JESTR does it again! 330hp/340tq (stock evo x)
Dec 20, 2009 | 08:28 PM
#61
I am not nor was I ever saying your posts in this thread were not correct. I was simply stating what I thought of everything that was being said and how everyone now a days seems to only care about numbers and how much WHP you are making and not the smoothness of the graph which in turns says how well the car runs.
I guess the important factor is how much of a gain in the area under the curve the dynograph looks like.
I like dyno numbers though. It tells you how your car is performing in relation to other cars without racing them.
Dec 21, 2009 | 01:45 AM
#62
Evolving Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
From: Gdansk, Poland, Europe
I think many of you are reading too much into the dyno numbers and how they compare to other dynos with various calibrations scattered around the world. Without knowing what a factory un-altered Evo X runs on this particular dyno with no mods and stock boost levels the 330 whp number is just that, a number. I'm sure it's a great gain over what he had before but you can't just compare it directly to anything else besides other numbers obtained on this particular dyno.
Getting some real world trap speeds from a quarter mile run would also confirm power levels, but likely a DynoJet with an average of 20% losses would have to trap around 111 mph and deliver around 395 crank HP if it really was making a 330 whp on such a dyno. It's probably not impossible with perfect tuning but likely isn't quite that good.
Perhaps you are basing this on the fact the stock turbo is quickly maxxed for flow past 5500 RPM's which limits peak power gains but people should never just be looking at the peak gains but at the entire "power under the curve" when determining the benefits of various mods. I'm not sure what brands of bolt-ons you have tested that fail so miserably to produce power everywhere but I've seen plenty of proof where a higher flow & more efficient FMIC can give you power across the entire RPM range, as can exhaust systems, cams, exhaust headers and intake manifolds. Intercooler piping and throttlebodies likely are not going to gain much as you mention at 300-400 crank HP levels but they most certainly can increase power when they start becoming a bottleneck in the system past 400-500 crank HP.
Looks like this tune has really improved how the car uses the mostly stock components, adding furter bolt-ons and tuning for them should net even better gains down the road.
Getting some real world trap speeds from a quarter mile run would also confirm power levels, but likely a DynoJet with an average of 20% losses would have to trap around 111 mph and deliver around 395 crank HP if it really was making a 330 whp on such a dyno. It's probably not impossible with perfect tuning but likely isn't quite that good.
Perhaps you are basing this on the fact the stock turbo is quickly maxxed for flow past 5500 RPM's which limits peak power gains but people should never just be looking at the peak gains but at the entire "power under the curve" when determining the benefits of various mods. I'm not sure what brands of bolt-ons you have tested that fail so miserably to produce power everywhere but I've seen plenty of proof where a higher flow & more efficient FMIC can give you power across the entire RPM range, as can exhaust systems, cams, exhaust headers and intake manifolds. Intercooler piping and throttlebodies likely are not going to gain much as you mention at 300-400 crank HP levels but they most certainly can increase power when they start becoming a bottleneck in the system past 400-500 crank HP.
Looks like this tune has really improved how the car uses the mostly stock components, adding furter bolt-ons and tuning for them should net even better gains down the road.
Dec 21, 2009 | 01:58 AM
#63
Evolving Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
From: Gdansk, Poland, Europe
mdevo84, what I am trying to say here is let's be reasonable and think what we are posting, because going your path, I could post a graph with 500WHP and keep telling everyone how great tune I just got, right?
I fully agree that the graphs are just to give as an idea how the engine runs but if it shows something impossible what actually it shows regarding engine's power/torque curve, etc.?
I fully agree that the graphs are just to give as an idea how the engine runs but if it shows something impossible what actually it shows regarding engine's power/torque curve, etc.?
Jan 5, 2010 | 04:46 PM
#67
These are also correct numbers.. they are not un-corrected. Why is there standard correction in Florida? Your highest point is 345 feet above sea level. I'm at 5,100 feet above sea level, and drag at 5,800 feet. Now THAT needs correction! =p
Regardless.. if the car feels awesome.. who cares. My dyno sheets are all over the place since correction factors and loads are so different from dyno to dyno around here that it's really hard to get a good idea of what I'm putting down.
Regardless.. if the car feels awesome.. who cares. My dyno sheets are all over the place since correction factors and loads are so different from dyno to dyno around here that it's really hard to get a good idea of what I'm putting down.
Last edited by saytheb; Jan 5, 2010 at 09:20 PM.
Jan 16, 2010 | 08:30 PM
#71
Account Disabled
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
From: on the street
how many psi of boost is this? Assume there is no boost controller on here, and stock 19psi. Bone stock X put out around 250whp on dynojet. This car make 331whp with just an filter and tuning. Sorry i got to comment on this op, but i just dont believe this. 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
EvoNick10
For Sale - Part Outs
3
Sep 18, 2012 09:50 AM
