stock.

Stock turbo airflow at 23psi wont support that power...unless you have an airflow or 2byte load log to show what it made out the top something happened with the dyno.

/thread

blowoffsilver

iTrader: (25)

i do agree i was surprize too, but this car has made good power and i wouldnt have minded seeing the bone stock numbers to concur this 9 is a beast!

blowoffsilver

iTrader: (25)

hey john dont you run e85 if so didnt your car make a little over 500 on the green?? because their was a 05 evo 8 green car with cams and all the bolt-ons that made 474 at 28psi on this dyno too with e85, just trying to compare the dyno a little bit.

ethan169

iTrader: (3)

damn, nice work... I made 280whp with mbc turbo back and an intake. untuned of course. dynamatics dyno or dyno dynamics. ill have to look at the sheet

now im workin on a tune with mellon ive got a walbro and a non leakly bov... so maybe 300awhp +. I hope

Warrtalon

iTrader: (6)

Ok, that answers it - nothing to argue about. That's _extremely_ high for stock and only RARELY occurs on Dynojets in perfect conditions (cools temps w/low humidity). This also explains why all the other cars that blowoffsilver mentions (including his own) always seem so much higher than everyone else. That doesn't mean this car isn't strong - it just means it makes no sense to claim that much power without a caveat. All that really matters is how much he gained over stock.

Stock IXs usually do around 220 on a proper MD, so knowing that it's normal for them to read 270-280 on this MD tells us all we need to know. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the dyno. It just means the numbers must be posted with an asterisk explaining the reason for the inflation. The WORST thing anyone could do is get on this dyno then post the numbers with no explanation, thus causing a crapstorm for no reason. In the future, please caveat numbers from this dyno and/or provide a baseline comparison. 100whp over stock is great for the mods, so it's worth posting, but don't make it out to be more than it is.

blowoffsilver

iTrader: (25)

you know your right, im sure when they made this site they thought everyone would along fine and congratulate other evo owners for their evo and their mods, but im sure they knew they would be *******s like you that come along and screw with every thing people say good or bad. also warrtalon show me one thread were i claim my car made more power that you expected? As you so call it one of my cars, who are you referring too? this will be the point were smart *** people start to relize that your acting like v8 owners *****ing about how you got a 4cyl. This has to be the most pathetic site for fellow evo owners to come and talk about their cars!

Warrtalon

iTrader: (6)

I'm confused - why did you get upset? I just pointed out the facts without insults or condescension. Your car has always made ridiculous numbers for a Mustang Dyno - always. Now, I know that it reads like a Dynojet or even higher. I never knew that before. It doesn't mean your car isn't strong, but it's sure not as strong as a car making the same numbers on the Buschur MD. You said that yourself just above. As I said, it doesn't mean the dyno isn't useful, that you can't build a car, that you can't tune, or anything of that nature - it just means the numbers must be explained in the proper context. I didn't think anything I said was negative or insulting.

As an example, I live at 6000' altitude. If I get on the local Dynojet right now and don't touch ANYTHING on the dyno, I will put down somewhere in the range of 425whp/450wtq with my E-85/IX turbo/cams 05 MR. Possible at sea level on a Dynojet? Maybe. Likely based off my previous numbers and power levels at sea level? Not really. Possible at this altitude where we experience huge power loss due to lack of oxygen? Not even close. When I post my numbers now, I use uncorrected, since SAE doesn't work well for turbo'd cars at altitude. I could just as easily post my fully-corrected, non-realistic numbers and show the dynosheet as proof. I choose not to.

Maikumaru

dood what is up with your signature...?

mistubishi ha jidousha ni noru...
translated
Mitsubishi rides cars?

makes no sense...

blowoffsilver

iTrader: (25)

Why i got mad was because people like you flame this thread. I will say this once and only once find where i written on these forums about my car! i have not reported the dyno numbers on my car in over 2 years! im sorry that you have my confused with someone else! Also if you are talking about my friends car then we can settle that fast as for david buschur himself cleared it with Al that my friends car was the highest hp for stock ecu to ever hit buschurs dyno at the last shootout! Now if you want to claim it reads like a dynojet then fine but this is taylor trying to claim his good numbers on a very fast near stock 9, please give him credit and quit flameing this thread!

downshift411

iTrader: (3)

welcome to evom....

DRAGHICI

iTrader: (2)

It Must B Bhp?

Warrtalon

iTrader: (6)

And I was here "over 2 years ago" when you reported them. They were always impressively high. Why do you think I'm confused with someone else? It's the car in your profile (Drives: 500 hp rocket), which hasn't changed for years. Here's a thread where we had this exact same discussion - amazing, huh?

geddy 25g on a mustang dyno

Notice the claimed 445whp on an MD with only 121mph traps. An Evo trapping 445 at BR would be closer to 130mph traps. I never saw a follow-up to that thread from you showing better track numbers.

I never flamed this thread.

Yes, he's trying to claim numbers that are inflated without explaining why they are inflated, because he has no idea. He just thinks he has this ridiculous beast that puts down impossible power on a Mustang Dyno, when that dyno actually reads higher than a Dynojet based off what you've told us. For the 3rd time, I'm not saying you, the car, nor the dyno is messed up. All I'm saying is those numbers are on a different scale than what the community understands. It's all a matter of context. Is that not clear? I'll try to make it clear:

Buschur MD: Stock = 220whp, Modded = 320whp, Gain = 100whp
Taylor MD: Stock = 280whp, Modded = 380whp, Gain = 100whp

Now, without a caveat in the original post, we are led to believe this:

Buschur MD: Stock = 220whp, Modded = 320whp, gain = 100whp
Taylor MD: Stock = 220whp, Modded = 380whp, gain = 160whp

You can see how that would cause issues, yah?

crcain

This isn't the chat forum. This is the engine forum. And to say you are a tuner, and you allow your customers to think they are making X amount of power at the wheels when really it's nowhere close, seems a bit shady in my opinion. You should tell your customers this dyno has ridiculous over inflated #'s so don't think that is actually how much you make at the wheels.

I think we should stop using "ATW" acronym. It should be, DJ HP (dynojet hp), MD HP (mustang), DD HP (dyno dynamics hp), and then finally TBSD HP (tinkered with bullsh!t dyno hp).

blowoffsilver

iTrader: (25)

so now you just think you can say 2 years and you remeber, well your pretty funny! you cant prove it because it never happened!! lol so typical evom poster!!! now as for compareing dynos, i could give a rats as s how you compare them, because it was posted what stock cars make and what this car made. if you cant handle that then you need to go post on the mustang forums, because it sounds like your not a evom guru. You are led to beleive that several stock 9's put down 270 to 280 and this car with not much done put down 380, now for that goes i tuned a stock 9 on this dyno it made 270hp and 280tor and tuned it made 319 and 330 with the pill taking out of the stock line! i never said it made 160whp gain and also if you want make spectulations, why dont you go to the mustang forums where you will seem at home!

blowoffsilver

iTrader: (25)

i should also tell my customer that 75 percent of the posters on here a flamers that dont give a **** about what the forum stands for and that all dynos are not the same!