Poor power gain
people actually go there? i only use 76 unless i really need gas and there isnt one around then ill find a mobil or chevron if need be
Sep 16, 2006 | 03:06 PM
#17
Originally Posted by kip
I had the following on my evo 9 (8K miles)
Walbro 255 lph Fuel Pump
Sun Automotive Exhaust System - Evo Garage HRS Exhaust
Hallman Boost controller PRo RX KIT
Helix EVO 8 hight-flow cat 200 cell
HKS super hybrid panel filters
Tanabe Downpippe 2.75"
Boost Gauge & controller unit
FullRace Pro Stock turbo manifold
Before tuning: baseline on mustang dyno yield 228 ft lb torque, 262 whp. This is way too low on 91 octane.
After tuning it's putting roughly 260 ft-lb 260 whp.
We all expected 300+ wtq and 300+ whp after the tune and baseline should be around 270ish.
The tuner will do a leak test and put in a test pipe. He said it's almost certainly that because of the gas. The day before I was putting 91 from Valero. He said octane 91 at 76 station is totally different.
Is there any other possible reason for this disappointing numbers?
Walbro 255 lph Fuel Pump
Sun Automotive Exhaust System - Evo Garage HRS Exhaust
Hallman Boost controller PRo RX KIT
Helix EVO 8 hight-flow cat 200 cell
HKS super hybrid panel filters
Tanabe Downpippe 2.75"
Boost Gauge & controller unit
FullRace Pro Stock turbo manifold
Before tuning: baseline on mustang dyno yield 228 ft lb torque, 262 whp. This is way too low on 91 octane.
After tuning it's putting roughly 260 ft-lb 260 whp.
We all expected 300+ wtq and 300+ whp after the tune and baseline should be around 270ish.
The tuner will do a leak test and put in a test pipe. He said it's almost certainly that because of the gas. The day before I was putting 91 from Valero. He said octane 91 at 76 station is totally different.
Is there any other possible reason for this disappointing numbers?
http://www.norcalevo.net/forum/index...c,12703.0.html
I'm running a similair setup on my '05 Evo VIII (you have MIVEC and I have 264/272 cams) and my numbers were also poor. We both should be between 280whp and 290whp on a Mustang dyno.
It's easier for all these interweb experts to point blame at the tuner even though they haven't seen the dyno plot, timing, AFR, EGT or anything remotely related to your tune. I would suggest making them backgound noise and working with your tuner to isolate what's holding you back. Believe me...your tuner wants nothing more than for you to be happy with your numbers and to recommend him to everybody you know.
BTW...I very much doubt it was the Valero gas but try a tank of 76 or Chevron before your next tune just to eliminate that as a variable.
Sep 16, 2006 | 05:00 PM
#19
Evolved Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville/Boca Raton
the cat sounds like your biggest problem, thats about ten hp there, and why are you running a 2.75 inch DP not three inch? i think that could be affecting a little bit to. And then theres the 91 octaine, just that alone is robbing you of probibly another 20 wheel. that adds up to about where you want to be.
Sep 16, 2006 | 05:39 PM
#21
Originally Posted by KartaRailed
the cat sounds like your biggest problem, thats about ten hp there, and why are you running a 2.75 inch DP not three inch? i think that could be affecting a little bit to. And then theres the 91 octaine, just that alone is robbing you of probibly another 20 wheel. that adds up to about where you want to be.
Sep 16, 2006 | 05:40 PM
#22
2.75 downpipe is not the problem. My friends have 8's that both put down 340+ on dynjots so no biggie there.
Definately need to do a boostleak test. Really need to see a good log of the car to see whats going on, but I doubt your tuner is going to show that.
Either way for us to adequately hunt down your problem barring boost leak is ok, we'd really need to see some info on a log.
Definately need to do a boostleak test. Really need to see a good log of the car to see whats going on, but I doubt your tuner is going to show that.
Either way for us to adequately hunt down your problem barring boost leak is ok, we'd really need to see some info on a log.
Sep 18, 2006 | 01:30 PM
#23
2.75 is not the problem. did anyone notice he did not list a catback exhaust? THAT would be the problem... unless he has one that he didn't list.
if he does indeed have a catback i'll ask if the cat was see through when he installed it.
then i will ask what boost
then i will ask why his tuner said that knock was preventing him from making more power... was he hitting the knock threshold and then backed off the tune to compensate?
then i will ask if there was a dynofan
and i'll just throw in a what was used to tune for good measure.
if he does indeed have a catback i'll ask if the cat was see through when he installed it.
then i will ask what boost
then i will ask why his tuner said that knock was preventing him from making more power... was he hitting the knock threshold and then backed off the tune to compensate?
then i will ask if there was a dynofan
and i'll just throw in a what was used to tune for good measure.
Sep 18, 2006 | 01:35 PM
#24
Originally Posted by DontRevMe
plenty of cars with those 2 "culprits" make the power they should.
Sep 18, 2006 | 05:16 PM
#25
I thought only octane ratings is what matter -- all the "california standard" 91 octane gas is the same. Obviously I'm wrong, what are other ratings on gas beside octane?
Tuner sorted the problem out. He's a really nice hardworking guy. It's really the gas and cat that is causing the problem. It's putting down 298whp and 308wtq on a "conservative" tune now -- mustang dyno and 91 octane at from 76. I'm happy like hell. The torque curve is fat. Just test drove and I love it so much. Evo is such an amazing car!
Tuner sorted the problem out. He's a really nice hardworking guy. It's really the gas and cat that is causing the problem. It's putting down 298whp and 308wtq on a "conservative" tune now -- mustang dyno and 91 octane at from 76. I'm happy like hell. The torque curve is fat. Just test drove and I love it so much. Evo is such an amazing car!
Sep 18, 2006 | 05:42 PM
#27
Originally Posted by kip
I thought only octane ratings is what matter -- all the "california standard" 91 octane gas is the same. Obviously I'm wrong, what are other ratings on gas beside octane?
Tuner sorted the problem out. He's a really nice hardworking guy. It's really the gas and cat that is causing the problem. It's putting down 298whp and 308wtq on a "conservative" tune now -- mustang dyno and 91 octane at from 76. I'm happy like hell. The torque curve is fat. Just test drove and I love it so much. Evo is such an amazing car!
Tuner sorted the problem out. He's a really nice hardworking guy. It's really the gas and cat that is causing the problem. It's putting down 298whp and 308wtq on a "conservative" tune now -- mustang dyno and 91 octane at from 76. I'm happy like hell. The torque curve is fat. Just test drove and I love it so much. Evo is such an amazing car!
Sep 18, 2006 | 08:59 PM
#29
Originally Posted by EVOIXMR8916
man it must suck with 91 octane we here have 93 octane minimum and 94 if you know where to look....
Sep 18, 2006 | 10:23 PM
#30
Originally Posted by kreionic
I am not sure of the other ratings but most of the tuners suggest that you only get gas from the big national brands(exxon, shell, sunoco, etc...)
Vishnu only recommends 76
Also, I once read this thread where someone in CA dynoed owith Chevron and the next day dynoed with 76. No changes to the car and similar weather, and the 76 dyno pull had like 10 more HP & TQ. If you look around, you'll find the thread.
76 is always my first choise. If I cant find it then Ill get Shell or Chevron (lol) and nothing else.